Exploring the mechanisms of biofield therapy through joint electrophysiological recordings in humans and mice.

In this case study, a self-described biofield therapy (BT) therapist and a sham therapist participated in multiple (n = 24) treatment and control (non-treatment) sessions under double-blind conditions. During the treatment phases, BT and sham therapists attempted to influence mice with cancer and control mice, alternating BT with rest phases where no such efforts were made. Both the 64-channel EEG of the human participants and the simultaneous 3-channel EEG and 1-channel EMG of the mice were recorded. For human participants and for the analysis of human and mouse EEG comodulation, the EEG experimental setup was a 2 × 2 design, contrasting mouse type (cancer vs. control) against session type (BT vs. non-treatment; N = 8 in each of the four groups). For the mice EEG, the experimental setup was a 2x2x2 design, contrasting mouse type (cancer vs. control) against session type (treatment vs. non-treatment) and human participant (BT participant vs. sham participant). Although no changes in spectral power were detected in mice, a significant increase in theta band coherence indicates that this type of biofield therapy may influence large-scale neural coordination rather than localized activity. Concurrently, robust and reproducible alterations in the therapist's EEG across all frequency bands during treatment periods, irrespective of mouse condition, suggest a consistent physiological signature associated with the act of intentional BT. Treatment was associated with changes in EEG coherence and spectral correlation between human and mouse signals. In particular, we observed an interaction in which treatment differentially affected brain-to-brain coherence in cancer versus control mice. These findings describe condition-dependent alterations in coupled physiological measures and suggest a complex relationship between human and mouse neural activity during BT sessions, while remaining agnostic about the underlying mechanism. We also outline the study's limitations and potential for follow-up investigations, acknowledging that these exploratory physiological findings do not have any clinical implications and should not be interpreted as justification for cancer treatment or as a substitute for evidence-based medical care.