Quantum Healing

A 1989 book and the phrase

The phrase quantum healing is the title of a 1989 book by Deepak Chopra, published by Bantam Books in New York and recorded at 278 pages in the Open Library catalogue. The catalogue description states that the book brings together Western medicine, neuroscience and physics with Ayurvedic theory, and that it presents the body as controlled by a 'network of intelligence' able to change the patterns of physiology. That is a catalogue summary of a popular book rather than a history of the term, and the sources reviewed do not establish whether the phrase was used earlier or how widely practitioners adopted the book.

Later academic use of quantum ideas

Quantum concepts were later discussed in complementary-medicine journals as possible frameworks for healing. In 2005 the philosopher Drew Leder proposed four models for distant healing and related phenomena, two drawn from relativity and two from quantum mechanics (nonlocal entanglement and the actualisation of potentials), and described them as suggestive rather than explanatory. A 2022 paper by Fertig, Chopra and Tuszynski, 'Towards Quantum Medicine', reviews two decades of work in quantum biology and discusses what it might mean for physiology and chronic disease.

Named methods that use the word

At least one named method that uses the word in its title is organised as a training system. The Quantum-Touch organisation states that it was developed by Richard Gordon, has operated since 2000 and has taught about 150,000 people in more than 20 countries. These are the organisation's own figures and were not independently checked, and the sources reviewed do not trace any link between this method and the 1989 book.

A label with several referents

The word quantum does not refer to a single practice in the sources reviewed. It appears in the title of Chopra's 1989 book on mind-body healing, in the name of the hands-and-breath method Quantum-Touch, in the phrase 'quantum medicine' used by Fertig, Chopra and Tuszynski for the application of quantum principles to clinical practice, and in 'Quantum Code Technology', which a 2017 trial report calls a purported subtle energy technology delivered through a smartphone application. These uses share vocabulary but not necessarily methods, and similar wording is not evidence that they are equivalent.

Neighbouring terms

Research on hands-on and non-contact practices often uses the umbrella terms biofield therapy and energy medicine. A systematic review of non-contact trials grouped external qigong, Healing Touch, Johrei, Reiki and Therapeutic Touch under biofield therapies, and a 2026 study of quantum noise devices used 'biofields' and 'energy medicine' as keywords. The five therapies named in the review do not include a quantum-labelled method, so the terms overlap in discussion without being interchangeable.

Quantum in physics and in popular usage

Physicists who criticise this vocabulary distinguish quantum mechanics as a mathematical theory from popular claims made in its name. Torrieri, in an arXiv preprint, argues that many popular quantum paradoxes arise from confusing mathematical formalism with physics, and that explanations involving the action of consciousness are conceptually unnecessary. Shermer, in a 2005 Scientific American article titled 'Quantum Quackery', criticised the application of quantum mechanics to consciousness, spirituality and human potential following a popular film.

A trained hands-and-breath method

Quantum-Touch is the one quantum-labelled method for which the sources reviewed give a practice description. The organisation describes the technique as using breathing techniques, body awareness and focused intention, with practitioners said to amplify and direct 'life force energy' towards a client. It runs a seven-level learning system with practitioner certification, instructor levels and in-person and online courses. A pediatric trial in Turkey studied Quantum Touch given to children and parents, but its abstract does not describe session length or technique, so this article does not either.

Other formats in the literature

Other quantum-labelled formats in the literature are not practitioner sessions in the ordinary sense. In a 2017 trial, twenty healthy adults sat reading a catalogue with a smartphone running a purported subtle energy application within one metre, and heart rate variability was measured about 35 minutes later. In a 2026 experiment, a healer was present in a laboratory for six sessions of about 30 minutes while one thousand electronic noise generators recorded random voltages; the devices acted as sensors, and no person was being treated.

What participants may experience

The sources reviewed contain no first-person or observational account of what a quantum healing session feels like, and this article does not infer one. Descriptions from practitioners or training organisations state intent and do not record observations. A person considering any such session can ask the practitioner what it involves, how it is described and what it costs, and can stop at any point.

Claims made by proponents

Chopra's book is described in its catalogue entry as presenting the body as governed by a network of intelligence that can alter physiological patterns, which is a general claim about mind-body medicine rather than a claim about one condition. The Quantum-Touch organisation states that the technique can accelerate healing, relieve pain and support wellness, and its site carries practitioners' testimonials. The 2022 'Towards Quantum Medicine' paper proposes that quantum decoherence and the efficiency of quantum processes in metabolism relate to disease states such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease and diabetes; it is a theoretical paper.

Outcomes that have been studied

The outcomes actually measured in quantum-labelled studies are narrow. A pediatric emergency department trial measured anxiety, fear and pain in children aged 5 to 10 and their parents during transfer to an inpatient unit. A 2017 trial measured heart rate variability, a physiological marker, in healthy adults. None of the sources reviewed tested a quantum-labelled method against cancer, neurodegenerative disease, diabetes or any other disease outcome, so the proponents' claims above remain untested in them. The sources also do not document why people seek these practices in everyday life.

Searches run and a pediatric trial

No systematic review of quantum healing as a whole was found. A PubMed title-and-abstract search for the exact phrase 'quantum healing' returned no records on 2026-10-05, and a search for Quantum-Touch returned one record, a 2025 randomised trial. A second literature-search service was rate-limited and trial registries were not searched, so the search was limited and not systematic.

In that trial, 60 children aged 5 to 10 and their parents in a pediatric emergency department in Turkey received either Quantum Touch or standard care. The Quantum Touch group reported lower anxiety, fear and pain afterwards than the control group. The control arm had no matched attention condition, the abstract does not state blinding, follow-up or adverse events, and the single site and self-reported scales limit inference. The authors concluded that it is effective for transfer-related distress; that conclusion should not be carried to other settings.

A sham-controlled trial of a software application

A 2017 double-blind, sham-controlled trial of Quantum Code Technology, delivered by a smartphone application, enrolled 20 healthy adults aged 40 to 75. The ratio of low to high frequency heart rate variability fell after the active application and differed from the sham condition (p < 0.008), which the author read as reduced sympathetic dominance. The sample was small, no symptom outcome was measured, and the author is affiliated with energy-medicine institutions, so replication would be needed.

An exploratory physical-measurement study

A 2026 exploratory study by Radin and Ives used one thousand noise generators, whose random output depends partly on quantum tunnelling, as possible sensors of a purported biofield during six healing sessions. The authors report deviations from chance during healing periods and interpret them as a negentropic shift. It involved a healer in a laboratory and not people with a health condition, and the sources reviewed show no independent replication.

Related biofield reviews

The closest controlled literature concerns biofield therapies that are not quantum-labelled. A 2014 systematic review found 90 randomised trials in humans, of which 28 (1,775 participants) used only non-physical contact; ten were excluded as low quality and 12 of the remaining 18 reported at least one statistically significant primary outcome. The authors judged the trials too small for robust conclusions. A 2026 scoping review of 14 studies (1,001 patients) of hypnosis, touch-based and biofield approaches for pain called the safety and effectiveness evidence preliminary.

Objections to the physics

Critics argue that quantum vocabulary in popular and complementary health writing is detached from the physics it names. Torrieri's preprint holds that popular quantum paradoxes often come from confusion between formalism and physics, and that accounts invoking the action of consciousness are conceptually unnecessary. Shermer's 2005 article criticised applying quantum mechanics to consciousness, spirituality and human potential. Clifton and Regehr, in Zygon in 1990, criticised Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics for giving little attention to the differing philosophies of physics he drew on; their target was Capra, not Chopra or healing practices.

Limits of the supporting literature

Proponents' own papers describe their physics as analogy or hypothesis. Leder presents his models as suggestive, and Fertig and colleagues present theoretical frameworks for which the summary reviewed lists no clinical results. Where trials exist, they test a named method or device on anxiety or a physiological marker. A positive result in such a study does not by itself test the quantum explanation offered, since the designs described do not separate that explanation from expectation, attention or contact.

Reported effects and gaps

The abstracts reviewed for the 2025 Quantum Touch trial and the 2017 software trial report no adverse-event data, so the sources give no incidence figures for harm from quantum-labelled methods. A 2026 scoping review of touch-based and biofield approaches found the available safety and effectiveness evidence preliminary. The absence of reported harm in small studies is not evidence that none occurs.

Care boundaries

None of the sources reviewed examined delayed diagnosis, stopped treatment or cost among people using quantum-labelled practices, so this article cannot quantify those concerns. The studied outcomes were anxiety and a heart rate variability marker, and no source tested a quantum-labelled method as a replacement for treatment of a disease. These practices should not delay or replace necessary assessment and treatment, and symptoms that are new, severe or worsening call for medical assessment.

Training and regulation

Quantum-Touch certifies its own practitioners and instructors through a seven-level system run by the organisation. No professional register, protected title or training standard specific to quantum healing was found in the sources reviewed, and requirements for other titles that a practitioner may hold differ by country and were not examined. A person can ask a practitioner about their training, the claims they make, what a session involves and what it costs.