Divine Appearance Without Contact: A Deflationary Transcendental Account of Mystical Experience
Lorand Bruhacs
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) May 9, 2026 preprint DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20100036 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Topics | Mystical experience |
| Key points | Argues that the central features of theistic mystical experience can be reconstructed without presupposing direct divine contact, since the warrant generated by mystical phenomenology cannot exceed the determinacy of what it presents. Proposes that without a successful 'bridge'—most plausibly soteriological or participatory—mystical experience is experience as of God, not experience of God, while leaving open God's existence and divine causation. |
Abstract
Mystical experience is often treated as a privileged point of contact between finite consciousness and God. We ask what such experience establishes when considered as mystical phenomenology and practice. Our core thesis is that an adequate reconstruction of theistic mystical experience requires a divine-appearance profile, but not, by reconstructive default, direct divine contact: its central invariants—immediacy, passivity, noetic force, ineffability, sacred presence, transformation, unity, forgiveness, judgment, love, and existential reorientation—can be preserved without presupposing such contact. This is a reconstructive claim, not a metaphysical denial: it leaves open God's existence, divine causation, and the religious significance of mystical life. The fixed target is whether the appearance profile itself establishes direct divine contact, rather than whether mystical experience can matter religiously or be warranted inside a theological practice. To make that burden explicit, we develop a constitutive entitlement test and a bridge displacement thesis. The bridge question asks whether mystical experience is epistemically self-grounding: whether its own phenomenology can generate warrant for the contact claim it seems to carry. We answer with a phenomenological determinacy principle: the warrant generated by mystical phenomenology cannot exceed the determinacy of what that phenomenology presents. Determinate God-identifying content is not yet successful God-involving contact; bridge principles carry the entitlement claim where the claimed object outruns the appearance profile. Contrastive adequation tests whether a proposed bridge has been earned and what it establishes. The strongest bridges are soteriological and participatory: the theist can challenge the reconstruction by showing that mystical life essentially involves grace, forgiveness, purification, redemption, union with God, or finite participation in divine self-disclosure. The positive reconstruction is limit phenomenology: divine appearance organizes existential motifs under limit forms such as ultimacy, grace, ground, unity, and love. Without a successful bridge, mystical experience is experience as of God, not experience of God.
Comparable studies
Other theoretical and historical papers on mystical experience, most cited first.
| Study | Year | Design | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Religious and Mystical Experiences as Artifacts of Temporal Lobe Function: A General Hypothesis | 1983 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| The Psychedelic Mystical Experience in the Human Encounter with Death | 1969 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| Vectorial Cerebral Hemisphericity as Differential Sources for the Sensed Presence, Mystical Experiences and Religious Conversions | 1993 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| The epistemic innocence of psychedelic states. | 2016 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| Mystical Experience and Religious Doctrine | 1982 | Theoretical or philosophical paper |