Mysticism And Medicine

In certain cases of so-called “melancholia,” which the patients themselves believed to be merely illness, a most profound spiritual upheaval was taking place in them.

By Roberto Assagioli, Published in Ultra, March 1925 No.1. An Address made at the Fourth Mystical Conference, Florence, Italy, January 1925. From the Assagioli Archive in Florence, Docs # 27493, 27494, and 27495. Original Title: Mistica e Medicina. Translated and Edited with Notes by Jan Kuniholm

In the last century, and even in this one, numerous positivist scientists (I will name only Murisier,[1] Janet,[2] Binet-Sanglé,[3] Portigliotti,[4] and recently some representatives of the Psychoanalytic school) have claimed to “explain” mystical phenomena by considering them as pathological manifestations. From the fact that many mystics undeniably had nervous disorders, they inferred that all mystical activity was the result of illness.

I certainly need not pause to refute this gross conception, which reveals a complete misunderstanding of what mystical experience is. But since in the public, and especially among physicians and psychoanalysts, that error is still very widespread, I do not consider it unnecessary to reaffirm as a physician that the observation of symptoms of illness in a human being does not in the least entitle one to devalue his spiritual experiences.

As I had occasion to write several years ago, “the intellectual and moral value of a personality is entirely independent of the morbid symptoms which may afflict it and which it may have in common with other lesser and truly degenerate personalities. If it is true that St. Teresa, St. Catherine of Genoa and many other noble religious women were affected by “hysteria,” this should not in the least diminish our admiration for their spiritual gifts; instead, we must modify our opinion of the character of “hysterical women.” If St. Francis had — as has been claimed — “degenerative somatic stigmata,” this certainly does not diminish our veneration for the Poor Man of Assisi, but instead shows that those stigmata do not always have the “degenerative” meaning attributed to them and may cause us to modify our concept of “degeneration.” Finally, if it were true — as a certain French doctor[5] has claimed to prove — that Jesus, that sublime ideal of humanity, was a madman, that would only mean that madness would sometimes be infinitely superior to the sanity of normal people, including psychiatrists.” [6]

After all, even one of the most in-vogue positivists of the last century, Max Nordau,[7] understood what a gross error is committed in considering the higher manifestations of the spirit as morbid phenomena. Nordau, repudiating the theory of his master Lombroso,[8] said in a felicitous phrase that it is just as unjustified to claim that “genius is a neurosis” as it would be to claim that “athleticism is a heart disease” on the grounds that many gymnasts suffer from heart ailments.[9] This comparison shows us the true relationships between illness and mysticism. The nervous and psychic ailments of mystics, when they are not a mere accidental co-occurence, are at most an effect, an organic repercussion of their intense spiritual life — just as the heart ailments of athletes are merely an effect of their intense muscular exertions.

The mystical life, with its phases and its “critical points,” with its compelling demands and the exceptional experiences to which it gives rise, actually strains the individual’s nervous and psychic endurance. Already in the state that could be called “premystical,” in the period before soul awakening, disturbances often occur due to the strong internal tension caused by the struggle between the appeal of the spirit and the tenacious resistances of the personality. At this stage there is often a first negative experience — that of the non-substantiality, unreality and non-value of the phenomenal world and one’s empirical personality — and such an experience may seem, to a purely external examination, to be the same as the state of depersonalization, of loss of the sense of the real from which psychasthenics[10] suffer. But its meaning and value are quite different: in the former case it is a temporary stage of transition to a fuller and richer life, in the latter it is a loss of normal faculties without any corresponding gain.

The awakening and enlightenment of the soul, which, from a psychological point of view, may be regarded as the irruption and influx of a powerful flood of spiritual life into the ordinary personality, easily causes temporary nervous disorders. The body may be powerless to resist that influx of force, the psyche unprepared to harmoniously assimilate the new consciousness. A period of complex adjustment is not infrequently needed. But this only reveals the weakness of the “old Adam” and should not be blamed on the “new Christ.”

Even in the stage of active purification (the ascetic period of mystical life) morbid symptoms may arise, especially if purification is carried out too forcefully; or if the mystic uses the incorrect method of repressing his instinctive and affective energies into the subconscious, instead of endeavoring to transform and sublimate them.

Then there is the mysterious stage of the “dark night of the soul,” “the passive purification,” in which the mystic’s consciousness passes through a new and more radical negative experience and in which the death of his former personality, of the “Adam” — a necessary condition for his resurrection in the Christ — really takes place. In this mystical death I believe that human suffering reaches its highest degrees: it is an inexpressible torment, a true conscious agony. It is no wonder that in such a terrible experience, which can last a long time, the person’s health suffers and symptoms arise which are similar to those found in the illness called “melancholia” by psychiatrists.[11]

But, again, the pathological concomitants do not detract from the reality and value of spiritual experience. In fact, I believe the opposite to be true: I was able to see that in certain cases of so-called “melancholia,” which the patients themselves believed to be merely illness, a most profound spiritual upheaval was taking place in them.

* * *

By recognizing the various relationships between mysticism and illness, many misunderstandings, misconceptions and even serious practical errors can be eliminated both by physicians and by the mystics themselves. Physicians will be able to learn to understand and respect the spiritual life of their patients and foster their harmonious development, instead of devaluing and hindering it, as they have too often done so far. Mystics, for their part, knowing in advance the nature and significance of the ailments they may incur, will not be overly upset by them; but neither will they regard them, as has sometimes been the case, as signs of superiority or as divine favors. They will recognize that such ailments are weaknesses and imperfections of the human part of themselves, which has not yet become an able and obedient instrument of the spirit, and therefore they will have to work to eliminate them, and aspire to perfect health.

This attitude in the face of illness constitutes one of the most important points of difference between the ancient mysticism (at least Western Christian mysticism) and the new. The exaggerated ascetic spirit, the thirst for suffering, sacrifice, and abjection, the hostile attitude toward the body, the passive submission, meant that many mystics of the past not only did not try to rid themselves of the physical ills that afflicted them, but welcomed them with joy and almost cultivated them, seeing in them a means of purification. While we must admire the fortitude, generosity and love by which they turned a weakness into a strength, an obstacle into a step, we must also recognize that their attitude was based on preconceptions and limited and incorrect ideas.

According to the new mysticism, the body is not the enemy of the spirit, but rather is and must become its valuable instrument, its faithful servant, its temple. Asceticism, suffering, sacrifice are not ends in themselves, they do not have an absolute value; rather, they are a means with relative value. And illness in itself not only does not constitute merit, but is an imperfection, even if it is not the consequence of one’s own or another’s error. Moreover, in this as in its other attitudes, the new mysticism is less revolutionary than it may seem at first glance. Like all true renewal, it is a return to the genuine first sources; or rather than genuine, one might call them “original.” For we see that the attitude of Jesus toward health is far more akin to that stated here than that of many mystics of the past. And Jesus — there is no need to say it here, but since there are those who deny this, it is good to reaffirm it — Jesus was a true, great and perfect mystic. Well, in Jesus we find no cult of illness, no asceticism. The traditions do not hint at any physical imperfection or disease of His: the very profound crises He had crises on various occasions — from the temptations in the wilderness to the sufferings in the Garden of Gethsemane — and even if they were so severe that he sweat blood, they did not have the power to bring about any lasting disturbance in His body. In truth we would find it hard to conceive of Jesus as sick, or Jesus in an attitude of passive acceptance of physical ailments. Instead, the Gospels describe Him to us as strong, capable of long labors, but also ready to rest, to restore Himself in solitude and prayer. And not only do they describe him to us as healthy, but as a healer.

Throughout the ages men have sought the help of spiritual forces, powers and invisible beings to heal of their physical ills. In the temples of Egypt and Greece, in the Serapeum at Memphis, in the temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus, and in many others, the method of “incubation” — that is, sleep in the temple — was used, during which the sick person often had beneficial visions from which he awoke healed. In every civilization and in every religion, those who followed the mystical path acquired at a certain stage of their spiritual development the power to heal, and used it for the benefit of suffering humanity. Jesus, in his message to John, points precisely to this healing power as the main proof that he is the Expected One. For He says (Luke 7:22), “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the gospel is proclaimed to the poor.” To the twelve disciples He bestows this power to heal sickness and gives them the mission to exercise it: “And having called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, that they might cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.” (Matthew 10:1) And he adds, “heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Give freely what you have freely received.” (Matthew 10:8)

Then the Epistle of James tells us that in early Christianity prayer and anointing were used for healing purposes and that therefore the sacrament of extreme unction originally had a therapeutic significance.[12] “Is any among you sick? Let him call the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer in faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall lift him up.” (5:14-15). Later, the prevalence of the ascetic tendency caused this tradition to fade and almost to be lost, so that this essential priestly and mystical function has until recently been greatly neglected. Instead, for the past few decades we have been witnessing a rapid and flourishing of spiritual and mystical healing practices especially in America and England by various free and organized movements. The most typical and largest of these is the Christian Science movement, founded by Mary Baker Eddy. Another also movement that is very widespread in America is that of “Unity” which has its center in Kansas City. Quite recently, within the Anglican Church, an active revival of ancient healing practices has begun: laying on of hands, anointings, prayers, healing missions, etc.

Spiritual therapy raises many important issues that are not easy to solve:

• what does healing power really consist of?
• how is it achieved?
• what part does the patient’s attitude play in it?
• what faith is really necessary in the practitioner and the one being healed?
• what are the differences and relationships between psychotherapy and spiritual therapy?
• what are the relationships between physical healing and inner regeneration?

I do not even attempt to begin the examination of such questions. Only I have wished to enumerate them, in order to encourage those concerned with mysticism not to neglect this most important aspect of it — and to urge physicians, who are just now beginning to accept psychotherapy (but with distrust and reserve), not to lag too far behind the current spiritual awakening and to recognize the value of the noblest and most valuable means of healing.

I confidently express the hope and wish that the relationship between mysticism and medicine will have to become increasingly close, understanding and harmonious. From such harmony will result great benefits to mystics, physicians and — what matters most — to poor, aching humanity.

[1] Ernest Murisier (1867-1903), Swiss professor of philosophy, author of Les maladies du sentiment religieux. —Tr.

[2] Pierre Janet (1859-1947), French psychologist, physician, philosopher and psychotherapist.—Tr.

[3] Charles Binet-Sanglé (1868-1941), French military doctor and psychologist. —Tr.

[4] Giuseppe Portigliotti (1875-1933), Italian psychiatrist, editor and writer.  —Tr.

[5] Charles Binet-Sanglé in his book La Folie de Jésus (1910). —Tr.

[6] Assagioli, “Psicoligia e Psicoterapia,” in Psiche, II, 1913 n.3 p.195.(Author’s Note)

[7] Max Simon Nordeau, a.k.a. Simon Maximilian Südfeld, (1849-1923), Austro-Hungarian doctor and writer. In his book Varieties of Religious Experience, William James wrote that Nordeau“has striven to impugn the value of works of genius in a wholesale way (such works of contemporary art, namely, as he himself is unable to enjoy, and they are many) by using medical arguments.”—Tr.

[8] Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909), Italian criminologist, and physician, self-proclaimed founder of modern scientific psychiatry, founder of a school of psychiatry based upon biological determinism. —Tr.

[9] Quoted from Th. Ribot: Imagination créatrice, p.118. (Author’s Note) [This book was published in 1906 in an English translation by Albert Baron as Essay on the Creative Imagination. The original essay in French by Théodule Ribot was published in 1900. —Tr.]

[10] Psychasthenia: a neurotic state characterized especially by phobias, obsessions, or compulsions that one knows are irrational. —Tr.

[11] According to healthdirect.com, “The word ‘melancholia’ has been used since the time of the ancient Greeks to describe feeling intensely sad and hopeless. Melancholic depression, also known as ‘major depression with melancholic features’, is usually a severe illness. It makes people lose interest in almost all activities and has other distinct physical symptoms.” —Tr.

[12] In the Roman Catholic Church, the sacrament of anointing of the sick for spiritual and physical strength, often referred to as extreme unction or last rites, is a ritual of healing now recognized as appropriate not only for those in immediate danger of death but also for those suffering from physical, mental, or spiritual sickness (from various websites). —Tr.