Science Of The Lost Symbol

 

Probing the Deeper Mysteries of Healing

We don’t know yet what the healing “energy” is that we have been talking about or how it works. We just know that it does. However, these experiments raise a host of questions. Can healing “intention” work as well as healing “energy”? Or is there a difference? Can an intention both help and harm an organism? Is there a way to formulate a healing intention that concentrates or enhances its effects? We will end this section by reviewing a series of studies, recounted in Lynne McTaggart’s book The Intention Experiment (149-152), that reveal the effect of the healing intention (to promote/heal or to inhibit/harm) as well what forms of healing intentions seem to have the most powerful effects.

The first experiment we will review was by Dr. John Kmetz, who worked with British healer Matthew Manning, who would attempt to send “negative” intentions to kill cervical cancer cells that were in a plastic beaker. He performed several versions of the experiment, both while holding the beaker and while sitting in an electromagnetically shielded room at a distance from where the beaker was placed. Normally, cancer cells will cling to the sides of the beaker, because they are positively charged and they are attracted to the negative charge of the plastic. If Manning’s healing intention affected the cancer cells, injuring them or killing them, they would drop away from the beaker sides and fall into the culture medium. After Manning directed his “killing” intention at the cancer cells, they did just—fell from the sides of the beaker. Somehow his “negative” intention had worked, stopping the cancerous cells from growing and, in some cases, killing them.

In another study, Taiwanese researchers studied the effects of both positive and negative intentions on boar sperm cells and human connective tissue (fibroblast) cells. A Quigong master was the study subject, and after a few minutes of sending negative intentions—to interfere with their normal growth and functioning—the two cell cultures were tested, and it was found that their rate of growth and protein synthesis slowed by 23 to 53 percent. The Qiogong master then sent ten minutes of positive intention, and the activity in the cell cultures rose by between 5 and 23 percent. Directed intention had a specific effect—negative intention slowed growth whereas positive intention spurred growth

As McTaggart points out, it appears that from these studies (and others that have tested for evidence of the effects of negative intention and found it to be real), a negative intention seems to have a greater affect than a positive one. Why should it be easier to harm something—even if that something is a cancer cell—than to help something? McTaggart speculates that it may be easier to make a healthy organism weaker than it is to make an already healthy organism healthier. If something is working correctly, she reasons, there may not be much room for improvement. So, positive healing intention would likely be more effective than negative intention in cases where the systems are already stressed, damaged or diseased. The experiments reviewed below verify McTaggart’s hunch. They show us that when it comes to slowing down illness or reversing it, sending positive healing thoughts is the better choice than sending negative ones, even when dealing with cancer.

But what kind of positive healing intention works best? Curiosity about just that question spurred biologist Glen Rein to conduct a series of experiments with Dr. Leonard Laskow, a gynecologist and energy healer. Rein sought to determine the most effective form of intention for retarding the growth of cancer cells. In a series of experiments, Laskow would use four different intention strategies so that Rein could determine if they had different effects. Some of the intentions were generalized, and some very specific: 1) to intend that the “natural order” of the cells’ biology be returned, 2) to use a Taoist visualization that would intend that only three of the cancer cells remain alive in the petri dish, 3) to not have any intention of his own but to intend only that “God’s will be done,” and 4) to dematerialize the cancer cells into the “void” or the “light.” To determine the effects of Laskow’s efforts, Rein measured the amount of radioactive thymidine absorbed by the cells. This is an accepted method of establishing the growth rate of malignant cancer cells.

As McTaggart reports, the outcomes of the intentions differed:  “The most powerful were undirected intentions asking the cells to return to the natural order, which inhibited the cancer cells’ growth by 39 percent. Acquiescing to God’s will with no specific request was about half as effective, inhibiting the cells by 21 percent, as was the Taoist visualization. An unconditional acceptance of the way things were had no effect either way, nor did imagining the cells dematerializing. In these two instances, the problem may have been that the thought was not focused enough” (152).

Further experiments with the two most effective results—intending that the cancerous cells return to their natural healthy functioning and the Taoist visualization to reduce the number of cancer cells to only three live cells—achieved the same efficacy rate as the original experiments. However, combining the two approaches had an especially powerful effect, of inhibiting the cancer cells’ growth by 40 percent. Rein further tested whether the combined intentions worked when directed only at the medium in which the cancer cells were cultured instead of at the cells themselves. Laskow was successful, at the same level of efficacy: about 40 percent inhibition of the cancer cells growth. To check this result, Laskow directed the same two intentions to water that was used to prepare the cell culture medium. Again, he achieved the same positive results, demonstrating that there is some kind of “healing by association” that is possible.

What can we learn from this series of remarkable experiments? McTaggart writes, “The most effective healing intention had been framed as a request, combined with a highly specific visualization of the outcome, but not necessarily a destructive one. With healing, the most effective approach may not be to destroy the source of the illness, but, as with other forms of intention, to move aside, let go of the outcome, and allow a greater intelligence to restore order” (152).

We will talk further in the Belief section about the most effective strategies for using intention. In this section we have shown that thoughts and intentions can be focused to aid healing. There does not seem to be any system or substance exempt from the influence of thought. Even cotton wads and water can be imprinted with some kind of healing “energy” that can then be transferred to living organisms that come in contact with them  Somehow our focused thoughts help us to affect matter, returning it to its natural state.

As Hippocrates said, “Natural forces within us are the true healers of disease.” We turn now, in Part II of this section, to how those natural forces can be used to heal ourselves and others.

Back to Healing Intentions I: Influencing Non-Human Systems

  Check out our fascinating videos related to the Science featured in The Lost Symbol

  

Watch the trailer for 'The Living Matrix'

The Living Matrix Film Trailer

Learn more at The Living Matrix Workshops

 

 

You may also be interested in the following links:

NES Health