Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please find all comments in the PDF 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments

Comments 1: The distinction between “traditional” institutional religions and SBNR does not cover NRMs, which blend both elements. This category should be addressed.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified how NRMs fit within the proposed systems model. The introduction and Section 2 now integrate NRM scholarship (Weber, Wilson, Wallis, Stark & Bainbridge) into the metaperformative loop framework.
Revised in Section 2, Page 5, lines 147–152.
“[The metaperformative loop… examined why some communities institutionalize while others fade (Weber 1978; Wilson 1970; Wallis 1975; Stark & Bainbridge 1985).]”

Comments 2: The SBNR mode may not seek endurance, and ethics may now be secularized.
Response 2: Agreed. The introduction now states that endurance is an analytical focus, not an assumed aim, and Section 5 acknowledges secular humanism as a parallel ethical framework.
Page 2, lines 33–35; Page 9, lines 318–321.
“While not all spiritualities aim at endurance…”
“Comparable integrative work can occur within secular humanism…”

Comments 3: A thought-provoking thesis.
Response 3: Thank you. No revision was required.

Comments 4: “Fleeting?”
Response 4: Revised for precision; “fleeting” replaced with transient.
Section 2, Page 4, line 140.

Comments 5: Highlight generational stability over divine attribution.
Response 5: Agreed. We reframed the point to emphasize generational continuity.
Section 2, Page 4, lines 116–117.
“Because these shared forms are credited to divine rather than human authorship, they gain stability across generations and resist arbitrary control.”

Comments 6: Cite costly signaling theory.
Response 6: Added footnote connecting ritual cost to costly signaling models.
Section 2, Page 4, Footnote 4.

Comments 7: The role of ritual requires stronger theoretical grounding.
Response 7: Agreed. Section 2 now expands the theoretical base using Pattee’s semantic closure and symbolic recursion, situating ritual within a self-organizing feedback system.
Page 5, lines 152–167.

Comments 8: Clear and well-formulated thesis.
Response 8: Thank you. No revision made.

Comments 9: SBNR may lead to personal transformation, not just peak experiences.
Response 9: Agreed. We clarified that while SBNR can yield self-structuring benefits, our analysis focuses on communal durability.
Section 4, Page 8, lines 296–298.

Comments 10: Consider Byung-Chul Han’s Burnout Society.
Response 10: Thank you. We considered this, but retained Rieff’s comparable distinction to preserve focus.

Comments 11: Islam’s growth may reflect demographics, not “thick” architecture.
Response 11: Agreed. Added a sentence acknowledging demographic factors while retaining the point about transmission.
Section 4, Page 9, lines 304–307.

Comments 12: Secular humanism can replicate integrative religious work.
Response 12: Agreed. Section 5 now explicitly acknowledges this.
Page 9, lines 318–321.

Comments 13: SBNR aligns with religious “answers,” differing mainly in transience.
Response 13: Agreed. Section 5 now distinguishes between transient experiences and the self-organizing structure that ensures durability.
Page 10, lines 339–342.

Comments 14: Clarify the relation between reflexive self and supra-subjective grounding.
Response 14: Added clarification.
Section 5, Page 10, lines 332–337.

Comments 15: Explain “lower-level constraints.”
Response 15: Added conceptual clarification drawing on Deacon’s teleodynamic systems theory.
Section 5, Page 10, lines 328–332.

Comments 16: Clarify “supra-subjective order.”
Response 16: Revised to define it as a “normative horizon that transcends yet includes the self.”
Section 5, Page 10, lines 335–336.

Comments 17: Avoid implying that survival outweighs truth or authenticity.
Response 17: Agreed. We removed phrasing that prioritized survival and reframed the argument as diagnostic rather than prescriptive.

Comments 18: Clarify “engaged spiritualities.”
Response 18: Added definition and corrected grammar.
Section 3, Page 7, lines 218–221.

Comments 19: Clarify Rappaport reference.
Response 19: Reviewer confirmed sufficiency; no change required.

Comments 20: Cite Wellhausen (1878).
Response 20: We appreciate the suggestion but retained the contemporary focus for concision.

Comments 21: Include Protestantism’s vulnerability in main text.
Response 21: Done.
Section 7, Page 11, lines 369–371.

Comments 22: Ancient Israel example inaccurate; use alternative.
Response 22: Replaced with early Islam as a more appropriate illustration.
Section 7, Page 12, lines 421–424.

Comments 23: “Minyanim” too specific; clarify example.
Response 23: Revised to “Hasidic circles” to convey localized enclaves.
Section 7, Page 13, lines 432–433.

Additional Clarifications

We have restructured the paper to strengthen the theoretical foundation of the metaperformative loop and clarify the causal role of ritual. Section 2 now incorporates Pattee’s semantic closure and Deacon’s teleodynamic systems theory to ground the model within emergentist systems thinking. The conclusion (Pages 14–15) has been simplified to function diagnostically rather than prescriptively, addressing concerns about tone and intent.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a highly stimulating, original, and promising paper that develops an innovative conceptual framework for thinking about the durability of spiritualities through the idea of the "metaperformative loop". The core proposal is compelling and has the potential to make a significant contribution to the sociology of religion and spirituality.

I believe this article can make a valuable contribution, but it requires substantial revisions:

1) The three elements of the metaperformative loop - central mystery, ritual authority, formative submission - are intriguing; however, they would benefit from being placed in stronger dialogue with existing literature. How were these three elements identified, and why? Which theoretical debates support or contrast with this selection? For instance, references such as Mercadante and Rappaport could be integrated earlier in the paper and more systematically, as they seem highly relevant to the conceptual scaffolding.

2) Some passages suggest a theorical orientation that can be traced back to Durkheimian perspectives (e.g., “Yielding here is not coercion but consent: by participating, individuals acknowledge the authority of the divine, and in doing so, enact it”). Since this perspective shapes the framework as a whole, making it explicit from the outset would help readers understand the author’s standpoint.

3) The article currently relies heavily on the author’s own prior work (noted here as “Anonymous for peer-review”). While this demonstrates coherence, there is a risk of appearing self-referential. It would strengthen the article to balance this with a wider engagement with other studies on spirituality.

4)  At times it is not entirely clear whether the framework is meant to account for “engaged spiritualities” specifically or for spirituality in general (e.g., when discussing SBNR and Mercadante’s findings). Clarifying the intended scope of the proposal would make the argument more precise and accessible.

5) The distinction between spirituality and religion (“spirituality becomes religion when the mystery is identified, enacted, and bound…”) is crucial but it is introduced rather late in the paper. Bringing this clarification earlier would strengthen the framing and help readers follow the argument more consistently.

6) Some extended passages are formatted as if they were block quotations, but they also include the author's own words interwoven with cited material. This creates a risk of confusion for readers. Reviewing the formatting and attribution of these sections would improve clarity.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which have substantially improved the clarity, theoretical integration, and scope of the article. The revisions strengthen the framework’s engagement with existing literature, clarify its methodological orientation, and refine its conceptual boundaries. Below is our point-by-point response indicating where each change appears in the revised manuscript (Version 2).

Comments 1: The three elements of the metaperformative loop are intriguing but should be placed in stronger dialogue with existing literature. How were they identified and why? Relevant references (e.g., Mercadante, Rappaport) could be integrated earlier.

Response 1: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the Introduction (Section 1) and Definition of the Metaperformative Loop (Section 2) to ground the three elements in key sociological and psychological literature and to clarify the theoretical debates they address.

• Integration: Rappaport (1999) and Durkheim are now cited earlier and systematically.

• Revisions:
  Introduction, pages 2–3, lines 57–65
  “The present approach ...”
  Ritual Authority section, page 4, lines 118–120
  “This attribution sustains continuity by locating authority beyond human discretion. Rappaport’s analysis...

Comments 2: The framework reflects a Durkheimian orientation; this should be made explicit from the outset.

Response 2: Agreed. The Introduction and Theoretical Summary now explicitly foreground the Durkheimian and systems-theoretical orientation.

• Introduction, page 2, lines 59–60:
  “These dimensions correspond to...”

• Section 2, page 5, lines 147–158:
  "This recursive architecture...

Comments 3: The paper relies heavily on the author’s prior work; broader engagement would help.

Response 3: Agreed. We reduced self-referencing by (1) consolidating prior work into a single footnote and (2) integrating the loop’s elements with external scholarship.

• Footnote 2 (page 4, lines 91–92): relocated main self-citation to a concise note.

• Additional references: new footnote (page 4, lines 129–130, FN 4) acknowledges costly-signaling models to broaden theoretical context.

• Introduction (page 2, lines 59–61): integrates Durkheim, Rappaport, McNamara (see Response 1).

Comments 4: Clarify whether the framework addresses “engaged spiritualities” specifically or spirituality in general.

Response 4: Thank you. We clarified that the framework analyzes the structural conditions of durability, especially as they concern engaged spiritualities.

• Introduction, page 2, lines 34–35:
  While not all spiritualities aim at endurance...

• Case-study conclusion, page 7, lines 217–222:
  In this analysis...

Comments 5: The key distinction between spirituality and religion appears late; introduce it earlier.

Response 5: Agreed. The formal definition now follows immediately after the case study to strengthen framing before the SBNR section.
Section 3, page 7, lines 216–218:
“I suggest...”

Comments 6: Some blended quotations obscure attribution; formatting should be clarified.

Response 6: Thank you. We reviewed all extended passages, separating original analysis from cited material for clear attribution. The discussion of the self and the supra-subjective order (formerly a complex footnote) is now integrated into the main text with concise supporting citation.
Section 5, page 10, lines 333–337:
When reflexive consciousness…
This and similar adjustments ensure consistent formatting and attribution throughout.

Additional Clarifications

We refined the paper’s organization to emphasize the theoretical progression from micro-level dynamics (Part One: The Metaperformative Loop) to meso-level constraints (Part Two: The Symbolic Ecology). The Abstract and Introduction were substantially rewritten to present the emergentist, systems-theoretical framework earlier (page 2, lines 36–46) and to clarify that the paper is diagnostic rather than prescriptive (page 3, lines 67–73).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a strange article. In one sense, there is much to like; it is well-written, engaging, and full of insight. I learned a lot about a lot of different things, and am grateful for this. However, at the same time, I’m not entirely sure what this essay is—that is, how to place it.

The abstract presents the article as contributing to a social scientific debate about the nature of SBNR. Heelas and Woodhead were trying to empirically explain the turn away from “religion." And they did this by drawing from Charles Taylor's notion of the "massive subjective turn" of modern society. But it is not clear to me that this is what this article is in fact trying to do. Rather, the more one reads, the more it becomes clear that this project is a theological one, not really trying to explain anything (there is very little empirical evidence presented to substantiate the claims made here), but rather provide a theological-cum-social scientific framework with which to guide those who seek to preserve sacred orders (i.e., religion) in the modern world. Now, I have no problem with this latter project but my concern is that because it tries to achieve both of these goals, it ends up accomplishing neither—at least not very convincingly.

I think one of the main problems, then, is that this article is simply trying to do and say far too much.  By my account, in the span of 13 pages, it tries to do the following: replace Heelas and Woodhead’s account of the spiritual revolution with their own framework of the “metaperformative loop” (a novel framework of religious institutionalization); offer a quasi-theological, quasi-sociological defence of religion as (or “sacred orders”) against subjective spirituality; advance a “social-ecological” framework for thinking about the resilience and endurance of sacred orders/religions; outline a typology of “four strategies” by which religious communities respond to shifting or hostile environments; draw from Rappaport and Ferrer to provide a theological-cum-social scientific account of how to build a resilient religious architecture amidst modernization. This, it seems, to me, is simply too much for a single article, and so one feels while reading that all of this is insufficiently developed. The author jumps too quickly from one section to the next, never giving the reader enough time to reflect upon the myriad foundational assumptions and claims that undergird each step of the argument. Honestly, this resembles a condensed book, not an article.

This the most general problem, but there are more specific ones.

First, I am struck by how little this article actually engages with the sociological scholarship on contemporary spirituality that has been written since the publication of The Spiritual Revolution (which was published in 2005—20 years ago!) Heelas’s 2008 book actually makes a more sophisticated argument about holistic spirituality, and about how it is institutionalized. Moreover, Houtman and Aupers (2010) edited a volume on Religions of Modernity, and more recently Houtman and Watts (2024) edited a volume, which engages with these issues. If the author sees themselves as engaging with the sociology of spirituality then they should definitely consult these works, both because this is the state of the art in the field, but also because their arguments sit in tension with the claims made here. According to these sociologists while spirituality may be fleeting in one way, in another it is deeply institutionalized in modern societies, it is simply not institutionalized in conventional religious communities. What would the author say to this?

Second, while I found the framework of the “metaperformative loop” intriguing, I also wanted the author to put it in explicit conversation with other accounts of religious institutionalization. So, rather than simply citing themselves and assuming the value of their framework, it would be better to outline how it differs from, while adding to, more widely known frameworks (e.g., Durkheim on collective ritual and collective conscience; Weber on charismatic authority and the routinization of charisma). Further, as regards the Grateful Dead Case Study, I don't really see what is novel about the claims made here. The scholarship on New Religious Movements has provided many theoretical tools to explain why some NRMs fizzle out, while others become institutionalized and endure, and it’s not clear to me why the framework here is superior to those. So the author needs to strengthen their case for why we should adopt this framework. 

I would make the same claim with reference to the other theoretical claims made. The author fails to place their ideas in dialogue with other scholarship in these areas, and thus comes across as trying to reinvent the wheel using their own preferred categories and concepts. This gives the impression of being unwilling to converse with others who study these issues.

Of course, this brings us back to the problem I raised earlier—of how to place this analysis. Is this author in conversation with sociologists of spirituality or are they primarily talking to theologians?

My sense is the latter; I don’t see this paper as making much a contribution to the sociology of spirituality (or religion). In fact, it’s not at all clear to me that they understand, or engage with, Heelas and Woodhead’s work at sufficient depth to be able to critique it. In order to make a contribution on this front, they would need to do a lot more reading of both Heelas’s subsequent work and the more recent scholarship in this area. (I’d add that many of the claims that this author makes are not in any way novel for a sociologist like myself. For instance, their account of Protestantism echoes Peter Berger’s classic account of secularization in The Sacred Canopy).

Thus, I think the main contribution of this paper is to bring concepts from the social sciences to bear on a theological discussion about SBNR. 

One last thing: given that the sociological scholarship on spirituality suggests that spirituality is widespread today because it is institutionalized, at the level of discourse, in many different institutional spheres, then one wonders whether there is a tension in the author’s argument about the dual importance of both “ecology” and “architecture.” The question I have is: if the surrounding ecology (i.e., society) is so important in determining the survival of a sacred order, and the ecology of modernity is oriented to a culture of expressive individualism (as many suggest it is), then it’s not clear how much adapting the architecture of a specific religious community will make a difference. That is, if the broader societal environment is hostile to the religious organism, then how much can the organism realistically do? Needless to say, this would be the argument advanced by secularization theorists.

Ultimately, I think this paper needs to be thoroughly rethought, framed less as a contribution to the social scientific discussion of spirituality—which seeks to explain the rise of spirituality—and more as a theological contribution, offering theoretically-informed guidance for religious communities and leaders on how to respond to the spiritual revolution.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their detailed and thoughtful engagement with the manuscript. Their feedback has been invaluable in clarifying the article’s disciplinary positioning, tightening its scope, and refining its theoretical contributions. In this revision (Version 2), we have addressed each of the reviewer’s concerns through targeted structural and conceptual revisions, as outlined below.

Comments 1: This essay is well-written and insightful but seems uncertain in scope—part social-scientific, part theological. It attempts to do too much and does not clearly situate itself within the sociology of spirituality.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that the manuscript originally blurred disciplinary boundaries and attempted to cover too broad a scope. Accordingly, we have reframed the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion to define the paper strictly as a systems-theoretical and emergentist account of symbolic dynamics, not as a prescriptive theological project or an empirical sociological study.

• Scope reduction: Removed the entire section offering a prescriptive discussion for theology.

• Reframed theoretical claim: Clarified that the approach is diagnostic and theoretical rather than predictive or normative.

Revisions located at:

• Abstract, V2 lines 10–13

• Introduction, V2 lines 35–39 and 67–73

• Conclusion, V2 lines 450–452

Updated text examples:
V2 lines 10–13
“This article asks what enables certain forms of spiritual life to last while others fade. It offers an emergentist, systems-theoretical account of how sacred life endures by viewing religion as a self-organizing symbolic system in which meaning and communal practice continually reinforce one another.”

V2 lines 67–73
“The argument is diagnostic rather than predictive: it identifies the structural linkages that make sacred life fleeting or durable… The approach is neither sociological functionalism nor theology from above, but interprets religion as a self-organizing symbolic system in which revelation, authority, and transformation emerge from the same recursive dynamics that sustain communal life.”

V2 lines 450–452
“The framework developed here operates at the level of symbolic dynamics rather than empirical sociology or confessional theology.”

Comments 2: The “metaperformative loop” is interesting but should be explicitly compared to classic theories of institutionalization (Durkheim, Weber, NRM studies). The case study’s novelty also needs clarification.

Response 2: Agreed. We have situated the metaperformative loop within established sociological debates and clarified how it adds diagnostic precision beyond traditional institutionalization theory.

• Integration with classic theory:
  Introduction, V2 lines 59–65
  “These dimensions correspond to Durkheim’s (1978) focus on collective ritual life, Rappaport’s (1999) theory of hierarchical communication, and McNamara’s (2009) account of neurological transformation…”

• Explicit dialogue on institutionalization:
  Section 2, V2 lines 147–158
  “This recursive architecture clarifies a perennial puzzle in sociological theory… Durkheim emphasized ritual as the generator of solidarity, Weber traced the routinization of charisma into enduring authority, and scholars of New Religious Movements examined why some communities institutionalize while others fade (Weber 1978; Wilson 1970; Stark & Bainbridge 1985). The metaperformative loop builds on this lineage but shifts the causal level from social function to symbolic recursion.”

• Clarification of diagnostic utility:
  End of Section 3, V2 lines 227–234
  “This diagnostic adds what standard institutionalization theories leave implicit… These are micro-scale signs that symbolic meaning has become causally active as constraint.”

Comments 3: The article lacks engagement with post-2005 sociology of spirituality (e.g., Heelas 2008; Houtman & Aupers 2010; Houtman & Watts 2024).

Response 3: Agreed. We have incorporated and engaged with these key works to align the manuscript with current sociological scholarship.

Section 4, V2 lines 242–246:
“Recent scholarship shows that contemporary spirituality often takes organized, even institutional, forms through consumer markets, therapeutic networks, and digital communities (Heelas 2008; Aupers & Houtman 2010; Houtman & Watts 2024). The question here is not prevalence but structure: can spirituality organized around personal resonance alone sustain the feedback architecture that makes religion durable?”

Comments 4: If modern society (the ecology) shapes religious survival, how much can internal “architectural” adaptation really matter? This tension echoes secularization theory.

Response 4: Thank you for raising this crucial point. We have clarified that religious systems are not merely reactive but actively engage in symbolic niche construction, shaping the environments that sustain them.

Section 7, V2 lines 406–415:
“Religious systems do not merely adapt to their surroundings; they also reshape them. Through ritual repetition, moral communication, and collective imagination, they build the symbolic environments in which their own plausibility can take root. This process of symbolic niche construction allows sacred architectures to generate the moral vocabularies, social norms, and experiential horizons that sustain them.”

Additional Clarifications

In response to the reviewer’s broader concern that the article attempted too much, we streamlined Part Two to focus exclusively on the diagnostic, systems-theoretical framework:

1. Removed prescriptive theological material completely.

2. Shortened and focused the discussion on Rappaport’s model of layered ritual authority to only that pertaining to systems theoretical concerns (V2 lines 118-123).

3. Retained only the diagnostic systems analysis (V2 lines 67–73; 450–452).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript and for the clear and careful Author’s Notes. The paper shows substantial improvement in structure, clarity, and theoretical positioning. The Durkheimian and systems-theoretical orientation is now explicit, the introduction is more focused, and the revisions to citation formatting have strengthened readability throughout.

Most of the concerns raised in the first round have been addressed satisfactorily. The contribution is conceptually original and aligns well with the interdisciplinary orientation of Religions. The article offers a theoretical lens characteristic of Religious Studies rather than empirical sociology, and while the model is not intended to be empirically testable, it succeeds as a coherent and inventive framework for interpreting durable spiritual formations.

A few minor refinements would strengthen the final version:

1) Although the three components of the metaperformative loop are now supported by earlier references to Durkheim and Rappaport, a brief additional clarification of why these particular dimensions (mystery, ritual authority, formative submission) were selected would enhance conceptual transparency.

2) The distinction between engaged spiritualities and more diffuse spiritual orientations is now clearer, but one or two additional sentences specifying the intended analytical scope would further help orient readers unfamiliar with the terminology.

3) The conclusion section is rather concise. Expanding it slightly to develop the broader implications of the model - and to reflect briefly on its relevance for contemporary religious/spiritual formations - would bring the argument to a stronger close.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful second-round review and for the constructive suggestions. I appreciate the clarity of your comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes appear in red in the revised version (V3), with line numbers indicated below.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1

“Although the three components of the metaperformative loop are now supported by earlier references to Durkheim and Rappaport, a brief additional clarification of why these particular dimensions (mystery, ritual authority, formative submission) were selected would enhance conceptual transparency.”

Response 1

Thank you for this suggestion. I fully agree.
To address this, I expanded the theoretical explanation of why these three components—mystery, ritual authority, and formative submission—constitute the minimal configuration required for the metaperformative loop.

Revisions

1. Added a new justificatory paragraph immediately after the definition of the loop (Section 2), explaining how each component functions and why the triad is necessary and sufficient for loop closure.
   → V3 lines 125–137

2. Expanded Footnote 3, situating the triad within convergent triadic models in Religious Studies (e.g., Geertz, Smart, Turner, Eliade, van der Leeuw, Bellah), thereby clarifying its grounding in established theory.

Inserted paragraph (V3 lines 125–137):

[These three components are not offered as an exhaustive catalogue…]
(full text included in the original draft you supplied; unchanged except for formatting)

Comment 2

“The distinction between engaged spiritualities and more diffuse spiritual orientations is now clearer, but one or two additional sentences specifying the intended analytical scope would further help orient readers unfamiliar with the terminology.”

Response 2

I agree and have clarified the analytical scope of the term.
A new paragraph in the Introduction now defines “engaged spiritualities” in explicit sociological terms, describes how the term relates to SBNR scholarship, and specifies its use as a category of late-modern spiritual experimentation.

Revisions

1. New definitional paragraph added to Section 1 of the Introduction.
   → V3 lines 48–60

Inserted paragraph (V3 lines 48–60):

[In what follows, I use “engaged spiritualities”…]

2. The relationship between the broad sociological category of engaged spiritualities and the structural mechanism of the loop is further clarified at the end of the Deadheads/Spinners vignette (Section 3).
→ V3 lines 261–263
This passage now notes that the threshold between transient spirituality and durable religion “appears across many forms of contemporary spirituality, including those often described as engaged,” emphasizing that endurance depends on loop closure.

Comment 3

“The conclusion section is rather concise. Expanding it slightly to develop the broader implications of the model—and to reflect briefly on its relevance for contemporary religious/spiritual formations—would bring the argument to a stronger close.”

Response 3

I agree and have substantially expanded the Conclusion.

Revisions

1. Retitled the section from “8. Conclusions: Symbolic Niche Construction” to “8. Conclusion: How Sacred Worlds Endure.”
   → V3 line 500

2. Added a new paragraph discussing the model’s relevance for contemporary spiritual experimentation (SBNR, activist spiritualities, hybrid movements, revitalized traditions).
   → V3 lines 509–517

3. Expanded the final paragraph to highlight the constructive-theological implications of an emergent, recursive framework and to indicate future research directions.
   → V3 lines 518–527

Inserted text (V3 lines 509–517):

[The model also illuminates the present landscape…]

Inserted text (V3 lines 518–527):

[Finally, the analysis gestures toward a constructive horizon…]

Additional Clarifications

• Footnote 2 Expansion: It incorporates additional theoretical grounding and includes the previously missing citation to Author (2015).

• Updated Keyword Section: Minor revision to section title to reflect terminology accurately (V3 lines 25–27).

• Corrected Durkheim Citation: Updated from “Durkheim (1978)” in V2 to “Durkheim’s (1912/1995)” in V3 for accuracy (V3 line 78).

• Acknowledgment Update: Updated reference to use of “ChatGPT 5.0” (V3 line 530).

Final Note

Thank you again for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. The revisions you requested have significantly strengthened the clarity, scope, and conclusion of the paper, and I appreciate your engagement with the work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to congratulate the author on their impressive revisions. They've addressed all of my concerns, and produced a work that is original and rich with insight. I particularly appreciate the more elaborated account of their theoretical framework, as I believe this helpfully clarified both the distinctiveness of their approach, along with the significance of the case study.

The one comment I have has to do with their use of the term, "engaged spiritualities." At times, they give the impression that "engaged spirituality" emerges when a "subjective spirituality" accomplishes the "metaperformative loop" and thus becomes an enduring religious-spiritual form. But in other places (for instance in the opening sentence), one gets the sense that they use this term to describe as "SBNR spirituality." I think this needs to be clarified. Is "engaged spirituality" an achievement of the loop, or do they consider this synonymous with Heelas and Woodhead's "subjective-life spirituality"?

Author Response

Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer 3

Thank you for your thoughtful engagement with the revised manuscript. I appreciate the clarity of your observations and have revised the paper accordingly. All changes appear in red in Version 3 (V3), with line numbers noted below.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1

“The one comment I have has to do with their use of the term ‘engaged spiritualities.’ At times, they give the impression that ‘engaged spirituality’ emerges when a ‘subjective spirituality’ accomplishes the metaperformative loop and thus becomes an enduring religious–spiritual form. But in other places (for instance in the opening sentence), one gets the sense that they use this term to describe SBNR spirituality. I think this needs to be clarified. Is ‘engaged spirituality’ an achievement of the loop, or do they consider this synonymous with Heelas and Woodhead’s ‘subjective-life spirituality’?”

Response 1

Thank you for this helpful observation. I agree that clarification was necessary.

In the revised manuscript, I have clarified that:

• “Engaged spiritualities” is used as a broad sociological category, following Heelas and Woodhead and subsequent SBNR scholarship.

• It includes SBNR/subjective-life orientations and related forms of late-modern spiritual experimentation.

• It is not an achievement of the metaperformative loop.

• Rather, the loop is the structural mechanism that determines whether any spirituality—engaged or otherwise—achieves durability.

To eliminate ambiguity, I added a new clarifying paragraph to the Introduction that explicitly defines the analytical scope of “engaged spiritualities.”

Revisions

1. New definitional paragraph added to the Introduction, clarifying the term’s sociological meaning and scope.
   → V3 lines 48–60

Inserted text (V3 lines 48–60):

[In what follows, I use “engaged spiritualities”…]
(full text unchanged from your draft)

Additional Clarifications

• The relationship between the broad sociological category of engaged spiritualities and the structural mechanism of the loop is further clarified at the end of the Deadheads/Spinners vignette (Section 3).
  → V3 lines 261–263
  This passage now notes that the threshold between transient spirituality and durable religion “appears across many forms of contemporary spirituality, including those often described as engaged,” emphasizing that endurance depends on loop closure.

• The Conclusion (Section 8) was expanded in parallel with revisions responding to Reviewer 2, integrating an explicit reflection on how the loop model illuminates the landscape of contemporary spiritual experimentation—including within the domain of engaged spiritualities.
  → V3 lines 510–517

Final Note

Thank you again for the helpful clarification request. Your comment has significantly improved the conceptual precision of the manuscript, especially regarding the terminology surrounding contemporary spiritual forms.