The question of when sleep came to be regarded as a problem that must be fixed is becoming increasingly significant in the contemporary healthcare landscape. Dr.Friend, a premium sleep-care brand that originated in Korea, proposes a perspective that understands sleep as a set of conditions that must be designed so that recovery can occur naturally.
Sleep Is Not a Time of “Absence,” but a Continuous Process
From Dr.Friend’s perspective, insomnia, frequent awakenings, and insufficient deep sleep cannot be reduced to a single cause or isolated symptoms. Rather, these phenomena are understood as the result of multiple physiological systems—such as thermoregulation, autonomic nervous system balance, stress responses, inflammatory states, and circadian rhythms—being simultaneously destabilized. Accordingly, the focus of intervention is not on immediately suppressing symptoms, but on restoring the conditions that allow the body to recover on its own.
This perspective resonates with recent academic discussions on sleep and consciousness. Traditionally, sleep has been understood as a state in which consciousness is almost entirely absent. However, Jennifer M. Windt (2020) argues that this view is insufficient. Windt criticizes traditional sleep theories for having regarded REM sleep as the almost exclusive site of dreams and conscious experience. Because vivid dream reports during REM sleep dominated early sleep research, NREM sleep was relatively defined as an “unconscious, experience-deprived state.” Yet this distinction lacks sufficient empirical grounding. In practice, dream reports do not always occur following REM awakenings, and conversely, reports of experience, loss of experience, or contentless dreams (so-called “white dreams”) are repeatedly observed during NREM sleep as well. These findings suggest that existing models—which divide sleep into REM and NREM states and fix conscious experience to a particular stage—are inadequate for explaining the actual diversity of sleep experience.
In particular, Windt draws attention to the serial awakening paradigm, showing that even during deep NREM sleep, states of complete experiential absence and states in which some form of experience is present appear alternately. That is, within NREM sleep, vivid dream experiences, “white dreams” (in which one feels that something was experienced but cannot recall specific content), and complete non-experience are observed at roughly similar rates. These results dismantle the common assumption that NREM sleep is a homogeneous unconscious state and instead reveal a process in which experience and non-experience fluidly alternate across sleep as a whole.
On this basis, Windt argues that sleep should not be understood as a single unconscious state, but as a continuous and multilayered process in which the density and structure of experience change locally. The depth of sleep and the occurrence of experience are shown to be closely related to localized changes in specific brain regions. For example, in both NREM and REM sleep, localized activity changes in occipito-parietal regions immediately prior to awakening were associated with experience reports, suggesting that the continuity and stability of experience may be more important variables than sleep stage itself. From this perspective, sleep cannot be defined as a state that is simply “on” or “off.” Rather, it is reconceptualized as a physiological and phenomenological process in which various levels of experience and non-experience are continuously coordinated.
Preliminary Research on the Association Between Grounding-Based Sleep Environments and Sleep Indicators
According to Park, Hyun-Jung, et al. (2025), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to examine the effects of a grounding-based sleep environment on sleep-related indicators. The results showed that in the experimental group using grounding mats, there was a tendency toward significant reductions from baseline in the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), which evaluates insomnia severity, and the BEPSI score, which reflects perceived stress levels. In addition, objective measurements using actigraphy reported an increase in total sleep time in the experimental group (pp. 4–5). These findings suggest that grounding-based sleep environments may have the potential to induce positive changes in subjective insomnia symptoms, perceived stress, and certain objective sleep indicators.
However, the researchers also report that consistent improvements were not observed across all sleep-related measures. For the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), which assesses overall sleep quality, and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), which measures daytime sleepiness, statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups were not consistently observed (ibid.). The authors interpret these results in light of limitations such as the small sample size, the relatively short study duration, and the sensitivity limitations of subjective questionnaire tools. Accordingly, the study’s findings should be understood as preliminary evidence suggesting that grounding-based sleep environments may influence certain sleep-related indicators, while emphasizing the need for larger-scale, long-term follow-up studies to further verify the scope and mechanisms of these effects.
Evidence Is Still Accumulating | The Current Position of Grounding Research
Ghaly and Teplitz (2004) analyzed the effects of grounding during sleep on stress-related biological markers, focusing on cortisol secretion patterns. Their results showed that after a period of sleeping in a grounded state, participants’ cortisol secretion patterns shifted from previously irregular forms toward curves more closely aligned with normal circadian rhythms. In particular, cortisol levels during midnight and early morning hours tended to decrease, while morning secretion showed relative recovery. The authors interpreted these findings as suggesting a possible synchronization with normal circadian cortisol secretion patterns (pp. 770–773).
Meanwhile, Oschman, Chevalier, and Brown (2015) presented a comprehensive review examining how grounding (earthing) might influence physiological processes related to inflammation, immune regulation, wound healing, and chronic inflammatory diseases. They discuss the possibility that grounding may be involved in oxidative stress and inflammatory responses through the movement of free electrons, and they summarize signals of change reported in some basic studies and small clinical observations related to inflammatory cytokines, blood aggregation, microcirculation, and autonomic nervous system balance (pp. 86–90). These discussions are presented as mechanistic hypotheses suggesting that grounding may potentially participate in processes of biological homeostasis.
At the same time, the authors clearly state that these findings are based on limited study designs and small sample sizes. The evidence presented largely derives from basic research, case reports, and small-scale experiments, and is insufficient to generalize treatment effects or clinical efficacy for specific diseases (pp. 94–95). Therefore, the relationship between grounding and inflammatory or immune responses should be understood not as a definitive conclusion, but as an exploratory area requiring further verification through randomized controlled trials and long-term follow-up studies.
In summary, the key considerations for interpreting grounding-related research to date can be outlined as follows:
• Potential changes in circadian cortisol rhythms
• Mechanistic, hypothesis-level evidence related to inflammation and immune responses
• An exploratory research domain prior to clinical generalization
Dr.Friend’s Sleep Philosophy: Approaching Sleep Through Condition Understanding, Not Treatment Effects
Dr.Friend does not use existing research findings on grounding sleep, stress indicators, or inflammatory responses as evidence to prove treatment effects for specific diseases. This is because Dr.Friend respects the academic context in which most of these studies remain at the level of exploratory designs, limited sample sizes, or mechanistic hypotheses. Instead, Dr.Friend positions these studies as reference points for understanding the conditions under which sleep—as one of the most fundamental life processes—can operate more stably. In other words, the focus is not on targeting individual symptoms or diseases, but on exploring how the overall physiological processes in which recovery occurs are supported or hindered by environmental and physical conditions.
From this standpoint, sleep is not described as mere rest or as the outcome of symptoms. It is understood as a process in which multiple physiological systems—such as thermoregulation, autonomic nervous system balance, stress response regulation, inflammatory state management, and circadian rhythm synchronization—are organically interlinked. When this process is repeatedly disrupted during sleep, it may lead to fragmented deep sleep, frequent awakenings, and reduced restorative feelings. Therefore, what Dr.Friend emphasizes is not a particular sleep stage or an increase in sleep duration per se, but the conditional question of how continuously and stably the recovery process is maintained.
Accordingly, Dr.Friend’s approach aligns with global healthcare trends in which preventive, non-invasive wellness strategies are becoming increasingly important. Active interventions such as medications or electronic devices may contribute to short-term symptom relief, but they can also entail the possibility of long-term dependence on the body’s autonomous regulatory mechanisms. By contrast, reconfiguring the sleep environment itself in a human-friendly way is closer to designing conditions that allow the body’s inherent recovery functions to manifest more smoothly, rather than adding external stimuli.
For this reason, Dr.Friend explains its approach not as “improving” sleep, but as “restoring” the conditions under which sleep can recover. In other words, it does not adopt strategies aimed at producing change through stronger stimuli or faster interventions. Instead, it seeks to support the natural continuity of recovery by minimizing unnecessary arousal factors and physiological readjustments.
From this perspective, the preventive sleep paradigm proposed by Dr.Friend regards sleep not as an object of treatment, but as a matter of condition design. Viewing sleep as a life system that must be designed so that recovery can once again function—this is the philosophical foundation of Dr.Friend’s preventive sleep paradigm.
[References]
1. Ghaly, Maurice, and Dale Teplitz. "The biologic effects of grounding the human body during sleep as measured by cortisol levels and subjective reporting of sleep, pain, and stress." Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 10.5 (2004): 767-776.
2. Oschman, James L., Gaétan Chevalier, and Richard Brown. "The effects of grounding (earthing) on inflammation, the immune response, wound healing, and prevention and treatment of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases." Journal of inflammation research (2015): 83-96.
3. Park, Hyun-Jung, et al. "A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the improvement of sleep quality with Earthing mat." Advances in Integrative Medicine (2025).
4. Windt, Jennifer M. "Consciousness in sleep: How findings from sleep and dream research challenge our understanding of sleep, waking, and consciousness." Philosophy Compass 15.4 (2020): e12661.
The question of when sleep came to be regarded as a problem that must be fixed is becoming increasingly significant in the contemporary healthcare landscape. Dr.Friend, a premium sleep-care brand that originated in Korea, proposes a perspective that understands sleep as a set of conditions that must be designed so that recovery can occur naturally.
Sleep Is Not a Time of “Absence,” but a Continuous Process
From Dr.Friend’s perspective, insomnia, frequent awakenings, and insufficient deep sleep cannot be reduced to a single cause or isolated symptoms. Rather, these phenomena are understood as the result of multiple physiological systems—such as thermoregulation, autonomic nervous system balance, stress responses, inflammatory states, and circadian rhythms—being simultaneously destabilized. Accordingly, the focus of intervention is not on immediately suppressing symptoms, but on restoring the conditions that allow the body to recover on its own.
This perspective resonates with recent academic discussions on sleep and consciousness. Traditionally, sleep has been understood as a state in which consciousness is almost entirely absent. However, Jennifer M. Windt (2020) argues that this view is insufficient. Windt criticizes traditional sleep theories for having regarded REM sleep as the almost exclusive site of dreams and conscious experience. Because vivid dream reports during REM sleep dominated early sleep research, NREM sleep was relatively defined as an “unconscious, experience-deprived state.” Yet this distinction lacks sufficient empirical grounding. In practice, dream reports do not always occur following REM awakenings, and conversely, reports of experience, loss of experience, or contentless dreams (so-called “white dreams”) are repeatedly observed during NREM sleep as well. These findings suggest that existing models—which divide sleep into REM and NREM states and fix conscious experience to a particular stage—are inadequate for explaining the actual diversity of sleep experience.
In particular, Windt draws attention to the serial awakening paradigm, showing that even during deep NREM sleep, states of complete experiential absence and states in which some form of experience is present appear alternately. That is, within NREM sleep, vivid dream experiences, “white dreams” (in which one feels that something was experienced but cannot recall specific content), and complete non-experience are observed at roughly similar rates. These results dismantle the common assumption that NREM sleep is a homogeneous unconscious state and instead reveal a process in which experience and non-experience fluidly alternate across sleep as a whole.
On this basis, Windt argues that sleep should not be understood as a single unconscious state, but as a continuous and multilayered process in which the density and structure of experience change locally. The depth of sleep and the occurrence of experience are shown to be closely related to localized changes in specific brain regions. For example, in both NREM and REM sleep, localized activity changes in occipito-parietal regions immediately prior to awakening were associated with experience reports, suggesting that the continuity and stability of experience may be more important variables than sleep stage itself. From this perspective, sleep cannot be defined as a state that is simply “on” or “off.” Rather, it is reconceptualized as a physiological and phenomenological process in which various levels of experience and non-experience are continuously coordinated.
Preliminary Research on the Association Between Grounding-Based Sleep Environments and Sleep Indicators
According to Park, Hyun-Jung, et al. (2025), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to examine the effects of a grounding-based sleep environment on sleep-related indicators. The results showed that in the experimental group using grounding mats, there was a tendency toward significant reductions from baseline in the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), which evaluates insomnia severity, and the BEPSI score, which reflects perceived stress levels. In addition, objective measurements using actigraphy reported an increase in total sleep time in the experimental group (pp. 4–5). These findings suggest that grounding-based sleep environments may have the potential to induce positive changes in subjective insomnia symptoms, perceived stress, and certain objective sleep indicators.
However, the researchers also report that consistent improvements were not observed across all sleep-related measures. For the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), which assesses overall sleep quality, and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), which measures daytime sleepiness, statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups were not consistently observed (ibid.). The authors interpret these results in light of limitations such as the small sample size, the relatively short study duration, and the sensitivity limitations of subjective questionnaire tools. Accordingly, the study’s findings should be understood as preliminary evidence suggesting that grounding-based sleep environments may influence certain sleep-related indicators, while emphasizing the need for larger-scale, long-term follow-up studies to further verify the scope and mechanisms of these effects.
Evidence Is Still Accumulating | The Current Position of Grounding Research
Ghaly and Teplitz (2004) analyzed the effects of grounding during sleep on stress-related biological markers, focusing on cortisol secretion patterns. Their results showed that after a period of sleeping in a grounded state, participants’ cortisol secretion patterns shifted from previously irregular forms toward curves more closely aligned with normal circadian rhythms. In particular, cortisol levels during midnight and early morning hours tended to decrease, while morning secretion showed relative recovery. The authors interpreted these findings as suggesting a possible synchronization with normal circadian cortisol secretion patterns (pp. 770–773).
Meanwhile, Oschman, Chevalier, and Brown (2015) presented a comprehensive review examining how grounding (earthing) might influence physiological processes related to inflammation, immune regulation, wound healing, and chronic inflammatory diseases. They discuss the possibility that grounding may be involved in oxidative stress and inflammatory responses through the movement of free electrons, and they summarize signals of change reported in some basic studies and small clinical observations related to inflammatory cytokines, blood aggregation, microcirculation, and autonomic nervous system balance (pp. 86–90). These discussions are presented as mechanistic hypotheses suggesting that grounding may potentially participate in processes of biological homeostasis.
At the same time, the authors clearly state that these findings are based on limited study designs and small sample sizes. The evidence presented largely derives from basic research, case reports, and small-scale experiments, and is insufficient to generalize treatment effects or clinical efficacy for specific diseases (pp. 94–95). Therefore, the relationship between grounding and inflammatory or immune responses should be understood not as a definitive conclusion, but as an exploratory area requiring further verification through randomized controlled trials and long-term follow-up studies.
In summary, the key considerations for interpreting grounding-related research to date can be outlined as follows:
• Potential changes in circadian cortisol rhythms
• Mechanistic, hypothesis-level evidence related to inflammation and immune responses
• An exploratory research domain prior to clinical generalization
Dr.Friend’s Sleep Philosophy: Approaching Sleep Through Condition Understanding, Not Treatment Effects
Dr.Friend does not use existing research findings on grounding sleep, stress indicators, or inflammatory responses as evidence to prove treatment effects for specific diseases. This is because Dr.Friend respects the academic context in which most of these studies remain at the level of exploratory designs, limited sample sizes, or mechanistic hypotheses. Instead, Dr.Friend positions these studies as reference points for understanding the conditions under which sleep—as one of the most fundamental life processes—can operate more stably. In other words, the focus is not on targeting individual symptoms or diseases, but on exploring how the overall physiological processes in which recovery occurs are supported or hindered by environmental and physical conditions.
From this standpoint, sleep is not described as mere rest or as the outcome of symptoms. It is understood as a process in which multiple physiological systems—such as thermoregulation, autonomic nervous system balance, stress response regulation, inflammatory state management, and circadian rhythm synchronization—are organically interlinked. When this process is repeatedly disrupted during sleep, it may lead to fragmented deep sleep, frequent awakenings, and reduced restorative feelings. Therefore, what Dr.Friend emphasizes is not a particular sleep stage or an increase in sleep duration per se, but the conditional question of how continuously and stably the recovery process is maintained.
Accordingly, Dr.Friend’s approach aligns with global healthcare trends in which preventive, non-invasive wellness strategies are becoming increasingly important. Active interventions such as medications or electronic devices may contribute to short-term symptom relief, but they can also entail the possibility of long-term dependence on the body’s autonomous regulatory mechanisms. By contrast, reconfiguring the sleep environment itself in a human-friendly way is closer to designing conditions that allow the body’s inherent recovery functions to manifest more smoothly, rather than adding external stimuli.
For this reason, Dr.Friend explains its approach not as “improving” sleep, but as “restoring” the conditions under which sleep can recover. In other words, it does not adopt strategies aimed at producing change through stronger stimuli or faster interventions. Instead, it seeks to support the natural continuity of recovery by minimizing unnecessary arousal factors and physiological readjustments.
From this perspective, the preventive sleep paradigm proposed by Dr.Friend regards sleep not as an object of treatment, but as a matter of condition design. Viewing sleep as a life system that must be designed so that recovery can once again function—this is the philosophical foundation of Dr.Friend’s preventive sleep paradigm.
[References]
1. Ghaly, Maurice, and Dale Teplitz. "The biologic effects of grounding the human body during sleep as measured by cortisol levels and subjective reporting of sleep, pain, and stress." Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 10.5 (2004): 767-776.
2. Oschman, James L., Gaétan Chevalier, and Richard Brown. "The effects of grounding (earthing) on inflammation, the immune response, wound healing, and prevention and treatment of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases." Journal of inflammation research (2015): 83-96.
3. Park, Hyun-Jung, et al. "A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the improvement of sleep quality with Earthing mat." Advances in Integrative Medicine (2025).
4. Windt, Jennifer M. "Consciousness in sleep: How findings from sleep and dream research challenge our understanding of sleep, waking, and consciousness." Philosophy Compass 15.4 (2020): e12661.