The Real Reasons Energy Psychology Is Proving To Be Durable: Rejoinder to “Acupressure in Psychotherapy as an Unsinkable Rubber Duck, Reply to Feinstein (2023)”

In a blistering critique of Feinstein (2023) and the practice of energy psychology in general, Boness et al. (this issue) address four concerns, asserting that: (a) the rationale for energy psychology is based on premises that are not supported by reliable evidence; (b) the claim that tapping on acupuncture points is an active ingredient in energy psychology is based on insufficient evidence; (c) the quality of efficacy evidence is low; and (d) the approach is not compatible with ethical practice. While acknowledging the validity of several of the commentators’ points, this rejoinder provides evidence that soundly refutes each of these assertions. It concludes that Boness et al. “have provided a scholarly commentary on energy psychology as the field’s evidence base arguably existed a decade ago and represent it as being current while neglecting the compelling efficacy evidence that has been published in the most recent decade.”

Public Health Significance Statement
Energy psychology has been gaining increased recognition for its purported efficacy and ability to increase clinical effectiveness when integrated with other therapeutic modalities. Such claims have, however, been controversial. This discussion addresses challenges to its effectiveness in the treatment of major clinical conditions and its successful application in arduous situations such as following catastrophic events.