In an era where medical advancements offer unprecedented hope for managing even the most severe diseases, the promotion of faith healing as a primary or exclusive remedy for terminal illnesses persists in various religious and spiritual communities.
Faith healing, often described as the practice of prayer, laying on of hands, or spiritual rituals to cure ailments, is rooted in beliefs that divine intervention can override physical limitations. While spirituality can provide comfort and emotional support during end-of-life care, aggressively promoting faith healing, especially as a substitute for evidence-based medicine, poses significant risks.
Bonano would contend here that such promotion can lead to unnecessary suffering, premature death, and broader societal harm. One of the most immediate dangers of promoting faith healing for terminal illnesses is the encouragement to forgo or delay conventional medical treatments. Terminal conditions like advanced cancer, ALS, or end-stage organ failure may not be curable, but interventions such as chemotherapy, radiation, pain management, or palliative care can extend life, alleviate symptoms, and improve quality of remaining time.
But when faith healers or religious leaders claim that prayer alone can reverse these diseases, patients may abandon these options, leading to accelerated deterioration. Scientific organisations, including the American Cancer Society, have long asserted that there is no empirical evidence supporting faith healing’s ability to cure physical ailments.
In cases of cancer, for instance, refusing or delaying treatments in favour of faith healing can result in severe health consequences, as the placebo effect, if any, provides only short-term symptom relief without addressing the underlying disease. A stark example comes from HIV patients, often facing terminal progression without medication; at least six individuals died after being told by faith healers they were cured and subsequently stopping antiretroviral therapy. This pattern extends to other serious illnesses, where reliance on spiritual remedies has been linked to higher mortality rates and reduced life expectancy.
Even in truly terminal cases, promoting faith healing can deprive patients of hospice services, which focus on comfort rather than cure. Without proper medical oversight, symptoms like pain, nausea, or respiratory distress can become unbearable, turning the end of life into prolonged agony rather than a dignified process.
Bonano can safely argue that the promotion of faith healing often instils false hope, which can shatter when the promised miracle fails to materialise. For terminally ill patients, this can exacerbate emotional distress, leading to depression, anxiety, or a crisis of faith.
Ironically, faith healers exploit vulnerability by attributing failed healings to insufficient belief or hidden sin, shifting blame onto the patient and compounding guilt. This victim-blaming dynamic is particularly cruel in terminal cases, where patients and families are already grappling with mortality. In palliative care settings, unaddressed spiritual needs can contribute to a spiritual crisis at the end of life, potentially increasing the use of aggressive, life-prolonging measures out of desperation. Families may also suffer, witnessing a loved one’s decline after rejecting medicine, which can lead to regret, resentment toward religious communities, or fractured relationships. In extreme scenarios, this promotion fosters denial, preventing open discussions about death and legacy planning. Faith healing is frequently tied to charismatic leaders or organisations that solicit donations, tithes, or fees for healing services, retreats, or “anointed” items. For terminally ill individuals desperate for a cure, this can result in financial exploitation. Patients might pour resources into repeated healing sessions or travel to revival meetings, depleting savings needed for medical bills or family support. Sceptics have exposed fraud in some cases, where healers use deceptive tactics like planted audience members or hidden information to simulate miracles, preying on the hope of the dying.
In 2008, 11-year-old Kara Neumann died from undiagnosed diabetes after her parents relied solely on prayer, believing God would heal her; they were convicted of reckless homicide. Similarly, the Followers of Christ sect in Idaho has seen dozens of child deaths from treatable ailments due to faith healing doctrines, with Idaho’s religious shield laws preventing prosecutions in many instances.
A Pennsylvania couple, Herbert and Catherine Schaible, lost two children to bacterial pneumonia after choosing prayer over antibiotics; they served prison time for involuntary manslaughter. In Australia, a cult leader was sentenced to 13 years for the death of an eight-year-old girl from medical neglect in a faith healing group.
Recently, Afrobeats musician Seun Kuti made fresh allegations involving a wealthy Nigerian family who, according to him, lost a loved one and a substantial sum of money after turning to spiritual healing for cancer treatment. In a video that went viral, Kuti recounted how the family sought faith-based intervention after doctors abroad reportedly informed them that medical options had been exhausted for the woman, who was battling terminal cancer. He claimed that the family returned to Nigeria and took her to a popular Church camp, believing that prayers would lead to her recovery. According to Kuti, the environment was filled with religious activities and reassurances that she would regain her health.
Kuti alleged that despite days of intense prayers at the camp, the woman eventually passed away, leaving her family devastated. He further claimed that the family spent about $250,000 during the period, motivated by the hope that spiritual intervention would save her life.
According to Kuti, after the woman’s death, the popular cleric allegedly instructed the family to stop crying and kneel beside her body while he went in to pray for her resurrection. Kuti said that after about an hour of prayers, the woman did not revive, and the family was later asked to leave.
The singer used the incident to criticise the promotion of faith healing in cases of terminal illness, arguing that it often gives families false hope and leaves them emotionally and financially vulnerable. These examples, while often involving treatable diseases, mirror the risks in terminal illnesses where promotion discourages any medical involvement.
On a public health scale, widespread promotion diverts attention from evidence-based interventions, straining healthcare systems when untreated conditions lead to emergencies. In communities with low vaccination or screening rates due to faith-based objections, outbreaks can occur, indirectly affecting terminal patients with weakened immune systems.
Bonano would submit that, while faith can offer solace and even complement medical care, addressing spiritual needs improves quality of life in rehabilitation and palliative settings, but promoting it as a standalone cure for terminal illnesses is fraught with peril.
Patients deserve integrated approaches where spirituality supports, rather than supplants, science. Policymakers should prioritise education, repeal harmful exemptions, and encourage ethical dialogues to prevent exploitation. Ultimately, true compassion lies in empowering informed choices, not in promises that too often lead to heartbreak.
