EXPLORATIONS

The Royal Touch: A Look at Healing in

Times Past

tPswaesccsp

AcnSttmwkcam

pAgslle.ide

rbtCs2

ww

The royal touch was not only an idea,but also an actual event that affected thelives of thousands of people inuncountable ways.1

—Christopher AndrewsKings, Bastards, and Enthusiasts:Touching for the Evil in Restoration England

They came from across the BritishIsles, a motley crowd of severalhundred men, women, and chil-dren, to stand in the rain before

the Banqueting House of Whitehall Pal-ace in London on the morning of June 23,1660. They had come to see the new king,Charles II. Charles had recently been re-stored to the throne after the beheading ofhis father, Charles I, 11 years earlier by thefollowers of Oliver Cromwell.2 However,as recorded in his Diaries, Samuel Pepys,who was in attendance at the ceremony,the crowd had not come to pay homage tothe new king. They had come to be healedby his touch.

The dreadful malady that distressedmost of them was called the “king’s evil,”or scrofula (Figure 1). Scrofula comes fromthe Latin scrofa or “brood sow,” an animalsaid to be subject to the disease. Today weknow this illness as tuberculous cervicallymphadenitis. It is caused by Mycobacte-rium tuberculosis or by atypical mycobacte-ria and is highly curable. This was not so inearlier times. The crowd standing forhours in the downpour before WhitehallPalace demonstrated the full range ofscrofula’s terrible pathology—lumpy, ul-cerous tumefactions, suppurating ab-

scesses, and draining fistulas that some-

Explorations

imes covered the neck, face, and head.us might ooze continually from the le-ions, and blindness sometimes occurredhen the face was involved. Chills, fever,nd weight loss were common if the dis-ase spread to the rest of the body. Theufferers were often shunned socially be-ause of their hideous appearance and be-ause, it was rumored, merely looking atuch an individual could poison a healthyerson.The diagnosis of scrofula in the Middle

ges was never exact. An assortment ofancers, infected wounds, and even blind-ess could masquerade as the king’s evil.ome monarchs required subjects seekinghe royal touch to be screened by surgeonso make sure they suffered from a legiti-ate case of the king’s evil. It is puzzlinghy the screening was important. If theing could cure scrofula, why could he noture other ailments as well? The reasonsre buried in the mystifications of the hu-an psyche of the Middle Ages.Today it is difficult for us to imagine the

ower of the belief that kings could heal.s historian Christopher Andrews of Rut-ers University describes, the thousands ofcrofulous individuals who thronged Eng-and’s sovereigns possessed “a hope, a be-ief, a belief that had once exercised a pow-rful hold over the English imagination. . the royal touch . . . a sacred gift, a heal-ng power that allowed [a king] to cure theisease known as scrofula or the ‘king’svil’ by the touch of his hand alone.”3

Eventually, the royal touch became “per-haps the most famed of all the ceremonies

of the English monarchy, the archetypal a

EXPLO

oyal ritual.” Monarchs encouraged theelief. In 1660, the year of the aforemen-ioned gathering at Whitehall Palace,harles II touched almost 7,000 of his

ubjects seeking healing. By the end of his4-year reign, he had touched 100,000.The rite probably originated in France

ith Robert II, called Robert the Pious,ho reigned from 987 to 996. Robert was

Figure 1. Scrofula of the neck. (From theNational Institutes of Health, part of the UnitedStates Department of Health and Human Ser-vices. This image is available in the publicdomain at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scrofula.jpeg.)

n extraordinarily devout Catholic, al-

121RE May/June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 3

nhpnwhe

wEEctstvruAt

wmrtcJsJtwwlanwvdifnthh

rwftSpcTtmpJctm

w1atiBa

Esstreyfn

though Pope Gregory V excommunicatedhim for reasons of consanguinity (he mar-ried a close cousin). Robert’s piety, how-ever, was a mixed bag. He is known notonly for laying hands on the sick but alsofor reinstating the Roman imperial cus-tom of burning heretics at the stake. Hisdevoutness ran to forced conversion of thelocal Jewry, including mob violenceagainst Jews who refused.4 History does

ot reveal how successful Robert was as aealer, but he was undeniably an accom-lished murderer. The contradiction isot surprising, for consistency in behavioras never a royal trait. Unpredictabilityad survival value: it kept usurpers andnemies off balance.

In the eleventh century, the royal touchas taken up by Edward the Confessor inngland, who ruled from 1042 to 1066.dward is the only king of England to beanonized. Many miracles were attributedo him. He was said to have “secondight,” by which he allegedly saw eventshat would take place in the future, a con-enient talent for any king. Edward waseported to have healed not only the scrof-lous but also the crippled and the blind.fter his death, people traveled to his

omb to be cured.5,6

God was acknowledged by everyone asthe ultimate source of healing. A monarchwho could heal was merely God’s agent onearth. The royal touch, therefore, had im-mense significance for the entire nation,not just for the sick. For, if a king couldheal via the royal touch, surely he enjoyedGod’s sanction—the Divine Right of kings.Thus, the royal touch became evidence ofroyal legitimacy.

In the fifteenth century, sovereigns be-gan to branch out. They began to blessspecial gold coins, transferring healingpower to them. The surrogate coins, called“touchpieces,” would convey healing towhoever possessed them. Stamped withthe image of St Michael, they were alsoknown as angel coins.7 They were oftenpierced with a hole so they could be sus-pended by a ribbon around the neck.Touchpieces would have been advanta-geous to any king who might be squea-mish about touching filthy, sick subjectswho were oozing pus.

James I, who ascended to England’sthrone in 1603 after ruling Scotland for 19years, was less interested in healing his

subjects with his touch than in hounding

122 EXPLORE May/June 2013, Vol. 9, N

omen accused of witchcraft. James was aan of deep contradictions; a contempo-

ary called him “the wisest fool in Chris-endom.”8 James’s perpetual fame was se-ured through his sponsorship of the Kingames translation of the Holy Bible. Ob-essed with exterminating witchcraft,ames personally supervised the torture ofhe accused. Unlike his predecessors, heas averse to using the royal touch. Inhat sounds like false modesty he stipu-

ated that, “as the age of miracles is past,nd God alone can work them,” he wouldot practice the royal touch, as he did notish “to arrogate vainly to himself suchirtue and divinity, as to be able to cureiseases by touch alone.”9 James’s protests hollow; English kings were not knownor avoiding vanity. In any case, Jameseed not have worried; his obsession withorturing accused witches would likelyave deflected any “virtue and divinity”e might have accrued through healing.James’s negative attitude toward the

oyal touch was profoundly out of lineith British sovereigns of the preceding

our centuries. He was repudiating morehan the healing of scrofula. As historiantephen Brogan explains, “[Scrofula’s] . . .rimary cause was thought to be sin, espe-ially the collective sins of the nation.he healing of scrofula by the king was

hought to cleanse the body politic andake it more godly.”9 By refusing to em-

loy the royal touch to heal the sick,ames was symbolically refusing toleanse the nation of its sins. Perhaps hehought getting rid of all those witchesade up for it.The royal-touch champion of England

as Charles II, who reigned from 1660 to685. As mentioned, Charles II touchedround 100,000 during his reign, equatingo 4,000 people annually, more than dur-ng any other period of English history. Asrogan reports, Charles II would touchround 200 people at a typical ceremony.9

In screening the supplicants for scrofula,the surgeons did not always agree with oneanother. This led to awkward diagnosticbickering in front of the king—early evi-dence that second opinions don’t alwayssolve a problem.

The last English monarch to carry outthis practice was Queen Anne, who diedin 1714. Anne’s most famous patient wasDr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), the au-

thor of the landmark A Dictionary of the

o. 3

nglish Language, published in 1755. John-on was a sickly infant and contractedcrofula. A physician who formerly at-ended Charles I recommended that heeceive the royal touch, which he experi-nced from the queen in 1712 as a three-ear-old child. It was not effective. Surgeryollowed, which left Johnson with perma-ent scars across his body and face.10

Shakespeare was acquainted with theroyal touch. He provides a strikingly accu-rate description of the ceremony in Mac-beth, Act IV, Scene 3.11 A doctor has de-scribed to Malcolm and Macduff how thetouch of the English king can heal. Thedoctor exits, then:

MACDUFF:What’s the Disease He Means?

MALCOLM:‘Tis call’d the evilA most miraculous work in this good

king;Which often, since my here-remain

in England,I have seen him do. How he solicits

heaven,Himself best knows: but strangely-

visited people,All swoln and ulcerous, pitiful to the

eye,The mere despair of surgery, he cures;Hanging a golden stamp about their

necks,Put on with holy prayers: and ‘tis

spoken,To the succeeding royalty he leavesThe healing benediction. With this

strange virtue,He hath a heavenly gift of prophecy;And sundry blessings hang about his

throne,That speak him full of grace.

French monarchs were also practitionersof the royal touch. King Henry IV ofFrance, who reigned from 1572 to 1610,touched up to 1,500 people at one time(Figure 2). Louis XV, who reigned from1715 to 1774, touched more than 2,000scrofula patients. The last French mon-arch to do this was Charles X in 1825.12,13

Looking back, what are we to make ofthe royal touch? It is easy to dismiss theentire custom as a ruse by English andFrench sovereigns to justify their throneby Divine Right. However, the situationwas far more complex, as we can see in a

phenomenon that shook the British Isles.

Explorations

lgCtlEplccm(bl

GiatAm

whpmk

A RIVAL HEALERKings who healed through the royal touchhad a lot of competition. In an age ofprimitive medicine and surgery, miraclehealers abounded. They peddled theircures everywhere throughout the BritishIsles to the helpless and hopeless. Manywere charlatans who extorted money fromsuffering people desperate for a cure; oth-ers were unbalanced individuals who re-ally believed they had a special gift, butdid not; probably a few were genuine. Al-though nearly all of these healers are lostto history, one name remains—ValentineGreatrakes, the “Irish Stroker,” who be-came a seventeenth-century celebrity. Hisfame was so great and his integrity so re-spected that Charles II summoned this ri-val healer to perform his healing feats be-fore the entire royal court. By mostaccounts Greatrakes was wondrously suc-cessful in healing thousands of petitionersfrom all across Britain and Ireland. By1666 he was a kind of rock star of his day,the subject of conversation in “the coffee-houses and everywhere.”14 It seemed thatnearly everyone weighed in, including thebest-known intellectuals, philosophers,theologians, and physicians of the day,many of them writing pamphlets and let-ters detailing their thoughts about thestroker’s amazing cures (Figure 3).

EPIPHANYValentine Greatrakes—one of those splen-didly flamboyant names of the seven-teenth century (“Valentine” from theLatin Valens, meaning worthy, strong,powerful)—was born in 1628 at his family’s

Figure 2. King, Henry IV of France extendingthe royal touch to a group of kneeling suffer-ers, 1609. (This image is available in thepublic domain at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scrofula-andre-du-laurens-1609.jpeg.)

estate in Affane, Waterford County, Ire-

Explorations

and. The family was minor gentry. Aifted student, he won a seat at Trinityollege, Dublin, but his education was in-

errupted when rebellion erupted in Ire-and in 1641, forcing the family to flee tongland. After the move, he was tutoredrivately. Returning to Ireland a few years

ater, he was heavily depressed by thehaos and brutality of the war. He foundomfort in the writings of the great Ger-an Christian mystic Jacob Boehme

1575-1624), whose prolific writings wereeing translated and published in Eng-

and.Rebounding psychologically, in 1649reatrakes joined Oliver Cromwell’s army

n England, where he served as a lieuten-nt for nearly seven years. In 1656, he re-urned once more to his ancestral estate atffane and settled in as a country gentle-an.Six years later in 1662, Greatrakes’s

orld suddenly changed. He describesow he was suddenly seized by an “im-ulse . . . a strange perversion in my ownind” that he could heal scrofula, the

ing’s evil, with his touch.15 This realiza-tion was a thunderbolt for which he couldsupply no rational explanation, althoughlater in life he acknowledged that tran-scendent voices had revealed to him hisgift.

I am unable to ascertain which of Boe-hme’s prolific writings Greatrakes hadread earlier, which seemed to catalyze hislife-altering epiphany, but we know Boe-hme’s theme. He believed that it is possi-ble for humans to achieve such an inti-mate relationship with God that the two,in a sense, become one. Consider the fol-lowing passage from Boehme’s Way toChrist, from 1622:

When you are gone forth whollyfrom the [human] creature, and havebecome nothing to all that is natureand creature, then you are in thateternal one, which is God himself,and then you will perceive and feelthe highest virtue of love. Also . . .whoever . . . finds nothing and allthings . . . he finds a supernatural, asupersensual Abyss, having noground . . . for it is deeper than any-thing, and . . . it is not comprehensi-ble . . . [I]t is free from all things, andit is that only Good, which a mancannot express or utter what it is . . . ifyou find it . . . you are in it a king over

all the works of God.16

EXPLO

After his immersion in Boehme’s writ-ings, Greatrakes may well have felt so closeto God that he sensed that he shared inGod’s healing powers. After all, Jesus, theGreat physician, had promised as much:“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He thatbelieveth on me, the works that I do shallhe do also; and greater works than theseshall he do. . . .” (John 14:12, King JamesVersion). Or if, what amounted to thesame thing, as Boehme says, through mys-tical union with God “you are . . . a kingover all the works of God,” perhapsGreatrakes sensed that he could do kinglythings, such as heal through the royaltouch. Yet realizations such as these keeptheir own time. Many years were requiredfor the inspiration Greatrakes initiallyfound in Boehme to incubate his actualtransformation.

There were risks for Greatrakes, just asthere had been for Boehme himself. Boe-hme’s vision of entering “that eternal one,which is God himself” was heresy to manyCatholic and Protestant clerics of the day:man becoming God. When Boehme orig-inally enunciated his transcendent vision,a firestorm of criticism was unleashedagainst him. This was an instance, how-ever, when history said to the naysayers,“Never mind.” Boehme was criticized butwas not molested by the Inquisition. Hisinsights would thunder through Westernliterature, poetry and philosophy, influ-encing Milton, Novalis, Blake, Coleridge,Schelling, Schopenhauer, and Hegel. He

Figure 3. Valentine Greatrakes healing asupplicant of the king’s evil. (This image isavailable in the public domain at http://en.

wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Valentine_Greatraks.jpg.)

123RE May/June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 3

hoisdl

w

putsnchcdG

uocweedrhodwlpah

btahcmAoWhtpwodccdGh

fattChG

cghhoawtbosd

GLSmdBvciGtlhAccirL

has surfaced even in the literature of ourday. Pulitzer-winning author CormacMcCarthy introduces his 1992 novelBlood Meridian with a quotation from Boe-

me: “It is not to be thought that the lifef darkness is sunk in misery and lost as ifn sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. Fororrow is a thing that is swallowed up ineath, and death and dying are the veryife of the darkness.”17,18

GOING PUBLICGreatrakes hid his revelation that he couldheal scrofula from everyone but his wife,who initially regarded it as a flight of imag-ination. Soon thereafter a local manbrought his son, who suffered from scrof-ula of the neck, face, and eyes, toGreatrakes’s house, hoping his wife, whohad some knowledge of household medi-cine, could relieve his suffering. On thisoccasion Greatrakes first tested his abilityto heal the king’s evil. He prayed for Godto heal the boy for Jesus’ sake, and thenstroked him. Within a few days he wastremendously improved and was “per-fectly healed” within the month.19

“Clearly,” says historian Andrews, “some-thing extraordinary had happened.”20 But

as it a fluke?Not long afterward another subject ap-

eared, a woman who suffered from scrof-la for seven years. She was so diseasedhat “she would have affrighted and poy-oned any one almost that saw or cameear her.” Greatrakes consulted with a lo-al physician, who declared her beyond allelp. After stroking her, the woman wasompletely healed within six weeks. Theoctor, thoroughly impressed, declaredreatrakes a miraculous healer.21

His fame spread, as did his confidence.He began to cure subjects from variousother diseases. He never accepted pay-ment for his services. His refusal to healfor money did much to enhance his repu-tation and deflect the charges of criticsthat he was a charlatan. By 1665 the sickwere flocking to his home in Affane in anunending stream. His personal and familylife was so upended by the throngs that helimited his healing activities to three daysa week, twelve hours each day.

Simplicity was his trademark. He wouldbegin by calling forth one of the crowd,then he would offer a short prayer to Godand Jesus. Then, he would begin stroking

or rubbing the afflicted party of the body

124 EXPLORE May/June 2013, Vol. 9, N

ntil the pain went away. Patients wouldften describe strange sensations. At theonclusion of the procedure, Greatrakesould give praise to God. His repertoireventually included all manner of illness-s—scrofula, various tumors, blindness,eafness, lameness, ague, dropsy, andheumatism. Patients were sometimesealed immediately and completely; inthers, healing was gradual over severalays or weeks. Not everyone was cured; heas not infallible. Although he began to

ance swellings and abscesses occasionally,erforming what we would call incisionnd drainage, touch remained his primaryealing technique.The excitable theological establishment

ecame nervous about Greatrakes’s activi-ies and summoned him before an ecclesi-stical court. They demanded that he stopealing the sick. Greatrakes fought back,laiming he had broken no laws of God oran, and had accepted no payment. Thenglican hierarchy was cowed by his vig-rous defense, so they changed directions.ith a modern ring, they commanded

im to immediately cease his healings onhe grounds that he had no license toractice medicine. Again he refused. Heas then summoned by the Lord Bishopf the Diocese, who again ordered him toesist. Greatrakes ignored the ruling andontinued to follow the dictates of hisonscience. The ecclesiastical court, wornown and fearing a possible backlash fromreatrakes’s followers, gave up and leftim alone.22

SUPPORT BY THE INTELLECTUALSAt the same time that Greatrakes’s famewas accelerating, the rational “new sci-ence” of the Royal Society of London wascreating excitement. Founded in 1660 to“improve Natural Knowledge,” its found-ers pondered how Greatrakes’s cures couldbe reconciled with the naturalistic per-spective. And how with theology? DidGreatrakes possess a divine gift, or was itsatanic, as some said?

In 1666, Greatrakes was invited to Eng-land, where he touched more than a thou-sand sufferers. During this journey thefirst scientific scrutiny of his activities wasconducted by the Cambridge Platonists,including Henry More, Benjamin Which-cote, Ralph Cudworth, and George Rust.

As his fame increased, he was sum-

moned to Whitehall to present himself be-

o. 3

ore King Charles II. Unfortunately, noccount survives of this meeting betweenhe two most celebrated healers of the cen-ury. Although Charles’ father, King,harles I, had imprisoned pretenders tois touch, Charles II did not molestreatrakes.In Greatrakes’s immunity from the ec-

lesiastical court and the king himself, weet a glimpse of his social prominence andis powerful reputation as a genuineealer. He was clearly on a razor’s edge,penly defying the Anglican hierarchynd stealing some of the king’s thunder asell. These were the days of the Inquisi-

ion, and Greatrakes could easily haveeen condemned as a heretic and impris-ned, tortured, and burned. A major rea-on he was not molested is that he hadefenders in high places.Among the notables with whomreatrakes cultivated friendships while inondon was Robert Boyle of the Royalociety of London, one of the founders ofodern physics and chemistry and the

iscoverer of what came to be known asoyle’s law (the product of pressure andolume is a constant for a given mass ofonfined gas as long as the temperatures constant). Boyle bore witness toreatrakes’s healing abilities and offered

estimony affirming them. This would beike Jonas Salk testifying in favor of aands-on healer in the twentieth century.lthough he continued to draw greatrowds, Greatrakes tired of the fanfare andhaos of London. He returned to Affanen the summer of 1666 but continued cor-esponding with the elite he had met inondon, including Boyle.

ASSESSMENTWhat are we to make of Greatrakes’scures? The modern tendency is to startwith an assumption—healing is impossi-ble—and dismiss the cures as a result ofsuggestion, expectation, or positive think-ing—the placebo response—or as the natu-ral course of many diseases, which is toremit and heal spontaneously. But this ispassing the buck, because chronic, de-forming, suppurating diseases do not dis-appear within the hour or day, as wassometimes reported when Greatrakes wentto work. Then, there is the tantalizingquestion of how Greatrakes avoided con-tracting some sort of infection while man-

ually touching and stroking the purulent,

Explorations

smp

omdt

iqa

hGmhoiwIhtt.thoaiitdsctWfd

trwhaWtmhnatd

ei

iode

t

suppurating lesions of thousands of pa-tients over many years. Did his healingabilities immunize himself?

Countless reports of his successful curessurvive, attested and signed by the leadingintellectuals in London’s Royal Society, asmentioned. But Greatrakes also had hisenemies, just as anyone today who claimshealing abilities is guaranteed an attack byskeptics and cynics. Greatrakes was a burrunder the blanket of the materialists of histime. Even his supporters at the Royal So-ciety tied themselves in knots in attemptsto explain naturalistically how he did it. Inthe end, his open-minded supporters suchas Robert Boyle settled on complex, ob-scure, and often imaginary natural pro-cesses that they believed catalyzed thehealings. Their tortured explanationssound like desperate attempts to keep thelid on something far more mysteriousthan their materialistic appetites wouldpermit. Greatrakes, for his part, agreedwith them to a point. Although he main-tained that his healing power was a truegift from God, he nevertheless acknowl-edged that it might operate through natu-ral means, as Boyle and his colleagues in-sisted.

Something of the man attracted the in-tellectuals. As Andrews reports, the famedastronomer John Flamsteed, the first As-tronomer Royal who catalogued over3,000 stars, saw in Greatrakes “a kind ofmajestical, yet affable, presence, a lustybody, and a composed carriage.”23 Othersaw a “sober, discreet, civil Gentleman,” “aan of gracefull [sic] personage and

resence.”24 By almost all accounts,Greatrakes manifested charisma, confi-dence, integrity, intelligence, modesty,and charm. He was a difficult target forthose wanting to belittle him, because heopenly admitted he did not always havethe power to cure, and he offered his curesfor free.

Still, were the reports of cures valid?Were they fabrications? Was the legend-ary Robert Boyle a shrewd scientist in thechemistry lab but an impressionable foolwhere Greatrakes was concerned? DidGreatrakes deceive not just Boyle butmany of the greatest intellectuals of hisday? Was Flamsteed flim-flammed? It’sconceivable. Controlled studies were thenunknown. We weren’t there to observe,

and history often lies.

Explorations

Some things never change. Accusationsf faulty reporting and deliberate lying re-ain among the fallback objections of to-

ay’s deniers of healing, who are unwillingo give an inch.25 They may be right, but

in view of recent evidence the odds areagainst them. Their objections remind meof a modern scientist who said, objectingto the evidence for distant, nonlocal man-ifestations of consciousness, “This is thesort of thing I would not believe, even if itexisted.”26

Greatrakes was not a pure soul. It is re-ported that he was instrumental in findinga woman guilty of witchcraft in 1661.When his healing efforts for his patientsdid not succeed, he sometimes attributedthe failures to the opposition of devils. Hewas a man of his times.

Historians can find ample evidencewith which to pillory or honor Greatrakes,depending, it often seems, on their preex-isting beliefs about the legitimacy of heal-ing in general.27 For nonbelievers in heal-ng, he is invariably an irredeemableuack. This dismissal is too easy; the issuesre deeper.

In a balanced, conservative overview,istorian Andrews states, “Valentinereatrakes was an enigma, both to theen of his own time, and to the modernistorian. He defies any easy classificationr explanations of his motive or his heal-

ng power. Seventeenth-century societyas both puzzled and fascinated by the

rish Stroker . . . how did a simple faithealer, one among hundreds who swelledhe ranks of seventeenth century life, cap-ure the imagination of an entire nation?. . Greatrakes’ cures were certainly ex-raordinarily impressive. His healing mustave been a sight to witness. Full of nonef the pomp and ceremony, the solemnitynd the protocol of the royal rite of heal-ng, Greatrakes’ activities were an egalitar-an, chaotic affair. [He] never sought outhe sick; they came to him. And come theyid . . . [I] n an average day Greatrakestroked as many as 60 people . . . [T]herowds often became so large and unrulyhat Greatrakes feared for his life at

orcester facing such a commotion heelt he was ‘like to be bruised toeath.’”28,29

HEALERS AMONG USWhere have the great healers gone? Are

there Greatrakeses yet among us? I am i

EXPLO

empted to think so. Every month or so Ieceive an e-mail from someone, some-here on earth, who claims the ability toeal the most stubborn diseases imagin-ble. Would I please come and see?

ould I bring a team of investigators tohe far side of the planet? Would I recom-end a scientific laboratory where theealer can be tested? Every time I say I’mot equipped to do so, and don’t knownyone who has the financial heft andime to perform such an evaluation, I won-er: Have I just slighted a new Greatrakes?Often in this column and elsewhere I’ve

xplored the evidence for remote healingnfluences.30-33 There is an increasing da-tabase suggesting that the intentions of in-dividuals can remotely influence the phys-iology of humans, animals, plants,microbes, and the behavior of inanimatedevices such as random event genera-tors.34,35 Emerging concepts in physicssuch as nonlocality and entanglement,now known to apply in the biological do-main, lend theoretical plausibility to theseobservations.34,36,37

There is also a view of consciousnessfrom within quantum-relativistic physicsthat attributes a primal potency to themind, which is denied in materialistic,classical science, that may be relevant tohealing. This attitude is represented by theeminent quantum theorist Henry P.Stapp, of the University of California,Berkeley: “[T]he new physics presentsprima facie evidence that our humanthoughts are linked to nature by nonlocalconnections: what a person chooses to doin one region seems immediately to effectwhat is true elsewhere in the universe. Thisnonlocal aspect can be understood byconceiving the universe to be not a collec-tion of tiny bits of matter, but rather agrowing compendium of ‘bits of informa-tion’. . . . And, I believe that most quan-tum physicists will also agree that our con-scious thoughts ought eventually to beunderstood within science and that whenproperly understood, our thoughts will beseen to DO something: they will be effica-cious.”38 This view of course does not val-date healing reports such as Greatrakes’sr modern healing experiments, but itoes not prohibit them and may even helpxplain them.

It is widely unrecognized that a nonma-erialistic view of consciousness has been

n place within quantum physics since its

125RE May/June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 3

pepote

pebwsietmthshtt

ortamtsiam

R

advent a century ago. As Max Planck, theprimary founder of quantum physics,said: “I regard consciousness as funda-mental. I regard matter as derivative fromconsciousness. We cannot get behindconsciousness. Everything that we talkabout, everything that we regard as exist-ing, postulates consciousness.”39 Nobelhysicist Erwin Schrödinger, whose wavequations lie at the heart of quantumhysics, agreed: “If we decide to have onlyne sphere [mental or material], it has goto be the psychic [mental] one, since thatxists anyway (cogitate— est).”40

As the view of consciousness as a fun-damental and active participant in “theworld out there” continues to be weddedwith recent empirical discoveries in heal-ing intentionality, we are laying the firm-est foundation for healing that has everexisted. It is unfortunate that historiansare generally uninformed of these empiri-cal and theoretical developments. If theywere aware of them, their retrospectivelenses might see purported healers of thepast in a somewhat different light. Thesame may be said of the dedicated detrac-tors of healing within the scientific family.But of such narrowness and ignorance ismodern scholarship often made.

If efficacious healing intentions exist, asevidence suggests, it is not irrational tosuppose that they might be concentratedfrom time to time in single humans whomight appear as healing prodigies, just asthe universal ability to run might be ex-pressed as a four-minute-mile perfor-mance in a rare individual.

A leading candidate is William F.Bengston, PhD, professor of sociology atSt Joseph’s College in New York City.Professor Bengston has been conductingresearch in the area of anomalous heal-ing for several decades, and he hasproven the effectiveness of his tech-nique in 10 controlled animal experi-ments conducted in five universitybiological and medical laboratories.Bengston’s healing research has demon-strated the first successful full curesof transplanted mammary cancer andmethylcholanthrene-induced sarcomasin experimental mice by laying-on-of-hands techniques that he helped devel-op.41-44

Professor Bengston is only one exampleamong many individuals who qualify as

healers, as the briefest review of healing ex-

126 EXPLORE May/June 2013, Vol. 9, N

eriments suggests.45,46 Many of these heal-rs work quietly and often invisibly—invisi-le, often, even to themselves. I believe that,orldwide, there are millions of physicians,

urgeons, and nurses whose compassionatententions exert subtle yet definite influ-nces on healing, who are simply unawarehat this process is occurring. I’ve knownany of them; some would be embarrassed

o be called a healer. When we lift the veil onealing, this stigma will hopefully be dis-olved, healing abilities will be revealed, andealthcare workers will reclaim their innatealent for healing that a skeptical, materialis-ic science has bullied them into denying.

Our responsibility toward these devel-pments is to support research that willeveal how healing abilities might be fur-her demonstrated, as well as cultivatednd put to widespread use for the better-ent of humankind. As to cultivating

hese skills, things are looking up. Profes-or Bengston has taught jaded, unbeliev-ng college students to be healers in hisnimal experiments with transplantedammary cancer, despite their unbelief.47

As I recall my own prejudiced, limitedviews as a college student, Bengston’s ac-complishment with his cynical students isno small achievement.

The debate over whether ValentineGreatrakes was an authentic healer or a fraudwill never end, but the outcome of the argu-ment is not crucial to modern healing re-search. He is, however, worth our attentionbecause the fundamental issues regardinghealing have not changed since his time.

Our modern record toward healing re-mains dismal. Too often our scientific andmedical community has behaved like the ec-clesiastical court that tried to prevent Valen-tine Greatrakes from healing the sick.

We can do better. We are doing better.We are constructing an edifice of healingthat is stronger than ever before. It is con-structed not only of case reports of heal-ing, but also by controlled healing studiesin both humans and nonhumans. And,importantly, the healing edifice is but-tressed by theoretical developments in thephysical sciences as well.

Somewhere Valentine Greatrakes mustbe smiling.

And maybe, even, Robert Boyle.

Larry Dossey, MD

Executive Editor

o. 3

EFERENCES1. Andrews C. Kings, Bastards, and Enthusiasts:

Touching for the Evil in Restoration England[Honors Thesis, History Department].New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University;2012:12.

2. Pepys S. Diaries. Entry for June 23, 1660.Available at: http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1660/06. Accessed January 2, 2013.

3. Andrews C. Kings, Bastards, and Enthusiasts:Touching for the Evil in Restoration England.[Honors Thesis, History Department].New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University;2012:4.

4. MacCulloch D. A History of Christianity.New York, NY: Penguin Books; 2010:396.

5. St. Edward the Confessor. Upsdell.com.Available at: http://www.upsdell.com/StEdwardTheConfessor/saint.htm. Ac-cessed January 1, 2013.

6. Bloch M. The Royal Touch. Anderson JF(trans). New York, NY: Dorset Press; 1989:19-21, 26-27.

7. King’s evil and the royal touch.Sciencemuseum.org Available at: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/techniques/kingsevil.aspx. Accessed De-cember 24, 2012.

8. Smith DL. Politics in early Stuart Britain.In: Coward B, ed. A Companion to StuartBritain. London, UK: Blackwell Publish-ing; 2003:238.

9. Brogan S. James I: The royal touch. HistToday. 2011;61. Available at: http://www.historytoday.com/stephen-brogan/james-i-royal-touch. Accessed January 1, 2013.

10. Lane M. Samuel Johnson and His World. NewYork, NY: Harper & Row Publishers; 1975:18-20.

11. Shakespeare W. Macbeth. Available at:http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/macbeth_4_3.html. Accessed December 24,2012.

12. Barlow F. The king’s evil. Engl Hist Rev.1980;95:3-27.

13. Bloch M. The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchyand Scrofula in England and France. London,UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1973:1.

14. Andrews C. Kings, Bastards, and Enthusiasts:Touching for the Evil in Restoration England.[Honors Thesis, History Department].New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University;2012:14.

15. Greatrakes V. A Brief Account of Mr Valen-tine Greatrakes, and Divers of the Strange Curesby Him Lately Performed. London: J. Starkey;1666:22-23.

16. Boehme J. The Way to Christ. Zeller W,trans. New York, NY: Paulist Press; 1977:179.

17. McCarthy C. Blood Meridian. New York,

NY: Vintage; 1992:1.

Explorations

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

18. Jacob Böhme. Wikipedia. Available at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Bohme.Accessed January 3, 2013.

19. Greatrakes V. A Brief Account of Mr Valen-tine Greatrakes, and Divers of the Strange Curesby Him Lately Performed. London: J. Starkey;1666:22.

20. Andrews C. Kings, Bastards, and Enthusiasts:Touching for the Evil in Restoration England.[Honors Thesis, History Department].New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University;2012:23.

21. Greatrakes V. A Brief Account of Mr Valen-tine Greatrakes, and Divers of the Strange Curesby Him Lately Performed. London: J Starkey;1666:24.

22. Andrews C. Kings, Bastards, and Enthusiasts:Touching for the Evil in Restoration England.[Honors Thesis, History Department].New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University;2012, pp. 24-25.

23. Flamsteed J. Quoted in: Andrews C. Kings,Bastards, and Enthusiasts: Touching for theEvil in Restoration England. [Honors Thesis,History Department]. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University; 2012:34.

24. Beacher L. Wonders if Not Miracles, or, a Re-lation of the Wonderful Performances of Valen-tine Gertrux. London: [s.n.]; 1665:5.

25. Dossey L. Why are scientists afraid of DarylBem? Explore (NY). 2011;7:127-137.

26. Targ R, Puthoff H. Mind-Reach: ScientistsLook at Psychic Ability. New York, NY: Del-ta; 1977:169.

27. Valentine Greatrakes: restoration quack orhealer? [No author cited]. Writing Wom-

en’s History. June 24, 2010. Available at:

Explorations

http://writingwomenshistory.blogspot.com/2010/06/valentine-greatrakes-restoration-quack.html. Accessed January 3, 2013.

28. Greatrakes V. A Brief Account of Mr Valen-tine Greatrakes, and Divers of the Strange Curesby Him Lately Performed. London: J. Starkey;1666:39.

9. Andrews C. Kings, Bastards, and Enthusiasts:Touching for the Evil in Restoration England.[Honors Thesis, History Department].New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University;2012:28-29.

0. Dossey L. Healing research: what we knowand don’t know. Explore (NY). 2008;4:341-352.

1. Dossey L. Nonlocal knowing: the emergingview of who we are. Explore (NY). 2008;4:1-9.

2. Dossey L. Mind-body medicine: whosemind and whose body? Explore (NY). 2009;5:127-134.

3. Dossey L. Distance healing: evidence. In:Schoch RM, Yonavjak L, eds. The Parapsy-chology Revolution: A Concise Anthology ofParanormal and Psychical Research. NewYork, NY: Tarcher/Penguin; 2008:216-223.

4. Radin D. Entangled Minds. New York, NY:ParaView/Simon and Schuster; 2006.

5. Radin D. The Conscious Universe. San Fran-cisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco; 1997.

6. Dossey L. All tangled up: life in a quantumworld. Explore (NY). 2011;7:334-344.

7. Schwartz SA, Dossey L. Nonlocality, inten-tion, and observer effects in healing stud-ies: laying a foundation for the future. Ex-

plore (NY). 2010;6:295-307.

EXPLO

8. Stapp H. Harnessing science and religion:implications of the new scientific concep-tion of human beings. Sci Theology News.2001;1:8.

9. Planck M. Wikiquote. Available at: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck. Ac-cessed January 3, 2013.

0. Schrödinger E. My View of the World. Hast-ings C, trans. Reprint Edition. Wood-bridge, CT: Ox Bow Press; 1983:63.

1. Bengston W, Krinsley D. The effect of the‘laying on of hands’ on transplanted breastcancer in mice. J Sci Explor. 2000;14:353-364.

2. Bengston W. Directions in healing re-search. J Sci Explor. 2001;15:128-130.

3. Bengston W. The Energy Cure: Unraveling theMystery of Hands-on Healing. Boulder, CO:Sounds True; 2010.

4. Website of William F. Bengston, Ph.D.Availableat:http://www.bengstonresearch.com/. Accessed January 3, 2013.

5. Dossey L. Distance healing: evidence. In:Schoch RM, Yonavjak L, eds. The Parapsy-chology Revolution: A Concise Anthology ofParanormal and Psychical Research. NewYork, NY: Tarcher/Penguin; 2008:216-223.

6. Schwartz S, Dossey L. Therapeutic intent/healing bibliography of research. Availableat: http://www.stephanaschwartz.com/therapeutic-intenthealing-bibliography-of-research/. Accessed January 5, 2013.

7. Bengston W, Murphy D. Can healing be

taught? Explore (NY). 2008;4:197-200.

127RE May/June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 3