Experiences of Reiki do not remain confined to the moment of practice. They are remembered, interpreted, and shared through language. People speak about what they felt, what changed, what became clearer or more stable. These narratives are integral to the experience itself. From an anthropological perspective, they are one of the main ways through which experience acquires meaning and continuity over time.

Language does more than describe what has happened; it actively shapes how the experience is understood. Words such as “balance,” “energy,” “release,” or “presence” function as interpretive frames. They help practitioners and recipients make sense of sensations that may be subtle, ambiguous, or difficult to articulate. In this sense, narratives do not simply report an outcome; they participate in the ongoing construction of what Reiki is taken to be and what it is expected to do.

Anthropology pays close attention to these processes of meaning-making. Rather than asking whether a narrative is true or false, it asks how it works: what kinds of experiences it makes intelligible, what expectations it generates, and how it circulates within a community. Narratives can support learning and reflection, but they can also stabilize assumptions and narrow the range of what is recognised as a “proper” experience. Becoming aware of this dynamic is not scepticism; it is a way of taking practice seriously.

Practising Reiki in Europe means engaging with a landscape marked by plurality. Languages, cultural histories, legal frameworks, and social attitudes toward complementary practices vary significantly from one country to another. These differences do not simply surround Reiki from the outside; they actively shape how it is taught, practised, and publicly understood. An anthropological perspective starts from this observation and treats plurality as a constitutive condition rather than as an obstacle.

In some European contexts, Reiki is primarily framed within discourses of personal well-being and self-care. In others, it is closely connected to spiritual development, community practices, or professional therapeutic identities. Elsewhere, Reiki must constantly negotiate its place in relation to biomedical institutions, regulatory systems, or public scepticism. These configurations influence not only how Reiki is perceived by others, but also how practitioners themselves understand what they are doing and how they articulate its value. 

Anthropology avoids reducing this diversity to a hierarchy of more or less “advanced” or “authentic” forms. Instead, it asks how different contexts make certain aspects of Reiki visible while rendering others less prominent. What counts as legitimate practice, appropriate training, or responsible communication is always shaped by local conditions. Recognising this does not undermine shared values; it provides a more realistic basis for dialogue.