I entered this program genuinely excited to learn massage therapy and open to holistic and…read morealternative healing approaches. I did gain useful anatomy knowledge, hands-on practice hours, connections with classmates, and was able to pass the MBLEx. However, I ultimately cannot recommend this school to students looking for a professional, evidence-informed educational environment with strong instructional support and open academic discussion.
One of my biggest concerns was the gap between what was taught in class and accepted industry standards. My class group sought outside instruction after class to learn basic professional draping practices because we did not feel adequately prepared by the towel method we used at school. The style of lymphatic massage taught also differed significantly from both assigned textbook material and standard professional practice outside of the school.
There was a repeated emphasis on accepting teachings without questioning them, including statements such as, "I learned this from my teacher. I didn't question it, I just accepted it." For a professional healthcare-adjacent field that requires critical thinking, ethics, and client safety, this approach was deeply concerning.
Over time, many students became hesitant to ask questions, request clarification, or express disagreement because classroom feedback and disciplinary conversations could feel personal or emotionally charged rather than educational. The overall environment often felt less focused on open inquiry and more focused on compliance and avoiding conflict. Questions about inconsistencies between instructors, industry standards, or course material was interpreted as disrespect rather than genuine attempts to learn. Although the program claims to emphasize autonomy, healing, and personal growth, in practice there often seemed to be very little room for critical discussion.
Clinical supervision was also extremely limited. Student clinic sessions were technically "supervised," but instructors were typically simultaneously teaching class or seeing their own private clients. During hands-on classes, the instructor was often in his office answering emails rather than offering direct supervision, support, or feedback. As a result, students received very little direct observation or constructive feedback on hands-on skills. Most feedback came from short client comment forms rather than meaningful professional guidance from instructors.
During disciplinary discussions, school leadership at times utilized psychological or metaphysical interpretations of students' emotions and behavior rather than maintaining a clearly professional and educational focus. In my own case, during a disciplinary meeting, I was told I was "repressing" memories and that my attempts to correct my own behavior were "not me on the inside" and therefore disingenuous. This contributed to confusion regarding professional boundaries, scope of practice, and further discouraged students from openly engaging in the complaint or feedback process.
Another challenge was the lack of neutral administrative structure. Because the owner also serves as director and primary instructor, and the office administrator is his wife, it felt difficult to raise concerns safely or seek objective conflict resolution without fear of retaliation or negative consequences.
Lectures were frequently long and unfocused, making it difficult to distinguish essential material from personal stories, tangents, or philosophical discussion.
This program may work well for students specifically seeking a guru-style learning environment. However, students looking for clear educational standards, evidence-informed instruction, constructive clinical mentorship, professionalism, and an atmosphere that encourages critical thinking may have a very different experience than they expect.
I completed the program and am grateful for the classmates and clients I met along the way, but I believe future students deserve a clearer understanding of the educational culture and instructional environment before enrolling.