Skip to main content

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

📄 Original study
Schwartz, Stephan A, Dossey, Larry, MD 2010 Modern Era healing

📌 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 — a statistically significant harmful effect. Rather than dismissing this, they ask a provocative question: could the beliefs of everyone involved — healers, patients, researchers, even skeptical critics — 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.

Actual Paper Abstract

All research domains are based upon epistemological assumptions. Periodic reassessment of these assumptions is crucial because they influence how we interpret experimental outcomes. Perhaps nowhere is this reassessment needed more than in the study of prayer and intention experiments. For if positive results from this field of research are sustained, the reality of nonlocal consciousness must be confronted. This paper explores the current status of healing and intention research, citing a number of major studies and using the "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Surgery Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer" as a case study of this line of research. The paper argues that the dose-dependent model typical of drug trials, and adopted for use in the STEP and other studies, is not the optimal model for intention-healing research, and critiques this approach in detail, citing apposite research from which we draw our recommendations and conclusions.

The paper suggests that the usual assumptions concerning blindness and randomization that prevail in studies using the pharmacological model must be reappraised. Experimental data suggest that a nonlocal relationship exists among the various individuals participating in a study, one which needs to be understood and taken seriously. We argue that it is important to account for and understand the role of both local and nonlocal observer effects, since both can significantly affect outcome.

Research is presented from an array of disciplines to support why the authors feel these issues of linkage, belief, and intention are so important to a successful, accurate, and meaningful study outcome. Finally, the paper offers suggestions for new lines of research and new protocol designs that address these observer-effect issues, particularly the nonlocal aspects. The paper finally suggests that if these effects occur in intention studies, they must necessarily exist in all studies, although in pharmacological studies they are often overshadowed by the power of chemical and biological agents.

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 participants—including researchers and critics—must be evaluated in study design.

Links

Related Papers

Also by these authors

More in Healing

📋 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},
}