Skip to content
Back to the question

Evidence record

Does prayer do anything?

Every sentence on the exploration belongs to at least one claim below. Each says what kind of statement it is, what it rests on, what the evidence does not establish, and how far it was checked. Nothing here is a score, and none of it is a verdict on a belief or a theory.

Last checked 23 September 2026.

  • Source checked: 30
  • A judgement, not a fact: 20
  • Partly checked: 2

If something here is wrong, misquoted, out of date or unfair, write to support@unknownoceans.com and give the claim number, which does not change.

What the question takes for granted

Half of this is an empirical question that has been put to randomised trials, and half is a question about what prayer is, which trials cannot reach. The page reports the trials as they report themselves and keeps the second half apart from them.

  • “Doing something” means changing a measurable outcome

    Contested

    The trials test prayer as an intervention on someone else’s health. The Catholic catechism, the one tradition’s statement read here, describes prayer as relationship as well as request, so a null on outcomes answers only part of the question.

  • Intercessory prayer can be randomised and blinded

    Contested

    STEP’s own discussion says patients in every arm were likely prayed for by others, and that the study’s prayer was standardised in ways intercessors do not usually pray.

  • Whether anyone hears prayer is a question the trials can answer

    Open

    Both STEP and the Cochrane review say it is not.

How the question is labelled

Claim: The trials, and the practice

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Prayer

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The question

Claim: It has been tested, properly, in hospitals.

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

“Properly” is the page’s word. The Cochrane review grades the evidence low to moderate, and STEP lists its own limitations.

Claim 1 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The result is a null,

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

The null is for prayer itself. The certainty arm was not null, as the summary and the body say.

Claim 2 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and it answers a narrower question than it is usually quoted for.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The narrowness is the authors’ own; how the trial is usually quoted is the page’s judgement.

Claim 3 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Randomised trials of intercessory prayer for strangers have found no clear effect,

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthabstract, Authors’ conclusions

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not

Claim 4 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and the largest prospective one found more complications in the group told they were being prayed for.

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

An association the authors say may be chance, not a demonstrated harm.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “and the largest found more complications in the group told they were being prayed for.” The largest trial in the Cochrane review is Leibovici 2001, with 3,393 patients, in which the prayer was said after the outcomes were recorded. STEP, with 1,802, is the largest in which prayer came during treatment.

Claim 5 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: What that settles, and what it does not, is worth being precise about.

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The Catholic catechism defines prayer as "the raising of one’s mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God".

Kind
A church’s teaching. What the named tradition teaches, from its own documents. Evidence of what is taught, not proof that it is true, and not what every Christian holds.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Held by
Catholic

What this does not establish

One church’s definition. No other tradition’s statement was read, and the page no longer generalises across them.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “Almost every religious tradition has this practice, and few of them describe it primarily as a way of causing outcomes.” Owner’s rule: only what a credible source verifies is shown. A generalisation across the world’s religious traditions, which no source read settles, and the one tradition’s statement read keeps the request in its definition. Narrowed to that church’s own definition; the next sentence now says which half was tested (claim 8).

Claim 7 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The second half has been tested, at scale, by researchers who took it seriously enough to design the study properly. That is unusual and it is worth looking at.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from STEP’s design as described in its Methods.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “It has nonetheless been tested as one, at scale,” The sentence before it was narrowed to the Catholic definition (claim 7); the trials tested the request, which is the second half of that definition.

Claim 8 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What was tested, and what was found

Claim: What was tested, and what was found

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The largest prospective trial found nothing, and something

Claim: The largest prospective trial found nothing, and something

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “The largest trial found nothing, and something” Leibovici 2001, with 3,393 patients and retroactive prayer, is larger (Cochrane, study size).

Claim 10 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The STEP trial randomised 1,802 cardiac bypass patients at six American hospitals into three groups: prayed for and uncertain, not prayed for and uncertain, and prayed for and told so.

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Claim 11 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Three Christian prayer groups, two Catholic and one Protestant, prayed for fourteen days from a list of first names and last initials, starting the night before surgery.

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

The groups were St Paul’s Monastery, the Community of Teresian Carmelites and Silent Unity. The authors say they could not find Jewish or non-Christian groups able to take the daily list.

Claim 12 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Complications occurred in 52% of the prayed-for uncertain group and 51% of the not-prayed-for uncertain group, a relative risk of 1.02. In the group certain of receiving prayer it was 59%: against the prayed-for uncertain group, a relative risk of 1.14 whose confidence interval excludes 1.

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

The 1.02 is the abstract’s figure; the full intent-to-treat analysis in the Results gives 1.03, and the modified analysis 1.02.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Complications occurred in 52% of the prayed-for uncertain group and 51% of the not-prayed-for uncertain group, a relative risk of 1.02. In the group certain of receiving prayer it was 59%, a relative risk of 1.14 whose confidence interval excludes 1.” Integrity pass: the 1.14 compares the certain group with the prayed-for uncertain group (59% against 52%), not with the not-prayed-for group; STEP abstract, Results. The page now names the comparison.

Claim 13 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Thirty-day mortality was similar across all three. Major events were not: 18% in the prayed-for uncertain group against 13% in the not-prayed-for one, which the authors call a borderline excess that may also be chance.

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

The abstract itself says major events were similar across the three groups; the Results table is what the page reports.

Claim 14 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The authors state the conclusion flatly: intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery, and certainty of receiving it was associated with more complications.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Flat in the abstract; the discussion adds that the null may be due to the study’s limitations.

Claim 15 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

The systematic review agrees and declines to ask again

Claim: The systematic review agrees and declines to ask again

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthabstract, Authors’ conclusions

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken

Claim 16 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A Cochrane review pooled ten randomised trials covering 7,646 patients and found no clear effect on death, on general clinical state, on readmission or on rehospitalisation.

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthabstract, Main results

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: Ten studies are included in this review (7646 patients). ... no clear effect of intercessory prayer on death ... For general clinical state there was also no significant difference ... no effect for re‐admission to Coronary Care Unit ... no effect on re‐hospitalisation

What this does not establish

Readmission here is to a coronary care unit. One of the ten, the largest, prayed retroactively, and the review’s published feedback includes an objection that it was written in jest.

Claim 17 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Its conclusion is unusually candid:

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s judgement of the tone of the conclusion quoted next.

Claim 18 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: the findings are equivocal, the evidence supports no recommendation either way, and the authors "are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken" and would rather the money went elsewhere.

Kind
Quotes a source. The words of a named text, checked against the source.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthabstract, Authors’ conclusions

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: These findings are equivocal ... the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available

Claim 19 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The same review states, in its opening, that whether any of this bears on the existence of God is a philosophical question outside its scope.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthabstract, Background

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: The question of whether this may contribute towards proving or disproving the existence of God is a philosophical question lying outside the scope of this review of the effects of prayer.

Claim 20 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That sentence is the most important one in it.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s judgement, anticipating the unknown section.

Claim 21 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What the texts describe is not quite what was tested

Claim: What the texts describe is not quite what was tested

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the passage beneath it, which now sets Matthew beside James.

  • Context · WEB

    Matthew 6, World English BibleMatthew 6:6-8

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: In praying, don’t use vain repetitions as the Gentiles do

  • Context · WEB

    James 5, World English BibleJames 5:14-15

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “The texts do not describe the thing that was tested” Selective. James 5:14-16 promises that prayer for the sick heals them, which is close to what STEP tested. The heading now claims only the difference the passage shows.

Claim 22 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Matthew has the instruction in the negative: pray in a room with the door shut, and "don’t use vain repetitions as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their much speaking", because "your Father knows what things you need before you ask him".

Kind
Quotes the Bible. The words of a biblical text, in the translation named. That the text says it is a fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports · WEB

    Matthew 6, World English BibleMatthew 6:6-8

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: But you, when you pray, enter into your inner room, and having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. In praying, don’t use vain repetitions as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their much speaking. Therefore don’t be like them, for your Father knows what things you need before you ask him.

What this does not establish

The Lord’s Prayer follows in 6:9-13, and it is made of petitions, so the instruction limits how to ask rather than whether.

Claim 23 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A practice whose own founding instruction says the hearer already knows, and warns against volume, is not obviously the practice a trial of added prayer is measuring.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from Matthew 6:7-8 and from STEP’s own account of non-study prayer.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “A practice whose own founding instruction says the hearer already knows, and warns against volume, is not obviously the practice a dose-response trial is measuring.” STEP was not a dose-response trial: it compared prayer with no study prayer, at one fixed dose, and its authors say the design does not let them explore amount or duration. What it measured was prayer added to whatever prayer patients already had.

Claim 24 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The same collection also promises results. James tells the sick to call the elders to pray over them, and says "the prayer of faith will heal him who is sick" and "the insistent prayer of a righteous person is powerfully effective".

Kind
Quotes the Bible. The words of a biblical text, in the translation named. That the text says it is a fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports · WEB

    James 5, World English BibleJames 5:14-16

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will heal him who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. ... The insistent prayer of a righteous person is powerfully effective.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “” The passage set the texts against the trials using only Matthew 6, and left out the New Testament text that most directly promises what STEP tested. Added so the texts are told whole.

Claim 25 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That is much nearer to what was tested, though it puts the elders at the bedside rather than strangers working from a list of first names.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Compares James 5:14 with STEP’s intercessors, who worked from a faxed list.

Claim 26 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

And two central examples are refusals

Claim: And two central examples are refusals

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Introduces 2 Corinthians 12 and Luke 22.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “And the central examples in the collection are refusals” As written it said the central examples in the Bible are refusals. The passage shows two, and the collection also records prayers granted and promises like James 5:15.

Claim 27 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Paul writes that he begged three times for a thorn in the flesh to be removed and reports the answer as "my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness".

Kind
Quotes the Bible. The words of a biblical text, in the translation named. That the text says it is a fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports · WEB

    2 Corinthians 12, World English Bible2 Corinthians 12:7-9

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: a thorn in the flesh was given to me: a messenger of Satan to torment me, that I should not be exalted excessively. Concerning this thing, I begged the Lord three times that it might depart from me. He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

Claim 28 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The request is denied and the denial is the point of the passage.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Paul goes straight from the answer to boasting in weakness.

  • Supports · WEB

    2 Corinthians 12, World English Bible2 Corinthians 12:9-10

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: Most gladly therefore I will rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest on me.

Claim 29 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: On the Mount of Olives, the night he was arrested, the prayer is that the cup pass, followed by "nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done".

Kind
Quotes the Bible. The words of a biblical text, in the translation named. That the text says it is a fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Luke’s word is “remove”; “pass” is the page’s paraphrase, and Matthew’s.

  • Supports · WEB

    Luke 22, World English BibleLuke 22:39-42, 54, 66

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: He came out and went, as his custom was, to the Mount of Olives. ... saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” ... They seized him and led him away ... As soon as it was day

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “The night before the execution, in the garden, the prayer is that the cup pass, followed by "nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done".” The page cites Luke, which places the prayer on the Mount of Olives and has no garden; the garden is John’s. The arrest follows in Luke 22:54; the execution is in chapter 23, which the page does not cite.

Claim 30 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Whatever the tradition takes prayer to be, two of its most quoted instances are requests that were not granted.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the two passages quoted above.

What this does not establish

No count of how often they are quoted was made. In Luke an angel strengthens him after the prayer (22:43), so the request is refused and something else is given.

Claim 31 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What the results can carry

Claim: What the results can carry

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Two of its most quoted instances are requests that were not granted.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Repeats the close of the refusals passage.

What this does not establish

No count of how often they are quoted was made.

Claim 33 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What the certainty result means

Claim: What the certainty result means

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: A group told that strangers were praying for them did worse.

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Worse on complications. Major events and deaths were not higher in that group.

Claim 35 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The authors say they have no clear explanation for it. They note that postoperative atrial fibrillation and flutter accounted for much of the excess, and that the excess may be a chance finding.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “The authors offer no explanation for it.” The paper says it has “no clear explanation”, which is not the same as offering none: it goes on to name atrial fibrillation and chance.

Claim 36 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: They did not claim to have shown that being prayed for is dangerous,

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

The paper reports an association and calls for further study; it nowhere claims harm.

Claim 37 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and neither should anyone else.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the authors’ own reading of the result as possibly chance.

Claim 38 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Understanding it, they write, will require further study

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Claim 39 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: that, on the review’s advice, will probably not be attempted.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

A forecast, resting on the review’s advice and its note that no trials were under way.

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthAuthors’ conclusions; Overall completeness and applicability

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken ... we know of no ongoing studies directly relevant to this review.

Claim 40 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Whether the design can test the claim at all

Claim: Whether the design can test the claim at all

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Every arm of such a trial is contaminated: the patients in the control group have families, and most patients in STEP expected, at enrolment, to be prayed for by others anyway. There is no blank condition, only more and less.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

STEP records what patients expected at enrolment, not whether anyone prayed for them; “every arm” is the general point it makes.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Every arm of such a trial is contaminated: the patients in the control group have families, and those families pray. There is no blank condition, only more and less.” Integrity pass: STEP reports that most subjects expected prayers from others regardless of participation; it does not report that every family prayed. The universal is narrowed to what the trial records.

Claim 41 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Beyond that lies a problem about what is being modelled, and the Cochrane reviewers raise it themselves: a believer "may suggest that the nature of divine intervention could be subtle", more subtle "than is likely to be revealed by the results of a randomised trial".

Kind
Quotes a source. The words of a named text, checked against the source.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthBackground

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: In determining the direction of any effect, it is important to note that a religious believer may suggest that the nature of divine intervention could be subtle ‐ more subtle, indeed, than is likely to be revealed by the results of a randomised trial.

What this does not establish

The reviewers raise this as a consideration and then set theology aside; they do not say how many believers hold it.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “Beyond that lies a genuine problem about what is being modelled. A God who responds to volume is not the one any of these traditions describes, and a God who does not cannot be detected by counting.” Owner’s rule: only what a credible source verifies is shown. That no tradition describes a God who responds to the amount of prayer was a theological characterisation across traditions, and James 5:16 is read by some the other way. The problem is now attributed to the reviewers who raise it, with the published reply that disputes it (claim 66).

Claim 42 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Three critics answered in the review’s published feedback that this reservation is "no more applicable to a scientific investigation of prayer than to trials of any other medical intervention".

Kind
Quotes a source. The words of a named text, checked against the source.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthFeedback, Jørgensen, Hrobjartsson and Gøtzsche, 16 April 2008

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: This theological reservation is no more applicable to a scientific investigation of prayer than to trials of any other medical intervention, as a God may also intervene in these cases.

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthFeedback, contributors

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: Contributors of feedback: Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Asbjørn Hrobjartsson and Peter C. Gøtzsche.

Claim 66 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What prayer does to the person praying

Claim: What prayer does to the person praying

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: This is a separate question with better prospects,

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s judgement that effects on the one praying are more measurable than effects on strangers.

Claim 45 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: though the evidence cited here is on meditation rather than prayer.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

What this does not establish

Only the abstract was read.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “though the work that exists is mostly on meditation rather than prayer.” A meta-analysis of meditation cannot show what the literature on prayer does or does not contain. The page can say what its own source is about.

Claim 46 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A meta-analysis of 163 studies found medium average effects, strongest for emotion and relationships and weaker for attention, and it discarded nearly three quarters of the literature it found, mostly for methodological problems.

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    The psychological effects of meditation: a meta-analysisabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: Mostly because of methodological problems, almost ¾ of an initially identified 595 studies had to be excluded. ... The 163 studies that allowed the calculation of effect sizes exhibited medium average effects (r = .28 for all studies

    Of 595 studies identified, 163 were analysed: 432 excluded, 73 per cent, which the abstract calls almost three quarters. The denominator is everything the search identified, which is what the page means by the literature it found.

  • Supports

    The psychological effects of meditation: a meta-analysisabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: results were strongest (medium to large) for changes in emotionality and relationship issues, less strong (about medium) for measures of attention

What this does not establish

Only the abstract was read: the figures are the abstract’s own, and the reasons for each exclusion were not checked in the full paper, which has no open copy (Unpaywall, Semantic Scholar and Europe PMC, 2026-09-24). The studies are of nonclinical adult meditators, and the weakest effects were on cognitive measures.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “and it discarded nearly three quarters of the literature it found for methodological problems.” The abstract says “mostly because of methodological problems”, not wholly.

Claim 47 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What no trial reaches

Claim: What no trial reaches

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Whether anything is on the other end

Claim: Whether anything is on the other end

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: No trial addresses this and the best of them says so.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

“The best of them” is the page’s judgement of STEP.

Claim 50 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A null result is consistent with nobody listening and equally consistent with somebody listening who declines to run a randomised trial on request.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the scope both sources set themselves.

Claim 51 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That is not a dodge. It is the structure of the claim, and it is why this question is filed as uncertain rather than as settled in either direction.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The exploration’s status is “uncertain”.

Claim 52 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What the practice claims to be

Claim: What the practice claims to be

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

What the practice is actually for, on its own account

Claim: What the practice is actually for, on its own account

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The Catholic catechism calls prayer a "vital and personal relationship with the living and true God", and the definition it takes from John of Damascus has two halves: "the raising of one’s mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God".

Kind
A church’s teaching. What the named tradition teaches, from its own documents. Evidence of what is taught, not proof that it is true, and not what every Christian holds.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Held by
Catholic

  • Supports

    Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2558 to 2565: what is prayer?§§ 2558 to 2559, n. 2

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: they live from it in a vital and personal relationship with the living and true God. This relationship is prayer. ... 2559 "Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God." 2 ... 2 St. John Damascene, Defide orth. 3, 24

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “The traditions describe prayer mostly as attention, alignment and relationship.” A generalisation across all traditions with no source, and one-sided: the catechism the passage cites defines prayer as raising the mind to God or requesting good things. Narrowed to what that document says, both halves.

Claim 56 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It lists the basic forms as blessing, petition, intercession, thanksgiving and praise, and defines intercession as asking on behalf of another. It is one of five and the list does not begin with it.

Kind
A church’s teaching. What the named tradition teaches, from its own documents. Evidence of what is taught, not proof that it is true, and not what every Christian holds.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Held by
Catholic

  • Supports

    Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2644 to 2649: the forms of prayer§§ 2644, 2647

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: inspiring new expressions of the same basic forms of prayer: blessing, petition, intercession, thanksgiving, and praise. ... Prayer of intercession consists in asking on behalf of another.

Claim 57 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: On that account a trial measuring intercession for strangers is testing one form among several, and testing it in the manner the texts are most wary of.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the catechism’s five forms and Matthew 6:7 on repetition.

Claim 58 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That is a fair reading and it is also, conveniently, unfalsifiable, which is worth saying out loud.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page flags the weakness of its own reading.

Claim 59 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What a reader can take from this

Claim: What a reader can take from this

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The evidence about outcomes for strangers is mostly null, and its own reviewers call it equivocal and grade it low to moderate.

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthabstract, Authors’ conclusions; Summary of findings

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthSummary of findings table

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: Death by end of trial Medium risk population RR 0.72 (0.38 to 1.38) 3389 (5) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low

  • Supports

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthSummary of findings table

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: RR 1 (0.77 to 1.3) 2644 (4) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate

  • Qualifies

    Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill healthImplications for practice

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026

    The source reads: The limitations in trial design and reporting are enough to hide a real beneficial effect

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “The evidence about outcomes for strangers is as clear as this kind of evidence gets, and it is not evidence about whether prayer is worth doing on any account its practitioners give of it.” Overstated. The Cochrane review calls its findings equivocal, grades the evidence low to moderate, and says the trials’ limitations are enough to hide a real effect.

Claim 61 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It is not evidence about whether prayer is worth doing on any account its practitioners give of it.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the scope STEP and Cochrane give themselves.

Claim 62 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A trial of petitions for strangers and a practice its own texts describe as relationship as much as request are not the same subject, though they share a word. Both results are real. They are answers to different questions.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the catechism passage and the trials above.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “A trial of petitions for strangers and a practice its own texts describe as attention are two different subjects that happen to share a word. Both results are real. They are answers to different questions.” The texts do not describe prayer only as attention: James 5 promises healing and the catechism’s definition includes requesting good things. The sentence now keeps both, which makes the two subjects overlap rather than merely share a word.

Claim 63 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What was read