A Talk at the Conference “Orgone Energy in Action”

For thousands of years, all over the world, humans have speculated about the existence of fundamental force, or Life Energy, at the root of existence. Spiritual traditions of various kinds called it “god” and natural philosophic traditions called it “ether.” But, for millennia, metaphysical, philosophical, and spiritual approaches were unable to grasp the essential nature of this phenomenon. And for the past few centuries, mechanistic science has either denied or “explained away” the existence of such a force.

In the 20th century, the physician-scientist Wilhelm Reich succeeded in introducing a new understanding of Life Energy into human consciousness. Reich employed a way of knowing that was neither metaphysical nor mechanistic. He called his approach “energetic functionalism.” Reich’s scientific experiments showed that the Life Energy is a physical energy, one that is demonstrable, measurable, and usable.

This new approach allowed him to transcend the age-old dichotomy of Science and Spirit. Reich’s functional scientific approach proved the physical reality of the basic metaphysical principles of Taoism: cosmic chi, atmospheric chi, body chi and breath chi.

My talk originated with a question from the audience to a panel at a conference on orgonomy. A young man asked, “What is orgone energy? You mention energy all the time. But you never say exactly what it is You are so vague.”

My presentation is an answer to that question. The audience is provided with details of how orgone energy is made demonstrable; how it is measured; and how it can be used practically to improve one’s own health. The talk also gives examples of how orgone energy was used to improve the health of my plants and pets. In addition, there are references on where to find specific information on the physical attributes of orgone energy in Reich’s books.

The presentation ends with an introduction to an exciting new project just underway: a promising pilot study of the use of orgone energy in self-care for macular degeneration, the most common cause of blindness in seniors worldwide. It is the first clinical trial of orgone energy conducted in the United Stars since Reich’s death in 1957.

One major obstacle to understanding orgone energy devices is their simplicity. It is difficult for most to accept that they can produce the results that they do, in fact, achieve. Another source of difficulty arises from the fact that orgone energy research crosses all artificial scientific barriers. It is essential to work in physiology, psychology, biology, microbiology, medicine, physics, astrophysics, meteorology, free energy engineering, cosmic functions and more.

But the most difficult problem facing those who work with orgone energy is the rigid character structures of human beings of our present patriarchal civilization. Our character defenses—our armoring, as Reich called it–block the very movement of bioenergy in our bodies and, therefore, diminish our perceptions of that energy.

To work with orgone energy in medicine and science, we must first learn to see and to feel what we later measure. Here psychology and physics meet. We need to confirm subjective impressions with objective tests and experiments. But this is hard to do since we are all defended against the life energy within us to a greater or lesser degree.

Despite the problems that face us, it is critical that we both preserve the legacy that Reich has left us and advance in our knowledge of Life Energy or orgone energy through life-positive work. We need to connect orgonomic medicine and science with crucial work in those fields being done today. Our survival depends on it.

How will we do this? Wilhelm Reich pointed the way when he said, “We shall gradually become experts ourselves in the mastery of the Knowledge of the Future.”

It Is Time for Clinical Trials

Introduction

To the general public, the orgone energy accumulator is probably the most widely known application of orgone energy, which was discovered by Wilhelm Reich between 1936-1939. From its introduction in the early 1940s, the accumulator has been ridiculed in the mass media, as well as in professional publications. Unfortunately, this hostile attitude continues to this day in The New York Times, The New Yorker, Mother Jones and other major TV and social media outlets.

However, Reich’s belief that the orgone accumulator would eventually be recognized by official medicine and used therapeutically, may be realized sooner than it appears at first glance. There are subtle but significant changes taking place in society and science.

Clinical Trials of the Orgone Energy Accumulator?

On the weekend of May 24-25, 2025 in Los Angeles, I gave two talks at a conference on the medical and scientific work of Wilhelm Reich titled “Orgone Energy: Demonstrable, Measurable and Usable” and “The Medical and Scientific Legacy of Wilhelm Reich: Proof of Concept.” The conference was organized by Dr Stephan Simonian and you can read about it at his online Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy (psychorgone.com)

At this event, I reported on an upcoming one-year long pilot study of the use of orgone energy in self-care for dry intermediate macular degeneration (AMD). This condition is the most common cause of blindness among seniors worldwide. And there is no effective treatment.

To my knowledge, it is the first clinical trial of orgone energy conducted in the US since Reich’s death in 1957. It has been a long road trying to increase accurate awareness of Reich’s contributions so that we can see what may be helpful for us today.

In December 1997, I moderated a six-evening lecture series at The New York Open Center on the occasion of the centennial of Reich’s birth. One of the speakers was James M. Gordon, MD., who discussed the profound influence that Reich had on him. Dr. Gordon, the Director of the Center for Mind-Body Medicine in Washington, DC, was appointed by President Clinton at that time to head a task force on how to best integrate conventional and complementary medicine.

In reply to a question from the audience, Dr. Gordon said he thought the time was right for double-blind, controlled clinical trials of the orgone energy accumulator to be performed. He stressed that it was up to those who work with the accumulator, those who have seen or experienced its therapeutic value, to perform these experiments. That was 28 years ago but, finally, it appears as if a clinical pilot study will be undertaken by The Mindshift Institute; the Institute of Noetic Sciences; and an internatonally renowned physician whose specialty is AMD.

I have used an orgone accumulator and other orgone energy devices regularly since 1971 and have benefited greatly. However, my experiences, and the experiences of others like me, are not sufficient to demonstrate scientifically the safety and effectiveness of the orgone accumulator. In the past, there was an opportunity at the Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (now called the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health) to submit proposals for clinical trials of this valuable apparatus. But no one availed themselves of this opportunity. And the current adminsitration is now dismantling this NIH Center.

If clinical trials of the orgone accumulator are undertaken, and the results confirm its therapeutic effects, the recognition of the value of the orgone accumulator by official medicine might soon follow. In the past few decades, a range of “alternative” medical practices have made great inroads into conventional medicine.

For example, some surgeons at major hospitals have energy healers in the operating rooms with them. Therapeutic touch has been integrated into mainstream medical practices nationwide. And many conventional hospitals have opened “Complementary Medicine Clinics,” offering acupuncture, chiropractic care, therapeutic touch, herbal therapy and other complementary methods of treatment. In the past few weeks, the FDA has approved a new red-light therapy for use in treating patients with AMD.

Double-blind, controlled clinical trials of these different modalities convinced many open-minded clinicians, particularly younger physicians, of their value. In time, the same could occur with the orgone energy devices. The scientific exploration of orgone energy comes at a moment when the American public is forcing the medical profession to respond to its desire for improved health care and for access to healing modalities other than surgery, drugs or radiation.

In Reich’s era, there was no social or scientific context in which to understand his work. He stood alone. Although there were physicians and patients who appreciated his medical orgone therapy, there was no understanding of his physical orgone energy research in the mainstream scientific community. Today, the situation is changing, however slowly, and there is greater opportunity for Reich’s work to be revisited.

The Research of Bernard Grad, PhD —A Bridge to Reich’s Work

The scientific career of McGill University professor Dr. Bernard Grad spanned the era from the 1950s to his death in 2010. Dr. Grad has been a major influence on many of the women and men practicing complementary medicine.

Many researchers and clinicians have been influenced by the vast body of medical and scientific literature that has grown over the last 70 years concerning healing and energy functions in human and non-human biological systems. Dr. Grad’s early, carefully controlled research has had quite an impact, particularly his work with a well-known healer named Estabany. Dr. Grad reported on Estabany’s healing effects on mice and experiments in which Estabany “laid hands on” water later given to seeds which then grew faster and had higher yields than those that received untreated water.

Although these and other experiments by Dr. Grad are widely known and admired today, few who hold his research in high regard are aware of his years of work with Wilhelm Reich and his experiments with orgone energy both during Reich’s life and after Reich’s death.

In 1997, at a Wilhelm Reich centennial conference, which I organized in New York City at the New York Academy of Medicine with the Friends of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Dr. Grad was one of the speakers. Although many of those who attended were aware of Dr. Grad’s research and its influence, none knew of his orgone energy investigations.

During his career at McGill University in Montreal, Dr. Grad kept his experiments with orgone energy to himself. He believed, accurately, that an open interest in Wilhelm Reich’s work would end his academic scientific career. Have things changed significantly in the intervening decades? Very little, it is sad to say.

At that event, Dr Grad gave three presentations about his investigations of aspects of orgone energy—“The Temperature Difference Experiment;” “Experiences with Orgone Energy Accumulators and Leukemia Mice;” and “Experiment XX” which involves biogenesis. He was able to be open about his work with orgone energy because he had retired and there could be no reprisals against him.

Can the orgone energy devices now be objectively, scientifically evaluated? Does a new social climate exist that would make this possible?

The public is forcing the medical profession to be open to, and to investigate honestly, fundamentally different approaches to health. Could this soon include the orgone energy accumulator?

If those who work with orgone energy conduct well-designed, double-blind, controlled clinical trials, submit those results to peer-reviewed journals such as Alternative Therapies, and seek funding for their research from organizations open to energy healing, we will find out the answer to that question quickly.

Reich’s contributions to medicine and healing are conspicuously absent from the complementary-alternative medicine journals and the multitude of conferences on this topic that are held each year, despite the fact that many leaders in this field are aware of the value of his work—and may even use his discoveries in their practices.

For example, at a conference on energy medicine and cancer in Washington DC, I asked the late Dr Jeanne Achterberg, a pioneer in mind-body medicine and author of such books as Imagery in Healing and Woman As Healer, why there was no mention of The Cancer Biopathy, Wilhelm Reich’s ground-breaking book on orgone energy and cancer treatment, at the conference. She paused, thought a moment, and then said, “I suppose it’s safe to talk about that here. We didn’t understand Reich back then. But now we do.” She noted that Reich was correct about energy medicine.

To my surprise, Dr Achterberg continued, “My husband, Dr Frank Lawlis, has used orgone accumulators with his patients for 30 years but never speaks about it.” Dr Frank Lawlis was a renowned and highly influential psychologist and author whose work was focused on clinical and research methods exploring the mind-body relationship. Sadly, there are undoubtedly many other such examples of people afraid to reveal their knowledge and use of Reich’s discoveries. This has held back our ability to benefit from the use of orgone energy.

At present, the leaders of complementary-alternative medicine are as reluctant to conduct serious scientific and medical investigations of orgone energy as are their conventional colleagues. But, as Dr James M Gordon said nearly three decades ago:

The time is now right for double-blind, controlled clinical trials of orgone energy devices to be performed.

On Saturday May 24 and Sunday May 25 an Orgonomy conference was held in the home/office of Dr. Stephan Simonian in Granada Hills, CA. This conference was sponsored by The Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy. The conference was titled “ORGONE ENERGY IN ACTION”. Speakers were invited from different parts of the world. Considering the multinational composure of the speakers, the conference could be classified as international orgonomy conference. The conference began with Dr. Cony Huthsteiner’s introduction and
Dr. Simonian provided the opening speech.

Dr. Simonian’s speech was entitled “The Theory of Orgone Therapy and Beyond”. Dr. Simonian discussed the theory upon which orgone therapy is based on, as well as the effect of orgonomy in sociology, biophysics, medicine, psychology and psychiatry.

Mr. Michael Mannion spoke next. Mannion’s speech was entitled “Orgone Energy, Demonstrable, Measurable and Usable”. Under this topic, Mr. Mannion provided documentations and interesting data regarding the treatment of different medical conditions, most importantly, the healing of retinal macular degeneration by using an orgone energy device. Mr. Michael Mannion also delivered the closing lecture the next day under the topic of “The medical and scientific legacy of Wilhem Reich, proof of concept”. Mr. Mannion’s closing lecture was emotionally touching.

Professor Jorgos Kavouras, MD. was the next speaker. Professor Dr.Kavouras is a very effective speaker who is able to connect with the audience easily. His first lecture on Saturday May 24, was entitled “Experiences with and Practice of Physical Orgone Therapy”. During this speech, he talked about his experiences and the significant healing effects that he has obtained by using orgone energy devices. His second speech was entitled “Nature, Orgone Energy and Health”
which was also very interesting and moving.

Mr. Roberto Maglione, MSc, followed Professor Dr. Kavouras. His speech was entitled, “What is orgone energy, it’s relation to other forms of energies”. During this speech Mr. Maglione brought up the concept of Ether and discussed the fact that this concept was agreed upon and was accepted until Einstein declared that this concept is inaccurate and space is empty. However, considering the fact that all along throughout the history scientists and philosophers have accepted the concept of Ether, Einstein’s decline of this theory is questionable. Mr. Maglione also spoke on the next day, Sunday May 25, under the title of old and new methodology of measurement of orgone energy with the examples. His lecture during the second day was extensive and provided numerous examples and instruments that is able to produce such data.

Dr. Armando Vecchietti was the next speaker, who spoke about the formation of cancer cells and orgonomic prospective of early cancer diagnosis. His speech was in Italian but the speech was energetic and was translated by Mr. Emilio De Simone. It was pleasure to hear him speak in Italian with such an energy that was also, contiguous and energizing the audience. Dr. Vecchietti also, spoke the next day under the title of “Function of Tumor and Angiogenesis from orgonomic Point of View, and Notes on Practical Use of Orgone Accumulator by Wilhem Reich.

Mr. Leon Southage MSc was the next speaker who spoke under the title of “Brief Overview of Biophysical Experiments since Wilhelm Reich and Overview of Orgone Acupuncture”. He provided different published articles and experiments after Wilhelm Reich. He is very knowledgeable in orgone biophysics and he spoke the next day, under the title of “Reich’s ORUNUR Experiment, its significance and replication.

Ms. Patricia Estrada was the next speaker. Ms. Estrada is one of the founders of The Institute of Orgonomy in Mexico. She talked about the institute’s activities in Central and South America, its function in introducing and promoting orgonomy in Spanish speaking continents. Her speech attracted many online conections from abroad.

The next speaker was Mr. Amir Mohseni M.S. who was unable to travel to the United States from Iran. He was scheduled to talk about “Introduction to Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy in Iran, Social and a legal challengers”. Unfortunately, he was unable to obtain a Visa but he sent a paper which was read by Dr. Arin Simonian. In this speech he described the way he was introduced to Reich, his experience in treating patients by this approach and the surprising results he has observed. He briefly touched on the challenges in Iran regarding introducing orgonomy and also provided hopeful notes for future.

On Sunday May 25, Tina Lindermann,MD from Austria, talked about experiments with orgone therapy and also, status of orgonomy in Europe. This presentation was virtual. She spoke eloquently and discussed cases as well as the plan for future control studies in orgone therapy. It was a pleasure to listen to her.

Ms. Renata Reich Moise MSN, CNM. was the next speaker. Ms. Renata Reich Moise is Wilhelm Reich’s granddaughter and Eva Reich’s daughter. Her talk was about the orgone energy accumulator and its use in the home and community. She is also, president of the Wilhelm Reich’s Infant Trust and responsible for Wilhelm Reich’s Museum. She talked about the status of Wilhelm Reich’s Museum and actions that have been taken to keep the Museum well functional and in a good shape. This presentation was also virtual. Renata spoke eloquently and audience were deeply touched by her speech. It was pleasure to hear her.

Dr. Conny Huthsteiner was the next speaker that talked on Sunday May 25. Dr. Conny Huthseiner is a psychiatrist and during this conference was acting as the moderator. By attestation of all she did a marvelous job as moderator but also she talked about the subject of ”Orgone energy, Water and Weather”. Dr. Huthsteiner is a good speaker and it was a pleasure to hear her talking.

At the end of the sessions, a pannel discussion was held on Sunday May 25, and the audience had an opportunity to ask questions and the speakers were able to respond including those who were talking virtually. The venue of the conference provided a specious and relaxed environment with pine trees. Mr. Leon Southgate also wrote an article entitled “Reflections on the Orgone Conference”. He described the environment and his experience as :

“What a fantastic time I had , so many really special people and fabulous villa on a hillside to experience it all in. There was huge pine trees and a golf course below, listen to the birds from the comfort of your outdoor patio double orgone accumulator! Nice.”

The audience as well as speakers had an opportunity to mingle and related to each other and exchange ideas. They were able to enjoy a relaxed environment and enjoy intellectual contact with each other. This conference also, provided opportunity for us to plan for the future and discuss the possibilities of future activities. The next provisional international orgonomy conference will take place in Italy under the directorship of Roberto Maglione.

The conference speeches and sessions were video taped and will be published one at a time in the “Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy” as well as available on the “YouTube”. We will try to make both the video presentation as well as the transcript of the lectures available for the readers and hope this will have a snowball affect in further promoting introduction of orgonomy.

When Albert Einstein Met Wilhelm Reich

“For let me repeat once more: above all, the way of thinking is always more important than the facts.”
–Wilhelm Reich

Exploring the broad and deep subject of worldviews and ways of knowing can help us to better understand the place of orgonomy in the human desire to know who we are, where we came from, and where we are going in this vast, unknown universe. Today’s prevailing worldviews are the context within which this new science was born and developed. A comprehension of their main aspects will be useful in helping to see the value of Reich’s perspective and discoveries.

Two Worldviews Collide

In January 1941, in the persons of Albert Einstein and Wilhelm Reich, two scientific worldviews confronted one another. The encounter of these two individuals illustrates with remarkable clarity the decisive role worldviews play when they are put into action in the social setting. Einstein was 62 years old at that time and was the most famous scientist in the world. Wilhelm Reich was 43 years old and, outside of psychoanalytic circles, was an unknown émigré physician-scientist who had been living in the in the United States for less than two years.

In 1933, with the ascent to power of Hitler and the Nazis, Einstein renounced his German citizenship and immigrated to America where he was appointed Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. He became a United States citizen in 1940. In early 1939, physicists Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner and others, wrote a letter to the US Government about the possibility that the Hitler government may have an atomic bomb program. They were ignored. A few months later, after enlisting the support of Einstein, they wrote again. Einstein’s involvement made all the difference. President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed he could not risk having Germany develop an atomic bomb first. This letter is believed to be the key factor that motivated the United States to investigate the development of atomic weapons.

Roosevelt invited Einstein to meet with him and soon after that the United States initiated the Manhattan Project. It is now known that, at that time, the US Government was aware that there was no Nazi atomic bomb project. Officials consciously lied to the scientists working on the Manhattan Project. FDR and his confidantes knew that these scientists would never build such a terrible weapon unless they believed the Nazis were working to create atomic bombs.

Einstein, a pacifist, later regretted his crucial role in the creation of the Manhattan Project (though he did not participate in this effort) and ushering in the “Age of the Atomic Bomb.” He said in an interview in Newsweek magazine "had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing." The Manhattan Project is estimated to have cost about $2 billion in 1945 US dollars or $46 billion in 2025 US dollars.

In this same period, Wilhelm Reich was also pursuing ground-breaking energy investigations. However, he worked alone and unknown, without any financial support from any social institutions. Instead of being invited to meet with the President, Reich, one of the foremost anti-fascists in Europe and the author of the 1933 classic, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, was arrested by the FBI as a possible “enemy alien.” After three weeks of incarceration, he was released.

At one point, Reich only had $200 to his name and did not know how he would survive. He was at the very beginning of his investigations of a mass-free energy that existed before matter was created, while Einstein and his colleagues were investigating energy after the creation of matter in the attempt to create a bomb. Reich was using a new way of knowing—energetic functionalism—in his research. Einstein’s research was within the accepted structure of mechanistic physics. Reich’s approach was completely outside the framework of the science of his day.

Reich was, of course, unaware of the top-secret Manhattan Project, and Einstein’s connection to it, when he first wrote to Einstein on December 30, 1940 and met with him on January 13, 1941. The key point here is that Einstein’s mechanistic, relativistic science was within the prevailing worldview and was valued by those in power. It led to a massive, secret program whose results still threaten our lives today. In contrast, Reich’s embryonic science was outside of the worldview, not valued, and rejected.

The creation of the atomic bomb, combined with the rejection of a science of Life Energy, is a perfect example of a worldview in action, with all of its devastating consequences.

For thousands of years, there has been a stream of thought in human inquiry that was focused on the living, creative aspects of the universe. In our mechanistic-mystical era, in which the life-negative aspects of both science and religion jeopardize our very existence, this life-positive line of inquiry is not accorded the respect and attention it deserves. But it is in this stream of scientific thought that Reich’s ideas flow.

The difference in ways of knowing and worldviews is evident in the meeting of Albert Einstein and Wilhelm Reich. Reich’s reflections on the larger meaning of his discussions with Einstein are extremely valuable.

There have been scores of biographies of Einstein and a few have briefly noted the meeting between these two men. In these books, this encounter is looked at in terms of the personalities and reputations of the two individuals involved—the world-famous authority and the unknown outsider who is cast in a negative light. However, Reich came to understand his meeting with Einstein in a fundamentally different manner.

In a letter to Dr. Theodore Wolfe on February 18, 1944, published in American Odyssey Letters and Journals 1940-1947, Reich wrote “…after careful thought it seems to me that the whole affair goes back to something more profound than merely a personal conflict between Einstein and myself. Looking at the matter more closely, it appears that in effect, and entirely logically, two worlds of science have collided in this conflict. Einstein was cast in the role of representing inorganic physics, and it fell to me, often much to my regret, to represent a kind of energy which controls both the inorganic sector and the living. Neither Einstein’s personality or my own is involved here.”

On December 21, 1940, Reich wrote in his journal that he had considered writing to Einstein to ask for a meeting with him—but had decided not to do that. However, only nine days later, on December 30, he did write to Einstein asking to meet with him “to discuss a difficult and urgent scientific matter.” Reich gave his professional credentials to Einstein and then briefly explained that the visit had to do with the subject of “a specific biologically effective energy which in many ways behaves differently from anything that is known about electromagnetic energy.” In his letter, Reich emphasized that the energy “is visible and can be concentrated and measured.” Einstein quickly replied to Reich on January 6, 1941, agreeing to meet with him. And on January 13, Reich traveled to Princeton for his appointment with Einstein.

They spoke for five hours that day, from about 3:30 pm until 8:30 pm. Einstein immediately saw the scintillating orgone energy using a modified telescope Reich called an “orgonoscope.” But he wondered if the light phenomena were subjective sensations in his eyes. Einstein also observed the higher temperature at top of the orgone accumulator as compared with the room temperature (this is impossible according to mechanistic physics). However, Reich noted in his journal after the meeting that Einstein did not understand his thoughts on “free energy.”

Einstein wished to study the matter further and Reich had an experimental orgone device made for him. On February 1, 1941, Reich traveled again to Princeton and handed the device over to Einstein for study over the next three weeks. Reich had great hopes at this point for the possibility that he might work with Einstein on the investigation of orgone energy.

However, only one week later, on February 7, Einstein wrote to Reich saying that an assistant had explained the temperature difference as simply heat convection from the ceiling of the room to the tabletop on which the accumulator sat. Reich sent Einstein a long letter scientifically refuting the assistant’s objection and providing Einstein with more information about other physical manifestations of orgone energy. He stressed to Einstein that such a major discovery should not be dismissed on the basis of one misinterpretation of one experiment. He wrote, “The individual facts taken by themselves are impossible to understand—that is the reason for the difficulties I come up against.” Einstein did not respond scientifically to Reich ever again.

It is worth examining the meeting of these two scientists because major aspects of our world are evident in their encounter. As Reich noted in the quotation that opened this article”… the way of thinking is always more important than the facts.” Einstein’s assistant interpreted isolated, new facts in terms of his mechanistic scientific worldview and its way of knowing. Therefore, he came up with a misinterpretation of the results of the orgone energy experiment. Because Einstein shared the same worldview, his assistant’s conclusions made sense to him. They fit in with what he already believed.

Over the years, Reich tried to understand Einstein’s silence. On November 14, 1941, he wondered if Einstein had been turned against him by someone or if he just did not want to be involved. Two years later, he thought it likely that “pestilent rumors” about him had reached Einstein and caused this behavior. In an undated entry in late February or early March 1944, Reich wrote “Einstein’s behavior has remained a riddle to this day. Why did he not reply?”

Reich considered various reasons for Einstein’s failure to write to him. For example, he thought that Einstein may have not understood the orgone energy at all because it contradicted fundamental laws of physics. Or perhaps Einstein had understood orgone energy and saw that it could contribute to the collapse of Einstein’s life’s work. But Reich did not know for sure if either of these two thoughts were correct.

He concluded this entry by writing, “As the years went by, I increasingly tended toward the opinion that the meeting on 13 January 1941 was an encounter between two completely hostile worlds: mechanistic and functional astrophysics—the former a giant with infinite means of waging battle and wielding power, the latter a mere baby that had just been born. The newborn baby held in one fist the fact ‘cosmic energy’ and in the other fist the fact ‘sentient matter.’ This is enough to scare even the most courageous man.”

Einstein had seen the orgone energy with his own eyes but doubted his sense impressions. Although he observed the temperature difference in the thermometers above the orgone accumulator and in the room for over a week, he easily accepted his assistant’s views which “explained away” the phenomenon. In addition, Einstein ignored Reich’s detailed scientific refutation of the assistant’s misinterpretation. The subjective and objective manifestations of orgone energy were thought to be impossible in physics then. This is still true today.

I had an experience in 2004 with a well-known, highly regarded physicist from the Max Planck Institute demonstrating this. A mutual friend asked me to tell this physicist about the experiment that Reich had demonstrated to Einstein, a version of which she had seen at the Wilhelm Reich Museum. As soon as I mentioned the temperature difference, he grimaced, looked down, pounded the table at which we were sitting with his fist, and repeated over and over, “Impossible! Impossible!!” He never allowed me to describe the experiment. Here again, we see the power of a worldview in action in daily life.

In the decades since Reich met Einstein, our culture has done everything in its power to support the development of mechanistic science and its ways of knowing, notably the spread of the destructive, life-inimical nuclear science and its technology. It did so while simultaneously attacking and defaming the embryonic, life-positive energy investigations Reich was pursuing through his functional way of knowing.

Our life on Earth today is shaped at every level by the presence of the mechanistic worldview represented by Einstein and the absence of the functional worldview represented by Reich. We live in the same culture, with the same dominant worldview and ways of knowing, as did Einstein and Reich. It is crucial for each reader to be aware of the power of his or her own worldview since it will affect the very reading of this article. It also has been essential that I, as the author, be aware of my worldview while writing this.

We all have conscious beliefs, as well as unconscious and unexamined assumptions, as a result of being raised within today’s prevailing worldview. There is a strong tendency in all of us to interpret new knowledge in terms of our prior beliefs and assumptions. If readers unconsciously interpret new knowledge according to previous beliefs, they will not understand the information presented here.

Reich’s “way of knowing,” the tool of thinking he used in his exploration of Life Energy, is called “orgonomic functionalism” or “energetic functionalism.” It is as fundamentally different from both mechanistic scientific materialism and metaphysical idealism as orgone energy is from electromagnetism or metaphysical premises. It led him to a very different view of the universe and our place in it. In a powerful statement, written on December 22, 1952, Reich summarized his thoughts on the differences between his scientific view of the universe and Einstein’s:

“Einstein succeeded in fascinating the first half of the twentieth century just because he had emptied space. Emptying space, reducing the whole universe to a static nothing, was the only theory that could satisfy the desert-like character structure of man of this age. Empty, immobile space and a desert character structure fit well together. It was a last attempt on the part of armored man to withstand and withhold knowledge of a universe full of life energy, pulsating in many rhythms, always in a state of development and change; in one word, functional and not mechanistic, mystical or relativistic. It was the last barrier, in scientific terms, to the final breakdown of the human armoring.”

The struggle between those asserting a worldview of a meaningless universe filled with dead energy and matter, with life present only on our planet, and those describing a vibrant, dynamic cosmos with life everywhere, is ongoing today. The issues and conflicts that arose in the meeting of Reich and Einstein in 1941—a meeting of mechanistic and functional science—remain unresolved in 2025. But, importantly, the thrust of the development of science in the last 85 years has been in Reich’s direction. Our survival as a species hangs in the balance.

AUTHOR’S NOTE

It will likely come as a shock to many to learn that, in the US today, 1 in 3 women will develop cancer in their lifetime, with 1 in 8 women suffering from breast cancer. And that 1 in 2 men will develop cancer in their lifetime, with 1 in 8 getting prostate cancer.

In 2024, there will be an estimated 1,958,310 new cancer cases in the US (Males 1,010,310; Females 948,000) And there will be an estimated 609,820 new cancer deaths (Males 322,080; Females 287,740) It is predicted that there will be 300,590 new cases of breast cancer (Males 2,800; Females 297,790) and 43,700 breast cancer deaths (Males 530; Females 43,170).

About 414,350 new cases will involve the genital system (Males 299,540; Females 114,810) with new deaths from these cancers reaching 69,660 (Males 35,640; Females 34,020). There are expected to be 288,300 new cases of prostate cancer and 34,700 deaths from that disease in 2024.

It is a significant but little noted fact that about 30% of cancer in men and 40% of cancer in women involves the genital system or breast. This high percentage is much the same today as it was 20 years ago when the following two-part article was written. In light of these facts, the articles below remain relevant and require attention. They are not being published for their histortical interest. Rather, the unanswered questions that are raised in them deserve answers more than ever, answers that can only come from medical research.

“Reich’s theory that cancer is not primarily a tumor that arises mysteriously in an otherwise healthy organism but a systemic disease due to chronic sexual starvation will startle the average person who tends to view a disturbance of sexuality as distressing but not pathogenic. It will also enrage many who, because of moral prejudice, find such a connection offensive and untenable.”
—Chester M. Raphael, MD in his Foreword to The Cancer Biopathy by Wilhelm Reich.

In part one of this article, the 2003 annual statistics published by the American Cancer Society (ACS) were reviewed. The data compiled by the ACS reveal two extremely important facts:

1. Out of 1,334,100 new cases of cancer that will occur in 2003, fully 526,500 will be cancers of the genital system and of the breast; and

2. Out of 556,500 expected cancer deaths, an estimated 96,400 will be from cancers of the genital system and breast

In other words, nearly 40% of all new cancer cases in the United States in 2003 involved either the genital system or the breast in American men and women. And nearly 20% of all cancer deaths were caused by cancers of the breast or genital systems.

Why does cancer occur so frequently in these parts of the body? How is present-day human sexual functioning connected with the high incidence of morbidity and mortality from cancer that our society now experiences?

This article will look at the theory of the origin and nature of cancer put forward by the pioneering physician-scientist Wilhelm Reich in his 1948 book, The Cancer Biopathy. Cancer is one example of a type of disease Reich referred to as a “biopathy.” He wrote, “The term biopathies refers to all disease processes caused by a basic dysfunction of the autonomic life apparatus. Once started, this dysfunction can manifest itself in a variety of symptomatic disease processes.”

For Reich, the biopathic process can lead to cancer in some people, to cardiovascular disease in others, and to catatonic or paranoid schizophrenia in still others. He included some cases of angina pectoris, asthma, epilepsy, anxiety neurosis, multiple sclerosis, chorea and chronic alcoholism as other examples of biopathic disease. The term “biopathy” was used by Reich to describe a patient’s condition only when “it is definite that the disease process begins with a disturbance of pulsation, no matter what secondary disease pattern results.”

To the mechanistic mind, it probably seems inconceivable that such different diseases can be related. What could be the common denominator of all of these diverse conditions? For Reich, it is “a disturbance of the natural function of pulsation in the total organism.” In his view, the organism, in whole and in part, oscillates betweenexpansion and contraction, with biological pulsation being indicative of healthy functioning. The heartbeat is a good example of this biological activity.

Many healing traditions from around the world-such as Ayurveda or Traditional Chinese Medicine-emphasize “balance” as integral to health. These and other healing traditions also refer to “energy” in the body. All of the ancient traditions of medicine, and many of the more recent approaches, such as homeopathy, recognize the existence of a life energy or life force in the organism. And all of these healing techniques emphasize the importance of the movement of the energy in the body for maintaining wellness and curing disease. The movement of energy in the body is believed to bring about a state of “energy balance.” The free movement of this vital energy is the foundation of good health. However, in these traditions, “energy” remains a concept, premise or principle, whether it be spiritual or philosophical.

For Reich, in contrast, the life energy (which he called orgone) is a physical energy that is demonstrable, measurable and usable. (See The Cancer Biopathy, Chapter 4, “The Objective Demonstration of Orgone Energy.”) He, too, recognized that a state of “energy balance” is essential to health. But for him, that “energy balance” comes about through the sexual act. It is the biophysical function of the orgasm to discharge the bioenergy that builds up in the body. Energy builds up in the body, is discharged through the orgasm, keeping the body in “balance.” Sexual dysfunction leads to being “out of balance.” And it can cause, not only emotional distress, but also, physical disease.

To Reich, sexual dysfunction, and the concomitant biological stasis of energy, is the single common denominator underlying the many manifestations of cancer. But the crucial relationship between impaired sexual functioning and energy stasis with diseases such as cancer are not addressed in most other healing traditions. For example, I have attended many excellent seminars on complementary approaches to health, and on integrating complementary and conventional approaches to cancer, and have never heard a single mention of the role of sexual function and dysfunction in health and disease. This was true whether the conference lasted for one-day or for one week.

Reich’s thesis concerning cancer was stated clearly and succinctly in The Cancer Biopathy, “Sexual stasis represents a functional disturbance of biological pulsation. Sexual excitation is a primal function of the living plasma system.The sexual function is demonstrably the productive life function per se. A chronic disturbance of this function must of necessity coincide with a biopathy.”

According to Reich, this disturbance is felt in two principal ways: (1) in an indirect manner as an emotional disturbance (i.e., neurosis or psychosis) or (2) directly as a functional organic disturbance (i.e., a physical disease). In either case, Reich wrote, “The central mechanism of a biopathy is a disturbance in the discharge of biosexual excitation.” Physical, chemical and emotional processes are all at play in biopathic conditions. Emotional factors are involved as well.

Reich’s research focused on elucidating the true nature of the energy expressed in the orgasm. His findings and conclusions are presented in The Discovery of the Orgone: Vol. 1, The Function of the Orgasm and Vol. 2, The Cancer Biopathy. To comprehend Reich’s theory of cancer, it is necessary to understand his findings concerning orgone energy. There are two major obstacles in the way to achieving this: (1) the mechanistic understanding of disease and (2) the incapacity of the average man and woman to perceive the movement of the orgone energy in his or her body.

Reich did not claim that a cure to cancer had been found. “I do not publish this book without serious concern,” he wrote, “mainly that many readers of our literature will now assume that a cure for cancer has been found. This is not at all the case.” In fact, he came to understand that prevention, not cure, is the ultimate solution to cancer. As Dr. Raphael wrote, “The means to this solution are to be found primarily in the social realm, for it is our repressive social order that creates the sexual misery and the resulting stagnation of biological energy from which cancer originates.” It is more obvious than ever that humanity is suffering severely from sexual dysfunction. And cancer incidence and mortality increase dramatically with each passing year.

In the past, Reich’s contribution to an understanding of cancer has been received with either blind rejection or silence. No major attempt has been made over the past 55-60 years to examine Reich’s functional theory of the origin and development of cancer and other biopathic diseases, including treatment possibilities and the potential for disease prevention.

Today, the nature of cancer remains a mystery. Cancer treatment—whether conventional, complementary or integrative—is still largely symptomatic with unpredictable results. Reich remains ignored by the overwhelming majority of conventional, complementary and integrative physicians and health practitioners. This brief two-part article barely skims the surface of Reich’s contribution in this area, providing only an inkling of the wealth of information contained in his book. It is time that fresh, open-minded scrutiny be given to the valuable insights offered by Reich in The Cancer Biopathy. It is needed more than ever.

Disclaimer: This article is copyrighted material that was originally published on 2004 Journal of the Mindshift Institute

AUTHOR’S NOTE

It will likely come as a shock to many to learn that, in the US today, 1 in 3 women will develop cancer in their lifetime, with 1 in 8 women suffering from breast cancer. And that 1 in 2 men will develop cancer in their lifetime, with 1 in 8 getting prostate cancer.

In 2024, there will be an estimated 1,958,310 new cancer cases in the US (Males 1,010,310; Females 948,000) And there will be an estimated 609,820 new cancer deaths (Males 322,080; Females 287,740) It is predicted that there will be 300,590 new cases of breast cancer (Males 2,800; Females 297,790) and 43,700 breast cancer deaths (Males 530; Females 43,170).

About 414,350 new cases will involve the genital system (Males 299,540; Females 114,810) with new deaths from these cancers reaching 69,660 (Males 35,640; Females 34,020). There are expected to be 288,300 new cases of prostate cancer and 34,700 deaths from that disease in 2024.

It is a significant but little noted fact that about 30% of cancer in men and 40% of cancer in women involves the genital system or breast. This high percentage is much the same today as it was 20 years ago when the following two-part article was written. In light of these facts, the articles below remain relevant and require attention. They are not being published for their histortical interest. Rather, the unanswered questions that are raised in them deserve answers more than ever, answers that can only come from medical research.

Perhaps the very title of this article is puzzling to many readers. What does the question even mean, many may wonder. “What connection between human sexual functioning and cancer?” some may ask.

In 1999, researchers in the United States reported that between 30-40 percent of American men and women suffered from such severe sexual dysfunction that they had no sexual life and did not desire one. Are there pathological physical consequences to this disturbance of a basic biological function as well as emotional and psychological ones?

Let’s look at the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) 2003 annual cancer statistics, which were published in the January/February 2003 issue of the Society’s publication, Ca-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, to get a clear picture of cancer incidence and mortality involving the breast and genital system in men and women.

The ACS estimates that in 2003, there will be about 1,334,100 new cancer cases in men and women in the United States. The breakdown by gender is 675,300 new cancer cases among men and 658,800 among women.

The ACS also estimates that there will be 556,500 deaths from cancer in the United States in 2003, of which 285,900 will occur in men and 270,600 in women.

There will be an estimated 212,600 new cases of breast cancer in 2003 (211,300 in women and 1,300 in men) and 313,600 estimated cases of cancers of the genital system (229,000 in men; 83,700 in women).

According to the ACS, 39,800 women will die from breast cancer in 2003 (as will 400 men). A total of 56,300 Americans will die from cancer of the genital system (29,500 men and 26,800 women).

The annual statistics compiled by the ACS reveal two extremely important facts:

1. Out of 1,334,100 new cases of cancer that will occur in 2003, fully 526,500 will be cancers of the genital system and of the breast; and

2. Out of 556,500 expected cancer deaths, an estimated 96,400 will be from cancers of the genital system and breast

In other words, nearly 40% of all new cancer cases in the United States in 2003 will involve either the genital system or the breast in American men and women. And nearly 20% of all cancer deaths will be caused by cancers of the breast or genital systems.

There is no medical research into why this is happening. To me this is astounding, and has been for over one quarter of a century.

I first noticed this correlation in 1977 when I worked for the American Cancer Society on its clinical journal Ca-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. The percentage of new cancer cases and cancer deaths from these types of cancer has held relatively steady over the last 25 years, no matter what statistical methods the ACS was using at any given time.

I pointed out this statistical finding to fellow editors, physicians, and colleagues in other departments at the ACS. To my great surprise, I discovered that it meant little or nothing to them.

At the time, I sent query letters to editors at professional medical publications, as well as magazines for the public that covered health issues, suggesting that I write an article on the substantial cancer incidence and mortality from breast and genital system cancers and the lack of research into this phenomenon. To my even greater surprise, there was no interest whatsoever in publishing an article on these statistical correlations and the lack of investigation into it.

Interestingly, after I would inform the editors of the large percentage of cancers occurring at these sites, and explain that there was no research into why this was happening, editor after editor would ask, “Where’s the story?” To which I would reply, “The high rates of new cancer cases, the high death rates from the cancers, and the lack of investigation into it — that’s the story!”

During the 1980s and 1990s, I continued to attempt to interest editors, to no avail. Today’s journalists show no more interest. In March 2003, I had an opportunity to discuss this subject with the producer of a major television news show. Even though this intelligent, savvy producer has had cancer, no interest was expressed in reporting the statistical facts or investigating the subject more deeply.

Imagine the uproar and outrage if it were discovered that 40% of new cancers and 20% of cancer deaths each year occurred in the brain or liver or kidneys but that the reasons for this were not being sought. It would not be tolerated by the public or the mass media.

But 525,600 new cancers cases and 96,400 cancer deaths in 2003 alone apparently are not of sufficient interest. Neither is there a desire to explore why there is a complete lack of investigation into the causes of this phenomenon.

The standard responses that “cancer is not one disease, but hundreds of diseases” or “the causes of cancer are multifactorial” or even a blanket response of “there is no connection” do not suffice. Why? Because no research has been done to support such an “explanation.”

So the question stands, “What is the connection between the development of, and death from, cancer of the genital system and of the breast in women and men and present-day human sexual functioning?”

A subsequent article will explore one attempt to answer that question.

Disclaimer: This article is copyrighted material that was originally published on 2003 Journal of the Mindshift Institute

A PRELIMINARY REPORT

Improvement in a case of intermediate, dry, age-related macular degeneration in 83-year-old female patient associated with an unconventional modality

ABSTRACT

An 82-year-old female patient, now 83 years old, was referred by her ophthalmologist to a vitreoretinal surgeon and macular disease specialist for evaluation of, and treatment for, intermediate stage dry macular degeneration both eyes (OU); drusen OU; posterior vitreous detachment OU (April 2021). She also had minimal cataracts. The patient’s treatment plan is standard for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) with one variable—an unconventional bioenergetic treatment developed by Wilhelm Reich, MD (1)

INTRODUCTION

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) affects the retina and leads to a progressive loss of vision. AMD is the main cause of irreversible blindness in those over age 50 in the Western World. In the United States, some form of AMD affects an estimated 20 million. AMD is predicted to increase dramatically in the West, rising to about 288 million worldwide by 2040. (2)

Drusen are yellow deposits of lipids and proteins that alter the physiology of the external retinal layers. Dry AMD is morphologically defined by the accumulation of drusen without neovascularization. They do not cause AMD but are associated with an increased risk of the disease. Drusen enlarge the space between the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and Bruch’s membrane. It is well-known that drusen themselves worsen visual acuity. Drusen directly relate to the disease state. Their amount; location behind the macular region of the retina; and size all determine AMD severity.

Drusen are a mechanical source of damage to the intricate architecture at the choroid-pigment border. Drusen alter planar distribution of photoreceptors which may contribute to visual distortion. Drusen also may be regarded as a consequence of more primary alterations of the pigment epithelium. The morphological regression of drusen is associated with improvement in AMD.

CASE

The patient was in overall good health; taking no medications; exercised regularly; never smoked; drank wine with dinner occasionally; had normal blood pressure, cholesterol levels and weight. She was treated successfully for breast cancer at age 67 and ovarian cancer at age 33.

The initial Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) macula images confirmed the presence of intermediate dry AMD in both eyes. Later tests showed that AMD was not progressing. The patient’s images from October 2022 and January 2023 revealed resolved drusen and RPE changes right eye (OD) and resolving drusen and RPE changes left eye (OS).

At first, the retinal images documented that in 2021 AMD was not progressing. In 2022, the first signs appeared that the patient’s condition was improving. By October 2022 and even more so in January 2023, significant improvement was revealed by the retinal images taken. Continued improvement was evident in retinal images taken in April 2023 and even more so in July 2023. Such positive results cannot be attributed to the over-the-counter products (AREDS-2 or Macu-Guard) being used by the patient at the clinician’s suggestion.

There are cases where the body reabsorbs drusen, revealing damage to adjacent tissue. In such cases, AMD may be worsened, making the elimination of drusen not always desirable. However, in this patient, Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) images show not only the regression of drusen, but improvement in the health of adjacent retinal tissue, making the resolving of drusen desirable.

DISCUSSION

With no effective treatment to offer patients, a wide range of approaches are being employed by clinicians and researchers in the treatment and study of AMD. The literature includes reports on the use of various nutraceuticals; nutritional and lifestyle modification; and even intercessory prayer. (3)

The patient described in this report used a form of bioenergetic medicine pioneered in the 1930s and 1940s by Wilhelm Reich, MD. Reich originally thought he was dealing with “bioelectricity,” but his laboratory and human experiments revealed the existence of a non-electromagnetic specific biological energy, which he termed orgone energy. Reich was a 20th Century Western physician-scientist whose experimental work made bioenergy demonstrable, measurable and usable. (4,5) Concepts such as prana in Ayurvedic medicine; chi in Traditional Chinese medicine; and elan vital and entelechy in vitalist traditions are inklings of the existence of such a specific biological energy.

Reich’s work was not accepted in his own time, but times change. (6) It is not unusual for new knowledge that challenges the status quo to be marginalized or rejected. It was not until 75 years after his death that Newton’s work was accepted, for example. And it took 80 years for quantum mechanics to move from hypothesis to practical use. Now half the world’s economy depends on quantum science. Reich’s approach is little known today but is used worldwide by physicians in many nations.

Reich was not alone in his era in studying bioenergy. Experimental work in bioenergy has a long history: from the late 1930s by HS Burr and FCS Northrop at Yale; to Wilhelm Reich in the 1940s and 1950s; followed by Reich’s student Dr. Bernard Grad at McGill in the 1950s to the 1990s; to Robert O. Becker in the 1970s and James L Oschmann in the 1980s and 2000s; to present work by Prof-Dr Jorgos Kavouras in Germany. There are many other examples that could be cited.

Fritjof Capra, PhD, a physicist, systems theorist, and deep ecologist has a more accurate assessment of Reich: “Wilhelm Reich was a pioneer of the paradigm shift. He has brilliant ideas, a cosmic perspective, and a holistic and dynamic worldview that far surpassed the science of his time and was not appreciated by his contemporaries.” (7)

Bioenergetic Technique Used

With electricity, it is well-known that some materials are insulators and others are conductors. With the non-electromagnetic bioenergy, metal attracts the energy but immediately repels it. Organic materials attract the energy but bind it. A flow of physical, non-electromagnetic energy is created through the use of alternating layers of organic and metallic materials, with the outer layer being organic and the inner layer metallic. (8)

The patient uses a funnel made of galvanized steel. The outside of the funnel, which must be magnetic, is wrapped with the layered organic-metallic material.
The patient uses three alternating layers of cotton and steel wool. The alternating layers create a flow of energy toward the inside of the funnel.

When the funnel opening is held up to the eyes, one at a time, the energy can be felt as heat or warmth. This subjective impression can be confirmed objectively by using technology such as thermal infrared imaging cameras. (See Figures 1-2)

For the first 9 months or so, the patient held the funnel close to the eyes, one eye at a time, for one minute at a time, once daily. During this period, her condition was stable. From that point on, she began using the funnel one eye at a time, for one minute at a time, twice daily. This approach coincided with increasing improvement in her condition evident at each subsequent visit to the retinal specialist.

She has been doing this regularly since the diagnosis of AMD was made and confirmed in April 2021. However, in July 2023, she returned to using the funnel one eye at a time, for one minute, once daily. This was done at the suggestion of her retinal specialist who thought that, because the drusen were gone, less irradiation of the eyes with orgone energy might be necessary. Future retinal scans will reveal what impact this change has on the patient.

The OCT macula images included in this report clearly show that, as of July 2023, the drusen are resolved in both eyes. (Figures 3-5) In Figure 6, the April 2023 image shows three small drusen that have been reduced to just one even smaller drusen by July 2023. The drusen apparent in both eyes in April 2021 are resolved in both eyes.

In addition, the patient’s images show that the retinal tissue is healthier in later images than in the earliest ones.

The patient has followed a standard treatment regimen with one major variable: the use of a bioenergetic technique that assists the body’s natural healing functions. It seems likely that this variable in treatment accounts for the improvement in her condition.

CONCLUSION

At present, there are no effective treatments for dry AMD. We are reporting a case where a form of bioenergetic treatment appears to be associated with an initial regression of, and subsequent disappearance of, drusen as assessed by standard technology. There has also been an improvement in the health of retinal tissue. Further use of this approach could reveal novel insights into dry AMD, possibly bringing about improved treatment.

The results presented here indicate that this approach could be of significant value for many patients with dry AMD. The use of this bioenergetic technique seems to be preventing further progression of dry AMD in this patient as well as bringing about improvement in the patient’s condition. A pilot study seems warranted in light of the significant disappearance of drusen and improved quality of vision in this patient.

This form of treatment is easy for patients to self-administer; has no harmful side effects; and is remarkably inexpensive. In addition, it does not require that the patient forego any other treatment presently recommended.

The major obstacles in the way of considering further research into this approach are not medical. They arise from our Western worldview in general; the assumptions of contemporary mechanistic-reductionistic biomolecular medicine in particular; and a near-complete lack of knowledge about bioenergetic functions in the human organism. What can remove these obstacles? An open mind; scientific curiosity; and a desire to improve the health and lives of millions of patients.

Figure 1. Jon East, at the time with BBC, with bioenergy device (orgone energy accumulator) at Agema Infrared Systems Ltd, UK which provided the physics lab for his use.

Figure 2. Image on real time color monitor taken by Thermovision 900SW (shortwave) & TE (thermoelectrically cooled) infrared camera. (Sensitive to 0.1 degrees C). Blue color is cold; yellow is room temperature; red is hot. Present with Jon East were a physician in general practice; an infrared camera engineer; and two physicians who specialize in using infrared cameras for medical purposes. White shape on left is the hand of a healer being tested in the BBC segment. The white shape on right is Jon East holding the red funnel which is at least 4C hotter than the ambient room temperature with no heat source present to account for the high temperature. The infrared image shows the energy radiating from the hand of the healer, and also, from the funnel. The visible radiating energy is an example of what is occurring energetically when the patient uses the bioenergy funnel on her eyes.

Figure 3. Retinal Image 1: Top image was taken July 2022; bottom image is from Jan 2023

Figure 4. The top figure is from July 2022. The bottom figure is from October 2022.

Figure 5. Retinal Image 2. Top image was taken July 2022; bottom image is from January 23, 2023.

Figure 6. The top image is from April 2023. The bottom image is from July 2023. The drusen are essentially gone.

References

1. Reich, Wilhelm. The Orgone Energy Accumulator—Its Scientific and Medical Use. (Orgone Institute. 1951)
2. Bright Focus Foundation facts and Figures (2023)
3. Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer (C Romez, K Freedman, D Zaritzky, JW Brown – Explore, 2021 – Elsevier)
4. Reich, Wilhelm. The Function of the Orgasm (Orgone Institute Press. 1942)
5. Reich, Wilhelm. The Cancer Biopathy (Orgone Institute Press. 1948)
6. Mannion, Michael. Historical Perspective Wilhelm Reich, 1897–1957. Alternative and Complementary Therapies. June 1997.194-199
7. Capra, Fritjof. The Turning Point (Random House Publishing Group. 1982)
8. Reich, Wilhelm. The Orgone Energy Accumulator—Its Scientific and Medical Use. (Orgone Institute. 1951)