Jason has a well-thought out and complex post about energy on his blog. He carefully explains how material objects have “energy,” for example.
But why not just say they are conscious? Why use “energy?” It’s not physical energy by any means, and I don’t think he would suggest it is (I hope so, anyway). And it doesn’t behave at all like energy in our physical lives behaves. If I can give something “energy” by painting it with a particular herb, why not simply say I’m making a symbolic link? It gives us nothing to call it “energy,” because energy doesn’t behave that way. Call it communication, then I can think of it in terms of symbols, which is it is, rather than energy, which it is not.
I simply don’t understand why magicians throw up so many barriers and complexity between the idea that we’re dealing with the pervasively conscious nature of matter and mind. Why build all these sandcastles about “energy,” which it is clearly not, when we can talk, instead, about communication, which it clearly and plainly is. Then we can talk about how to communicate more effectively with the underlying consciousness of reality rather than trying to figure out how to “get more energy.” Eat a friggin’ sandwich if you want more energy; study symbols if you want to understand magic.