Reiki Healing response

I like how the writer uses a flow that is easy to understand in explaining the healing therapy. By using language that most can understand, and explaining what words mean when they are difficult, the writer does a good job of walking someone through the process. The writer does a good job in telling the origin of the process, and what purposes it served. He / she does a good job staying unbiased with the technique. The writer states the controversies, but ignores them and keeps the paper an informative paper.

I wish the writer elaborated more on how the process was applied. I would have liked to see more details about the technique and the chakras. I don't like how the writer interjected at a seemingly random spot to give us his/her opinion on weather the process works or not. They also did not state any evidence as to why the author believes that. I think the essay could have pulled me in better as I would not have read the essay if i didn't have to.

The word holistic caught me off guard, i assume it means over all or evenly throughout.

How is the pressure applied, is there a special technique with the hands?