Is the modern world, with its sprawling cities, hyperconnectivity, and fast-paced demands, a healthy place to live? Do you feel like it promotes a sense of wellness in its citizens, or is it more likely to produce “unwellness”? And if the answer to these two questions is negative, what do you think is a good solution to this problem? For many people, the modern world has become an all-encompassing space where everything contributes to making us worse off in some way. And by this, I don’t necessarily mean “ill” specifically, but “unwell” in a broader way that covers mental health, emotional stability, and even “spiritual” health.
If this is a feeling you’ve had, then there is a chance you’ve been told that reconnecting with nature is a good method to remedy it. Get out there, go touch grass, get a lung full of the good fresh air, immerse yourself in a forest. To be clear, I’m one of these people. There’s nothing I love more than ditching the desk and fleeing into my local woods for a bit of downtime (my motto being that the woods won’t haunt themselves). This whole idea, that we need to reconnect with nature to have a more rounded lifestyle, has become a staple of our everyday thinking, whether we act on it or not. And it seems to have merit. A casual online search reveals dozens of testimonials from people who have discovered a new sense of joy or mental relief from spending more time in natural settings, even if it is just a local park. And the benefits of this approach are not limited to anecdotes either; there’s an abundance of scientific literature explaining the various ways that nature can promote a healthier experience. However, caution is needed. For the metaphorical woods of “nature’s benefits” hold a diverse ecosystem where scientific, empirical specimens roam side-by-side with more fringe creatures. Here, countless species of wellness and pseudoscientific claims compete with, borrow from, or outright manipulate ideas from scientific topics. And, to inflate this metaphor even further, just as with the woods of old, there are hidden dangers among the trees, as bands of charlatans, thieves, and frauds lurk in anticipation of hapless wanderers. But how is it that the subject of nature and its benefits became such a muddled environment? Well, there’s some fascinating history here that draws many unrelated trends together, creating a dense thicket of traditions and beliefs. Thankfully, there are always machetes available to clear the way, if you know where to look. Before we talk about some of the less conventional views on nature “healing”, let’s address what we do know. To date, a large body of research has shown that being exposed to nature can have a range of benefits, including lowering stress and blood pressure, reducing nervous system arousal, boosting immune system function, improving mood and self-esteem, and relieving anxiety. Spending time in nature can also boost concentration, help people feel less isolated, and can even lower aggression. The awareness of such transformative potential has now reached the level where governments and policymakers are attempting to make accessing nature easier for more people. However, this raises an important point. Not everyone can benefit from nature to the same extent. There are distinct inequalities across much of the world when it comes to accessing green spaces, especially within urban environments. But for those who can access them, the evidence shows that even spending a few hours a week in somewhere like a city park can be enough to boost our wellbeing. For instance, in 2016, a cross-sectional study of four European cities demonstrated consistent links between the time people spent in urban green spaces and their reported mental and physical health. The longer study participants deliberately spent in these spaces, the higher they scored on mental health and vitality scales. So, you don’t need to chase mountains or distant forests to benefit from nature; it can be much closer to home. Returning to the question of inequality, not everyone has the privilege of spending long hours in parks, forests, or other natural spaces. Which raises the question of just how much time is needed to get the benefits of exposing oneself to the green world. This has also been established, and it isn’t that long at all. A study involving almost 20,000 people published in 2019 found that those who spent two hours a week (120 minutes) in parks were significantly more likely to report good health or higher wellbeing. However, this time does represent a minimum threshold; there was no benefit for people who did not achieve this number. But the research did indicate that this time could be cumulative, allowing people to reap the benefits even if they break their time up across the week. So, this is good news for people living in cities, but it should be noted that the quality of the green space is important. Not all parks are created equally, and existing research demonstrates that the benefits of being in such spaces is very much dependent on the amount of vegetation (tree, grass, bushes) present. At the same time, sound quality is important too. The more “unnatural” noise you can hear, the less relaxation you’ll experience. But what mechanism produces these benefits? One obvious point is that being outside is usually associated with exercise. When people are in nature, they’re often hiking, cycling, running, kayaking, or something like that. Engaging in regular physical activity is going to lead to better health outcomes anyway, by helping people manage their weight or improve their overall fitness. And then there’s the air itself. It seems that when we spend time in places like forests, we’re inhaling certain natural compounds that can have interesting impacts on our health. In particular, phytoncides – organic chemicals released by trees and plants – appear to boost our immune systems. They have natural antibiotic properties and can even promote elevated levels of natural killer cells, which play a key role in eliminating viruses, cancer cells, and other threats. The importance of phytoncides has long been emphasized by Japanese researchers who have looked into the benefits of Shinrin-yoku, a Japanese term for “forest bathing”. The research started in the early 2000s and has consistently shown that exposure to woodlands is particularly important for health. This research has become so significant that it’s actually become part of Japanese political culture, with there now being dozens of officially sanctioned forest baths across the country for people to visit. In addition to phytoncides, other research has suggested that exposure to soil microbes may also offer us benefits. In this instance, being in nature allows beneficial microbes to enter our bodies and establish themselves in our guts, supporting immune responses and combating disease. But it's not all about smells. Other research has suggested that the sights and sounds associated with woodlands are also important. For instance, the biophilia theory argues that humans don’t just have an inconsequential preference for connecting with nature or other forms of life, but rather it is an innate aspect of our evolutionary and biological makeup. If this is correct, then our separation from the natural world around us has cut us off from a primal, happy place that we need on a fundamental level. Another theory that is gaining popularity is the idea that being in nature simply sparks awe in people. This underrated experience has recently been shown to reduce inflammatory proteins in the body while also potentially improving physical health. Nature is a fantastic source for jaw-dropping moments, which can not only help our minds destress and detach from everyday concerns but also encourages people to care more for the environment. If we could encourage more interest in seeking nature for its positive implications, then perhaps that would be a win for everyone involved – not just for us, but for the planet too. Talking about nature, healing, and wellbeing is actually quite tricky. Over the years, the subject has in many ways become entangled with various competing beliefs that stem from New Age thinking or broader misconceptions. The wellness industry is particularly bloated with suspicious claims or questionable practices that conflate the scientific research discussed above with mystic concepts or borrowed/bastardized traditions. But this is not new. In fact, the germ of these modern reactionary ideas is actually older than the formal realm of modern science. Much of the content circulating in the wellness industry could be seen as a remnant of the Romanticism movement from the late 18th and 19th century. Here, nature was first endowed with vague restorative abilities, where the idea “if it’s natural, it’s good” and “if it’s not natural, then it’s bad” became more popular. Of course, this is a gross simplification of what was a protracted, complex historical movement, but the basic principle serves the point: the movement came into being as a direct response to the stresses imposed by the industrial age. Although it was tied up with a specific instance in time, the cultural roots it set have survived to this day, gaining renewed life in the 1960s with counter-culture and New Age movements. Prominent among such modern wellness practices is a distinct skepticism towards technology (save for their own specific products, of course), which is seen as causing ill-health to modern populations. At the same time, the movements borrow concepts and language not only from science but also from other traditional practices, such as Chinese medicine (regarding energy flow/chi) or Indigenous cultures. These are again hallmarks of the intellectual thicket that has grown around the concept of nature and healing, as science and alternative beliefs tussle for prominence. But what particular trends am I speaking of? Well, there is one increasingly popular wellness movement that typifies all this. The so-called “earthing” movement. Earthing, sometimes known as “grounding”, is a pseudoscientific movement that has very little, if any, empirical evidence backing it up. For those who are unaware of this wellness trend, earthing is the belief that modern society has disconnected us from the natural healing energies of the Earth. Rubber shoes, urbanization, and other insulating layers of modernity are therefore preventing us from being in tune with the planet. The remedy for this problem is simple, however, just reconnect to the Earth. But while you might think this is exactly the same advice as anything mentioned in the previous section, you’d be wrong. “Reconnecting” in this instance isn’t like meeting up with an old friend you’ve not visited in a long time (which is how I tend to think about being in nature), it’s more like plugging yourself into the household mains... in some cases, literally. The words of Clint Ober, the “pioneer” of earthing, help us understand this: “Your body works electrically. You are a bioelectric being and you need connection with your natural electric source – the Earth’s electric energy.” Connecting with the Earth, Ober believes, establishes the most “natural state of your electric body”, “nourishing every cell”. This is because the Earth, so the claim goes, carries a negative electrical charge. When we touch it directly, an exchange occurs whereby we absorb electrons that supposedly combat “free radicals”. Of course, like so many wellness claims, the supposed health benefits of this exchange are wide-reaching. These include improving poor sleep, reducing chronic inflammation, eliminating arthritic pain, post-workout pain, jet lag, and low energy levels, improving circulation, improving immune responses, and reducing blood pressure. More dangerous claims include those that earthing can prevent or treat COVID-19, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and other conditions. The fact that the list of benefits is so large for something so simple should be a red flag. Like many forms of pseudoscience, the claims are broad and vague and lack any credible evidence to support them. Sure, there have been a few studies into earthing, but they have all involved small sample sizes, many have been poorly designed, and others have flawed data analysis. As such, it is not possible to make any meaningful statements about its effectiveness. Then there are simple errors underpinning the science of how electricity works and its implications on the body. For one thing, there is no biophysical basis for these claims. The human body is electrically conductive, sure, but it regulates it internally through biochemical processes. Being grounded in soil, grass, or any other natural surface does not affect its function in any of the ways proponents suppose. The whole mechanism is made even more absurd when you consider the fact that earthing doesn’t even require its practitioners to leave the house – they can simply buy gizmos that apparently offer the same electrical benefits if you touch them (they include mats, blankets, wrist bands, and shoes that you plug into the wall). Some of these products have even been made for pets, and of course, they are quite expensive. Who knows, maybe some additional research will find a sliver of truth in the earthing movement’s claims, but at present, there is little to suggest this will be the case. Nevertheless, go outside and visit a tree or two. Touch it, hug it. It may not reward you with an exchange of electrons, but being out there in nature may help you in other ways. All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text, images, and links may be edited, removed, or added to at a later date to keep information current. The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions. What do we know?
The healing power of nature has limits
English
Arabic
French
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek