A centuries-old healing concept, reborn in modern times as “tapping” or Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), is stirring both popular appeal and scientific debate. This practice, a blend of acupressure and mindful affirmation, has surged on social media, wellness podcasts, and even book charts, with many users claiming it brings relief from anxiety and other psychological burdens. Yet, while some advocates promise tapping could revolutionize mental well-being, a growing contingent of mental health experts cautions: the scientific evidence remains shaky at best, with many researchers warning Thai readers not to take the hype at face value (nytimes.com).
The technique of tapping is visually straightforward but rooted in a fusion of ideas from traditional Chinese medicine and Western psychotherapy. Practitioners use their fingertips to tap a sequence of points on the body—supposedly corresponding to energy “meridians”—while focusing on distressing emotions and repeating calming affirmations. Proponents claim benefits far beyond mere relaxation, touting tapping as helpful for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic pain, addiction, and day-to-day stress (ssw-ce.rutgers.edu).
This surge of interest is not just an international phenomenon; in Thailand, where holistic health modalities already play a prominent role—from New Year’s “wai phra” blessings to temple-based mindfulness retreats—the story of tapping resonates culturally. Many Thais are open to integrative therapeutic approaches that combine the body and mind, and the idea of self-administered healing appeals to those wary of stigma or expense surrounding traditional psychotherapy.
But where did this practice come from, and does it live up to its remarkable claims? Tapping’s roots trace back to the 1980s and the work of an American psychologist, who developed “Thought Field Therapy” after treating a patient’s water phobia by having her tap under her eye—allegedly resolving her fears by targeting the “stomach meridian,” a concept borrowed from Chinese medicine. The technique was retooled in the 1990s as Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), offering a simpler tapping sequence and spreading rapidly through books and online workshops. Today, hundreds of practitioners, including some in Southeast Asia, pay for specialized certification (nytimes.com).
However, as tapping has grown in popularity, the scientific scrutiny has intensified. While there are now over 200 studies examining meridian tapping, prominent psychologists warn that the majority suffer from serious flaws: conflicts of interest, poor methodology, extremely small sample sizes, and ambiguous results. According to an assistant professor from the University of New Mexico, “When you really look at the evidence, it falls apart,” citing a 2024 peer-reviewed commentary that flagged the persistent weaknesses in EFT research (EFT International review). Even high-level meta-analyses often find only modest benefits and caution that existing studies cannot definitively isolate tapping as the “active ingredient”—it may instead be the use of exposure therapy and mindful attention, which are well-established components of cognitive behavioral therapy.
Still, not all experts dismiss the method entirely. Some therapists and patients describe tapping as a tool for emotional regulation, helping users face uncomfortable thoughts or memories in a safe, structured way. “It’s a hodgepodge of interventions, some of which are, I’m sure, quite effective,” said the director of a leading US anxiety disorders center, but clarified there is currently no rigorous proof that tapping itself is responsible for the improvements (nytimes.com). This matches findings from Purdue University, where a 2023 review suggested tapping might support emotion management for some, especially as part of a broader mental health toolkit (purdue.edu).
Recent international studies offer further nuance. A large analysis published in 2025 concluded that EFT could significantly alleviate anxiety and depressive symptoms, and even improve sleep in cancer patients (sciencedirect.com). Likewise, a 2024 meta-analysis highlighted potential utility for PTSD, but maintained that because newer therapies like EFT have fewer studies and inconsistent protocols, it is premature to label tapping as evidence-based for clinical care (PMC9692186).
Critics also point out the lack of a clear biological mechanism. Unlike acupuncture, where some physical pathways are theorized, energy meridians remain unmeasured and scientifically undefined—leaving skeptics to wonder whether the rituals of tapping simply distract and soothe, much like fidgeting or deep breathing would. Authoritative sources such as the American Psychological Association have classified the vigorous marketing of EFT as “pseudoscience” and urge caution before using it as a substitute for proven treatments (nytimes.com).
For Thai mental health professionals, these critiques carry special importance. Thailand’s mental healthcare infrastructure remains patchy, especially outside Bangkok and major cities, and many people turn to community leaders, monks, or traditional healers for initial support. In this context, integrating new “mind-body” therapies is attractive, but professionals at leading universities and hospitals warn that care must be taken not to overpromise unproven methods—especially for serious conditions like trauma, major depression, or addiction, where delay in effective treatment can have severe consequences.
Thai cultural context also shapes how tapping may be received. The notion of “clearing negative energy” fits with concepts of “sai” (สาย, energy or pathways in traditional Thai medicine) and “pleng jit” (พลังจิต, psychic energy), and temple-based healing practices already incorporate touch, chanting, and affirmation. However, Thailand’s National Mental Health Department and scholars from leading universities have not yet endorsed tapping as a formal intervention, partly due to this scientific controversy and the lack of local clinical trials.
What about safety? The consensus among experts is that, although the evidence is slim, tapping is unlikely to cause harm when used as a self-help tool—in fact, the greatest risk is that someone needing urgent or specialized care may forgo it in favor of tapping, delaying access to proven treatments. As one American researcher pointed out, “It doesn’t replace existing best practices for treating PTSD, depression, addictions or other serious conditions… but, in my opinion, it can make those treatments more effective” (nytimes.com).
Looking forward, what does the future hold for tapping in Thailand and globally? More rigorous research is underway, as both critics and practitioners seek to clarify whether any specific component of tapping holds unique value. In the meantime, some Thai psychologists recommend an integrative approach: individuals might explore tapping as one possible tool for managing stress or minor anxiety, but they emphasize the importance of combining it with evidence-based therapies where needed (emotionalfreedomtechniquesreview.pdf).
For Thai readers curious about tapping, here are practical recommendations: If you want to experiment with EFT, try reputable online tutorials or attend introductory workshops from certified practitioners, but avoid spending large sums on courses or products making extravagant claims. Most importantly—if you or someone you know is experiencing persistent anxiety, depression, or other serious mental health problems, consult licensed Thai mental health professionals, who can help guide you to effective, evidence-based care. Remember that self-care practices, including those drawn from Buddhism, mindfulness, and community support, have long played a valuable role in Thai mental well-being (wikipedia.org).
While tapping’s ultimate scientific judgment remains unsettled, the global conversation it sparks about mental health, simplicity of practice, and the quest for emotional security is very much alive. Thai society, at the crossroads of tradition and innovation, is well placed to observe, participate, and—if the evidence emerges—adapt this tool thoughtfully in the broader tapestry of mental health care.
Sources: nytimes.com, sciencedirect.com, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, eftinternational.org, purdue.edu, eftuniverse.com, wikipedia.org