The healing world’s dirty little secret

Today I’m going to spill the beans on the dirty secret that most healing teachers / healing modalities don’t talk about.  You may already know this – I believe most of you do – but it’s the great unspoken secret.

Here it is:  Healing techniques don’t heal people; people do.


  • Most healing techniques don’t really work, at least not the way their founders/ teachers believe they do.
  • The miracle results you hear about come from great therapists, not from great tools / modalities.  Most healing modalties exist because teachers or practitioners are confused about the difference between their technique working and their own energy just Being.
  • If people stopped doing their techniques and could just “Be” present with people, their success rate would go up astronomically!

Let’s look at the evidence:

  • Sick people very rarely can heal themselves, even with the most effective techniques. I’m forever hearing people say “I can help people, but I just can’t heal myself.”  No excuses – if the technique actually worked it would be just as effective at self healing. If self-healing is harder, then the healing is not coming from the technique itself;
  • Every technique, even the really slow and ineffective ones, has some success. Every healing modality has some miracle success stories (usually witnessed by a small number of successful people);
  • Many people spend thousands of dollars on healing courses and came back pretty much the same as when they left.  People spend a fortune trying to “learn how to heal” before they realise that you can’t – healing isn’t something you can do; and
  • Most people using most techniques will never get miracle results.  Some people will get miracle results no matter what they do!

I’ll say it again: Healing techniques don’t heal people; people do.

Example: I taught a healing modality for 5 years and I had some extraordinary miracles.  I certainly wasn’t the only one, I have heard other great stories from the founder and a few leading teachers. But… my students, my friends, my clients, other people had trouble replicating the results.

To this day I still get written abuse from the founder of that modality saying “how dare you say that XX Healing doesn’t work?”  She points, as evidence, to the miracles that have occurred here and there – and I agree that there are miracles.  But the point they miss is that 50, or 70 or maybe 90% of their students are not getting the same miracles. A few miracles is either a placebo or a healer’s Beingness. It does not prove the technique itself works. And that’s the point of my article today.

It’s not the healing technique that matters, it’s You.

Those teachers / practitioners you might have met saying “I achieved this great result with XX Healing,” they would have got the same result with just about any technique.  Take a really great homeopath and tell him that he only has sugar pills to cure people with, not remedies.  A really great homeopath will STILL get a fantastic success rate with sugar pills, because it’s not remedies that heal people, it’s the homeopath him/herself.

I know a really great homeopath that heals without remedies. I know a great kinesiologist that no longer does muscle testing.  I know plenty of Theta Healers who stopped connecting to the imagined Creator … all of them got better results when they stopped the tools of their trade. Why?  Because healing techniques don’t heal people, people heal people.

This applies to Western medicine too.  A sincere doctor giving someone a sugar pill will get a higher success rate than a cold, indifferent doctor handing over some new wonder drug.  Did you know that this applies to surgery too?  Yes, a sincere and caring surgeon can sometimes make a minor incision and “pretend” to do surgery.  This can have a higher success rate than a different surgeon doing the invasive surgery.  Even doctors know: It’s not the drug / surgery that matters, it’s the doctor. This used to be attributed to something called the placebo effect, but that’s not true. The placebo effect is about the client’s belief in the procedure, we are talking about the something MUCH more important: The practitioner’s belief in themselves.

I’ll say it again: Healing techniques don’t heal people; people do.

Do you get it?

If I go to see you as a healer, I don’t care what technique you use. You can wave your hand and say “Abracadabra” for all I care.  It’s You that I want to see. It’s your Being, not the tools, not the words, not the tricks of the trade.

Why am I telling you this?

I’m stating what I hope is the obvious here because it’s time to change the focus of this blog, and the focus of the healing world.

It’s time to put a change how the world perceives healing.  Healing techniques don’t “work” just because 1 or 2 or 10 people healed from that modality.  The fact that the founder of a modality healed themself of cancer doesn’t prove the modality works – it only proves that the person was (in that moment) emotionally ready to heal themself.

As far as I’m concerned a modality doesn’t work unless everyone using it gets instant results.  Everyone, including sick people healing themselves.  If it only works for some people some of the time, then it’s either a placebo or a wonderful Beingness that some have, but not the technique working.

If a really expensive new cancer drug only healed 10% of people, you’d probably say that was a bit disappointing. But a spiritual healing technique that heals 10% of people is said to be miraculous.  Really?

Did you know that a sugar pill can heal 30-40% of people?  Receiving a few great testimonials does not prove that your technique works.  This is so important that in the USA, the FTC has made it illegal to advertise your healing work using testimonials that aren’t backed by scientific research.

Perhaps uniquely in the healing world, I praise the FTC.  I know that lots of sham healing modalities are based only on the testimonials of the founder and a small percent of success stories. These modalities are slowly being shut down.

Healing was never about tools, technique or commands. Healing is about (a) why a person (the practitioner) is drawn to healing courses or work in the first place; and (b) why a person (the client) is drawn to be healed.

Healing is about the PEOPLE.  Consciousness.  The tools really don’t matter.

Hang on, doesn’t Simon teach some healing technique?

Yes, I teach a healing technique, but that’s just a distraction from the main event.  If you watch my instant healing videos, I ask you to freeze frame on the moment when the healing happens. Can you find it?  Was there any word / command / technique that actually made the physical change?  The answer is no.  The only reason I talk out loud in my demo is to give the class something to think about, or perhaps something to “do” till they are ready to “Be.”

My friends, I’m not here to teach a technique, I’m here to teach people how to Be.  The healing comes from your essential nature, not from the words you say or the things you do.

My job – the real function of RPT – is to connect people with the place in themselves where the healing comes from. That is Beingness.  Once you are there it doesn’t matter whether you heal as “Simon says” or with homeopathy or Abracadabra.  It doesn’t matter.

Over the comings weeks I’m going to be introducing you to a fresh look at the Placebo Effect, and the most important concept in RPT: coherence.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is what it’s all about.  When you achieve coherence, or full Beingness, or Mastery, or whatever words your science or spirituality call it, you heal just by being emotionally present.

People heal people, healing techniques have become irrelevant.

Comments / thoughts

A blog exists on comments and debate.  Please write!  Especially if you happen to disagree with me!  (And I know people do, I get plenty of abuse from the “XX Healing works” crowd.)  I love a good debate or discussion.   Have you seen a healing technique that you think works independently from who is doing it?  Do you think that Reference Point Therapy would still work if anyone (a robot?) says “I acknowledge you,” without any emotional presence at all?

Let us know what you think, and join the mailing list to be the first to know about the new coherence updates.

With Love!

April 24, 2010 in Coherence, Placebo effect
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

30 Responses

  1. Hey Simon,
    AWESOME MAN, I love the way you put it so Simply.
    It is that simple.


    Jude Reply:

    Hi Simon – i am loving your new blog! Regarding ‘Healing’s Dirty little Secret’ and Beingness, does this also mean that Beingness heals animals as well! i am guessing it’s the same thing but maybe I can invite you to comment further.


    simonrose Reply:

    yes, of course! Same for animals.
    Great to hear from you and welcome to the new blog.


  2. Greetings,

    RPT has just recently been brought to my awareness therefore am still in the process of acquiring knowledge, as well as learning the differences compared to Theta Healing of which I am more familiar.

    Just one little comment: After reading the pdf file on Placebo Effect, would it not be more accurate to state that it is not simply the “delivery mechanism” but rather the interaction of the “deliverer + delivery mechanism + recipient” that is responsible for a change to occur (or for a placebo effect to exist)? It would seem if there is a deficiency in any of those three components, the resultant effect would be less than satisfactory.

    Just one my thoughts on this interesting topic.

    Thank you for your time,


  3. Brilliant Simon, I totally agree, it is the beingness that is the key and I said years ago, it is you as a person that makes it happen. If you are not clear as a practioner then you need to be clear, in other words, be your beingness be in the moment, the present and things will happen.

    Thank you for making me realise something I already knew if you know what I mean!

    Monica Wafer


  4. Holly Brennan Shabtai

    I love it! I feel it and know it all to be true for me in this time and in my experience. Being present with the client/friend in a neutral energy-field held toward the issue at hand as well as where/when it all comes from , magic happens and the rest is really smoke and mirrors , which we all seem to need and enjoy most of the time.

    Thanks for the article and your fun and inspiring perspective!


  5. A technique can be a security blanket in different ways. It can give us something to hide behind so that we can NOT OWN both perceived success and failure, depending on our particular baggage. It can also allow us to feel that we know things that others do not, that we can do things to them that they cannot do for themselves, and that that they need us. That can keep our clients in a victim energy. It can also perpetuate a feeling of separation. To varying degrees of course and I don’t mean to imply any bad intent.

    RPT has an energy of “working with” a client rather than “doing to” and I love that but it would still be possible for us to hide behind this if that’s what we wanted.

    About this time last year I first took a look at Simon’s blog and cast off a layer or two in the space of a few seconds as I read. I can’t remember the exact words but Simon said something about not being separate and not having to connect. I’d never felt that anyway. The words that did make a difference were around stepping up and owning the healing, acknowledging that it wouldn’t have happened if I wasn’t there. I’d been wriggling around at great pains to get clients and students to acknowledge that they could be and do everything, that it’s in them already and that my role was simply to facilitate that. I kind of knew that I was dodging that in myself, though. But that first time I expanded into myself all pretense fell away and I was free. That’s not always completely comfortable but that’s ok. Not everyone gets better but that’s ok. I had a few difficult experiences with organisations and individuals in the process but that’s ok too. I cannot claim complete coherence but I’m way less incoherent and that’s definitely ok.

    So, yes I completely agree.

    love Sue xx


  6. Thank you for this information. This revealed many areas that I need to ‘work’ on. I have been searching and taking class, after class for years trying to find the right modality. It is inside me and has been all along. I just need to find and trust my own inner wisdom and express that more fully! AHA! Perhaps, I finally get it! Many thanks for your courage in revealing the truth! I await your next inspiration. And yes, I think sometimes I am intimidated by your vast knowledge, in addition to thinking I really don’t have anything of value to contribute. Yes indeed more self esteem issues and limiting beliefs to release and heal! Thanks Simon!


    simonrose Reply:

    thanks, I really appreciate you sharing that. I honor you and acknowledge your inner wisdom. You have shown already how much you can share – for everyone here. Thankyou.


  7. Dawn Henderson

    Hi Simon

    I suppose the reason I don’t tend to write in to the blog is that I don’t feel I have much to contribute (perhaps this is an issue I need to heal?) but I log on several times a week and read all the new information avidly. Your articles are incredibly useful to understanding exactly how the evolving process works.

    As a level 2 practitioner I am still not confident in my ability to bring about healing and so any information that helps me understand myself and the process more clearly is very helpful. Looking forward to the piece on coherence.

    A big thank-you for your generosity



  8. As a “sick person,” I find this interesting but not promising. It means I am dependent on another person to listen to me and just be with my issue, and I cannot effect the same thing for myself. But I’ve been taught that we are responsible for our own healing. Before I read this, I thought I was contributing much more to the healing than this says I am. I thought RPT was working well–not magic, but well. I felt the effects of a session physically. Now I am wondering how I fit into the healing process, if at all. Maybe it’s only my responsibility to find the right person to be with. But how can the whole world do this?


    simonrose Reply:

    Dear Amy

    Firstly, in RPT, you are not a sick person. You are a healthy Being experiencing sickness. It’s an important distinction. We don’t fix, we recognize what’s within.

    I thank you for raising an excellent point to my attention. I can see how this “truth” can disappoint or frustrate people. I get that.

    Please understand that it’s nothing to do with RPT, it is the “healing world’s dirty little secret.” It applies just as much to the medical profession. Many studies have shown that if the doctor believes in the technique or believes the patient will heal, they heal. If the doctor believes the patient will die, they die.

    Your question was: isn’t this disempowering to the client?

    My answer is “no.” In the medical model, it is disempowering if your doctor tells you that you aren’t going to make it. However I have met many people who fired their doctor and found a new doctor who believed in them. In other words the power rests in the patient to be empowered in their choice of practitioner.

    Amy, you are totally responsible for your own healing. I cannot wave a magic wand for you. You need to be drawn to a practitioner that will help you, and you have to choose to heal. I cannot do that for you.

    You said you thought RPT was working for you and you felt the results – wonderful. So take responsibility for it and choose that it’s going to work for you. Your practitioner can not do that for you.

    You raise another key point – how can the whole world do this?

    I’ll take it as my responsibility to guide people there. I am sharing the steps with you. I’m not suggesting people have to book a session or do a course to get there. I’m saving people a lot of money. People are wasting thousands of dollars on therapies that will never heal them, and especially on practitioners that don’t have their own “stuff” sorted, so they only rarely help their clients. (I’m not saying sick practitioners can’t heal clients, but you have to agree their success rate is a lot lower than someone who is 100% healthy and coherent.)

    It is time to end the common archetype of the “wounded healer.” We must heal ourselves first. It’s not as if that’s difficult – it’s never been easier. We just need to convince therapists to stop making excuses and to take responsibility for themselves.

    What excuses do healers make? A good one is “the healing comes from god not me, so it doesn’t matter if I’m sick / smoke / tired etc.” This is a misguided delusion. Healings may come from a wonderful place, but the practitioner’s energy is always the most important ingredient. It doesn’t matter if you believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster ( comes in to do the instant healings for you, you the practitioners till need to be able to hold a clear space for that to occur. There delusion that healings come from upstairs is used as an excuse by sick people to do healings without working on their stuff first. We can stop that by taking responsibility for the fact that we ARE the healing process, so we must (and can) transform ourselves first.

    It’s time also to end the pressure of “I have to heal myself.” Some people can, but many need help. That’s OK, let’s see how we can guide them to that quickly, efficiently and at minimal expense.

    By speaking the truth about these things we can only have one effect for you and people like you: to help you take responsibility for your journey and speed up your healing.

    Sorry for my “rant,” it’s just so important that people get this.

    with love


    Amy Reply:

    Not a rant. Good reply. I did actually take responsibility and fire my doctor for a less than positive attitude about my recent healing. He was wrong, and I healed just fine (patting self on back.) Also, I’m considering taking a class from you, and this reply says you are not trying to throw up smoke and mirrors, but will listen and respond thoughtfully. Well done.


  9. Hi Simon,
    i reiterate what was said in an email for the benefit of the greater community;
    being the only healing practitioner I know, who besides being up front,is qualified to comment on the topics du jour,while every other healer doesn’t ,but just keep humming along with dated paradigms & “methods”.
    the healing worlds dirty little secret is a brillant piece;it should be emailed to every founder/guru/head person of all healing modalities in the world just to get ‘em to think if they’re humble enough to(i am implying a few people here,the obvious being 1 of them)
    Wish i could be a fly on the wall to see the light bulb switch on above their heads!

    Take care.


    simonrose Reply:

    there will be no light bulbs switching on above that person’s head tom. And that’s OK. Who are we to judge? My role is only to question (and prod gently…).

    For as long as people make money selling snake oil, they wont admit that all they are selling is a fancier placebo. I on the other hand sell a simple placebo – but the best bit is that I teach you how to adminster it! :-) At the end of the day I don’t care if you call it RPT, Ho’oponopono, surgery or magic mushrooms, be honest about who’s doing the healing…

    great for you to join the blog


  10. I can appreciate this perspective (having been into transformational work for a while- and I attended the RPT Lvl1-2 in Oct 2009)- the only concern I’d have it the definition that any non-placebo technique is 100% (and yet throw into the ideas of secondary-gain, client not wanting to heal- etc– each of those could be both: a “faulty-reference point” versus calling it a blame issue, as well as confusing the issue of 100% and yet…) -the example could be archeticture and/or civil engineering.. building a bridge… it is not likely that a bridge built could fall down, but per issues/mistakes/faulty materials/enviro-change (a quake or such).. it could happen, thus call in to question the entire science?

    Same thing as a highly-master level automobile mechanic- listening to a car engine run and sense/know-intuit (and yet really interpret) where to look in the engine/structure… (it is a scanning/knowing-guess of what that sound tells- look further work with, is it running better or not? if look somewhere thinking that is where the problem is- and it isn’t in that particular car-situation… doesn’t invalidate but part of the process).

    Issue could be if a car engine is running and “purring” vs clunking and surging most, even untrained, would interpret which is “better” functioning… and yet how so in the -body and/or life situation… not as clearly easy to interpret “Directly” and if working on the “feeling-level-emotions and as well felt-sense: secure, etc.” and assuming- an indirect relation to one’s long-term health bodily and/or life situation-wise.

    ps each time that I have felt pulled to check on the RPT site I see that a change has happened in the work, and usually in a way that seems related to my “current-stuff” (my journey at that moment…. interesting. I have to say that the RPT in the Course Oct 2009, lvl1-2 demos/in class and since class… I’ve A) felt shifts in my self (even re-traumatizing: dredging up at times, but often a cool-air sense of space opening) B) a sense something has shifted, and yet C) no change in my situation… after the course I had physical pains/emotional “lows” but most of all my 100% focus was going to the course to change my Financial situation- each exercise acknowledged that and the associated tones (to my understandings at that time, and now).. and yet still months latter- almost half a year… and I’ve now burned all my resources, and since the course I’ve still not managed to get any incoming funds :)

    PPS On the RPT forum as well as other places- often there is the perspective that rather than “seeking money one should just accept less” and this can work to open up acceptance, and internal resistances- but I’d insist that shows that focus is A) not to change the outer situation, but only the passive reaction/adaptation to it and B) that if a technique doesn’t seem to change the outer-situation to not claim-that it does (tool for the job)– this last is not specifically related to this post nor Simon’s claims that abundance healing can occur with RPT, just where I’m at, what I’ve (not) seen, and in response to some comments by RPTers that seem to be re-framing (perhaps a distraction, perhaps just their refocusing the conversation to their interest).

    Here I am two weeks until the end of this month- and my rent can’t be paid by else than $
    :) I find this work intriguing and I’ve been wondering if I could become involved in work as RPT (tied into Referrals from… as mentioned in corp enviros) but as I can’t seem to get it to create changes in my circumstances.. I’m kind of catch 22 (if I can use it to manifest abundance, I won’t “NEED” to try to get hired to do RPT, and yet if I can’t use it to manifest abundance, I won’t be qualified to get hired to do RPT…



    simonrose Reply:

    hi, and thanks
    so many points, I’m not sure if I can reply to every single one.
    About the placebo point – I acknowledge what you are saying. The point comes from McFetridge (Peak States) who attests that any effective healing technique should have 100% success. By the same token, Peak States does not have 100% success, and nor does RPT yet. But I think what we are doing is saying that the state of spiritual healing (and even Western medicine) in which 20% or even 50% is considered proof of concept, is just not good enough.

    > PPS On the RPT forum as well as other places- often there is the perspective that
    > rather than “seeking money one should just accept less” and this can work to open

    My wife (who reads the public forum) and I don’t recognize this comment. We don’t always read the practitioner forum so perhaps you can link us to a post? It would be good to clarify this.

    I prepared a lot of work last month about being a practitioner and charging money but didn’t actually upload the videos and articles because something quite amazing interrupted me (the new technique). When things quieten down over the next few weeks I’ll get back to the topic of charging money for healings. Needless to say I fundamentally disagree with the spiritual healing ethos of “I’m not charging for the healing I’m charging for my time.” That’s rubbish and it’s the reason why most of them are broke. Just my 2 cents, with a lot more cents (dollars & Euros) to come.



    gary begue Reply:

    Thanks for your comments Simon- (I realize there was a bunch in my post- it was/is like a large thought all bunched- together, and I just get to tear off bits at a time to express about)… in regards to your comment about 100% effectiveness: I agree in concept (what I was hoping to express with the architecture and automotive mech examples- it should be something that can be “judged” on track in process as well as by later results- and not just the circular concept of if it worked, did good, and if it doesn’t seem to work, then it “by definition” didn’t reach the deepest tone, or whatever….

    The only question I’d raise is the constraint in the concept: ie stating 100% based on technique, and yet contrasting that with implementation and judging results- seems to have implied/intertwined a conflict in that paradigm (how it is phrased seems to make it appear a paradox, yet that is just how it is conceived).

    In regards your second point about money- treating in general, as well as how it is viewed in “offering” the service.. I think is also a matter of the framing viewpoint (and I agree it is rubbish and likely the reason being broke and disempowered)- The question I see it: how contextualize “offering a healing”
    If one can see: X results for a certain person/situation are “likely” that would be worth $N to them… then the projected benefits to them are clear, yet if not offering contingent to the results, and not $X for the time (which I agree also doesn’t quite sound right)… then it would $X for “treatment” in general:
    Then a comparison to base that on? (other “treatments” not quite comparable? and if we explain it as we are just Being and “explaining/leading/teaching them” (thus they can use the steps they’ve learned, in addition to the assist from “healer” in the session…

    Anyway- I regret if this is another long post- the above was all approaching one concept I’m not quite contacting/expressing (since last summer- when I first read you RPT info on the website- its been percolating in my understanding, sensing something arising and clicking together).

    Thanks and best to you and yours for not only your work on this info- but bringing this “conversation” together.



    gary begue Reply:

    A quick last thought- that story about I think it was Picasso drew a picture upon request and told his fee- buyer questioned why that amount, and Picasso answered (small) price for ink/canvas flat and use of brushes, the rest of price for his lifetime of experience and years of training to be able to quickly whip out said picture. (same story told of a automated warehouse breakdown, noone could fix, called in expert- he adjusted one screw and started it up and charged $10,000.00

    Told to itemize he listed, turning screw $2, knowing which screw to turn: amongst all the parts and components $9,998.00 -my regrets if I mangled either of the stories).

    Both are related to expertise, and yet this tech (much like “in concept” though not always in practice- Feldenkrais method practitioners and Alexander Technique trainers- have some “method” but nearly all of the results are supposed to be upon there “inner work” and having worked to release themselves- and on going-ly continue to keep on- to present as clear a state as they can… thus present as good a Non-verbal example to the body-mind of how one can be relaxed, connected etc.) -it seems to me a big part of RPT is that the Practitioner would likewise not only need to clear themselves into Coherence once, but continue to work-on their stuff (as you mentioned in prior post- not only the Source of the space, but at the same time potentially a block to it)… which can take some time/work/effort- and hopefully “clients” can benefit from that work.

    I hope this makes sense and adds to the conversation rather than confuses things :)

    Sus Reply:

    Thankyou Gary I felt your examples and distinctions are brilliant.


  11. Hi Simon,

    I don’t know… Here are some recent thoughts:

    I know people who are very loving–much more loving than me, I imagine–who can’t do anything I can do, just because I have the tools and they don’t (mainly EFT, QT). Some don’t want to learn. Even if I do teach them, some can’t do it very well. I think it takes more than just love/ being/ coherence. And as far as I can tell, I am *not* one who’s able to be big on being/ coherence; though I use a lot of intuition when working. Is that possible, intuition without being, coherence? And I think sometimes that intuition becomes so strong and healing such a part of a person, that some of the “techniques” aren’t really as necessary.

    I know that Barbara Robins ( uses a recorded version (“Auto-Barbara”) that seems to heal quite well. This might be working off of of William Tiller’s “intention-host device” idea (, that an intention/ vibrations can be captured on a machine, stored, and used (indefinitely) for healing–without continual human “upkeep”.

    But, as to whether a robot could do it or not, I agree, I don’t think so.

    I can think of other possibilities about why a modality doesn’t work “like it should”. They doesn’t have to do with self-sabotage/ secondary gains, either. (Shouldn’t a healing method be able to take care of that, too?? Well, maybe–see #2.)
    1. Forgiveness. No matter what, this is the key. If someone is not willing to forgive, they can’t heal. (I have many experiences of silently tapping for forgiveness/ surrogate tapping, and having it work–I think this is because the person is tuned in and “agrees”/ lets it go; and a few experiences tapping, but in the end it doesn’t work–later to ask about and find out that the person hasn’t forgiven/ has held on.) If the person at least desires, it could overcome.
    2. Desire and willingness–both on the healer, and the healee. Even if it’s just a willingness to desire to have a desire.
    3. The inability(/ies) of the teacher to teach/ student to learn.
    4. The imperfection/ incompletion of the modality.

    I have seen a difference with myself and different modalities. Why? It could be:
    1. the technique.
    2. my attitude/ etc. about/ towards the technique/ “founder”.
    3. how easy it is to feel beingness/ coherence, using the technique.

    The best healing method I know of, is one that can’t be used on oneself. I don’t know about others. It would be nice if all would work just as well on yourself! That’s a good question for reflection.

    A brilliant direction!:
    “As far as I’m concerned a modality doesn’t work unless everyone using it gets instant results. Everyone, including sick people healing themselves. If it only works for some people some of the time, then it’s either a placebo or a wonderful Beingness that some have, but not the technique working.”



    simonrose Reply:

    do you see the misconception grego:
    > I know people who are very loving–much more loving than me

    You have an association between healing and loving. That’s very new age, and would be lovely if it were true, but it’s just a new age paradigm.

    Your methods work because you believe in your methods. Ultimately you are believing in yourself. No one said you had to be loving to be a great healer. I mean ‘heck, some people think that I’m an arrogant ego-centric money-hungry jackass (I think that’s what the founders of ThetaHealing are calling me this month). But I still get instant healings most of the time. (** I don’t believe I am these things, I don’t care what people call me, I’m just saying that being a great healer and being a good person don’t have to be the same thing.)

    thanks for your contributions



  12. Hi Simon,

    Just enjoyed browsing through this website every now and then.

    From this blog’s topic, am I to understand that the sign-post has been moved again since this healing modality started just over two years ago?

    Would this be the nutshell of what’s I am getting here?

    Thanks and kind regards,


    simonrose Reply:

    hi Peter, welcome to our new blog. I hope you are well. Evette and I missed you at our April courses in Melbourne. We were looking forward to seeing you again.

    Yes, the sign-post has been moved. A lot. Yes I don’t see this particlar article as being so relevant to that point. I feel that there are other much more helpful posts on what’s new in RPT 3. This post contains what I see as a core truth in all modalities (that the blockage is in the practitioner). It’s not that different to what I taught in my previous modality back when you first met me – back then we said that the practitioner’s beliefs mattered more than the client’s. I still think that’s true.

    Much has changed my friend, even if this particular page has stayed largely the same.



  13. Thanks Simon. Shows that what we do is to help people to Be as you said. Coming from this state of Beingness in ourselves as practitioner, and assisting the clients to Be their Beingness, seems to be the experience called by many names, but most often that God is present. And that is probably true, bacause it is us! :-) Our God-presence or Beingness in other words.


    simonrose Reply:

    hi Azaris, I agree, but I think that everyone defines the “G” word differently. I prefer presence or Beingness because it’s something internal. I think it’s important that RPT is a tool that a priest and an atheist can be equally comfortable using. You’ll never here me say “god” in class (would be pretty hypocritical really!).



  14. George Duisman

    Hi Simon:
    I’ve tried a lot of techniques and I did not get significant results with most of them. That’s my main clue in partially disagreeing with you. But, you offered a great question in ;

    “Do you think that Reference Point Therapy would still work if anyone (a robot?) says “I acknowledge you,” without any emotional presence at all?”

    In the beginning of computer usage there was an idea about measuring computer intelligence. Someone wrote a computer program called Eliza. Here’s an example.(
    It used Rogerian psychology. Many people not knowing it was a computer program said “Eliza understands me!!” I wonder what would happen if someone wrote an RPT program that functioned like Eliza. Would people get healed? As I see it, if no one gets healed by a program like this then that would be powerful evidence that you are quite right.
    It just now occurs to me that a healer might be put in the middle of the process i.e. he/she takes the typed response from the “client” types it into the Eliza-RPT program and then types the computers response back to the “client”. If now there are lots of “clients” getting healed, that would be VERY powerful evidence of what you’ve said here. Almost proof.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi George,
    wow it’s over a year since I wrote the article and I admit I haven’t thought much about these issues since.

    I can see a glaring problem with my original statement and with your proposed test.

    I still maintain that it’s not the words that heal but energy/intention. The missing ingredient is that the client’s energy/intention can be just as important as the practitioners.

    For instance when the robot says “I acknowledge your pain,” the client actually FEELS acknowledged and there is a real possibility for transformation. In that specific sense I could program a robot to do great RPT sessions.

    On the other hand, a human can do distant healings on someone not physically listening. A robot couldn’t do this because there’s no energy connection and no person is listening to do the acknowledgment.

    Hope that clarifies my position.

    The way that I teach RPT has changed, perhaps even softened. What I say in class (often translated into multiple languages) is that they shouldn’t worry about words in any way, it’s only instincts that matter. The technique is a no-technique – get out of worrying about words and methods since worry is purely in the head. Be in the heart and then body and the process just flows.



  15. George Duisman

    Thanks for the reply Simon:
    It now looks to me like you and I are almost totally aligned on this subject. Amazing! Excellent thinking / intuition!
    I considered briefly writing a program to do RPT as described above and figured that it would be quite obsolete by the time I got it written and too much work. The more I read about what you are doing and thinking, the more impressed I get.
    I need to read more about what you’ve said about coherence, but already I get the clear impression you and I are seeing it in very similar ways. And it looks like you are moving faster than I am (I started years ago).
    Thanks again for all that you are doing.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi George, great to hear we are on the same wavelength. As I think I said before, I’ve often had that computer program idea.
    The thing is though that RPT has become so simple that I really cannot imagine a need for the program, unless it was for the general public (who have not learned RPT). Now there’s an interesting idea…

    As for moving faster – I find I move in leaps and bounds when I teach classes. When I’m just relaxing in Vanuatu things are just happy and steady. But I’ve mastered more in the last 2 weeks teaching in Kiev and Moscow than in the previous 6-12 months. I think the wise ones say something like if you want to master something, teach it to others!



Leave a Reply


Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>