This article examines the criticisms and challenges that have emerged in the development of transpersonal psychology, a field that seeks to integrate psychological science with spirituality and human transcendence. Key areas of critique include philosophical and epistemological concerns about the scientific rigor of transpersonal methods, difficulties in integrating the field with mainstream psychology, and the lack of consensus on core concepts within the discipline. Additionally, sociocultural and ethical challenges, such as cultural bias and the risks associated with altered states of consciousness, are explored. By critically engaging with these issues, the article provides a reflection on how transpersonal psychology can evolve, calling for further research and dialogue to address these ongoing challenges.
Introduction
Transpersonal psychology, as a distinct branch of psychological inquiry, emerged in the late 1960s in response to the perceived limitations of traditional psychological frameworks. The founders of the field sought to address aspects of human experience that went beyond the boundaries of conventional psychology, particularly those involving spirituality, higher states of consciousness, and transcendent experiences. Despite its innovative approach to understanding the human psyche, transpersonal psychology has faced significant challenges and criticisms throughout its development. These challenges are rooted in both internal debates within the field and external opposition from mainstream psychology, particularly regarding its scientific foundations (Ferrer, 2002). The goal of this article is to provide a comprehensive exploration of these criticisms, highlighting the ongoing epistemological, methodological, and sociocultural challenges faced by the discipline.
A key area of criticism has been the perceived lack of scientific rigor and empirical validity in transpersonal psychology. Critics argue that the subjective nature of transpersonal experiences, such as mystical states or altered consciousness, makes them difficult to study using traditional scientific methods (Hartelius, Caplan, & Rardin, 2007). This issue is compounded by the discipline’s frequent reliance on qualitative research methods, which some scholars in mainstream psychology argue are less reliable or generalizable compared to quantitative approaches. Furthermore, transpersonal psychology’s emphasis on spiritual and metaphysical dimensions of human experience has led to concerns about its scientific legitimacy, particularly in a field that traditionally values objective, measurable outcomes (Elkins, 1995). These epistemological tensions have hindered the integration of transpersonal psychology into academic and professional psychology circles.
Beyond epistemological and methodological challenges, transpersonal psychology has also faced sociocultural and ethical critiques. Some scholars have raised concerns about the field’s over-reliance on Western philosophical and spiritual traditions, arguing that it neglects non-Western perspectives and experiences (Hanegraaff, 1998). Additionally, ethical questions have arisen regarding the study and promotion of altered states of consciousness, particularly in relation to the use of substances such as psychedelics. The responsibility of researchers and practitioners in ensuring the safety and well-being of individuals engaging in transpersonal practices is a critical concern that continues to shape the discourse around the field. By addressing these criticisms and challenges, this article seeks to provide a deeper understanding of the obstacles facing transpersonal psychology and the ways in which the field might evolve in the future.
Philosophical and Epistemological Criticisms
One of the central philosophical criticisms of transpersonal psychology is its epistemological foundation, which often conflicts with the scientific norms that dominate mainstream psychology. Critics argue that transpersonal psychology’s focus on subjective experiences, such as mystical states and spiritual awakenings, undermines its ability to be scientifically validated (Hartelius, Caplan, & Rardin, 2007). Traditional scientific disciplines are built upon the principles of empiricism and objectivity, prioritizing observable and measurable phenomena. However, transpersonal psychology often deals with phenomena that are inherently subjective and personal, such as inner experiences of transcendence, which are not easily measurable by conventional scientific tools. This tension between subjective knowledge and objective scientific methodology has been a major point of contention, leading some to question the field’s legitimacy within the broader psychological community (Rothberg, 1996).
Additionally, transpersonal psychology has been criticized for its perceived reliance on metaphysical concepts, which many view as outside the purview of empirical science. The inclusion of spiritual and transcendent experiences has led some scholars to argue that the field strays into the domain of metaphysics and philosophy, rather than psychology as a scientific discipline (Ferrer, 2002). This critique is rooted in concerns that by focusing on experiences that may not be universally observable or replicable, transpersonal psychology risks losing the empirical grounding required for scientific credibility. Critics such as Hanegraaff (1998) have pointed out that without clear empirical support, the claims made by transpersonal psychologists could be dismissed as speculative or pseudoscientific. This epistemological debate has generated significant friction between proponents of transpersonal psychology and those advocating for a more traditional, evidence-based approach in psychological research.
The challenge of reconciling subjective transpersonal experiences with the demands of scientific rigor remains a key philosophical and epistemological hurdle for the field. Scholars like Ferrer (2002) have called for a more integrative approach, advocating for the acknowledgment of multiple ways of knowing, including subjective, intersubjective, and empirical methods. Ferrer’s participatory approach suggests that transpersonal experiences can be studied in ways that honor their depth and complexity while still maintaining a commitment to rigorous inquiry. However, even with such frameworks, the field continues to struggle with gaining widespread acceptance in academic psychology, where the emphasis on objectivity and measurability often outweighs considerations of spiritual or transcendent experiences. This ongoing epistemological tension highlights the need for continued dialogue and innovation in methodologies that can bridge the gap between transpersonal psychology and the broader scientific community.
Integration with Mainstream Psychology
Marginalization by Mainstream Psychology
One of the major challenges faced by transpersonal psychology is its marginalization within mainstream psychological discourse. Since its inception, transpersonal psychology has been viewed as peripheral to the core concerns of psychology, primarily because of its focus on spirituality, consciousness, and transcendent experiences—areas that are often considered outside the scope of empirical science (Elkins, 1995). Mainstream psychology has long prioritized measurable, observable phenomena and has been largely influenced by behaviorism, cognitive psychology, and other paradigms that emphasize objectivity and empirical validation. In contrast, transpersonal psychology’s inclusion of subjective spiritual experiences has been seen by some as a step away from scientific rigor, leading to its exclusion from most psychology departments and major psychological associations (Hartelius, Caplan, & Rardin, 2007). This marginalization has limited the field’s influence and development within the broader academic and clinical psychology communities.
The consequences of this marginalization are profound. Transpersonal psychology struggles with gaining access to research funding and institutional support. Without the same level of academic recognition or financial backing as other subfields of psychology, researchers in transpersonal psychology often find it challenging to conduct large-scale, empirical studies that could lend more scientific credibility to the field (Ferrer, 2002). Additionally, the lack of inclusion in core psychology curricula means that new students are rarely exposed to transpersonal ideas, further perpetuating the field’s marginal status. This creates a cycle of limited exposure and resources, making it difficult for transpersonal psychology to advance in the same way that other branches of psychology have evolved.
Moreover, mainstream psychology has tended to view transpersonal psychology with skepticism due to its association with non-conventional therapeutic practices and spirituality. The focus on altered states of consciousness, spiritual growth, and mystical experiences has led to critiques that the field promotes ideas that are unscientific or even pseudoscientific (Grof, 1998). Some critics argue that transpersonal psychology’s emphasis on these themes resembles the metaphysical or religious, raising concerns about the field’s academic rigor. As a result, transpersonal psychology has faced barriers in its efforts to gain broader acceptance and legitimacy within academic and professional psychological communities, leading to an ongoing struggle for recognition and integration.
Challenges in Bridging the Gap
Despite its marginalization, there have been efforts to bridge the gap between transpersonal psychology and mainstream psychology, but these efforts have encountered significant obstacles. One of the central challenges is the methodological divide between the two fields. Mainstream psychology, with its emphasis on empirical, quantitative research, often clashes with the more qualitative, experiential focus of transpersonal psychology (Hartelius et al., 2007). Quantitative research tends to value replicability and objectivity, seeking generalizable data, while transpersonal psychology often deals with deeply personal, subjective experiences that do not easily fit into such frameworks. This methodological divergence has made it difficult for transpersonal researchers to present their findings in ways that are accepted by the wider psychological community.
Another significant challenge in bridging this gap is the difference in conceptual frameworks. Mainstream psychology typically operates within a framework that prioritizes mental health as a function of biological, cognitive, and behavioral processes. In contrast, transpersonal psychology incorporates a broader understanding of the human experience, including spiritual dimensions and altered states of consciousness (Walsh & Vaughan, 1993). These conceptual differences can make it difficult for transpersonal psychology to align with the goals and concerns of mainstream psychology, as it expands the scope of psychological inquiry to include phenomena that traditional psychology has either ignored or actively avoided. The challenge lies in finding ways to integrate these divergent perspectives without diluting the essential focus of transpersonal psychology.
Additionally, attempts to integrate transpersonal psychology into mainstream research have been hindered by a lack of consensus on key concepts within the field itself. Scholars within transpersonal psychology have debated core ideas such as the nature of consciousness, the role of spirituality in mental health, and the proper methods for studying transcendent experiences (Ferrer, 2002). Without a clear, unified framework, it becomes even more challenging to present transpersonal psychology as a coherent and legitimate area of study within the broader psychological community. The internal diversity of thought, while intellectually enriching, creates obstacles for establishing transpersonal psychology as a field that can be effectively integrated with the dominant psychological paradigms.
The Impact of Marginalization on Clinical Practice
The marginalization of transpersonal psychology within academic settings has also impacted its presence in clinical practice. Mainstream psychological treatments, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and psychodynamic approaches, often prioritize symptom reduction, behavioral modification, and emotional regulation without addressing the spiritual or existential dimensions of a person’s experience (Walsh & Vaughan, 1993). In contrast, transpersonal psychology offers therapeutic models that explore spiritual crises, altered states of consciousness, and experiences of transcendence as essential to human healing and growth. However, the lack of recognition of transpersonal psychology in clinical training programs has limited its adoption by practitioners, resulting in fewer opportunities for individuals to access this approach in therapeutic settings.
This exclusion of transpersonal approaches from mainstream clinical psychology has consequences for both practitioners and patients. Therapists who are interested in integrating spiritual or transpersonal dimensions into their practice often find themselves without adequate training or support from the psychological establishment. Meanwhile, clients seeking to explore spiritual aspects of their mental health may struggle to find therapists who are knowledgeable about transpersonal methods or who can address these concerns in a meaningful way (Elkins, 1995). The marginalization of transpersonal psychology has, therefore, created a gap in mental health services for individuals who seek a more holistic approach to their psychological well-being.
Moreover, the dominance of mainstream approaches in clinical psychology has contributed to the ongoing dismissal of spiritual experiences in therapeutic contexts. Spiritual crises, mystical experiences, and other transpersonal phenomena are often pathologized or misunderstood within conventional treatment frameworks (Grof, 1998). This further reinforces the divide between transpersonal psychology and mainstream clinical practice, as many practitioners are trained to view these experiences through a purely pathological lens rather than as opportunities for growth and transformation. Addressing this gap requires not only greater recognition of transpersonal psychology in academic and clinical settings but also a more inclusive understanding of mental health that incorporates spiritual and transcendent dimensions.
Methodological and Conceptual Challenges
Lack of Consensus on Core Concepts
One of the significant challenges within transpersonal psychology is the absence of a unified consensus on its core concepts, such as the nature of consciousness, spiritual experiences, and transcendence. Unlike more established psychological subfields, which tend to operate within a cohesive theoretical framework, transpersonal psychology is marked by a diversity of perspectives and interpretations. This lack of consensus has created confusion about what constitutes valid transpersonal experiences and how they should be studied or interpreted. For instance, scholars like Wilber (2000) and Grof (1998) have proposed differing models for understanding human consciousness and spiritual development, resulting in a fragmented theoretical landscape (Hartelius, Caplan, & Rardin, 2007). These differing models make it difficult for researchers and practitioners to agree on a common set of principles that guide transpersonal inquiry.
The consequence of this conceptual fragmentation is that it complicates efforts to position transpersonal psychology as a coherent field within the broader psychological community. Without a unified conceptual framework, it is challenging for the field to establish its academic credibility and communicate its findings in a way that resonates with the empirical traditions of mainstream psychology (Ferrer, 2002). This lack of clarity also makes it difficult for transpersonal psychology to present itself as a distinct and cohesive discipline, leading some scholars to question its legitimacy and relevance. Moreover, the absence of agreement on fundamental concepts complicates efforts to develop consistent research methodologies, further hindering the field’s ability to produce findings that are both generalizable and replicable.
Despite these challenges, there have been efforts to address the conceptual diversity within the field. Some scholars advocate for an integrative approach that embraces multiple perspectives and methodologies, recognizing that transpersonal phenomena may require different theoretical frameworks depending on the context (Hartelius et al., 2007). This pluralistic approach seeks to reconcile the various models and theories within transpersonal psychology, allowing for a more flexible understanding of spiritual and transcendent experiences. However, achieving a balance between theoretical diversity and conceptual clarity remains an ongoing challenge, and the field continues to grapple with how to unify its theoretical underpinnings without sacrificing the richness of its diverse perspectives.
Difficulty in Operationalizing Transpersonal Experiences
Another major methodological challenge faced by transpersonal psychology is the difficulty in operationalizing transpersonal experiences for scientific study. Transpersonal experiences, such as mystical states, peak experiences, and altered states of consciousness, are inherently subjective and personal. This presents a significant challenge for researchers who are trying to measure and study these experiences using conventional scientific tools (Walsh & Vaughan, 1993). Traditional psychological research methods, particularly those grounded in quantitative analysis, prioritize objective measurement and replicability, which are difficult to achieve when dealing with phenomena that are often unique to the individual’s personal, spiritual, or inner world. As a result, transpersonal psychology struggles to produce findings that can be reliably replicated and generalized to broader populations (Hartelius et al., 2007).
Quantifying and categorizing transpersonal experiences presents an additional challenge. Standardized tools for measuring consciousness or spiritual experiences, such as questionnaires or psychometric scales, often fail to capture the depth and complexity of these phenomena. For example, the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), often used to measure mystical states, may oversimplify the rich and multifaceted nature of these experiences by reducing them to a set of predefined categories (MacLean et al., 2012). This reductionist approach can result in a loss of nuance and fail to capture the transformative aspects of transpersonal experiences that are central to the field. Consequently, researchers are left with methodological tools that are ill-suited to capturing the full range of transpersonal phenomena, limiting the empirical foundation of the discipline.
In response to these challenges, some researchers have called for the development of new research methodologies that are better suited to studying transpersonal experiences. Ferrer (2002) has proposed participatory approaches that involve both the researcher and the participant in co-creating the experience of inquiry. These methods focus on understanding transpersonal experiences through intersubjective and experiential lenses, which allow for greater flexibility in studying phenomena that defy conventional scientific categorization. However, while these innovative methodologies offer promising avenues for exploration, they still face the challenge of gaining acceptance within a psychological research community that places high value on objectivity and empirical rigor.
The Gap Between Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
The divide between qualitative and quantitative research methods is another significant obstacle in the development of transpersonal psychology. While mainstream psychology has increasingly embraced mixed-methods research, which combines both qualitative and quantitative approaches, the transpersonal field remains largely characterized by a reliance on qualitative methods (Grof, 1998). This preference for qualitative research is largely due to the nature of transpersonal experiences, which are often deeply subjective and difficult to quantify. Methods such as phenomenology, case studies, and narrative analysis are frequently used to explore the inner dimensions of consciousness and spirituality. While these approaches are invaluable for capturing the richness of personal experiences, they are often seen as lacking the empirical rigor required for generalizability and replication in scientific research. This creates a methodological divide between transpersonal psychology and mainstream psychology, where quantitative methods are often considered the gold standard for producing reliable and valid data (Hartelius, Caplan, & Rardin, 2007).
This gap between qualitative and quantitative methods has implications for how transpersonal psychology is perceived and accepted within the broader psychological community. Quantitative research, with its focus on statistical analysis and objective measurement, is viewed as more reliable and credible in mainstream psychology. As a result, transpersonal psychology’s reliance on qualitative methods is often seen as a weakness, further marginalizing the field. Critics argue that without quantitative data to support its claims, transpersonal psychology risks being dismissed as speculative or pseudoscientific (Elkins, 1995). Moreover, the absence of robust quantitative studies makes it difficult to validate the effectiveness of transpersonal interventions in clinical settings, limiting the field’s impact on mental health practices.
Efforts have been made to bridge this gap by incorporating mixed-methods approaches that combine the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research. For example, studies have begun to use psychometric scales alongside qualitative interviews to explore transpersonal phenomena in a more comprehensive manner (MacLean et al., 2012). This allows researchers to capture both the subjective richness of transpersonal experiences and provide empirical data that can be analyzed statistically. While these approaches represent a step forward, the challenge remains in convincing the broader psychological community that such methods can yield reliable and valuable insights into the transpersonal dimensions of human experience.
Sociocultural and Ethical Criticisms
Cultural Relativity and Western Bias
One of the primary sociocultural criticisms of transpersonal psychology is its perceived over-reliance on Western philosophical and spiritual traditions, often at the expense of non-Western perspectives. Despite its focus on transcendent and universal aspects of human consciousness, much of transpersonal psychology’s foundational theories are rooted in Western approaches, particularly those that draw from existentialism, depth psychology, and certain interpretations of Eastern philosophies (Hanegraaff, 1998). Critics argue that this Western-centric bias limits the field’s ability to truly represent the diversity of transpersonal experiences across different cultures and contexts. For example, Indigenous spiritual practices, African traditions, and other non-Western spiritual frameworks are often underrepresented or misunderstood within the transpersonal discourse, which can lead to a narrow interpretation of transpersonal phenomena (Ferrer, 2002). This exclusion undermines the discipline’s claims to universality and cross-cultural relevance.
In addition, some scholars have pointed out that the field’s emphasis on individual transcendence and self-realization may reflect a culturally specific, particularly Western, notion of spirituality that prioritizes personal growth over communal and relational forms of spiritual development (Rothberg, 1996). In many non-Western traditions, spirituality is deeply interconnected with communal practices, ancestral connections, and ecological awareness, contrasting with the more individualistic models often promoted in Western transpersonal psychology. This cultural disconnect raises questions about the extent to which transpersonal psychology can claim to represent a truly inclusive vision of human spiritual development. Addressing this bias requires a more concerted effort to engage with non-Western perspectives and integrate them into the broader framework of transpersonal psychology.
Efforts to rectify this cultural bias have been initiated by scholars who advocate for a more pluralistic approach to transpersonal psychology, which includes a broader range of cultural, spiritual, and philosophical traditions. Ferrer (2002), for example, has proposed a participatory framework that seeks to move beyond a Eurocentric model by emphasizing co-creative and intersubjective approaches to spiritual inquiry. Such models aim to incorporate diverse perspectives and create space for the inclusion of non-Western spiritual practices, recognizing that transcendent experiences are shaped by cultural and contextual factors. However, while these efforts represent progress, the field continues to grapple with how to balance the inclusion of diverse cultural traditions with the development of a cohesive theoretical framework.
Ethical Considerations in Altered States of Consciousness
The study and promotion of altered states of consciousness, such as those induced by meditation, psychedelic substances, or other spiritual practices, also raise significant ethical concerns within transpersonal psychology. While these states are often viewed as central to the field’s exploration of expanded consciousness and transcendence, they also pose risks, particularly when individuals are not adequately prepared for the intensity or potential psychological challenges associated with these experiences (Grof, 1998). The resurgence of interest in psychedelics, for instance, has brought renewed attention to the ethical implications of facilitating such experiences, as researchers and therapists must ensure that participants are guided safely and that the risks are minimized. Critics argue that some proponents of transpersonal psychology may downplay or overlook the potential dangers of these practices in their enthusiasm to explore the transformative potential of altered states.
In particular, ethical questions arise regarding the use of psychedelics in therapeutic or spiritual contexts, which has become a major area of interest within transpersonal psychology. While early pioneers of the field, such as Stanislav Grof, emphasized the potential of psychedelics to facilitate profound transpersonal experiences, there are concerns about the long-term psychological effects of these substances and the ethical responsibilities of those guiding such experiences (Walsh & Vaughan, 1993). Ensuring informed consent, providing appropriate support, and addressing potential adverse reactions are all critical considerations that must be taken into account when working with altered states. Failure to adequately address these ethical concerns can undermine the credibility of transpersonal psychology and place individuals at risk of harm.
Furthermore, the ethics of facilitating and studying altered states of consciousness extends beyond psychedelics. Practices such as intense meditation, breathwork, or sensory deprivation can also induce powerful transpersonal experiences, which may lead to psychological distress if not properly managed. Transpersonal psychology has a responsibility to develop ethical guidelines and training programs that prepare practitioners to safely guide individuals through these experiences. This includes ensuring that practitioners are adequately trained to recognize the signs of distress and provide appropriate interventions when necessary (Hartelius, Caplan, & Rardin, 2007). Addressing these ethical challenges is essential for the continued development and legitimacy of transpersonal psychology as a field that prioritizes both spiritual growth and psychological well-being.
Responsibility of Practitioners and Researchers
The ethical responsibilities of practitioners and researchers in transpersonal psychology extend beyond the facilitation of altered states of consciousness. There is an ongoing debate about the role of transpersonal psychologists in ensuring that their work promotes well-being without causing harm. For example, critics have raised concerns about the potential for spiritual bypassing, a phenomenon in which individuals use spiritual beliefs or practices to avoid addressing psychological or emotional issues (Welwood, 1984). Practitioners who promote transcendence without adequately addressing the personal and psychological dimensions of human experience may unintentionally encourage clients to neglect important areas of growth or healing. This ethical challenge highlights the need for a balanced approach that integrates both psychological and spiritual development.
Moreover, researchers in transpersonal psychology have a responsibility to ensure that their studies are conducted in a way that respects the spiritual and cultural contexts of the individuals they study. As mentioned earlier, the field’s historical focus on Western spiritual traditions has sometimes led to the appropriation or misrepresentation of non-Western practices. Ethical research in transpersonal psychology must be sensitive to these issues, ensuring that the voices and perspectives of non-Western practitioners and traditions are represented authentically and respectfully (Hanegraaff, 1998). This requires ongoing dialogue with diverse cultural groups and a commitment to avoiding the exoticization or commodification of spiritual practices.
Conclusion
The development of transpersonal psychology has been marked by a series of philosophical, methodological, and sociocultural challenges, which continue to shape its position within the broader psychological field. Criticisms regarding the field’s epistemological foundation, particularly its focus on subjective experiences and metaphysical concepts, have raised concerns about its scientific legitimacy. The lack of a unified theoretical framework and the difficulties in operationalizing transpersonal experiences further complicate its ability to engage with the empirical rigor demanded by mainstream psychology (Hartelius, Caplan, & Rardin, 2007). These foundational challenges underscore the need for the field to adopt more flexible and integrative methodologies that can bridge the gap between subjective experience and objective scientific inquiry (Ferrer, 2002).
Transpersonal psychology’s marginalization by mainstream psychology has limited its influence and hindered efforts to integrate its principles into more established psychological frameworks. The field’s focus on spirituality, altered states of consciousness, and non-material aspects of human experience has made it difficult for traditional psychology to embrace transpersonal perspectives (Elkins, 1995). Efforts to bridge this divide, including the adoption of mixed-methods research and participatory approaches, represent important steps forward, but there remains a significant methodological and conceptual divide between transpersonal and mainstream psychology (Hartelius et al., 2007). Additionally, sociocultural criticisms, such as the over-reliance on Western spiritual traditions and the ethical concerns surrounding altered states of consciousness, highlight the need for transpersonal psychology to adopt a more culturally inclusive and ethically sound approach.
Despite these challenges, transpersonal psychology continues to offer valuable insights into human consciousness, spirituality, and psychological well-being. As the field evolves, addressing these criticisms will be essential to its growth and acceptance within both academic and clinical contexts. By developing clearer theoretical frameworks, refining research methodologies, and engaging with diverse cultural perspectives, transpersonal psychology can enhance its relevance and contribute meaningfully to the understanding of human consciousness and spiritual development. Furthermore, ongoing dialogue with mainstream psychology and other disciplines will be crucial in fostering a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to psychological inquiry in the 21st century.
Bibliography
- Elkins, D. N. (1995). Transpersonal psychology: What is it? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(2), 5-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678950352002
- Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory: A participatory vision of human spirituality. State University of New York Press.
- Grof, S. (1998). The cosmic game: Explorations of the frontiers of human consciousness. State University of New York Press.
- Hanegraaff, W. J. (1998). New age religion and Western culture: Esotericism in the mirror of secular thought. Brill.
- Hartelius, G., Caplan, M., & Rardin, M. A. (2007). Transpersonal psychology: Defining the past, divining the future. The Humanistic Psychologist, 35(2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873260701274017
- Rothberg, D. (1996). Healing and transformation: Transpersonal and postmodern perspectives. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 28(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094547
- Walsh, R., & Vaughan, F. (1993). Paths beyond ego: The transpersonal vision. Tarcher.