The Rise of Research on Spirituality and Non-Ordinary States of Consciousness

Over the past few decades, research on spirituality has experienced unprecedented growth. Spirituality is no longer a taboo topic, as in Sigmund Freud’s era; it has become an interdisciplinary, mainstream field with significant contributions from psychology, medicine, social sciences, education, and neuroscience (Demir, 2019; McNamara et al., 2024).^[1] However, while spirituality flourishes, parapsychology remains a niche area with a smaller, dedicated community. This raises a crucial question: how can parapsychology, a field intrinsically linked to spirituality, leverage this growing interest and foster interdisciplinary exchange? How can parapsychology benefit from the academic momentum of spirituality research, and what lessons can we learn to increase our visibility and relevance?

Historically, the intersection of spirituality and parapsychology has deep roots. Frederic Myers (1843-1901), one of the pioneers of our field, argued that psychical research inherently carried a spiritual purpose. He saw “psychical research [as] a wider science, of which Religion is the subjective aspect” (Myers, 1900, p. 24), not in the sense of organized religion, but as a personal experience of the divine, echoing William James’s (1842-1910) perspective developed in his Varieties of Religious Experience (1902). Myers believed that psychical research would pave the way for “the coming century’s leaders of spiritual thought” to completely reunite science and religion in a synthesis of the universe, addressing questions traditionally left to religious traditions. Isn’t the widespread social and academic interest in spirituality today a partial fulfillment of Myers’ vision?

Some colleagues may hesitate to connect parapsychology with spirituality, perhaps because of criticisms raised by skeptics that parapsychology is a spiritual movement rather than a science (e.g., Alcock, 1981, 1987; Bunge, 1991), or because of their own views regarding the relevance of spirituality in experimental investigation (Tart, 2003). But studying a phenomenon does not necessarily imply endorsing specific beliefs or ideologies related to it. Investigating reports of psychic experiences does not mean all researchers in the field inherently believe in the reality of psychic abilities, the existence of a spiritual realm, or hold biases toward a particular perspective. By submitting spiritual and other exceptional claims to scientific scrutiny, parapsychology may sometimes boost disbelief and skepticism, even if unintended. I have provided numerous illustrative examples of this elsewhere (Maraldi, 2021). Parapsychologists’ views regarding spirituality are actually much more varied and heterogeneous than believed by some outside commentators (Maraldi, 2021; Tart, 2003).

But studying a phenomenon does not necessarily imply endorsing specific beliefs or ideologies related to it.

Unknown

This fear of the opinions of critics and the consequent academic censorship may have hindered our ability to connect with researchers from other areas who might share a serious interest in the study of anomalous experiences including academics in the field of spirituality. Terms like “spirituality” and “spiritual” are often used by those who believe in paranormal phenomena (Thalbourne & Houtkooper, 2002; Maraldi & Farias, 2019). Studies show that paranormal beliefs and experiences are significant predictors of spirituality, sometimes even more so than variables like subjective well-being or purpose in life (Lindeman et al., 2012). Accordingly, factorial studies have found that paranormal beliefs and experiences comprise basic components of spirituality (MacDonald, 2000, 2015; Schofield et al., 2016). Many authors have also recognized that psychic experiences can be considered spiritual experiences depending on how they are specifically appraised (Taves, 2014; Taves et al., 2023). These findings suggest that parapsychological topics form an important part of the study of spirituality, both conceptually and empirically. Historically, both fields emerged from similar sociocultural shifts, particularly the 19th-century secularization that encouraged a more scientific and experiential approach to religiosity (Beloff, 1993).

Prominent scholars in the field of religiosity and spirituality have also highlighted this overlap. Ralph Hood Jr., a respected psychologist of religion, has explicitly stated that “spirituality and psi phenomena share the same ontological space” (Hood Jr., 2024, p. 14). He argues that contemporary research on spirituality is, in many ways, a continuation of the foundational work of William James and early psychical researchers. Hood’s openness to parapsychological themes—expressed in his chapter in the second edition of Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality—reflects an evolving understanding within psychology (Hood, 2024).

During the 2019 International Association for the Psychology of Religion (IAPR) convention in Poland, Hood addressed parapsychological topics in his keynote speech and later invited me to review parapsychological contributions to the study of religion in a monograph for a psychology and religion book series. The resulting monograph argued that despite ongoing methodological and theoretical controversies, findings from parapsychology can meaningfully inform our understanding of spiritual and religious experiences (Maraldi, 2021).

Interestingly, this connection is not isolated. A special issue of the Archives for the Psychology of Religion was dedicated years ago to the topic of parapsychology and spirituality (Editors’ introduction, 2009). Furthermore, the APA Journal Psychology of Religion and Spirituality has explored ontological issues, such as the divide between metaphysical/theistic and naturalistic perspectives (Linfield, 2021), echoing debates that are also central to our field (Moreira-Almeida & Hood, 2024). More recently, collaborative efforts between parapsychologists and psychologists of religion and spirituality have also yielded important insights into human interactions with the divine, the sacred, and the deceased (Plante et al., 2023).

Parallel to these developments in spirituality research, the scientific study of non-ordinary states of consciousness seems to be slowly increasing. High-impact journals like Trends in Cognitive Sciences and Scientific Reports have published studies exploring cognitive and neurophysiological aspects of these states (e.g., Timmermann et al., 2023), often without mentioning parapsychology, despite clear connections to its research, such as the Ganzfeld technique (Oswald et al., 2023). The terminology has shifted as well, with “non-ordinary” sometimes replacing “anomalous” or “exceptional.” This reframing aligns with the feature-based approach advocated by Ann Taves, distinguished professor of religious studies at the University of California in Santa Barbara, who emphasizes separating the phenomenological aspects of experiences from their appraisals (that is, from culturally-laden descriptions of these experiences as pathological, spiritual, or anomalous) (Taves et al., 2023). The anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann’s work further exemplifies this shift. Her research on absorption and predisposition to experiences such as visions and hearing voices, published in PNAS and other high impact journals, highlights the interdisciplinary nature of research on non-ordinary experiences (Lurhmann et al., 2021). These illustrative studies are more aligned with phenomenological and psychosocial approaches to the experiences. But, even ontological research, like studies on mind-matter interactions and healing phenomena, is apparently gaining some traction, bringing mainstream attention to topics traditionally within the purview of parapsychology and related disciplines (Cohen et al., 2024; Freedman et al., 2024).

Despite these promising developments, parapsychology remains marginalized in many interdisciplinary discussions. It seems that parapsychological topics are entering the mainstream, but without significant involvement from parapsychologists themselves, reflecting a concern raised by Ian Stevenson (1918-2007), past president of the Parapsychological Association, over thirty years ago. He warned that parapsychologists risk isolating themselves from mainstream science, reducing their capacity to influence or collaborate with other fields (Stevenson, 1988). One potential consequence of this isolation is that scholars outside parapsychology often attempt to ‘reinvent the wheel’ when studying these experiences, ignoring established findings and developing new work without reference to relevant foundational research (Stevenson, 1988). They might, in this manner, overlook well-documented parapsychological findings and contributions, including cross-cultural consistencies, previously observed patterns and features in experiences, relevant differences among subgroups of participants, and methodological and theoretical challenges encountered by researchers in the field.

...parapsychology can contribute to broader discussions on spirituality, non-ordinary states of consciousness, and human experience.

Unknown

The connections previously explored suggest parapsychology can contribute to broader discussions on spirituality, non-ordinary states of consciousness, and human experience. The studies reviewed show how the investigation of anomalous or paranormal experiences does not exist in a bubble but shares important connections with research on religious/spiritual experiences and psychological and psychiatric phenomena such as psychotic-like and dissociative processes (Maraldi et al., 2023). Researchers from different areas may ascribe different meanings (e.g., “psychotic,” “transcendent,” “anomalous”) to experiences that are actually very similar in terms of their underlying phenomenology (Taves, 2014).

These investigations also highlight the importance of fostering interdisciplinary dialogues and breaking down artificial barriers between fields, such as between parapsychology and different branches of psychology and neuroscience. Many historians of science have discussed examples of the interrelations between these fields (e.g., Sommer, 2012; Taves 2014). In studying the phenomenology and correlates of anomalous experiences in the general population, psychologists and social scientists are in essence engaging in parapsychological research—even if they do not label their work as such. From my perspective, parapsychology encompasses not only the study of possible unknown forces or processes that may fall outside the boundaries of known human capabilities, but also the investigation of the characteristics, meanings, and psychological impacts of these experiences (Irwin & Watt, 2007).

To move forward, parapsychology must embrace its connections to research on spirituality and related disciplines. As Myers envisioned over a century ago, the true potential of psychical research lies in its ability to serve as a bridge between science and spirituality, answering questions that neither domain can fully address in isolation. This is not just a strategic move but a necessary one. The future of parapsychology depends on our ability to integrate, collaborate, and demonstrate the relevance of our research to the broader scientific and spiritual landscape. By embracing interdisciplinary collaboration, actively engaging with researchers in related fields, and promoting the rich history and contributions of parapsychology, we can ensure that our field remains relevant and influential in the evolving landscape of research on spirituality and non-ordinary experiences. We must bridge the gap and reclaim our place at the forefront of this exciting area of inquiry.

^[1] The relationship between religiosity and spirituality remains complex and debated. While some authors argue that spirituality may or may not encompass a religious dimension, others propose that it represents a contemporary, individual alternative to religion (Marshall & Olson, 2018). From my perspective, spirituality and religiosity are profoundly interconnected, often to the point of being sometimes indistinguishable. Rather than representing a completely distinct and clearly identifiable phenomenon, spirituality likely reflects certain transformations and expressions of contemporary religiosity, particularly within Western, secularized societies, emphasizing more personal, intimate, and subjective dimensions of religion (Maraldi, 2021). Similarly, Streib et al. (2020) define spirituality as an “individualized-experience oriented” religiosity.

References

Alcock, J. (1981). Parapsychology: Science or magic? A psychological perspective. Pergamon Press.

Alcock, J. (1987). Parapsychology: Science of the anomalous or search for the soul? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10(4), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00054467

Beloff, J. (1993). Parapsychology: A concise history. St. Martin’s Press

Bunge, M. (1991). A skeptic’s beliefs and disbeliefs. New Ideas in Psychology, 9, 131–149.

Cohen, L., Delorme, A., Cusimano, A., Chakraborty, S., Nguyen, P., Deng, D., Iqbal, S., Nelson, M., Wei, D., Fields, C., & Yang, P. (2024). Examining the effects of biofield therapy through simultaneous assessment of electrophysiological and cellular outcomes. Scientific Reports, 14, 29221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79617-3

Demir, E. (2019). The evolution of spirituality, religion and health publications: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Religion and Health, 58(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-018-00739-w

Editors’ Introduction. (2009). Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 31(3), 273-274. https://doi.org/10.1163/008467209X12499946199362

Freedman, M., Binns, M. A., Meltzer, J. A., Hashimi, R., & Chen, R. (2024). Enhanced mind-matter interactions following rTMS induced frontal lobe inhibition. Cortex, 172, 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2023.10.016

Hood, R. W., Jr. (2024). The history and current status of the psychology of religion and spirituality. In L. J. Miller (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psychology and spirituality (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-21). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190905538.013.1

Irwin, H. J., & Watt, C. A. (2007). An introduction to parapsychology (5th ed.). McFarland.

James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Longmans, Green and Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/10004-000

Lindeman, M., Blomqvist, S., & Takada, M. (2012). Distinguishing spirituality from other constructs: Not a matter of well-being but of belief in supernatural spirits. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200(2), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182439719

Linfield, K. J. (2021). Psychology of religion and spirituality: What should we study and how? Introducing this special section. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 13(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000401

Luhrmann, T. M., Weisman, K., Aulino, F., Brahinsky, J. D., Dulin, J. C., Dzokoto, V. A., Legare, C. H., Lifshitz, M., Ng, E., Ross-Zehnder, N., & Smith, R. E. (2021). Sensing the presence of gods and spirits across cultures and faiths. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(5), e2016649118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016649118

MacDonald, D. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement, and relation to the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality, 68(1), 153–197.

MacDonald, D., Friedman, H., Brewczynski, J., Holland, D., Salagame, K. K., Mohan, K., Gubrij, Z., & Cheong, H. W. (2015). Spirituality as a scientific construct: Testing its universality across cultures and languages. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0117701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117701

Maraldi, E. O. (2021). Parapsychology and religion. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004467835

Maraldi, E. de O., & Farias, M. (2019). Assessing implicit spirituality in a non-WEIRD population: Development and validation of an implicit measure of new age and paranormal beliefs. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 30(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2019.1661198

Maraldi, E. O., Taves, A., Moll, J., Hartle, L., Moreira-de-Oliveira, M. E., Bortolini, T., & Fischer, R. (2024). Nonordinary experiences, well-being and mental health: A systematic review of the evidence and recommendations for future research. Journal of Religion and Health, 63(1), 410–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-023-01875-8

Marshall, J., & Olson, D. V. A. (2018). Is ‘spiritual but not religious’ a replacement for religion or just one step on the path between religion and non-religion? Review of Religious Research, 60(4), 503-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-018-0342-9

McNamara, P., Newsome, W., Linkenhoker, B., & Grafman, J. (2024). Neuroscientists must not be afraid to study religion. Nature, 631(8019), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02153-7

Moreira-Almeida, A., & Hood, R. W., Jr (2024). Methodological exclusion of the transcendent? Implications for theory and research in religion, spirituality and health. Journal of Religion and Health, 63(2), 1554–1566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-023-01896-3

Myers, F. H. W. (1900). Presidential address. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 37, 110–127.

Oswald, V., Vanhaudenhuyse, A., Annen, J., Martial, C., Bicego, A., Rousseaux, F., Sombrun, C., Harel, Y., Faymonville, M.-E., Laureys, S., Jerbi, K., & Gosseries, O. (2023). Autonomic nervous system modulation during self-induced non-ordinary states of consciousness. Scientific Reports, 13, 15811. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42393-7

Plante, T. G., Schwartz, G. E., Exline, J. J., Park, C. L., Paloutzian, R. F., Seitz, R. J., & Angel, H.-F. (2023). Human interaction with the divine, the sacred, and the deceased: Topics that warrant increased attention by psychologists. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04226-0

Schofield, M., Baker, I., Staples, P., & Sheffield, D. (2016). Mental representations of the supernatural: A cluster analysis of religiosity, spirituality, and paranormal belief. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 419–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.020

Sommer, A. (2012). Psychical research and the origins of American psychology: Hugo Münsterberg, William James, and Eusapia Palladino. History of the Human Sciences, 25(2), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695112439376

Stevenson, I. (1988). Guest editorial: Was the attempt to identify parapsychology as a separate field of science misguided? The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 82(4), 309-317.

Streib, H., Klein, C., Keller, B., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (2020). The Mysticism Scale as a measure for subjective spirituality: New results with Hood’s M-Scale and the development of a short form. In A. L. Ai, P. Wink, R. F. Paloutzian, & K. A. Harris (Eds.), Assessing spirituality in a diverse world (pp. 467–491). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52140-0

Tart, C. (2003). Spiritual motivations of parapsychologists? Empirical data. The Journal of Parapsychology, 67(2), 181–184.

Taves A. (2014). A tale of two congresses: The psychological study of psychical, occult, and religious phenomena, 1900-1909. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 50(4), 376–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.21691

Taves, A., Ihm, E., Wolf, M., Barlev, M., Kinsella, M., & Vyas, M. (2023). The Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences (INOE): Evidence of validity in the United States and India. PloS one, 18(7), e0287780. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287780

Thalbourne, M. A., & Houtkooper, J. M. (2002). Religiosity/spirituality and beliefs in the paranormal: A German replication. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 66(867), 113–115.