The words most used by those who support hypnosis for Christians are medical and scientific. These words not only provide prestige, but also a feeling of safety. When the word medical comes up, the guard goes down. Any practice labeled medical, and therefore scientific, is an "open sesame" to the saints. Those who encourage hypnosis for Christians rely upon this questionable label of science to support its use. However, Donald Hebb says in "Psychology Today/The State of the Science" that "hypnosis has persistently lacked satisfactory explanation." At the present time there is no agreed-upon scientific explanation of exactly what hypnosis is. Psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz describes hypnosis as the therapy of "a fake science." We cannot call hypnosis a science, but we can say that it has been an integral part of the occult for thousands of years.
E. Fuller Torrey, a research psychiatrist, aligns hypnotic techniques with witchcraft. He also says, "Hypnosis is one aspect of the yoga techniques of therapeutic meditation."
Medical doctor William Kroger states, "The fundamental principles of Yoga are, in many respects, similar to those of hypnosis." To protect the scientific label for hypnosis he declares, "Yoga is not considered a religion, but rather a ‘science’ to achieve mastery of the mind and cure physical and emotional sickness." Then he makes a strange confession, "There are many systems to Yoga, but the central aim—union with God—is common to all of them and is the method by which it achieves cure."
Many medical doctors use the energy centers of yoga to alleviate physical diseases. Kroger and William Fezler say:
Thus, the word "medical" may include much more than one might suppose. Nevertheless, some in the church have advocated hypnosis as long as it is in the hands of a trained professional, especially a medical doctor. A person who desperately needs help for some long-term, difficult problem and has tried other cures is vulnerable. He may grab at any implied or direct promise for help that comes along, and especially from a medical doctor. This is the very predicament in which many Christians find themselves.
Few people realize that medical hypnosis is any hypnosis used for medical purposes. Medical doctors use both hypnotic regression and deep hypnosis. At what point in hypnotic regression and at what depth in hypnosis should a Christian discontinue hypnotic treatment? Some medical doctors use a medical hypnosis which encourages a type of dissociation. The individual becomes an observer of his own body and helps in diagnosis and treatment. They have "the hypnotized patient mentally ‘go into’ the appropriate area of the body to do repairs, to help medicine be effective or to see the healing process at work." Would this type of medical hypnosis be acceptable to a Christian?
The following is a description of Jack Schwartz, who has conducted experiments at the Menninger Foundation using a visualization technique (equivalent to hypnosis) to heal a cut hand:
We raise the following questions about the use of hypnosis by a medical doctor: How can one tell the long-range spiritual effect of even a well-meaning medical doctor’s use of hypnosis on a Christian patient? Would an M.D. with an anti-Christian or occult bias in any way affect a Christian through trance treatment? How about the use of a medical hypnotherapist who belongs to the Satanist church? What about an M.D. hypnotherapist who uses past or future lives therapy as a means of mental-emotional or physical relief? These and other questions need to be answered before subjecting oneself to such treatment, even in the hands of a medical doctor or psychologist.
We wrote to Professor Ernest Hilgard, one of the most-respected, leading authorities on hypnosis, at Stanford University and asked two questions in our quest for information:
Hilgard’s reply to the first question was:
However, long term studies of those using self-hypnosis are also scarce. Therefore we have little to no valid information about the long term effects on the individual as the result of hypnosis. We particularly have no information we could find on the long term spiritual effect on Christians who submit themselves to this treatment.
In reply to the second question, Hilgard wrote:
In short, the difference between a shaman and a trained practitioner of hypnosis is that the trained practitioner will use hypnosis with psychotherapy. Notice that Hilgard does not distinguish the hypnosis used by the hypnotherapist from that of the shaman except that the hypnotherapist uses hypnosis with psychotherapy.
If indeed hypnosis may result in occult healing, there are potential serious consequences to consider. Weldon and Levitt say, "We would expect that most if not all of those who are occultly healed are likely to suffer either psychologically or spiritually in some way." Kurt Koch, in his book Demonology: Past and Present, says that in occult forms of healing:
Koch believes that the power behind occult healing is demonic, that such healing serves as an impediment to a person’s spiritual life, and that the damage is immense. Weldon and Levitt also point out that occult practices do provide healing but that the cure is often worse than the original illness. They say:
In his book Occult ABC Koch says:
A fact rarely mentioned by hypnotists is that whatever physical healing is accomplished with hypnosis can also be accomplished without it. The Modern Synopsis of Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry/II states, "Everything done in psychotherapy with hypnosis can also be done without hypnosis." We believe that it is not only unnecessary to use hypnosis but potentially dangerous. Even though hypnosis may currently be used by medical doctors, it originated from and is still practiced by witch doctors. Even medical hypnosis practiced by a Christian may be a disguised doorway and subtle enticement into the demonic realm. It may not be as obvious an entree to evil as occult hypnosis, and therefore it could be even more dangerous for an unsuspecting Christian who would otherwise avoid the occult.
Are people in the church being enticed to enter the twilight zone of the occult because hypnosis is now called "science" and "medicine"? Let those who call the occult "science" tell us what the difference is between medical and occultic hypnosis. And let those Christians who call it "scientific" explain why they also recommend that it be performed only by a Christian. If hypnosis is science indeed, why the added requirement of Christianity for the practitioner? There is a scarcity of adequate long-term studies of those who have been hypnotized. And there have been none which have examined the effect on the individual’s resulting faith or interest in the occult.
Before hypnotism becomes the new panacea from the pulpit, followed by a plethora of books on the subject, its claims, methods, and long-term results should be considered. Arthur Shapiro has said, "One man’s religion is another man’s superstition and one man’s magic is another man’s science." Hypnosis has become "scientific" and "medical" for some Christians with little proof of its validity, longevity of its results, or understanding of its nature. Because there are so many unanswered questions about its usefulness and so many potential dangers about its usage, Christians should shun hypnosis.
PAL (May-June 2001)