I am trying to work out the steps of the proof of the expression: $$\sum_n (\mathcal{E_n}-\mathcal{E_s})|\langle n|e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}|s \rangle|^2 = \frac{\hbar^2q^2}{2m}$$ from Eq. (5.48) in the book Principles of the Theory of Solids by Ziman. In the book it is mentioned that this can be shown by expanding out: $$[[\mathcal{H},e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}],e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}]$$ where $$\mathcal{H} = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2+\mathcal{V}(\mathbf{r})$$ with $\mathcal{V}(\mathbf{r})$ being periodic. What I did is a simple expansion: $$[[\mathcal{H},e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}],e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}] = 2\mathcal{H}-e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}\mathcal{H}e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}-e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}\mathcal{H}e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}$$ Then I took the inner product with the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}|s\rangle = E_s |s\rangle$ to get $$\langle s|[[\mathcal{H},e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}],e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}]|s\rangle = 2E_s - \langle s|e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}\mathcal{H}e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}|s\rangle - \langle s|e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}\mathcal{H}e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}|s\rangle$$ Now, what's obstructing my calculation is the fact that I cannot justify the last two terms in the above expression being equal. I really need them to be equal to show the top identity (also known as the Bethe sum rule). The main obstacle is the fact that $e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}$ is non-Hermitian.
I have found this identity in many books and journal articles. But I cannot find a satisfactory proof anywhere. One such example is this article:
Sanwu Wang. Generalization of the Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn and the Bethe sum rules. Phys. Rev. A 60 no. 1, pp. 262–266 (1999).
Th result is stated in Eq. (3) and proof is given in section III. A. At the end of the proof they set $F = e^{i.\mathbf{q}.\mathbf{r}}$ to recover Eq. (3). The fact that they did not assume any form for $F$ means it must hold for any function. There is, however, one step that I cannot justify. In Eq. (9) how can they write: $$\langle 0|F(x)|l \rangle = \langle l|F(x)|0 \rangle$$ If I can even justify the above equality (for my case) then I'm set.