Psychedelic Drugs and Spiritual Experiences

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed! It would have to be assumed that the Spirit can be commanded to appear like some sort of movie seance.

It is interesting to me that the scientists in your OP define a completely natural phenomenon as "spiritual"... so much for the insights of the secular perspective! And to interpret the attainment of new knowledge in a new media or format as "spirituality." Millennia ago people thought the same thing about the worlds that written language opened up to them. I think it is what you actually become in the flesh that defines what is spiritual, not the degree to which you are impressed by the things you see.

Edited July 9, 2017 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

People are starved for spiritual experiences because they do not have a true relationship with their Lord. Having that I do not need to "find" meaning or God in mushrooms, because I already understand the nature of God. 

Having had profound spiritual experiences without drugs, my answer is no. I have never "done" drugs. I have never even used or desired psychotropic drugs. Even when I was on a morphine pump, I didn't really use it, and for the most part it sat unused so the doctor canceled it. When being "forced" into sleep with gas my mind did not like the feeling of losing control and resisted it.

Absolutely not. God will not subject Himself to human testing. I have never been able to replicate my experiences at will. They happen when God wants them to - when He has something to communicate to me - sometimes at very odd times. Once I was watching the Prince of Egypt, and the Spirit just began to come over me. It grew and grew in strength to the most incredible feeling of seeing at will. It was because it was time for God to communicate something to me. Although I have had an incredible spiritual experience since, nothing has replicated that experience.

There is no valid scientific way to replicate my experiences. I laugh at the idea.

Thanks for this. I share your concerns that trying to subject spiritual experience to scientific inquiry is problematic.

For starters, what exactly is a spiritual experience? What definition should be used for testing?

Yet I have heard some say "Stay on your knees until the answer comes."

Does this mean we can command God's presence if we just persist enough?

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is interesting to me that the scientists in your OP define a completely natural phenomenon as "spiritual"... so much for the insights of the secular perspective! And to interpret the attainment of new knowledge in a new media or format as "spirituality." Millennia ago people thought the same thing about the worlds that written language opened up to them. I think it is what you actually become in the flesh that defines what is spiritual, not the degree to which you are impressed by the things you see.

This is part of what I am asking. Can we even agree on what constitutes a religious experience? Unless we do that, what are we testing?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Not even close.

To expand on that a little the religious experiences  were more intense and cannot be replicated as my situation has changed. They involved things that were happening in my life at the time I had them.

So you would agree that taking a substance may not necessarily result in an experience specific to what is needed or wanted?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This stuff is old hat.  The Meninnger Foundation began studying drugs and other aids to transpersonal psychological experiences back in the late 60s, and held heavy annual seminars on the issues involved for decades -- inviting professionals and scholars to take part in the studies -- everything from drugs to near death experiences being on the table for discussion.  Generations of reports are available, and the personal LSD experiences of Harvard professors Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert (Baba Ram Dass) appear to have gotten the ball rolling.  At UCLA, Carlos Castaneda wrote his doctoral dissertation in anthropology on his supposed experiences with psychedelic mushrooms (amanita muscaria), etc., courtesy of a Yaqui Indian sorceror.  The Beat Generation had explored it.  Ken Keasy novelized it.   Hindu yogis laughed at it. The upshot of all that was that drugs were not the ultimate focus, and could easily become a distraction from real cosmic experiences, but that they might be a starting point for some people.  Others have used biofeedback machines to school themselves in obtaining the experiences which it normally takes about 30-years of training for a zen master -- monastic prayer & meditation having been the traditional technique used in the West.

All noted and well and good, but my questions are specifically aimed at the Mormon experience. It has been suggested that all spiritual experiences can be studied and replicated by science. Is this true? What of the Mormons?

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for this. I share your concerns that trying to subject spiritual experience to scientific inquiry is problematic.

For starters, what exactly is a spiritual experience? What definition should be used for testing?

Yet I have heard some say "Stay on your knees until the answer comes."

Does this mean we can command God's presence if we just persist enough?

No we cannot command God's presence. We are sinners, and He is not.

If I waited for God to answer all my prayers I would have very sore knees, LoL. I believe sometimes God answered my prayer through life experiences - the teaching was less direct, but more lasting and meaningful. However, I persisted over years, and I believe God answered my prayers when I was ready - when I could fully appreciate the precept. If we are asking to understand precept Z, but are only at precept B in our lives, it may take awhile....

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And I do remember a story with Steve Jobs taking LSD and how it changed his life. “Taking LSD was a profound experience, one of the most important things in my life. LSD shows you that there’s another side to the coin, and you can’t remember it when it wears off, but you know it. It reinforced my sense of what was important—creating great things instead of making money, putting things back into the stream of history and of human consciousness as much as I could.”

Much to his credit, Elder Talmadge saw through the supposed benefits of weed.

Well, good for Steve. I wonder how the rest of humanity has been able to make any contributions at all.

My question is not the use of substances, but of the availability of spiritual experience to replication and study.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting thoughts. Are you Native American?

No, but I had a friend who was and was very involved in the Native American Church. He took me to ceremonies. This was probably 10 or 11 years ago.

 

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Let's suppose one has a question of a religious nature. For example, "Which church should I join?" After lengthy study of various religions and philosophies, pondering the information, and one partaking a psychedelic substance, from your experiences, would you expect to receive a useful answer? If so, what was the source? If not, why not?

You know, I never asked specific questions like that, so I'm not sure based on my experience. However, I would say it would be unlikely to work, because psychedelic states are much more mystical in nature than rational. I would have general intentions, but more often than not I would be taken in a direction I wasn't necessarily planning. This was particularly true of plant psychedelics (mushrooms, peyote, salvia) more so than say LSD.

If one were to receive an answer, I would say that it is God speaking to a soul who is open and prepared to receive the answer. This is how I now view the insights I gained. I was willing, I was intentional, and I was open, so God tried teaching me things that eventually led me to the religion I hold today.

I don't feel like any of the things I learned during that time in my life are wrong. Some were superficial, but the deepest insights remain with me and I believe them to this day and I see no contradiction with them and my Catholic faith.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

1. Probably not, but have nothing against others doing so.

2. No.

3. No. I don't believe spiritual experiences of any one's faith can be tested in a lab.

4. At best correlation is not causation.

Thank you. Yet the attempts continue....

[Tacenda]

I keep thinking God may have put things on the earth for various reasons. Maybe He did provide the psychedelics to help individuals gain a more spiritual connection, for people like myself that have never really had one. 

I definitely think He did with the marijuana helping people with different health problems. 

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm curious what Mormons think of this. I imagine they would discredit it in some fashion.

Not this Mormon. However, if he had become a pothead, I doubt we would be reading his books and calling him Elder Talmadge. 

It was not unusual for scientists to use themselves as subjects in experimentation. We would be missing a lot of great fantasy and sci-fi books and movies if they didn't.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, could we say that using certain chemicals always results in a profound experience, but what Mormons and perhaps others call the still small voice is less predictable? What useful things were learned from those catastrophic experiences?

Oh no, taking chemicals does not always result in profound experience. It has much to do with the intentions of the person taking them and the situation they are in. Timothy Leary and company called this set and setting. Set = your mental set, and setting = the environment you are in.

So, a Native American Church ceremony, for example, creates a set and setting that creates an opening for profound experience. Popping a tab of acid and wandering around the streets with your friends laughing at the world, maybe not so much so.

What I was trying to point out with the Biblical reference to Elijah was that the psychedelic experience is strong and powerful. For example, when I am out hiking, I often sense a quiet peace and connection to my surroundings, especially if I am alone. I can sense how I am a part of the earth. But this subtle and gentle. It is not like the time when I was sitting on the ground in the desert while on LSD and seeing/sensing my fingers become roots and grow deep into the earth and having a strong sense of how the earth nourishes me like she nourishes a tree. From there I saw how the earth nourishes us all, the plants around me, the bugs crawling by, my dog sitting next to me, the people living in the town down in the valley, all life. I deeply felt how we were all connected through the earth. This experience was strong and powerful and not anything like when I go hiking. I mean, I felt like I was turning into a tree! Could seem silly to someone reading it now, but the effect of it was powerful. It's useful to realize how close we are to everything around us, despite our perception that everything is separate and walled off. I am not just some sack of skin walking around -- I am a part of everything and everything is a part of me and it is God who resides at that intersection as the ultimate reality and ground of all being.

As far as catastrophic experiences, I mentioned in a post that some of the most insightful psychedelic experiences were the most difficult, the so-called bad trips. These were useful because I had to figure out how to work through them. We learn more about ourselves in difficult times than in pleasurable times. It was also like practice in a way. For example, if I had to deal with intense feelings of fear (which is common in difficult trips), there was really nothing to be afraid of. I was perfectly safe, even though I didn't feel that way. So I got to practice how to manage fear, very intense strong fear, in a safe setting. There were also times when I forced to look at things about myself that maybe weren't the most pleasant and that I liked to hide from myself. I had to face this and figure out how to constructively deal with it.

Usually the answer in these difficult sessions would come down to "let go." Stop fighting whatever it is and let it wash over. Now I would word that insight as: Let God be the one in control and surrender to Him.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

1. Yes. I've never done psychedelics but would not be opposed to participating in a scientific study.

2. I believe this is the wrong question. The use of psychedelics is generally seen as aids in experiencing transcendence of self, of becoming one with god, whatever that may be, or opening otherwise closed doors in the mind. It the observation of people using psychedelics and having them describe their experiences "valid"? Of course. But you seem to be describing spiritual experiences in a different way.

3. As a former believer who had what I then believed to be sincere and powerful experiences I would probably have been ambivalent about this. What I then described as spiritual experience covered a spectrum of inner events that ranged from the slight dopamine eupohoria that comes with discovery or confirmation. It also included a very transcendent experience involving music and a group singing where there was a real feeling of the boundaries between individual, other, and god falling away like the veil being parted. I don't think that "replication at will" would be assumed by anyone who is serious about the subject. Context seems to matter and as a wise man once said, you never step twice into the same river.

4. Again, I think the question of replication seems implied here and shouldn't be. But as to valid forms of testing, I'd be very interested in the results of research that was able to catalog reactions, doses and context in a way that became useful and repeatable for therapy and individual mental wellness and enhancement. I think there has to be something of the ritual and the subjective inherent to the experience but if, say, Ayahuasca could be legally obtained and guided use performed in the US because of studies that allowed it to be seen as therapeutic rather than dangerous or recreational then I'd definitely volunteer to be part of that testing.

The question of replication is central, IMO. If science is an adequate means to study spiritual experiences, then the results should be verifiable and replicable. Otherwise, it is merely observation and reporting.

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Back in 1970, I knew a non-member of the LDS Church and conversed with him one morning while he was still under the influence of a high dose of LSD. He was extremely excited to tell me he had just received a revelation of eternal truth that revealed to him the meaning of life. I asked if he would share what he had learned and he said he would. He explained to me that with the help of the drug he had come to the realization that existence and reality are affirmed on the immutable principle of there being a diametric and eternal opposition in all things. He went on to say that the only reason why anything exists, and the only reason why life has any meaning, is because there indeed is eternal opposition in all things. I remember him saying that if it weren't for this principle of opposition and contrast in all things that nothing could exist and life would have no meaning. He also cited examples of the principle such as good vs evil, light vs darkness, love vs hate and happiness vs misery. It was a memorable conversation as he was so very excited to share what he had learned. Later, he gave up on drugs and joined the Church. He's been an active TBM member ever since.

Meh!  LDS, LSD, what's the diff?!  

P.S.: Reminds me of when Spock and Kirk return to earth in one of the Star Trek movies, and Kirk, indicating Spock, says, "Don't mind him.  He was part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the '60s.  I think he did a little too much LDS ..."  

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

So I'm by no means a neurologist, but we are physical beings so when Divinity works within us some part of the brain will be activated. I know some have taken studies such as these as proof against God but I think studies like this show simply what parts of the brain are activated in spiritual experience. 

The alternative is that there is a part of our being that is not controlled by chemicals and electronic pulses, the soul, for a better word. Is this the part of us with which God interacts, or does He simply manipulate our chemistry?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mapman said:

This is a really interesting topic to me! As MiserereNobis pointed out, religious experiences seem to come when you are in an altered state of consciousness, whether it be praying/meditating, dreams, psychedelics, sensory deprivation, etc. and religious traditions have incorporated all of these things. One half-baked idea I've had is that maybe our mortal bodies just aren't normally able to comprehend the spiritual truths around us unless we get into the right state of mind. To get into a mindset where you are able to feel your connection to God or to the rest of the world, I suppose.

That being said, I don't think that I'd ever personally take psychedelics because I've heard stories about bad trips that sound pretty horrifying. Mostly I just don't see any reason to look for spiritual experiences that way since I have found other ways to find my connection to God that won't mess with the chemical balance in my brain. I admit I don't know very much about psychedelics, but I don't think I'd ever partake. I'd be interested in the results of the study.

Several of my most profound experiences came spontaneously, unsought for and unbidden. I was not in an altered state.

Having seen the devastation caused by mind-altering substances, I hesitate subjecting myself to their use even under controlled conditions. OxyContin after knee-replacement surgery was scary to say the least.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

No we cannot command God's presence. We are sinners, and He is not.

If I waited for God to answer all my prayers I would have very sore knees, LoL. I believe sometimes God answered my prayer through life experiences - the teaching was less direct, but more lasting and meaningful. However, I persisted over years, and I believe God answered my prayers when I was ready - when I could fully appreciate the precept. If we are asking to understand precept Z, but are only at precept B in our lives, it may take awhile....

My experiences too. I can't seem to conjure up a spiritual experience. I can replicate emotional experiences. For example, I get goosebumps every time I hear that magical change of key in the first movement of Mahler's Symphony No.1,  just before the horn calls. Man, that is awesome. But I can't muster repeating the experience of receiving a witness of the Spirit.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The alternative is that there is a part of our being that is not controlled by chemicals and electronic pulses, the soul, for a better word. Is this the part of us with which God interacts, or does He simply manipulate our chemistry?

I'm not sure it's either-or.  While I question the premise that use of illicit drugs can be a gateway to spiritual experience, "higher" states of consciousness, and so on (although even that, in my mind, is not necessarily "hard and fast": see Bobbieaware's post from earlier in the thread), If "the spirit and the body are the soul of man," (Doctrine & Covenants 88:15), and if the "fruit of the Spirit" is "love, joy, peace," and so on (Galatians 5:22), I think there's a high likelihood (in fact, I'm virtually certain of it) that part of how God manifests himself to His children is through physiological states and physical sensations.

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My experiences too. I can't seem to conjure up a spiritual experience. I can replicate emotional experiences. For example, I get goosebumps every time I hear that magical change of key in the first movement of Mahler's Synphony No. 1, just before the horn calls. Nan, that is awesome. But I can't muster repeating the experience of receiving a witness of the Spirit.

Uhhh, who's Nan?  Is she related to Abogadissimo and to the rest of your brood?  

Sorry.  

Couldn't resist!

[Bobbieaware]

49 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Meh!  LDS, LSD, what's the diff?!  

P.S.: Reminds me of when Spock and Kirk return to earth in one of the Star Trek movies, and Kirk, indicating Spock, says, "Don't mind him.  He was part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the '60s.  I think he did a little too much LDS ..."  

Now that's funny!!! I know a guy with no shame who'll engage in the most outrageous behavior in public just to see how the people who witness his bizarre antics will react. It's not unusual for his friends to have to cover for him (just as Kirk covered for Spock) by a apologizing to the "victims," saying they should be charitable and cut him some slack because he suffers from Turrets Syndrome. No joke...

Edited July 10, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[longview]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you suppose the chemical processes are the same?

Definitely not.  Some say that the human brain is the most complex computer in this world (don't know how whale brains would compare).  But the human brain is merely a terminal interfacing with the spirit mind/consciousness (your real self or inner being).  The spirit mind is orders of magnitude greater in complexity than the human brain.  It contains sentience which the human brain is incapable of approaching.  I consider bird species capable of having sentience only because they have spirit side to their souls. 

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you say the chemical and religious feelings are the same?

No.  Most chemical processes (hormones) affect the human brain but some might cause indirect addictions on the spirit mind.  Spiritual feelings come from the spirit side and are quite different from chemical euphoria/depression/whatever moods.  But I would agree that some (not all) can influence one side from the other.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

All noted and well and good, but my questions are specifically aimed at the Mormon experience. It has been suggested that all spiritual experiences can be studied and replicated by science. Is this true? What of the Mormons?

As I understand it, science does demand that all experiments be replicated.  The Holy Spirit does not avail itself of scientific scrutiny. Only to the extent that Alma 32 partakes of the experimental method, is there any sort of isomorphic relation to science.  As to drug induced states, or even to specific types of meditative states (even if induced by biofeedback machines), they have more to do with recreational drug use and magical conjuring than true religious experience -- that is, toying with brain chemistry or brain mechanics.  God cannot be Deus ex machina.  Anyhow, that is my opinion.

[cacheman]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, could we say that using certain chemicals always results in a profound experience, but what Mormons and perhaps others call the still small voice is less predictable? What useful things were learned from those catastrophic experiences?

I know this was directed towards Miserere, but I'd like to offer my thoughts.  

I use psychadelics on occasion for therapeutic and spiritual purposes.  Sometimes the experiences are sublime and creative, sometimes they are difficult and painful.  However, they are most often invigorating after the fact.  Cacti in particular has the ability to lift me out of a depressive state with the effects being evident for weeks or even months afterwards.  This benefit seems to occur whether the experience was difficult or not.  That is one reason why I value these plants so much.

The 'spiritual' benefits typically come in the form of allowing me to view things, people, ideas, in my life from perspectives that I hadn't thought of yet.  Sometimes the perspective make no sense, but sometimes they are able to solidify, clarify, or change my course of action.  Sometimes the difficult journeys are due to me grappling with myself over something internal or external in my life.... facing my demons I suppose.  For example, I've had moments of realizations of how I am impacting others.  I feel that it's been good for improving relationships in my life.  In the more sublime experiences, I feel strong connections with others, the world, the universe, etc.  I feel that these experiences have helped me become more empathetic and connected.

I know some people discount these practices or view them solely in a recreational context.... but I think we need to remember that the spiritual and therapeutic uses of entheogens have been an important component of many different cultures across the globe for longer than many (most?) religions.  Many have and still see the value in these plants.

cacheman

 

 

[mapman]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Several of my most profound experiences came spontaneously, unsought for and unbidden. I was not in an altered state.

Having seen the devastation caused by mind-altering substances, I hesitate subjecting myself to their use even under controlled conditions. OxyContin after knee-replacement surgery was scary to say the least.

I've certainly felt God's spirit in spontaneous moments, but my experience has been that I've had my most powerful spiritual experiences after fervent prayer, or meditation. It seems like a lot of scriptural accounts of more dramatic or mystical religious experiences include altered states, however. I don't recall off the top of my head where it's at, but I think there is a scripture that talks about how you can't see some things with your natural eyes, but you need to be transfigured first? Anyways, I agree with you that it's a good idea to stay away from mind-altering substances.

Edited July 10, 2017 by mapman

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is part of what I am asking. Can we even agree on what constitutes a religious experience? Unless we do that, what are we testing?

I think each test will need to define that as part of the parameters of the test, and of course that definition is bound to vary between experimenters.