Comment on "Role of meditation on the essence of self in the psychological profile, quality of life and lifestyle - a comparative study".

Abstract

Comment on "Role of meditation on the essence of self in the psychological profile, quality of life and lifestyle -a comparative study" Dear Editor,We read with great interest the study by Arantes et al., which explores the psychosocial correlates of Gurusakāsha, a third-phase meditative practice rooted in tantric philosophy, using a battery of validated psychological and lifestyle scales. 1 While the authors provide an important starting point in the investigation of lesser-known meditative modalities beyond mainstream mindfulness, several conceptual and methodological limitations warrant careful scrutiny before extrapolating these ndings toward broader applications.First, the decision to employ a cross-sectional, observational design inherently restricts the ability to infer causality between Gurusakāsha meditation and the observed psychological outcomes.Although the authors acknowledge this limitation, they do not sufciently account for the risk of reverse causation: individuals with inherently higher resilience and lower stress may be more inclined to sustain long-term meditative practice, leading to selection bias. 2 Furthermore, the sample included a relatively homogeneous group of long-time practitioners from a single institutional lineage (Instituto Visão Futuro), raising concerns about cultural clustering, spiritual indoctrination bias, and potential confounding by non-meditation lifestyle factors such as yoga or vegetarianism.Second, the imbalance in group size and the modest total sample (n = 52) signicantly undermines the statistical power of the study, particularly in subgroup analyses.While matching for age, gender, and education is methodologically sound, the Meditation Experts (ME) group had substantially higher rates of physical activity, which is itself a wellestablished mediator of improved resilience, mood, and quality of life.3 The authors report this difference yet fail to adjust for it in multivariate models, compromising the attribution of outcomes solely to meditation practice.Third, the application of certain psychometric tools raises reliability concerns that the authors only partially address.The Visual Analogue Mood Scale (VAMS) scale exhibited a negative Cronbach's alpha, rendering its ndings non-interpretable.Instead of discarding or replacing the tool with a more psychometrically stable instrument, the authors attempt post-hoc rationalization linked to participant travel stress, which remains speculative.Similarly, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index of Davis (IRI) showed only borderline reliability (α = 0.65), and differences in emotional subscale interpretations between tantric philosophy and Western constructs were posited as explanatory.This introduces a philosophical relativism that undermines standardized cross-group psychological comparisons.If standard empathy scales are deemed culturally incongruent, this limitation should have been anticipated and corrected through either adaptation or alternative inventories rooted in Eastern contemplative traditions.Additionally, while the Individual Lifestyle Prole (PEVI) scale data