Enriching the Common Core of Mystical Experience: A Qualitative Analysis of Interviews with Daoist Monks and Nuns

ABSTRACTThe scientific study of psychedelic, religious, spiritual, and mystical (PRSM) experiences can be advanced by applying culturally inclusive qualitative methodologies that illuminate the breadth and depth of individual experiences in a variety of contexts. To enrich the common core thesis of mysticism and offer insights that could contribute more generally to bridging the gap between psychedelic and religious experiences, the current study used a phenomenological approach to explore the structure and content of mystical experiences among Daoist practitioners. The sample included 19 highly experienced Daoist monks and nuns. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with orienting questions that were adapted from the theoretical framework of the modified common core thesis, which taps into eight broad categories of mystical experience (i.e. ego loss, timelessness and spaceless, unity, inner subjectivity, positive affect, sacredness, noetic quality, and ineffability). Thematic coding suggested two clusters of Daoist experiences, one featuring a group of themes comprising dissolution of self, unitary experiences, and bodily sensations, and the other group of themes including egress of spirit and resonance with divinities and spirits. The derived themes corresponded to some prescriptions of the common core thesis, yet extended the theory with unique themes – egress of spirit and bodily sensations – that connect introvertive, extrovertive, and interpretive mysticisms. We draw on ideas found in Daoist canons and scriptures to provide a contextualized discussion of the findings, and highlight some of the ways that the findings contribute to expanding the common core thesis to a broader range of PRSM experiences.Keywords: Mysticismqualitativeeastern religions AcknowledgmentsThis project/publication was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton Religion Trust, awarded via the International Research Network for the Study of Science and Belief in Society (INSBS), the support of John Templeton Foundation, the American Psychological Association’s Division 36 (Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality), and the Shand Grant of the Society for Scientific Study of Religion. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton Religion Trust, John Templeton Foundation, or the INSBS.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the John Templeton Foundation; American Psychological Association Division 36; Society for Scientific Study of Religion; International Research Network for the Study of Science and Belief in Society (INSBS); Templeton Religion Trust.