Spirituality in Clinical Practice

© 2021 American Psychological Association 2022, Vol. 9, No. 1, 60–71

ISSN: 2326-4500 https://doi.org/10.1037/scp0000279

Nonreligious Spirituality, Mental Health, and Well-Being

Hansong Zhang1, Joshua N. Hook1, Adam S. Hodge1, Daryl R. Van Tongeren2,

Don E. Davis3, and Ling Jin4
1
Department of Psychology, University of North Texas
2
Department of Psychology, Hope College
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

3
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University

4
Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine

There have been significant changes in the American religious/spiritual (R/S) landscape
in recent years, with fewer than half of all Americans reporting church membership.
Nonreligious Spirituality (NRS) describes spiritual beliefs, experiences, and practices
that emphasize spirituality apart from religion, and serves as an alternative for many
individuals to engage in R/S beliefs and practices outside of traditional religions. It is
unclear if NRS provides individuals with similar mental health benefits when compared
to traditional religious beliefs and practices, or whether there might be important
differences. The present study examined the relationships between NRS and mental
health symptoms, emotional well-being, and meaning in life. Participants were compared
across three groups: (a) Spiritual-but-not-religious individuals, (b) traditionally religious
individuals, and (c) individuals who identify as neither religious nor spiritual. The overall
results suggested that individuals who identify with NRS showed relatively few
differences compared to traditionally religious individuals. Whereas NRS was associated
with some positive outcomes, including emotional well-being and meaning in life, it was
also related to some negative outcomes such as higher rates of depression. Limitations,
suggestions for future research, and practical implications are discussed.
Keywords: spirituality, religion, Nonreligious Spirituality, mental health, well-being

The past few decades have witnessed impor-
tant changes in the makeup of religious and
spiritual (R/S) involvement in the United States.
Specifically, traditional religious involvement
has been on the decline, especially among young
people, and the number of individuals who iden-
tify as spiritual but not religious (SBNR) has been
increasing. According to a Pew Research Center
(2015), about 27% of U.S. adults consider them-
selves as spiritual but unaffiliated with any tradi-
tional religious group, demonstrating an increase
of 8% in just the past 5 years. Furthermore, a
recent study of more than 35,000 U.S. adults
revealed that the percentage of people who regu-
larly attend church and other religious services
have declined in recent years (Pew Research
Center, 2015), and church membership in the
U.S. has fallen below 50% for the first time
(Gallup, 2021).
In addition, recent research has revealed that
religious deconversion has increased over the years
(Streib, 2021). Interestingly, despite no longer
identifying as religious, these “religious nones”
still exhibit a religious residue wherein they report
religious emotions, attitudes, and behaviors more
consistent with currently religious individuals than

This article was published Online First October 25, 2021. Daryl R. Van Tongeren https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
Hansong Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4036- 1810-9448
3784 Authors have no disclosures to report.
Joshua N. Hook https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2645- Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
7060 dressed to Hansong Zhang, Department of Psychology,
Adam S. Hodge https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0012- University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76201, United
6178 States. Email: HansongZhang@my.unt.edu

60
 NONRELIGIOUS SPIRITUALITY AND MENTAL HEALTH
never religious individuals (e.g., Van Tongeren
et al., in press). Thus, some aspects of a transcen-
dent connection with the divine may persist despite
no longer categorizing themselves as religious.
Nonreligious Spirituality (NRS) has been attract-
ing more attention from psychological research in
recent years (Aird et al., 2010; Buxant et al., 2007;
Coates, 2012; Davis et al., 2015; Houtman et al.,
2009; Pretorius, 2014). Much of this research has
yielded positive results. For example, some
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
research has demonstrated that NRS is associated
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
with positive mental health, such as lower levels of
depression (Smith et al., 2009). Some other benefits
of NRS include active exploration of self (Coates,
2012; Latkin, 1990) and a cultivation of a sense of
belonging (Namini & Murken, 2009).
However, the majority of the research on R/S
and mental health has explored individuals who
are involved in traditional religious groups, and
this gap in the current literature calls for a deeper
investigation into the impact of NRS on mental
health. Namely, although some literature has
yielded a positive relationship between NRS and
emotional well-being, some negative and mixed
effects on emotional well-being have also been
found (e.g., Buxant et al., 2010; Pretorius, 2014).
In addition, although past research has found
that religious involvement is positively associ-
ated with a sense of meaning (Koenig, 2012),
the vast majority of this research has been
conducted in traditionally religious participants;
less research has been conducted on NRS. How-
ever, since NRS and traditional religions both
involve the connection with something greater
than the self (Berghuijs et al., 2013), it may be
that NRS has similar effects on meaning in life as
traditional religious involvement.
In addition, past studies have used a variety of
measures of NRS, assess a variety of mental
health outcomes, and use a wide range of com-
parison groups (e.g., non-R/S individuals, tradi-
tionally religious individuals, patients with
mental health problems; Chambers et al., 1994;
Waheed, 2020; Winocur-Craig, 1995). There-
fore, an investigation into this topic can further
organize and structure the research on NRS
involvement and mental health.
Mental Health Symptoms
Although some research has examined the impact
of spirituality on mental health symptoms (Berghuijs
et al., 2013; Coates, 2012; Latkin, 1990), research
61
using measures specially tailored to NRS and the
practice of spirituality outside the context of
religion is needed. The extant research that has
explored NRS and mental health symptoms has
been mixed. Some research has found that NRS is
associated with higher levels of specific mental
health disorders such as delusions (Aird et al.,
2010), depersonalization (Demmrich et al.,
2013), and narcissism (Wink et al., 2005). The
increasing prevalence of mental health symptoms
in general population (e.g., delusion-like experi-
ences; Aird et al., 2010), as well as the key
characteristic of conceiving the divine as immi-
nent and depersonalized force in NRS individuals
(Woodhead, 1993), could suggest some connec-
tion between these experiences and embracing
NRS beliefs or practices. Therefore, these pre-
liminary findings warrant replication, especially
given sociological changes in religious involve-
ment in the United States.
Depression and delusional ideation represent
two common but distinct types of mental health
problems, and examining each may reveal helpful
patterns of mental health symptoms associated
with NRS. Thus, the first research question
explores levels of depression and delusional ide-
ation among individuals who identify with NRS,
traditional religion, and neither religion nor
spirituality. Specifically, we examined whether
prior findings regarding NRS would replicate—
namely, we expected that individuals who iden-
tify with NRS would report (a) similar levels of
depression as traditional religious individuals,
and lower levels of depression than non-R/S
individuals, and (b) higher levels of delusional
ideation compared to traditional religious indi-
viduals and non-R/S individuals.
Emotional Well-Being
Emotional well-being taps into the quality of
emotional experiences (i.e., frequency and inten-
sity of those experiences; Kahneman & Deaton,
2010), including joy, stress, and frustration.
Although NRS beliefs, experiences, and practices
differ from traditional religious organizations in
many ways (e.g., general focus on individuals
rather than groups; Nelson, 2011), past research
on the impact of NRS on emotional well-being
has been similar to research on participation in
traditional religious groups. Similar to traditional
religious involvement, research has linked NRS
to positive emotional well-being, including
 62 ZHANG, HOOK, HODGE, VAN TONGEREN, DAVIS, AND JIN
tension management in community (Coates,
2012), religious sense of coherence (Namini &
Murken, 2009), and general life satisfaction
(Latkin et al., 1987). At the same time, some
research has found negative effects of NRS on
emotional well-being, including difficulty adjust-
ing to society after leaving the NRS group
(Pretorius, 2014). Taken together, the majority
of research has found positive effects of NRS on
well-being. Thus, based on prior work, we ex-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
pected that individuals who practice NRS would
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
report similar levels of well-being as traditional
religious individuals, and higher levels of well-
being than non-R/S individuals.
Meaning in Life
Meaning in life refers to the degree to which
people are able to make sense of their experi-
ences, perceive their life as significant, and have a
purpose in life (Steger et al., 2011). Although we
are not aware of any studies that have empirically
studied the relationship between NRS and mean-
ing in life, having a clear sense of meaning and
purpose is one of the ways in which involvement
in traditional religious groups positively impact
mental health and well-being. It remains to be
seen whether this similar benefit is present for
individuals who identify with NRS. Thus, we
hypothesized that SBNR individuals would
report similar levels of meaning in life as tradi-
tional religious individuals, and higher levels of
meaning in life than non-R/S individuals.
Purpose and Hypotheses of Present Study
The central purpose of this study was to pro-
vide a foundation of research for how NRS is
related to mental health and well-being. One of
the weaknesses in the body of literature on NRS
and mental health and well-being is that NRS has
been measured in a variety of ways, making it
difficult to compare results across studies in a
systematic way. In the present study, we mea-
sured NRS in two main ways. First, we assessed
self-identification. Participants were divided into
four groups based on whether they identify with
(a) NRS, (b) religion but not spirituality, (c) both
spirituality and religion, or (d) neither religion
nor spirituality. Second, we assessed self-
reported NRS beliefs, experiences, and prac-
tices. By measuring NRS in these two ways,
we hope to gain greater clarity about the aspects
of NRS that are specifically related to mental
health and well-being.
We had three main hypotheses based on prior
research: Individuals who identify with NRS
would (a) report higher levels of delusional idea-
tion relative to other groups and (b) similar levels
of depression as traditional religious individuals
but lower levels of depression than non-R/S
individuals (Hypothesis 1); NRS individuals
would report similar levels of well-being as tra-
ditional religious individuals and higher levels of
well-being than non-R/S individuals (Hypothesis 2),
and; NRS individuals would report similar levels
of meaning in life as traditional religious indi-
viduals but higher levels of meaning in life than
non-R/S individuals (Hypothesis 3).
Method
Participants
Initially, 522 participants agreed to participate
but the data of 89 participants were incomplete
and deleted during data cleaning. Final partici-
pants included in the analyses were 433 adults
(215 cisgender men, 217 cisgender women, 1
transgender individual) from the United States.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 51 years
(M = 20.70, SD = 3.63). Participants reported a
variety of racial/ethnic backgrounds (White
72.0%, Black 9.6%, Latinx 5.7%, Asian 2.1%,
Native American 0.2%, Multiracial/Other 1.6%).
Participants were mostly Christian (73.1%; Muslim
0.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Hindu 2.8%, Jewish 1.6%,
Atheist 4.6%, Agnostic 4.1%, None/Other 9.2%)
and Heterosexual (76.4%; Gay/Lesbian 2.1%,
Bisexual 20.0%, Other 1.4%). Regarding religious
identification, 86 participants identified as reli-
gious and spiritual, 158 as spiritual but not reli-
gious, 90 as religious but not spiritual, and 99 as
neither spiritual nor religious.
Measures
Religious/Spiritual Identification
Participants’ R/S identification was collected
by a single item in the demographic question-
naire. R/S identification was categorized into four
groups: (a) Religious and spiritual (i.e., tradition-
ally religious), (b) religious but not spiritual, (c)
spiritual but not religious (i.e., NRS), and (d)
non-R/S (i.e., nonreligious/nonspiritual).
 NONRELIGIOUS SPIRITUALITY AND MENTAL HEALTH
NRS Beliefs, Experiences, and Practices
NRS beliefs, experiences, and practices were
assessed with items from a measure of new
spirituality (Berghuijs et al., 2013). The NRS
beliefs measure consists of 46 items that assess
several categories of beliefs: Spiritual transfor-
mation (e.g., “To what extent do you find it
important to pursue the development of your
higher or deeper Self?”), monism (e.g., “To
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
what extent do you agree that there is a force
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
or vital energy that connects us all?”), spiritual
knowledge (e.g., “To what extent do you agree
that all answers can be found inside yourself?”),
syncretism (e.g., “To what extent do you agree
that it is good to experiment with teachings and
practices derived from different traditions to find
out what works best for you?”), quest (e.g., “To
what extent do you agree that each new insight is
provisional?”), neopaganism (e.g., “To what
extent do you agree that magic rituals can bring
you in contact with the Goddess?”), new age
expectations (e.g., “To what extent do you agree
that we are on the threshold of a new age?”), and
belief in the paranormal (e.g., “To what extent do
you agree that I am convinced of the curative
effect of gemstones and crystals?”).
The NRS experiences measure consists of 19
items that assess 3 categories of beliefs: Connect-
edness (e.g., “To what extent does the statement
‘I experience an inner strength’ apply to you?”),
experiences of nonreligious transcendence
(e.g., “Which of the following experiences
have you had: A feeling of connectedness with
a universal power, a combination of events in my
life about which I had the feeling that this is no
coincidence, etc.”), and paranormal experiences
(e.g., “Which of the following experiences have
you had: An experience of finding myself outside
my body, a memory of a past life, etc.”).
The NRS practices measure consists of 15
items that assess 2 categories of practices: Self-
perfectioning (e.g., “Do you practice Yoga?”)
and pursuit of esoteric knowledge (e.g., “Do
you practice explanation of dreams?”).
Participants rated items on a 5-point rating scale
(endpoints vary). There was some initial evi-
dence of validity for a total new spirituality score
(i.e., positive correlation with traditional reli-
gious spirituality and liberal social engagement;
Berghuijs et al., 2013). Cronbach’s alphas for
the subscales ranged from .76 to .93 (Berghuijs
et al., 2013). In our study, the Cronbach’s α was
63
.92 for NRS beliefs, .88 for NRS experiences,
and .89 for NRS practices.
Depression
Depression was measured by the Center
for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale
(CES-D; Radloff, 1977). The CES-D is com-
posed of 20 items that assess the frequency of
major symptoms of depression on a 4-point
Likert scale from (0 = rarely, less than 1 day to
3 = most or all of the time, 5–7 days). CES-D
scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores
indicating more frequently endorsing depressive
symptoms. The CES-D contains four subscales as
follows: positive affect (e.g., “I enjoyed life”),
negative affect (e.g., “I felt lonely”), somatic
symptoms and retarded activity (e.g., “I had
trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing”),
and interpersonal difficulties (e.g., “People were
unfriendly”). The CES-D demonstrates good psy-
chometric properties with high concurrent and
construct validity as well as high reliability across
various populations (Devins et al., 1988). Three-
week test–retest reliability was .78 (Fichtel &
Larsson, 2002). The Cronbach’s alphas ranged
from .85 to .90 (Hunter et al, 2003; Radloff,
1977). For the current sample, the Cronbach’s
α was .92.
Delusional Ideation
Delusional ideation was measured by the Pe-
ters et al. Delusions Inventory (PDI; Peters et al.,
1999). The PDI is a self-report measure designed
to assess delusional symptoms for general popu-
lation (e.g., “Do you ever feel as if people are
reading your mind?”). It is composed of 21 items
with dichotomous responses of yes or no. The
sum of positive responses on each item constitu-
tes the total score. Higher scores indicate greater
delusional symptoms or higher proneness to
paranoia. Any item with a positive response
would prompt participants to provide ratings
on three dimensions of delusions: Distress, pre-
occupation, and conviction. Ratings for these
three dimensions range from 1 to 5, with 1
indicating the lowest level of distress, preoccu-
pation, and conviction and 5 indicating the high-
est level of the three dimensions. The PDI has
shown in the past research to have good psycho-
metric properties, including adequate reliability
 64 ZHANG, HOOK, HODGE, VAN TONGEREN, DAVIS, AND JIN
and validity (Peters et al., 2004). For the current
sample, the Cronbach’s α was .95.
Subjective Well-Being
Subjective well-being was measured using the
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener
et al., 1985). The SWLS contains five items
that measure one’s sense of satisfaction toward
life (e.g., “In most ways my life is close to my
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ideal”). Items are rated on a 7-point rating scale
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
with “1” indicating strongly disagree and “7”
indicating strongly agree. Higher scores indicate
greater satisfaction with life. The SWLS has
demonstrated good psychometric properties
such as adequate levels of reliability (e.g., Cron-
bach’s α was .87; test–retest reliability; Diener
et al., 1985) and convergent validity (Blais et al.,
1989; Pavot & Diener, 1993). For the current
sample, the Cronbach’s α was .88.
Meaning in Life
Meaning in life was measured with the Mean-
ing in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al.,
2006). The MLQ consists of 10 items that mea-
sure 2 dimensions of meaning in life: (a) the
presence of meaning (e.g., my life has a clear
sense of purpose) and (b) search for meaning
(e.g., I am seeking a purpose of mission for my
life). Participants rate items on a 7-point rating
scale from 1 = absolutely untrue to 7 = abso-
lutely true. Scores on the MLQ have shown
evidence for high reliability and validity
(Steger et al., 2006), high internal consistency
(e.g., MLQ-P and MLQ-S demonstrated α coef-
ficients of .81 and .84), and good test–retest
reliability (e.g., 1-month test–retest stability
coefficients were .70 for MLQ-P and .73 for
MLQ-S). For the current sample, the Cronbach’s
α was .88 for MLQ-S and .76 for MLQ-P.
Procedure
Prior to conducting the study, the research team
obtained approval from Institutional Review
Board (IRB) from the university. Participants
were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical-Turk
(MTurk). Mturk has shown to generate reliable
data (Shapiro et al., 2013) and a relatively diverse
participant pool (Buhrmester et al., 2011). After
reading the consent form and indicating consent to
participate, participants completed a series of
online questionnaires. After completing the ques-
tionnaires, participants were debriefed, and given
the contact information of the investigator should
they have questions. Upon finishing the survey,
participants received a small monetary compensa-
tion of $.50 USD.
Data Analysis
For each primary dependent variable (i.e.,
depression, delusional ideation, subjective well-
being, meaning in life presence, meaning in life
search), we analyzed the data in two ways. First,
we explored group differences. Specifically, we
categorized the participants into four groups as
follows: (a) NRS individuals, (b) traditionally
religious participants who identified as both spir-
itual and religious, and (c) non-R/S participants
were those who did not identify as religious nor
spiritual. Although we did not have any specific
hypotheses about individuals who identified as
(d) religious but not spiritual, we kept these
participants in the overall sample and reported
their mean scores in Table 2, as more fully
understanding this group could be an important
area for future research. For each dependent
variable, we conducted a one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA). We also explored differ-
ences between groups using post hoc tests with a
Bonferroni correction.
Second, in all participants, we explored the
relationships between (a) the measure of NRS
beliefs, experiences, and practices and (b) each
dependent variable. For each dependent variable,
we conducted a multiple regression analysis with
three predictor variables (i.e., NRS beliefs, ex-
periences, and practices). Because we ran 10
overall analyses (i.e., two analyses for each
dependent variable, we used a Bonferroni correc-
tion and judged p values less than .005 as
significant.
Results
We first checked the data for missing data,
outliers, and normality. Eighty-nine participants
did not respond more than 20% of data in their
survey and therefore were deleted from the study.
There were a small number of outliers (less than
3% per variable). We recoded outliers to three
standard deviations above or below the mean. Our
data did not display evidence of nonnormality.
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations
 NONRELIGIOUS SPIRITUALITY AND MENTAL HEALTH 65

among study variables are presented in Table 1.
Mean differences across religious and spiritual
(R/S) identification are in Table 2.
NRS and Mental Health Symptoms
The first research question explored the relation-
ships between R/S identification and two measures
of mental health symptoms (i.e., depression and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
p = .023), NRS experiences were a significant posi-
tive predictor of depression (β = .32, p < .001), and
NRS practices were a significant negative predictor
of depression (β = −.61, p < .001).
For delusional ideation, we hypothesized that
NRS participants would report higher levels of
delusional ideation than traditional religious par-
ticipants and non-R/S participants. This hypoth-
esis was not supported. The result of the ANOVA
showed that NRS participants did not report

delusion). For depression, we hypothesized that (a)

significant differences in delusional ideation
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

NRS participants would report similar levels of

depression as traditional religious participants,
and (b) both NRS and traditional religious partici-
pants would report lower levels of depression than
non-R/S participants. This hypothesis was partially
supported. The result of an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) showed that NRS participants’ depres-
sion scores were not significantly different
(M = 1.36, SD = 0.62) from the scores of tradi-
tional religious participants (M = 1.32, SD = 0.61,
p = .964) or non-R/S participants (M = 1.12,
SD = 0.65, p = .011). Traditional religious parti-
cipants also did not report significantly different
depression scores compared to non-R/S par-
ticipants ( p = .111).
We also hypothesized that NRS beliefs, experi-
ences, and practices would be significant negative
predictors of depression. This hypothesis was
partially supported. The overall model was sig-
nificant. The result of the multiple regression
analysis found that NRS beliefs, experiences,
and practices predicted about 34% of the vari-
ance in depression, R2 = .34, F(3, 432) =
72.99, p < .001. NRS beliefs were not a signifi-
cant negative predictor of depression (β = −.17,
(M = 1.54, SD = 0.34) compared to traditional
religious participants (M = 1.46, SD = 0.34,
p = .286), and actually reported lower delusion
scores than non-R/S participants (M = 1.74,
SD = 0.32, p < .001; η2p = .080).
We also hypothesized that NRS beliefs, experi-
ences, and practices would be significant positive
predictors of delusional ideation. This hypothesis
was partially supported. The overall model of
multiple regression was significant. NRS beliefs,
experiences, and practices predicted about 43%
of the variance in delusional ideation, R2 = .43,
F(3, 432) = 108.18, p < .001. NRS beliefs were
not a significant predictor of delusional ideation
(β = .10, p = .145). NRS experiences were not
a significant predictor of delusional ideation
(β = −.03, p = .592). NRS practices, however,
was a significant positive predictor of delusional
ideation (β = .61, p < .001).
NRS and Subjective Well-Being
The second research question explored the rela-
tionship between R/S identification and subjective

Table 1
Descriptive and Intercorrelations of All Major Variables (N = 433)

Major variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. NRM beliefs 1.38 .24 1 —

2. NRM experiences 1.37 .26 .82* 1 —
3. NRM practices 1.59 .31 .59* .50* 1 —
4. CES-D 1.28 .61 −.26 * −.12 −.54* 1 —
5. PDI 1.57 .35 .43 * .35* .65* −.56* 1 —
6. SWLS 3.75 .70 −.35* −.31* −.39* .00 −.29* 1 —
7. MLQ-Presence 4.59 1.17 −.16* −.29* −.09 −.31* −.03 .56* 1 —
8. MLQ-Search 4.81 1.23 −.39* −.34* −.36* .31* −.38* .26* .18* 1
Note. NRM = new religious movement; CES-D = Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale; PDI = Peters
et al. delusions inventory; SWLS = satisfaction with life scale; MLQ-Presence = meaning in life questionnaire presence of
meaning; MLQ-Search = meaning in life questionnaire search for meaning.
* p < .005.
 66 ZHANG, HOOK, HODGE, VAN TONGEREN, DAVIS, AND JIN

Table 2
Mean Differences for Study Variables Across Religious/Spiritual Backgrounds

Religious & Nonreligious Religious Nonspiritual

Study variables spiritual spirituality nonspiritual nonreligious F

N 86 158 90 99 N/A
1. CES-D 1.32 (.61)ac 1.36 (.62)ab 1.26 (.58)ac 1.12 (.65)cd 3.40
2. PDI 1.46 (.34)a 1.54 (.34)a 1.55 (.34)a 1.74 (.31)b 12.56*
3. SWLS 5.48 (1.08)a 5.12 (1.06)abc 4.90 (1.27)bd 4.58 (1.52)d 8.42*
4. MLQ-Presence 4.88 (.96)ac 4.61 (.87)bc 4.65 (1.21)bc 4.25 (1.56)bd 4.81*
5. MLQ-Search 5.13 (1.21)ac 4.86 (1.10)bc 4.72 (1.29)bc 4.51 (1.33)bd 4.29*
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. CES-D = Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale; PDI = Peters et al. delusions inventory;
SWLS = satisfaction with life scale; MLQ-Presence = meaning in life questionnaire presence of meaning; MLQ-
Searching = meaning in life questionnaire search for meaning. Means that share the same subscripts are not significantly
different from each other p < .005.
* p < .005.

well-being. We hypothesized that (a) NRS partici-
pants would report similar levels of subjective well-
being as traditional religious participants, and (b)
both NRS participants and traditional religious
participants would report higher levels of satisfac-
tion with life than non-R/S participants. This
hypothesis was supported. The results of an AN-
OVA found that NRS participants’ satisfaction with
life (M = 5.12, SD = 1.06) did not significantly
differ from that of traditional religious participants
(M = 5.45, SD = 1.08, p = .189). NRS parti-
cipants reported higher satisfaction with life
than non-R/S participants (M = 4.58, SD = 1.52,
p < .001, η2p = .055). Traditional religious partici-
pants also reported higher satisfaction with life com-
pared to non-R/S participants (p = .003, η2p = .080).
We also hypothesized that NRS beliefs, ex-
periences, and practices would be significant
positive predictors of satisfaction with life.
This hypothesis was not supported. The overall
model was significant. NRS beliefs, experiences,
and practices predicted about 19% of the variance
in satisfaction with life, R2 = .19, F(3, 432) =
34.60, p < .001. NRS beliefs were not a signif-
icant predictor of satisfaction with life (β = .01,
p = .861). NRS experiences were a significant
negative predictor of satisfaction with life
(β = −.25, p = .001). NRS practices were also
a significant negative predictor of satisfaction with
life (β = −.27, p < .001).
NRS and Meaning in Life
The third research question investigated the
relationship between R/S identification and
meaning in life, including the presence of mean-
ing in life and search of meaning in life. We
hypothesized that NRS participants would report
similar levels of meaning in life as traditional
religious participants but higher levels of mean-
ing in life, both in presence and search of mean-
ing, than non-R/S participants. This hypothesis
was not supported. First, an ANOVA found that
NRS participants did not report any significant
difference in presence of meaning in life (M =
4.61, SD = .96) compared to both traditional
religious participants (M = 4.88, SD = .10, p =
.301) and non-R/S participants (M = 4.25, SD =
1.56, p = .070). Second, NRS participants did not
report any significant difference in search for
meaning in life (M = 4.86, SD = 1.10) compared
to both traditional religious participants (M =
5.13, SD = 1.21, p = .358) and non-R/S partici-
pants (M = 4.51, SD = 1.33, p = .104).
We also hypothesized that NRS beliefs, ex-
periences, and practices would be significant
positive predictors of the presence of meaning
in life. This hypothesis was partially supported.
The overall model was significant. NRS beliefs,
experiences, and practices predicted about 10%
of the variance in presence of meaning in life,
R2 = .10, F(3, 432) = 16.42, p < .001. NRS beliefs
were not a significant positive predictor of the
presence of meaning in life (β = .22, p = .011).
NRS experiences were a significant negative
predictor of the presence of meaning in life
(β = −.48, p < .001). NRS practices were not a
significant predictor of the presence of meaning in
life (β = .02, p = .723).
Also, we hypothesized that NRS beliefs, ex-
periences, and practices would be significant
 NONRELIGIOUS SPIRITUALITY AND MENTAL HEALTH
positive predictors of search of meaning in life.
This hypothesis was partially supported. The
overall model was significant. NRS beliefs, ex-
periences, and practices predicted about 17% of
the variance in search of meaning in life, R2 = .17,
F(3, 432) = 30.59, p < .001. NRS beliefs were not
a significant predictor of search for meaning in
life (β = −.22, p = .007). NRS experiences were
not a significant predictor of searching of mean-
ing in life (β = −.06, p = .451). NRS practices,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
however, were a significant negative predictor of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
search for meaning in life (β = −.20, p < .001).
Discussion
The current psychological literature has estab-
lished a strong foundation regarding the relation-
ships between traditional religious participation
and emotional health and well-being (Koenig,
1998; Schieman et al., 2013; Ventis, 1995).
However, much less research has investigated
the psychological correlates of NRS, as well as
possible mechanisms underlying these relation-
ships. The present study further investigated the
relationship between NRS and emotional health
and well-being by exploring the relationships
between (a) people from different religious iden-
tifications (i.e., NRS, traditionally religious, and
non-R/S), (b) salient components of NRS, includ-
ing beliefs, experiences, and practices, and (c)
various aspects of mental health and well-being,
including symptoms of mental health, subjective
well-being, and meaning in life.
We first explored the differences between
participants who identified with three different
religious identifications: (a) Spiritual but not
religious (i.e., NRS), (b) traditionally religious
(i.e., religious and spiritual), and (c) non-R/S
(i.e., nonreligious and nonspiritual). The main
conclusion from this set of analyses was that
there were relatively few differences between
people who identified with NRS and people
who identified as traditionally religious. Parti-
cipants from these two groups showed similar
patterns on all the major variables of depression,
delusional ideation, subjective well-being, and
sense of meaning. These findings provide evi-
dence that, at least psychologically speaking,
NRS and traditionally religious participants may
be more similar than different. Furthermore, NRS
participants may be likely to experience similar
benefits to mental health and well-being as
traditionally religious participants.
67
There were some group differences found
between (a) NRS and traditionally religious par-
ticipants and (b) non-R/S participants. In general,
NRS and traditionally religious participants re-
ported lower levels of delusional ideation and
higher levels of subjective well-being (i.e., satis-
faction with life) than non-R/S participants.
These findings are both similar and different
from prior theory and research. For example,
both NRS and traditionally religious participants
reported lower levels of delusional ideation than
non-R/S participants, which may indicate that
NRS is not a risk factor for delusional ideation,
as previously considered (Aird et al., 2010; Smith
et al., 2009). Both NRS and traditional religious
participation are related to increased subjective
well-being, which is consistent with previous
research (Becker, 1999; Wink et al., 2005).
In order to examine the role of NRS more
specifically, we examined the relationship
between specific aspects of NRS involvement
(i.e., beliefs, experiences, and practices) with
the major variables. Compared to the previous
analyses of group differences by R/S identifica-
tion, these regression analyses provide a more
finely tuned analysis for how NRS beliefs, ex-
periences, and practices are related to mental
health and well-being.
For the mental health symptoms, it is worth
noting that the three components of NRS partici-
pation (i.e., beliefs, experiences, and practices)
had different associations with depression. Spe-
cifically, whereas NRS practices were negatively
associated with depression, NRS experiences
were positively associated with depression. Since
NRS experiences can involve phenomena that are
beyond natural comprehension or understanding
(e.g., seeing a dead person, experiencing contact
with a dead person), going through one of these
experiences could perhaps be mentally disorient-
ing and concerning, and therefore contribute to
one’s depression. Another factor could be that
whereas participants have more control to choose
their practices, they do not have as much control
over their experiences, which could increase the
sense of vulnerability for certain individuals. For
example, the experience of finding oneself out-
side one’s body could lead to concern of that
happening during activities such as daily driving,
which requires one’s full attention.
Whereas NRS beliefs and experiences were
not significant predictors of delusional idea-
tion, NRS practices were positively associated
 68 ZHANG, HOOK, HODGE, VAN TONGEREN, DAVIS, AND JIN
with delusional ideation in participants. This
finding is consistent with previous research that
NRS involvement is linked to higher levels of
delusional propensity, including delusional con-
viction (Aird et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2009).
Although having NRS experiences were not
linked to one’s experiences of delusional idea-
tion, practicing certain NRS rituals, including
consulting Tarot cards or horoscopes, may be
an indicator of one’s belief in the paranormal.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
When we explored the relationship between
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
NRS and life satisfaction, both NRS practices and
experiences were negative predictors of satisfac-
tion with life. This finding was interesting and
was in the opposite direction of what was hypoth-
esized. It could be related to the influences of
participants’ current involvement with NRS. For
example, research has indicated difficulty in func-
tioning well in society after leaving certain new
religious movement groups (Pretorius, 2014),
and many of these groups emphasize spirituality
over religion (Clarke, 2006). More research on
how NRS or involvement with new religious
movement groups is needed.
Finally, regarding meaning in life, NRS ex-
periences were negatively associated with the
presence of meaning in life. It could be that certain
NRS experiences are beyond comprehension and
may confuse the individual involved and there-
fore be associated with lower meaning in life
(e.g., having an out-of-body experience and see-
ing one’s body from outside). NRS practices were
also negatively associated with search for mean-
ing in life. This reflected one salient feature of
NRS: Some NRS individuals may be very in-
vested in their spiritual beliefs and community,
demonstrating strong conviction toward their
spiritual view. This may explain their high com-
mitment to their meaning in life and therefore the
lack of need to search for meaning in life.
Limitations and Directions for
Future Research
The findings of the present study should be
interpreted in light of its limitations. First, the
present study recruited participants through
Amazon’s Mechanical-Turk, an online survey
platform. Therefore, there was no control over
the setting in which participants finished the
survey, which could impact participants’ ability
to focus and maintain their attention over time
(e.g., a loud and crowded coffee shop). Also,
although the current sample included individuals
of various genders, racial/ethnic groups, and
religions, the participants were mostly White
(72.2%), and Christian (73.1%). Future studies
could consider exploring these variables in var-
ious racial and religious groups. Finally, it is
worth considering how the strategy for recruit-
ing participants impacted the results. We did not
recruit from specific new religious movement
groups to explore NRS; instead, we recruited
groups based on religious identification (i.e.,
religious and spiritual, NRS, religious but not
spiritual, and neither religious nor spiritual).
There may be variability in the individuals who
identify as NRS. For example, some may be
heavily involved in a New Religious Movement,
whereas others may practice a more individual
spirituality or simply experience a passive sense of
connection with a higher power. Future research
should explore this group of individuals more fully
to investigate whether there are differences in
mental health and well-being.
Second, although the present study examined
the relationship between NRS and mental health,
only two mental health symptoms were explored
(i.e., depression and delusional ideation). Future
studies could expand the range of mental health
symptoms to gain a more comprehensive under-
standing of the psychological health of people
who identify with NRS beliefs, experiences, and
practices.
Third, since the three components of NRS
(i.e., beliefs, experiences, practices) had different
kinds of relationships with the major variables, it
could be helpful to keep exploring the individual
components of NRS, rather than conceptualizing
NRS involvement as a broader construct.
Fourth, it may be worth further exploring why
NRS participants and traditional religious parti-
cipants shared a high degree of similarity across
the main variables. There are some possible ex-
planations. First, it could be that specific NRS
beliefs, experiences, and practices (e.g., Hare
Krishna) share some of the same underlying
mechanisms as those in traditional religions,
therefore triggering similar results across the
psychological variables. Second, the sample
could have included people who left traditional
religion and thus stopped being religious (e.g.,
did not go to church), but still maintained the
connection with God or a sense of spirituality. In
this way, these people might identify with NRS,
 NONRELIGIOUS SPIRITUALITY AND MENTAL HEALTH
but they may share some of the same psychologi-
cal features as those participants who identified as
religious. Future research could aim to further
explore the specific characteristics and histories
of those individuals who identify with NRS (e.g.,
religious nones; Vernon, 1968).
Practical Application
Our findings shed some light on best practices
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
for counseling clients who identify with NRS.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
First, it is important to recognize that NRS in-
dividuals are a diverse group. In addition to
having different religious histories, our results
suggest that there may be important differences
among the different aspects of NRS, such as
beliefs, experiences, and practices. For example,
NRS experiences were positively associated with
depression, whereas NRS practices were nega-
tively associated with depression. It may be
important to assess for NRS beliefs, practices,
and experiences, and explore the extent to which
each is related to the client’s presenting problem,
or could be used as a source of support.
Second, taking the time and energy to under-
stand some background information about NRS
individuals may help counselors conceptualize
the client and design the treatment plan more
accurately. For example, if NRS individuals are
negatively impacted by the groups they are a part
of (e.g., losing sense of self or independence),
counselors can provide psychoeducation and help
clients realize the nature of the group dynamic
and explore whether the group is meeting their
needs. At the same time, counselors may benefit
from understanding the individual and subjective
nature of many NRS experiences, beliefs, and
practices, and therefore promote empathy and
understanding of clients. Specifically, exploring
individuals’ history and their unique life story can
assist counselors in understanding the motiva-
tions that clients have for engaging in NRS and
how NRS might be working (or not working) to
meet the individual’s mental health needs.
Third, gaining a deeper understanding of NRS
could also reduce stereotypes for religious minor-
ity members, therefore creating a more accepting
counseling environment. Since NRS tends to be
perceived differently than traditional religious
participation, individuals who identify with
NRS may face the risk for marginalization, which
could lead to negative mental health outcomes.
This study, for example, did not find that NRS
69
individuals reported higher levels of delusional
ideation than traditional religious individuals, so
this may be one example of a stereotype that is not
applicable to the majority of NRS individuals.
Building understanding toward NRS beliefs
could improve attitudes toward the wide array
and diversity of religious individuals. Specifi-
cally, counseling training programs could enrich
their trainees’ understanding of NRS individuals
by sharing more educational resources about
NRS and implications for counseling NRS in-
dividuals (e.g., Matthews & Salazar, 2014).
Conclusion
The present research explored the relationships
between NRS and mental health, emotional well-
being, and meaning in life. The overall results
suggest that NRS participants show relatively few
differences compared to traditionally religious
participants in regard to their psychological pro-
file. NRS participants report more differences
compared to participants who are neither religious
nor spiritual. In this regard, NRS was associated
with some positive outcomes, including positive
emotional well-being and lower levels of delusional
ideation, compared with non-R/S individuals.
Exploring the specific effects of NRS found
differences among the three NRS components
of beliefs, experiences, and practices, and it may
be important to analyze each of these domains
individually. We encourage researchers to con-
tinue to explore NRS identification and participa-
tion and their relationships with other variables in
different contexts.
References
Aird, R. L., Scott, J. G., McGrath, J., Najman, J. M., &
Al Mamun, A. (2010). Is the new age phenomenon
connected to delusion-like experiences? Analysis of
survey data from Australia. Mental Health, Religion &
Culture, 13(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13674670903131843
Becker, P. (1999). Beyond the big five. Personality
and Individual Differences, 26(3), 511–530. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00168-8
Berghuijs, J., Bakker, C., & Pieper, J. (2013). New
spirituality and social engagement. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 52(4), 775–792. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12062
Blais, M. R., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Brière,
N. M. (1989). L’échelle de satisfaction de vie: Vali-
dation canadienne-française du” satisfaction with life
 70 ZHANG, HOOK, HODGE, VAN TONGEREN, DAVIS, AND JIN
scale.” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/
Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement,
21(2), Article 210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079854
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011).
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inex-
pensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1745691610393980
Buxant, C., Saroglou, V., Casalfiore, S., & Christians,
L. L. (2007). Cognitive and emotional characteris-
tics of new religious movement members: New
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
questions and data on the mental health issue.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10(3), 219–
238. https://doi.org/10.1080/13694670600621506
Buxant, C., Saroglou, V., & Tesser, M. (2010). Free-
lance spiritual seekers: Self-growth or compensa-
tory motives? Mental Health, Religion & Culture,
13(2), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670
903334660
Chambers, W. V., Langone, M. D., Dole, A. A., &
Grice, J. W. (1994). The group psychological abuse
scale: A measure of the varieties of cultic abuse.
Cultic Studies Journal, 11(1), 88–117. https://
psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-27652-001
Clarke, P. B. (Ed.). (2006). Encyclopedia of new
religious movements. Routledge.
Coates, D. (2012). “I’m now far healthier and better able
to manage the challenges of life”: The mediating role of
new religious movement membership and exit. Journal
of Spirituality in Mental Health, 14(3), 181–208.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19349637.2012.697372
Davis, D. E., Rice, K., Hook, J. N., Van Tongeren, D. R.,
DeBlaere, C., Choe, E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr.
(2015). Development of the sources of spirituality
scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(3),
503–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000082
Demmrich, S., Wolfradt, U., & Domsgen, M. (2013).
Dissociation in religion and spirituality: God images
and religious rituals in the context of dissociative
experiences among a sample of German adults.
Journal of Empirical Theology, 26(2), 229–241.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15709256-12341276
Devins, G. M., Orme, C. M., Costello, C. G., Binik,
Y. M., Frizzell, B., Stam, H. J., & Pullin, W. M.
(1988). Measuring depressive symptoms in illness
populations: Psychometric properties of the Center
for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale.
Psychology & Health, 2(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08870448808400349
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.
(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Fichtel, A., & Larsson, B. (2002). Psychosocial impact
of headache and comorbidity with other pains
among Swedish school adolescents. Headache,
42(8), 766–775. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-
4610.2002.02178.x
Gallup. (2021). U. S. church membership falls below
majority for the first time. https://news.gallup.com/
poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-ma
jority-first-time.aspx
Houtman, D., Aupers, S., & Heelas, P. (2009). Chris-
tian religiosity and new age spirituality: A cross-
cultural comparison. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, 48(1), 169–179. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/20486987. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
5906.2009.01435_2.x
Hunter, W. M., Cox, C. E., Teagle, S., Johnson, R. M.,
Mathew, R., Knight, E. D., & Leeb, R. T. (2003).
Measures for assessment of functioning and out-
comes in longitudinal research on child abuse.
Volume 1: Early childhood. Accessible at the
LONGSCAN web site (http://longscan.research
.unc.edu/pages/publist/index.htm)
Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income
improves evaluation of life but not emotional
well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America,
107(38), 16489–16493. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1011492107
Koenig, H. G. (Ed.). (1998). Handbook of religion and
mental health. Academic Press.
Koenig, H. G. (2012). Religion, spirituality, and
health: The research and clinical implications.
ISRN Psychiatry, 2012, Article 278730. https://
doi.org/10.5402/2012/278730
Latkin, C. A. (1990). Self-consciousness in members
of a new religious movement: The Rajneeshees. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4), 557–558.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9924618
Latkin, C. A., Hagan, R. A., Littman, R. A., &
Sundberg, N. D. (1987). Who lives in utopia? A
brief report on the Rajneeshpuram research project.
Sociology of Religion, 48(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/
10.2307/3711684
Matthews, C. H., & Salazar, C. F. (2014). Second-
generation adult former cult group members’ recov-
ery experiences: Implications for counseling.
International Journal for the Advancement of
Counseling, 36(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10447-013-9201-0
Namini, S., & Murken, S. (2009). Self-chosen
involvement in new religious movements
(NRMs): Well-being and mental health from a
longitudinal perspective. Mental Health, Religion
& Culture, 12(6), 561–585. https://doi.org/10
.1080/13674670902897618
Nelson, G. (2011). Cults, new religions and religious
creativity (Routledge revivals). Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9780203830994
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfac-
tion with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2),
164–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
Peters, E., Joseph, S., Day, S., & Garety, P. (2004).
Measuring delusional ideation: The 21-item
 NONRELIGIOUS SPIRITUALITY AND MENTAL HEALTH
Peters et al. Delusions Inventory (PDI). Schizo-
phrenia Bulletin, 30(4), 1005–1022. https://
doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007116
Peters, E. R., Joseph, S. A., & Garety, P. A. (1999).
Measurement of delusional ideation in the normal
population: Introducing the PDI (Peters et al. Delu-
sions Inventory). Schizophrenia Bulletin, 25(3),
553–576. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals
.schbul.a033401
Pew Research Center. (2015). America’s changing
religious landscape. https://www.pewforum.org/
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Pretorius, S. P. (2014). The effect of misapplied
religious practices in some alternative religious
groups. HTS Theological Studies, 70(3), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v70i3.2060
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale a self-report
depression scale for research in the general population.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306
Schieman, S., Bierman, A., & Ellison, C. G. (2013).
Religion and mental health. In C. S. Aneshensel,
J. C. Phelan, & A. Bierman (Eds.), Handbook of the
sociology of mental health (pp. 457–478). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4276-5_22
Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013).
Using Mechanical Turk to study clinical popula-
tions. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(2), 213–
220. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702612469015
Smith, L., Riley, S., & Peters, E. R. (2009). Schizo-
typy, delusional ideation and well-being in an
American new religious movement population.
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 16(6),
479–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.645
Steger, M. F., Bundick, M. J., & Yeager, D. (2011).
Meaning in life. In Encyclopedia of adolescence
(pp. 1666–1677). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4419-1695-2_316
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M.
(2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Asses-
sing the presence of and search for meaning in life.
71
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
Streib, H. (2021). Leaving religion: Deconversion.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 139–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.09.007
Van Tongeren, D. R., DeWall, C. N., Hardy, S. A., &
Schwadel, P. (in press). Religious identity and
morality: Evidence for religious residue and decay
in moral foundations. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin.
Ventis, W. L. (1995). The relationships between reli-
gion and mental health. Journal of Social Issues,
51(2), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560
.1995.tb01322.x
Vernon, G. M. (1968). The religious” nones”: A
neglected category. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, 7(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1384629
Waheed, F. (2020). Integral psychology of devotion to
the divine mother: A qualitative study of the path of
love to mother Meera (Publication Number
28261792) [Ph.D., California Institute of Integral
Studies]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Ann Arbor.
Wink, P., Dillon, M., & Fay, K. (2005). Spiritual
seeking, narcissism, and psychotherapy: How are
they related? Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 44(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-5906.2005.00272.x
Winocur-Craig, N. L. (1995). The assessment of cult
involvement and its relationship to psychological
distress in former cult members (Publication Num-
ber 9609570) [Psy.D., Pepperdine University]. Pro-
Quest Dissertations & Theses Global. Ann Arbor.
Woodhead, L. (1993). Post-Christian spiritualities.
Religion, 23(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1006/
reli.1993.1015
Received April 26, 2021
Revision received August 25, 2021
Accepted September 17, 2021 ▪