Holy Spirit or Holy Psyche? Energy-Like Somatic Experiences in Contemporary Abrahamic Meditative Traditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meditation practitioners, historically and today, sometimes report experiencing energy-like sensations in their body. While recent empirical studies have explored such experiences in the context of Buddhist and Yogic practice, no comparable research has yet examined energy-like sensations in Jewish, Christian, or Islamic traditions. We interviewed 30 practitioners and 30 teachers from Abrahamic contemplative traditions and found that energy-like somatic experiences were common within our sample. Twelve practitioners (40%) spontaneously reported having experienced at least one, and thirteen teachers (43%) described them occurring either personally or to their students and colleagues. These experiences occurred along a continuum of intensities and valences, with interpretations ranging from anticipated signs of progress to striking unexpected events. Participants drew on a variety of metaphors and frameworks to make sense of these experiences. They often blended ideas from multiple traditions and mixed concepts from spiritual and psychological explanatory models. When comparing these descriptions from our sample to those reported by Western Buddhists in earlier research, we observe notable commonalities as well as differences in the patterns of energy-like experiences across these traditions. Our findings suggest that energy-like somatic experiences emerge through a complex interaction of cultural and bodily processes, where interpretive frameworks interact with attentional and biological processes to determine the specific phenomenology and outcomes of these energetic sensations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".