• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Major Approaches to the Study of Mysticism

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Introduction

Mysticism has fascinated scholars for centuries because it sits at the crossroads of religion, psychology, philosophy, and culture. While religious texts and practitioners often describe mystical experience as ineffable and universal, academic study requires frameworks to compare and interpret those claims. Over the past 120 years, several broad approaches have emerged to explain what mysticism is, where it comes from, and what it means.

These approaches differ on two main questions:

• Universality vs. Context: Are mystical experiences fundamentally the same across traditions, or are they deeply shaped by language, doctrine, and culture?
• Explanation vs. Understanding: Should mysticism be explained through psychology, biology, and social forces, or understood on its own terms as a sui generis phenomenon?

Answering these questions has led to a spectrum of “schools” or models. Some emphasize a perennialist or “common core” view; others argue for contextualism or constructivism; still others take phenomenological, developmental, neurobiological, or sociological perspectives. These are not mutually exclusive; many scholars combine elements of several models. But knowing their outlines clarifies the ongoing debate about the nature of mystical experience.

1. The Perennialist or “Common Core” Approach

Perennialism argues that behind the diversity of mystical traditions lies a single, timeless truth. On this view, Buddhist enlightenment, Sufi fana, Christian union with God, and Hindu samadhi all reflect the same fundamental encounter with ultimate reality. Differences in language and symbolism are secondary.

Key figures include Aldous Huxley (who coined “the perennial philosophy”), philosopher W. T. Stace, and Huston Smith. More recently, Ken Wilber has developed an “integral” framework that incorporates perennialist ideas alongside developmental psychology. Perennialism has been appealing because it supports interfaith dialogue, offers a universalist vision of spirituality, and presents mysticism as evidence of transcendent reality rather than cultural construction.

Critics charge that perennialism homogenizes very different experiences, projecting a Westernized ideal of mystical union onto traditions that may emphasize something else entirely (such as non-duality, emptiness, or ritual mediation). Still, perennialism remains influential in popular spirituality and in some scholarly circles sympathetic to religious claims.

2. The Contextualist / Constructivist Approach

Since the 1970s, contextualism—sometimes called constructivism—has become the dominant paradigm in religious studies. Its central claim is that there is no such thing as a pure, unmediated mystical experience. Instead, every experience is interpreted and shaped by the categories, expectations, and symbols of the tradition in which it occurs.

Philosopher Steven T. Katz is the most prominent advocate, arguing that mystical experiences are “ineffable” only in a limited sense and are always cognitively mediated. Wayne Proudfoot and Robert Sharf have expanded the argument, showing how claims of universality often mask the historical and doctrinal conditions that produce mystical language.

The strength of contextualism is its historical rigor: it takes traditions seriously on their own terms and resists flattening them into a universal schema. Its critics argue it can become overly relativistic, leaving no room for recurring patterns or cross-cultural similarities. This debate with perennialism remains one of the most active fault lines in the field.

3. Phenomenological / Comparative Approach

The phenomenological approach seeks to describe rather than explain or judge mystical experience. Following thinkers like Rudolf Otto (who emphasized the “numinous”), Mircea Eliade, and to some extent Ninian Smart, this approach brackets doctrinal claims and focuses on the inner structure of experience itself—how it feels, what patterns it follows, and how it transforms the individual.

Phenomenologists often create typologies of mystical experience (e.g., introvertive vs. extrovertive mysticism) and compare them across cultures. The advantage is clarity and neutrality, providing a vocabulary for discussing otherwise elusive experiences. The disadvantage is that such typologies may implicitly assume essential categories, smuggling perennialist assumptions back into supposedly neutral analysis.

4. Psychological and Neurobiological Approaches

Another powerful strand of scholarship investigates the mental and bodily mechanisms behind mystical states. William James's Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) remains a classic for its emphasis on the psychological dimensions of religion. In recent decades, “neurotheology” researchers such as Andrew Newberg have used brain imaging to study meditation, prayer, and psychedelic-induced mystical states. Michael Persinger's “God Helmet” experiments also sought to elicit mystical sensations through electromagnetic stimulation.

These approaches treat mysticism as an altered state of consciousness, potentially accessible to empirical study. They illuminate correlations between brain states and spiritual experiences and suggest evolutionary or adaptive functions for such states. Critics warn against reductionism: even if a mystical state can be mapped onto neural activity, that does not exhaust its meaning or its transformative power.

5. Evolutionary and Developmental Approaches

Some theorists, notably Ken Wilber and Jean Gebser, frame mysticism as a developmental achievement—the outcome of higher stages of consciousness unfolding over time. This perspective ties spiritual experience to psychological growth, suggesting that mysticism reflects not regression but integration and transcendence.

Such stage theories can be inspiring and offer a narrative of human potential. Yet they are also controversial: they risk imposing Western hierarchical categories onto diverse traditions and often lack empirical grounding. Still, they highlight how mystical experience may evolve within individuals and societies.

6. Sociological and Political Approaches

From the perspective of sociology and critical theory, mysticism is never purely private or apolitical. Scholars such as Talal Asad (drawing on Michel Foucault) have examined how religious experiences and discourses are embedded in power relations, social institutions, and identity formation. Catherine Albanese and others show how mysticism has been linked to social reform movements, countercultures, and forms of resistance.

This approach reveals how mystical claims can legitimize authority, inspire communities, or disrupt established norms. However, by focusing on external structures it may underplay the inner, transformative dimension of mysticism.

7. Postmodern and Pluralist Approaches

In the contemporary era, some scholars move beyond the perennialist/contextualist divide to embrace pluralism and hybridity. Jeffrey Kripal and Robert Forman (a “soft” perennialist) argue for multiple ways of knowing, including nonordinary states. Postmodern approaches emphasize that no single theory captures the full range of mystical experience.

This pluralism allows greater openness to new forms of spirituality and cross-cultural fusion. Yet it can also risk relativism or theoretical incoherence. Nevertheless, it reflects the current academic mood: skepticism about grand narratives, combined with curiosity about diverse human experiences.

Integrating the Approaches

In practice, these approaches often overlap. A single study might use neurobiological data to explore meditation (psychological), situate the practice historically (contextualist), and discuss its transformative meaning (phenomenological). The field has gradually shifted from arguing for a single “correct” model to acknowledging the legitimacy of multiple perspectives, each shedding light on different aspects of a complex phenomenon.

This pluralism mirrors mysticism itself, which often emphasizes paradox, multiplicity, and the limits of language. Rather than choosing between perennialism and contextualism, many scholars now ask: Under what conditions do similarities emerge, and where do differences matter most?

Conclusion

The study of mysticism is no longer dominated by a single paradigm. Perennialism opened the door to seeing connections across traditions, but contextualism rightly highlighted the importance of historical and cultural specificity. Meanwhile, phenomenological, psychological, developmental, and sociological approaches each add crucial layers of understanding.

Recognizing these multiple lenses does not dilute mysticism but enriches our appreciation of it. By examining how mystical experiences arise, how they are interpreted, and what effects they have, scholars can better grasp why they persist across human cultures. Mysticism remains a fertile testing ground for questions about consciousness, culture, and the limits of human knowledge — and the ongoing dialogue between these approaches ensures that the field remains vibrant and self-critical.

Major Approaches to the Study of Mysticism