Dawkins has a famously intolerance to anything that has not as yet been 'proved' by established science when it comes to 'New Age', a term that I don't like as it is too general and incorporates downright silliness with genuine knowledge. He proved this in a recent series where he seemed to deliberately target the deluded, and obvious charlatans.
I have no problem with deliberate and targetted intolerance to charlatans who are ripping off the deluded (or people without any medical hope). It is admirable to be intolerant to such situations. I had a very close relative who was dying of advanced oral and throat cancers which had destroyed her jawbones and rendered her unable to chew or swallow. It was diagnosed at an inoperable stage and she had a few very difficult, uncomfortable months withering before her inevitable death. A neighbour of hers suggested her son, a homeopathist and herbal healer (probably did crystals too but he didn't get that far... ahem...) could possibly help her. He was round that night offering treatment ie. hope to the hopeless and trying to sell his snake oil to the doomed. Luckily we arrived the following morning and kicked the charlatan out the door when he arrived for his next "consultation" with his pretendy forms and healing charts.
I have always found Dawkins incredibly tolerant in the face of religious, herbal medicine, crystal healing, homeopathy and spiritual fascists (who seem to only scream "You will believe because I tell you to and anyone who asks me a reasonable question is "intolerant"). For a scientist to ask a self proclaimed "healer" to prove their claims that a crystal healed a migraine rather than the table the patient lay on, or the cry of a bird which flew by or whether it rained that day or not, is fairly reasonable. If "healers" cannot show what evidence they have for such claims then that is all they are - the claims of an individual and the hopes of a needy patient who might like the healer's attention. "Healers" are also not subject to the BMA's strict rules regarding pressurising patients into treatment and emotional blackmail. I doubt if Dawkins would try to deny any individual the right to lay a chunk of quartz on their stomach, meditate and get into their planetary groove. He certainly never attacked such individuals who enjoy such meditations, he merely questioned the basis of a quasi-health service of self proclaimed healers who are selling this mince as proven factual healing and quasi-science without any evidence.
As for plants resonding to "musical wave vibrations" (I call it sound) so does metal, stone, water and human eardrums. So does everything - it is a physical response to a sound wave. You tell us "animals respond to healing energy as well as humans eg. Reiki". I'm afraid Reiki (invented in 1922) is another example of doubtful healing "energy" and a systemized review of randomized clinical trials in 2008 showed "the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven".
Yes there are many thing we don't know. I enjoy a half hour's meditation in the morning. My mrs does yoga. My mate got his wife up the duff after they walked up to a particular stone which is meant to assist this process. They both reckon it was the long walk up, pelvic stretching and general strenuous leg lifting en route which was responsible! But if it works for you...
Sail your cosmic barge good sea cat and fair weather for your journey.
There's the rub. Spiritual/Energy healing can and often does work.
Reiki, which is just another term for chi/prana/life force or universal energy was re'discovered if you like, not invented. I have successfully used it upon my self, others and domestic pets, with a very high success rate, where the condition has been vured.
Now the BMA are unable to properly test this as they are dealing with something beyond their ken. It's another case of 'if it doesn't fit in with or by measurd by the knowledge that I posess, then it's bogus'. It's the same with other forms of alternative healing/medicine. There is undoubtedly a lot of nonsense out there, and I only work with what I beliive to be valid. Modern Western Medicine is a wonderful thing that has saved the life of someone very dear to me. It was this, ironically, that led me to a deeper investigation of the complimentary field, and I have no intellectual or philosophical choice but to accept what I have experienced to have worked. That is my evidence. I honestly belive that a lot more is yet to be understood about this, and eventually it will be incorporated into the existing framework of Western Medicine, and what a wonderful thing that will be.