Review Reports - Psychedelic Mystical Experiences Are Authentic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses a topic to which we have received a fairly clear answer in the last 25 years: yes, psychedelics can induce authentic mystical experiences. This is well known since Griffiths (2006, 2016) and since the discovery of neural correlations and phenomenological overlap, since the recognition of the therapeutic significance of the mystical dimension, etc. It is symptomatic that the article only refers to very old theses that are no longer really represented in science: the most important reference, R. Zaehner from 1961! The Osho referred to expressed his skepticism from the 1970s, and the article refers to Tristan MacDonald's blog - neither of which is a scientific source. The later-cited Thomas Merton and Buber also formulated their statements long ago, not primarily scientifically based. The author does not cite a single contemporary scientific reference to argue against it - because today no one credibly represents the thesis that psychedelic-induced experiences cannot be authentically mystical. This in itself is enough for me to classify the article as low-quality. But there are many more problems. Here are a few examples. The author writes: "Many definitions go back to seminal works like those by William James (James 1902), Steven Katz (Katz 1978) and Walter Stace (Stace 1960), and some are more inclusive than others." This is absurd in its form. Perennialist and contextualist-constructivist views should not be listed side by side so uncritically. Moreover, Stace's definition had a huge impact on psychedelic research (and mystical questionnaires), and this should have been critically analyzed. The author also writes: "Psychedelic substances reported to facilitate mystical experiences include psilocybin, LSD, DMT and Mescaline". Important things are distorted here: what about 5-Meo-DMT and ayahuasca? (and cannabis and MDMA which are on the border?) The author also writes: "Famous historical reports are self-reports by Theresa of Avila (Tyler and Howells 2016) and Meister Eckhart (Kieckhefer 1978) and reports of experiences of Plotinus (Arp 2004)". This is probably wrong in the case of Meister Eckhart. Bernard McGinn, a contemporary authority on Christian mysticism, emphasizes that subjective reports were rare at that time, and does not mention subjective reports in his book on Eckhart. There are many empirical problems with the article, but what has been said is already serious in itself.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for pointing to some shortcomings of the paper. While there remain some disagreements between the reviewer and myself I made some changes in accordance to the comments.

While the reviewer is right that there are very little recent scholarly arguments against the authenticity of psychedelically induced mystical experiences, I do not agree that the arguments therefore do not merit scholarly attention. Some of the old arguments have not been properly answered and some can be reevaluated given the new empirical results of the last two decades. Some of the old arguments also echo in criticisms in popular publications. Echoes of the arguments can also be found in some reactions by churches. I included more criticisms from popular media and from official statements. In my opinion, this supports the relevance of discussing the old arguments.
The papers by Griffith do not constitute a full-blown philosophical argument for the authenticity of psychedelically induced mystical experience. They can be used for this purpose, as I aim to do in the last sections.
The replies to the arguments by Merton and Buber indeed do not rely on scientific publications. The reason is that I did not find any scholarly replies and formulated replies myself. The arguments are indeed not rooted in empirical science but in theological views on God’s self-revelation as the paper tries to spell out.
The reference to Katz has been deleted and the cited sources are now only of perennialist origin. I briefly noted how perennialism shaped a lot of the discussion on mystical experience. A through, critical discussion of this lies beyond the scope of this paper. While perennialists tend to be more congenial to claims that mystical experiences can be authentic, other accounts can lead to the same conclusion. Discussing the debate at length therefore does not seem necessary for my purposes.
The impact of Stace on questionnaires is noted in a note now. I do not rely on results from questionnaires, but mainly give examples from studies where subjects describe their experiences. Therefore, I do not think that a critical discussion on the impact of Stace on the questionnaires is very relevant here.
I included 5-Meo-DMT and MDMA in the sentence. I omitted ayahuasca since the prominent active element in ayahuasca is DMT. I did not aim to give an exhaustive list of all psychedelic substances but only a few examples.
I replaced Eckhart with Julian of Norwich who does have a self-report.
I’m interested to hear what the other serious empirical problems with the paper you found.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Note that Teresa of Avila also made positive changes in subsequent behavior a benchmark of valid mystical experience, as reported in Nelson Pike's Mystic Union (1992).

p.3, line 91: you should get rid of the word "probably" in this line because the work definitely goes back to Pahnke's Good Friday Experiments. No need to equivocate.

4, line 151: You should add the name Huston to your reference to "Smith," to make clear which Smith your talking about.

5, 176, you should change "easy" to "ease" for grammatical correctness.

5, 181: Change "experiences" to experienced, with an "ed," to keep tense consistent with the following two lines.

5, 189: Change "unexpected" to unexpectedly.

6, 199-203: Additional support for your position on positive changes in behavior. Michael Bogenschutz, director of the NYU Langone Center for Psychedelic Medicine, found that heavy drinking was reduced by 83% on average among heavy drinkers after two sessions with psilocybin conjoined with psychotherapy (2022).

8, 296: You tell us "The argument from grace has some appeal," and you tell us why, but note that such alignment has no meaning at all for Buddhist mystics, Advaitin mystics, and other groups. Important to point out in my opinion.

9, 368-9: Your claim that mindfulness meditation affects the same regions of the brain as psychedelics needs a reference or two for support. For instance, see the work of Dr. Rael Cahn of USC's Center for Mindfulness Science.

Your 4.1 section could be improved by adding the neuroscience work of Andrew Newberg on meditators and psychedelic subjects as reported in Yaden and Newberg, The Varieties of Spiritual Experience (2022).

11, 455-61: There's a spacing issue here.

12, 470-474: Note that experiences of grace and the sacred presence of God also occur regularly in Santo Daime accounts and those of the Native American Church, both of which employ a psychedelic sacrament.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Your English is a bit rough and sometimes difficult to follow. For example, see p.10, lines 412-14, where there are several problems ("do" should be "does") and the sentence constructions are poor. However, the article does mostly scan and the reduced facility with English shouldn't prevent publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and the efforts in reviewing the manuscript. I included most of them in the most recent versions.

I made a note of Theresa of Avila’s view on the importance of effects.
I deleted the word ‘probably’.
I added Smith’s first name.
I changed ‘easy’ to ‘ease’.
I changed ‘experiences’ to ‘experienced’.
I changed ‘unexpected’ to ‘unexpectedly’.
I added a reference to Bogenschutz.
I added that the argument from grace is of little concern to Buddhists, Advaitin and Daoists.
I added a reference to the neural effects of mindfulness meditation.
I could not get hold of the book ‘The Varieties of Spiritual Experience’ in time. I added a reference, but thorough engagement will be for future work.
I made a note of the sacramental use in Santo Daime and how it seems to involve grace.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

lines 8-13. The word "pimes" need to be defined/clarified. I suggest it be included in the titles, such as Psychedelic Induced Mystical Experiences (pimes) Are Authentic.

Abstract: mention "epistemic knowledge" as a purpose of this article.

One-word or short phrase at the first line of paragraphs when a topic is induced will alert readers to the topic and make the overall structure more visible, e.g.

Hiddeness of God

Moral Effects

Grace

Ronald Cole-Turner's new book "Psychedelics and Christian Faith" 2025, considers several of the topics in this ms and should be cited. It'll probably become widely read and cited.

line 177, mention Huxley's "gratuitous grace in "Doors"

Best citation of Huston Smith is "Cleansing the Doors of Perception"

Nice job. I look forward to seeing it in print.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I included most of them in the latest version

I have opted not to include the abbreviation in the title. I believe this makes the title less easy to read. The abbreviation is explained in the introduction.
The goal is included in the abstract.
I included a reference to the book ‘Psychedelics and Christian Faith’ in the introduction.
I mentioned Huxley’s remark on grace in the discussion on the argument from grace.
I added a citation to Smith’s ‘Cleansing the doors of perception’.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The problem with the article is still the same as before: it does not convincingly demonstrate that there are relevant debates in contemporary science/philosophy as to whether psychedelic-induced experiences can be authentic mystical experiences. My earlier criticism was that the authors cited in the article were either irrelevant or had been attacking the authenticity of psychedelics many years ago. The majority of religions and their maintream, because of their tendency to conservatism and defence of their own practices, will naturally oppose psychedelics. To argue with them after 70 years of research does not seem productive. The author also admits that “Most negative scholarly arguments are older dating back to the first psychedelic renaissance of the 1960's.” Robert Zaehner's claims of 1957 (which largely stemmed from his Catholic conservatism!) were argued against many decades ago by W. Pahnke, H. Smith and W. Richards. On the other hand, the article itself acknowledges that there is actually a consensus in contemporary psychedelic research: “Most note deep similarities between mystical experiences induced by psychedelics and ‘ordinary’ mystical experiences”. But it is misleading to claim that these researchers “seem enthusiastic supporters”, because these researchers are scientists who try to remain neutral on religious/spiritual matters, and scientific arguments are important to them: that the experiences they are researching fit the definition of mysticism (from Pahnke to Griffits, most rely on Stace's definition of mysticism - see Chris Letheby's very important publication in this regard, Philosophy of Psychedelics, which the author does not mention at all) - it is not mere “enthuisiasm”. On the other hand, the author misleadingly portrays theologians and philosophers of religion when he states that ‘Some scholars do make brief, derogatory remarks’. McGinn (to whom the author refers) actually says: "Psychedelics are not a part of my research. ... I say it's certainly not impossible, but has to be studied in detail and you have to use discernment-to use a Jesuit term-the discernment of spirits. Some of these practices go back 1,000 years, and I wouldn't exclude the role of drugs and psychedelics, but it's certainly not the only way." It is completely misguiding to consider this “derogatory”. Unfortunately, the author does not give the page number of Swinburne's book. Swinburne's The Existence of God, however, actually says: “Most religious experiences are had by people who normally make reliable perceptual claims, and have not recently taken drugs.” These phrases are not “derogatory”, in fact they leave open the possibility of an authentic drug experience. The author may have had other phrases in mind (?) –the reference is not clear. In any case, the author does not argue convincingly that there are any scientifically or philosophically sound objections to the cultural authenticity of psychedelic mystical experiences today. The problem is still that the most important topic of the article unclear. Is the question whether psychedelics can provide phenomenologically authentic mystical experiences, or whether these experiences have epistemic authenticity? In the former case, a rigorous and critical analysis of what constitutes mystical experience would have been required. The author does not refer to the research and debates of the last 30 years on this subject. In the latter case, all the same skepticism applies to psychedelic experiences that applies to mystical experiences in general. All the author says about this is: "A thorough discussion of the arguments is beyond the scope of this volume." Unfortunately, the author does not analyze the Buddhist counter-arguments that he has previously quoted, that “Hallucinogens [cause] disorder and confuse the mind”. On the other hand, his epistemological arguments do not take into account contemporary arguments, such as those put forward by C. Letheby, who advocates a spiritual naturalism. The author states that "This paper discusses several arguments against and for the epistemic authenticity of psychedelically-induced mystical experiences", while he is unaware of the most important publication on the epistemology of psychedelics, Philosophy and Psychedelics, in which Ole Martin Moen's article "Are psychedelic drugs distorting" is particularly relevant, but also the writings of other authors (e.g. John Buchanan, Jussi Jylkka, Matthew Segall).

Contemporary debates make much stronger arguments than those on which the author relies. The author does not define exactly what epistemic authenticity means to him. He suggests once that “Claims on authenticity are often made using terms like 'truth' or 'real'. This meaning of authenticity is therefore epistemic." So the author should have shown whether psychedelic-incuded experience helps us to know reality (or the truth about it) better. However, the arguments in this regard are not included in the article. As the author himself acknowledges, claims that "pimes are too easy" or that they "do not have lasting effects" or that they "do not involve divine grace" are not good epistemological arguments. And the arguments that the author later makes (that psychedelic experience is produced by the same neural mechanisms as other mystical experiences and that they are phenomenologically similar) are NOT arguments for the epistemic authenticity of psychedelic-induced experiences. After all, it is also not evident that other mystical experiences are epistemically authentic (a point not addressed by the author in details). The article thus uncritically mixes the criteria of cultural and epistemic authenticity, and the author does not argue well and convincingly for the latter. It is symptomatic (and at the same time very disturbing) that in the "Concluding remarks" the author does not mention epistemicity or epistemology. He writes: "The available evidence indicates that pimes are produced by the same or similar neural mechanisms that produce other mystical experiences. Pimes also share a lot of phenomenological similarities with other mystical experiences." Neither of these is a strong enough argument for whether psychedelically-induced mystical experiences reveal reality or truth (a criterion mentioned by the author himself). The last sentence is also very confusing: "The discussion supports the idea that pimes should not be singled out as inauthentic or counterfeit mystical experiences." Here again the cultural and epistemic criteria are confused. Overall, the author does not support what he claims in the title, that "Psychedelic mystical experiences are authentic". I cannot recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

Reply to reviewer second round

I was unsure where to post my reply to the other reviewer. I attached it as a word document and pasted them below. This file thus contains different rebuttals than the ones here below.

I thank the reviewer again for the comments.

Whether there is a relevant discussion or not remains to some extent speculative. We will likely continue to disagree here. Some of the arguments discussed have a longer history, but most have not been answered with new research from the past two decades included (to my knowledge). Most older replies focus exclusively on the phenomenological similarities and not on any of the other arguments. The fact that sources outside of academia still raise similar problems also attests that the discussion at least has some relevance.
The deep similarities noted by most empirical researchers mostly pertain to phenomenological similarities. Concluding that both are therefore as authentic does not necessarily follow, as the paper aims to show. It might still be that pimes are problematic because they do not involve divine grace or have no lasting effects. this is attested to by the reviewer in a way when he writes “Neither of these is a strong enough argument for whether psychedelically-induced mystical experiences reveal reality or truth (a criterion mentioned by the author himself).”.
I added more details on the remarks by McGinn and Swinburne. While McGinn leaves the possibility open that pimes may be authentic, his remarks still suggest some doubt. Swinburne seems to rule out all experiences induced by LSD.
There appears to be some confusion over the concept of epistemic authenticity used in the paper. The concept was not well explained in the previous version. The previous version also did not make clear that goal is not to evaluate the epistemic reliability of psychedelic states or mystical experiences in general. The goal is rather to assess arguments for and against the claim that psychedelically induced mystical experiences are as authentic as non-induced mystical experiences. Most of these arguments are less strictly epistemological and more theological. The current version includes more details on what is meant by ‘epistemic authenticity’ throughout the paper.
The paper also does not aim to assess the epistemic reliability of mystical experiences in general. This is a huge discussion that cannot be covered in this paper. The extended discussion on epistemic authenticity hopes to make this clear.
Noting that many researchers are enthusiastic supporters of psychedelics does not imply that they don’t follow scientific standards or do not base their conclusions thereon. The idea is derived from personal conversations with researchers and interviews.
The quoted Buddhist argument is a short remark noted in the book by Rick Strassmann. Strassmann does not elaborate on the details of the argument. It does indicate that at least some Buddhist have doubts regarding the authenticity of pimes.
The current version briefly mentions some of the discussion on the overall reliability of psychedelic states. This is a different discussion than that of the current paper. The focus is on arguments that drive a wedge between ‘ordinary’ mystical experiences and those induced by psychedelics, and on arguments supporting that neither is epistemically inferior.
The conclusion has been updated to add more clarity on what the paper hopes to establish. Again details are added that the goal is to argue that pimes ought not to be treated on different epistemic grounds than ‘ordinary’ mystical experiences.

Reply to reviewer 2:

I thank the reviewer for the comments. I made changes to incorporate them. Below you can find my response to the major comments you raised.

---

### Major Issues

1. **Conceptual Clarity on Authenticity**

* Multiple types of authenticity (epistemic, value, cultural, unmediated) are introduced, but the article focuses almost exclusively on epistemic authenticity. The other dimensions—particularly cultural authenticity—deserve fuller analysis to avoid reductionism.

Increased discussion on cultural and value authenticity was added to the last sections. The focus on the paper is, however, on epistemic authenticity as indicated in section 3. A fuller discussion of other forms of authenticity falls beyond the scope of this paper.

**Insufficient Theological Engagement**

* The theological discussion is relatively thin. While some Christian authors are cited, there is little systematic dialogue with theology on grace, discernment, or mystical verification. Incorporating contemporary theological voices (e.g., Rahner, Panikkar, Marion) would strengthen the argument.

A number of theological sources were added. The discussion on grace refers to work by Karl Rahner. The introduction includes reference to Panikkar. The section on the apparent easy of pimes now includes more theological and philosophical work on discernment and the importance attributed to spiritual practices.

**Bibliographic Limitations**

* Empirical evidence relies mainly on classic studies (Good Friday Experiment, Griffiths 2006). More recent longitudinal and community-based studies should be included.

More recent studies are included in the section on the empirical evidence. Some are longitudinal. For example:

Barrett, Frederick S, and Roland R Griffiths. 2018. “Classic Hallucinogens and Mystical Experiences: Phenomenology and Neural Correlates.” Behavioral Neurobiology of Psychedelic Drugs 36: 393–430.
Corneille, Jessica Sophie, and David Luke. 2021. “Spontaneous Spiritual Awakenings: Phenomenology, Altered States, Individual Differences, and Well-Being.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 720579
Dos Santos, Rafael G, Flávia L Osório, José Alexandre S Crippa, and Jaime EC Hallak. 2016. “Classical Hallucinogens and Neuroimaging: A Systematic Review of Human Studies: Hallucinogens and Neuroimaging.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 71: 715–28.
Exline, Julie J, William A Schutt, Kathleen C Pait, and Joshua A Wilt. 2023. “Do Psychedelic Trips Open the Door to Messages from God, Spirits, Transcendent Realities, or the Devil?
Griffiths, Roland R, Ethan S Hurwitz, Alan K Davis, Matthew W Johnson, and Robert Jesse. 2019. “Survey of Subjective" God Encounter Experiences": Comparisons among Naturally Occurring Experiences and Those Occasioned by the Classic Psychedelics Psilocybin, LSD, Ayahuasca, or DMT.” PloS One 14 (4): e0214377

* The manuscript cites non-academic sources (e.g., blogs), which weakens the scholarly foundation. Peer-reviewed literature should be prioritized.
- References to blogs are mainly included the introduction. Most of the sections rely on scholarly sources

**Lack of Methodological Transparency**

* The article uses a narrative literature review but does not explain criteria for selection. Explicitly stating the review methodology would improve rigor.

Some details on methodology are stated in note 7.

**Western-Centric Perspective**

* The paper acknowledges being written from a “Dutch perspective”, but the analysis could be expanded to include non-Western traditions (Hinduism, Afro-diasporic religions, Islam), which would better fit the global readership of *Religions*.

- The paper mentions experiences on Brahman and Dao. Criticisms by Buddhists and Osho are discussed in the introduction. The paper also includes discussion of non-Christian experiences in the section on grace.

---

---

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf