Talk:Holotropic Breathwork

Removal of critical link by Jablett

I note Jablett's removal of the following external link to an independent review of a book cited in this article. This is merely the latest instance of HB practitioners removing published criticism. However, I will await the Mediation Cabal's guidance before reinstating it.

• Review of The Kundalini Phenomenon by Kate Thomas, from the journal of The Scientific and Medical Network

FYI, the second paragraph reads:

One of the strengths of the book is that it is, in a sense, a critique by an insider. Thomas claims to have had a major kundalini experience herself. It is not the existence or the validity of this force that is in question, but rather what she considers to be its illicit activation. The means by which this can happen are many and include not just traditional techniques of kundalini yoga, but also breathwork [my emphasis], drugs, magical practices, meditative exercises of concentration and visualization, shamanic dancing and sweatlodge ceremonies, and so on. A common strategy is to justify such techniques on the basis of having been around for millennia and used in 'traditional' societies. This line of argument ignores two fundamental factors. First, the traditional context (where it existed) of moral discipline. Second, the traditional motive (where it existed) of dedication to a higher cause. Unsurprisingly, such discipline and dedication were not always present even in traditional circles. Kundalini yoga, for example, has roots in prehistoric fertility cults and magical practices, and has often been associated with the pursuit of power. Where purification of the ego's selfish tendencies is not a preliminary requirement, it seems that techniques of inner development only magnify existing faults. Such factors were well understood in traditional schools of spiritual development. But how can they be comprehended in a New Age milieu that is so commercial and narcissistic, whether the motive given be scientific progress, therapy or 'enlightenment'? Caveat emptor!

Jedermann 12:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jedermann, I'm not actually an HB practitioner. I have attended a training module, which was open to the general public, but I have not enrolled or made a commitment with Grof transpersonal training. It is possible, even likely, that I may eventually do so, but it is not currently the case.

The term breathwork is wider than HB, see [1] for a quick googled definition. This site is relevant to Thomas' criticism of HB, but it is not about it. That is why I removed it.Jablett 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jablett, Sorry if I mischaracterized your relationship to HB. However, I still think that an independent review of one of the principal critical works cited here is required, since that criticism has been continually called into question by you and others. And Thomas writes specifically about HB in Kundalini Phenomenon, as already quoted in this article.

Thank you Jedermann. My complaint really is the apparent assumption that edits by people with a declared interest in HB can't also be objective. Some of them are, some of them aren't. Same goes for those with sympathies critical to HB. I like to think that I'm trying to cite objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion of material, but please challenge me if you think that's not the case. If I go to the scientific and medical network site and type in Kate Thomas, the first recommended article is this one : [2]. It's partisan - it's a defence by an author, Christopher Bache, of his own work, but that bias is made clear. His article is referenced, and a quick google search tells me he's a very well known author, unlike the author of the other Kate Thomas review if I do a similar search. Bache's article discusses Kate Thomas view of spirituality and also mentions Stanislav Grof, "holotropic therapy"(sic), psychedelic therapy and altered states of consciousness. All relevant to our discussions, and, as it turns out on this occasion, disagreeing with Kate Thomas. Now, this seems much closer to a relevant link to me, but I don't think it belongs on the 'external links' section either, and wouldn't put it there, because the credibility or otherwise of Kate Thomas views are not the subject of the article. They are the subject of our ongoing disagreements about the article, and to that extent, I have no disagreement with these kinds of links being posted and discussed on the talk pages, but don't believe they belong on the main page (unless I misunderstand the role of the external links ?) Jablett 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Mediator Wikipedia's guidelines on external links contains a lot of useful information about when to include/not include links. This should provide for you talking points and a common ground for establishing consensus.TheRingess (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediator suggestion I suggest that all interested editors read Wikipedia's policy of good faith assumption. TheRingess (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal suggestion

Re Communicator's point about HB's notability and commercial status. A weakness of the present article is that it doesn't help readers place HB within the totality of Breathwork. I suggest that Breathwork should become the main article on the topic - Rebirthing, HB etc would have their own subheadings. I've added a link to WP Breathwork - truly atrocious at present, including some advertising even more blatant than originally contained here. But it would allow a more general discussion of the pros and cons of the subject, and this article could be scaled down. Jedermann 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting and valuable point Jedermann. Some of the criticisms applied to HB, and the claims made for it, are common to other forms of breathwork. I agree that the absence of a good Breathwork page is a big oversight, and I think you've made a very good start on that project. Thank you. I think you should float the suggestion on Rebirthing-Breathwork talk pages too. Buteyko method also often seems to be mentioned as a breathwork modality, and has it's own wiki page. The question for me here is what should remain in this article. I think that the expanded cartography of the psyche and the origins in psychedelic therapy are quite unique to holotropic breathwork relative to other forms of breathwork, but I don't really know enough about them to be sure. I also think, as I said, that some of the criticisms are generic, but I wouldn't want to transfer them to another page only to have the same argument about independence or credibility of sources over there.

I've followed your suggestion and invited Rebirthing-Breathwork to join in. Buteyko is the opposite of Breathwork, though - it's controlled hypoventilation. I think it would be misleading and confusing to include it under Breathwork.Jedermann 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually found this whole episode quite wearying as a newcomer to Wikipedia, and think it would be nice to have closure and agreement on issues here before moving on. It dispirits me to restate the arguments that I've already expanded elsewhere, but I will do so. Briefly I understand that Castro, Thomas and Shepherd are self published (do we agree on this ?). Having read the policies suggested by Ringess, I am still not convinced that they are valid sources (in the Wikipideia sense), or sufficiently important to justify the prominence they have been given. I am prepared to concede that Castro or Thomas may be valid sources for facts involving the holotropic breathwork events that happened at Findhorn (although I would much prefer it if they were independent journalists/theorists who did not also have close personal links with the events, and weren't self published), but I don't think that necessarily makes them valid sources of opinion on holotropic breathwork as a technique. I also continue to believe that the way the criticism section has been organised is misleading (consciously or otherwise).

I seem to be at cross purposes with others here about the definition of importance - I think I'm using 'importance' in the 'well known/academically significant' sense. Others appear to be using it in the 'highly relevant' or 'people need to know this' sense, which I believe is subjective and outside the scope of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this seems to have led to a circular situation where I am simply repeatedly questioning other people's sources, and the sources they cite which support them. I don't know any way out of that, and I note that Ringess is not willing to act as an external authority. My fear is that only those with highly polarised views may stick around long enough to see this resolved, and my own contributions may be limited by the amount of energy that I have for academic debate (which is not nearly as much as it might at first appear!).

That's all I have to say for now. Thank you, Ringess, for offering to mediate, and for your welcome on my talk page. Thank you also to Jedermann and Communicator for your contribution to the mediation process so far. I would encourage any other interested parties to get involved.Jablett 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to express appreciation to Jablett and Jedermann for their contributions to the debate, and to Ringess for her offer to mediate. Like Jablett, I find that even the thought of restating old arguments tires me! I am also open to a complete restructuring of the article, which may involve making it a subsection of Breathwork. There are, in addition, obvious links with psychedelic psychotherapy.

With regard to the specific issue for which Jablett sought mediation, the core issue seems to be that of self-publication by some of the authors cited in the criticism section. Looking at the references, we see that Castro has two entries, one of which is an article published in an independent journal (The Therapist) and the other is his book about the Findhorn Foundation. Even if the latter is self-published, there is no quote from it in the criticism section, only a passing reference; the significant quote is from the non-self-published Therapist article. Thomas's criticisms have three sources. One of these is a letter to a newspaper, so that is not self-published. As for the other publishers (New Frequency Press and New Media Books), and also Shepherd's publisher (Philosophical Press) I can only say that if these publishers have no publications by other authors then one could conclude either (1) that they are self-published, or (2) that they are published by someone else on behalf of the authors. If either possibility is the case, then should they be excluded from Wikipedia? Let's look more closely.

The first point of criticism is from Thomas's 1992 book. But most of this is actually a quote she herself provides from a letter she sent to Rainbow Bridge,[3] the Findhorn Foundation's own internal magazine. This is what Thomas says about the letter: "the then-Editor, Jean Prince, returned it to me, having first passed it to Eileen Caddy in view of the content. Eileen declined its inclusion, and I had to amend the letter in order to make it acceptable. This of course meant the deletion of reference to Eileen" (937). She then proceeds to quote from her original letter. Although Thomas doesn't say how much of the original was published by Rainbow Bridge, the context implies that it was substantially unaltered. If this is the case then much of that first point of criticism has been published as a letter in Rainbow Bridge and can therefore be checked by others (it was published on 23 May 1990). The reference to Caddy was obviously not published, but I'm not aware that she has ever disputed the view attributed to her by Thomas. It was expressed in a private conversation between the two of them. As for the other Foundation members referred to in the first point of criticism, it is no secret that there was opposition to HB among their ranks. Thomas again provides quotes from letters published in Rainbow Bridge (30 May) in response to her own. The first of these was signed by someone called Jane, and Thomas says that they did not know one another. Here is a taste from Jane's letter: "I would like to express my appreciation of Kate Thomas's article on Holotropic Breathwork. I have not experienced H.B. myself and actually am glad that I have not ..." (939). The second letter took the form of an open letter to Craig Gibsone, the Director of the Foundation, by a senior staff member, Alec Whittam: "I presume that all the written feedback you received (about H.B.) has been 'aired' in the Rainbow Bridge. By my count there was one in favour, five against, and one concerned and offering suggestions ... My gut feeling is that we are asking for trouble with this type of work. I question whether we know enough to be able to hold and contain whatever is being released. It feels to me that this is highly focussed individual therapy which requires teachers who are, or should be, spiritual adepts" (939-40). The third letter from the 30 May issue quoted by Thomas was from Gibsone himself, defending the Foundation's decision to go ahead with the HB workshops. Thomas makes it clear that she is quoting "several excerpts". Here I quote from the final paragraph of the letter: "this centre has something to add to the Holotropic work, as I feel that it is still developing and we can assist in its integration. Remember - there are many highly developed adepts and initiates living and working here" (940).

Now it seems to me that Thomas has gone to a lot of trouble here to state clearly what was said and by whom, and most of the facts can be checked by referring to Rainbow Bridge (unfortunatley the online archive doesn't go back that far). Is the question of self-publication relevant here? Putting it another way, would a freelance copyeditor working for a major publisher have checked all of these quotes? Speaking as a professional editorial manager myself, I can point out that they certainly would not! That is not part of their job.

The quote from Thomas's 2000 publication is obviously her own claim about the abilities of breathworkers. The context in the book is a "spiritual" one, and would have to be assessed on that basis. Readers of the Wikipedia article would accept or reject it according to their own experience and background. Again, I'm not sure that publication by a major publisher would alter any of these facts. It is, however, worth pointing out that one of the HB partisans who contributed to this Talk page appears unintentionally to support Thomas's claim. On 8 January, Sosmd wrote: "One woman, with whom we worked very early on in our HBW career, did go into an unexpected Kindalini opening. In retrospect, I would perhaps not offer her HBW today, based on her initial interview and my accumulated experiecne. That eror is mine, not the technique's. Although her procedss has not been easy in the subsequent years, she has done well. It is however empahatically ubntrue that I was not properly trained by Grof to deal with a Kundalini opening. Thos familar witht eh history of breath work will be aware that Christina Grof has written exgtensiveley about her own Kundalini expereicences, and this writinf is am important part of the curriculum of HBW." (sic) Assuming, for the sake of the argument, the metaphysical reality of kundalini, then this is no minor mishap. Furthermore, it is not clear from the quote how Sosmd would avoid a recurrence of such an event. Grof's own contraindications (as quoted by me in the article) contain no reference to this possibility, as far as I can see.

Turning to Shepherd's 1995 publication, I would make the same points as above. He is making his own claims, although there is some support for these. The remarks about "hypoxaemia" have a scientific basis. The comparison with Shamanism is one that Grof makes himself, although Shepherd clearly disagrees with him on the significance of this.

It seems to me that the whole issue of what HB does, and the competence of those practising it, are precisely what the criticisms are about, whether thay are medical or "spiritual". Although "extreme" measures are often used in medicine, whether they be surgical or pharmaceutical, such measures are generally for obvious physical ailments, although even here there can be disagreement about the necessity for particular approaches. In psychiatry and psychotherapy, the controversies are more widespread, since we are here dealing with the mind. Techniques such as Electroconvulsive Therapy and Lobotomy are very controversial, and some people even dispute the existence of certain so-called "disorders" (e.g. Adhd). In Against Therapy (Collins, 1989), Jaffrey Masson questions the core assumptions of psychotherapy, while Richard Noll (The Jung Cult, Princeton University Press, 1994) and Richard Webster (Why Freud Was Wrong, HarperCollins, 1995) undermine two of the most significant figures in the history of psychoanalysis. Although some of the evidence used in support of HB refers to psychiatric conditions, the context in which it has been introduced (in New Age centres such as Esalen, the Findhorn Foundation and the Alternatives centre at St James in Piccadilly) reveals a much broader application, and one that is supported by Grof's own "spiritual" claims for it. The latter are not currently included in the article, but I think they are very relevant and provide a context for much of the criticism, and they should be included in future, whatever the outcome of the debate about its eventual form.

Nobody appears to be disputing the NPOV status of the medical criticisms, even if they disagree with the substance of those criticisms. As for the "spiritual" criticisms, some of these are evidently not self-published. Even where this is a possibility, I would argue that the context supports their inclusion. Thomas appears to document her writing very well, and many of the facts can be checked. Shepherd is an interesting case. He is a self-confessed non-academic, who employs the scholarly apparatus of academics. As I pointed out above, "Minds and Sociocultures: Vol One (from which I quoted in the criticism section) is over 1000 pages long, has maps, appendices, notes and an index. There are 461 notes to the main text and the index alone is 43 pages long." Shepherd is probably best referred to as a "scholarly amateur" and I believe a place should exist for such writers, so long as they satisfy the conventional criteria for scholarship.

If I were a future researcher (of any kind) into the subject of HB (or breathwork, or psychedelic psychotherapy, etc.) I would rather have the full story, including the criticism, and for this reason I urge that none of the critics be excluded, as long as they are presented from a NPOV, properly referenced, and satisfy the usual criterial for verification.

The Communicator 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the full story needs to be available, The Communicator, and I have no problem with self-published material on this topic that is more scholarly than the proponents' efforts. However, rather a large part of the HB controversy involves Findhorn, and cannot be isolated from the culture clashes prevalent there (see Talk:Findhorn Foundation about the strangely reticent Findhorn Foundation article). Would it be worth creating a separate article on the FF controversy, with HB as one (perhaps the prime) example? Linked to the relevant Breathwork articles, of course.Jedermann 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Comment It looks like you guys are really starting to talk to each other. That's great. TheRingess (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jedermann, thanks for your helpful comments. I looked at the FF article (and Talk page) some months ago, and noted the inadequacies. There is certainly scope for revision there, and you may be right about a separate article on the FF controversy. In the criticism section of the HB article, I only mentioned the FF where necessary as a context. I think the criticisms of HB are logically independent of the FF controversy, even if the two have coincided to some extent. It also occurs to me that the HB criticism section might eventually be rewritten, paraphrasing the main points of criticism, rather than using lengthy quotes. That's just a thought. For the moment, however, I'm going to take a break from contributing to Wikipedia, including the Talk pages. I'll still follow the developments, but I think I've said all I wanted to say here, including for the purposes of mediation (TheRingess, please refer to the lengthy discussion that took place above, prior to the mediation process, if you have not already done so). The Communicator 13:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I spent a couple of hours on the Internet this afternoon obsessively checking references and publisher details for the authors and sources that I’ve been disputing. It occurred to me that this is most certainly not what attracted me to the Holotropic Breathwork movement in the first place, and that I really need to take a step back.

At the same time, I have been reading Kate Thomas autobiography, as I said I would. It does move me, but perhaps not for the reasons that Kate Thomas would have intended. When I read her account of the events at Findhorn, I am struck by how much this was a dispute that must have caused a great deal of hurt and anger on both sides. On one side there seemed to be concerns that passionately held beliefs were being ignored, marginalised, or deliberately suppressed, on the other fears that criticisms were personally motivated, and would endanger a way of life that people cared about. I think I detect something of a similar dynamic at work in our exchanges (in me at least), and I want to make it absolutely clear that, now that I’m aware of it, I have no interest whatsoever in using any of the people here to restage this argument. My experience of passionate spiritual debates of this type tells me that there are probably elements of truth and unconscious self-deception on both sides.

My instinct therefore is to leave the disputed references in, and let the reader decide, with the following alterations:

1) The first Kate Thomas reference to read “In volume 3 of her autobiography, mystic Kate Thomas (1992) quotes etc…”I think this is important information to allow the reader to make sense of what follows. The references to the personal conversation with Eileen Caddy, which Eileen Caddy was apparently unwilling to have published, should be removed. I understand that Eileen Caddy died last year, and this information is now completely unverifiable.

2) Stephen Castro reference: “Former Findhorn foundation member Stephen Castro (1995) takes issue with the confusion of therapy and spirituality which he claims is evident in the work of Grof…” and later “Castro shows how this confusion could be further complicated by commercial interests”. Same again – context setting, and some neutral rewording.

3) Kevin Shepherd reference: “Kevin Shepherd (1995) points out that the experimental nature of Holotropic Breathwork should be a cause of concern if the context is presented as commercial therapy:…”

4) Reorder the criticisms so that more mainstream views are presented first: I would suggest medical/psychological,commercial, spiritual in that order, and the Kate Thomas criticisms amalgamated into one paragraph

5) If these changes, which I am happy to make, are agreed, I think that it would be a really nice gesture if The Communicator could subsequently thin out the paragraphs to reflect the essence of the criticisms in a way that he is happy with.

Jablett 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Announcement

I have opened the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-23 Holotropic Breathwork NPOV disagreement and listed myself as mediator. I invite everyone interested to participate in the discussions on that page and on this one.

TheRingess (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no longer any need for mediation. All interested editors are talking to each other. I am confident that together you will reach consensus soon. I suggest that we close the mediation case, unless someone has a strenuous objection. Later, if everyone feels the need, we can reopen it. I will leave it open for a couple more days in case someone still feels there is a need for mediation. Good work guys.TheRingess (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I would prefer it if the case remained open. Talking to each other (looking at the length of our contributions!) has never been our problem - reaching agreement about the article (which remains largely untouched since mediation began) has. Although we are polite to each other and there is tentative agreement about ways to extend the scope of the article by relocating the controversial aspects into other articles, I believe the core disagreements still remain. Communicator has indicated that he is effectively 'resting his case' at the moment, and I have made clear my own reluctance to restate old arguments, (although I do have more to say, possibly at the weekend). At the moment it feels like stalemate rather than resolution. Jablett 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

However, the purpose of mediation is to keep people talking and everyone is talking. As long as you are civil to each other and focus on content not personalities, then eventually you will reach agreement. Speeding up the process is not the purpose of mediation. Remember there are no emergencies here on Wikipedia. Whether it takes a long time or a short time to reach agreement is irrelevant. What is relevant is that eventually you will. I still see no reason to keep this mediation open. In my opinion, no one is currently violating any content or behavioral policies. As I said, I will leave the case open for a couple more days in order to hear compelling arguments against closing. As I said, you guys are doing great.TheRingess (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Solutions

Mediator Comment I'm creating this section because I feel that the editors involved in the mediaton are ready to start discussing specific solutions. I recommend creating a subsection for every separate point. I also recommend being brief and to the point. Remember also, that if you propose a solution, be bold and be the one willing to implement it. Remain focussed on content. Please don't use this section to reiterate arguments already presented.TheRingess (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

- jablett to make any or all of the changes numbered 1 to 4 above (under 'Mediation Suggestion'), subject to agreement and alterations with other interested parties.Jablett 19:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm treating silence as an absence of disagreement, and cautiously proceeding with implementing my proposals as suggested by The Ringess on the mediation page. I've now implemented 1 to 3 of the proposals listed above (separately, so that they can be reverted individually if anyone violently disagrees). I'll implement no.4 (reordering and amalgamating criticisms thematically) in a few day's time, leaving 'thinning out' (no.5) of paragraphs to be subsequently agreed on and implemented. Jablett 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Comment I think this is a great step. TheRingess (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've implemented the reordering (proposal 4), and begun clarifying and thinning on the first few paragraphs (proposal 5). Still to do in the criticism section are the Castro, Thomas and Shepherd paragraphs. Any takers ? Jablett 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented a thinning out of the Shepherd paragraph. His book was extremely difficult to trace through the local library, and the style and content is quite idiosyncratic. As noted previously, he claims no particular credentials. However, there is an argument for keeping it in. His argument about practices in context is relevant, and central to the arguments that he develops in the book. Elsewhere, although he meticulously documents facts, he mixes them liberally with his own opinions, and I've removed these, as well as the medical stuff (The hyperventilation stuff is mentioned elsewhere in the criticisms, as well as documented on the relevant wikipedia page, and it is not central to Shepherd's area of knowledge.) Castro and Thomas edits to follow in time, unless anyone wants to do so...Jablett 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the Castro book. Essentially it covers exactly the same ground as the Thomas book, and acknowledges that it has used "The Destiny Challenge" as it's primary source. It is also self published. The letter from "The Therapist" source is quoted word for word in Thomas' book, and attributed to 'Stefan'. There's not enough new material or ideas in either of the Castro sources to justify inclusion, so I have removed them. Jablett 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Having have read the various opinions of Holotropic Breathwork, pro, per Grof et al and con, per Baba et al, I would like to suggest there may be something seriously amiss with the ratio of fifty-four lines of criticism of Holotropic Breathwork to forty-one lines of description of Holotropic Breathwork, the latter count also including ‘Professional Practice’ and ‘Reactions and Contraindications’. This imbalance seems particularly egregious as the entire criticism section of Holotropic Breathwork comprises the opinions of just four individuals, Busutti, Shepherd, Castro and Thomas, three of whom are known to each other but only one of whom, to the best of my understanding, has experienced this experiential work, and then only once.

In addition, positioned as a separate paragraph within this criticism of Holotropic Breathwork is an additional eight-line paragraph referencing the opinions of two other individuals, Lilienfield and Sampson, of government approved MDMA research. This positioning is clearly provocative, mendaciously attaching HB as an associative practice to MDMA; promotion of such ‘guilt by association’ is unworthy of Wikipedia.

Holotropic Breathwork has been practiced for over thirty years, offering tens of thousands of adult individuals from all continents, racial groups, age groups and from both genders the opportunity to gain access to states of consciousness which may precipitate catharsis, insights and epiphanies. Research seeking to demonstrate the healing potential this work includes publication in peer-review journals (Holotropic Breathwork: An Experiential Approach to Psychotherapy; Holmes et al; Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, Vol. 33(1), Spring 1996. pp. 114-120. 1996). Other research, conducted within the Holotropic Breathwork community, includes a paper describing the introduction of HB into a residential recovery community in Santa Cruz, California (Holotropic Breathwork as an Adjunct to Substance Abuse Treatment in a Therapeutic Community; Taylor, Macy: 1993), and the following eleven PhD dissertations: "The Psychological and Spiritual Effects of Stanislav Grof's Holotropic Breathwork Technique: An Exploratory Study", Todd Evan Pressman, 1993; "Holotropic Breathwork and Altered States of Consciousness", Donna Maria La Flamme, 1993; "Examining the Effects of Holotropic Breathwork in the Recovery from Alcoholism and Drug Dependence", Byron Metcalf, 1995; “Grof’s Perinatal Matrix Theory: Initial Empirical Verification”, Stephen Binns, 1997; "Healing Through the Remembrance of the Pre- and Perinatal: A Phenomenological Investigation", N. Anne Marquez, 1999; "The Theory and Practice of Transpersonal Addiction Treatment", Brack Jeffreys, 1999; "The Language of Holotropic Light; Unpacking the Experience", Julie Lapham, 2000; "The Healing Potential of Non-Ordinary States of Consciousness", Geneie Everett, 2001; "Deepening Presence: How Experiences of No-Self Shape the Self, an Organic Inquiry", Marianne Murray, 2001; "Predicting the Outcome of Holotropic Breathwork Using the High Risk Model of Threat Perception”, Patrick Hanratty, 2002; "Somatic Memory in Non-Ordinary States of Consciousness", Chris Lyons, 2003. Other dissertations examining the nature of action and utility of Holotropic Breathwork are in the process of being completed at this writing. These dissertations, completed under the supervision of professors at accredited institutions of higher education, rise at a minimum to the level of credibility of any self-published work, and arguably exceed them.

Further empirical evidence demonstrating the healing potential of Holotropic Breathwork is needed to establish its value, safety and utility. Such studies are being planned as has been noted, but it may be useful to consider the context of welcome to such endeavors demonstrated by the dominant culture. As an example, I reference a recent statement made by Harriet Zuckerman, author of "Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States" and senior vice-president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; "We know people have ideas beyond the mainstream, but if they want funds for research they have to go through peer-review, and the system is going to be very skeptical of ideas that are inconsistent with what is already known."

Such skepticism is quite understandable within a dominant culture with a world-view predicated upon the Newtonian-Cartesian notion that the human body is a machine functioning within a machine - the universe. Principally in the introductions to his published books, Grof has consistently expressed his own initial difficulty, as a medical doctor and psychiatrist trained in the western tradition of ‘evidence-based medicine’, to embrace the findings from non-ordinary, or altered, states of consciousness. These findings appear to show, and with an uncanny consistency, that the true depth and breadth of the human psyche is greater by far than we have heretofore imagined, or, significantly, have been capable of imagining. This self-imposed limitation may spring in large part from our insistence upon the primacy of the brain as the determining organ of our successful function, evidenced by our proud self-description as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

However, as challenging as it my be for many individuals to embrace, the preliminary evidence that is emerging from the experiences of tens of thousand if individuals who have been moved to participate in Holotropic Breathwork groups strongly indicates that a more complete understanding of our selves is to be found by including within our experience, in addition to cognitive thought, the intelligent data from our emotional selves and, yes, from the movements of our very souls.

With respect to the dissemination of real information represented by the unprecedented exercise of the establishment and maintenance of Wikipedia as an on-going project, phenomenal care must be taken to ensure that such information that is presented to trusting users is, in fact, factual. Such as the parochial fracas may have been that took place on the east coast of Scotland twelve years ago, it may not be extrapolated to include every human being who themselves choose to exercise their prerogative to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by including Holotropic Breathwork amongst their experiences. The specific does not, under any circumstances whatsoever, automatically become the general; such a doctrine of anecdotalism runs entirely counter to the purview that presently governs our daily existence, and as such has no place in any organ that seeks to present itself as a credible source of knowledge.Kituchristie 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

SOSMD.

I have not been on this site for a while, but I see fundamentally the same discussion going on, so perhaps another 2 cents worth might be appropriate.

As mentioned in my earlier post, I am an MD and a therapist, and I have been practising Holotropic Breath Work (HBW) for over fifteen years.

One of the chief concerns that seem to be legitimately expressed here are concerns regarding the safety of HBW. These safety concerns appear to be based on two main issues. The first is the physical safety of sustained rapid and more effective breathing, and the second centers around the potential for various spiritual disturbances as a consequence of this practice. Might I suggest that in addition to my own attestation that I have conducted HBW sessions in complete physical safety for over fifteen years, and that this mirrors not only Grof's experience for a far longer period, but also the many hundreds of practitioners whom he has trained, that anyone seriously concerned about such sustained hyperventilation should be expressing equal concern at the practices conducted in the myriad of Yoga Studios presently in the world, where Pranayammha techniques are taught to all and sundry, usually without any of the pre selection or screening that is an integral part of a properly conducted HBW session. Despite the theoretical concerns of "Scotland's most respected Pathologist", the sheer number of people all over the world who regularly employ techniques of sustained deeper breathing attest to its fundamental safety. Further, these practices are not new. To the contrary, they are ancient. Whether their survival in the spiritual and psychological practices of the human race is a net plus or a net minus might well be argued, but to suggest they are physically dangerous would be to suggest a powerful counter Darwinian argument. If hyperventilation were as dangerous as Scotland's most respected Pathologist is quoted as suggesting, the chances are high that the practice would have died out, along with its practitioners, some considerable time ago.

With regard to the potential for 'spiritual" side effects, the situation is murkier. Most spiritual disciplines which employ techniques that induce non ordinary states of consciousness (NOSC), - such as yoga's pranayammha, Tibetan Buddhist practices, etc, - recommend that these techniques are not for everyone. Either they screen and exclude certain individuals, and/ or they recommend much so called 'foundation practice' prior to employing them. So does Grof, and the HBW methodolgy. There is a screening process. Certain individuals and diagnostic categories are excluded. Others, such as those with addictive problems, are advised that a period of time - usually a year - of sustained sobriety and drug freedom are required in order to establish a psychological foundation upon which experiences in NOSC might be beneficial.

As I mentioned in my earlier contribution to this topic, in my early days of practicing HBW a woman whom we accepted into one of our groups had an unexpected Kundalini opening. I feel now, with the accumulated wisdom of years of practice, that I would not today offer this individual HBW without more foundation psychotherapy, and perhaps not at all. But this individual as the only one among hundreds, some of whom were severely damaged on entering therapy, and the sheer number of people world wide who are increasingly practicing and submitting themselves to HBW attests to both its physical and psychological safety, despite the objections, which have always been theoretical rather than factual. People say, "that sounds dangerous", and ignore the patently obvious, and daily demostrated fact, that it is not.

I would also suggest that were HBW a dangerous activity in any measurable or observable sense, in the way for instance that alcohol is, that this fact would be widely known. There would be no need to speculate about it here or anywhaere else. I would also suggest - WP now being such a widely read resource, - that many of those injured by it would be present in this discussion.

Far more difficult to discuss than the above is the so called 'spiritual dimension' of the HBW experience. For one thing, what is it? Indeed, what is a spiritual experience at all? What is the spiritual dimension? When does an ecstatic psychological experience, - or a hellish one - cease to be such, and becomes spiritual? Is it like walking from Glascow to London? Until one reaches the Tyne it's all psychological, after that it's spiritual? This issue is complicated by the fact that many observers of psychological phenomena espouse a fully materialistic viewpoint, and for them the discussion is mute because the dimension does not exist. To them indeed mention of spiritual phenomena is itself suspicious at the least, and worthy of a DSM labeling, ambulant psychosis at worst. All human nature and behaviour can, and some day soon will be, explained by genetics, neuroanatomy and neurochemistry. Shakespere, Beethoven, Hitler, Stalin, love, hate, indifference, the urge to climb Everest and the hunger to drive to the stars, are all ultimately a matter of Serotonin and Dopamine, and all can be ultimately influenced and controlled by clever little molecules such as Prozac and Risperidal. But for those to whom the spiritual dimension of life has meaning, some discussion of its place in the realm of healing is germaine to this page.

For practical purposes, spiritual experiences in the HBW model are experiences which take an individual beyond the boundary of himself or herself. They are experiences which challenge the view of oneself as a "Skin Encapsulated Ego". The simplest of these is the identification with another human being. In this context it is important to note that the word identification is here being used in its psychoanalytical sense. In this context, identification is not an imitation or a mere likening, it is a becoming. So in this sense, an individual in a NOSC may be having an experience of an interaction with a parent or a sibling, and begins to experience the interaction from the perspective of the other individual. It is as if the boundaries between their consciousness has dissolved, and they become one. Similarly, individuals can have experiences of identification with whole groups of beings, such as tribal structures, or with powerful spiritual figures, such as Christ or Buddha, or Mohammed. Participants report similar episodes of identification with animals.

Of course, these experiences could seem entirely bizarre to someone with no direct experience of them, but what is intriguing about them from an ontological perspective, is that they are rarely new. They mirror experiences described in the world's spiritual literatures. What is further intriguing about them, is that they occur to individuals who do not necessarily have any prior experience with the particular spiritual tradition from which the experience is usually associated. Balts, for instance, in NOSC, can have seemingly authentic encounters with animal entities that could have been lifted directly out of the folklore of a North American Indian tribe. An accountant from the Bronx might have an experience that mirrors that of a Kalahari Bushman. Of course we live in a global village, and of course these individuals could have seen something sometime on TV which primed them for this experience, but that was hardly the case when Grof was discovering this same phenomenon during LSD sessions held at Charles University in Prague, then a communist country with a totally materialistic structure of education and entertainment, where individuals undergoing their therapeutic sessions had experiences straight out of the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita. Another aspect of these experiences which make them intriguing is the fact that individuals who have them, seem to return from them with new and entirely authentic information about the cultures and attitudes of peoples with whom they were, prior to, entirely unfamiliar.

But the most interesting aspect of all concerning these experiences, is that they appear to dovetail neatly with the particular psychological issues and traumatic experiences with which the person is dealing. So much so that is a tennent of HBW theory, that for optimum healing to occur, it needs to occur on the physical, psychological and spiritual levels.

There is much meat in the foregoing discussions on this topic, some worthy and some less so, and far more that I have time to address. I would however like to offer a final point about the psychedelic origins of HBW. It is clear form the may quotes offered above on Grof's LSD work, that the people being quoted have not read or taken that that work seriously. For instance,

"Wallace Sampson, Clinical Professor Emeritus of Medicine at Stanford University, criticize the approval of research by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) into the use of the drug MDMA (Ecstasy) as a treatment for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Sampson states that the study "appears to be the exclusive project of believers in psychedelic mysticism, and based on work of Dr. Stanislav Grof, an early LSD self-experimenter and psychedelic psychotherapist. After LSD and Ecstasy use was declared illegal, Grof developed Holotropic Breathwork, a potentially dangerous form of severe hyperventilation, as a legal method of invoking hallucinations."

I have no useful knowledge of Dr. Wallace's pedigree, but I do have some of Dr. Grof's. I can attest that he has no interest whatsoever in inducing hallucinations. Hallucinations are not real, by definition. They would interest Grof not at all. Grof was one of the early researchers selected by Sandoz to work with what became one of the most interesting compounds in the history of psychiatry. LSD has become inevitably linked in the public consciousness with Hippies, Charles Manson, and the froth and excesses, as well as the brilliance, of the 1960's. Hence, it is an easy 'guilt by association' smear to mention HBW in the same disparaging sentence as LSD, tarring both with the same yellow brush. Yet this ignores the fact that they are not the same thing at all, and also ignores the excellent and well documented research work that was done by conscientious psychiatrists all over the world with LSD prior to the Tate killings and its subsequent illegality. This attitude serves also to disguise the appallingly miserable state of psychiatry today, wherein the two most common compounds prescribed in the world are antidepressants and tranquillizers, where a visit to a psychiatrist lasts ten minutes, and is focussed usually on adjustments to the number and dosages of these medications, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature, the meaning, the extent, or the possible eradication, of the client's suffering. All discussion of HBW, with its inherent attempt to discover meaning in clients' pain, and point to a way beyond it, should take place in this context.

Kind regards,

sosmd

[edit]

Hi Kituchristie, sosmd - Thank you for your interest in this article. I would encourage you to stay around and make some edits to it. The criticism section has been the subject of a lot of debate, and a recent mediation process - it's probably the most controversial part of the whole article. I've been making a series of edits to it following the end of the mediation, to slim it down and (hopefully) improve objectivity. It's taken me a while to track down and read the items originally referenced, and the Castro quotes are still outstanding. Like you, I feel that lillienfeld and sampson's criticism of HB is unfair, but the quote is accurate (ie, it's what they said). HB is cited in the research protocol for the MDMA study. I don't know enough about the psychedelic research context to comment further - perhaps someone can make an edit with relevant information to sort it out? 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Castro material now removed. See comments above under 'Solutions'Jablett 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The criticism section is generated for the most part, if not in its emtirety, by Communicator who has declared his antipathy to any practice that employs a technique that can facilitate 'spiritual' experiences that is not in accord with the principles of Meher Baba. His interest here may be to promote the philosophy of Meher Baba for whom he entertains much sympathy, despite his claim in his profile that he has no interests in that regard.

The points made in the criticism section are cherry picked, narrowly specified, and appear contextless in that their author makes no attempt to consider their relative importance in the whole of medical and public perception. This gives readers the false idea that HB is controversial. There had been an attempt at placing the criticisms in context but this appears to have been removed. It is tiring to have to continually track the efforts of a determined hostile contributor, and I make no polite pretence to view the matter otherwise. I don't know, but I hope that by now people will see just how scholastically compromised this project is in danger of becoming, due to the efforts of one man (or woman).

The MDMA article in the criticism section smacks of the sort of evidence we might present for a Conspiracy Theory. It is extremely narrowly specified--apparantly the revelation of the Grof "connection" appears as a one-liner in an MDMA project. The same or similar contribution appeared in the Wiki article on Stanislav Grof. This is hopelessly unscholastic. Doubtless, by tracing other one-line references we may find Queen Elizabeth having connections to the MDMA project and count that as a criticism of Royalty.

I await comments on a proposed removal of the MDMA article. Also I suggest a complete reworking of the criticism section so that it does not appear like an anecdotal, cherry-picked personal gripe. Finally, why is the cover of Grof's book on the start of this article? Are we advertising his latest book now? --IvorJ 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, IvorJ,

Thanks for your comments. I'm happy to take responsibility for the majority of the wording in the criticism section, having edited it down significantly from the content provided by the Communicator, through a mediation process. (see also some of the history of the section above). For the record, I am a supporter of HB.

The MDMA section has been a bone of contention for some while, although Sampson and Wallace are entitled to their view, of course. I think The HB link actually comes from the author of the MDMA study rather than the dodgy conspiracy theory, and I've added a sentence to make that clearer, at the same time as removing the less relevant part of the quote and making it clear that Sampson's comments about Grof are his own. I think that HB and Grof will always be attacked by those seeking to link it negatively to psychedelics, and it's best to tackle that head on by leaving it in. I've appealed before for someone better qualified than me to address the context of the criticisms, which needs to be from a vantage point of referenced information.

The book cover is actually from the book by Kylea Taylor, referenced in the text, but I don't think that affects your point. I'm not sure what the wikipedia rules on relevance of images is ? Best wishes - Jablett 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the rest of the quote from Sampson in the Criticism section, which is explicit in its condemnation of HB. I can see no reason (other than partisan ones) for its removal. Are HB partisans afraid of the criticism expressed by a Clinical Professor Emeritus of Medicine at Stanford University? If not, why do they continually remove it? The Communicator (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Communicator, let’s talk about this. I can’t find the Prometheus books press release online, but it appears to have been picked up word for word in this Skeptical Inquirer article:

[4] To begin, I suggest that we use this version for our discussion and replace it as the reference in the article. Agreed? Jablett (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No response? Ok, I've put the reference in. I think this paragraph could still do with a succinct summary that more fairly reflects what is an extremely complex debate Jablett (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Holotropic Breathwork Bookcover.jpg

Image:Holotropic Breathwork Bookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

MDMA research paragraph

I've referred this paragraph, and a similar one on the Paul Grof page to the editors of the MDMA page for their comments, with a request to check out the claims so that they can either be properly referenced or removed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Methylenedioxymethamphetamine#Approval_of_MDMA_research_question

Jablett (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)