Research into psychotherapy with psychoactive substances is at a turning point. On one hand, there is an emerging consensus regarding the clinical efficacy of compounds like psilocybin or ayahuasca in treating depressive and addictive disorders. On the other, a troubling trend threatens to distort scientific understanding: the elevation of the mystical experience to an absolute category. When spiritual subjectivity is imposed over objective data, science risks devolving into sectarian dogma, marginalizing psychological variables that are fundamental to therapeutic change.
In brief
- Reviewer bias: Scientific publication processes can be affected by ideological prejudices that disqualify rigorous studies based on psychological variables.
- Mysticism vs. Mechanisms: Attributing all therapeutic benefits exclusively to the mystical experience ignores other crucial factors like “decentering” or the therapeutic alliance.
- Sectarian risk: The formation of a hegemonic group that disdains other psychological approaches can lead psychedelic research toward intellectual and methodological isolation.
- Importance of rigor: To move forward, it is necessary to integrate both the mystical phenomenon and measurable cognitive and emotional processes without falling into fundamentalism.
The Journey of Scientific Research
The path from a theoretical idea to publication in a scientific journal is, by definition, a long process fraught with obstacles. It is not simply a matter of having a brilliant intuition; it requires creativity, prior knowledge, funding, and, above all, resilience in the face of systematic rejection. In the case of human studies, complexity increases exponentially due to ethical and bureaucratic factors, as well as the unpredictable nature of human behavior under pharmacological influence.
Once data is collected after months or years of fieldwork, the researcher must submit their findings to the scrutiny of expert peers. This peer-review process is the quality filter of science, but it can also become an ideological battlefield if reviewers fail to maintain a neutral and objective stance.
The Case of the Rejected Article: Science or Dogma?
A recent illustrative example highlights this tension. A team of researchers spent three years studying the psychological differences between habitual ayahuasca users and non-users, evaluating process variables (mechanisms that explain change) and outcomes (therapeutic efficacy). Among the variables analyzed was “decentering”—the ability to observe one’s own thoughts without identifying with them—a construct closely related to mindfulness.
After months of waiting, the manuscript was rejected by a high-impact pharmacology journal. The reviewer’s comments were blunt and dismissive: they labeled the article’s quality as “very poor” and noted that the methodology was inadequate for proving effects on the measured variables. The central argument for rejection was that the study had neglected the “mystical quality of the experience,” considering it the only real driving force behind therapeutic benefits.
This type of criticism reveals a fundamentalist stance: if the mystical is not measured, the work is invalid. It is argued that previous research has shown a correlation between mystical experiences and long-term well-being, and therefore any study ignoring this factor is incomplete. However, this exclusionary view ignores the complexity of psychological change.
Process Variables: Beyond the Mystical
Modern psychotherapy is based on a detailed analysis of how change occurs. There are multiple variables that contribute to recovery, such as the therapeutic alliance (the relationship between patient and therapist), the integration of material that emerges during the session, or specific cognitive techniques.
Decentering, for example, is a cognitive skill that allows people to observe their thoughts from a third-person perspective. Studies have shown that this capacity improves after psychedelic sessions and correlates with a reduction in depressive symptoms. Attributing all therapeutic success solely to the mystical component is simplistic and, potentially, erroneous. It is like saying a car moves only because it has an engine, while ignoring the steering, brakes, or wheels.
The Danger of Scientific Theocracy
What is happening in certain circles of psychedelic research is reminiscent of sectarian movements: there is a single “creed” (the mystical experience), and those who do not share it are disdained or labeled as ignorant. This group, led by highly influential researchers, has captured media attention and space in specialized journals, creating a barrier for other valid approaches.
The risk is clear: if the scientific community closes itself off under a spiritual dogma, it will lose its critical capacity. Science advances through debate, the falsification of hypotheses, and the integration of new evidence. If only studies that confirm mysticism as the sole mechanism are accepted, progress stagnates and valuable information about how these therapies actually work is discarded.
Furthermore, this stance can alienate professionals from other psychological disciplines who do not share that theological vision. For psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy to be accepted by the general scientific community and public health systems, it must demonstrate its efficacy through diverse and rigorous explanatory mechanisms, not just by appealing to the supernatural or spiritual.
Harm Reduction: Reading Between the Lines
For readers interested in this field, it is crucial to develop a critical eye. When faced with categorical claims about the “supernatural” nature of psychedelic effects, one must ask: what empirical evidence supports this conclusion? Have other possible explanatory variables been controlled?
Harm reduction in this context implies not only physical safety during substance use but also the protection of methodological rigor. A study that ignores key variables like decentering or the therapeutic alliance can lead to partial conclusions that limit the development of effective clinical protocols.
It is fundamental to distinguish between the subjective mystical experience, which is real and meaningful for many patients, and its dogmatic use as the only scientific explanation. Both can coexist without contradiction: a person can have a transcendent experience and, at the same time, improve their cognitive skills through decentering.
Toward a Pluralistic Future
Research into psychedelic psychotherapy must evolve toward an integrative model. This implies recognizing the importance of mystical experiences without denying or minimizing other measurable and relevant psychological processes. The goal is not to discard the spiritual, but to understand it within the framework of a broad science that encompasses neurobiology, cognitive psychology, and phenomenology.
Only then can we advance toward safer, more effective, and accessible treatments for society. Science does not fear difficult questions or contradictory data; on the contrary, it thrives on them. May the future of this discipline be pluralistic, rigorous, and free of dogmas that limit its transformative potential.
Educational content written from a harm reduction perspective and with respect for individual freedom. It is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional and is not intended to encourage or condemn any drug use. At Psiconáutica, we understand the importance of the balance between inner exploration and external rigor. Consciousness is not a singular territory; it encompasses both the mystical and the cognitive, and our task is to study both without prejudice. Let us continue working with prudence, curiosity, and respect for the complexity of the human mind.
Psiconáutica Editorial Team and Jose Carlos Bouso
