What are you quoting? It doesn't seem to be the article.
It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists.
It happens to be based on "ki" not "qi"/"chi". "Qi" (with the alternative spelling "Chi") is a term of Chinese medicine. Reiki is a framework by a monk of Japanse Buddhism.
Why does anyone still call reiki "therapy"?
The argument against it isn't that it doesn't produce effect in studies but that the studies are "poorly designed". Poorly designed studies that find effects are no reason to update against a framework working.
Very interesting decision from the one of the leading scientific publications to publish an article about Reiki therapy.
http://www.nature.com/news/consider-all-the-evidence-on-alternative-therapies-1.18547
[Edit: should be Nature publishes an article about alternative therapy]