62 Spirituality Studies 10-1 Spring 2024 according to God’s laws, to use them for the benefit of mankind here and in eternity” (quoted in Holden 2021, 83). At the same time, we must not confuse this “opening” with an end in itself. Huston Smith (1991, 389) reminds us that “the human opportunity, the religions tell us, is to transform our flashes of insight into abiding light”. As promising as entheogenic therapy appears to be, we need to keep in mind that psychedelics are simply catalysts; they are not enlightenment itself, and certainly far from the panacea they are made out to be. Likewise, we cannot forget that what is safe in one situation may not be so in another, and that serious abuses do occur: “It is true that uninformed or misdirected use of psychedelics can be harmful” (Stolaroff 2022, xii). If we are serious about entheogenic therapy, we need to set aside all the hype and abandon our belief in quick fixes. The commodification and commercialization of sacred medicines in our era is of growing concern. The present day presents much suffering that can be alleviated when entheogens are used wisely in a safe context, but they are no substitute for the sacred, for which many in the modern world acutely hunger. Today’s mental health crisis makes clear that what we need now are true forms of healing, and that we should avoid the temptation to overmedicalize entheogenic therapy. We already have at our disposal the vast knowledge and healing modalities of humanity’s treasury of traditional wisdom. As St. Teresa of Ávila (1515–1582) affirms: “Clearly, many remedies are necessary to cure us” (Teresa of Ávila 1979, 51) and as Mou-Tzu, the second-century Buddhist and Taoist philosopher writes: “What accords with principle is to be followed, what heals the sick is good” (Mou-Tzu quoted in de Bary 1972, 132). Likewise, we can apply the straightforward principle that: “Whatever helps, I call good medicine” (Schuon 2006, 66). The differences between traditional spiritual uses and those that are secular are far from negligible; they represent antithetical views of reality and ways of life, revealing a profound conflict between the diverse epistemologies grounded in sacred metaphysics, and those that are secular, materialist, and reductionist in their outlook. PAT, in the same way as modern Western psychology, is rendered anomalous when devoid of a metaphysical foundation. For psychology to be considered an authentic discipline, it will have to tend to its self-inflicted wounds in the wake of the Enlightenment project and its secularizing agenda. Attempts to heal the psyche, including by means of entheogenic therapy, can only be thwarted without a true ontology nourished by the wellsprings of spiritual tradition. PAT may, at times, be able to restore the loss of our sense that “everything that lives is holy” (Blake 1906, 47). Likewise, as Goethe (1749–1832) points out, “[w]hat greater in this life can mortal gain / Then that to him God-Nature be revealed” (Goethe quoted in Carus 1915, 50). Nevertheless, there is no getting around the need to ground ourselves in one of humanity’s time-tested paths to fully benefit from our innate healing potential. Due to an unfettered humanism that has lost its spiritual center, many today are not interested in finding their way back to one of humanity’s spiritual traditions. Entheogenic therapy may indeed support a person’s discovery of this hidden longing, but some may choose to explore their connection to the sacred through nature, for example, without seeing any necessity to embrace a traditional salvific vehicle. In such cases, the therapist will have to trust that their focus on the healing work is sufficient and that they cannot take it upon themselves to do any more than this. After all, there are mysteries that transcend our conceptualization of reality: “There are more things in heaven and earth… / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Shakespeare 1877, 116).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjkyNzgx