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. (in press) address four concerns, asserting that: (1) the rationale for energy psychology is based on premises that are not supported by reliable evidence; (2) the claim that tapping on acupuncture points is an active ingredient in energy psychology is based on insufficient evidence; (3) the quality of efficacy evidence is low; and (4) 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.”