For some reason I read Durkheim&#x27;s book on the origins of religion. Back then I was also reading stuff like William James on the variety of religious experience. Very interesting stuff, and they&#x27;re both great scholars.<p>Durkheim of course discusses the sacred at great length, tracing it in the case of Polynesian tribes to the social concept of mana. (Just showing that I&#x27;ve read the book!)<p>The reason he was able to present this theory in a convincing way that advanced the state of the art in anthropology and sociology and religious studies, it seems to me, is that he was well-trained in the scientific method and scientific writing, so he was able to discuss it all on a scientific basis—that is, I suppose, separating the etic from the emic.<p>Again I&#x27;m simply curious about how the scientist in the article manages that... and I&#x27;ve seen a lot of people get into psychedelics and then kind of lose their ability to talk clearly from a scientific, secular, non-mystic perspective.<p>Maybe you&#x27;ll see my point of view more clearly if I say that I have absolutely nothing against the mystic perspective—I just think the value of science lies in its refusal to really &quot;go native.&quot; And I think religious studies and religious psychology etc is more fascinating the more it sticks to the scientific&#x2F;philosophical project of secular explanation.<p>My initial knee-jerk reaction was about a psychologist publishing a book with the title &quot;Sacred Knowledge.&quot; I am probably mistaken about this reaction... it was bolstered by the article&#x27;s quotes about &quot;sacred molecules&quot; and empirical proof of Jung and excitement about some guy who saw dancing gods on a drug trip, fractal patterns, and so on.<p>I&#x27;m super interested in how we could, with philosophical and scientific rigor, discuss whatever is the actual content of &quot;mystical consciousness.&quot; James&#x27;s work was an empirical and mostly anecdotal study of life-changing mystical experiences, and I thought it was very interesting. I think there are some interesting aspects in Heideggerian phenomenology that would be relevant. Mildly interesting: the reason why those deep learning pictures look like LSD visuals.<p>If I were to start studying this stuff myself in any serious way, I would also probably be likely to &quot;go native&quot; or &quot;go weird&quot; or blur the emic&#x2F;etic, etc.<p>Still, the whole project is very interesting, and kind of seems to represent the whole &quot;Enlightenment project&quot; in a way. Using secular science to treat and collaborate on things that previously was the realm of shamans and priests. Just, how does the scientist not become the priest, even after 100 doses of entheogens?