Spiritual healers

In recent years, the topic of spiritual healers has gained popularity, raising many doubts about their authenticity. Who is a spiritual healer, really? In this article, we will examine Paul Waters's classification of people, distinguishing three types: intuitionists, intellectualists, and emotionalists. Intuitionists, as individuals who seek the causes of problems in the spiritual realm, play a key role in healing. We will also consider methods of spiritual healing and the importance of true intention in the process of supporting others.

Recently, we hear more and more about various types of healers, spiritual healing, etc. But how many of these healers actually deserve this title?

Unfortunately, looking at this, it's very clear that there aren't many. But who really is a spiritual healer?

Perhaps to illustrate this, I'll present the division cited by Paul Waters. This division divides people into three guilds, three types, from which our culture is said to have originated, although even today this division is very clear.

According to him, people are divided into the following types: intuitionists, intellectualists and emotionalists.

Intuitionists, or People of the Heart, were most interested in the practice of telepathy, magic, mysticism, and psychology. Even today, among Aborigines and other peoples not so corrupted by "rational thinking," one can hear reports of miraculous healings performed at a distance and incredible phenomena in the field of telepathy. Their worldview was primarily holistic.

The second type are the intellectuals, or Men of Mind.

Their main specialties were the construction of various devices, everyday objects, and so on. Overall, one could say they formed a craftsman class. They were particularly famous for stonemasonry, traces of which can still be observed today in Polynesia. Although the author of the book remains silent on this topic, I would add that, in my opinion, such healing disciplines as lithotherapy, phytotherapy, and so on, were their creation. The final group consisted of the emotionalists, or Body People. Their main occupation was community organization, their role as priests and officials (in various senses of the word). They were experts primarily in the fields of treatment related to physical ailments. Their strengths in this field included massage, surgery, and the laying on of hands. I would like to add right away that this is not a rigid division, but rather a distinction between the approach of people with these psychological subtypes to life, healing, and so on.

Well, since we have humanity more or less divided into types, I can now get down to business.

Intuitionists, in my opinion, are what could be called spiritual healers. While they certainly treated physical ailments, they traced their causes to spiritual issues. Some will undoubtedly argue that emotionalists also healed with energy, so why shouldn't they be considered spiritual healers? Since they treated only physical ailments and focused solely on them, they didn't look for problems in the soul. A spiritual healer should have an intuitive approach, but knowledge from other healing disciplines used by the other two groups can also prove very useful.

Now let me get to the heart of this article.

Who is truly a spiritual healer? Who has the right to call themselves that? This term can be applied to someone who primarily heals the soul, not the physical body (this, of course, includes the etheric, astral, mental, etc. bodies). It's certainly very useful to be able to use energy consciously, but a person who could truly be called a spiritual healer doesn't even have to realize they are one. Such a person might simply be a friend whose presence instantly lifts our spirits, and whose few kind words instantly help us overcome depression. While this is an unconscious channeling of energy, it has more healing properties than a few hundred sessions with a biotherapist, who works solely with energy, without attempting to heal the patient's soul or to find the true causes of a given health problem. The truth is, each of us has probably been a spiritual healer at least for a while, but how can we recognize someone who can be called that name with a clear conscience, and whose words will always be true? There are people we immediately feel sympathy for, and in their presence, safety and joy. The presence of such people can actually bring about healing, even if we don't engage in dialogue with them. In my opinion, these are true healers, although I won't deny that it would be best if they also knew the basics of biotherapy, Reiki, pranic healing, or another similar method. Currently, there are several methods that, in their approach, truly constitute spiritual healing. For example, some Reiki masters, when teaching, emphasize healing the soul first, and only then the body. Including Reiki, I'd also add SKHM, of course, due to its approach to healing, the NFSH methods (Jack and Jan Angelo deserve special mention here), and, of course (in my opinion, one of the best spiritual healing methods), Life Field Healing. This last method is particularly noteworthy because it cannot be acquired through any special initiations, nor can it be forged and become a good healer. Without true love for one's neighbor, these are only helpful practices, but when the therapist truly loves and wants the good of his neighbor, he can even work miracles.

Another excellent method is Huna and its healing practices. It places a strong emphasis on mental health, which is why it should truly be considered a true breakthrough in spiritual healing. No previous, and often even subsequent, healing school has placed such emphasis on the psychological aspect, which is truly the most important factor in determining whether a treatment will be successful. But above all, what distinguishes and determines whether a given method is considered spiritual healing or not? The healer, and only the healer. If their approach to healing, to life, and to everything is holistic, their methods should focus not only on the body, and then it will be spiritual healing.

Before I move on to the conclusion, I would like to raise a somewhat interjected issue regarding the very name "healer".

Many people argue that they should only call themselves a therapist, or perhaps someone who merely facilitates the self-healing process. In a sense, there's much truth to this, as, as we know, a healer primarily transmits energy, helps the patient reach the appropriate energy level, etc., but doesn't actually heal themselves.

The question is: how is healing supposed to happen? You'd have to be incredibly lazy to wait for someone to heal you while we lie around and do nothing. The truth is, a healer only helps us tap into our own self-healing potential. But I'll still insist on calling such people healers, and why? It's undeniable that without a healer, the healing process would be much slower and not necessarily always perfect. A healer's role is to support us, identify the causes, and help us eliminate them, not simply become a conduit for energy and sit back contentedly.

This is actually all that can be said about spiritual healers, although this topic could be continued indefinitely, the most important (and the less important too) has been included here.

Finally, I will add one more thing: you cannot become a spiritual healer, you have to be one.