Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

In traditional healing systems, life-force energy or subtle human energy fields have been recognized for millennia. Parallel to conventional therapy, its popularity has grown tremendously in recent years. Due to limited scientific research on biofield therapies, the authors investigated the potential impact of distant biofield/blessing energy interventions on individuals with psychological impairments via virtual methods.

Methods:

A total of 119 participants (56 male, 63 female) with one or more psycho-mental symptoms were enrolled in these randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials. Two remote biofield/blessing energy interventions, each lasting approximately 5 min, were delivered to 38 subjects in the biofield intervention group on days 0 and 90. Subjects were assessed using standardized psychological questionnaires, which employed a validated scoring scale, as well as safety parameters.

Results:

Participants in the biofield (blessing) intervention group reported significantly lower levels of perceived psychological symptoms (fatigue, sleep disturbances, stress, cognitive impairment, and emotional distress) compared with both naive and sham control groups (p < 0.0001). Biofield intervention was safe and well-tolerated in all three groups.

Conclusion:

Distant biofield/blessing energy healing sessions were found to significantly improve psychological and mental health, enhance overall well-being, and pose no safety risks. Therefore, further research is needed to identify key variables for a larger scale intervention study on health outcomes and underlying mechanisms.

Trial registration:

Clinical Trials Registry Number—India (CTRI/2022/07/043633).

Introduction

The NCCAM uses the term “biofield” to describe both tangible and purported energy forms.¹ Energy fields that are measurable and have particular wavelengths and frequencies are known as veritable/tangible, such as magnet therapy, colorpuncture, and light therapy. Besides, the energy field that is undetectable or unquantifiable till now, such as Reiki, therapeutic touch (TT), healing touch (HT), acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, Yoga, CranioSacral therapy, homeopathy, Okada purifying therapy/Johrei, and Trivedi Effect^®, is known as putative/subtle.² The National Institutes of Health officially recognized biofield therapy as an alternative treatment in 1994.³ Biofield therapies such as HT and Reiki offer noncontact healing, making them suitable for individuals who prefer or require distance healing. Biofield energy therapies may offer potential benefits for reducing anxiety, improving mood, and supporting overall mental health wellness, according to some research.^4,5 For instance, Trivedi Effect, one of the biofield energy therapies, has been found to significantly reduce anxiety, depression, PTSD, and loneliness while also improving various aspects of quality of life.⁶ Patients in both HT and Reiki studies reported improvements in their overall well-being, encompassing physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and social aspects.⁷

A series of clinical studies demonstrated the positive effects of putative biofield therapy on psychological and mental problems.^8–11 So, biofield therapy undoubtedly functions to manage psychological issues. However, sufficient scientific evidence has not been reached in this field to establish a precise treatment–effect relationship. Distant/remote biofield energy therapy is the conscious and dedicated act of using one’s thoughts to improve another person’s physical or emotional well-being from a distance. Various forms of distant healing, including blessing, prayer, and spiritual healing practices, are widely practiced in the United States.¹² In a 1988 randomized, controlled trial by Byrd R.C., 383 patients admitted to the San Francisco General Hospital Coronary Care unit were randomly assigned to receive intercessory prayer from a group of Christians or standard care. The study found that patients who received intercessory prayer had significantly lower severity of illness and required fewer medical interventions. The study revealed a significant improvement in immediate hospital outcomes and reduced medical complications among those who received distant healing. However, the long-term benefits of this practice remain uncertain, necessitating further rigorous scientific investigation to assess its potential as a viable treatment for life-threatening illnesses.¹³ In this context, the authors planned to study the effects of the nonlocalized distant (remotely) mode of biofield/blessing energy healing therapy on psychologically and mentally impaired individuals using perceived psychological questionnaires. It is postulated that thought intention biofield/blessing energy therapy has the potential to ameliorate psychological and mental health conditions.

Methods

Study design, ethics, randomization, and blindness

A rigorous, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was performed in Gujarat, India. The study followed ethical principles consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki, ensuring participant safety.¹⁴ It received approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) of Riddhi Medical Nursing Home, Gujarat, India (ECR/886/Inst/GJ/2016/RR-19) and was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry—India (CTRI/2022/07/043633). Out of 155 screened subjects, 132 were enrolled, with 119 completing the trial. Participants were randomized to receive either no intervention (control), a placebo intervention (sham control), or a biofield energy healing intervention (Fig. 1). A simple randomization technique was used, and biofield energy treatment was conducted virtually on days 0 and 90. An allocation concealment mechanism was utilized with the help of SAS software 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA). To maintain study integrity, laboratory staff and data collectors were blinded to participant assignments.

FIG. 1.

Schematic diagram of study design.

Inclusion, exclusion, and withdrawal criteria

Participants were eligible if they reported experiencing a range of physical and psychological symptoms, including fatigue, pain, insomnia, anxiety, depression, cognitive impairment, emotional trauma, and suicidal ideation. South Asian adults aged 20–55 years were included in the study after providing written informed consent. As the chances of interference from concurrent diseases were very unlikely, adults were selected in this study. A greater fraction of the adult population has suffered from various types of psychological and mental illness such as anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.^15,16 Participants were excluded or withdrew from the study based on the specific criteria described by Trivedi et al. (2024).^17,18

Distant biofield/blessing energy treatment

Eligible participants were randomized to receive either a control intervention, a sham control intervention, or a blessing/biofield energy intervention. The control group received no intervention. The sham control group received a placebo intervention, identical in appearance to the active intervention, to minimize placebo effects. The blessing/biofield energy intervention group received intervention from a renowned spiritual healer. Subjects in the biofield intervention group underwent two sessions of remote (from Florida, USA) biofield energy treatment (blessing/prayer) for about 5 min, delivered via an online web-conferencing platform. This treatment was administered by a skilled spiritual healing practitioner with 12 years of experience, who utilized a unique inherent thought transmission process involving the laying on of hands to remotely transmit energy to the subjects presented at Cliantha Research Ltd., Gujarat, India.

Evaluation of self-reported psychological symptoms

The psychological questionnaire (Supplementary Data) utilized a 5-point Likert scale (0–4),¹⁹ to evaluate the severity of symptoms within 12 health domains. These domains encompassed physical health, sleep quality, stress levels, cognitive function, mental and emotional well-being, interpersonal relationships, sexual health, occupational and financial factors, and menstrual cycle irregularities.²⁰ Briefly, the question assessment procedure was performed as per Trivedi et al. (2024).¹⁷

Evaluation of safety parameters

A standardized medical terminology, MedDRA, was employed to monitor adverse events (AEs) and medical history.²¹ Biochemical parameters and urine analysis were assessed as per Trivedi et al. (2024)¹⁷ to further evaluate safety. Our previous work indicated a favorable safety profile for biofield energy treatment.^6,18 Safety-related parameters such as biochemical and urine analysis that were measured at baseline (day 0), 90 days, and 180 days in all groups are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.

Statistics

Data were represented as mean ± SD (standard deviation)/SEM. Statistical analysis of perceived psychological assessment scores was performed using one-way repeated measure analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Perceived psychological assessment scores were analyzed using one-way RM-ANCOVA with a 95% CI. Authors did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was an early phase study. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Disposition of study subjects

Of 155 screened subjects, 132 were eligible and enrolled, and 119 completed the study.

Control group: 42 subjects (20 male, 22 female)

Sham control group: 39 subjects (16 male, 23 female)

Biofield intervention group: 38 subjects (20 male, 18 female)

A total of 13 subjects discontinued the study:

Control group: 3 subjects (1 consent withdrawal, 2 lost to follow-up)

Sham control group: 3 subjects (1 consent withdrawal, 2 lost to follow-up)

Biofield intervention group: 7 subjects (4 consent withdrawals, 3 lost to follow-up) (Fig. 2).

FIG. 2.

The CONSORT flowchart representation of subject disposition.

Demographic profile

A total of 132 South Asian adults (aged 20–55) were enrolled. Demographic characteristics, including age, body mass index, gender, marital status, and smoking history, were recorded for all participants. The participants in the biofield intervention group were demographically comparable with those in the control and sham control groups. While a statistically significant difference in age was observed between the groups (p = 0.0195), other demographic factors were comparable across all groups (Table 1). To facilitate a deeper understanding of the results, we have shown here the same demographic data from the earlier published article.¹⁸

Table 1.

Summary of Baseline Measures of Demographic and Clinical Features by Treatment Assignment at Enrolment¹⁶

Demographicfeaturesat baseline	Control(N = 45)	Sham control(N = 42)	Blessing/biofieldenergy therapy(N = 45)
Age (years)
n	45	42	45
Mean ± SD	36.9 ± 7.45	40.7 ± 6.53	36.1 ± 7.07
Median	36.00	41.00	37.00
Min, max	20, 51	28, 54	20, 51
p-Value	0.0195
Sex [n (%)]
Male	22 (48.89)	17 (40.48)	24 (53.33)
Female	23 (51.11)	25 (59.52)	21 (46.67)
p-Value	0.4780
Race [n (%)]
Asian	45 (100)	42 (100)	45 (100)
Other	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)
p-Value	NE
Height (cm)
n	45	42	45
Mean ± SD	160.8 ± 9.14	158.5 ± 8.32	161.5 ± 10.58
Median	161.00	157.00	161.00
Min, max	146, 178	143, 176	144, 180
p-Value	0.4727
Weight (kg)
n	45	42	45
Mean ± SD	65.83 ± 11.36	64.88 ± 8.62	66.39 ± 11.93
Median	64.65	65.28	66.00
Min, max	45.6, 92.15	45.75, 84.65	46.6, 88.7
p-Value	0.9327
BMI (kg/m²)
n	45	42	45
Mean ± SD	25.45 ± 3.93	25.92 ± 3.47	25.44 ± 3.87
Median	25.00	25.80	24.70
Min, max	18.7, 33.4	19, 32.8	18.6, 33.6
p-Value	0.9266
Marital status [n (%)]
Divorced	1 (2.22)	2 (4.76)	2 (4.44)
Married	40 (88.89)	35 (83.33)	35 (77.78)
Married but separated	0 (0.00)	1 (2.38)	1 (2.22)
Single	2 (4.44)	2 (4.76)	7 (15.56)
Widow	1 (2.22)	2 (4.76)	0 (0.00)
Widower	1 (2.22)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)
p-value	0.3940
Smoking history [n (%)]
Previous	1 (2.22)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)
Current	7 (15.56)	8 (19.05)	10 (22.22)
Never	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)
p-Value	0.6154

The percentages were based on number of subjects in the specified treatment arm. For continuous variables, the p-value was calculated by using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and for categorical variables, the p-value was calculated by using the chi square test.

BMI, body mass index, weight (kg)/height (m²); cm, centimeter; kg, kilogram; n, number of subjects in the specified category; N, number of subjects in the specified treatment arm; Min, minimum; Max, maximum; NE, not estimable; SD, standard deviation.

Evaluation of self-reported psychological scores

Self-reported perceived psychological scores, specifically those related to tiredness, fatigue, and physical pain, were significantly lower in the biofield intervention group compared with the control group. This was evidenced by a reduction in the least square mean differences, as well as narrower 95% CIs and statistically significant p-values. The biofield treatment group demonstrated significant improvements in various health domains compared with the control group at both 90 and 180 days post-treatment. Specifically, the treatment group experienced significant reductions in the following:

Tiredness/fatigue/pain related to physical health: Scores decreased by 7.62 points with CI (−8.14, −7.10) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.08 points with CI (−13.61, −12.55) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Sleep disturbances: Scores decreased by 7.05 points with CI (−7.52, −6.58) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.40 points with CI (−13.88, −12.92) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Stress: Scores decreased by 8.31 points with CI (−8.77, −7.85) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 14.08 points with CI (−14.54, −13.61) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Lack of cognition and memory: Scores decreased by 2.14 points with CI (−2.38, −1.91) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 3.50 points with CI (−3.74, −3.26) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Mental restlessness: Scores decreased by 8.15 points with CI (−8.61, −7.69) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.69 points with CI (−14.16, −13.22) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Emotional trauma: Scores decreased by 7.90 points with CI (−8.44, −7.36) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.56 points with CI (−14.11, −13.01) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Psychological symptoms (lack of inspiration/motivation/enthusiasm): Scores decreased by 7.79 points with CI (−8.30, −7.29) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.94 points with CI (−14.45, −13.43) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Lack of perception: Scores decreased by 6.86 points with CI (−7.36, −6.36) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.89 points with CI (−14.40, −13.39) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Lack of relationships and social interactions: Scores decreased by 8.82 points with CI (−9.30, −8.33) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 14.16 points with CI (−14.65, −13.67) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Low libido: Scores decreased by 7.00 points with CI (−7.65, −6.34) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.02 points with CI (−13.68, −12.36) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Financial crises and dissatisfaction: Scores decreased by −8.67 points with CI (−9.23, −8.11) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and −13.77 points with CI (−14.34, −13.20) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Menstrual disorders-related symptoms: Scores decreased by −8.35 points with CI (−9.07, −7.62) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and −13.51 points with CI (−14.24, −12.77) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Moreover, a significant reduction in perceived psychological symptoms/scores was observed in the biofield intervention group with respect to the sham control group.

Tiredness/fatigue/pain related to physical health: Scores decreased by 7.73 points with CI (−8.26, −7.20) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.33 points with CI (−13.87, −12.80) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Sleep disturbances: Scores reduced by 7.77 points with CI (−8.25, −7.29) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.71 points with CI (−14.20, −13.22) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Stress: Scores reduced by 7.50 points with CI (−7.97, −7.04) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.70 points with CI (−14.17, −13.22) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Lack of cognition and memory: Scores reduced by 2.00 points with CI (−2.24, −1.76) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 3.36 points with CI (−3.60, −3.11) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Mental restlessness: Scores reduced by 7.39 points with CI (−7.86, −6.92) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.87 points with CI (−14.35, −13.39) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Emotional trauma: Scores reduced by 7.26 points with CI (−7.81, −6.71) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 12.58 points with CI (−13.13, −12.02) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Psychological symptoms (lack of inspiration/motivation/enthusiasm): Scores reduced by 7.12 points with CI (−7.63, −6.61) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.83 points with CI (−14.35, −13.31) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Lack of perception: Scores reduced by 7.45 points with CI (−7.95, −6.94) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 14.09 points with CI (−14.60, −13.57) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Lack of relationships and social: Scores reduced by 8.78 points with CI (−9.28, −8.29) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.59 points with CI (−14.09, −13.08) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Low libido: Scores reduced by 7.54 points with CI (−8.20, −6.87) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 12.76 points with CI (−13.44, −12.09) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Financial crises and dissatisfaction: Scores reduced by 8.42 points with CI (−9.00, −7.85) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.31 points with CI (−13.90, −12.72) at 180 days (p < 0.0001).

Menstrual disorders-related symptoms: Scores reduced by 8.69 points with CI (−9.40, −7.98) at 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 13.26 points with CI (−13.99, −12.53) at 180 days (p < 0.0001) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Self-Reported Changes in Psychological Scores Were Assessed Using a 5-Point Likert Scale of Scoring Based on the Psychological Questionnaires

Parameter	Control (n = 42)		Sham control (n = 40)		Blessing/biofield energytherapy (n = 40)
Parameter	Day 90(mean^a ± SD)	Day 180(mean^a ± SD)	Day 90(mean^a ± SD)	Day 180(mean^a ± SD)	Day 90(mean^a ± SD)	Day 180(mean^a ± SD)
Tiredness/fatigue/pain	−1.3 ± 1.60	−1.6 ± 1.67	−0.2 ± 1.95	−0.4 ± 1.50	−8.5 ± 1.80^****/####	−14.2 ± 1.33^****/####
Sleep disturbances	−1.0 ± 1.30	−1.1 ± 1.35	−0.2 ± 1.33^**	−0.8 ± 1.42	−8.4 ± 1.56^****/####	−14.9 ± 1.23^****/####
Stress	0.1 ± 1.12	−0.0 ± 1.03	−0.4 ± 1.10^***	−0.1 ± 1.49	−8.2 ± 1.39^****/####	−14.1 ± 1.72^****/####
Lack of cognition and memory	−0.5 ± 1.29	−0.5 ± 1.29	−0.4 ± 1.19	−0.6 ± 1.39	−8.7 ± 1.16^****/####	−14.4 ± 1.36^****/####
Mental restlessness	−0.4 ± 1.04	−0.6 ± 1.06	−1.0 ± 1.32^**	−0.2 ± 1.20	−8.6 ± 1.60^****/####	−14.3 ± 1.34^****/####
Emotional trauma	−0.5 ± 1.25	−0.5 ± 1.25	−1.1 ± 1.57^*	−1.5 ± 1.64^***	−8.4 ± 1.43^****/####	−14.1 ± 1.28^****/####
Lack of inspiration/motivation/enthusiasm	−0.4 ± 1.38	−0.5 ± 1.48	−0.8 ± 1.40^**	−0.4 ± 1.53	−8.0 ± 1.11^****/####	−14.3 ± 1.45^****/####
Lack of perception	−1.1 ± 1.88	−0.8 ± 1.15	−0.2 ± 1.49^*	−0.3 ± 1.58	−8.1 ± 1.57^****/####	−14.7 ± 1.54^****/####
Lack of relationships and social	−0.1 ± 0.77	−0.1 ± 0.75	0.1 ± 1.46	−0.5 ± 2.15^*	−8.8 ± 1.39^****/####	−14.2 ± 1.35^****/####
Low libido	−1.5 ± 1.74	−0.8 ± 1.49	−0.8 ± 2.11	−0.9 ± 1.96	−8.6 ± 1.95^****/####	−13.8 ± 1.66^****/####
Financial crises and dissatisfaction	−0.1 ± 1.10	−0.4 ± 1.93	−0.1 ± 1.01	−0.6 ± 1.89	−8.8 ± 1.34^****/####	−14.2 ± 1.38^****/####
Menstrual disorders^b	−0.4 ± 1.05	−0.3 ± 1.32	−0.1 ± 1.69	−0.7 ± 1.61	−8.9 ± 1.15^****/####	−14.0 ± 1.37^****/####

All the values are represented as mean ± SD of change from baseline (CFB).

N = number of subjects in the respective treatment group. Day 0 is considered as the baseline. Statistical significance p-value was calculated for between comparison using one-way repeated measure analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA).

CFB = (postbaseline – baseline).

Sample size in control,²² sham control,²³, and blessing/biofield energy therapy.¹⁸

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.

***

p < 0.001.

****

p < 0.0001 vs. control group.

####

p < 0.0001 vs. sham control group.

SD, standard deviation.

Furthermore, certain psychological measures decreased in the sham control group than the control group.

Sleep disturbances: Scores reduced by 0.72 points with CI (0.25, 1.19) at 90 days (p = 0.0030).

Mental restlessness: Scores reduced by 0.76 points with CI (−1.22, −0.29) at 90 days (p = 0.0015).

Emotional trauma: Scores reduced by 0.64 points with CI (−1.18, −0.10) at 90 days (p = 0.0204) and 0.98 points with CI (−1.53, −0.44) at 180 days (p = 0.0005).

Psychological symptoms (lack of inspiration/motivation/enthusiasm): Scores reduced by 0.67 points with CI (−1.18, −0.17) at 90 days (p = 0.0093).

Lack of perception: Scores reduced by 0.59 points with CI (0.09, 1.08) at 90 days (p = 0.0214).

Lack of relationships and social: Scores reduced by 0.57 points with CI (−1.07, −0.08) at 90 days (p = 0.0223) (Table 2).

Safety evaluation

No AEs were reported in any group throughout the study. Safety assessments, including biochemical parameters (Table 3) and urinalysis (Table 4), were conducted at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. All results were within normal limits for all treatment groups.

Table 3.

Assessment of Biochemical Parameters in Support of Safety Profile of Blessing/Biofield Energy Intervention

Parameter	Control (n = 45)			Sham control (n = 42)			Blessing/biofield energy therapy (n = 45)
Parameter	Day 0(mean ± SD)	Day 90(mean ± SD)	Day 180(mean ± SD)	Day 0(mean ± SD)	Day 90(mean ± SD)	Day 180(mean ± SD)	Day 0(mean ± SD)	Day 90(mean ± SD)	Day 180(mean ± SD)
Kidney biomarkers
BUN (mg/dL)	6.98 ± 2.39	6.90 ± 2.39	8.32 ± 3.61	7.70 ± 2.40	8.38 ± 2.58	8.09 ± 2.27	7.99 ± 2.81	7.28 ± 2.07	8.37 ± 2.07
Creatinine (mg/dL)	0.76 ± 0.14	0.75 ± 0.17	0.74 ± 0.16	0.73 ± 0.10	0.75 ± 0.15	0.74 ± 0.15	0.77 ± 0.11	0.75 ± 0.15	0.78 ± 0.16
Uric acid (mg/dL)	4.59 ± 0.97	4.41 ± 0.89	4.42 ± 1.02	4.64 ± 1.06	4.57 ± 1.45	4.43 ± 1.16	4.93 ± 1.36	4.59 ± 1.13	4.67 ± 1.24
Urea (mg/dL)	14.94 ± 5.11	14.77 ± 5.12	17.81 ± 7.72	16.47 ± 5.13	17.93 ± 5.52	17.31 ± 4.85	17.10 ± 6.01	15.57 ± 4.42	17.92 ± 4.43
Heart biomarkers
LDH (U/L)	195.84 ± 28.63	191.07 ± 30.22	205.14 ± 29.51	200.38 ± 30.99	188.82 ± 29.0	208.16 ± 35.73	196.28 ± 37.64	187.34 ± 41.48	190.23 ± 29.78
CK-MB (U/L)	32.29 ± 8.82	30.73 ± 8.48	32.95 ± 9.05	31.92 ± 8.23	27.92 ± 7.04	29.44 ± 5.81	32.44 ± 16.83	31.53 ± 12.08	35.52 ± 12.70
Liver biomarkers
ALP (U/L)	72.90 ± 20.04	80.79 ± 20.46	79.46 ± 20.64	78.77 ± 22.11	78.81 ± 23.49	82.98 ± 22.08	78.17 ± 30.01	78.38 ± 23.17	82.10 ± 25.25
SGPT (U/L)	22.58 ± 10.03	21.63 ± 10.66	26.15 ± 11.82	23.96 ± 19.31	23.21 ± 11.62	30.76 ± 33.67	27.39 ± 18.51	31.38 ± 34.20	32.11 ± 27.09
SGOT (U/L)	22.19 ± 8.42	22.36 ± 9.51	24.32 ± 9.49	23.20 ± 13.48	22.69 ± 10.95	28.79 ± 34.11	25.97 ± 17.12	29.20 ± 31.92	30.15 ± 32.33
Bilirubin (mg/dL)	0.50 ± 0.18	0.54 ± 0.25	0.43 ± 0.18	0.55 ± 0.29	0.58 ± 0.40	0.65 ± 0.53	0.50 ± 0.29	0.54 ± 0.30	0.49 ± 0.31
Lipid profile
Total cholesterol (mg/dL)	172.22 ± 30.86	178.78 ± 32.35	179.88 ± 35.15	178.86 ± 34.34	187.95 ± 39.42	191.81 ± 40.26	172.55 ± 35.21	176.96 ± 37.56	177.88 ± 38.41
LDL (mg/dL)	101.22 ± 25.08	106.66 ± 26.38	106.58 ± 27.57	104.86 ± 29.72	113.97 ± 31.78	115.10 ± 36.20	101.64 ± 27.21	104.57 ± 28.89	104.13 ± 29.51
VLDL (mg/dL)	23.44 ± 10.77	23.72 ± 9.61	22.24 ± 11.08	24.66 ± 13.22	22.74 ± 10.14	23.27 ± 13.41	25.09 ± 13.95	26.55 ± 12.87	23.95 ± 12.63
HDL (mg/dL)	47.56 ± 13.56	48.41 ± 11.81	51.06 ± 13.43	49.34 ± 12.70	51.24 ± 17.40	53.43 ± 15.97	45.82 ± 12.59	45.84 ± 13.73	49.80 ± 15.02
Triglyceride (mg/dL)	117.20 ± 53.85	118.59 ± 48.04	111.18 ± 55.39	123.30 ± 66.09	113.67 ± 50.68	116.35 ± 67.04	125.44 ± 69.77	132.75 ± 64.35	119.75 ± 63.13
Oxidized LDL (pg/mL)	4084.94 ± 9688.54	2003.41 ± 955.59	1315.19 ± 532.23	1391.26 ± 1059.55	1304.26 ± 644.91	1517.61 ± 886.39	1233.67 ± 845.86	1729.71 ± 1047.64	3071.8 ± 3510.14
Metabolic biomarkers
HbA1c (%)	5.53 ± 0.54	5.60 ± 0.47	5.45 ± 0.40	5.53 ± 0.61	5.65 ± 0.76	5.60 ± 0.80	5.54 ± 0.42	5.48 ± 0.44	5.54 ± 0.50
Insulin (mU/L)	17.20 ± 14.66	17.98 ± 26.75	13.38 ± 10.70	9.60 ± 5.02	10.05 ± 8.45	5.65 ± 15.48	12.40 ± 8.38	19.63 ± 23.37	15.49 ± 10.79
HOMA-IR	3.82 ± 3.93	3.97 ± 5.90	2.52 ± 2.12	2.07 ± 1.52	2.42 ± 2.74	3.26 ± 3.65	2.49 ± 1.62	4.67 ± 6.77	3.08 ± 2.27
HOMA-β (%)	410.05 ± 673.18	268.28 ± 584.04	303.76 ± 804.82	321.92 ± 506.18	171.97 ± 122.55	342.95 ± 625.91	316.43 ± 635.51	−1791.24 ± 10428.80	374.74 ± 1626.99
Glucose (mg/dL)	84.89 ± 25.28	85.49 ± 12.96	75.42 ± 8.27	85.08 ± 25.43	90.07 ± 25.13	86.28 ± 29.39	82.10 ± 10.36	88.29 ± 18.67	79.91 ± 14.87
Other biomarkers
Albumin (g/dL)	4.40 ± 0.30	4.62 ± 0.35	4.63 ± 0.28	4.37 ± 0.23	4.58 ± 0.34	4.60 ± 0.32	4.44 ± 0.25	4.57 ± 0.41	4.61 ± 0.35
Total protein (g/dL)	7.82 ± 0.52	7.81 ± 0.56	7.81 ± 0.48	7.95 ± 0.46	7.81 ± 0.55	7.82 ± 0.54	8.0 ± 0.43	7.80 ± 0.46	7.83 ± 0.49

ALP, alkaline phosphatase; BUN, Blood urea nitrogen; CK-MB, creatine kinase-myocardial band; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c (glycated hemoglobin); HDL, high density lipoprotein; HOMA-β, homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function; HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; LDL, low density lipoprotein; SD, standard deviation; SGOT, serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase; SGPT, serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase; VLDL, very low density lipoprotein.

Table 4.

Summary of Urinalysis Parameters for the Assessment of Safety Profile of Blessing/Biofield Energy Healing Intervention

Parameter	Result	Control (n = 45)			Sham control (n = 42)			Blessing/biofield energy therapy (n = 45)
Parameter	Result	Day 0(mean ± SD)	Day 90(mean ± SD)	Day 180(mean ± SD)	Day 0(mean ± SD)	Day 90(mean ± SD)	Day 180(mean ± SD)	Day 0(mean ± SD)	Day 90(mean ± SD)	Day 180(mean ± SD)
Quantity	—	28.9 ± 8.98	27.2 ± 6.42	27.5 ± 5.97	25.8 ± 7.64	27.3 ± 6.30	26.5 ± 5.64	27.0 ± 7.02	26.9 ± 6.37	26.8 ± 6.41
Specific gravity	—	1.0102 ± 0.00476	1.0107 ± 0.00587	1.0119 ± 0.00540	1.0094 ± 0.00471	1.0105 ± 0.00564	1.0121 ± 0.00509	1.0109 ± 0.00660	1.0123 ± 0.00609	1.0130 ± 0.00552
pH (reaction)	—	6.3 ± 0.92	6.2 ± 1.09	6.2 ± 1.03	6.4 ± 1.15	6.3 ± 1.17	6.5 ± 1.16	6.2 ± 0.99	5.8 ± 0.95	5.9 ± 1.00
Albumin (protein)	Negative	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)
Amorphous material	Absent	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)
Appearance	Clear	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)
Bacteria	Absent	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)
Bilirubin	Negative	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	36 (80.00)
Casts	Absent	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)
Color	Pale Yellow	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	41 (91.11)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	37 (82.22)
Crystals	Absent	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)
Epithelial cells	0–1	43 (95.56)	40 (88.89)	37 (82.22)	37 (88.10)	39 (92.86)	36 (85.71)	37 (82.22)	34 (75.56)	32 (71.11)
Epithelial cells	1–2	2 (4.44)	4 (8.89)	5 (11.11)	5 (11.90)	1 (2.38)	3 (7.14)	8 (17.78)	6 (13.33)	5 (11.11)
Ketones	Negative	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)
Monilia	Absent	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)
Odor	Aromatic	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)
Pus cells (WBCs)	0–1	43 (95.56)	42 (93.33)	32 (71.11)	38 (90.48)	36 (85.71)	29 (69.05)	38 (84.44)	34 (75.56)	33 (73.33)
Pus cells (WBCs)	1–2	2 (4.44)	2 (4.44)	6 (13.33)	4 (9.52)	4 (9.52)	8 (19.05)	7 (15.56)	6 (13.33)	3 (6.67)
Red blood cells	Nil	44 (97.78)	44 (97.78)	38 (84.44)	41 (97.62)	38 (90.48)	38 (90.48)	42 (93.33)	40 (88.89)	36 (80.00)
Sugar (glucose)	Negative	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	37 (88.10)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	36 (80.00)
Trichomonas	Absent	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)
Urobilinogen	Negative	45 (100)	44 (97.78)	42 (93.33)	42 (100)	40 (95.24)	39 (92.86)	45 (100)	40 (88.89)	38 (84.44)

SD, standard deviation.

Discussion

Recent trends suggest that about 36% of Americans use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and are willing to spend between $36 and $47 billion dollars per year on CAM rather than conventional therapy.¹⁸ The hidden secret of human nature and behavior is its biofield. Biofield energy healing is a practice that aims to influence physical, psychological, and mental well-being.²² Reiki’s biofield healing reduces the trait anxiety and increases the subjective well-being of the individuals.²³ Reiki treatment significantly improves mental functioning, memory, and behavior problems in mild Alzheimer’s patients.²⁴ Other scientific evidence reported that nonpharmacological interventions like Tai Chi, qigong, and Yoga can be used for the treatment and prevention of psychosomatic disorders and help to regulate moods.^25–27 A randomized clinical trial data reported that qigong exercise can alleviate fatigue, anxiety, and depression and improve sleep quality in persons with chronic fatigue syndrome-like illness.²⁸ TT improved mood and anxiety and reduced mental restlessness in Alzheimer’s patients.²⁹ Data supported the clinical effectiveness of HT in enhancing perceived health, reducing stress, and alleviating pain.²⁸ The compiled responses from these CAM practices generally show mixed results, often aligning with those of TT, HT, Reiki, qigong, and Tai Chi in terms of improvements in pain, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep, mood, mental restlessness, and overall well-being.³⁰

Distant blessing/biofield energy therapy (DBET), encompassing various practices like intercessory prayer, blessing therapy, spiritual healing, and energy work, involves compassionate mental acts directed toward a distant individual’s well-being. A core principle of DBET is the belief that distance is not a barrier to healing, aligning with the concept of quantum nonlocality. This notion suggests that healing energy can transcend physical separation, potentially explained by quantum entanglement and coherence effects within living systems.^31–39 Our study data reported a significant improvement in multiple psychological symptoms (anxiety, depression, tiredness, fatigue, sleep disturbances, low memory, low libido, low perception, lack of relationship, etc.) in the biofield (blessing) intervention group through distant (virtual mode) than control and sham control groups. The findings are well corroborated with the other biofield energy therapy practices such as TT, HT, Reiki, qigong, and Tai Chi.

Distant blessing/biofield energy intervention by the Trivedi Effect was well-tolerated by all participants, with no adverse effects or abnormal safety parameters. The intervention significantly improved all 12 psychological symptoms, demonstrating its potential efficacy.

Probable mechanism of action

The research on DBET suggests that individuals can interact remotely, challenging the traditional understanding of human interactions and communication. The specific way that distant biofield energy therapy works is not yet fully understood. There are various theories about how biofield/blessing energy therapy and spiritual healing may be effective. Recent research indicates that blessing/biofield energy therapies may harness the power of the mind–body connection, utilizing the practitioner’s focused intention to influence the patient’s energy field. This may lead to physiological changes and promote healing via quantum entanglement.^18,40 Quantum entanglement enables correlations between separated quantum systems, allowing for the instantaneous collapse of their quantum states upon measurement.⁴¹ Possibly, the healers’ responses are due to quantum entanglement. Despite this, DBET’s use of quantum fields is largely theoretical, and further experiments are needed.¹²

Limitation

The present study did not provide a specific psychological disorder or gender-specific segregated data analysis. The exact mechanism of action of distant blessing is not elucidated. A large number of multiple comparisons was examined, which is common within early phase studies. However, the significant findings are likely correlated; they should be viewed as exploratory rather than confirmatory.

Future research

Various outcomes will be evaluated with more frequent biofield energy interventions in future research. Different geographical regions and cultures should be examined to determine the effectiveness of this therapy. In addition, mechanistic studies will lead to a greater understanding of biofield energy therapy’s biological mechanisms.

Conclusion

Distant mode blessing/biofield energy intervention demonstrated a significant reduction in specific symptoms, for example, anxiety, depression, and stress, in adults compared with both control and sham control groups. In addition, some symptoms improvement was observed in the sham control group compared with the control group, suggesting a potential placebo effect. These findings warrant further investigation to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of blessing/biofield therapies and their potential as complementary approaches to conventional treatments for psychological and mental health issues.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Cliantha Research Ltd., Gujarat, India, for their assistance and support with the study. The authors also express gratitude to all participants and researchers who participated in this trial for their cooperation.

Authors’ Contributions

D.T. and S.J. conceived the idea. All authors contributed to the study design and data interpretation. M.K.T., A.B., S.M., and S.J. prepared the first draft of the article, which was edited and proofread by A.B. and M.K.T. All authors read and gave final approval of the version to be published.

Consent to Participate

Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

Consent for Publication

After reviewing the article, all authors agreed with its publication in the current form.

Availability of Data

The data sets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Author Disclosure Statement

D.T., M.K.T., and A.B. were employed by Trivedi Global, Inc. S.M. and S.J. were employed by Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.

Funding Information

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this article.

Supplementary Material

Abbreviations Used

References

NCCAM. Energy Medicine: An overview. 2004. Available from: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm

Hart

, Freel

, Haylock

, et al. The use of healing touch in integrative oncology. Clin J Oncol Nurs, 2011; 15(5):519–525; doi: 10.1188/11.CJON.519-525

Movaffaghi

, Farsi

. Biofield therapies: Biophysical basis and biological regulations? Complement Ther Clin Pract, 2009; 15(1):35–37; doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2008.07.001

Schwartz

. The Energy Healing Experiments. Atria Books: New York; 2007.

Anderson

, Suchicital

, Lang

, et al. The effects of healing touch on pain, nausea, and anxiety following bariatric surgery: A pilot study. Explore (NY), 2015; 11(3):208–216; doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2015.02.006

Trivedi

, Branton

, Trivedi

, et al. The role of biofield energy treatment on psychological symptoms, mental health disorders, and stress-relate quality of life in adult subjects: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Gen Fam Med, 2023; 24(3):154–163; doi: 10.1002/jgf2.606

Mangione

, Swengros

, Anderson

. Mental health wellness and biofield therapies: An integrative review. Issues Ment Health Nurs, 2017; 38(11):930–944; doi: 10.1080/01612840.2017.1364808

Pike

, Vernon

, Hald

. Asymmetric activation of the anterior cerebral cortex in recipients of ireca: Preliminary evidence for the energetic effects of an intention-based biofield treatment modality on human neurophysiology. J Altern Complement Med, 2014; 20(10):780–786; doi: 10.1089/acm.2014.0074

, Hart

, Lutgendorf

, et al. Slowing progression of early stages of ad with alternative therapies: A feasibility study. Geriatr Nurs, 2013; 34(6):457–464; doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2013.07.003

10.

MacIntyre

, Hamilton

, Fricke

, et al. The efficacy of healing touch in coronary artery bypass surgery recovery: A randomized clinical trial. Altern Ther Health Med, 2008; 14(4):24–32.

11.

Reeve

, Black

, Huang

. Examining the impact of a healing touch intervention to reduce posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in combat veterans. Psychol Trauma, 2020; 12(8):897–903; doi: 10.1037/tra0000591

12.

Sicher

, Targ

, Moore

, et al. A randomized double-blind study of the effect of distant healing in a population with advanced aids-report of a small-scale study. West J Med, 1998; 169:356–363.

13.

Byrd

. Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population. South Med J, 1988; 81(7):826–829.

14.

Vijayananthan

, Nawawi

. The importance of Good Clinical Practice guidelines and its role in clinical trials. Biomed Imaging Interv J, 2008; 4(1):e5; doi: 10.2349/biij.4.1.e5

15.

WHO (World Health Organization). “Global Health Estimates 2014 Summary Tables: YLD by Cause, Age and Sex, 2000–2012.”. WHO: Geneva; 2014. Available from: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en/

16.

Hyman

, Parikh

, Collins

, Patel

. Chapter 4Adult Mental Disorders. In: Mental, Neurological, and Substance Use Disorders. ( Patel

, Chisholm

, Dua

., eds.) The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank: Washington (DC); 2016.

17.

Trivedi

, Branton

, Trivedi

, et al. Effects of distant biofield energy healing on adults associated with psychological and mental health-related symptoms: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Health Psychol Res, 2024; 12:122225; doi: 10.52965/001c.122225

18.

Trivedi

, Trivedi

, Branton

, et al. The improvement of cognitive-motor function scores using the NIH-toolbox in adults subjects after biofield energy therapy: A randomized controlled double-blind trial. Altern Ther Health Med, 2024; 30(9):28–35.

19.

Lee

. Coronavirus anxiety scale: A brief mental health screener for COVID-19 related anxiety. Death Stud, 2020; 44(7):393–401; doi: 10.1080/07481187.2020.1748481

20.

Forte

, Favieri

, Tambelli

, et al. COVID-19 pandemic in the Italian population: Validation of a post-traumatic stress disorder questionnaire and prevalence of PTSD symptomatology. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020; 17(11):4151; doi: 10.3390/ijerph17114151

21.

Brown

, Wood

. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf, 1999; 20(2):109–117; doi: 10.2165/00002018-199920020-00002

22.

Coakley

, Barron

. Energy therapies in oncology nursing. Semin Oncol Nurs, 2012; 28(1):55–63; doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2011.11.006

23.

Prasad

, Pal

, Prasad

, et al. Evaluating biofield therapy effects using unique color circle design implementable in biophotonics lab. In: IEEE, International Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication Technologies (CONECCT), Bangalore, India; 2020; pp. 1–6. 10.1109/CONECCT50063.2020.9198659

24.

Kaur

, Bhambri

. Well-being through Reiki in individuals with trait anxiety. Ind J Psychol Sci, 2016; 6(2):107–119.

25.

Crawford

, Leaver

, Mahoney

. Using Reiki to decrease memory and behavior problems in mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s disease. J Altern Complement Med (New York, N.Y.), 2006; 12(9):911–913; doi: 10.1089/acm.2006.12.911

26.

Abbott

, Lavretsky

. Tai Chi and Qigong for the treatment and prevention of mental disorders. Psychiatr Clin North Am, 2013; 36(1):109–119; doi: 10.1016/j.psc.2013.01.011

27.

Posadzki

, Parekh

, Glass

. Yoga and Qigong in the psychological prevention of mental health disorders: A conceptual synthesis. Chin J Integr Med, 2010; 16(1):80–86; doi: 10.1007/s11655-009-9002-2

28.

Chan

, Ho

, Wang

, et al. Effects of Qigong exercise on fatigue, anxiety, and depressive symptoms of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome-like illness: A randomized controlled trial. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, 2013; 2013:485341; doi: 10.1155/2013/485341

29.

Yeung

, Chan

JSM

, Cheung

, et al. Qigong and Tai-Chi for mood regulation. Focus (Am Psychiatr Publ), 2018; 16(1):40–47; doi: 10.1176/appi.focus.20170042

30.

Woods

, Dimond

. The effect of therapeutic touch on agitated behavior and cortisol in persons with Alzheimer’s disease. Biol Res Nurs, 2002; 4(2):104–114; doi: 10.1177/1099800402238331

31.

Wilkinson

, Knox

, Chatman

, et al. The clinical effectiveness of healing touch. J Altern Complement Med, 2002; 8(1):33–47; doi: 10.1089/107555302753507168

32.

Kemper

. Authentic healing: Effects on recipients and healers. Alternat Complement Ther, 2016; 22(3):105–110; doi: 10.1089/act.2016.29057.kjk

33.

Schlitz

, Radin

, Malle

, et al. Distant healing intention: Definitions and evolving guidelines for laboratory studies. Alternat Ther Health Med, 2003; 9(3 Suppl):A31–A43.

34.

Targ

. Evaluating distant healing: A research review. Alternat Ther Health Med, 1997; 3(6):74–78.

35.

Schlitz

, Braud

. Distant intentionality and healing: Assessing the evidence. Alternat Ther Health Med, 1997; 3(6):62–73.

36.

Astin

, Harkness

, Ernst

. The efficacy of “distant healing”: A systematic review of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med, 2000; 132(11):903–910; doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-11-200006060-00009

37.

Sloan

, Ramakrishnan

. The MANTRA II study. Lancet, 2005; 366(9499):1769–1770.

38.

Accardi

, Regoli

. Non-locality and Quantum Theory: New Experimental Evidence. In: Quantum communication, computing, and measurement 3. ( Tombesi

, Hirota

., eds.). Kluwer; New York; 2001; pp. 313–23.

39.

Baars

, Edelman

. Consciousness, biology and quantum hypotheses. Phys Life Rev, 2012; 9(3):285–294; doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2012.07.001

40.

Melkikh

, Khrennikov

. Nontrivial quantum and quantum-like effects in biosystems: Unsolved questions and paradoxes. Prog Biophys Mol Biol, 2015; 119(2):137–161; doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.07.001

41.

Trivedi

, Branton

, Trivedi

, et al. The use of biofield energy therapy as complementary and alternative medicine in human health care system: a narrative review and potential mechanisms. J Complement Integr Med, 2024; 21(4):451–460; doi: 10.1515/jcim-2024-0027

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

Exploring the Therapeutic Potentials of Nonpharmacological Blessing Energy Intervention for the Benefits of Psycho-Mental Impaired Individuals: A Clinical Trial

Abstract

Background:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Trial registration:

Introduction

Methods

Study design, ethics, randomization, and blindness

Inclusion, exclusion, and withdrawal criteria

Distant biofield/blessing energy treatment

Evaluation of self-reported psychological symptoms

Evaluation of safety parameters

Statistics

Results

Disposition of study subjects

Demographic profile

Evaluation of self-reported psychological scores

Safety evaluation

Discussion

Probable mechanism of action

Limitation

Future research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Authors’ Contributions

Consent to Participate

Consent for Publication

Availability of Data

Author Disclosure Statement

Funding Information

Supplementary Material

Abbreviations Used

References

Supplementary Material