Objective Meditation techniques are widely used as therapy and wellbeing practices, but there are growing concerns about its potential for harm. The aim of the present study is to systematically review meditation adverse events (MAEs), investigating its major clinical categories and its prevalence. Method We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase and AMED up to October 2019. Eligible studies included original reports of meditation practices (excluding related physical practices such as Yoga postures) with adult samples across experimental, observational and case studies. We identified a total of 6742 citations, 83 of which met the inclusion criteria for MAEs with a total of 6703 participants who undertook meditation practice. Results Of the 83 studies analysed, 55 (65%) included reports of at least one type of MAE. The total prevalence of adverse events was 8.3% (95% CI 0.05–0.12), though this varied considerably across types of studies – 3.7% (95% CI 0.02–0.05) for experimental and 33.2% (95% CI 0.25–0.41) for observational studies. The most common AEs were anxiety (33%, 18), depression (27%, 15) and cognitive anomalies (25%, 14); gastrointestinal problems and suicidal behaviours (both 11%, 6) were the least frequent. Conclusion We found that the occurrence of AEs during or after meditation practices is not uncommon, and may occur in individuals with no previous history of mental health problems. These results are relevant both for practitioners and clinicians, and contribute to a balanced perspective of meditation as a practice that may lead to both positive and negative outcomes.

No abstract

The ‘brain-opioid theory of social attachment’ (BOTSA) has been proposed as providing the neurobiological underpinnings of social bonding. Endorphins are activated in the brain by a variety of social activities, including social touch, laughter, singing, dancing and feasting. Several of these seem to be involved in the processes of bonding whole communities by allowing large numbers of individuals to be bonded simultaneously. It has been suggested that religious rituals may also be part of this bonding toolkit. We tested this hypothesis in a series of field studies carried out during religious rituals in the UK and Brazil. We found that taking part in the service increased both pain threshold (a standard proxy for endorphin activation) and positive affect, and that between them these enhanced the sense of bonding to the religious group. The results suggest that one of the key functions of religious ritual may be to increase community bonding.

Objective:To examine the relationship between psychiatrists’ religious/spiritual beliefs and their attitudes regarding religion and spirituality in clinical practice.Methods:A cross-sectional survey of religion/spirituality (R/S) in clinical practice was conducted with 121 psychiatrists from the largest academic hospital complex in Brazil.Results:When asked about their R/S beliefs, participants were more likely to consider themselves as spiritual rather than religious. A total of 64.2% considered their religious beliefs to influence their clinical practice and 50% reported that they frequently enquired about their patients’ R/S. The most common barriers to approaching patients’ religiosity were: lack of time (27.4%), fear of exceeding the role of the doctor (25%), and lack of training (19.1%). Those who were less religious or spiritual were also less likely to find difficulties in addressing a patient’s R/S.Conclusion:Differences in psychiatrists’ religious and spiritual beliefs are associated with different attitudes concerning their approach to R/S. The results suggest that medical practice may lead to a religious conflict among devout psychiatrists, making them question their faith. Training might be of importance for handling R/S in clinical practice and for raising awareness about potential evaluative biases in the assessment of patients’ religiosity.

A major issue in the study of dissociation concerns the cross-cultural validity of definitions and measurements used to identify and classify dissociative disorders. There is also extensive debate on the etiological factors underlying dissociative experiences. Cross-cultural research is essential to elucidate these issues, particularly regarding evidence obtained from countries in which the study of dissociation is still in its infancy. The aim of this article was to discuss Brazilian research on the topic of dissociation, highlighting its contributions for the understanding of dissociative experiences in nonclinical populations and for the validity and relevance of dissociative disorders in the contexts of psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy. We also consider the ways in which dissociative experiences are assimilated by Brazilian culture and religious expressions, and the implications of Brazilian studies for the sociocultural investigation of dissociation. We conclude by addressing the limitations of these studies and potential areas for future research.

Although a significant body of research supports the psychological benefits of religion and spirituality, more investigations are needed to understand the mechanisms by which they impact mental health. While some studies suggest a causal direct influence, the findings may still be subject to unmeasured factors and confounders. Despite compelling empirical support for the dangers of response bias, this has been a widely neglected topic in mental health research. The aim of this essay is to critically examine the literature addressing the role of response bias in the relationship between religion, spirituality and mental health. A survey of the diverse types of bias in this research area is presented, and methodological and theoretical issues are outlined. The validity and generalizability of the evidence are discussed, as well as the implications for mental health practice. A list of methodological remedies to reduce bias is suggested. The article is then concluded with a summary of the studies reviewed and directions for future research.

No abstract

Research has begun to unveil the cognitive and personality correlates of anomalous experiences (AEs). Unfortunately, cultural differences have received markedly less attention. Questions exist regarding whether the Western description of AEs, as possibly nonordinary or exceptional, is valid across cultures. Scant research on AEs has been conducted in non-English-speaking countries, and few systematic cross-cultural comparisons have been carried out. Our goal is to critically review the scientific literature on AEs in light of cross-cultural research. We outline theoretical issues arising from cultural and cross-cultural investigations of AEs and discuss methodological challenges and shortcomings, followed by specific suggestions to address them. To do so, we review extant findings on psychosocial and cultural aspects of AEs and existing gaps in knowledge about the cultural underpinnings of AEs. We begin by highlighting the cultural and group differences in the report of AEs and the difficulties in isolating the experience from interpretations of the experience. We (a) evaluate the cultural source and the experiential source hypotheses related to AEs based on multiple evidentiary sources ranging from prevalence studies to experimental investigations of these experiences across cultures, (b) outline the implications of cross-cultural research with respect to mental health issues, and (c) conclude with a research summary and proposals for future investigations.