Infrared Spectra Alteration in Water Proximate to the Palms of Therapeutic Practitioners

📌 Appears in:

Plain English Summary

Can healing practitioners physically change water just by holding their hands near it? This pilot study tested that wild-sounding question rigorously. Fourteen practitioners held sealed, sterile water vials near their palms during healing sessions, then researchers analyzed the water using infrared spectroscopy — a technique that reveals changes in chemical bonding by measuring how molecules absorb light. The results were striking: treated water showed significantly different O-H bonding patterns compared to untouched controls, with odds against chance of roughly 2,500 to 1. All three exposure durations individually produced significant effects, though curiously longer exposure didn't mean bigger changes. Actively practicing healers showed stronger effects than those who'd stepped away from practice. Temperature and air pressure were ruled out as explanations. One puzzling wrinkle: some control vials in the same room also changed, raising the tantalizing possibility the effect spreads beyond direct proximity — or that researchers themselves were influencing the water.

Actual Paper Abstract

Through standard techniques of infrared (IR) spectrophotometry, sterile water samples in randomly selected sealed vials evidence alteration of infrared (IR) spectra after being proximate to the palms of the hands of both Practicing and Non-practicing Therapy Practitioners, each of whom employed a personal variation of the Laying-on-of-Hands/ Therapeutic Touch processes. This pilot study presents 14 cases, involving 14 Practitioners and 14 Recipients. The first hypothesis, that a variation in the spectra of all (84) Treated spectra compared with all (57) Control spectra would be observed in the 2.5–3.0 mm range, was confirmed (P = .02). Overall, 10% (15) of the spectra were done using a germanium internal reflection element (IRE), and 90% of the spectra (126) were done with a zinc selenide IRE. The difference in refractive index between the two IREs skews the data. The zinc selenide IRE spectra alone yield P = .005. The authors believe the most representative evidence for the effect appeared in the sample group of Treated vs Calibration Controls using the zinc selenide IRE (P = .0004). The second hypothesis, that there existed a direct relationship between intensity of effect and time of exposure, was not confirmed. This study replicates earlier findings under conditions of blindness, randomicity, and several levels of controls. Environmental factors are considered as explanations for the observed IR spectrum alteration, including temperature, barometric pressure, and variations dependent on sampling order. They do not appear to explain the effect.

Research Notes

One of the few healing intention studies using an objective physical (non-biological) dependent variable. Replicates earlier work by Grad (1965) and Dean & Brame (1975) on water intention effects. Data likely collected in the 1980s based on equipment vintage and co-author Brame noted as deceased. Part of the water-intention research line with schwartz_2019_water and yu_2024_effects. First author is Stephan A. Schwartz (Saybrook/Mobius, remote viewing researcher), not Gary E.R. Schwartz (University of Arizona) — catalog previously misattributed. Session control contamination is a key methodological issue.

Pilot study testing whether sealed sterile water vials held proximate to the palms of 14 therapeutic practitioners during healing sessions with recipients show measurable IR spectral changes. Using attenuated total reflection IR spectrophotometry with a JANOS MIR unit (25 reflections), the O-H bonding ratio (3350 cm⁻¹ / 3620 cm⁻¹) was measured. With zinc selenide IRE: Treated vs calibration controls z = 3.54, P = .0004; all three exposure durations (5, 10, 15 min) individually significant. However, no dose-response relationship was found. Practicing practitioners showed more robust effects (P = .001) than Non-practicing (P = .04). Temperature, barometric pressure, and sampling order were examined as artifacts and did not explain the results. Some session controls were also affected, raising questions about proximity effects or researcher influence.