Here are two different views on the same subject presented in two articles with the same title, “Mysticism and Schizophrenia.”

The first article1 is produced by the Center of Subjectivity Research (CSR), led by Dan Zahavi of Copenhagen University. Professor Josef Parnas, the article’s main contributor, is co-founder and senior researcher at the CSR, as well as a chief physician at Hvidovre Hospital’s psychiatric department.

The second article is written by Kenneth Wapnick, Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, who was a close friend and associate of Helen Schucman and William Thetford—the two individuals whose collaboration was the immediate stimulus for the scribing (their term for transmission or channeling) of A Course in Miracles. Kenneth had been involved with A Course in Miracles since 1973, writing, teaching, and integrating its principles with his practice of psychotherapy.

As demonstrated below, the two articles surprisingly convey the same message, although they use different frameworks and case studies that are not similar. The conclusions reached differ only slightly: mainly in the interpretation of the results.

The first article compares mystical experiences, specifically the feeling of complete oneness with the universe (“unio mystica”5), to the experiences of people with schizophrenia. It’s important to understand upfront: the authors aren’t saying that mystics are schizophrenic or vice versa.

They look at how these very different experiences share some surprising similarities in how they affect the mind, even if the content of the experiences is completely different.

They focus on three key areas:

(1) Mental attitudes2. Mystics prepare for their experiences through practices like meditation and withdrawing from everyday life to quiet their minds. People who develop schizophrenia sometimes show similar behaviors, like being withdrawn and isolated. The difference is that these behaviors are intended by the mystic, but come of themselves and are distressing for the person with schizophrenia.

(2) The experience3. Both mystical and schizophrenic experiences can feel like sudden, overwhelming revelations—like a light bulb going off in your head, but on a much deeper level. They both involve a shift away from normal ways of thinking about the world and the self. While schizophrenia involves hallucinations and delusions (false beliefs), these often start from a feeling of something being profoundly wrong or different, similar to the feeling of shifting into a different state of consciousness during a mystical experience. Both are very hard to explain in words (ineffable).

(3) A different reality4: Both mystics and some people with schizophrenia report feeling connected to something beyond ordinary reality. Mystics think it to be spiritual truth; people with schizophrenia report the experience as hallucinations or delusions. The mystical experience is often seen as positive and transformative, meanwhile the schizophrenic experience is usually frightening and upsetting.

The authors also talk about the “minimal self”—the basic sense of being yourself. They argue that schizophrenia may involve a fundamental problem with this core sense of self, explaining many of the strange experiences people with the illness have. This is different from other mental illnesses where the problem is more about how you think about yourself, rather than this core sense of self.

Phenomenological approach is used by the authors to compare these two very different states of mind, experienced by a mystic, on one hand, and a person on the schizophrenic scale, on the other. It finds structural similarities in how consciousness is altered, even though the content and impact are different.

Kenneth Wapnick’s article, “Mysticism and Schizophrenia”, also considers similarities and differences between mystical experiences and schizophrenic episodes. Wapnick acknowledges the tendency in psychiatric research to link these two phenomena: some suggest that mysticism is a form of psychopathology and others present schizophrenia as a valuable, even desirable experience. Wapnick clarifies both the shared aspects and main distinctions between the two types of inner state.

The article begins by referencing William James’ distinction between “higher” and “lower” mysticism, with the latter bordering on insanity, and then presents the typical mystical experience, outlining stages of development often described in mystical literature (using Underhill’s five stages as a framework, adding a sixth stage of reintegration into society). These stages generally include an (1) awakening, (2) purification, (3) illumination, (4) a “dark night of the soul”, (5) a “unitive” life (oneness with the universe), and finally, (6) a return to the world. St. Teresa of Avila’s mystical experiences are used as a detailed case study, illustrating these stages through her metaphorical descriptions of a “castle” within the soul.

Next, the article turns to schizophrenia, adopting a more recent perspective that views psychotic episodes as purposeful attempts at self-correction, rather than simply symptoms of a disease. Wapnick cites the work of Bateson, Laing, and Kaplan, who emphasize the subjective, intensely personal nature of schizophrenic experiences. An excerpt from Lara Jefferson’s first-person account of a schizophrenic episode is analyzed to demonstrate the phenomenological similarities and differences with mystical experiences. Lara’s experience is characterized by a “death” of her former self, a descent into “total madness,” and a subsequent emergence into a sense of peace and reintegration, though with significant lingering effects.

The core of Wapnick’s argument lies in the comparison of these case studies. Both St. Teresa and Lara experienced a dichotomy between inner and outer worlds, a breakdown of social attachments, periods of intense fear and pain, and eventual peace. However, the process in these two cases is not the same. The mystic, through a long, deliberate, and often self-imposed journey, gradually develops the capacity to withstand and integrate the “inner world” with social life. The schizophrenic, in contrast, experiences a sudden, involuntary breakdown, lacking the preparation and support to navigate the overwhelming inner experiences. The absence of this gradual strengthening process leaves the schizophrenic vulnerable and unable to manage the experience without a significant disruption of social functioning.

The article concludes by highlighting that while both mysticism and schizophrenia involve a journey into the “inner world,” the main distinction lies in the preparation, control, and integration of this experience within a social context. The mystic’s journey is a conscious, purposeful process; the schizophrenic’s is often a traumatic and involuntary one. The article emphasizes the importance of balancing inner and outer experiences for healthy functioning, with the mystic representing a successful integration, and the schizophrenic demonstrating the tragic consequences of separation.

Parnas’ article leans towards a more objectively scientific comparison, while Wapnick’s analysis is more interpretive and arguably more influenced by his spiritual background. Parnas ascribes less direct correlation between mystical states and schizophrenia, focusing on shared phenomenological structures rather than developmental trajectories. He seems to be more interested in the similarities of the experiences without necessarily linking them to a progression or path, while Dr. Wapnick may be more focused on the implications of those experiences for spiritual growth, be it mystical or otherwise.

As a proponent of A Course in Miracles (ACIM), Dr. Wapnick’s perspective is likely influenced by his belief system, which could lead him to interpret both mystical and schizophrenic experiences through the lens of spiritual development, potentially downplaying the pathological aspects of schizophrenia. He might also be more inclined to see a positive outcome in both, even if the paths differ drastically.

On the other hand, Prof. Josef Parnas and his colleagues might be biased towards a purely materialistic understanding of consciousness, overlooking potentiality for non-material extrasensory experiences. Their focus on structural analogies might stem from a desire to explain these experiences through purely neurological or psychological mechanisms, potentially neglecting the spiritual or existential dimensions that Wapnick highlights. This bias could lead them to minimize the transformative aspects of mystical experiences.

Endnotes

  1. Josef Parnas and Mads Gram Henriksen, “Mysticism and Schizophrenia: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Structure of Consciousness in the Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders,” Consciousness and Cognition 43, no. 1 (May 1, 2016): 75–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.05.010.
  2. Parnas and Henriksen, “Mysticism and Schizophrenia: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Structure of Consciousness in the Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders.”, p. 76
  3. Ibid., p. 78
  4. Ibid, p. 81.
  5. Ibid., p.79