Search

The purpose of this article is to enhance our understanding of prayer healing by studying a case which was described as a 'remarkable healing' by a medical assessment team at the Amsterdam University Medical Centre (UMC) in the Netherlands.This retrospective, case-based study of prayer healing investigated numerous reported healings using both medical files and patient narratives. A medical assessment team evaluated the associated medical files, as well as any experiential data. The instances of healing could be classified as 'remarkable' or 'unexplained.' Experiential data were obtained by qualitative, in-depth interviews. The study was transdisciplinary in nature, involving medical, psychological, theological, and philosophical perspectives. The object was to understand such healings within the broader framework of the science-religion debate.We present the case of a female patient, born in 1959, with Parkinson disease who experienced instantaneous, nearly complete healing in 2012 after intercessory prayer. At that point the disease was at an advanced stage, rapidly progressive, with major debilitating symptoms. High doses of oral medication were required. Following this healing there was no recurrence of her former symptoms, while the remaining symptoms continued to improve. She regained all of her capacities at work, as well as in daily life. The medical assessment team described her recovery as 'remarkable.' The patient reported that she had always 'lived with God,' and that at a point when she had given up hope, 'life was given back to her.' This recovery did not make her immune to other illnesses and suffering, but it did strengthen her belief that God cares about human beings.This remarkable healing and its context astonished the patient, her family, and her doctors. The clinical course was extraordinary, contradicting data from imaging studies, as well as the common understanding of this disease. This case also raised questions about medical assumptions. Any attempt to investigate such healings requires the involvement of other disciplines. A transdisciplinary approach that includes experiential knowledge would be helpful. Against the background of the science-religion debate, we feel that the most helpful approach would be one of complementarity and dialogue, rather than stoking controversy.

Aim to enhance the understanding of documented mismatches between ‘subjective’ experiences and ‘objective’ data in three cases of self-reported instantaneous healing of hearing impairment upon prayer. Method description of three cases taken out of a larger retrospective case-based study of prayer healing in the Netherlands. In this larger study multiple reported healings were investigated using both medical files and patients’ narratives through in-depth interviews. A subset of three cases with dramatic subjective reduction of hearing impairment upon prayer was studied. These patients underwent extensive additional investigations at the audiology center of the Amsterdam University Medical Centre. All data was evaluated by an interdisciplinary medical assessment team, subsequent analysis was transdisciplinary. Results the three case histories with self-reported healing after prayer demonstrated a clear mismatch between subjective experiences and objective findings. No measurable improvements were found in four different audiological testing methods. However, in-depth interviews, hetero-anamnesis and a validated questionnaire all confirmed the healings. The medical assessment team could not label these healings as ‘medically remarkable’ because of absence of measurable ‘objective’ changes, but they did consider them as ‘remarkable in a broader sense’. On expert consultation no equivalents of mismatches to this extent could be found. The healing experiences of our participants involved their entire being with profound positive effects in different domains of their lives, and a perception of a benevolent God who acted upon them. There was a distinctive pattern, labelled by the participants as a healing of mind, soul and body. Conclusions The subjective-objective incongruities that were found were not well understood. We noticed a paradox: the ‘objective’ measurements did not reflect hearing abilities in daily life where-as ‘subjective experiential’ data did. The latter could be ‘objectified’ and validated in various ways. In fact, a rigid distinction between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ was not relevant here, nor a hierarchy among them. A model leaving room for different causations (horizontal epistemology) complied best with the multi dimensionality we came across.

Context • Prayer healing is a common practice in many religious communities around the world. Even in the highly secularized Dutch society, cases of prayer healing are occasionally reported in the media, often generating public attention. There is an ongoing debate regarding whether such miraculous cures do actually occur and how to interpret them. Objective • The aim of the article was to present a research protocol for the investigation of reported cases of remarkable and/or unexplained healing after prayer. Design • The research team developed a method to perform a retrospective, case-based study of prayer healing. Reported prayer healings can be investigated systematically in accordance with a step-by-step methodology. The focus is on understanding the healing by studying it from multiple perspectives, using both medical judgment and patients' narratives collected by qualitative methods Setting • The study occurred at Vrije Universiteit (VU) and VU Medical Center (Amsterdam, Netherlands) as well as the general medical practice of the first author. Participants • Potential participants could be any individuals in the Netherlands or neighboring countries who claim to have been healed through prayer. The reports of healing came from multiple sources, including the research team's medical practices and their direct vicinities, newspaper articles, prayer healers, and medical colleagues. Outcome Measures • Medical data were obtained before and after prayer. Subsequently, a member of a research team and of a medical assessment committee made a standardized judgment that evaluated whether a cure was clinically remarkable or scientifically unexplained. The participants' experiences and insider perspectives were studied, using in-depth interviews in accordance with a qualitative research methodology, to gain insight into the perceptions and explanations of the cures that were offered by participants and by the members of the medical assessment committee. The medical findings and participants' experiences were weighed and interpreted based on a transdisciplinary framework, including biopsychosocial and theological perspectives, with reference to a conceptual framework derived from Ian Barbour's typology of positions in the science-religion debate. Conclusion • A case-based, research study protocol that compares medical and experiential findings and that interprets and structures those findings with reference to Ian Barbour's conceptual model is an innovative way of gaining deeper insight into the nature of remarkable and/or unexplained cures.