Entheogens and spiritual seeking: The quest for self-transcendence, psychological well-being, and psychospiritual growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and aims Although numerous cultures have used psychoactive substances for spiritual, or entheogenic , purposes, little is known about contemporary entheogenic spirituality, particularly outside of the few traditions that retain sacramental drug use practices. Method To better conceptualize contemporary patterns of entheogenic drug use, an international, online study of entheogenic drug users was conducted ( n = 684). Hierarchical regression analysis was used to explore entheogenic drug use in relation to measures of spiritual seeking (importance of spirituality in life, mediation practice, openness to experience), self-transcendent experiences (awe-proneness, mystical experiences), psychological well-being (psychological distress, subjective and eudaimonic well-being), and psychospiritual development (quiet ego, self-transcendence/wisdom, and spiritual development). ANOVA was used to compare entheogenic drug users with non-entheogenic drug users and non-drug users to assess differences across these psychospiritual variables. Results Of the 12 drug categories assessed, the classic psychedelics were most commonly used as entheogens. Entheogenic classic psychedelic use was associated with all of the assessed psychospiritual variables; entheogenic classic psychedelic users showed higher levels of spiritual seeking, self-transcendence, psychological well-being, and psychospiritual development compared to non-entheogenic classic psychedelic users and non-users. Conclusion Entheogenic spirituality may be conceptualized as a practice of spiritual seeking or implicit mysticism–the quest for self-transcendence and personal growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".