Neo-Perennialism and Mystical Exceptionalism
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion September 22, 2025 DOI: 10.1163/15700682-bja10161 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Citations | 2 |
| Key points | Argues that neo-perennialist research has been overly narrow in its focus on mystical experiences and calls for a broader cross-cultural study of altered states of consciousness. |
Abstract
I take “neo-perennialists” to share the following, minimal claim: there exists a cross-cultural category of experiences that can be defined as “mystical”. I first clarify the neo-perennialist project and defend its overall feasibility. I then criticize the narrow focus on mystical experiences that has characterized much neo-perennialist research, and research based on the above-mentioned core claim. With “narrow” I refer both to the specific understanding of mystical states that has become dominant in the literature, and the tendency to focus on mystical experiences specifically, out of all possible altered states. I finally analyze some criteria, external to the phenomenology of extraordinary experiences, that one might appeal to in order to justify restricting a neo-perennialist account, or study, to (certain) mystical states. I close the essay with a call to (1) refine the definition of “mystical experience”, and (2) push the cross-cultural study of altered states of consciousness beyond mystical states.