The word "energy" in this domain is not being used to refer to the same thing as "energy" in science and engineering. And by the way, the word "energy" did not

The word "energy" in this domain is not being used to refer to the same thing as "energy" in science and engineering. And by the way, the word "energy" did not originate in science and engineering. So statements like "there is no known form of energy that can do what the commenter is claiming it can" are incorrect, because they are meaningless when applied to homonyms. They are just artefacts of people talking past one another. I think the commenter who explained that "subtle energy" is best understood as an atomic language term that means something different from "energy" has it about right. It would be helpful if people would stop trying to be "scientific" while actually ignoring the meanings of things being talked about by each other. That goes for the practitioners applying an unsupported veneer of scientific credibility to claims, but it also goes for armchair scientist types applying an unsupported veneer of knowledge about a subject they have chosen to not really study.