Distant intercessory prayer heals
Does prayer for someone's healing actually heal them?
The 2006 STEP study, the largest controlled trial, found no effect of intercessory prayer on cardiac patients.
What practitioners assert
Here's what this claim actually says, stripped of the framing usually attached to it.
The claim that distant intercessory prayer — strangers praying for someone they will never meet — measurably improves the patient's medical outcome. This is distinct from the well-evidenced placebo and meaning-making effects of being prayed for or praying yourself; what's at stake is whether prayer has effects above and beyond what the patient knows about. It is one of the few overtly spiritual claims that has been put to large-scale randomized clinical trial.
The strongest arguments in favour
Before examining the objections — here are the reasons thoughtful people take this seriously, regardless of where it ultimately lands.
- 01STEP (2006) was the largest and most rigorous trial of intercessory prayer.
- 02Earlier positive trials had significant methodological issues.
- 03Some smaller trials have suggested very small effects, not robustly replicated.
The strongest objections
Now the other side. These are the most compelling reasons to remain skeptical.
- 01Believers argue prayer is not the kind of thing that should be controlled-tested.
- 02Defining a 'control group' for spiritual intervention is contested.
- 03Effect is hypothesized to be real but small.
Where this stands
Having seen the best case on both sides, here is our overall read.
Major controlled trials of distant intercessory prayer — particularly the 2006 STEP study with ≈ 1,800 cardiac patients — have not found meaningful effects on outcomes.
That distant intercessory prayer has been tested rigorously and found wanting.
That personal prayer is psychologically meaningless or that all spiritual practices fail.
Phenomenon vs interpretation
The signature distinction. We score the underlying observation separately from the metaphysical framework usually attached to it.
Evidence the reported observation is real.
Evidence the bigger explanation is correct.
Headline score (defaults to phenomenon score for phenomena).
Distance between data and conclusion.
What a thoughtful person might do with this
Pray if it matters to you; do not substitute it for medical care.
How belief in this can go wrong
Substitution of prayer for medical care has caused deaths, particularly of children.
Audit trail
The 11 internal criteria informing the headline scores. They're not arithmetically averaged — they're the audit trail.
Related claims
Sources & Further Reading
Our goal is to link to original studies, academic sources, and serious critiques wherever possible. Scores are provisional until sources are verified.
Primary sources
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients
The largest, best-funded trial of distant intercessory prayer to date. Null result.
Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health
The reference systematic review on the question; conclusion is null overall.
Further reading
Faith healing
Background context for distant intercessory prayer alongside the STEP and Cochrane references below.