That's the great thing about public forums- nobody has to ask me. Also, "Wikipedia isn't an accurate source!" is generally the argument of someone with no evidence for their position, though I'm certainly willing to hear any that exists (provided we all agree that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"). As a matter of fact, the accuracy of Wikipedia has been studied in depth and found to be very similar to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
With respect to orgone energy, Wilhelm Reich (the person who proposed it), like so many others touting pseudoscientific ideas, was trying to make money. His supposed discovery was examined by scientists including Einstein and found to have no basis whatsoever in reality. His mental health was in question by the end of his life; he was diagnosed as paranoid and became convinced that aliens were trying to destroy the planet by flying UFOs into our atmosphere and leaving deadly trails of dark orgone energy. He died in jail because he refused to stop selling quack medical devices rejected by the FDA that supposedly channeled this unobservable energy to cure literally any medical condition. Any. Which is the absolute most obvious hallmark of a scam artist (or, perhaps more charitably, someone who has very large gaps in scientific knowledge), as it has been through hundreds of years of people claiming that their untestable, unverifiable idea really works even though there's not a shred of evidence to support it.
That's why as future scientists and physicians, we hold the peer-review process in such high regard. That's the one thing that differentiates people with legitimate scientific ideas from people who are either just trying to scam you, or (e.g. in the case of Louis Pasteur obsessed with the idea that Vitamin C megadoses cure cancer) have good intentions but who hold ideas that simply don't stand up under scientific scrutiny. That's why it's so important that we be willing to change our opinions, even if deeply held, when presented with new evidence and information. Can you imagine how primitive the field of medicine would be if we didn't have scientists and doctors willing to do that?
Now, more on point, that's not to say that I don't agree that positive visualization can help. I think you are probably more likely to do well on your MCAT because you practiced positive visualization. And that's great! Maybe the average MCAT score would even rise if more people practiced that. I agree that it can help, and I encourage you to continue. However, any benefit beyond chance isn't due to an unobservable, undetectable, magical "force" or "energy." It's due to extremely well-known, well-studied psychological phenomena.
Stay skeptical, my friends. (Said in the Dos Equis voice.)
