Entheogens: True or False?

After four decades of debate, the question of whether psychedelics can produce genuine mystical experiences remains unresolved. This paper reviews objections to that possibility and finds them all flawed. A major reason for the ongoing disagreement is the lack of an adequate theory linking mystical states to their causes. The author proposes a theory based on Charles Tart’s systems model of consciousness, explaining how identical states can arise from different methods—such as meditation or chemicals—yet lead to different after-effects. The cautious conclusion is that some psychedelics can sometimes induce genuine mystical experiences in some people, making the term entheogens possibly appropriate.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Despite 40 years of dialogue, debate still continues over whether psychedelics are capable of inducing genuine mystical experiences. This paper first reviews the arguments against this possibility and shows that all of them contain shortcomings. One reason the debate still continues is that there has been no adequate theory of mystical states and their relationship to the factors which produce them. Consequently a theory of mystical states based on Charles Tart’s systems model of consciousness is proposed. This theory suggests how identical states of consciousness can be induced by very different means, including contemplative practices and chemical substances, and yet have different after-effects. Taken together, these ideas lead to the cautious conclusion that some psychedelics can induce genuine mystical experiences sometimes in some people, and that the current tendency to label these chemicals as entheogens may be appropriate.