395

AGRIVITA Journal of Agricultural Science. 2019. 41(3): 395-404

AGRIVITA
Journal of Agricultural Science
www.agrivita.ub.ac.id

Effect of Biofield Treatment on Growth and Physiology of Hydroponically-Grown

Lettuce and Bok Choy Plants
Chia-Tung Lee and How-Chiun Wu *)
Department of Natural Biotechnology, Nanhua University, Chiayi County, Taiwan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of biofield treatments
Brassica chinensis on the growth and physiology of lettuce and bok choy plants. Energy art
Energy art pieces and water treated by energy art were used as biofield treatments.
Energy field Overall, both the lettuce and bok choy plants exposed to a combination
Hydroponics of energy art and energy art-treated water were significantly larger in
Lactuca sativa terms of leaf and root growth than those in the other treatments. Clear
improvements in the vegetative growth of these plants were found, as
Article History: seen in the significantly higher number of leaves, leaf dry mass, and
Received: August 26, 2019 leaf area. Furthermore, the highest chlorophyll and carotenoid contents
Accepted: September 19, 2019 were detected in lettuces and bok choy cultivated in the energy art
and energy art-treated water treatments, respectively, which were
*) Corresponding author:
significantly higher than those grown in the control. Moreover, the
E-mail: hcwu@nhu.edu.tw
photosynthetic efficiency of the lettuce and bok choy plants exposed to
the energy treatments were improved significantly. The results of this
study demonstrated significant effects of biofield in the form of energy
art and energy art-treated water on hydroponically-grown lettuce
and bok choy plants. Biofield treatments such as energy art can be
used as an alternative approach to improve plant growth and yield.

INTRODUCTION proliferation and wound healing activity (Singh et

In complementary and alternative
medicine, biofield is described as an endogenous
energy field of the human body that includes
bio electromagnetics and biophysical fields
(Movaffaghi & Farsi, 2009). It has been referred
to as a massless field that surrounds and
permeates living bodies (Rubik, Muehsam,
Hammerschlag, & Jain, 2015). According to Rein
(2004), biofield has a functional role in the self-
healing mechanism in the human body. This
mechanism is hypothesized based on the concept
of biological information and consciousness.
Biofield treatments or interventions often involve
intentional mental engagement and/or interaction
with energy fields, which are usually performed
by trained energy healers or practitioners (Rubik,
Brooks, & Schwartz, 2006).
Healing energy has been shown to improve
the growth of skin cell cultures, such as cell
ISSN: 0126-0537 Accredited First Grade by Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of The Republic of Indonesia,
Decree No: 30/E/KPT/2018
al., 2017). Furthermore, anticancer drugs exposed
to energy healing treatments were found to
improve solubility, absorption, and bioavailability
(Nayak, Trivedi, Branton, Trivedi, & Jana,
2019). In addition to its application in medicine,
numerous studies have also documented positive
effects of various types of biofield energy on
microbes and plants. A study by Rubik, Brooks,
& Schwartz (2006) reported improvements in
the growth of bacterial cultures exposed to Reiki
treatment, a form of biofield energy. Findings by
Creath & Schwartz (2004) reported that healing
energy had a significant effect on the germination
of okra and zucchini seeds. Similarly, the growth
rate of plant callus (Centella asiatica) was found
to be significantly improved after being treated
by an energy healer (Branton, Trivedi, Trivedi,
Nayak, & Jana, 2018). In a study on the effects
of biofield on the growth of tomato and lettuce
plants, results showed that when lettuces were

Cite this as: Lee, C.-T., & Wu, H.-C. (2019). Effect of biofield treatment on growth and physiology of hydroponically-
grown lettuce and bok choy plants. AGRIVITA Journal of Agricultural Science, 41(3), 395-404. https://doi.org/10.17503/
agrivita.v41i3.2337
396

Chia-Tung Lee et al.: Effect of Biofield Treatment on Growth Plants..............................................................................

exposed to biofields, the yield increased by 43%

(Shinde, Sances, Patil, & Spence, 2012). In
tomatoes, fertilized and unfertilized plants treated
with biofield resulted in yield increases of 25%
and 31%, respectively. Furthermore, the leaf
number and chlorophyll content of the biofield-
treated tomatoes and lettuces were higher than
the untreated plants. In addition, these findings
demonstrated that combining the use of biofields
and chemical additives resulted in significantly
higher crop yield and insect resistance. Moreover,
a report by Sances, Flora, Patil, Spence, &
Shinde (2013) demonstrated that ginseng and
blueberry crops treated with biofield energy led to
significant increases in yield quantity and quality.
Similarly, significant increases in the growth of
biofield-treated patchouli leaves, nodes, and
petioles, as well as stomatal cells and epidermal
hair, were reported by Patil, Nayak, Barve,
Tembe, & Khan (2012). Further studies to better
understand the influence of biofield from different
materials and interventions are crucial for the
subsequent development of technologies that can
be used to harness the biofield energy to improve
human health in medicine and plant growth in the
agriculture sector.
The source of the biofield energy used in Fig. 1. One-stroke energy art
the present study was in the form of a type of
energy art called One-Stroke Energy Art (Fig. 1). MATERIALS AND METHODS
The energy art was created in one continuous Plant Material and Growth Conditions
stroke by a well-known energy artist and This research was conducted from
practitioner, whose name is not mentioned in this September 2018 to March 2019 at the Department of
paper in accordance with best scientific practice. Natural Biotechnology, Nanhua University, Taiwan.
This research hypothesizes that the energy Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and Bok Choy (Brassica
transmitted by the energy artist surrounds and chinensis) seeds were germinated for seven
permeates the energy art, which in turn is able to days and transplanted to a hydroponic system.
effect change or regulate living systems nearby. A commercially available hydroponics nutrient
To the best of our knowledge, there are few solution, which was continuously oxygenated, was
studies, if any, reporting on the effects of energy used in all treatments. The pH was not adjusted
art or other similar materials on plant growth and throughout the duration of the experiment. All
development. Nevertheless, comparisons can plants were cultured under white light-emitting
be made with the present study in areas such as diodes (LEDs). The photosynthetically active
healing energy, bioelectromagnetism, or other radiation (PAR) was adjusted to 200 μmol/m2/s
related sources. This study investigated the at 25 cm above plant height with the photoperiod
impact of One-Stroke Energy Art pieces on the maintained at 16 h. The temperature of the growth
growth and physiology of hydroponiclly-grown room was maintained at 25 ± 2ºC/20 ± 2ºC (day/
lettuce and bok choy plants. night).

Copyright © 2019 Universitas Brawijaya


Chia-Tung Lee et al.: Effect of Biofield Treatment on Growth Plants..............................................................................
Biofield Treatment (One-Stroke Energy Art)
Small One-stroke Energy Art pieces (8.8
cm x 5.5 cm) drawn by an energy artist were used
in this study (Fig. 1). A total of four treatments
were tested: 1) control; 2) energy art; 3) energy
art-treated water; 4) energy art + energy art-
treated water. A completely randomized design
was used. In the treatments where energy art
pieces were used, five energy art pieces were
placed directly under the germination container
and the planting container of the hydroponics
system throughout the entire growing period. For
the energy art-treated water treatment, water
was first put in a container and placed about 50
cm in front of an energy art piece hung on a wall
for 7 days before being used for germination and
the hydroponic system.
Determination of Chlorophyll Content and
Carotenoids
The method described by Maadane et al.
(2015), with minor modifications, was followed.
Briefly, plant samples were freeze-dried,
weighed, and homogenized with 10 ml of 95%
ethanol. The sample mixture was then mixed
with a vortex shaker for 1 minute, and stood in
the dark for 30 minutes at 4°C. Thereafter, the
sample mixture was filtered, and the supernatant
was centrifuged at 4°C for 10 minutes at 1,000
rpm. A 200 μl aliquot of the supernatant was then
pipetted into a 96-well plate. The absorbance was
measured with a spectrophotometer (Microplate
Spectrophotometer, Biotek Instruments, Inc.,
U.S.A) at 664 nm, 648 nm, and 470 nm for
chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoids,
respectively.
Determination of Total Phenol Content
The total phenol content was determined
with Folin-Ciocalteu reagent according to the
method described by Chen et al. (2012). Plant
samples were homogenized in 95% ethanol,
vortexed for 30 seconds, stood for 30 minutes in
the dark, and filtered. A standard curve for gallic
acid was prepared (10-50 ppm). The sample
solution was further diluted with 95% ethanol
(30:70), from which an aliquot of 150 µl was
taken and mixed with 150 µl Folin-Ciocalteu
reagent (1:2 v/v dilution). After 5 minutes, 150 µl
sodium carbonate (20% w/v) was added to the
Copyright © 2019 Universitas Brawijaya
397
sample solution. The mixture, which was shaken
intermittently, was allowed to stand for 10 minutes.
The sample was then centrifuged at 30,000 rpm
for 1 minute. A 200 µl aliquot of the supernatant
was used for analysis. The absorbance was
measured with a spectrophotometer (Microplate
Spectrophotometer, Biotek Instruments, Inc.,
U.S.A) at 730 nm. The phenolic content was
expressed as gallic acid equivalent (mg/g).
Determination of Chlorophyll Fluorescence
Leaves were first dark-adapted for 3 h, after
which measurements were taken in complete
darkness. The third leaf from the top was placed
into the sensor head (FluorPen FP100, PSI,
Czech Republic) to take chlorophyll fluorescence
readings. The dark-adapted Fv/Fm values
obtained was used to interpret the photosynthetic
efficiency and stress levels of the plants.
Statistical Analysis
For each treatment, five planting
containers, each containing six plants were used.
Data were collected after 35 days of cultivation.
All data were analyzed using Duncan’s Multiple
Range Test to compare treatment means.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Effect of Biofield on Leaf and Root growth
Overall, the lettuce plants cultivated
in the energy art + energy art-treated water
treatment were larger than those in the other
treatments (Fig. 2). Striking differences in the
vegetative growth of these plants can be seen
from the significantly higher number of leaves,
leaf dry mass, and leaf area than those of the
other treatments (Table 1). It is also worth noting
that lettuce plants cultivated in treatments with
energy art only or energy art-treated water only
produced the least number of leaves with the
lowest leaf mass, which were significantly lower
than the control treatment. However, of these
three treatments, significant differences in leaf
area were only present between the control and
the energy art-treated water treatments. With
regard to root growth, the dry mass of roots was
significantly higher in lettuce plants grown in
energy art + energy art-treated water than those
in the other treatments (Table 1).
398

Chia-Tung Lee et al.: Effect of Biofield Treatment on Growth Plants..............................................................................

Fig. 2. Growth of lettuce after 35 days in hydroponics. (A) Control; (B) Energy art; (C) Energy art-treated
water; (D) Energy Art + Energy art-treated water

Table 1. The effects of biofield treatments on leaf and root growth of lettuce and bok choy plants

No. of Leaves Leaf Dry Mass (g) Leaf Area (cm2) Root Dry Mass (g)
Treatment Bok Bok Bok
Lettuce Lettuce Lettuce Bok Choy Lettuce
Choy Choy Choy
Control 9.3±1.5b 7.4±1.1a 1.5±0.5b 1.9±0.9b 346.2±129.2b 365.8±150.2a 0.3± 01b 0.4±0.1a
Energy Art 6.5±1.0a 8.3±1.3b 0.7±0.3a 1.7±1.4b 290.6±103.2ab 448.2±202.1a 0.2±0.1a 0.4±0.1ab
EAW1 6.3± 0.8a 7.8±1.2ab 0.7±0.2a 1.1±0.9a 242.9±73.0a 364.8±217.9a 0.3±0.1ab 0.3±0.1a
EA + EAW2 12.3±2.0c 9.6±1.5c 1.9±1.2c 2.5±1.1c 606.6± 260.3c 699.3±245.1b 0.4±0.1c 0.5±0.3b
Remarks: Different letters within the same column indicate mean values differ significantly based on Duncan’s Multiple
Range test (P ≤ 0.05); EAW1 = energy art-treated water; EA + EAW2 = energy art + energy art-treated water

Copyright © 2019 Universitas Brawijaya

 399

Chia-Tung Lee et al.: Effect of Biofield Treatment on Growth Plants..............................................................................

Similar to the results of lettuce plants, bok
choy plants grown in the energy art + energy
art-treated water treatment were much larger in size
(Fig. 3). Analysis of the data showed significantly
higher number of leaves, leaf dry mass, and leaf
area of plants in this treatment than those grown in
all the other treatments (Table 1). In fact, the leaf
area of bok choy cultivated in the energy art + en-
ergy art-treated water treatment was over 1.5 times
the size of plants in the other treatments. When bok
choy plants were exposed to a single type of biofield
treatment only, leaf growth was similar to that of the
control (Table 1). In terms of root growth, significant-
ly higher root dry mass was found between roots
that formed in the energy art + energy art-treated
water treatment than those produced in the other
treatments. No significant differences in root growth
were observed between bok choy plants grown in
the control and those exposed to energy art only or
energy art-treated water only (Table 1).

Fig. 3. Growth of bok choy after 35 days in hydroponics. (A) Control; (B) Energy art; (C) Energy art-treated
water; (D) Energy art + Energy art-treated water

Copyright © 2019 Universitas Brawijaya

400

Chia-Tung Lee et al.: Effect of Biofield Treatment on Growth Plants..............................................................................

The combined use of energy art and energy
art-treated water clearly had a profound effect on
the growth and development of lettuce and bok choy
plants. A study by Trivedi et al. (2016) showed that
watermelons and eggplants treated with biofield
energy had improved growth characteristics, growth
rate, and crop yield. According to Creath & Schwartz
(2004), who used healing energy on the germination
of okra and zucchini seeds, energy effects on plants
could be attributed to bioelectromagnetism as
well as specific healing intentions originating from
the hands of the healer. In the present study, this
research hypothesized that an exchange of energy
between the artist and the art pieces occurred
during its creation, which in turn was transferred
to the water when it was placed in the immediate
vicinity of the art pieces for seven days, and
subsequently used as energy art-treated water in
this research. The combined biofield energy from
the energy art and the energy art-treated water was
then able to significantly influence the growth and
development of the lettuce plants. This hypothesis
is in agreement with the views of Nayak & Altekar
(2015) who proposed that biofield energies may
interact with materials and structures to affect or
control events that are not possible through material
means alone. It was further stated that their findings
provide some evidence of a potential for significant
reciprocal influence of biofield energies on materials
and its surroundings.
It seems that the strength of the energy
transmitted by the energy art or energy art-treated
water is crucial to its level of influence on the lettuce
and bok choy plants. This is particularly clear in
the significantly lower amount of vegetative and
root growths of lettuce plants grown in treatments
with energy art only or energy art-treated water
only. Regardless of the source, whether it is an
energy field, magnetic field or other related forces,
the intensity or dose of the energy/force used has
been found to have clear differences in their effects
on plant growth. In a soybean research, dose-
response studies of magnetic fields showed that
at its optimal intensity, significant enhancements
of plant growth were evident (Shine, Guruprasad,
& Anand, 2011). On the other hand, lower strength
and exposure time of the same treatment did not
alter seedling growth parameters profoundly, while
at higher strengths, detrimental effects on growth
were observed. In this study, results strongly
suggested that the energy emitted by the energy art
+ energy art-treated water was probably at a near-
optimal level, which promoted significant vegetative
and root growth in the hydroponically-grown lettuce
and bok choy vegetables.
Effect of Biofield on Chlorophyll and Carotenoid
Content
In lettuce plants that were grown in the
energy art treatment, results of the chemical
analyses showed that it contained the highest
concentration of carotenoids, chlorophyll a and b
(Table 2). The total chlorophyll content (chlorophyll
a+b) and carotenoids of lettuces cultivated in this
treatment were significantly higher than those
grown in the control. All bok choy plants exposed
to biofield treatments contained significantly higher
chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b contents than the
control treatment, irrespective of the type of biofield
used (Table 2).

Table 2. The effects of biofield treatments on chlorophyll and carotenoid contents of lettuce and bok choy
plants

Carotenoids (mg/g) Chl. a (mg/g) Chl. b (mg/g) Chl. a+b (mg/g)

Treatment Bok Bok Bok Bok
Lettuce Lettuce Lettuce Lettuce
Choy Choy Choy Choy
Control 2.1±0.7b 1.5±0.5a 7.8±2.1b 6.2±1.5a 3.1±0.7ab 2.7±0.4a 10.9±2.8b 8.9±1.8a
Energy Art 2.5±0.3c 4.9±1.1b 9.4±1.1c 19.4±3.7b 3.5±0.4b 6.2±1.0b 12.9±1.4c 25.6±4.7b
EAW1 1.6±0.3a 7.1±0.2c 5.7±1.2a 26.8±1.8d 2.5±0.4a 11.9±3.7c 8.2±1.5a 38.6±5.3d
EA + EAW2 2.2±0.2bc 6.6±0.5c 8.1±0.7bc 23.6±2.0c 3.3±0.2ab 7.5±1.3b 11.4±0.9bc 31.1±3.3c
Remarks: Different letters within the same column indicate mean values differ significantly based on Duncan’s Multiple
Range test (P ≤ 0.05); EAW1 = energy art-treated water; EA + EAW2 = energy art + energy art-treated water

Copyright © 2019 Universitas Brawijaya


Chia-Tung Lee et al.: Effect of Biofield Treatment on Growth Plants..............................................................................
In fact, the chlorophyll content of bok choy
grown without any biofield treatments (control)
was several times lower than those cultivated
in the presence of biofields. The results of the
analysis of carotenoid content in bok choy plants
were similar to their chlorophyll content, i.e.,
significantly higher carotenoid content in biofield
treatments compared to the control, which were at
least twice as high as those detected in plants of
the control treatment.
These findings are similar to those reported
in electromagnetically-treated corn plants (Anand
et al., 2012). The chlorophyll contents of the corn
plants were found to have increased after being
pretreated with magnetic treatments. Shinde,
Sances, Patil, & Spence (2012) also found
tomato and lettuce plants that were treated with
biofield contained higher total chlorophyll content.
Similarly, mustard and chickpea plants treated
with biofield energy consistently contained higher
concentrations of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and
total chlorophyll content (Trivedi, Branton, Trivedi,
Nayak, Mondal, et al., 2015). In addition, the
chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and total chlorophyll
content of cashew plants that were grown on a
plot of land that had been treated with biofield
were found to have increased by 30%, 93%,
and 45%, respectively (Trivedi, Branton, Trivedi,
Nayak, Gangwar, et al., 2015).
The inverse effects between the energy
art treatment and the energy art-treated water
treatment on the carotenoid and chlorophyll a
and b contents of bok choys and lettuces clearly
illustrate that responses to the energy from these
treatments are also dependent on plant type (Table
2). In line with this observation, the effect of the
energy art + energy art-treated water treatment,
which had a profound effect on bok choys, was not
as pronounced on lettuce plants (Table 2).
Effect of Biofield on Chlorophyll Fluorescence
(Fv/Fm) and Total Phenol Content
When light strikes a leaf, it enters the
Photosystem I (PSI) and Photosystem II (PSII)
reaction centers in the chloroplast (Ritchie, 2006).
As a photon of energy is absorbed by PSII,
its chlorophyll a electron is raised to a higher
energy state. It is captured in this state by an
electron acceptor and transferred to PSI. Energy
is generated through a photochemical process
Copyright © 2019 Universitas Brawijaya
401
and used to convert carbon dioxide into sugar.
However, chlorophyll a electrons fall back to
their ground state if they are not captured by the
electron acceptors. As a result, energy is lost and
fluorescent light is released. This fluorescent light
is measured as chlorophyll fluorescence.
The chlorophyll fluorescent is measured by
first placing plant leaves in the dark to remove all
excited electrons (dark-adaptation). A chlorophyll
fluorometer is then used to illuminate plant cells
with a saturating light pulse, after which the
maximum and minimum fluorescent light released
by the cell is measured. After the period of complete
darkness, the fluorescence yield of the leaf is
minimal, denoted F0. When the saturating light
pulse is applied, the fluorescence level is maximal,
denoted Fm (Schoefs, 2005). The increase from
F0 to Fm is known as variable fluorescence (Fv)
(Govindje, 1995). The Fv/Fm ratio measures the
optimal quantum efficiency of a plant, which is
an estimation of the state of its photosynthetic
apparatus (Genty, Briantais, & Baker, 1989). In
general, the Fv/Fm ratio of a healthy plant falls
between 0.70–0.83, which indicates a relatively
efficient photosynthetic system (Ritchie, 2006).
As shown in Table 3, the Fv/Fm values of
both lettuce and bok choy plants cultivated without
any type of biofield treatment (control) were
significantly lower than those exposed to biofield
treatments, regardless of the type of biofield used.
In addition, the Fv/Fm value of lettuce plants in the
control treatment was found to be less than 0.7.
This suggests that these plants were under stress
and were not photosynthetically efficient. This
might be caused by the hydroponic conditions not
being entirely optimal for the cultivation of lettuce
plants. In contrast, the Fv/Fm values of the lettuce
plants grown in the three energy treatments were
all significantly higher. Crucially, their Fv/Fm values
were all within the range of 0.70–0.83 (Table 3).
This is a clear indication that their photosynthetic
apparatus was efficient and productive. According
to Ritchie (2006), plants with Fv/Fm values of
between 0.7 and 0.83 are healthy and unstressed.
These findings showed that the exposure to any
of the three energy treatments improved the
photosynthetic efficiency of the lettuce plants,
compared to those not exposed to any energy
treatments (control).
402

Chia-Tung Lee et al.: Effect of Biofield Treatment on Growth Plants..............................................................................

Table 3. The effects of biofield treatments on the Fv/Fm value and total phenols of lettuce and bok choy
plants.

Fv/Fm Value Total Phenols (mg/g)

Treatment
Lettuce Bok Choy Lettuce Bok Choy
Control 0.68±0.04 a
0.72±0.05 a
4.83±0.44 b
5.78± 1.52a
Energy Art 0.78±0.02b 0.78±0.01b 3.85±0.34a 5.19±0.11a
EAW1 0.78±0.02b 0.80±0.02c 3.50±0.37a 7.30±1.71a
EA + EAW2 0.78±0.03b 0.79±0.02bc 4.76±0.25b 6.48± 0.44a
Remarks: Different letters within the same column indicate mean values differ significantly based on Duncan’s Multiple
Range test (P ≤ 0.05); EAW1 = energy art-treated water; EA + EAW2 = energy art + energy art-treated water

In bok choy plants, although those cultivated
in the control treatment have an Fv/Fm value above
0.7, those grown in the three energy treatments are
significantly higher (Table 3). These results again
showed that the bok choy plants exposed to any
of the three energy treatments were healthier and
more photosynthetically efficient than those in the
control. Similar to the results found in lettuces,
these findings demonstrated the positive effects of
the three energy treatments in improving the state
of the photosynthetic apparatus of bok choy plants.
Shine, Guruprasad, & Anand (2011) reported that
the photosynthetic efficiency of soybeans treated
with magnetic fields were enhanced, which resulted
in higher vegetative growth. The photosynthetic
apparatus of corn seeds was also improved by
pretreatment with magnetic fields, which alleviated
drought-induced adverse effects on their growth
(Javed, Ashraf, Akram, & Al-Qurainy, 2011)
Significantly lower total phenol content was
observed in the energy art only and energy art-
treated water only treatments of lettuces compared
to the control and the energy art + energy art-
treated water treatments (Table 3). No significant
differences in total phenol content were detected
between bok choy cultivated in the control treatment
and those exposed to energy treatments. Little
information is available on the effects of biofield on
the total phenol contents of plants. Nevertheless,
the amount of phenolic content detected in plants
is known to be related to osmotic stress of plants
under certain conditions (Cui, Murthy, & Paek,
2014). However, the factors causing the stress
may vary widely depending on the type of plant and
growing conditions. In the present study, the effects
of the energy treatments on total phenol content
in the lettuce and bok choy are not clear. Further
studies are required to determine how biofield
affects phenolic compounds in plants.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
The combined use of energy art and energy
art-treated water had a profound effect in improving
the growth of lettuce and bok choy plants. The
positive impact also extends to their physiological
development, as demonstrated by the improvements
in their photosynthetic efficiency. Based on these
results, energy art and energy art-treated water
combined can be used as an alternative approach
to improve plant growth and yield. Future studies are
warranted to determine the underlying mechanisms
of these effects.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their
gratitude to Dr. Chia-Min Chen for his assistance in
the statistical analysis of the data in this article.
REFERENCES
Anand, A., Nagarajan, S., Verma, A. P. S., Joshi, D.
K., Pathak, P. C., & Bhardwaj, J. (2012). Pre-
treatment of seeds with static magnetic field
ameliorates soil water stress in seedlings
of maize (Zea mays L.). Indian Journal of
Biochemistry and Biophysics, 49(1), 63–70.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/22435146
Branton, A., Trivedi, M. K., Trivedi, D., Nayak, G., & Jana,
S. (2018). Impact of the Trivedi Effect - Energy
of consciousness healiong on growth and yield
of the plant stem cells culture. Journal of Plant
Biology & Soil Health, 5(1), 1-5. Retrieved from
http://www.avensonline.org/wp-content/uploads/

Copyright © 2019 Universitas Brawijaya


Chia-Tung Lee et al.: Effect of Biofield Treatment on Growth Plants..............................................................................
JPBSH-2331-8996-05-0023.pdf
Chen, L.-Y., Cheng, C.-W., Wang, J.-S., Lin, C.-C.,
Chang, Y.-L., Li, J.-L., … Liang, J.-Y. (2012).
Effects of base-catalysis on determination of
total polyphenols with Folin-Ciocalteu reagent
MC-Transaction on Biotechnology, 4(1), 10–19.
Retrieved from http://www.airitilibrary.com/Pub-
lication/alD=22255184-201203-201305290017-
201305290017-10-19
Creath, K., & Schwartz, G. E. (2004). Measuring effects
of music, noise, and healing energy using a seed
germination bioassay. Journal of Alternative
and Complementary Medicine, 10(1), 113–122.
https://doi.org/10.1089/107555304322849039
Cui, X. H., Murthy, H. N., & Paek, K. Y. (2014). Production
of adventitious root biomass and bioactive com-
pounds from Hypericum perforatum L. Through
large scale bioreactor cultures. In K. Y. Paek,
H. Murthy, & J. J. Zhong (Eds.), Production of
Biomass and Bioactive Compounds Using Bio-
reactor Technology (pp. 251–283). Dordrecht:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-
9223-3_11
Genty, B., Briantais, J. M., & Baker, N. R. (1989). The
relationship between the quantum yield of pho-
tosynthetic electron transport and quenching
of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochimica et Bio-
physica Acta - General Subjects, 990(1), 87–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4165(89)80016-9
Govindje, E. (1995). Sixty-three years since kautsky:
Chlorophyll a fluorescence. Australian Journal
of Plant Physiology, 22(2), 131–160. https://doi.
org/10.1071/pp9950131
Javed, N., Ashraf, M., Akram, N. A., & Al-Qurainy, F.
(2011). Alleviation of adverse effects of drought
stress on growth and some potential physiolog-
ical attributes in maize (Zea mays L.) by seed
electromagnetic treatment. Photochemistry and
Photobiology, 87(6), 1354–1362. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2011.00990.x
Maadane, A., Merghoub, N., Ainane, T., El Arroussi, H.,
Benhima, R., Amzazi, S., … Wahby, I. (2015).
Antioxidant activity of some Moroccan marine
microalgae: Pufa profiles, carotenoids and phe-
nolic content. Journal of Biotechnology, 215, 13–
19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2015.06.400
Movaffaghi, Z., & Farsi, M. (2009). Biofield therapies:
Biophysical basis and biological regulations?
Complementary Therapies in Clinical Prac-
tice, 15, 35–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ctcp.2008.07.001
Copyright © 2019 Universitas Brawijaya
403
Nayak, G., & Altekar, N. (2015). Effect of a biofield treat-
ment on plant growth and adaptation. Journal
of Environment and Health Science, 1(2), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.15436/2378-6841.15.001
Nayak, G., Trivedi, M. K., Branton, A., Trivedi, D, & Jana,
S. (2019). Impact of consciousness energy
healing treatment on the physicochemical and
thermal properties of an anticancer drug 6-mer-
captopurine. Open Access Journal of Cancer &
Oncology 3(1), 000137. https://doi.org/10.23880/
oajco-16000137
Patil, S. A., Nayak, G. B., Barve, S. S., Tembe, R. P.,
& Khan, R. R. (2012). Impact of biofield treat-
ment on growth and anatomical characteristics
of Pogostemon cablin (Benth.). Biotechnology,
11(3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.3923/bio-
tech.2012.154.162
Rein, G. (2004). Bioinformation within the biofield: beyond
bioelectromagnetics. Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 10(1), 59–68. https://
doi.org/10.1089/107555304322848968
Ritchie, G. A. (2006). Chlorophyll fluorescence: What is
it and what do the numbers mean? In National
Proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nurs-
ery Associations - 2005. Proc. RMRS-P-43 (pp.
34–42). Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain. Re-
trieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/
pubs/26654
Rubik, B., Brooks, A. J., & Schwartz, G. E. (2006). In vi-
tro effect of Reiki treatment on bacterial cultures:
Role of experimental context and practitioner
well-being. Journal of Alternative and Com-
plementary Medicine, 12(1), 7–13. https://doi.
org/10.1089/acm.2006.12.7
Rubik, B., Muehsam, D., Hammerschlag, R., & Jain, S.
(2015). Biofield science and healing: History,
terminology, and concepts. Global Advances in
Health and Medicine, 4(Suppl), 8–14. https://doi.
org/10.7453/gahmj.2015.038.suppl
Sances, F., Flora, E., Patil, S., Spence, A., & Shinde, V.
(2013). Impact of biofield treatment on ginseng
and organic blueberry yield. AGRIVITA Journal
of Agricultural Science, 35(1), 22–29. https://doi.
org/10.17503/Agrivita-2013-35-1-p022-029
Schoefs, B. (2005). Plant Pigments: Properties, Anal-
ysis, Degradation. in S. Taylor (Ed.), Advanc-
es in Food and Nutrition Research Vol 49 (pp.
42–80). San Diego, USA: Elsevier. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S1043-4526(05)49002-6
404
Chia-Tung Lee et al.: Effect of Biofield Treatment on Growth Plants..............................................................................
Shinde, V., Sances, F., Patil, S., & Spence, A. (2012). Im-
pact of biofield treatment on growth and yieldof
lettuce and tomato. Australian Journal of Basic
and Applied Sciences, 6(10), 100–105. Re-
trieved from http://www.ajbasweb.com/old/aj-
bas/2012/October/100-105.pdf
Shine, M. B., Guruprasad, K. N., & Anand, A. (2011). En-
hancement of germination, growth, and photo-
synthesis in soybean by pre-treatment of seeds
with magnetic field. Bio Electro Magnetics, 32(6),
474–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20656
Singh, J., Trivedi, M. K., Branton, A., Trivedi, D., Nayak,
G., Gangwar, M. & Jana, S. (2017). Conscious-
ness energy healing treatment based herbomin-
eral formulation: A safe and effective approach
for skin health. American Journal of Pharma-
cology and Phytotherapy, 2(1), 1-10. https://doi.
org/10.11648/j.ajpp.20170201.11
Copyright © 2019 Universitas Brawijaya
Trivedi, M. K., Branton, A., Trivedi, D., Nayak, G., Gang-
war, M., & Jana, S. (2015). Effect of biofield
energy treatment on chlorophyll content, patho-
logical study, and molecular analysis of cashew
plant (Anacardium occidentale L.). Journal
of Plant Sciences, 3(6), 372–382. https://doi.
org/10.11648/j.jps.20150306.21
Trivedi, M. K., Branton, A., Trivedi, D., Nayak, G., Gang-
war, M., & Jana, S. (2016). Molecular analysis
of biofield treated eggplant and watermelon
crops. Advances in Crop Science and Technol-
ogy, 4(1), 208. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-
8863.1000208
Trivedi, M. K., Branton, A., Trivedi, D., Nayak, G., Mon-
dal, S. C., & Jana, S. (2015). Evaluation of plant
growth, yield and yield attributes of biofield ener-
gy treated mustard (Brassica juncea) and chick
pea (Cicer arietinum) seeds. Agriculture, For-
estry and Fisheries, 4(6), 291–295. https://doi.
org/10.11648/j.aff.20150406.19