Entheogenic Experience and Spirituality

Grahl and colleagues deployed an anonymous online survey between April and September 2019, recruiting self‑selected adult participants (18+) from seven online communities and groups related to psychedelics and drug policy. The survey was hosted on SurveyXact; the institution waived formal ethical approval on the basis of anonymity and GDPR arrangements. Inclusion required sufficient English comprehension and experience with a commonly used entheogenic drug; responses failing initial demographic items or showing internal discrepancies were excluded, leaving 319 participants for analysis (213 completed the full survey; 106 partially completed it). The questionnaire collected demographic information (age, gender, education, work and relationship status), detailed entheogen use (choice of one drug from a listed set and descriptions of most meaningful, typical and worst experiences), motivations for use, current religious/spiritual affiliation (categories such as Buddhism, Christianity, New Age/Alternative, Secular Humanism, etc.), and engagement in spiritual or self‑developmental practices. Spirituality was operationalised by three indicators: (a) endorsement of spiritual motivation for entheogen use (dichotomous), (b) current spiritual or religious affiliation (dichotomous), and (c) a count of current spiritual practices (range 0–10). The survey did not use the term "mystical" in questions but included items that map onto domains often used to operationalise mystical experience. Personality was assessed with the Ten‑Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), providing brief measures of the Big Five traits. For analysis, the investigators conducted a principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation on participants' endorsements of emotional, cognitive and relational aspects of a typical experience to derive empirical factors representing experience types. They then constructed additive dependent variables from relevant factor items for use in multivariate linear regression models that examined how the three spirituality indicators and the Big Five traits (plus demographic covariates: gender coded 1 = male, age, education) predicted the two main experience types. Seven participants who indicated a third gender were excluded from regression analyses. Data analyses were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics 25.

After data cleaning, the sample comprised 319 participants. The median respondent was a 32‑year‑old male with some university education, typically living with a partner but unmarried, located mainly in North America and employed full time. Participants most commonly selected psilocybin as their entheogen (49%), followed by LSD (22%) and DMT (12%). Typical use over the prior 12 months had a median of 2–3 occasions (median 4–6 occasions when current non‑users were excluded). Use contexts were most often solitary (43%), with a partner (21%), or with close friends (27%). Most respondents reported a religious background and a present spiritual or religious affiliation; 71% endorsed a spiritual motivation for entheogen use and 69% reported at least one ongoing spiritual practice (meditation 49% being the most common). Endorsement of a spiritual motivation correlated positively with affiliation to Buddhism (r = 0.25, p < 0.001) and New Age/Alternative spirituality (r = 0.16, p = 0.014) but not with Christian or Secular Humanist affiliation. Item‑level comparisons showed that both the most meaningful and a typical psychedelic experience were dominated by feelings of joy, peace and love, psychological insight, enhanced connections to others and nature, and a sense of homecoming or return to essence. The most meaningful experiences differed from typical ones primarily by greater endorsement of ego dissolution/"ego death", contact or unity with non‑ordinary beings and transcendent forces, and ineffability—features aligning with classical domains of mystical experience. Worst experiences were characterised by fear, confusion, sadness and isolation. Notably, fear was more likely in the most meaningful than in typical experiences and correlated with ego dissolution and contact with non‑ordinary beings. The PCA of characteristics for a typical experience yielded six factors (F1–F6). Factor 1 (F1) grouped insight, connectedness, and positive emotions (joy, love, peace) and was interpreted as the foundational structure of typical entheogenic experiences. Factor 2 (F2) represented more unusual or mystical‑type characteristics (including ego dissolution and contact with transcendent forces). Factor 3 captured cognitive difficulty or bafflement and overlapped with F2, while Factors 4–6 reflected elements of challenging or adverse experiences. Two multivariate linear regression models used factor‑based additive scores as dependent variables. The model predicting mystical‑type experience (an additive construct from items loading on F2, range 0–12) had an adjusted R2 of 0.28, indicating that spirituality indicators, personality and demographics explained 28% of variance. Spiritual motivation, spiritual affiliation, spiritual practice and age were significant predictors (p < 0.05); trait Openness predicted mystical experience positively, while Agreeableness predicted it negatively. The model predicting experiences of insight, connectedness and positivity (additive construct from F1 items, range 0–16) had an adjusted R2 of 0.13. In this model only spiritual motivation and the personality traits Conscientiousness and Openness reached significance; spiritual affiliation and spiritual practice were not significant predictors after adjustment.

Grahl and colleagues interpret their findings as evidence for at least two empirically distinct types of entheogenic experience that participants regard as spiritual. The first type is a mystical‑type experience, comprising ego dissolution, encounters with non‑ordinary beings or transcendent forces, and ineffability. This type maps closely onto conceptualisations that treat spiritual experiences as both anomalous and connected to an ideal or transcendent reality; it was predicted in the regression models by participants' spiritual affiliation, engagement in spiritual practices, and spiritual motivation, along with higher Openness and lower Agreeableness. The second type consists of insight, positive feelings (joy, peace, love) and enhanced connectedness to people and nature. This group of characteristics formed the foundational factor for typical psychedelic experiences in the PCA. Unlike the mystical‑type, these experiences were predicted only by spiritual motivation and some personality traits (Openness and Conscientiousness), and not by affiliation or practices. The investigators suggest two non‑mutually exclusive interpretations: first, that people who are spiritually inclined may ascribe spiritual meaning to ordinary or intense positive states in ways comparable to religious ascription in other contexts; second, that entheogen users may operate with a competing or broader definition of spirituality—centred on personal growth and healing rather than on specialness or transcendent ideals—explaining, for example, why many self‑identified Secular Humanists also reported spiritual motivation. The authors acknowledge limits to causal inference: the cross‑sectional, self‑report design cannot determine whether prior spiritual orientation shapes the characterisation of experiences, or whether entheogenic experiences subsequently orient people towards spiritual affiliations and practices. They also note methodological limitations inherent to the study: self‑selection through online communities likely biases the sample towards current users and those favourably disposed to psychedelics, and internet recruitment may under‑represent some user groups. These caveats frame the authors' characterisation of the study as exploratory and suggest caution in generalising findings beyond the recruited sample.

The investigators conclude that entheogen‑induced spirituality is not monolithic: one identifiable subtype corresponds to classical mystical experiences closely tied to notions of transcendence and anomalous encounter, while another subtype centres on insight, positive affect and social or natural connectedness and does not fit neatly within frameworks that define spiritual experiences by specialness. Spiritual affiliation and practice predicted only the mystical subtype, whereas spiritual motivation predicted both subtypes. The study's main limitations are the self‑selected, internet‑recruited sample and likely bias toward current and positively inclined entheogen users, and the findings are presented as exploratory rather than definitive.