Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42467097›Full record

ReviewPsychopharmacology2026

The mystic trip: how psychedelic research fell for mysticism.

Richard Saville-Smith, Sharday Mosurinjohn

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychopharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Richard Saville-SmithSchool of Religion, Queen's University, 407 Theological Hall, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Sharday Mosurinjohn1 Fiscavaig, Isle of Skye, Scotland. sharday.mosurinjohn@queensu.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9829-8551

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis paper critiques the use of the term "mysticism" in psychedelic research, arguing its continued use is outdated and misleading.

findingsIt highlights the confusion stemming from the historical context of "mysticism," particularly through the works of Walter Stace and Walter Pahnke, whose ideas have shaped the psychedelic discourse despite being flawed and largely unexamined. The paper is divided into two parts: the first is an archaeology that re-evaluates these foundational texts that misled psychedelic discourse; the second is a genealogy that traces how the concept of "mysticism", with its religious roots, became attached to "psychedelics" and became normalised in second generation psychedelic research.

conclusionsIt advocates for rebranding the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) to the Psychedelic Experience Questionnaire (PEQ), emphasising that this change accords nicely with the idea of Psychedelic Experience which Walter Pahnke developed in his later research, as a five-part typology, and liberates the instrument from the hangover of a dubious legacy in which the correlation between therapeutic outcomes and mystical experiences invites psychedelic experiences to be shoehorned into a very particular and peculiar quasi-religious construct.

Indexed as

MethodologyMystical Experience QuestionnaireMysticismPsychedelics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.