‘More evolved than you’: Evolutionary spirituality as a cultural frame for psychedelic experiences

Evans begins by locating a long-standing cultural frame for psychedelics within what he calls "evolutionary spirituality": a family of ideas, emerging since the late nineteenth century, that treats human evolution as ongoing, improvable and in some versions spiritual. Rather than accepting Darwinian evolution as a value-neutral process in which most lineages go extinct, proponents of evolutionary spirituality often combine scientific language with spiritual claims, asserting that evolution can be guided toward higher forms of human life. Evans traces this lineage through a broad roster of movements and figures (from Spencer, Bergson and Theosophy to the human potential and transhumanist movements), and notes an important conceptual ingredient: a tendency to extend Lamarckian-style thinking to psychological and spiritual traits so that acquired states (including mystical or drug-induced states) are taken as markers or engines of evolutionary advance. This essay sets out to define that tradition and to identify five ethical and political tendencies that Evans regards as problematic within it: spiritual narcissism, contempt for those judged "less evolved," social Darwinism and Malthusianism, spiritual eugenics, and the propensity for illiberal medical‑spiritual utopias. He illustrates each tendency with historical and contemporary examples from writers, spiritual movements and some influential figures in psychedelic culture, before proposing responses and counter-examples to these tendencies. The piece is presented as a critical historical and philosophical essay rather than as an empirical study of public attitudes or clinical outcomes.

The extracted text does not include a formal Methods section. From the prose it is clear the work is an essayistic, historical and conceptual review: Evans draws on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, quotations and well‑known examples to map the intellectual genealogy of evolutionary spirituality and to illustrate the five ethical tendencies he highlights. Evans organises the material thematically. He first sketches the intellectual background (e.g. Darwin, Lamarckian ideas, late‑19th and 20th‑century movements), then addresses each ethical tendency in turn, supporting claims with illustrative quotations, historical anecdotes and references to prominent figures (for instance, Bucke, William James, Aldous and Julian Huxley, Nietzsche, Maslow, Leary, Osho, Julian Huxley, HG Wells, and contemporary transhumanist and investor actors). Where relevant, Evans notes continuities into contemporary transhumanism and Silicon Valley philanthropy and highlights instances where psychedelics have been explicitly framed as tools for evolutionary advancement. Because this is a discursive essay rather than an empirical systematic review, there is no description of search strategy, inclusion criteria, or quantitative synthesis in the extracted text. The approach is interpretive and illustrative: Evans selects examples to make conceptual points about recurring ethical tendencies in the tradition.

Evans organises the substantive material around five ethical tendencies he identifies within evolutionary spirituality, illustrating each with historical and contemporary examples. Spiritual narcissism: The tradition often fosters an elite self‑image in which a minority are seen as advancing to higher stages of consciousness. Evans argues this promotes collective spiritual narcissism because proponents tend to celebrate becoming "godlike" and often believe only a few are actually making that ascent. He cites Abraham Maslow's notion of "advance scouts for the race" and promotional language from Ken Wilber (a quoted promotional passage describes "a small percentage of the human population, around 5%", undergoing a "quantum leap"), and links similar sentiments to wealthy participants in post‑war human potential movements and contemporary luxury psychedelic retreats. Figures in Silicon Valley and psychedelic philanthropy (Evans names investors such as Christian Angermayer and Sean Parker) are presented as examples of elites who may adopt an evolutionary‑spiritual self‑image. Contempt for the less‑evolved masses: A recurrent motif, Evans reports, is denigration of those judged "unfit" or "unaware." He traces this to Nietzschean and Modernist currents and gives numerous historical examples: D. H. Lawrence, Aldous and Julian Huxley, Theosophical thinkers (including explicit racial hierarchies in some Theosophical writing), and countercultural psychonautic snobbery described by Tom Wolfe. Evans highlights that some proponents have explicitly racialised or class‑based hierarchies, and he documents rhetoric from figures such as Rajneesh (Osho) and Timothy Leary that emphasised sharp divides between an evolving minority and the masses. Social Darwinism and Malthusianism: Evans shows how evolutionary spirituality can slide into Social Darwinian and Malthusian attitudes—arguments that the population contains too many "unfit" individuals and that limiting or letting some die is in the service of progress. He traces this stance to Malthus, Herbert Spencer and others, and gives examples across the twentieth century (Aleister Crowley, HG Wells, Julian Huxley, Paul Ehrlich, Annie Besant). The essay records proclamations favouring population control, apocalyptic cleansing, or acceptance of the passing of the weak as part of evolutionary progress, and notes continuity with some environmentalist and transhumanist rhetoric about overpopulation and bifurcation of humanity. Spiritual eugenics: Evans documents a substantial historical overlap between evolutionary spirituality and eugenic thought. He notes that many prominent figures associated with evolutionary spirituality accepted or promoted positive and/or negative eugenics (Francis Galton, Nietzsche, George Bernard Shaw, the Huxleys, HG Wells, and others are listed). The text records concrete eugenic proposals made by figures such as Havelock Ellis and WB Yeats, and the advocacy of measures ranging from voluntary sterilisation to more coercive policies in earlier decades. Evans also links ideas about psychedelics as tools for "evolutionary" enhancement to contemporaneous enthusiasm for genetic and biotechnical modification among some transhumanists and investors, and records debates about "liberal eugenics" (individuals' rights to self‑modification) versus coercive eugenic programmes. Illiberal medical‑spiritual utopias: The final tendency described is the construction of top‑down, quasi‑medical theocracies or technocratic elites that would steer evolution. Evans uses Aldous Huxley’s Island and Gerald Heard’s vision of "Collegiums" to show how some proposals imagine tightly governed societies with psychiatric, neuro‑theological and reproductive controls to direct population‑level self‑actualisation. He documents proposals for state or expert‑led control of reproduction, indoctrination through ritual (including mandatory psychedelic rites in Huxley’s fictional island), and an international policing/psychiatric authority dedicated to achieving a single spiritual goal for society. Across these themes Evans repeatedly connects historical examples to contemporary expressions: the persistence of elitist and technocratic rhetoric in some strands of transhumanism, the role of wealthy funders and luxury access to enhancement technologies, and the potential for bifurcation (an enriched elite versus left‑behind masses). He also notes exceptions and counter‑examples within the same intellectual tradition (for instance, William James's pluralism and opposition to eugenics), signalling that these tendencies are tendencies rather than universal features.

Evans interprets the material to argue that evolutionary spirituality repeatedly combines scientific vocabulary with religious or teleological claims about human progress, producing a "science‑religion" prone to particular ethical problems. He emphasises that proponents often commit a naturalistic fallacy—moving from descriptive claims about evolution to prescriptive claims about how humans ought to be organised and governed—and that the evidential basis for many of the moral prescriptions is weak or ideological rather than empirical. In positioning his account relative to earlier scholarship, Evans treats the phenomena as historically recurrent: nineteenth‑century Lamarckian and eugenic ideas feed into early twentieth‑century theosophies and human potential movements, which in turn inform late twentieth and twenty‑first century transhumanist and psychedelic cultures. He stresses continuity across time while acknowledging variation: not every figure or movement endorsed all tendencies, and some important actors (for example William James) opposed coercive eugenic policies and emphasised pluralism. Evans also identifies key uncertainties and limits to his argument. He recognises that his characterisation highlights tendencies rather than universal truths, and that there are notable counter‑examples and more benign variants of evolutionary spirituality. He further acknowledges practical ambiguities about contemporary risks—e.g. the reduced plausibility of state‑led mass eugenics today versus the real concern that new genetic and neurotechnologies will be distributed inequitably. Finally, he highlights political implications discussed in the essay: the risk that elite appropriation of enhancement technologies could provoke antitranshumanist backlash and slow legitimate scientific progress, and the ethical dilemmas posed by "liberal eugenics" (individual rights to enhancement that nonetheless deepen inequality).

Evans concludes by stressing that the tendencies he has identified are real and recurrent but not inevitable. He offers counter‑examples—William James for pluralism and opposition to eugenics, John Stuart Mill for a liberal framework that permits "experiments in living" without imposing one model of flourishing on all—and points to Esalen as an organisational example that tempered some aspects of human potential culture by encouraging epistemic humility and pluralism. Practically, Evans recommends responses rather than denunciations: re‑incorporating traditional virtues such as humility, charity and service; resisting the conversion of evolution into a prescriptive religion; and pursuing a form of "democratic transhumanism" that communicates benefits, makes therapies and enhancements affordable and safe, and prioritises healing ordinary people rather than creating an exclusive elite. He warns that if transhumanism and enhancement technologies remain the province of the ultra‑rich, social polarisation and conspiracy‑laden backlash are likely. The closing reflection is normative: one can accept spiritual development without converting it into a hierarchy of "more evolved" and "less evolved," and policymakers and practitioners should avoid institutionalising the kinds of scientific‑religious dogmas that historically led to illiberal or abusive policies.