Good morning, everyone. It is an honor for me to welcome all of you to this International Orgonomy Conference. The last time we gathered for such an event was in 2013 in Rome.
First, let’s all take a moment to thank Mr. Francisco Zito, to whom we are grateful for organizing that significant moment in the field of modern Orgonomy. In many ways, this conference today and many activities in the field of Orgonomy are the direct consequence of the impactful work we gathered to discuss in Rome, 13 years ago.

Thirteen years ago, in a milestone for our field, many clinicians and scientists who were working in the discipline of Orgonomy met with each other; they learned from each other and connected with each other, developing networks that afterwards became very productive. Mr. Roberto Maglione was the moderator in Rome. He managed the conference marvelously; his knowledge and character were very impressive. Since then, he has assisted in several California-based projects, particularly in weather work and cloud busting projects. Last year, to revive the experience of the International Orgonomic Conference in Rome, we organized and held an International Orgonomic Conference in Los Angeles, California. The speakers who participated and shared their experiences broadcasted their work worldwide and were published in the Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy, as well as on YouTube and Facebook.

01 STEPHAN SIMONIAN

Now we are delighted to present this International Orgonomic Conference, in the beautiful city of Naples. Our aim and intention are to continue these conferences on a yearly basis. It is our opinion that such conferences have crucial importance for the survival, growth and well-being of the human race. It is our opinion and hope that by introducing Dr. Wilhelm Reich and the Knowledge of Orgonomy, one day the people on our planet will be able to live by Orgonomic Principles: Love, knowledge, and work, that are the wellsprings of life. Therefore, they also should govern it.

Knowledge of Orgonomy provides guidelines and principals upon which children will grow emotionally and physically healthy and will become healthy adults. Emotionally healthy adults will make healthy societies, which is the best (and only) guarantee to prevent social tragedies such as war, genocide, and killing of humans at the hands of other humans. Orgonomic principles demand changes in social institutions. Therefore, Orgonomy transcends from the realm of individual treatment and mental hygiene into a broader sociology. In turn, the sociological branch of Orgonomy develops based on this necessity.

In the core of orgonomic principles is discovery of life energy or Orgone energy. Comprehension of the laws that govern this energy constitutes a biophysical branch of Orgonomy. The knowledge of Orgonomy encompasses a wide range of different fields affecting human existence. Dr. Victor Sobey, one of Reich’s students, quoted Reich as stating that too much was discovered at once and people could not handle it. However, it is our opinion that we do have an obligation to introduce Orgonomic theories and principles to the people, and to that end, Orgonomic conferences like this one have a crucial importance.

As Dr. Wilhelm Reich stated at the end of the historic 1945 Orgonomic Conference in Orgonon, we too believe that each of you who are attending now will be central to return and promote Orgonomy within your own circles. I also would like to thank all of you who are attending this conference and those who are watching online. I would like to thank our speakers who have traveled long distances and made themselves available to participate. I would specifically like to thank our Italian Committee, Roberto Maglione, Claudia Masciello, and Armando Richetti, who’ve worked ceaselessly behind the scenes to make this event happen. Finally, I also would like to acknowledge that this conference is sponsored by the Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy, the online platform that publishes articles and speeches to both introduce Orgonomy for some and promote Orgonomy for all.

Thank you all again for coming to this conference.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is an honor for me to open the proceedings of this International Conference of Orgonomy, which will take place today and tomorrow here in Naples. Before formally beginning the conference, I would like to offer a few reflections on the historical and scientific context in which the topics to be discussed are situated.

The last few decades have been characterized by continuous and extraordinary technological development, which has led us to a view of science and technology very different from the one to which our society had become accustomed, for example, in the period following the Second World War. These have been decades during which science and technology have progressed at a pace never before witnessed. We have seen the arrival of the first calculators, the first mobile phones, the first personal computers, the worldwide Internet network, new forms of energy production, and increasingly sophisticated and rapid systems for information processing, management, and optimization – developments that would have been unimaginable even twenty years ago (1). Consequently, our society, particularly Western society, has benefited from the opportunities offered by scientific progress and technological change, evolving alongside them.

Today, we are confronting new technological challenges that are still in their infancy, such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, brain–machine interfaces, plasma-based energy production and work systems, and space exploration. We are moving ever faster in what appears to be an unstoppable race.

Yet this progress has also had another consequence, less visible but equally important: the very way research is conducted has changed. As Pacchioni, Professor at the University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy, has insightfully described, scientific and technological progress, once largely the domain of public institutions, has gradually become the prerogative of large and powerful private organizations, particularly the Big Tech companies. Research has been transformed from an activity carried out with limited resources and driven mainly by curiosity and passion into a rigorous business enterprise involving investments and financial returns.

At the same time, the dissemination and sharing of scientific and technological achievements – hallmarks of public research and guarantees of open scientific development – have steadily declined. New technologies and discoveries have increasingly become secrets guarded within the confines of powerful private corporations, whose dissemination is ever more protected, controlled, and at times opaque(2). Science has become an increasingly efficient system, but also an increasingly closed one.

Moreover, the communication of scientific discoveries has become less reliable over time. An article published in Nature in 2016, reporting the results of a survey conducted among 1,576 researchers, revealed that 70% had failed to reproduce research conducted by other scientists, while 50% had failed to reproduce their own findings. The survey covered fields ranging from chemistry and biology to physics and medicine(3).

One might therefore conclude that, beyond the secrecy and commercialization of new knowledge, our evolution is characterized by an increasingly clear, important, and radical direction, a trajectory that appears not to allow for reversals or changes of course. The present era may indeed be one of the most important and decisive periods in the development of our scientific and technological future – in other words, decisive for our evolution as living beings.

But is this really the case?

If we look to history, we discover that at least once – and perhaps more than once – science found itself at a crucial crossroads whose choices profoundly shaped scientific and technological development over the last 150 years. I am referring to the events that took place during the second half of the nineteenth century, when important and fundamental decisions concerning the future of science were made.

Everything began in the years following 1860, when the French chemist Louis Pasteur presented a lengthy dissertation arguing that fermentation was caused by the presence of micro-organisms. Supported by the work of the German researcher Robert Koch, and not without intense intellectual and scientific debate, this view gave rise to germ theory, which completely transformed previous conceptions of infectious disease and inaugurated the modern disciplines of bacteriology and microbiology(4).

A second major change followed the experiment conducted in 1887 by Michelson and Morley(5), designed to investigate the relative motion between the Earth and the aether – the so-called ether drift. At that time, aether was regarded as a fixed reference frame for the motion of all celestial bodies. The negative results of the experiment led many scientists to question the existence of aether in the universe, to the extent that Einstein proposed in 1905, through his theories of special and general relativity, that aether be abandoned altogether, since it was no longer necessary within his theoretical framework(6).

A final major change occurred toward the end of the nineteenth century when Freud developed the concept of libido as the psychic energy underlying sexual impulses. This concept later became part of a broader theory that Freud developed and published in 1920 as the death instinct(7). The concept of the death instinct, which opposed the life instinct based on growth and survival, quickly established itself as a central element in the understanding of psychopathology and mental disorders.

It is clear that, during the few decades spanning the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, a real scientific revolution took place – a profound transformation that left no room for an omnipresent fluid permeating the Cosmos and Nature, namely the aether. This transformation directed technological development along a specific path, a path that has led us directly to the reality we see and experience today.

The figure illustrates the historical trajectory of the aether in philosophy and science throughout the centuries up to the present day. Officially, this trajectory was interrupted in 1905 with the acceptance of Einstein’s theoretical work. Reich’s orgone energy can be identified with the luminiferous ether and with all those bio-energetic manifestations described throughout history, beginning with the Chi of ancient Chinese philosophy and extending, through the Atomos of Leucippus and Democritus and the Kalam of the medieval Islamic atomists, to the more recent concepts proposed by Todeschini and Galaev.

It is within this context that Reich’s work may be situated.

Furthermore, the research methodology employed by Reich shares important similarities with that developed by the first scientists of the Restoration period in seventeenth-century England. This was a time of intense political and cultural ferment, during which groups with differing visions etwenty years agomerged but shared a common goal: the reform of knowledge. One such effort was promoted by the circle founded by the philanthropist Samuel Hartlib and embodied in his famous utopian vision of the Kingdom of Macaria(8).

Another initiative was undertaken by a group of young middle-class English scientists known as the Virtuosi. Beginning in 1645, they met periodically, first in London and later in Oxford, to discuss the development of a new philosophy of science based upon the principles elaborated by Francis Bacon in his Novum Organum and New Atlantis. These principles were founded upon a new conception of research grounded in empirical evidence and experimental verification.

This group eventually formed the Invisible (Philosophical) College, which sought to reinterpret the aims and precepts of Bacon’s Solomon’s House. Among its members were young scientists who would later become enduring pillars of science, figures still celebrated today, such as Robert Boyle and Robert Hooke. Seventeen years later, in 1662, the Royal Society emerged from the Invisible College(9).

Robert Hooke was among the first thinkers of the Scientific Revolution to develop a methodology for investigating natural phenomena that combined sensory perception and intuition – considered essential instruments of inquiry – with the use of instruments and apparatus designed to enhance the investigative power of human perception(10). Such devices served as artificial supports intended to develop a kind of “sixth sense” capable of revealing the hidden causes of natural phenomena. This method departed from the traditional Aristotelian approach, which studied natural phenomena qualitatively through reason and logic alone(11).

Like Hooke, Reich developed a methodology for investigating natural phenomena based upon sensory perception. In a certain sense, both Hooke and Reich remained deeply rooted in natural philosophy. Each sought to understand cause-and-effect relationships through the use of secondary supports such as mechanical instruments. This approach was known at the time as Mechanical or Experimental Natural Philosophy(12).

From Newton onward, however, scientific inquiry increasingly concentrated on expressing the nature of effects through precise mathematical formulations, while the investigation of causes was largely relegated to metaphysics(13). Consequently, two of the most fundamental functions of Nature upon which modern science is based – the force of attraction or gravity, and the relationship between space and time – came to be studied and modeled primarily by mathematicians such as Newton and Einstein. In the course of this development, an essential component of scientific research was gradually lost: the sensory perception of the investigator. Mathematical equations thus became the sole representatives of important natural functions, reducing them to sterile fluctuating fields within an aetherless cosmic vacuum.

Nevertheless, although Reich’s method of research bears resemblance to the mechanical and experimental philosophy of nature associated with Hooke, it may also be classified as a corpuscular philosophy of nature, according to which all phenomena can be explained through the interactions of invisible and imperceptible aetheric particles – or orgone energy particles, as Reich himself called them(14).

A similar conception developed alongside mechanical and experimental natural philosophy during the Scientific Revolution. Descartes was the first to formulate this approach, describing matter as composed of atoms (grosser atoms), characterized by motion, shape, size, order, and arrangement. Yet the concept of the atom remained rather confused at the time and could also refer to an aetheric substance, itself corporeal but much lighter and subtler, which was likewise considered by some to be the fundamental corpuscle or building block of material bodies(15).

Many scientists of that era and subsequent periods embraced this second hypothesis and conceived aetheric substance as the true matter, referring to its constituents as subtle particles or subtle atoms. Most believed these particles possessed creative and transformative properties and constituted the fundamental basis of matter itself – properties that could not be attributed to the atom as conceived by Descartes(16).

Henry Power, a seventeenth-century English physician and natural philosopher, argued that aetheric substance was the principal agent in natural processes and the primary creative force in Nature. According to Power, it stimulated and maintained such processes as fermentation, mineral aggregation, growth and maturation in plants, and life, sensation, and motion in animals. Subtle particles were believed capable of transforming themselves into atoms of a grosser nature. Descartes, by contrast, believed in inert matter(17).

This intellectual tradition included many distinguished scientists from both the Scientific Revolution and the Victorian era(18), including Power, Hooke, Euler, Le Sage, Kelvin, Maxwell, Mendeleev, Lodge, and Thomson, among others. It should not be confused with the corpuscular theory of Gassendi, Boyle, and Newton, which remained fundamentally Cartesian in orientation(19).

From this perspective, Reich’s scientific work may be intimately connected with that of some of the greatest scientists of the past, before science became predominantly mechanistic.

Like Reich, Hooke sought what he called Perpetual and Universal Knowledge, which was believed to underlie all mechanical and artificial operations. It was thought that natural processes could be understood by analogy with artificial operations performed by mechanical instruments, since such instruments obey and reveal the laws of Nature(20). Reich referred to this principle as the CFP, or Common Functioning Principle.

I would also like to add that the new mechanical philosophy of nature that developed during the Scientific Revolution originated from the earlier magical philosophy of nature characteristic of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. For a considerable time, the two traditions coexisted and influenced one another until mechanistic science eventually became dominant and excluded the former altogether.

An important point is that magical philosophy was not concerned with identifying the precise causal chain or mechanism through which objects interacted. What mattered was the ability to reproduce the same effects. The causes themselves were not considered essential. Mechanical philosophy appropriated many methods and assumptions from magical philosophy, although elements such as divination, the religious and spiritual dimensions of alchemy, numerology, and other related beliefs were gradually excluded and eventually relegated to the realm of entertainment, superstition, or fantasy. Even alchemy itself, despite its magical origins, was ultimately replaced by chemistry and was never seriously reconsidered(21).

Newton has been described by some authors as the last of the magicians, standing with one foot in the medieval world and the other on the path toward modern mechanistic science(22). His deep interest in alchemy and magical natural philosophy is well known. Hooke might reasonably be considered the penultimate magician.

Reich, because of his relentless efforts to rediscover the hidden laws and mechanisms of Nature, cannot be considered a magician, not least because of the historical period in which he lived. Nevertheless, his vision of research bears a striking resemblance to that of the early scientists of the Royal Society, of whom Hooke was one of the foremost representatives(23).

Indeed, Reich’s work may exhibit many features characteristic of the transition from magical natural philosophy to mechanical and experimental philosophy, combining methods and assumptions inherited from the earlier tradition. In 1953, Reich remarked to McCullough, one of his most important collaborators of that period:

"Alchemists were searching for life. Killed by chemists."
(24)

Perhaps this observation also helps explain why Reich was never fully understood by the science of his own time. That science had lost something important along the way – something it may never have noticed was missing, having never looked back or retraced its steps.

In organizing this conference, we have sought to create a program that is not merely commemorative, but one that includes both familiar and less explored aspects of Reich’s work. The program has been divided into four sessions covering orgone therapy, orgone energy in society and the arts, orgone medicine, and orgone biophysics.

Some of the presentations we will hear represent genuine premieres, addressing topics that have not been publicly explored since Reich’s death.

Before concluding and opening the conference proceedings, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Simonian, without whose contribution this event would never have been possible. I would also like to thank my colleagues Dr. Masciello and Dr. Vecchietti, with whom I have shared ideas, discussions, and planning throughout the past year in our effort to create an event worthy of Reich’s genius.

We sincerely hope that we have succeeded.

Thank you.

References

1. Today, a high-performance computing center can readily achieve 600 petaflops, corresponding to 600 million billion (peta = 10¹⁵) complex mathematical operations per second.
2. Pacchioni G, Scienza Chiara, Scienza Oscura. Ricerca Pura, Ricerca Militare, Big Tech, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2025.
3. Baker M, Is There a Reproducibility Crisis?, Nature, Vol 533, May 26, 2016, pages 452-454; see also Cassone A, D’Angelo P, I Dubbi della Scienza. La Ricerca Scientifica tra Business e Malafede, Diarkos Editor, 2025.
4. Mann CC, Research in Reverse, Scientific American, September 2025.
5. Michelson AA, Morley EW, On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science, 1887.
6. The definition of an empty space, that is, a space devoid of aether, therefore implied that objects could be located only in relation to one another. This fundamentally altered previous conceptions of gravity and transformed space and time into a single curvature generated by mass and energy (Mann CC, Ibid, 2025).
7. Freud S, Jenseits des Lustprinzips, Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag, Vienna, 1922 (English edition: Beyond the Pleasure Principle, International Psycho-Analytical Press, Vienna, 1922).
8. Matei O, Macaria, The Hartlib Circle, and Husbanding Creation, Society and Politics, Vol. 7, N° 2 (14), November 2013; see also Matei O, Macaria, The Hartlib Circle, and Husbanding Creation, Society and Politics, Vol. 7, N° 2 (14), November 2013; and Gaddo I. “The Corner Stone of the Worlds Happinesse”: Samuel Hartlib e il Famoso Regno di Macaria (1641), In Gaddo I, Mongin G (Eds), Utopia e Religione. Figure, Temi, Percorsi, Edizioni dell’Orso, Alessandria, Italy, 2021. Hartlib and his circle strongly advocated a reform of knowledge aimed at fostering the development of science and technology in a way that would simultaneously improve the social and spiritual condition of humankind. They also sought new and effective means of disseminating knowledge to the widest possible audience, while preventing its monopolization.
9. Stimson D, Comenius and The Invisible College, Isis, Vol. 23, N° 2, September 1935, pages 373-388.
10. Anstey PR, Alberto Vanzo A, Early Modern Experimental Philosophy, in Sytsma J e Buckwalter W, A Companion to Experimental Philosophy, Blackwell, 2016, pages 87-102; see also Chapman A, England’s Leonardo: Robert Hooke (1635-1703) and the Art of Experiment in Restoration England, Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Vol. 67, 1996, pages 239-275.
11. Henry J, Robert Hooke, The Incongruous Mechanist, in Hunter M (Editor), Robert Hooke: New Studies, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1989.
12. Webster C, Henry Power’s Experimental Philosophy, Ambix 14 (1967), pages 150-178. See also Shapiro A, Newton’s Experimental Philosophy, Early Science and Medicine, Vol. 9, No. 3, Newtonianism: Mathematical and ‘Experimental’ (2004), pages 185-217.
13. Henry J, Robert Hooke, The Incongruous Mechanist, in Hunter M (Editor), Robert Hooke: New Studies, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1989.
14. Henry J, Ibid, 1989, pages 167-168. See also Whittaker ET, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Dover Publications, 2017.
15. Matei O, Atoms and Subtle Matter: Henry Power’s Observations on Plants in Experimental Philosophy, Notes and Records, 6 November, 2024, page 8. Available at http://royalsocietypublishing.org.
16. Matei O, Ibid, 2024
17. Matei O, Ibid, 2024, pages 9-10.
18. The Scientific Revolution took place during the period 1543–1687, the Enlightenment during the eighteenth century, and the Victorian era during the period 1837–1901. To these may be added the Restoration period, which spanned the years 1660–1688.
19. The atom conceived by Leucippus and Democritus bears no resemblance to the atom of the Scientific Revolution, as it constitutes the truly indivisible component of matter and may be identified with the aetheric particle.
20. Henry J, Robert Hooke, The Incongruous Mechanist, in Hunter M (Editor), Robert Hooke: New Studies, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1989, pages 170 and 175.
21. Such a course may nevertheless be considered typical of the scientists of that era, whose quest to uncover the laws of Nature often entailed a transition from an earlier, magical view of Nature to a later, scientific one.
22. Keynes JM, Newton, the Man, in Essays in Biography, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2010; see also Kearney H, Science and Change, 1500-1700,‎ McGraw-Hill, January 01, 1971.
23. Henry J, Robert Hooke, The Incongruous Mechanist, in Hunter M (Editor), Robert Hooke: New Studies, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1989, pages 178-179.
24. Reich W, Reich’s Achives, Wilhelm Reich Museum, Rangeley, ME, Usa.

Notes on the presentations done at the Naples 2026 – International Conference of Orgonomy

Royal Hotel, Naples, May 30-31, 2026

Stephan Simonian, MD, editor of JPOT and sponsor of the event, welcomed the audience by recalling the Orgonomy Conference held in Rome, Italy, in 2013, and the last one held in Los Angeles, in 2025, emphasizing the continuity of the diffusion of new researches based on Reich’s work over the years.
Roberto Maglione, MSc, did the opening talk by making a short overview of the present status of the worldwide scientific research. He found Reich’s orgone energy can be identified with the bio-energies of the past and specifically with the luminiferous ether of the Victorian age. He made also a parallelism between the research methodologies in the 17th century of the first scientists of the Invisible College, then become the Royal Society, and in particular of Robert Hooke, and that of Reich’s, noting a very close similarity. The research methodology of the Invisible College diverged more and more from its original approach in the following centuries leading science to follow a mechanistic-mystical path.
Conference consisted of 20 communications organized in four sessions: 1) Orgone Therapy; 2) Orgone in Society and the Arts; 3) Orgone Medicine; and 4) Orgone Biophysics.

02 ROBERTO MAGLIONE

Orgone Therapy session was moderated by Leon Southgate, MSc. First speaker was Stephan Simonian, MD. In his talk, Simonian noted that Orgonomy is the only discipline that is able to describe scientific principles upon which the normal human psyche functions. A living organism is considered healthy when is able to set the pulsatory biological energy from the centre towards the periphery, and has the capacity of flow of this energy unimpeded and capable of fully discharging the surplus. Basically, he emphasised, the orgastic function and principles are the fundamentals of life. Simonian went on to describe how Reich discovered the human armouring that interferes with the free flow of organism bio-energy and is the basis for the formation of physical (biopathies) and psychological illnesses (neuroses).
Alberto Foglia’s talk was focused on the specific features of the functional thinking which represents within psychotherapy a new and radically different way of understanding and treating the relationship between body and mind. It allows for a more integrated and coherent understanding of numerous psychic, social, biological, and physical phenomena. He presented a clinical case of a patient suffering from dyspareunia, characterized by a chronic and painful contraction of the pelvic floor and the vaginal walls. The case was resolved after approximately 300 therapeutic sessions, when the symptoms completely disappeared. Foglia made a comparison between the medical-somatic and psychological-behavioral approaches currently in use, with the orgonomic-functional approach.
Stephan Simonian, MD, read on the behalf of Amir Mohseni, PhD, unable to attend in person, a talk focused on case histories taken from his psychiatric practice in Iran. He presented three clinical cases of a man suffering claustrophobia; of a young female with depression and anxiety; and a man with severe procrastination and inability to concentrate. In all the above cases conventional treatments provided no benefits and gave no results. By using Reich’s approach, he was able to find and dissolve the armour that prevented the bio-energy flow in specific parts of the organism with a parallel disappearance of the symptoms.
Claudia Mascello, MD, discussed the results of her clinical research and experimentation with an instrument, called Bluesound, developed on the basis that in vegetotherapy the fundamental emotion that modulates and shapes individual behaviour is fear, and mostly primal fear of not being able to exist thus generating a psychotic core in the organism. The instrument can administer to the patient pulsating blue light at a frequency correlated to the average resting heart rate (60-70 beats per minute) and a sound frequency that mimics theta brainwaves (REM phase) in the 4-7 Hz range. Masciello reported on four clinical cases in which a remodulation of brain activity with a reduction in sympathetic overactivation, and a concomitant modification of the individual’s terrain, led to a gradual lowering of the symptoms and a parallel reduction of the pharmacological treatments till the total disappearance of symptoms.
Patricia Estrada, LP, discussed the problem of women infertility outlining how conventional treatments are highly aggressive and generate relational and functional consequences for the women and men who undergo them. She reported on a clinical case of severe woman infertility that was resolved with orgone therapy associated to homeopathic treatments. However, notwithstanding the woman body’s pulsation was restored, the person couldn’t tolerate the new higher energy level and functioning and more work was required to assist her. Estrada emphasised that very few qualitative studies have been published on Orgontherapy. The lack of a significant body of empirical research on Orgontherapy Clinical cases and outcomes reveals a notable gap in the possibility to do comparative studies.
Orgone in Society and the Arts session was moderated by Roberto Maglione, MSc. First speaker was Philip Bennett, PhD, who had two talks. First talk was focused on the history of Orgonomy and Reich. Bennett examined the evolution of Reich’s thought from his membership within the Communist Party till to his repudiation of all forms of politics, and how Reich later developed a form of anarchism, which he called work democracy. Reich thought a continued prevention of human misery was necessary before it produces illness cand auses the neuroses.
In his second talk Philip Bennett focused on the conception of work democracy Reich developed when he was in Oslo (1938). This concept was elaborated in two pamphlets The Natural Organization of Work in Work-Democracy (1939) and Further Problems of Work Democracy (1941). Bennett explained some of the key features, and the form of work democracy Reich further developed in his later writings.
Gianfranco Tomei, MD, focused his talk on the analysis of sexual repression conditions young people find themselves today. He discussed how this form of sexual malaise, evidenced by the global phenomenon of Incels, Involuntary Celibates, makes angry and suffering men develop the character armor Reich largely predicted. The hatred toward women that Incels develop goes hand in hand with female emancipation and with that of loss of the father. Tomei made also a parallel with the work of Pasolini who, in the cultural genocide of popular cultures brought about by neo-capitalism, identified the loss of a genuine popular sexuality, replaced by docile bodies manipulable for consumption, precisely what Reich’s vision, thirty years earlier, had already anticipated and foreshadowed.
Ranieri Wanderlingh started his talk with a commemoration of Nicola Glielmi, an Italian psychotherapist, who was the first to introduce vegeto-therapy treatments in public hospitals in Italy in the 1990s. He went on to show drawings and images developed by Reich on the Orgonome, the movement of orgone energy in the atmosphere as well as in living organisms, making a parallelism with the orgone energy movement in art. He discussed how the Orgonome can be found in his own work on paintings and sculptures, as well as in some painters and in certain historical artistic movements.
Orgone Medicine session was moderated by Claudia Masciello, MD. First speaker was Tina Lindemann, MD. She started her talk by discussing the indications/contraindications of the use of the orgone accumulator in the treatment of diseases. She went on to discuss the kind of energetic functioning of a human organism. This dynamic can be classified as type 1, 2, and 3, according to the dynamics of the bio-energy inside the organism. Lindemann concluded her talk reporting on a cohort of 15 cases of young women with PAP IIID, PAP IV, and HPV infections. Their conditions improved after systematic exposure to orgone fields inside ORACs.
Jorgos Kavouras, MD, showed in his communication how the knowledge about orgone energy, its functions and applications are a substantial part of Integrative Medicine (IM), a term coined to combine the therapy with ORAC, Medical Dorbuster and Psychiatric Orgone-therapy with the functional and energetic understanding of health and disease as developed by Reich. He went on to discuss the role of the Medical Dorbuster in the treatment of tumors. Some case histories were also reported. Chronic tumor fatigue and prostate cancer bone-metastasis improved after the use of orgone treatments.
Francesco D’Ingiullo’s talk focused on a synthesis between Reich’s orgonomy and the ancient foundations of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Central hypothesis was orgone energy can be equated with the Eastern concept of Qi, allowing a practical integration in which the use of orgone accumulators and projectors enhances the effectiveness of treatments on channels and acupuncture points. Cardiac arrhythmia and hypertension, thyroid’s problems, joint problems, respiratory problems, and renal insufficiency all benefit from the use of the orgone irradiation to the TCM channels showing how the bio-energetic contribution promoted significant stabilization of the clinical picture, even in patients affected by complex conditions or refractory to conventional therapeutic protocols. Clinical cases related to autoimmune and degenerative pathologies (multisystem disorders, Sjogren syndrome, high-grade rotator cuff tear, spinal lipoma and sciatic nerve pain, and thyroiditis) were presented. In all cases improvements were recorded.
Jorgos Kavouras‘s second talk was focused on the discussion whether a functional and energetic understanding of health and disease, as developed by Reich, can be extended to other natural systems and may offer a meaningful perspective for understanding the deeper cause of the current global crisis. In his speech he tried to find possible functional relationships within natural systems, with particular emphasis on the principles underlying Reich’s cloudbuster.
Armando Vecchietti, MBiol, did a talk focused on the reinterpretation of the cancer process from an orgonomic perspective. Cancer can be described not as a disease originating directly from the cancer cell, but as the consequence of a progressive energetic depletion that leads cells to profound structural and functional changes. He went on to describe the various steps of the cancer cell formation: Ca1, Ca2, Ca3, C4, and C5. Vecchietti illustrated cancer very early diagnostic tests Reich conceived: the cytological test, the blood test, and the autoclave test. They allow evaluation of the energetic state of the organism before the appearance of conventional clinical signs. He concluded his talk by analyzing the phenomenon of tumor angiogenesis from an energetic point of view, highlighting the role of the charge relationship between blood and tumor mass.
Conny Huthsteiner, MD, discussed the benefit of the use of orgone devices on animals and human beings. She highlighted a case where a poorly dog, close to death, was back to health conditions after being subjected to orgone treatments. The dog lived for two more years. She went on to report on the research and the early results from a study taking place in the US on the use of the orgone funnel in the treatment of dry macular degeneration. The patient obtained extraordinarily results with the disappearing of the macular disease.
Roberto Maglione, MSc, presented the fundamentals and the results of the Oranur experiment Reich carried out in January 1951, as well as how Reich came to the development of the Oranur medicine concept. Based on the results of the Oranur experiment Reich argued mild controlled Oranur fields might be beneficial in the treatment of diseases. Maglione theoretically discussed the use of weak Oranur fields in agriculture as a tool to improve the biological resistance of the cultivations to diseases and to improve quality of the crop and yield.
Orgone Biophysics session was moderated by Armando Vecchietti, MBiol. First speaker was Leon Southgate, MSc, who reported on his results on the ongoing research he is conducting on the relationship between orgone energy and consciousness. He discussed the results he obtained up to now by using dream imagery and physical Oranur methods.
In his second talk, Southgate reported on his finding of a new parameter which is developing during weak Oranur fields: the creation of sound. He compared his work with that within the area known as archeo-acoustics, anomalous sounds produced by stone structures. Evidence of the existence of an Oranur sound was presented, and discussion of its unusual qualities and timings was done.
Luca Piergentili, MSc, examined in his presentation, in a unified form, some electrical and gravitational functions of orgone energy, considered as a primary energy continuum and studied through observable secondary manifestations. Maglione and Piergentili conducted a long-term experiment on an adult subject where a highly statistically significant variation of body resistance, voltage, and temperature when the subject was regularly subjected to orgone sessions was observed. In a second long-term experiment they observed on the same adult subject statistically significant variation of the apparent weight and of body temperature. Piergentili concluded his speech by proposing an organized phenomenology in which thermal, electrical, and gravimetric variations are considered as secondary channels of the same state change of the ORAC-organism-atmosphere system.
Roberto Maglione, MSc, analysed the increase of temperature inside an orgone accumulator and theoretically modelled the phenomenon. He demonstrated heat production inside an orgone accumulator is fully in agreement with the first and second law of thermodynamics provided the orgone particles are not massless, as hypothesized by Reich, but endowed with a tiny mass. Maglione went on by further developing the heat production model by including also the gravitational phenomenon. He tested the latter model with gravimetric experimental data available in the orgonomic literature finding a good agreement. The modelling also showed heat and gravity are secondary functions of the same bio-energy (orgone energy or etheric) substratum.