Massachusetts Bill S261: An Act regulating alternative healing therapies
To Whom It May Concern,
I write today to strongly oppose the proposed regulation and licensing of Reiki and other spiritual or energy-based healing modalities in Massachusetts under Bill S261: An Act regulating alternative healing therapies. I do so as a professional with over 20 years of experience in both the domestic violence field and in Reiki and spiritual healing traditions, grounded in authentic Japanese lineage and cultural practices.
I am a Shihan (teacher) trained in Jikiden Reiki, a traditional form of Reiki that originates from Kyoto, Japan. My lineage is directly connected to the source of this sacred healing practice: my teacher’s mother studied directly with Dr. Chujiro Hayashi, one of the prime students of Reiki’s founder, Mikao Usui. My teachers remain in Japan, where the practice is deeply integrated with cultural and spiritual traditions rooted in Shinto and Buddhism. It is crucial to understand that Reiki is a lineage-based spiritual practice—not a manual therapy, not a modality that can be standardized or clinically codified without violating the very essence of its origins.
There is no U.S. school or institutional body that holds the cultural, historical, or spiritual authority to train practitioners or regulate this work in the depth that authentic Japanese lineage allows. To regulate this work under a Western framework would be both culturally inappropriate and spiritually harmful. My Japanese teachers, due to cultural and spiritual reasons, would not support licensing as it would violate core beliefs tied to the sacred nature of Reiki.
Furthermore, I have over two decades of experience working intimately with survivors of domestic violence, trauma, and systemic abuse. I was part of the TRAC coalition that testified in support of the Coercive Control Bill and the Litigation Abuse Bill during the last legislative session. Although I am not writing on behalf of TRAC, some of you may recognize my face from that work. In addition, I testified independently on 11 other bills not affiliated with TRAC, all related to protecting vulnerable populations and advocating for survivor rights.
As someone who works in both healing and advocacy, I can tell you that bills such as this one—no matter how well-intentioned—risk doing far more harm than good. They create additional barriers for the very people we aim to support:
- trauma survivors,
- low-income individuals,
- those faced with end of life
- those in addiction recovery
- and members of marginalized communities.
Reiki has been an accessible and empowering support tool for many of these individuals, often provided at no cost through volunteer services.
Much of the Reiki I offer is done on a volunteer basis. I have facilitated volunteer Reiki programs at nursing homes, clinics for addiction recovery, and for survivors of domestic violence. I offer it through circles, teachings, and community programs. Reiki does not have to involve touch—in fact, it rarely does. A simple handshake from a trained teacher could be deemed a violation under this proposed legislation. Even something as universally accepted and scientifically supported as a hug, known to have therapeutic benefits, could be considered illegal under the regulatory language proposed. The same could be said for prayer in religious institutions.
This bill, in its current form, threatens to infringe upon constitutionally protected spiritual and religious practices. It could target Native American, Wiccan, Buddhist, Shinto, Spiritualist, and other traditional spiritual practices, violating the Religious Freedoms Act. Reiki, as practiced by myself and many others, falls under this category as a spiritual path, not a clinical modality.
As further evidence of my dedication and expertise in this field, I am the author of Secrets to Healing: An Invitation to Healing Trauma and Other Root Causes of Chronic Illness Using the Japanese Reiki Gokai, available on Amazon. This book explains how the core of Reiki is not about physical touch but about embodying five guiding principles that foster healing from within. Anyone who reads these principles and integrates them into daily life is, in essence, practicing Reiki. Requiring licensing to “use” these principles would be like regulating someone’s prayer or meditation practice.
I understand the importance of protecting the public from unethical or predatory practices, but this is not the way. Sweeping, vague regulatory language will only restrict access, harm vulnerable populations, and erode sacred traditions.
I would welcome the opportunity to speak with legislators to offer alternatives that address the root issues which inspired this bill in the first place. I believe we can co-create protective frameworks without violating spiritual traditions, harming practitioners, or creating additional trauma for survivors who already face overwhelming barriers to care.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and willingness to protect both public well-being and spiritual freedom.
Sincerely,
Laura Bonetzky-Joseph
Survivor of Domestic Abuse, Coercive Control, Sexual Assault, Post Separation Abuse
Shihan (Teacher), Jikiden Reiki Kenkyukai (Kyoto, Japan)
Author, Secrets to Healing & C0-Author of Feisty
Advocate for Survivors of Domestic Violence & Trauma
Healing Practitioner & Community Leader
Hingham, MA
For more information, please follow Reiki Unified
or trauma
You can listen to her recent webinar, Protect Reiki from Regulation, with Rita Glassman. 
As for me, regulating these services will prevent folks in vulnerable communities I serve from gaining access to these therapies which in turn would harm my mission to break the cycle of abuse through healing the unrecognized unhealed epidemic of unresolved trauma that plagues our communities and over burdens our broken health care system.
According to the folks at this group, “Massachusetts previously introduced Safe Harbor Exemption legislation to protect the right to practice for, and the right of consumers to access, health care practitioners and healers who do not have conventional medical licenses such as herbalists, homeopaths, traditional naturopaths and many more.”
