The article from 'Alternative Therapies' claims, disingenuously and with no evidence, that "models in bioelectromagnetism, quantum physics and superstring theory are consistent with Asian scripture in suggesting that very subtle vibration may be the substratum of reality as we know it, and therefore such vibration may have a role to play in health and disease..."
It also quotes studies which, researching individually, have either been discredited or were badly done and poorly controlled by Reiki practitioners manipulating data and drawing conclusions not justified by the results.
What's really interesting is that it doesn't address two fundamental questions. Why, when it is properly tested, does Reiki fail the tests, and why are Reiki practitioners so reluctant to be properly tested?
Supporters of Reiki point to a number of studies which, if replicable, would seem to give some support to Reiki practices. However, a closer look at these studies shows that the studies they mention are few in number; have not been replicated; have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals; that the performers of these studies often have a vested financial interest in validating Reiki; that the people citing these studies usually cannot point to the texts of the studies, but just repeat what they've heard the studies showed; that these accounts are not consistent with one another ... In the absence of any effect which can be replicated by researchers without an axe to grind, there is no reason to suppose that Reiki is more than a pretentious and expensive way of waving one's hands about.