Skip to main content

Nonlocality, Intention, and Observer Effects in Healing Studies: Laying a Foundation for the Future

πŸ“„ Original study β†—
Schwartz, Stephan A, Dossey, Larry, MD β€’ 2010 Modern Era β€’ healing

πŸ“Œ Appears in:

Plain English Summary

What if the biggest problem with prayer-healing studies is that scientists have been designing them all wrong? This paper argues the standard clinical trial setup borrowed from drug research just doesn't fit when studying healing intention. Drugs don't care who's watching, but intention might. The authors examine a huge 2006 cardiac surgery trial where patients who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse β€” a statistically significant harmful effect. Rather than dismissing this, they ask a provocative question: could the beliefs of everyone involved β€” healers, patients, researchers, even skeptical critics β€” be shaping results through nonlocal "observer effects"? They pull in evidence from experimenter-effect studies, brain imaging of healers, and a theory suggesting people unconsciously use psychic information to guide decisions. The bottom line: if consciousness operates at a distance, everyone connected to an experiment becomes an uncontrolled variable that future studies must account for.

Research Notes

An important methodological critique arguing that conventional RCT design may be fundamentally inadequate for studying nonlocal healing intention. Introduces the concept that observer effects (both local and nonlocal) from experimenters, participants, and even critics may influence results. Discusses Decision Augmentation Theory, extraneous prayer, negative intention/nocebo effects, healer qualification, and meditation as intention-focusing discipline. Published in Explore, Vol. 6, No. 5, Sept/Oct 2010, pp. 295-307. Note: author is Stephan A. Schwartz (consciousness/remote-viewing researcher), not Gary E.R. Schwartz (mediumship).

A critical narrative review exploring the current status of healing-intention and prayer research, using the STEP trial (Benson et al. 2006; N=1802 cardiac bypass patients; Group C harm P=.003, z=2.8) as a detailed case study. Argues that the pharmacological dose-dependent model adopted for prayer studies is fundamentally inappropriate for intention-healing research. Critiques assumptions about blinding and randomization, presents evidence for nonlocal observer effects from experimenter-effect studies (Wiseman-Schlitz), sheep-goat research, Decision Augmentation Theory (May et al.), MANTRA II (N=748), and Achterberg's healer fMRI study (P<.0001). Proposes that the intentions and beliefs of all participantsβ€”including researchers and criticsβ€”must be evaluated in study design.

Links

Related Papers

Also by these authors

More in Healing

πŸ“‹ Cite this paper
APA
Schwartz, Stephan A, Dossey, Larry, MD (2010). Nonlocality, Intention, and Observer Effects in Healing Studies: Laying a Foundation for the Future. Explore. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2010.06.011
BibTeX
@article{schwartz_2010_nonlocality,
  title = {Nonlocality, Intention, and Observer Effects in Healing Studies: Laying a Foundation for the Future},
  author = {Schwartz, Stephan A and Dossey, Larry, MD},
  year = {2010},
  journal = {Explore},
  doi = {10.1016/j.explore.2010.06.011},
}