Review Reports - Towards a Participatory Philosophical Religion: Foundations for a Sacramental Metaphysics of Psychedelics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your excellent paper, which was a delight to read. Your case for the value of a participatory transpersonal container in psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT) is well argued. One of the paper's strengths is its coherent and original synthesis of Grof’s transpersonal research, Ferrer's participatory spiritual pluralism, and Schelling’s proposal for a philosophical religion. This integration is in itself a significant contribution to the existing literature. Most importantly, you make a cogent case that this framework can transform PAT into a type of transpersonal ministry that effectively addresses the spiritual and metaphysical needs of PAT clients. As I see it, the core argument is that this form of transpersonal ministry is a modern fulfillment of Schelling’s “philosophical religion” through the lens of participatory thought in the context of psychedelic experiences.

The paper is well-written and thoroughly documented. I am pleased to strongly recommend its publication.

That said, in addition to my specific queries in the attached document, I suggest two areas for minor revision to further strengthen the paper’s focus and impact.

Title: The current title, "Holotropic Participation," does not fully capture the essay’s core proposal, and "Psychedelic Ecosystem" doesn’t convey its focus on psychedelic therapy. I suggest a revision that explicitly incorporates “transpersonal ministry” or a similar expression. Two possibilities for a more suitable title might be: “A Participatory Framework for Psychedelic Ministry: Reimagining Schelling’s Philosophical Religion” or “Transpersonal Ministry: A Participatory Framework for Psychedelic Therapy.”
Metanatal Mystery (lines 444–458): I am a bit uncertain about the need for a new term or concept here. “Metanatal Mystery” is not widely discussed elsewhere in the paper, and its meaning felt rather vague, at least in my reading. This is compounded by Grof’s own acknowledgment that not all individuals access transpersonal realms (or transpersonal cocreation) through perinatal experiences. I recommend rewording the paragraph and tweaking this section's discussion to avoid introducing a new term, especially at the end of a paper already engaging so many players and concepts.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript and for the insightful feedback you provided. I appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to engaging with this work, and your encouragement has been very helpful in guiding the revisions.

Below I present my detailed responses to your comments — everything in red indicates additions. I have also included the new manuscript in which new material is highlighted in yellow, and material relocated between sections is marked in blue (text moved within the same section is not highlighted).

I hope you will find the revisions responsive to your suggestions, and I look forward to your further thoughts.

1. Title: The current title, "Holotropic Participation," does not fully capture the essay’s core proposal, and "Psychedelic Ecosystem" doesn’t convey its focus on psychedelic therapy. I suggest a revision that explicitly incorporates “transpersonal ministry” or a similar expression. Two possibilities for a more suitable title might be: “A Participatory Framework for Psychedelic Ministry: Reimagining Schelling’s Philosophical Religion” or “Transpersonal Ministry: A Participatory Framework for Psychedelic Therapy.”

Response: I would have to agree. The title is from an earlier draft of the work, and it no longer reflects the article’s themes. This is particularly true with the revisions I have made. I have changed the title to “Towards a Participatory Philosophical Religion: Foundations for a Sacramental Metaphysics of Psychedelics”.

2. Metanatal Mystery (lines 444–458): I am a bit uncertain about the need for a new term or concept here. “Metanatal Mystery” is not widely discussed elsewhere in the paper, and its meaning felt rather vague, at least in my reading. This is compounded by Grof’s own acknowledgment that not all individuals access transpersonal realms (or transpersonal cocreation) through perinatal experiences. I recommend rewording the paragraph and tweaking this section's discussion to avoid introducing a new term, especially at the end of a paper already engaging so many players and concepts.

Response: Thank you for this feedback. Metanatal Mystery is being used to distinguish between a Metanatal that is the result of universalization of the perinatal (i.e a rational product), vs. one that is pointing to the very co-creative act at the heart of the perinatal. I agree with you that the introduction of a new term is not necessary here. I have removed this reference.

3. As "ministry" is a term strongly associated with the Christian tradition, using "divine" in this context seems coherent. However, as most PATs are not affiliated with any particular religious tradition or orientation (theist, nondualist, etc.), perhaps this association should be made explicit; if so, consider my next comment/recommendation. Alternatively, if "ministry" is used here in a non necessarily Christian framework (e.g.., as trans-traditional spiritual counseling) then this wider use should be explicitly mentioned; if so. it may be necessary to change "the divine" for something more generic like "spiritual sources" or at least write "spiritual sources or the divine".

Response: The term ministry actually comes from the churches themselves, and is meant to satisfy the legal bodies. It is not a reflection of Christianity, but is intended to be all-inclusive. I have made the following adjustments (Ln 75-91) which might help with this:

(Ln 75-91):

In this context, recent years have seen the rise of psychedelic ministry and psychedelic churches in the United States, marking a decisive shift from a clinical approach to a religious one. These churches are distinct from North American indigenous churches and South American religious psychedelic lineages such as Santo Daime. In this article, psychedelic ministry explicitly refers to psychedelic seminaries rising within the United States¹ (See Gorsline 2025).

Unlike chaplains, these ministers do not function within the medical model but hold psychedelics as sacraments that allow access to a more profound connection with the divine. This connection, they believe, leads to psychospiritual wellbeing and development (Gorsline 2025). Relying on the First Amendment, these churches bypass state laws and provide an alternative point of access for psychedelics and integration. In this context, while psychedelic ministry incorporates various psychotherapeutic modalities into its practice, it offers a spiritual and religious container that acknowledges the sacred nature of the psyche and the sacramental role of psychedelics. Lastly, while many of these churches have opted for the use of the term “ministry” for legal purposes, their various spiritual containers reflect the plurality of religious, secular, and metaphysical perspectives held within the United States.

4. Ln 109: Although Ferrer has offered re-interpretations of Grof's research (the latest articulation can be found in essay for Psyche Unbound), this paper doesn't explicitly describe it. I suggest to change the wording for "Ferrer's participatory revisioning of transpersonal psychology."

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. You are absolutely correct, the participatory turn of Ferrer is in the context of transpersonal theory, not Grof’s particular work, especially as presented here. This phrase has since been removed from the paper.

5. Ln 195: It is not clear what the two waves are.

Response: The two waves here are referring to transpersonal psychology and psychedelic ministry. I understand how the current wording is confusing. This line was removed during revision.

6. Ferrer 2008 not to be found in References. Add reference or correct the date.

Response: I have added the reference (Ln 620-22).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article challenges the recent conception of psychedelics as medical drugs, and moves more towards a religious-spiritual conception of psychedelics. The Author says they will focus on the role of “psychedelic ministers”, and aims to “shift from clinical integration to a sacramental approach” (ln 62). The article will do this by “bringing Ferrer’s participatory interpretation of Grof’s transpersonal psychology into conversation with Schelling’s philosophy” (ln 109). The article aims to outline a “transpersonal ministry” (ln 116).

This is a promising project. However, it needs much work. There are simply too many moving parts (and persons) to follow the line of the argument. Section 2.1 goes through lots of history which doesn’t seem relevant. In 2.2, we are told “As we saw, Grof was not able to integrate his findings with the modern mechanistic worldview” (ln 209). But I didn’t find any discussion of that prior to ln 209. Similar problems occur throughout the paper. For example “As this paper has shown, the contemporary rise of psychedelic ministry and the earlier emergence of transpersonal psychology are not isolated phenomena” (ln 354). But there wasn’t any discussion of psychedelic ministry. We are told that the article will use Schelling’s “philosophical religion”, even though Schelling never articulated such a religion (ln 364).

It would be very interesting to see Schelling used to provide a framework for psychedelic experiences, and for psychedelic ministry. But that would be a paper focusing clearly on Schelling. Unfortunately, this paper wanders through a labyrinth of persons and positions, and does not seem to have a clear thesis or line of argumentation.

The Author says “we envision the rise of transpersonal ministry as a participatory sacramental philosophical religion” (ln 476), where the philosophical religion comes from a suitably updated Schelling. But the article doesn’t work this out. I suggest that the Author take this vision as their thesis, and then work it out clearly. But this requires extensive revision, in which the Grof, Ferrer, perennialism, and so on, probably isn’t relevant.

I believe the Author was misled by the Journal’s option to structure the paper as a scientific research report (e.g. section 4 as “Materials and Methods”). This isn’t a scientific research report, and these section headings are not relevant (nor are they required by the Journal). This structure is perhaps responsible for much of the confusion in the article.

The Author needs to go back to the drawing board and to reconceive of the project in a much more focused way. Again, it would be very useful to see a “transpersonal ministry” worked out, in practical detail, using Schelling’s philosophy. But that would be a very different paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for investing your time in carefully reviewing my manuscript and for your thoughtful, constructive remarks. I deeply appreciate your engagement with the work and the encouragement you have offered.

Enclosed please find my detailed responses to your comments, with any additions or revisions shown in red. I have also included the revised manuscript, in which newly introduced content is highlighted in yellow, and passages moved between sections are indicated in blue (text reorganized within the same section is not color-highlighted).

Of note, the title of the article has been changed to "Towards a Philosophical Religion: Foundations for a Sacramental Metaphysics of Psychedelics".

I hope these changes satisfactorily address your suggestions, and I welcome any additional feedback you may have.

1. This is a promising project. However, it needs much work. There are simply too many moving parts (and persons) to follow the line of the argument. Section 2.1 goes through lots of history which doesn’t seem relevant.

Response: Thank you for this feedback. In response to this and another reviewer's questions about the secularization of Christianity, I have further clarified section 2 to present it as a historical grounding of the psychedelic movement and transpersonal psychology into Western history in the context of the secularized continuation of Christianity in both Enlightenment and Romantic thoughts.

I have also moved Sherman (2008)’s genealogy of participatory thought into this section (lns 118-125) and added the following lines:

Ln 125-131:

While Sherman does not aim to establish a chronological lineage among the various participatory theories, it is possible to see, in their progression, the rise and secularization of Christianity. Beginning with ancient Greek essential participation, it moves to the medieval emergence of existential participation resulting from the interaction of Greek and Christian thought. It then moves through the secularization of Christianity and culminates in the creative participation to which both Schelling and Ferrer relate, granting creativity to humanity.

I have also added the following lines on the relationship between secularized Christianity and both the Enlightenment and Romanticism:

Ln 165-170:

The scientific movement, however, has not completely shed the Christian legacy from which it evolved. In Science and the Modern World, Alfred North Whitehead (1925) explores how Christianity has influenced the scientific movement, showing that modern science is based on an underlying metaphysical view rooted in medieval Christianity. In this way, Christian dogma was abandoned, yet its underlying metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the world persists. Whitehead critiques the scientific community’s refusal to recognize the metaphysical assumptions at the core of the scientific method and sees the materialistic, reductionist worldview of mainstream science as resulting from this ignorance.

While the implicit echoes of Christian sentiments run through the academic halls that carry Enlightenment sensibility, the nineteenth-century Romantic movement’s revolt against the Enlightenment more explicitly carries spiritual sentiments.

Ln 197-8:

in addition to the secularized continuation of Christian sentiments within mainstream scientific though, the Romantic spirits continued to evolve beneath the surface, carrying forward a sense of sacrality that would nourish the Western spirit for centuries to come.

2. In 2.2, we are told “As we saw, Grof was not able to integrate his findings with the modern mechanistic worldview” (ln 209). But I didn’t find any discussion of that prior to ln 209.

Response: Thank you for catching this linguistic error. The words “as we saw” have been removed (the sentence is now on ln 214).

3. Similar problems occur throughout the paper. For example, “As this paper has shown, the contemporary rise of psychedelic ministry and the earlier emergence of transpersonal psychology are not isolated phenomena” (ln 354). But there wasn’t any discussion of psychedelic ministry.

Response: In response to this comment and another reviewer’s suggestion for a more in-depth exploration of psychedelic ministry and the psychedelic ecosystem in the U.S., I have added these sections to the introduction:

Ln 50-91:

Similar to transpersonal psychology, the psychedelic resurgence has challenged the scientific physicalistic model. Recent studies indicate that psychedelics frequently trigger metaphysical and worldview shifts away from the mainstream materialistic and physicalistic perspective (Timmermann et al. 2021; Sjöstedt-Hughes 2023; Palitsky 2023; Cheung and Yaden 2024). These researchers have also noted the significant correlation between these PAT-induced worldview shifts and corresponding improvements in mental health. On the other hand, such drastic metaphysical shifts have been linked with existential anxiety, disorientation, and distress (Argyri et al, 2025).

Through these findings, the importance of metaphysical and spiritual integration in psychedelic healing has resurfaced. While many teams and trainings invoke transpersonal psychology in this mission, there is an increasing recognition of the shortcomings of PAT teams and facilitator training programs in spiritual, religious, existential, and metaphysical matters (Palitsky et al. 2025). As a result, many training programs and PAT teams defer these concerns to chaplains (Cheung & Yaden 2024; Palitsky et al 2025).

4. We are told that the article will use Schelling’s “philosophical religion”, even though Schelling never articulated such a religion (ln 364).

Response:

Shelling's introduction of the concept of a philosophical religion comes at the end of his career, having drawn out myth and revelation in which the potencies come into human consciousness and in which the godhead can be understood as the All-One. In this context, he did not describe what a philosophical religion would look like in terms of its pragmatic lived experience. What he does say is that a philosophical religion is that philosophy which takes the Godhead (the totality of the potencies as forces of creation) as its object of study.

It is this concept of philosophical religion that I am bringing into conversation with Ferrer and psychedelic ministry. As previously stated, there is now a section titled “ Re-envisioning Schelling’s Philosophical Religion”. This takes up Ln 449-478. In this section, the following lines are new:

Ln 451-4:

Ln 456-7

It is within this context that Schelling calls for the further secularization of Christianity in an attempt to universalize this core creative principle, which is not Christ but the participatory divine creativity.

Ln 462-478

Schelling argues that a true concept of religion is accessible only through positive philosophy (Wirth 2007). As a subset of positive philosophy, philosophical religion has as its object the Godhead as divine existence. A reading of Schelling through Ferrer further frees him from Christianity and situates him within a secular participatory religiosity he anticipated. Here, Ferrer’s post-secular view helps us interpret Schelling’s Godhead not as a perennial transpersonal ultimate but as the participatory Mystery through which different ultimates emerge via cocreation.

Ln 476-8

Not because they provide access to Christ or the Christian God, but because they provide access to that divine existence in which all spirituality participates, including Christianity.

5. It would be very interesting to see Schelling used to provide a framework for psychedelic experiences, and for psychedelic ministry. But that would be a paper focusing clearly on Schelling. Unfortunately, this paper wanders through a labyrinth of persons and positions, and does not seem to have a clear thesis or line of argumentation.

Response: I would have to agree that a paper focusing solely on Schelling and Ferrer, or Schelling and psychedelic ministry, or Schelling and Grof would have been a much easier work, both for the reader and the writer. This paper, however, serves in many ways as an outline of my own intellectual curiosity around the current psychedelic resurgence of spirituality, Ferrer’s participatory metaphysical interpretation of transpersonal events, and Schelling’s metaphysical interpretation of reality and spirituality. I hope the changes I have made in response to your other comments and other reviewers have helped to more clearly present the material.

6. The Author says “we envision the rise of transpersonal ministry as a participatory sacramental philosophical religion” (ln 476), where the philosophical religion comes from a suitably updated Schelling. But the article doesn’t work this out. I suggest that the Author take this vision as their thesis, and then work it out clearly. But this requires extensive revision, in which the Grof, Ferrer, perennialism, and so on, probably isn’t relevant.

Response: As previously stated, I have added a new section (section 6) which particularly reenvisions Schelling’s philosophical religion in terms of Ferrer’s more secular participatory thought.

7. I believe the Author was misled by the Journal’s option to structure the paper as a scientific research report (e.g. section 4 as “Materials and Methods”). This isn’t a scientific research report, and these section headings are not relevant (nor are they required by the Journal). This structure is perhaps responsible for much of the confusion in the article.

Response: I would have to agree with this observation. The Religions template, which presents “article” as “research article.” I believe the structure of the paper largely aimed to fulfill this, and as noted, may have convoluted the paper. I have since made changes to the structure, including the removal of the method section and the results heading, as well as dividing the discussion into three separate sections: “a participatory transpersonal conversation”, “re-envisioning Schelling’s philosophical religion”, and “transpersonal ministry as a participatory philosophical religion”.

8. The Author needs to go back to the drawing board and to reconceive of the project in a much more focused way. Again, it would be very useful to see a “transpersonal ministry” worked out, in practical detail, using Schelling’s philosophy. But that would be a very different paper.

Response: That would, indeed, be a very different paper, and one worth considering for the future. For now, I hope that the changes I have made satisfy.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Article:

Holotropic Participation: Towards a Philosophical Religion within the Psychedelic Ecosystem

I think this article generally has merit and suggest publication with some editing.

Title of Review: Old Wine in New Bottles: Is the Psychedelic Movement Being Co-opted by Cosmic Christians?

I found the article hard to follow at times and I am not sure who it is being written for or rather the target audience seems to be quite small. However, I am not an insider of the CIIS ministry so I would not know. Starting with the abstract, which I think is way too long and overly complex, the author arrives at the premise “Ultimately, what transpersonal ministry proposes is an alternative psychedelic container that allows philosophers to act as ministers and ministers to think as philosophers” (lines 21-23): apart from me not knowing what this means, it also seems aimed at very small group of psychedelically informed chaplains, ministers, priests etc. It does not appear to offer the patient much who I think is left entirely at the margins, and I can’t help wondering how all this helps he or she with the good work of PAT.

“The grassroots rise of psychedelic ministry” seems to me requires at least a footnote: where the movement is situated and how big is it, what qualification does one need to hold such a position, might be helpful to readers. Google took me to CIIS, and I wonder if it has it expanded much beyond there? Is it a ‘grass roots’ new religious movement or a small community of psychedelic aficionados, or Christian outlets jumping on the entheogenic bandwagon (this is interesting to me, at least, to locate and make visible the ‘ministry of psychedelics’). Personal taste: I am suspicious of religious or philosophical overlays onto the raw phenomenology of psychedelic experience, e.g. Leary and co with their Tibetan psychedelic manual. Ken Wilber’s transpersonal non-dual system and perhaps Schelling’s religious anticipations. Though, to be sure, I am not well acquainted with Schelling nor German Idealism and it may well prove to be a useful construct. Grof in his early work was phenomenological (1972 and 1975) Realms of the Human Unconscious (not mentioned in this text) and although the author mentions Grof’s early work, confusingly, as Grof’s later work is mentioned 2019a and 2019b. Also The Cosmic Game 1998 appears midway in Grof’s oeuvre. Grof clearly does use various traditional ideas of a ground of being e.g., The Absolute or The Pregnant Void (1998) and their relationship to persons coming into being. I think toward the end of your paper you use a similar device with a Christian Godhead coming into being. Though Grof claimed to be reporting on phenomenological descriptions offered by his research/patients to make sense of their ‘transpersonal events’.

Line 13: The legal “need for a philosophical interpretation for psychedelics as sacraments”: again, I notice I am hungry for a bit more about what the legal situation is. And how it pertains to this article in a concrete way – if that is possible. And is this paper then, being written for this purpose, i.e., to offer the legal or regulatory powers that govern these things evidence that psychedelics are grounded in a philosophical/religious system. If this is so, and I don’t know that it is, the author might say so. I am not an insider.

I see that PAT is a thing and wonder if, for the more general reader a little something to flesh this out: a bit more on chaplaincy, PAT teams and Transpersonal Ministers might be valuable. But again, the position of the author seems like there is an ‘in-house’ or even ‘closed shop’ feeling about the writing (from within the sacramental eco-system perhaps?) which I think could use some opening for other interested parties. Where is the author in this paper? I am assuming he/she is or soon will be a transpersonal minister, reverend or clergyman. The line 55-56 The Psychedelic Minister “is the team” (is a bit of a worry, is it hubris?) personally I think a team is a valid approach for all around support, but this is a therapeutic opinion and perhaps not relevant to my task here. Perhaps it makes sense to amalgamate the roles in a team into one minister from a financial standpoint?

Page 64: I am at odds with statement that spiritual psychedelic states are not “entirely new” I would have thought spiritual states were front and centre in PAT since the 50’s and not new at all. Remove the word ‘entirely’ and it sits better, or say 'given spiritual psychedelic states were central to both waves of psychedelia'. Transpersonal psychology was born out of a consumer need for a psychology that could account for spiritual factors (as you say in this paper Maslow’s peak experiences, and indeed, Grof’s term for the new movement as transhumanistic or transpersonal came directly from person’s experiencing spiritual phenomenon during their LSD sessions.

line 80: Pretty sure Grof outlined his early phenomenology in 1972 (JTP) from memory see also 1975 Realms of the Human Unconscious. These could be mentioned here, since you mention his early publications but don’t list them.

Line 90: holonomic integration see 1985 but also several of Grof’s books dealing directly with spiritual emergency and healing crisis. Not to mention the Human Encounter with Death 1973 with cancer patients and his work at the Maryland psychiatric hospital.

Paragraph beginning on line 100-102: “psychedelic ministry as a grass roots religious movement” (again, hungry for where, when and with whom?) I ask. And here we get into ‘legal’ matters again. But I would like to know a little more e.g. what is the point of bringing this excellent dialogue between Grof’s work (and Tarnas’ participatory version) followed by Ferrer’s – is it to gain a greater toehold in legal matters? And is it to couch this secular (here meaning non-Christian?) psychedelic-sacramental religion in Schelling’s vision somehow going to further the legitimacy of PAT cum Transpersonal Ministry (TM) … Schelling’s positive later work was influenced by Christianity, but does that not problematise the trope of secular religion used throughout this paper? Ok Beyond the Brain and Beyond academia? I don’t know Schelling but upholding a philosophical religion would surely have a foot in academia? This paper for example, and your call for dialogue between philosophers, religions and TMin is most likely going to be partly an academic thing? Exactly how does this living God take us out of academia? If I am missing the point please make it clearer. Perhaps it’s an inspirational or charismatic declaration or an in-house understanding of what you mean? But being an outsider I am left wondering.

Line 108 -109. Is it worth noting somewhere - that Tarnas 1992 had already re-rooted (or rebooted) Grof’s psychedelic and holotropic findings into a cogent participatory philosophy? The author has set up Grof in a dialogue with Ferrer … ok … but is this a kind of straw man argument given Tarnas’ participatory version of Grof which made no mention of perennialism whatsoever (and was passed out in the early 90’s to Grof’s holotropic trainees as Wilber grumpily wrote somewhere). So my question is: is this a bit redundant? Or rather what would happen if the dialogue was with Ferrer 2002 and Tarnas 1992?

Line 115 what is meant by holotropic inquiry here?

I found this paragraph page 3 line 100 -119 hard going, as in complex reading. Again it seems that underlying this differentiation or restitching of Grof, Ferrer, perennialism, participatory, Schelling, transpersonal psychology, psychedelic ministry, chaplaincy, into transpersonal ministry has a purpose? To influence legal regulatory bodies etc? If so, again could you be more explicit. I’m not sure what the state of play is legally in the USA at the moment, so I am a naïve inquirer. This paper does not seem written for the consumer or client of the ministry – I suppose this is purposeful? I would like to know how this new religious movement helps the client. While it may be ‘beyond the scope’ of the article, as a reader and a carer the question arises. Or is it only for the priests and if so how does this empower, aid or help the client, patient or participant in the minister’s flock or congregation.

Did you outline the religion the Schelling anticipated? I know in the Schelling participatory section (which I found enlightening thank you) you speak to his version of Christianity – is that what he was anticipating? Because it seems like you are gathering up the two waves of psychedelia, the transpersonal movement and it's participatory turn and crowning it with a psychedelic Christianity. Again, I think the usefulness of Huxley’s perennialism was to place a ‘universal ground’ assumed to be underlying all religions so that persons of all traditions could keep their faith and yet be united by this so-called universal principle – which in a round about way makes all religions equal … out of these more humane waters Wilber’s exciting but problematic edifice emerged.

Line 239 in terms of questioning perennialism John Heron’s participatory work could/should be mentioned here especially Sacred Science 1998. While not strictly psychedelic, Heron’s was one of the first serious ‘assaults’ on perennialism in TP see Ferrer 2002, P. 154) I think this paragraph could be an important quote to include. How we as persons, in a participatory universe (wrote Heron) are at the crest of divine becoming.

Line 270: btw Schelling is not at all mentioned in Ferrer 2002. Just an observation.

273 (onward) I don’t feel I can comment critically on the outline of Schelling's participatory Christianity, or philosophy other than to say I found it very interesting and readable. One thought, however: is this proposed psychedelic/Schillerian ‘religion’ a secular one? Given the range of psychedelic phenomenology (both transcendent, psychoid and immanent) outlined by Grof 1972 among many others. Secular seems a term worth defining in this paper. Because we are clearly not escaping Christianity here - are we? The other bit that concerns me is Lines 338-337 “the universal, the absolute process” and this universalization of Christianity seems like dangerous water to me. Wilber tried to make his nondualism a universal and was shot down eventually (in large part by Ferrer 2002)

You also write, following Schelling, that … “it could only be the last product and the highest expression that would be in the position to make comprehensible …a real …relation of the human consciousness to God”. This smacks to me of the spiritual narcissism (Ferrer 2002, or the spiritual imperialism Lahood 2014 In the footsteps of the prophets JTP. Where various religious leaders and doctrines place their favoured cosmic or absolute postulate as THE ONE and ONLY REAL WAY and the others have missed the point and are in some way deluded, juvenile, nescient, incomplete or degenerate. This is what Jorge Ferrer called spiritual self-centredness, and, if this is the case, then perhaps this hybrid religion should not exist. These are some of the central problems perceived in Wilber’s oriental non-dual, top o’ the ladder, so-called universal, perennialist postulate. Not to mention the agonized European colonization of indigenous people's spirituality with Christianity. This was the very perennialist universalism that the participatory-transpersonal movement exploded. Ferrer’s OMS (ocean of many shores) is arrived at through the reduction of narcissism doctrinally and psycho-spiritually. Apart from it being a hard read for me, I take issue with this. It does not read like ‘relaxed pluralism’ to me. But again, I may have missed the point, and in some ways I hope I have.

Line 359, ‘the Christian impulse re-emerges’ yes…and we should be very careful that this emergence does not carry over with it the spiritual imperialism, essentialism and narcissism etc of its past. Tarnas 1992 wrote that at the religious level in Grof’s work “especially frequent” were Judaeo-Christian events moving from the Garden to the Fall, followed by crucifixion, resurrection and unification. But that the death/rebirth process took a wide variety of forms. Again, I think Lahood 2022 could be a useful citation were the author to firm up the claim on line 501 that this new philosophical religion will be “potentially inclusive of all faiths” Indeed, I think this statement needs more substantiating. Because to me it does not sound particularly inclusive.

Line:379 citing Ferrer “whether they know it or not” human beings are always “participating in the self-disclosure of Spirit by virtue of their very existence”. I don’t particularly like this statement - I recall Micheal Jackson, a phenomenological anthropologist, wrote something like “psychoanalysts and anthropologists have insinuated ideas into native peoples and patients with authoritative objectivity, yet their so-called ‘objectivity’ remains scomaticized” I am concerned that we may be only a hop, skip and a jump away from claiming that ‘whether we know it or not human beings are always and already participating as the Christian Godhead” or words to that affect.

Line 383: the author says Schelling negates a universal system of philosophy … but seems to do the opposite on line: 468 we have Schelling wanting to “universalize this core principle” that the participatory relationship with the Mystery has come into human consciousness through Christ. I find this contradictory and confusing.

Line 421: Not totally sure about this statement: “while Grof himself does not explicitly make the connection between the perinatal and creation”. I think this is correct, but I think it is definitely implied. Tarnas, a colleague of Grof, did some fundamental work on bringing Grof’s research into a participatory worldview. Example from The Passion of the Western Mind (1992: p. 429) “Second, this archetypal dialectic was often experienced simultaneously … the movement from primordial unity, through alienation to liberating resolution was experienced in terms of the evolution of an entire culture, for example, or of humankind as a whole—the birth of Homo sapiens out of nature no less than the birth of the individual child from the mother” etc. Tarnas was working with the physical, psychological, religious, philosophical consequences of Grof’s research and painstakingly replanting Grof in participatory soil. In this context, Tarnas mentions Grof’s perinatal sequence as understandable through Hegelian philosophy (which deals with creation) as an archetypally structured primordial unity, through emanation into matter etc (1992, p. 430).

Grof (1998, p.27-35) wrote of the ‘Pregnant Void' … 'this primordial emptiness underlies the phenomenal world’ I read this as perinatal i.e., a positive BPM1 or positive BPM4 at the transpersonal end of a positive coex system.

Grof (1988, p. 99) cosmogenetic experiences …

“the subject can witness or identify (participate in) with the birth and development of the cosmos… occasionally the whole history of the cosmos is played out”

Also (1988, p. 142) we have full identification (participation) in or as the demiurge and cosmic creation

My brackets above.

So yes, I think you a right here Grof does not make explicit connection between the perinatal and creation, however, he certainly does imply that perinatal dynamics are structuring these events including cosmogenesis.

Line 84 page 2) Re integration: In 1985 Grof used the term holonomic integration with holotropic as the psyche transcending materialism and hylotropic as the ‘absolute principle’ (or a cosmic correlate) moving toward material existence, the coming into being as cosmic event dispersing into a material existence. He suggested some psychopathology was, in fact, a problematic interface between the two modes of being.

Nevertheless, I take the author’s point; Sean Kelly’s metanatal category seems to me a useful and useable addition to the perinatal theoretical conversation.

Line 391: Again, Heron 1998 and especially Feeling and Personhood 1992 fielded a similar participatory cosmology of the One into the Many.

Line 420: Lahood 2016 Footsteps of the Prophets? From Black Light to Green Angel, is an example of this process using both Grof and Ferrer to articulate a holotropic event.

Line 433: see Lahood, G. A. (2008) Paradise Bound: A Perennial Tradition or an Unseen Process of Cosmological Hybridization? I am pretty sure the idea of hybridity in Ferrer 2017 was in part a response to this paper, as in it, a third version of perennialsm emerged which critiqued both Wilber's perennialism and Ferrer's OMS model. The author might want to familiarise himself with hybridity in transpersonal psychology and the dangers of essentialism.

I don’t understand the statement made on line 449-450. Might require a rewrite.

Line 551: might also mention Grof’s training formats Holotropic Breathwork and later The way of the psychonought in the wake of the participatory turn.

Line 482: this line disenchants me – I think it’s somewhat ..can’t find the words. It seems a bit ‘elitist’ (and excludes the client) and tautological there is a lot of noise about secular religion, sacraments, holotropic states and events, metanatal analysis, and the coming into being of the Godhead, the post modern secular call, the rise of transpersonal ministry, a philosophical religion, embracing the full spectrum of transpersonal, spiritual and metaphysical events, the living God and a metaphysical declaration of sacramental participation… so that… “ philosophers can serve as ministers and ministers can think as philosophers” … apart from this weak punchline … where is the client in all this? Does all this wondrous stuff help the patient or help to aggrandize the Minister/Philosopher ? Or am I off beam?

Line 529: “the call” there are a number of ‘calls’ repeated throughout the paper. What call please? Who is making these calls or is it the author’s way of justifying his answers to these so-called ‘calls’. I don’t know … I am not in the loop, but are these calls real or fabricated or hyperbole? As in a literary technique.

Closing thoughts:

this is a remarkable paper dealing with a remarkable, complex and important subject and the author is to be commended for his daring philosophical research. I am grateful to have been introduced to Schelling through this article.

My understanding is the Ferrer’s OMS Ocean of Many Shores is entered by a reduction in narcissism or self-centredness which he has found to be endemic in traditional spiritual paths and their ultimates. He envisions a relaxed pluralism. I think one of the original contemporary perennial accounts came from Aldous Huxley (and from memory) this was in part to level the playing field from the overweening position of Christian one-up-man-ship in the world. Again, by theorizing a ground of being that all religions shared in, this also means they are equal. His, in my book, is a more benign form of perennialism coming as it did at the end of WW2. I would argue that Grof's psychedelic perennialism is something else again. Then, 30 years later, rose Wilber’s ladder with his claim to an evolutionary nondual postulate that all right thinking cultures whether they knew it or not were evolving toward. Then came the explosion of the Wilberverse and leading the charge was John Heron and Jorge Ferrer. Tarnas in his epic Passion of the Western Mind gave no credence to Wilber’s perennialism at all. So my main concern is this:

Is Transpersonal Ministry aka a mash-up of Schelling/psychedelic-transpersonal-Holotropic-philosophical religion - going to be to Ferrer’s OMS what Wilber’s monolithic perennialism was to Huxley’s version. In other words, having attempted to integrate the two waves of psychedelia, perennialism and participatory thought are you accidentally or purposefully positioning a reified version of Christianity and attempting to place it at the ‘apex’ or ‘zenith’ of the psychedelic transpersonal psychology movement. And is it therefore a form of spiritual imperialism and narcissism. The Tibetans, for example, will also have their version of cosmogenesis, as will Islam etc.

So I would like this paper to read more like this: the hybrid philosophical religion that I want to witness coming into being to serve the psychedelic eco-system is but one humble shore on an ocean of many valid shores.

And if you are in fact saying this then please make it more concise.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and thorough evaluation of my manuscript, and for the time and care you devoted to engaging with the material. Your constructive comments and encouragement have been invaluable, and I greatly appreciate your efforts to help strengthen this work.

Below you will find my point-by-point responses to your remarks. Items in red indicate text that has been added or modified. Also attached is the revised manuscript: new material is highlighted in yellow, and text that has been relocated between sections is shown in blue. (Text that has been reorganized within the same section is not specially highlighted.)

Of note, the title of the article has been changed to "Towards a Philosophical Religion: Foundations for a Sacramental Metaphysics of Psychedelics".

I hope these revisions address your concerns, and I welcome any further feedback.

1. I found the article hard to follow at times and I am not sure who it is being written for or rather the target audience seems to be quite small. However, I am not an insider of the CIIS ministry so I would not know.

Response: After reviewing your notes, I have made revisions that I hope will aid in more fully drawing out the target audience and more clearly exploring the implications of this work outside of academia.

Of particular note, I would like to make it clear that CIIS has no affiliation with either psychedelic ministry or transpersonal ministry. While they do have a psychedelic-assisted therapy certification program and do train chaplains in this context, they function within the PAT models I have spoken about.

The following lines at the end of the introduction hope to clarify the purpose of the article and each section:

Ln 91-108:

Philosophy has also been evoked in the larger conversation regarding psychedelics, spirituality, and metaphysics. In the context of psychedelic churches in America, Steinhart (2025) emphasizes that these churches require a philosophical foundation, noting that the “legal structures that define religiosity explicitly refer to philosophical topics,” including metaphysics (p. 2). Similarly, in light of the shortcomings of the physicalistic model, Sjöstedt-Hughes (2025) offers a pantheistic metaphysical alternative.

This article joins the conversation between philosophy and psychedelic spirituality by initiating a dialogue between the participatory metaphysics of Schelling and Ferrer, and the psychedelic movement through psychedelic ministry and the work of Grof. In doing so, this paper hopes to provide a sacramental participatory metaphysical view of psychedelics that can support churches, ministers, and congregants. This will be done, first by presenting a historical-philosophical grounding of the psychedelic movement within the evolution of Western consciousness and spirituality. Second, by exploring a participatory metaphysical interpretation of psychedelics and psychedelic states as sacramental. Third, by bringing the resulting philosophical religion into direct conversation with the psychedelic ecosystem within the United States (psychedelic ministry and transpersonal psychology), to present the possibility of a participatory transpersonal ministry that can hold psychedelic states both academically and pragmatically.

2. Starting with the abstract, which I think is way too long and overly complex, the author arrives at the premise “Ultimately, what transpersonal ministry proposes is an alternative psychedelic container that allows philosophers to act as ministers and ministers to think as philosophers” (lines 21-23): apart from me not knowing what this means, it also seems aimed at very small group of psychedelically informed chaplains, ministers, priests etc. It does not appear to offer the patient much who I think is left entirely at the margins, and I can’t help wondering how all this helps he or she with the good work of PAT.

Response: Thank you for this feedback. The abstract has been replaced to reflect the revised manuscript.

Ln 6-18:

This article explores the emergence of a new philosophical religion arising from the intersection of psychedelic ministry, transpersonal psychology, and participatory metaphysics. Framed within the evolution of Western consciousness and drawing from Friedrich Schelling's participatory meta-physics, Stanislav Grof's findings, and Jorge Ferrer’s participatory turn, this article joins the meta-physical and spiritual conversation rising within the psychedelic ecosystem. These needs include spiritual and metaphysical integration of some psychedelic phenomena as well as metaphysical foundations for a sacramental understanding of psychedelics. Arguing that psychedelics can func-tion sacramentally and grant participatory access to the creative ground of reality, the article pro-poses transpersonal ministry as a framework that can meet the spiritual and metaphysical demands of psychedelics. In dialogue with Schelling’s vision of a philosophical religion and Ferrer's participatory pluralism, transpersonal ministry offers churches, ministers, and congregants a shared language that unites experiential participation with metaphysical inquiry to provide a non-dogmatic framework for integrating transformative states.

3. “The grassroots rise of psychedelic ministry” seems to me requires at least a footnote: where the movement is situated and how big is it, what qualification does one need to hold such a position, might be helpful to readers. Google took me to CIIS, and I wonder if it has it expanded much beyond there? Is it a ‘grass roots’ new religious movement or a small community of psychedelic aficionados, or Christian outlets jumping on the entheogenic bandwagon (this is interesting to me, at least, to locate and make visible the ‘ministry of psychedelics’).

Response:

I appreciate your feedback regarding the “in-house” feel of the paper, especially that not everyone is aware of the legal status of psychedelics in the United States. I have included a section on this and psychedelic ministry in the introduction, which I hope will be both informative and help make the paper more accessible.

Ln 50-68:

After the criminalization of psychedelics in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the psychedelic movement took two turns. On the one hand, it moved into academia. On the other hand, psychedelics went underground, both recreationally and in the form of underground psychedelic guides. Not wanting to move underground, Grof followed transpersonal psychology into academia and eventually cocreated holotropic breathwork as an alternative tool for reaching holotropic and transpersonal states. The past few decades have witnessed a resurgence of legal psychedelic research and therapy in the United States. Beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the state of psychedelics has been rapidly shifting, with many cities and a few states having decriminalized psychedelic plants and fungi. Additionally, three states have passed legislation permitting the medical use of psychedelics and offer legal pathways towards becoming facilitators.

Ln 75-91:

Response cont. I have chosen the word “grassroots” to point to the development of the movement from the ground up. This is not a movement of clergy into the psychedelic ecosystem, but rather something rising out of the psychedelic movement itself and can perhaps be more accurately thought of as a movement of psychedelic spirituality into religion. With some of these ministries in particular, what we are seeing is a movement of half a century of wisdom from underground guides and trainings into the legal atmosphere through ministry.

4. Grof in his early work was phenomenological (1972 and 1975) Realms of the Human Unconscious (not mentioned in this text) and although the author mentions Grof’s early work, confusingly, as Grof’s later work is mentioned 2019a and 2019b. Also The Cosmic Game 1998 appears midway in Grof’s oeuvre. Grof clearly does use various traditional ideas of a ground of being e.g., The Absolute or The Pregnant Void (1998) and their relationship to persons coming into being. I think toward the end of your paper you use a similar device with a Christian Godhead coming into being. Though Grof claimed to be reporting on phenomenological descriptions offered by his research/patients to make sense of their ‘transpersonal events’.

Response: Thank you for pointing out the missing citations. I have included Realms of Human Unconscious as an example of his early publication on Ln 43.

5. Line 13: The legal “need for a philosophical interpretation for psychedelics as sacraments”: again, I notice I am hungry for a bit more about what the legal situation is. And how it pertains to this article in a concrete way – if that is possible. And is this paper then, being written for this purpose, i.e., to offer the legal or regulatory powers that govern these things evidence that psychedelics are grounded in a philosophical/religious system. If this is so, and I don’t know that it is, the author might say so. I am not an insider.

Response: As previously stated, I have now included more content on the state of psychedelics in the United States and the role of philosophy in this account. The following line from section 7 also addresses this question:

Ln 526-547:

Such a framework offers ministers and congregants a secular philosophical container for psychedelic events, with the potential to support, integrate, and transcend transpersonal psychology, PAT, participatory metaphysics, psychedelic ministry, and psychedelic chaplaincy. As a ministry, this container allows for a metaphysical understanding of the cosmos to enter into spiritual and psychedelic practice. In this context, psychedelics can function as sacraments that allow access to the underlying creative power of the cosmos and its plurality of cocreated worlds. Such a container integrates psychology and medicine, while also expanding beyond them into philosophy and religion.

Moreover, transpersonal ministry can incorporate the communal aspects of spiritual and psychological healing. By situating psychedelics within a shared social context, it can help alleviate existential dread by providing a social container that integrates various metaphysical perspectives. Grounded in participatory transpersonal theory, it is potentially inclusive of all faiths and ritual forms, providing congregants with a secular yet sacred container where any spiritual experience is valid. This component could help with the isolation and existential distress and other related social harms that are sometimes reported with psychedelic-induced metaphysical shifts (Argyri et al. 2025; Evans et al. 2025).

Transpersonal ministry, as outlined here, unites metaphysical depth with embodied practice, offering a sacramental, participatory, and communal container for psychedelics. By bridging the divide between philosophy and ministry, it opens a path toward a future in which psychedelic work is grounded not only in science or spirituality alone but in a living metaphysics that affirms the sacred creativity of the cosmos itself.

6. I see that PAT is a thing and wonder if, for the more general reader a little something to flesh this out: a bit more on chaplaincy, PAT teams and Transpersonal Ministers might be valuable. But again, the position of the author seems like there is an ‘in-house’ or even ‘closed shop’ feeling about the writing (from within the sacramental eco-system perhaps?) which I think could use some opening for other interested parties. Where is the author in this paper? I am assuming he/she is or soon will be a transpersonal minister, reverend or clergyman.

Response: I believe this has been addressed in previous questions.

7. The line 55-56 The Psychedelic Minister “is the team” (is a bit of a worry, is it hubris?) personally I think a team is a valid approach for all around support, but this is a therapeutic opinion and perhaps not relevant to my task here. Perhaps it makes sense to amalgamate the roles in a team into one minister from a financial standpoint?

Response: I appreciate your feedback regarding this line. This line was meant to point to the difference between chaplains and ministers in the sense that chaplains work within the PAT team while ministers are not in the medical framework. I have changed the line to the following:

Ln 81-85

8. Page 64: I am at odds with statement that spiritual psychedelic states are not “entirely new” I would have thought spiritual states were front and centre in PAT since the 50’s and not new at all. Remove the word ‘entirely’ and it sits better, or say 'given spiritual psychedelic states were central to both waves of psychedelia'. Transpersonal psychology was born out of a consumer need for a psychology that could account for spiritual factors (as you say in this paper Maslow’s peak experiences, and indeed, Grof’s term for the new movement as transhumanistic or transpersonal came directly from person’s experiencing spiritual phenomenon during their LSD sessions.

Response: Thank you for catching this linguistic error. I have removed “entirely new”.

9. line 80: Pretty sure Grof outlined his early phenomenology in 1972 (JTP) from memory see also 1975 Realms of the Human Unconscious. These could be mentioned here, since you mention his early publications but don’t list them.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this missing citation. It has been added on line 217.

10. Line 90: holonomic integration see 1985 but also several of Grof’s books dealing directly with spiritual emergency and healing crisis. Not to mention the Human Encounter with Death 1973 with cancer patients and his work at the Maryland psychiatric hospital.

Response: Perhaps a fuller treatment of Grof in the context of psychedelic spirituality is warranted. For this paper, however, I chose to focus on his work in Cosmic Game, as it is, in my opinion, most relevant for this conversation between Schelling and Ferrer. I have made no changes in this regard.

11. Paragraph beginning on line 100-102: “psychedelic ministry as a grass roots religious movement” (again, hungry for where, when and with whom?) I ask. And here we get into ‘legal’ matters again. But I would like to know a little more e.g. what is the point of bringing this excellent dialogue between Grof’s work (and Tarnas’ participatory version) followed by Ferrer’s – is it to gain a greater toehold in legal matters? And is it to couch this secular (here meaning non-Christian?) psychedelic-sacramental religion in Schelling’s vision somehow going to further the legitimacy of PAT cum Transpersonal Ministry (TM) … Schelling’s positive later work was influenced by Christianity, but does that not problematise the trope of secular religion used throughout this paper?

Response: The first two parts of this comment have been previously addressed. Here, I would like to clarify that in the context of this paper, “secular” does not mean “non-Christian”. The goal is not to move beyond Christianity, but rather to move through it. This, as Schelling has it, means distilling the metaphysical essence of Christianity. As such, “secular” can more accurately be thought of as “non-dogmatic”. This distinction separates Christianity as a church from its metaphysics, which points to participatory co-creation with the Mystery. Granted, Schelling uses the less secular language of “Godhead” to refer to this Mystery. In my revision, I have tried to rely more on the word “Mystery” when appropriate to emphasize the post-Schellingian, post-secular lens that Ferrer brings in.

12. Ok Beyond the Brain and Beyond academia? I don’t know Schelling but upholding a philosophical religion would surely have a foot in academia? This paper for example, and your call for dialogue between philosophers, religions and TMin is most likely going to be partly an academic thing? Exactly how does this living God take us out of academia? If I am missing the point please make it clearer. Perhaps it’s an inspirational or charismatic declaration or an in-house understanding of what you mean? But being an outsider I am left wondering.

Response: The reviewer is correct to assume that we are not attempting to leave academia behind. This paper is indeed grounded in academia, even if it points to something that lies beyond it. I have added the following lines for clarity:

Ln 314-16:

Within a complete philosophy, negative philosophy understands itself in relation to positive philosophy. Philosophy, then, is only complete when it contains both types of philosophical inquiry.

Ln 433-4:

As we saw, for Schelling, philosophy is only complete when it embraces both positive and negative inquiry. This concept applies to transpersonal philosophy as well.

Ln 516-525:

As a participatory philosophical framework, transpersonal ministry must encompass both positive and negative elements, combining academic rigor (metaphysical, spiritual, historical, transpersonal, etc.) with experiential and participatory inquiry. While emerging from academia, it relies on existential explorations from holotropic states rather than a priori conceptions about reality. It is only after beginning with existence (in this particular case, through holotropic states) that it turns to negative philosophy for further exploration and inquiry. It is from here that it can offer a participatory language that can help congregants who could benefit from secular metaphysics. Not a secularity that attempts to move beyond Christianity by distancing itself from it, but one that aims to move through Christianity by recognizing its relationship to it.

13. Line 108 -109. Is it worth noting somewhere - that Tarnas 1992 had already re-rooted (or rebooted) Grof’s psychedelic and holotropic findings into a cogent participatory philosophy? The author has set up Grof in a dialogue with Ferrer … ok … but is this a kind of straw man argument given Tarnas’ participatory version of Grof which made no mention of perennialism whatsoever (and was passed out in the early 90’s to Grof’s holotropic trainees as Wilber grumpily wrote somewhere). So my question is: is this a bit redundant? Or rather what would happen if the dialogue was with Ferrer 2002 and Tarnas 1992?

Response: Thank you for these reflections. While I am familiar with Tarnas’ transpersonal interpretation of Grof, it was Ferrer’s participatory turn and his re-interpretation of transpersonal events as both subjective and objective that captured my imagination. My current dissertation topic being on Schelling and Grof, the introduction of Ferrer into this reflects my own intellectual curiosity. Whether or not this is a straw man, I cannot say.

After revisions, this line was removed for other reasons. No other changes have been made on this front.

14. Line 115 what is meant by holotropic inquiry here?

Respond: Thank you for catching this stray terminology. It is being misused here to mean “psychedelic” or “spiritual”. This was eliminated during the revision process.

15. I found this paragraph page 3 line 100 -119 hard going, as in complex reading. Again it seems that underlying this differentiation or restitching of Grof, Ferrer, perennialism, participatory, Schelling, transpersonal psychology, psychedelic ministry, chaplaincy, into transpersonal ministry has a purpose? To influence legal regulatory bodies etc? If so, again could you be more explicit. I’m not sure what the state of play is legally in the USA at the moment, so I am a naïve inquirer. This paper does not seem written for the consumer or client of the ministry – I suppose this is purposeful? I would like to know how this new religious movement helps the client. While it may be ‘beyond the scope’ of the article, as a reader and a carer the question arises. Or is it only for the priests and if so how does this empower, aid or help the client, patient or participant in the minister’s flock or congregation.

Response: I believe I have already addressed the concern regarding the audience for the paper and the legal status of psychedelics in the USA.

16. Did you outline the religion the Schelling anticipated? I know in the Schelling participatory section (which I found enlightening thank you) you speak to his version of Christianity – is that what he was anticipating? Because it seems like you are gathering up the two waves of psychedelia, the transpersonal movement and it's participatory turn and crowning it with a psychedelic Christianity. Again, I think the usefulness of Huxley’s perennialism was to place a ‘universal ground’ assumed to be underlying all religions so that persons of all traditions could keep their faith and yet be united by this so-called universal principle – which in a round about way makes all religions equal … out of these more humane waters Wilber’s exciting but problematic edifice emerged.

Response: Thank you for pointing out that the paper did not feel like it grounded philosophical religion. I have since added a new section, section 6: Re-envisioning Schelling’s Philosophical Religion, which takes on this task. This is Lns 449-489. In this section, the following lines are new:

Ln 450-57:

Drawing from both Romantic and Enlightenment legacies, Schelling's philosophy was shaped by his Christian upbringing and by the academic climate of his time, which included hostility towards atheistic sentiments. In this context, his creative solution to the secularization of Christianity is an attempt at distilling its metaphysical essence while leaving behind its dogmatic form. For Schelling ([1841-42] 2020), the core principle of Christianity is the revelation of the participatory relationship with the underlying creative power of the Godhead. It is within this context that Schelling anticipated the further secularization of Christianity in an attempt to universalize this core creative principle.

Ln 462-68:

Schelling argues that a true concept of religion is accessible only through positive philosophy (Wirth 2007). As a subset of positive philosophy, philosophical religion has as its object the Godhead as divine existence. A reading of Schelling through Ferrer further frees him from Christianity and situates him within a secular participatory religiosity he anticipated. Here, Ferrer’s post-secular view helps us interpret Schelling’s Godhead not as a perennial transpersonal ultimate but as the participatory Mystery through which different ultimates emerge via cocreation.

Ln 476-8:

Not because they provide access to Christ or the Christian God, but because they provide access to that divine existence in which all spirituality participates, including Christianity.

17. Line 239 in terms of questioning perennialism John Heron’s participatory work could/should be mentioned here especially Sacred Science 1998. While not strictly psychedelic, Heron’s was one of the first serious ‘assaults’ on perennialism in TP see Ferrer 2002, P. 154) I think this paragraph could be an important quote to include. How we as persons, in a participatory universe (wrote Heron) are at the crest of divine becoming.

Response: I am not personally familiar with Heron’s work. I have added the following line to reflect the correct genealogy.

Ln 249-50: Ferrer (2002) followed Heron and Tarnas in their move into participatory thought.

18. Line 270: btw Schelling is not at all mentioned in Ferrer 2002. Just an observation.

Response: Yes, Schelling is not mentioned in Ferrer 2002. Sherman places Shelling and Ferrer in the same genealogy of participatory thought in his essay published in Ferrer and Sherman 2008. The sentence has now moved to Ln 282-83, and I have added a citation for clarity.

Ln 281-3:

As the previous section demonstrated, Ferrer's participatory turn, while emerging within transpersonal theory, is part of a broader philosophical vision that emphasizes creative participation with existence and includes Romanticism and Schelling's Idealism (Sherman 2008).

19. 273 (onward) I don’t feel I can comment critically on the outline of Schelling's participatory Christianity, or philosophy other than to say I found it very interesting and readable. One thought, however: is this proposed psychedelic/Schillerian ‘religion’ a secular one? Given the range of psychedelic phenomenology (both transcendent, psychoid and immanent) outlined by Grof 1972 among many others. Secular seems a term worth defining in this paper. Because we are clearly not escaping Christianity here - are we? The other bit that concerns me is Lines 338-337 “the universal, the absolute process” and this universalization of Christianity seems like dangerous water to me. Wilber tried to make his nondualism a universal and was shot down eventually (in large part by Ferrer 2002)

Response: I believe the reviewer is using the term “secular” to mean “without religion”. This is indeed not Schelling’s stand, nor mine. For Schelling, the very potencies at the heart of creation are God producing. This is the same as Ferrer’s understanding of the Mystery as the process through which gods (transpersonal and spiritual realities) are co-created. As such, the very study of this process is related to religion (if not outright religious). In this way, Schelling understands the destiny of Christianity to be its secularization: to be stripped of all dogma and have the underlying participatory process stripped from it.

In response to this and another reviewer, I have further clarified section 2 to present it as a historical grounding of the psychedelic movement and transpersonal psychology into Western history in the context of the secularized continuation of Christianity in both Enlightenment and Romantic thoughts.

I have also moved Sherman (2008)’s genealogy of participatory thought into this section (lns 118-125) and added the following lines:

Ln 125-131:

I have also added the following lines on the relationship between secularized Christianity and both the Enlightenment and Romanticism:

Ln 165-173:

The scientific movement, however, has not completely shed the Christian legacy from which it evolved. In Science and the Modern World, Alfred North Whitehead ([1967]1925) explores how Christianity has influenced the scientific movement, showing that modern science draws from the underlying metaphysical view rooted in medieval Christianity. In this way, Christian dogma was abandoned, yet its underlying metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the world persist.

Ln 197-200:

As such, in addition to the secularized continuation of Christian sentiments within mainstream scientific thought, the Romantic spirits continued to evolve beneath the surface, carrying forward a sense of sacrality that would nourish the Western spirit for centuries to come.

I have brought a more focused lens to chapter 2, which now includes more content on the secularization of Christianity and its relationship to enlightenment and romanticism.

I hope the changes I have made to section 2 more fully draw out the notion of the continuation of secularized Christianity within modernity and post-modernity.

20. You also write, following Schelling, that … “it could only be the last product and the highest expression that would be in the position to make comprehensible …a real …relation of the human consciousness to God”. This smacks to me of the spiritual narcissism (Ferrer 2002, or the spiritual imperialism Lahood 2014 In the footsteps of the prophets JTP. Where various religious leaders and doctrines place their favoured cosmic or absolute postulate as THE ONE and ONLY REAL WAY and the others have missed the point and are in some way deluded, juvenile, nescient, incomplete or degenerate. This is what Jorge Ferrer called spiritual self centredness, and, if this is the case, then perhaps this hybrid religion should not exist. These are some of the central problems perceived in Wilber’s oriental non-dual, top o’ the ladder, so-called universal, perennialist postulate. Not to mention the agonized European 3 colonization of indigenous people's spirituality with Christianity. This was the very perennialist universalism that the participatory-transpersonal movement exploded. Ferrer’s OMS (ocean of many shores) is arrived at through the reduction of narcissism doctrinally and psycho spiritually. Apart from it being a hard read for me, I take issue with this. It does not read like ‘relaxed pluralism’ to me. But again, I may have missed the point, and in some ways I hope I have.

Response: I don’t think we would have had the participatory turn of Ferrer without a secularized Christianity, just as we would not have had a perennialism. If, like Ferrer, we want to further draw out the history and influences of transpersonal theory, this must include Christianity. The secularization of Christianity has not, indeed, eliminated it. It has only dropped its dogmatic forms. But its metaphysics continues in both mainstream and lesser streams. It is in this context that I understand Schelling’s comment on a living relationship with God. Not God as the Christian God, but God as the creative Mystery with which Ferrer aims to participate.

21. Line 359, ‘the Christian impulse re-emerges’ yes…and we should be very careful that this emergence does not carry over with it the spiritual imperialism, essentialism and narcissism etc of its past. Tarnas 1992 wrote that at the religious level in Grof’s work “especially frequent” were Judaeo-Christian events moving from the Garden to the Fall, followed by crucifixion, resurrection and unification. But that the death/rebirth process took a wide variety of forms. Again, I think Lahood 2022 could be a useful citation were the author to firm up the claim on line 501 that this new philosophical religion will be “potentially inclusive of all faiths” Indeed, I think this statement needs more substantiating. Because to me it does not sound particularly inclusive.

Response: I agree. I believe that this is, in general, Ferrer’s aim: to carry forward the gentle universalism of a divine creativity, while leaving behind the spiritual narcissism of particular lineages. Transpersonal ministry, while rising from the Christian lineage within the Western world, aims to be a secular one, in the sense that it is not a Christian ministry, but a secular container for a spiritual and religious (in the sense that co-creation with the Mystery is a religious act) interpretation of psychedelics as sacraments.

22. Line:379 citing Ferrer “whether they know it or not” human beings are always “participating in the self-disclosure of Spirit by virtue of their very existence”. I don’t particularly like this statement - I recall Micheal Jackson, a phenomenological anthropologist, wrote something like “psychoanalysts and anthropologists have insinuated ideas into native peoples and patients with authoritative objectivity, yet their so-called ‘objectivity’ remains scomaticized” I am concerned that we may be only a hop, skip and a jump away from claiming that ‘whether we know it or not human beings are always and already participating as the Christian Godhead” or words to that affect.

Response: I hope that my previous comments on the role of Christianity and its secularization have helped illuminate this. I have no problem with the statement that “whether we know it or not human beings are always and already participating as the Godhead”. Given that we use the term Godhead here to mean the Mystery and NOT “the Christian Godhead” as you have said. Again, this comes from the further secularization of Christianity and Schelling through Ferrer.

23. Line 383: the author says Schelling negates a universal system of philosophy … but seems to do the opposite on line: 468 we have Schelling wanting to “universalize this core principle” that the participatory relationship with the Mystery has come into human consciousness through Christ. I find this contradictory and confusing.

Response: This is a very good observation. In the first quote, “universal” refers to something like a perennialist universalism: one system that accounts for all of reality and has a certain pre-determined quality. Schelling did not believe this could be done because he did not think the Absolute to be static and a priori. In the second quote, the word “universalize” is being used more in a sense of distillation. What he is pointing to is the “core principle” that Christ participated in (the Mystery) as the soft universalism that we see in Ferrer’s participatory turn.

Ln 465-67

Ferrer’s post-secular view helps us interpret Schelling’s Godhead not as a perennial transpersonal ultimate but as the participatory Mystery through which different ultimates emerge via cocreation.

Ln 475-77

Not because they provide access to Christ or the Christian God, but because they provide access to that divine existence in which all spirituality participates, including Christianity.

24. Line 421: Not totally sure about this statement: “while Grof himself does not explicitly make the connection between the perinatal and creation”. I think this is correct, but I think it is definitely implied. Tarnas, a colleague of Grof, did some fundamental work on bringing Grof’s research into a participatory worldview. Example from The Passion of the Western Mind (1992: p. 429) “Second, this archetypal dialectic was often experienced simultaneously … the movement from primordial unity, through alienation to liberating resolution was experienced in terms of the evolution of an entire culture, for example, or of humankind as a whole—the birth of Homo sapiens out of nature no less than the birth of the individual child from the mother” etc. Tarnas was working with the physical, psychological, religious, philosophical consequences of Grof’s research and painstakingly replanting Grof in participatory soil. In this context, Tarnas mentions Grof’s perinatal sequence as understandable through Hegelian philosophy (which deals with creation) as an archetypally structured primordial unity, through emanation into matter etc (1992, p. 430).

In (1988, p.10) Grof writes that “the perinatal unfolding is also frequently accompanied by transpersonal experiences” he then goes on to describe several broad categories that outline some of these varied events. Among them are: Grof (1988, p. 99) cosmogenetic experiences … “the subject can witness or identify (participate in) with the birth and development of the cosmos… occasionally the whole history of the cosmos is played out” Also (1988, p. 142) we have full identification (participation) in or as the demiurge and cosmic creation My brackets above. So yes, I think you a right here Grof does not make explicit connection between the perinatal and creation, however, he certainly does imply that perinatal dynamics are structuring these events including cosmogenesis. Line 84 page 2) Re integration: In 1985 Grof used the term holonomic integration with holotropic as the psyche transcending materialism and hylotropic as the ‘absolute principle’ (or a cosmic correlate) moving toward material existence, the coming into being as cosmic event dispersing into a material existence. He suggested some psychopathology was, in fact, a problematic interface between the two modes of being. Nevertheless, I take the author’s point; Sean Kelly’s metanatal category seems to me a useful and useable addition to the perinatal theoretical conversation.

Response: Thank you for this reflection. I have made no changes to this section except to add Tarnas in relation to Grof and Hegel.

Ln 417-18:

Joining Tarnas (1991), Kelly (2022) brings Grof’s work into conversation with the work of Schelling's contemporary, Hegel.

25. Line 391: Again, Heron 1998 and especially Feeling and Personhood 1992 fielded a similar participatory cosmology of the One into the Many.

Response: Thank you for this note. I will be sure to read up on these figures.

26. Line 420: Lahood 2016 Footsteps of the Prophets? From Black Light to Green Angel, is an example of this process using both Grof and Ferrer to articulate a holotropic event.

Response: Thank you for this. While I have not had the opportunity to read this article yet, I will be sure to do so.

27. Line 433: see Lahood, G. A. (2008) Paradise Bound: A Perennial Tradition or an Unseen Process of Cosmological Hybridization? I am pretty sure the idea of hybridity in Ferrer 2017 was in part a response to this paper, as in it, a third version of perennialsm emerged which critiqued both Wilber's perennialism and Ferrer's OMS model. The author might want to familiarise him/herself with hybridity in transpersonal psychology and the dangers of essentialism.

Response: You are correct, Ferrer (2017) is drawing from Lahood when talking about cosmic hybridization. I have made the following correction:

Ln 428-30:

On the other hand, drawing from Lahood, Ferrer (2017) understands that new spiritual realities can be cocreated with the Mystery and through the hybridization of various already existing religious realities.

28. I don’t understand the statement made on line 449-450. Might require a rewrite.

Response: This line has been adjusted for clarity.

Ln 445-7:

Furthermore, it is not any single moment of that holotropic event, but the fundamental creative power it involves. It is this process that Schelling and Ferrer look to in their search for a living Godhead or Mystery.

29. Line 551: might also mention Grof’s training formats, Holotropic Breathwork and later The way of the psychonaut in the wake of the participatory turn.

Response: During the revision process, the end of the conclusion was adjusted and this comment is no longer relevant.

Ln 575-5895

Further conversation around what a transpersonal ministry might look like in training and practice is welcome, including dialogue between psychedelic ministry and transpersonal ministry. Additionally, there is a need for further exploration of these two forms of ministry in terms of a working definition of “religion”, both legally and philosophically. Future research would also benefit from comparative studies of different ministry models, cross-cultural dialogues that bring Western participatory metaphysics into conversation with Indigenous and Eastern perspectives, and explorations of how positive and negative philosophies might inform evolving notions of spiritual care. Further work is also needed to explore the practical implications of psychedelic ministry and perhaps transpersonal ministry in real-world settings, including how they can inform training, ethical guidelines, harm reduction, and best practices for facilitation and integration.

30. Line 482: this line disenchants me – I think it’s somewhat .can’t find the words. It seems a bit ‘elitist’ (and excludes the client) and tautological there is a lot of noise about secular religion, sacraments, holotropic states and events, metanatal analysis, and the coming into being of the Godhead, the post modern secular call, the rise of transpersonal ministry, a philosophical religion, embracing the full spectrum of transpersonal, spiritual and metaphysical events, the living God and a metaphysical declaration of sacramental participation… so that… “ philosophers can serve as ministers and ministers can think as philosophers” … apart from this weak punchline … where is the client in all this? Does all this wondrous stuff help the patient or help to aggrandize the Minister/Philosopher ? Or am I off beam?

Response: Thank you for this reflection. As shown before, I have added sections on how this helps the churches, ministers, and congregants. I believe, as of right now, the most potential is for churches and ministers, seeing as how transpersonal ministry itself is still a theoretical concept. The potential that this has for the congregation is both through theoretical (by giving them a metaphysical worldview to understand the sacramental nature of psychedelics) and communal (as driven from the ministerial component of the work, which includes community building and integration similar to psychedelic ministry).

I hope the following added lines help with this:

558-74:

Bringing Grof’s cartography of the psyche, Ferrer’s participatory spiritual pluralism, and Schelling’s metaphysics into dialogue with psychedelic ministry, this article argues for the emergence of transpersonal ministry as a participatory philosophical religion. As a philosophical religion, transpersonal ministry situates psychedelics as sacraments, provides metaphysical grounding for psychedelic ministries, and offers a non-dogmatic, pluralistic container for integrating transformative experiences. As both a philosophy and a ministry, it serves churches, ministers, and congregants by providing a coherent philosophical and metaphysical foundation for understanding psychedelic sacraments.

For churches, it offers language and structure to articulate their practices within a broader historical, philosophical, spiritual, and theological context, which they can potentially use for legal status. For ministers, it offers tools to support integration and ongoing spiritual guidance, enabling them to frame psychedelic experiences not merely as therapeutic interventions but as participatory encounters with the creative Mystery at the heart of existence. For congregants, it provides a sacred container that validates their experiences and fosters belonging. It also situates their healing within a supportive community, something that the clinical model often lacks and which can cause existential distress (Argyri et al 2025; Evans et al. 2025).

31. Line 529: “the call” there are a number of ‘calls’ repeated throughout the paper. What call please? Who is making these calls or is it the author’s way of justifying his/her answers to these so-called ‘calls’. I don’t know … I am not in the loop, but are these calls real or fabricated or hyperbole? As in a literary technique.

Response: Yes, this is a literary technique. I have adjusted this throughout the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Bravo! I very much appreciate the changes made in the MK 2 version and applaud your work. I am encouraged by your clarifying letter to me (although I did wonder if some of that material might be useful in your text as it helped me understand your use of Schelling’s Christianity). Thank you for responding so thoroughly to my reactions, thoughts, queries and accusations. I am satisfied with the paper, it feels much more grounded and inclusive.

However, I do have a few last niggling little queries, and I trust you will use them or not as your scholarship dictates.

Line 74. Chaplins: would it be useful to unpack this term just a little for the reader. What denomination? That sort of thing … as there appears to be a divide between ‘chaplains’ roped in for existential concerns and more comprehensively trained therapeutic ‘ministers’ (I think).

Line 210: Is “transpersonal psychology sprout” the proper King’s English? Is “spouted” more better?

Line 219-223: you mention Grof (1988) twice, but these are not listed in the bibliography.

Line 415: I would still like to see a couple of sentences rewritten here. Grof does make the connection between cosmogenesis and the perinatal archetype. I pointed out several mentions in the previous review where Grof clearly addressed to this – though, true, not comprehensively. And, furthermore, I am not sure if you claiming that you are only interested in Grof 1998 (The Cosmic Game) really stands up as a valid argument. Because you do invite the psychedelic community and interested parties into a dialogue with Grof’s work. What about something like: “Grof did make connection to the perinatal and creation (1998, 1998) …and Sean Kelly has deepened this aspect of the perinatal challenge ...” etc words to that affect.

Line 428: referencing issue: “Drawing from Lahood”,. Lahood 2008 is not in the bibliography and the date is not on the page.

Again, I think you have done a great job here of outlining this possible future religion (perhaps this is worth mentioning that it is a possible direction and a theoretical notion at this time. I also think you have clarified more of the legal assumptions in the paper and the client is a bit more visible now. I am very interested in all this and it was a privilege to act as a reviewer.

Wishing you all the best in your future forays

A reviewer

16/10/2025