While the intention of Integrative Medicine (IM) is whole person medicine, it has for the most part remained driven by individual modalities. Like the practice of IM itself, IM research too has been driven primarily by studies on individual modalities. There are significant challenges to moving research on whole systems medicine forward, with funding being at the top of the list. Historically, NIH has not been receptive to supporting research on whole systems, preferring instead to support studies that are more individual modality driven so that mechanisms can be identified. Purely mechanistic research, however, assumes unidirectional causality and linear responses yet clinical responses to whole systems approaches are more often multidirectional and dynamically unpredictable. The concept of emergence is applicable here. Whole systems approaches suggest that by incorporating therapies into holistic treatment programs we not only treat symptoms but accomplish more by activating the body's inherent self-organizing healing mechanisms and treat the root cause of illnesses as well as associated symptoms. Given that interest in integrative therapies with the general public and medical community is steadily increasing, there is need for more research that explores intact whole systems approaches to elucidate the relevant system-wide effects and dynamic interactions related to these practices.

Advances in biophysics, biology, functional genomics, neuroscience, psychology, psychoneuroimmunology, and other fields suggest the existence of a subtle system of “biofield” interactions that organize biological processes from the subatomic, atomic, molecular, cellular, and organismic to the interpersonal and cosmic levels. Biofield interactions may bring about regulation of biochemical, cellular, and neurological processes through means related to electromagnetism, quantum fields, and perhaps other means of modulating biological activity and information flow. The biofield paradigm, in contrast to a reductionist, chemistry-centered viewpoint, emphasizes the informational content of biological processes; biofield interactions are thought to operate in part via low-energy or “subtle” processes such as weak, nonthermal electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or processes potentially related to consciousness and nonlocality. Biofield interactions may also operate through or be reflected in more well-understood informational processes found in electroencephalographic (EEG) and electrocardiographic (ECG) data. Recent advances have led to the development of a wide variety of therapeutic and diagnostic biofield devices, defined as physical instruments best understood from the viewpoint of a biofield paradigm. Here, we provide a broad overview of biofield devices, with emphasis on those devices for which solid, peer-reviewed evidence exists. A subset of these devices, such as those based upon EEG- and ECG-based heart rate variability, function via mechanisms that are well understood and are widely employed in clinical settings. Other device modalities, such a gas discharge visualization and biophoton emission, appear to operate through incompletely understood mechanisms and have unclear clinical significance. Device modes of operation include EMF-light, EMF-heat, EMF-nonthermal, electrical current, vibration and sound, physical and mechanical, intentionality and nonlocality, gas and plasma, and other (mode of operation not well-understood). Methodological issues in device development and interfaces for future interdisciplinary research are discussed. Devices play prominent cultural and scientific roles in our society, and it is likely that device technologies will be one of the most influential access points for the furthering of biofield research and the dissemination of biofield concepts. This developing field of study presents new areas of research that have many important implications for both basic science and clinical medicine.

Religion and spirituality (R/S) serve as coping mechanisms for circumstances that threaten people’s psychological well-being. However, using R/S inappropriately to deal with difficulties and problems in daily life may include the practice of Spiritual Bypass (SB). SB refers to avoiding addressing emotional problems and trauma, rather than healing and learning from them. On the other hand, coping strategies may be determined by the cultural context. This study aims to describe the presence of SB in individuals who may have experienced stressful situations and to understand the influence of culture on SB by comparing SB in two culturally different groups. The sample consists of a total of 435 people, 262 of Honduran nationality and 173 of Spanish nationality. Both groups are approximately equivalent in age and gender. The degree of SB, stressful events, perception of social support and spiritual well-being are examined, respectively, through the Spiritual Bypass Scale, and specific items and subscales from the Social Readjustment Rating Scale, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Spiritual Wellbeing. The results showed a higher spiritual well-being and use of SB in the Honduran sample as compared to the Spanish sample, but similar social support and stressful events. Furthermore, some of the factors predicting SB were different between the two samples. While age and a greater number of R/S practices were important in both samples, for the Honduran sample the variables that best explained SB were being a Christian, having greater social support, fewer stressful events, and greater attendance at church or temple. For the Spanish sample, however, the variable that best explained SB was studying R/S texts. Therefore, SB must be understood within the culture in which it develops, since in different cultural contexts it appears to relate to differing factors. Thus, SB becomes a possible functional or dysfunctional coping strategy depending on the social context.