Psychedelics as a Training Experience for Psychedelic Therapists: Drawing on History to Inform Current Practice

The study is an archival analysis of de-identified files from the Spring Grove LSD Training Study held at the Karnes Archives and Special Collections Research Center. Nielson consulted institutional advisors and a surviving member of the original Spring Grove team (William Richards) and reports that reviewing de-identified public records did not require additional IRB approval; Richards confirmed that the original study had received contemporaneous regulatory approvals and reported no serious adverse events. A specific research question guided the review: whether participants in the LSD Training Study found the experience positive, personally helpful, and/or professionally relevant. A purposive sampling strategy was used: three files selected as representative to establish coding and data management procedures, followed by every 5th file from the full set, producing a sample of 26 files out of the 100 available. All archival documents were de-identified; pseudonyms are used in the presentation of participant statements. Data extracted for analysis included responses from seven questionnaires (all gathered at the 1-year post-session mark), 17 rating-scale responses, and demographic items (age, gender, occupation, religion, marital status). Rating scales used a −5 to +5 range; the negative-to-positive scoring was converted to positive integers for analysis. Microsoft Excel was used to compile the data and calculate descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) and p values for selected rating-scale items. The author notes that some documents were illegible in places and that only a subset of files contained completed questionnaires.

The sampled archival set comprised 26 files; however, only 7 of those files contained responses to the open-ended questionnaire used for qualitative analysis. The extracted text does not clearly report the demographic breakdown or exact ages from the table mentioned, beyond noting that a table summarises age, gender, occupation, religion, and marital status for the seven respondents. Open-ended questionnaire material illustrated several recurrent themes. Many respondents described the LSD session as personally meaningful, reporting greater emotional range, enhanced perspective, creative insight, or deepened spiritual and religious understanding. Examples include statements such as "It has been specifically relevant to me in opening up my personal structure to a greater variety in depth of emotions" and "I feel the experience is one of the most important of my life." Some participants said the sessions brought unconscious issues to consciousness and aided personal progress; one participant criticised the guide and described a second session as unhelpful. On attitudes toward psychedelics, participants generally reported increased respect and caution, greater interest in the therapeutic potential of altered states, and in some cases a conviction that periodic access to religious aspects of the experience was important. When asked about spontaneous recurrence of effects, five respondents answered "no," one said "regretfully, no," and one (Janet) reported occasional low-intensity recurrences associated with music or meditation but did not describe distress. The single item asking about being unusually upset since the experience was answered with "no" or "not more than usual" by all respondents. Quantitative rating-scale data (six items reported) indicated significant increases (p ≤ .05) after the LSD experience on four items: interest in psychedelic drugs, understanding of psychedelic drugs, the educational value of the experience, and willingness to take LSD again under medical supervision in a different setting of the participant's choice. Two items did not change significantly: willingness to take LSD again in the same experimental setting, and willingness to take LSD again with no medical supervision in a setting of the participant's choice. The extracted text does not supply the precise means, standard deviations, or p values beyond the threshold statement (p ≤ .05) for the significant items.

Nielson presents this work as the first systematic attempt to analyse material from the Spring Grove LSD Training Study and cautions that the early-era research context differs from contemporary standards. Nevertheless, the author argues the Spring Grove project was relatively well designed for its time and provides a useful historical reference when considering whether formal training experiences with serotonergic hallucinogens should be offered today. The principal empirical observations are that some participants reported personal and professional benefit, some expressed willingness to repeat the experience under medical supervision, and willingness to take the drug outside controlled settings did not increase—an observation the author notes is relevant to concerns about abuse liability for Schedule I substances. A substantial portion of the discussion addresses ethical, logistical, and regulatory issues that would accompany any modern training programme that included administration of a psychedelic. Nielson emphasises that current ethical review systems and regulatory expectations are more stringent than in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and that a contemporary study would likely need to justify participant exposure by generating safety data or other scientifically relevant outcomes. Practical barriers include the need for regulatory and IRB approvals, appropriate facilities and licensure, trained staff, and sustainable funding; participants should not be asked to pay to participate in research. The author discusses an alternative pathway in which trainees might receive a legally approved psychedelic as patients (akin to some ketamine models), but notes this raises dual-relationship concerns and recommends separating training supervision from clinical treatment roles. The paper also highlights equity and representation issues. Given stigma around psychedelic use, Nielson warns that requiring or publicising psychedelic experience as part of training could deter applicants from marginalised communities or expose them to greater social or professional harms, potentially worsening diversity among therapists. Limitations of the archival analysis are acknowledged: the data do not reveal how many participants became psychedelic therapists, only 7 of 26 sampled files contained questionnaire data (reasons for missing data are unknown), and historical regulatory changes may have constrained participants' ability to apply the experience professionally. For future work and programme design, the author recommends routine documentation of trainees' pre- and post-state, monitoring of long-term desires and behaviours related to drug use, and comparative evaluation of psychedelic-session training against lower-risk nondrug alternatives (for example, holotropic breathwork) to establish whether the drug experience delivers additive value commensurate with its risks and costs.