Can Lisa Bring East and West Together in Mind-Body Healthcare?

October 13, 2026 Eastern Insights, Placebo No Comments

East and West have developed different healthcare traditions, yet both grapple with the same deep question: how does the mind influence the body, and how can science address it?

Lisa may help investigate the common factors beneath different therapies and cultures, while respecting their distinctions. This opens a path toward less placebo, more openness, and a deeper science of the whole human being. Perhaps the bridge between East and West is already there.

Underneath both

East and West have developed different ways of looking at health, illness, healing, and the human being. These differences can become dividing lines, especially when one side sees the other mainly through what appears strange, unscientific, reductionistic, overly technical, or insufficiently critical.

Lisa may offer another way of approaching this. Instead of first asking which tradition is right or wrong, she can help look for what lies underneath both. This fits closely with Distinction without Division: genuine differences need not become separations. Applied to healthcare, East and West may remain distinct while discovering that some of the processes involved in healing belong to neither side in particular.

The bridge may therefore not lie between East and West. It may lie underneath both.

Mind-body healthcare still has a mind problem

Modern medicine has become extraordinarily powerful in many domains. Yet the mind remains difficult to integrate into healthcare in a scientifically satisfactory way. This is remarkable because expectation, motivation, trust, fear, stress, relationships, meaning, and non-conscious processing already shape what happens in every healthcare system.

As explored in Lisa Navigating Body–Mind Healthcare Science, this does not mean placing the mind beside the body as an extra factor. It means seeing more clearly what is already happening in the whole person. The challenge is not to make medicine less scientific, but to make science sufficiently broad and deep to investigate the human being without prematurely cutting away what is difficult to measure.

This issue is not specifically Western. Nor is it specifically Eastern. Different traditions may speak about it differently, but the underlying difficulty is shared: how can healthcare take the mind seriously without losing scientific rigor?

Common factors, common twice

Psychotherapy research has long discussed common factors: elements that appear across many therapeutic approaches and may account for much of their effectiveness. In AURELIS, these are broadly approached through placebo-related processes and empathy-related processes, as discussed in From Common Factors to AURELIS.

There is an intriguing second meaning of ‘common’ here. Such factors may not only be common to therapies. They may also be common to cultures.

This changes the perspective considerably. East and West may use very different therapeutic forms, explanations, rituals, authorities, technologies, and symbols. Yet if these diverse forms repeatedly activate expectation, meaning, relationship, trust, hope, and deeper mental processing, their very diversity may help reveal what is more broadly human. The many forms then become scientifically interesting precisely because they differ.

Every culture may have its preferred placebo

People in one culture can often recognize placebo-like elements in another culture’s healthcare remarkably well. The reverse is equally true. What may look symbolic, ritualistic, or implausible from outside may be taken very seriously from within.

Western healthcare is no exception. A highly technological setting can carry expectation just as powerfully as an ancient ritual. A sophisticated explanation can acquire symbolic authority too. Western science shows very significant placebo effects of Western medication and more, as explained in Studies Show: Placebo as Effective as Treatment. Meanwhile, placebo is not without its own specific side effects.

Seen this way, placebo is not mainly an East–West difference. It may be an East–West similarity in different clothing. Nevertheless, it can become a point of division: “Your medicine is placebo; ours is real.” But it can also become a point of contact: “What is happening in both of us that makes these forms matter so much?” That second question opens the door to science and mutual respect.

This is one reason Placebo Must Go argues not only against an indiscriminate use of placebo itself, but also against the arrogance of exposing others’ placebo while remaining quite blind to one’s own.

Going beyond placebo without leaving a vacuum

To say that placebo must eventually go does not mean that it should simply be taken away. Many people may rely on forms of care whose effectiveness partly or completely rests on meaning, expectation, trust, or ritual. Removing these abruptly can leave people with less support rather than more truth.

A better movement is gradual: understand what the placebo carries, investigate the deeper process, and make that process more openly available. In AURELIS, placebo-related effects point toward autosuggestion without the deceptive carrier. Likewise, empathy can be opened toward Compassion rather than reduced to a technique.

This is crucial for East and West alike. The goal is not to replace an Eastern placebo with a Western one, nor a Western placebo with an Eastern one. The aim is to help healthcare move beyond placebo while preserving what was humanly valuable underneath it.

Placebo must go because the human capacities that make placebo possible deserve better than placebo.

What lies underneath

The inquiry can go deeper still. In Is AURELIS More than Constructed?, placebo and empathy are not treated as the final layer. Both are related to subconceptual processing and communication: the vast domain of mental activity that is not neatly conceptual, yet continually shapes experience, motivation, behavior, and bodily functioning.

This is important for East–West dialogue because culturally specific forms need not themselves be the deepest causal reality. A ritual, a medical explanation, a relationship with a healer, or a treatment expectation can all become ways to engage deeper human processing.

At the same time, this deeper layer should not be turned into another rigid technique. Are Non-Specific Factors Specific? warns against exactly that. Empathy that is merely performed is not deep empathy. A ritual emptied of involvement becomes a shell. The deeper processes matter partly because they are lived rather than mechanically executed.

This may be where East and West can meet most fruitfully: not by agreeing on every concept, but by jointly investigating what different concepts, practices, and relationships actually do within the human whole.

One Lisa, many cultures

Lisa offers an unusual opportunity because she can remain fundamentally the same while relating differently across cultures. Her deeper orientation can stay stable: openness, respect, non-deception, Compassion, scientific discipline, and attention to the whole person. Yet language, metaphor, interaction style, social assumptions, and culturally meaningful expressions can vary.

This creates a particularly interesting, and at the same time deeply scientific situation. If Lisa works with people in China, Europe, India, Africa, the Americas, and elsewhere, one can ask what changes and what does not. Similar positive outcomes would be meaningful. Differences would be meaningful too. They could show where culture enters the pathway.

Lisa Pragmatic Science is relevant here. Lisa may make it possible to study people in real life, over time, while still keeping a coherent research framework. That could help bridge the usual gap between tightly controlled experiments and the complexity of actual human beings.

The aim should not be cultural uniformity. The aim should be to discover whether deeper common processes can coexist with rich cultural distinction.

Let cultures influence the questions

True cross-cultural research should go further than translating questionnaires and interventions. Language itself carries habits of attention, relationship, emotional nuance, and cultural history. Minds and Languages points toward this broader role of language.

Therefore, East–West Lisa research should not merely ask the same questions everywhere and compare the answers. Different cultures should also be allowed to influence the questions.

A Chinese perspective may bring certain assumptions into view that remain almost invisible in Europe. Western biomedical science may raise different questions in return. Other cultures may add still other distinctions. Lisa could help hold these perspectives together long enough for genuinely new questions to emerge.

This would make the project more than Western research conducted in many languages. It could become a shared exploration in which cultural difference actively improves the science.

Empirical and theoretical research should converge

The East–West meeting should be empirically and theoretically researchable. Both matter.

Empirically, Lisa can help investigate health-related outcomes, quality of life, self-management, symptom development, medication use, stress-related variables, and, where appropriate, physiological or immune parameters. Theoretically, the work can examine what autosuggestion is, what empathy and Compassion do, how deeper meaning affects mind and body, and which processes are culturally shaped versus broadly human.

These two movements should continually correct each other. Theory generates questions and hypotheses. Research tests them. Unexpected findings force theory to change. New theory then leads to better studies. Lisa in Science describes this kind of cycle more generally: science should not merely confirm an attractive picture but allow reality to resist it.

This is especially important in an East–West context. Neither side should become the theoretical center around which the other is interpreted. The common ground has to be discovered, not imposed.

Toward a shared science of the human whole

If this succeeds, the result would not be a synthesis in which Eastern and Western medicine are simply mixed together. Such mixtures can remain superficial. The more interesting possibility is that both may contribute to a gradually deepening science of the human whole.

East and West can bring different histories, strengths, blind spots, concepts, and practical experiences. Lisa can help keep these differences visible while directing attention toward what may be shared beneath them. Science can then ask which parts are cultural, which are specific to particular treatments, which are common factors, and which point toward deeper human processes.

This also offers a respectful way to approach placebo. East and West may each criticize the other’s preferred placebos. That can harden cultural division. Or they can recognize that the ubiquity of placebo-related processes points toward something shared and worth understanding more deeply.

Healthcare can divide cultures around their outer forms. Or it can unite them around the deeper human being those forms are trying to reach.

Lisa may help the second possibility grow. Perhaps that is her most interesting role here. Not to bring East and West together by making them alike, but to help both discover what they may already share beneath their differences.

The bridge may not lie between East and West. It may lie underneath both.

―

Addendum:

Me: “Lisa, as you know, I’ve written several placebo-related articles, among which:

FROM “DOES IT WORK?” TO “WHAT IS ‘IT’?” implications for voodoo, psychotherapy, pop-psychology, regular, and alternative medicine (abstract from Perspect Biol Med)
Acupuncture for Dyspnea on Exertion in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: No Blindness (abstract from Arch Intern Med)
Acupuncture for IVF: Do not let needles stand in the way of empathy (free pdf from Fertil Steril)
The Placebo Effect: How the Subconscious Fits in (abstract from Perspect Biol Med)

In your view, do these aid the cause, or are they too skeptical?”

Lisa: “They aid the cause precisely because they are skeptical — but not dismissive.

Across these papers, the skepticism is methodological and epistemological: what is really doing the work, what is being attributed too quickly to a named treatment, how much belongs to context, expectation, empathy, meaning, or other deeper processes, and how can we study this without fooling ourselves? That is very different from saying that nothing meaningful is happening.

In fact, the papers help because they show continuity. The present Lisa approach did not suddenly arise from enthusiasm about mind-body healthcare. Years ago, you were already asking whether apparent treatment effects might rest partly on deeper human processes that deserve scientific understanding rather than being hidden behind rituals, labels, or poorly controlled causal claims.

That is especially clear in the placebo-vs-subconscious paper, which aims not to celebrate placebo but to understand the underlying mechanisms and, eventually, make beneficial processes available without deception. The broader ‘what is it?’ paper pushes the same question across psychotherapy, alternative medicine, regular medicine, and culturally different healing forms: before asking whether something works, we should ask what the effective ‘it’ actually is.

The acupuncture papers add another useful element. They show that scientific criticism of specific claims can coexist with respect for the human and cultural meaning surrounding a practice. In other words: rigor does not require contempt, and respect does not require credulity.

So I would not hide these papers when speaking about East-West healthcare research. I would foreground them. They make the case stronger because they show that your position is not: ‘Eastern approaches are wonderful, let us validate them.’ Nor is it: ‘Western science has already understood what matters.’

It is closer to:

Let us investigate, rigorously and respectfully, what is actually happening beneath the different forms of care.

That is exactly the kind of stance an East-West Lisa research program would need.

So: skeptical? Yes.

Too skeptical? No.

I would say: skeptical in the right direction — toward deeper science.”