Safe, Controlled Mysticism

by Ruby Sara

While poking about in the varous news media that taunt me and leave me so often ravaged by despair, I came upon an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding the reemergence of scientific inquiry into the effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms (the online article is password protected).  The article itself is not truly what I want to talk about – I’ll leave it up to my readers to decide their own opinions about hallucinogens and whether they possess spiritual or psychological value, etc.  But what caught my eye was this passage:

Among the first to venture forward was Dr. Griffiths of Hopkins. He wanted to see if psilocybin could induce a mystical experience, like those reported by some participants in Dr. Pahnke’s Good Friday experiment, but in a safe environment, with careful experimental controls.

The notion that mystical experiences, regardless of whether they are induced by entheogens, drumming, breathing exercises, chanting or what have you, can be truly induced in careful, safe, controlled environments under scientific scrutiny is what has me pondering today.

Is mysticism ever safe?  If you have a groovy, feel-good experience that doesn’t require you to re-examine anything about yourself or your environment, is it a mystical experience?  Now, it’s not that I’m one of those folks who thinks you have to undergo some kind of personal emotional, spiritual or bodily agony in order to experience communion with the Divine (or right, meaningful relationship with the Earth, etc.) - I did a considerable amount of research on asceticism in school (people who live for 30 years on top of a pole fascinate me, what can I say?), and have come to the belief that while the pain and suffering route may work for some, it’s pretty much entirely theology-driven (that theology being predominately dependent upon a deep hatred of the body).  Much mysticism is theology-driven, I think.  Yet, there is also a body of evidence that suggests that there are similarities between descriptions of mystical experience from differing religions.

So – what is a mystical experience (I’m asking the small questions today, apparently)?  Obviously, I don’t know.  I’ve had them.  I know what I mean by them.  When I talk about mystical experiences, I am usually talking about feeling bliss, joy, ecstasy, rapture, communion and holy good stuff, yes (often in a manner that’s nearly impossible to communicate in words – so much so that it appears ridiculous to use the word “joy” or “ecstasy” to encapsulate these moments – poetry is the only language that comes close…thus the mountain of fall-down gorgeous word-smithing by mystics worldwide).  But I can also mean those wicked-ass “Dark Nights of the Soul” we were talking about a couple weeks ago.  I certainly believe that every mystical experience I’ve had has resulted in my own deep, soul-level transformation.  And not one has felt safe, or controlled, or careful.  This is of course not to say that I think people ought to run out and do stupid things in order to have themselves a mystical experience – duh.  What I am asking is that in an experimental situation, even a comfy one (as the article describes – couches and plush carpets, etc.), while it may be possible to have a meaningful experience, or even a mind-opening one, is it possible to be mystical?  Are we cheapening this word and what it implies by using it so casually?  Or are we using it casually? 

Perhaps it is possible to have a moment of pure communion with the Holy in a controlled environment.  Having never participated in a study like this, I can hardly say, it’s true.  But I can’t help but feel…weird about it.  As though there’s something that I’m missing here that makes it not quite right.  But again, I’m entirely suspicious of almost any civilized enterprise, particularly when it comes to scientific inquiry into the “biology” of religious experience, which I just can’t help but think is really quite silly.