Kylie Harris, PhD, is a transpersonal research psychologist from Melbourne, Australia. She has recently completed her dissertation on the topic of spiritual emergence(y) and its relationship with psychosis and personality. Kylie’s work is inspired by her own personal experience. She believes that people around the world are “waking up” as we undergo a scientific and spiritual paradigm shift, catalyzing spiritual emergence(y) for individuals, as well as on a global scale. Kylie has published articles in numerous academic journals and has presented her work at local and international conferences. She is a wife, mother, and Transpersonal Counselor. She also considers herself a spiritual emergence(y) experiencer. In this article, she shares the results of her dissertation. You may contact Kylie via email at kylie.harris.research@gmail.com or you can find her on Facebook (Kylie Harris Serong) and Instagram @dr.kylieharris.

I would like to present some of the findings of my recent doctoral research, which investigated the relationships between spiritual emergence and emergency, psychosis, and personality. The term ‘spiritual emergency’ was first introduced by Stanislav and Christina Grof, referring to a process of spiritual emergence that becomes a personal emergency, or crisis. This “emergency” may occur due to the speed of onset of the process, the trauma that the experience can unearth, or if the experience is triggered suddenly. Triggers may include a stressful or traumatic experience, such as childbirth, relationship breakdown, or loss of a loved one or job. Some activities, such as yoga, meditation, and mindfulness practices, may also be potential triggers.

The transpersonal psychological literature has been very focused upon discussing and identifying the similarities and differences between spiritual emergence and emergency – collectively referred to as SE(Y) – and clinical psychosis, with which severe cases of SE(Y) may appear very similar. However, there has been less focus upon how personality may contribute to this relationship.

Spiritual Emergence(y) & Schizotypy

In my research, I looked at SE(Y) in relation to a personality construct known as schizotypy, which allows researchers to investigate psychotic symptoms in the general population. Schizotypy is described as the manifestation of psychotic symptoms as a personality trait. Individuals who exhibit a schizotypal personality are not considered psychotic and may never develop psychotic illness. However, there is a relationship between schizotypal personality and psychotic illness, meaning that such individuals may be predisposed to develop psychotic disorder under certain circumstances.

In one of my studies, 250 participants completed an anonymous, online questionnaire that assessed their experience of SE(Y). I also included a number of scales that measured the different symptom domains of psychosis and schizotypy. That is, a number of different symptom domains have been identified, including both positive and negative.

Positive symptoms refer to an excess or distortion of normal functioning (e.g., delusions, hallucinations, perceptual aberrations, magical thinking), and are more likely to be associated with good premorbid functioning and recovery. Negative symptoms refer to a reduction or loss of normal functioning (e.g., reduced emotional expression, lack of motivation, avoidance of intimacy), and are more likely to be associated with a history of mental illness and poor outcomes.

There is previous research linking the positive symptoms of psychosis and schizotypy with spiritual experiences. However, there has been no previous research looking specifically at SE(Y) in relation to the different symptom domains of psychosis and schizotypy.

The results showed that SE(Y) was associated with the positive symptoms of psychosis and schizotypy, but showed only weak to no associations with the negative symptoms. In fact, SE(Y) was only associated with negative symptoms when participants indicated that their experience had escalated to a state of psychological crisis. These findings support suggestions that negative symptoms may represent “safety behaviors” to avoid the exacerbation of positive symptoms. That is, if an individual experiences unfavorable reactions from others in response to the expression of positive symptoms (which have been largely associated with spiritual phenomena), negative symptoms may manifest as a defensive reaction. Unfavorable reactions from others may include erroneous mental illness diagnoses by mental health professionals, or simply a lack of validation of one’s experience from loved ones.

Why is this research important?

There are many individuals who have received mental illness diagnoses, who feel that their experience is spiritual and holds personal meaning for them. The current treatment for clinical psychosis often includes medication and, in severe cases, hospitalization. While such treatment may be helpful in some cases of SE(Y), it can also hinder an individual’s ability to process their experience as a personally meaningful, transformational journey. Conventional treatments also promote a disease model of psychosis, and a pathological interpretation of distressing spiritual experiences.

Previous research has been unable to differentiate between SE(Y) and clinical psychosis. However, by looking at SE(Y) in relation to the different symptom domains of psychosis and schizotypy, we have been able to identify markers that may provide a way to differentiate between SE(Y) and cases of clinical psychosis that are more likely to have a poor prognosis (i.e., experiences that are dominated by negative symptoms).

These results offer hope to individuals who have previously been led to believe that they are sick, with little hope of recovery. They may also contribute towards a necessary revision and re-conceptualization of diagnostic criteria and practice, as well as our understanding of the characteristic features of psychotic disorder (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder), and the potential for recovery. That is, current diagnostic criteria specify that a diagnosis of psychotic disorder may be made based solely upon the presence of positive symptoms.

Hope for Recovery

The results of this research, however, support previous findings indicating that the positive symptoms of psychosis and schizotypy are not necessarily associated with pathology (some participants indicated that their experience did not escalate to a state of crisis), thereby supporting the argument that a diagnosis of psychosis should not be made based upon the existence of positive symptoms alone. The results also suggest that if a psychotic-like experience is dominated by positive symptoms, the individual may self-identify their experience as SE(Y), and they may have a good chance of a successful recovery.

It is important to understand, however, that if an individual’s experience consists predominantly of negative symptoms, it does not mean that their experience is not SE(Y), or that a successful recovery is not possible. Similarly, if an individual’s experience consists predominantly of positive symptoms, the experience is not definitely SE(Y). We must be cautious not to spiritualize experiences for which conventional treatment may be more appropriate, and each case should be treated individually.

The Grof’s model of SE(Y) has often been considered revolutionary and ahead of its time. It is my hope that continued revision of diagnostic criteria may help to solidify the position of the Grof’s model within mainstream psychology, and bring the model ‘into its time.’ With the resurgence of interest in this topic, and the rapidly increasing documentation of individual cases of SE(Y), I believe that time has arrived.

To learn more about Dr. Harris’ work, please write to her at kylie.harris.research@gmail.com.