It was an unusual decision to publish an already retracted article in another journal, but Wiley has retracted (again) the alleged effects of a supernatural “intervention” on biological and emotional health.
Dr. Ioana A Cristea’s comments to PubPeer (passed to the journal) and my letter to the editor (published on this blog on December 29, 2025) triggered an investigation that ultimately led to the retraction:
WITHDRAWAL: MK Trivedi, A. Branton, D. Trivedi, S. Mondal, and S. Jana, “Improving adult mental health conditions and symptoms through spiritual energy therapy: Randomized controlled trial,” Neuropsychopharmacology reports 45, no. 3 (2025): e70050, https://doi.org/10.1002/npr2.70050.
The above article, published online on September 10, 2025 in the Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the editor-in-chief of the journal, Tsuyoshi Miyakawa; The Japanese Society of Neuropsychopharmacology; and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. The retraction has been agreed as a similar version of this article by the same authors was previously retracted by the Journal of General and Family Medicine (https://doi.org/10.1002/jgf2.773). Although revisions have been made, the article does not adequately address the previously identified concerns. In particular, questions regarding the appropriateness of the control group and the psychological questionnaire scoring method remain unresolved. In addition, some biomarker values remain implausible without sufficient justification, and claims about the effectiveness of spiritual energy therapy still lack independent supporting evidence. The editors agree that the results and conclusions are unreliable. The authors disagree with the retraction.
And once again, “The authors disagree with the retraction.”
What were some of the problems?
The problematic values (of klotho, a “anti-aging“ protein) is enlarged in Appendix 2, see Tables 3 and 4_Biomarker_Control
tab for ‘Spiritual Energy Therapy Group (Day 180)’. In the Klotho column, 28 out of 35 participants have values of 20.00 ng/mL. This is the upper limit of the assay, according to ThermoFisher (https://www.thermofisher.com/elisa/product/Human-Klotho-ELISA-Kit/EEL200). Importantly, 20.00 ng/ml is 8.73 to 27 times above the upper 95th percentile.
…and of course:
- The Trivedi Effect® is not scientifically proven. Citation #14 and #15 did not provide any data to support this.
“The Trivedi Effect®” is Mahendra Kumar Trivedi’s patented form of “Biofield Energy Treatment”
An extraordinary, unprecedented and evidence-based phenomenon that can transform the cellular structure of living organisms, change the atomic structure of non-living materials and revolutionize an individual’s life.
These claims are truly extraordinary – they are not evidence-based. They have never been scientifically proven. They do not belong in any literature that claims to be scientific.
There’s a long list of other papers that should be withdrawn (a set of six more, for starters), but I still have an actual job.
Further reading
The Miraculous Guru with an h-index of 62
Backed by science? Building a lucrative spiritual empire based on potentially “dubious” publications
RETRACTED: bogus study on “biofield energy” treatment by a guru
The guru publishes retracted paper in another exploitable journal
