During the past ten years, Raindrop Technique has become a widely used therapeutic protocol throughout the United States. Numerous anecdotal accounts relate the significant and substantive benefits generated by this procedure. Raindrop Technique has been use to ameloriate cases of viral infection, kyphosis, scoliosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, and many other conditions.
As its popularity and usage have increased, a small group of aromatherapists
has questioned the use of the procedure and its reliance on undiluted
therapeutic-grade essential oils. So, in an effort to statistically validate
the benefit (or lack thereof) of the Raindrop Technique, I circulated
a questionnaire in late 2001 among several thousand aromatherapists, health
practitioners, and users of essential oils to poll those who receive Raindrop
and those who perform it. This study summarizes the experiences of more
than 14,000 sessions of Raindrop.
Of the 422 adults who responded to the survey, 370 were female and 52
were male. They represented 39 states of the United States, 5 provinces
of Canada, and 5 other countries. 265 were facilitators, 259 were both
facilitators and receivers, 157 were receivers only. Among the 416 receivers,
a total of 3,584 Raindrop procedures were experienced (mean value = 8.6
treatments each). Among the 265 facilitators, a total of 11,256 procedures
were reported (mean value = 42.5 each). Receivers reported their Raindrop
experiences to be Positive (97%), Pleasant (98%), Resulted in healing
(16%), Felt better afterwards (98%), Improved health (89%), and Improved
emotional state (86%). 99.9% of receivers said they would receive Raindrop
The differences in the response rates among those who reported improved
health vs. actual healing can be due to the subjects’ likely interpretation
of the question. “Healing” implies a total resolution of a preexisting
disease or health condition, whereas “improved health” merely
indicates an improvement (whether slight or great) in health or preexisting
46.2% identified themselves as licensed professionals. 27% were massage
therapists (LMT, CMT, RMT). 11% were registered nurses while 1.5% were
chiropractors. There was one M.D. and one D.O. who responded.
As for negative responses: 1 in 168 (67 incidences out 11,256 reported
Raindrops) considered Raindrop to be unpleasant. 1 in 489 considered it
a negative experience. Only 1 in 1,023 said they would not receive Raindrop
again. Unpleasant experiences reported (in order of frequency) were: Burning
sensation on skin, Skin rashes, Nausea, Headaches, Tiredness. Most identified
these as symptoms of a detoxification process. All of these were reported
as temporary, often followed by positive results including relief of various
Perceived benefits reported (in order of frequency) were: Removed back
pain, Stopped cold or flu, Euphoria, Felt energized, Relieved stress or
anxiety, General reduction of pain.
The study includes 74 brief commentaries by Raindrop facilitators and
receivers that provide insights into the technique, its practice and outcomes,
that cannot be discerned from numerical data alone.
A Statistical Validation of Raindrop Technique by David Stewart, PH.D., R.A