Catholicism, Psychedelics, and Mysticism: Correlations and Displacements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article charts some of the conversations around psychedelics, mysticism, Catholicism, and the Catholic mystics. I provide a context for the current “psychedelic renaissance” and bring the focus to psychedelics and Catholicism. The literature’s frequent comparisons of psychedelic mystical trips with Catholic mysticism raises questions about the legitimacy of religious ways of knowing, the status of the discipline of theology in Western academic cultures, and how Catholicism is often depicted in the psychedelic literature. The first part closes with a survey of the challenges of defining mysticism and some of the patterns perennial to the Catholic mystical experience. I look at the problem of methodological displacement, that is, how a researcher comes to conclusions with material that is formally outside of their discipline’s boundaries. This is a challenge for scholars of every stripe when they countenance subject matter that is beyond their expertise—and the lure to still read that material through their known methodology and worldview—but the problem of displacement is conspicuously compounded when the sciences countenance theological and religious themes. I provide concrete examples of displacement with psychedelic and Catholic mysticism, how it can be corrected, and how this would benefit dialogue. In the Conclusions, I outline persistent concerns and theological objections about some of the claims of psychedelic mysticism but hold onto the hope for further dialogue. My sustained attention is to the comparisons that are frequently made between the psychedelic and Catholic mystical experiences and whether these correlations are critically warranted.
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 | 0.020 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".