The conclusion below contains the opinions of the author, but objectivity has been attempted.

Since the very beginnings of craniosacral therapy, when Sutherland first put forth his theories, a belief in a "life force" which pulsates through your body is absolutely necessary if you are to accept it as a reliable method of diagnosis and treatment of disease.  All the talk about cranial bone motion, cranial rhythmic impulse, etc. is a moot point if you do not believe that the Breath of Life takes place.

As it is with many other alternative modalities, it is almost as difficult to refute the claims of craniosacral therapy as it is to prove them to be true.  In a very real way, it is like a person's religion: in order for it to do anything for you, you must first believe in it.  This is not the first time there has been an attempt to explain the elusive mind-body connection.  At the turn of the 17th century, the French philosopher/mathematician/physiologist Rene Descartes decided that the pineal gland in the human brain was the seat of the human soul within the body.  It seemed intuitive enough at the time, as the pineal gland was an unexplained entity in the brain without a counterpart.  We are now beginning to understand the pineal gland's role in the secretion of melatonin.  Similarly, it seems intuitive enough to belief that a "vital force" would originate in the brain and then flow out to supply the entire body with this life force.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  It is impossible to disprove it scientifically, however, because it is a belief and not a fact or even a theory.  Because it is not possible to challenge the existence of the Breath of Life, I would say that craniosacral therapy is therefore unscientific.  This is not meant to be an insult to believers of craniosacral therapy, merely a statement that a debate over the existence of a "life force" is outside the realms of science and medicine as they exist today.

It can be argued that it is not necessary for the patients of craniosacral therapists to believe in the treatment in order for it to work.  This sound very much like the religious argument that "it doesn't matter that you don't believe in God, because God believes in you."  The fact is that the objective literature fails to show any evidence that it does work.  In order for a modality such as craniosacral therapy to be accepted, it needs to be shown to work the same or better than established alternatives to it for a given disease.  This is independent of whether or not it is scientific; it is only an objective comparison.  Proponents could then argue that the relief of symptoms will come later, or that the healing that was done is not detectable.  Again, it is not possible to argue with claims such as these.  I am immediately skeptical of a medical discipline that has an answer for everything, or that begs the question.

Craniosacral therapy is a harmless alternative modality.  There is no manipulation nor medication involved.  It is simply gentle touch.  It is a safe alternative for any patient who wishes to try it.