BACKGROUND: Contemplative traditions describe inter-hand sensations as "prana," yet these remain underexplored experimentally. This study examined whether a structured embodied attention practice elicits higher reproducible inter-hand sensory experiences and investigated their associations with affective state, environmental context, and physiological parameters in healthy individuals. METHODS: In this participant-blinded randomized controlled trial, 107 healthy young adults (mean age 20.7 ± 1.3 years) were allocated to either an embodied attention intervention derived from pranic healing practices or a structurally matched sham condition across four standardized sessions. Intensity and spatial extent of perceived inter-hand sensations, mood introspection, nature connectedness, and physiological parameters were measured. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, including linear mixed-effects models, correlation and regression analyses, and qualitative content analysis of participant-reported experiences. RESULTS: Intervention group reported significantly higher inter-hand sensory intensity across sessions (p ≤ 0.05) and greater spatial extent in three sessions (p ≤ 0.05). Sensory measures showed large treatment effects (ηp² = .145-.155) and good internal consistency (α = .74-.81). Both groups indicating increased calmness. A small but significant decrease in forehead temperature was observed post-intervention (p ≤ 0.001). Hierarchical regression showed positive affect (β = 0.37, p = 0.005) and nature connectedness (β = 0.26, p = 0.043) predicted perceived sensory intensity, explaining 21% variance. Qualitative findings revealed recurring sensations like attraction, pressure, and vibration, more frequent in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Focused embodied attention practice in pranic healing consistently enhanced inter-hand sensory intensity and spatial extent, accompanied by mild forehead temperature reduction. Mood state and nature connectedness influenced these experiences, suggesting interactions among attentional, interoceptive, affective, and psychophysiological processes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vijayakumar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: