Synthesis:Mystical Experience Questionnaire

The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is one of the most widely used scales in research. It comprises 30 or 43 question items, depending on the version, divided into 6 domains. The MEQ has been used in an expanded version, the States of Consciousness Questionnaire (SOCQ), containing distractor items unrelated to the mystical experience as defined by Stace’s framework, a 100-item questionnaire that contains the 43 items of the original MEQ43 to which 57 distractor questions have been added. The remaining 57 items in the SoCQ questionnaire serve as distractor items are not scored at the end of the test.

Dimensions, sub-dimensions, and items

The numbers associated with each item indicate the numerical sequence of the items on the original SoCQ.

1. Internal Unity (6 items)

• 26. Loss of your usual identity.
• 35. Freedom from the limitations of your personal self and feeling a unity or bond with what was felt to be greater than your personal self.
• 41. Experience of pure Being and pure awareness (beyond the world of sense impressions).
• 54. Experience of oneness in relation to an “inner world” within.
• 77. Experience of the fusion of your personal self into a larger whole.
• 83. Experience of unity with ultimate reality.

2. External Unity (6 items)

• 14. Experience of oneness or unity with objects and/or persons perceived in your surroundings
• 27. With eyes open, seeing something in your surroundings more and more intensely and then feeling as though you and it become one.
• 47. Experience of the insight that “all is One”.
• 51. Loss of feelings of difference between yourself and objects or persons in your surroundings.
• 62. Intuitive insight into the inner nature of objects and/or persons in your surroundings.
• 74. Awareness of the life or living presence in all things.

3. Transcendence of Time and Space (8 items)

• 2. Loss of your usual sense of time.
• 12. Feeling that you experienced eternity or infinity.
• 15. Loss of your usual sense of space.
• 29. Loss of usual awareness of where you were.
• 34. Sense of being “outside of” time, beyond past and future.
• 42. Feeling that you have been “outside of” history in a realm where time does not exist.
• 48. Being in a realm with no space boundaries.
• 65. Experience of timelessness.

4. Ineffability and Paradoxicality (5 items)

• 6. Sense that the experience cannot be described adequately in words.
• 19. Experience of a paradoxical awareness that two apparently opposite principles or situations are both true.
• 23. Feeling that you could not do justice to your experience by describing it in words.
• 59. Sense that in order to describe parts of your experience you would have to use statements that appear to be illogical, involving contradictions andparadoxes.
• 86. Feeling that it would be difficult to communicate your own experience to others who have not had similar experiences.

5. Sense of Sacredness (7 items)

• 5. Experience of amazement.
• 8. Sense of the limitations and smallness of your everyday personality in contrast to the Infinite.
• 31. Sense of profound humility before the majesty of what was felt to be sacred or holy.
• 36. Sense of being at a spiritual height.
• 55. Sense of reverence.
• 73. Feeling that you experienced something profoundly sacred and holy.
• 80. Sense of awe or awesomeness.

6. Noetic Quality (4 items)

• 3. Feeling that the consciousness experienced during part of the session was more real than your normal awareness of everyday reality.
• 9. Gain of insightful knowledge experienced at an intuitive level.
• 22. Certainty of encounter with ultimate reality (in the sense of being able to “know” and “see” what is really real ) at some time during your session.
• 69. You are convinced now, as you look back on your experience, that in it you encountered ultimate reality (i.e. that you “knew” and “saw” what was really real).

7. Deeply-Felt Positive Mood (7 items)

• 10. Experience of overflowing energy.
• 18. Feelings of tenderness and gentleness.
• 30. Feelings of peace and tranquility.
• 43. Experience of ecstasy.
• 50. Feelings of exaltation.
• 60. Feelings of universal or infinite love.
• 87. Feelings of joy.

Scoring instructions

Looking back on the extended session you have just experienced, please rate the degree to which at any time during that session, you experienced the following phenomena. In making each of your ratings, use the following scale:

0 – none; not at all.

1 – so slight cannot decide

2 – slight

3 – moderate

4 -- strong (equivalent in degree to any previous strong experience or expectation of this description)

5 – extreme (more than ever before in my life and stronger than 4)"

Critical discussion

Origins

The very definitions of "mystical experience" at the root of the development of this scale should be discussed. The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), along with other similar instruments like the Mysticism Scale (M-scale), are based on William James’ seminal work, Varieties of Religious Experience, and that of W.T. Stace in Philosophy and Mysticism. These original definitions and the problems they pose are discussed at length in Sandilands and Ingram (2024):

Let us begin with James. Lectures XVI and XVII in the series which make up The Varieties of Religious Experience treat at length of the topic of “mystical phenomena” (p. 378) because, according to James, “personal religious experience has its root and center in mystical states of consciousness” (p. 379). Here, James sets himself the task of showing the “reality of the states in question,” and the “paramount importance of their function” (ibid.) He proposes a definition of the states comprised in the “mystical group” (p. 384) as characterized by “four marks”: (1) Ineffability, (2) Noetic quality, (3) Transiency and (4) Passivity (pp. 380–384).

In Mysticism and Philosophy, W.T. Stace provides a summary of the common characteristics of what he calls “extrovertive” and “introvertive” mystical experiences.

Extrovertive mystical experiences involve:

• “Unifying vision – all things are one,
• An apprehension of the One [“The Divine” or “Ultimate Reality”] as an inner subjectivity, or life, in all things,
• A sense of objectivity or reality,
• Blessedness, peace, [bliss], etc.
• Feeling of the holy, sacred, or divine,
• Paradoxicality, and
• Alleged ineffability.”

Introvertive mystical experiences involve:

• “The unitary consciousness – the One, the void [“The Divine” or “Ultimate Reality”];
• pure consciousness
• Non-spatial, non-temporal sense of objectivity or reality
• Blessedness, peace, [bliss], etc.
• Feeling of the holy, sacred, or divine
• Paradoxicality, and
• Alleged ineffability.”

The aforementioned scales directly derive from these two definitions. Indeed, the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) comprises 30 or 43 question items, depending on the version, divided into 6 domains. These are:

1. A sense of unity,
2. Transcendence of time and space,
3. Ineffability and paradoxicality,
4. A sense of sacredness,
5. A noetic quality, and.
6. A deeply-felt positive mood.

Similarly the Mysticism Scale (M-scale) comprises three domains:

1. Extrovertive, with 2 sub-domains of Inner Subjectivity and Unity,
2. Introvertive, with 3 sub-domains of Timelessness/Spacelessness, Ego loss, Ineffability, and.
3. Interpretation with 3 sub-domains of Positive affect, Sacredness, and a Noetic quality.

Limitations

Continuing to quote Sandilands and Ingram (2024):

From our present perspective, critical comparison of these scale domains and James’ and Stace’s criteria with our inventory of contemporary scientific literature, as well as with traditional texts, reveals the profound limitations of the ways this notion is defined by these authors, with:

1. The de facto exclusion of experiences and effects of a challenging nature such as the “Dark Nights” — of the “Soul,” “Senses,” or “Spirit”, often tellingly called “Mystical Nights” — which certainly cannot be characterized by a positive mood, nor necessarily by a short duration, nor any of the other criteria we just listed. However, these are a common and essential phase of spiritual development according to canonical Christian texts. Notice, that there are kinds of dark nights. One may think this is specific to some Christian authors. But a similar point can be made with the Buddhist notion of the “Dukkha ñanas” (Pali), meaning “Knowledges of Suffering,” a normative developmental phase within the context of Theravada Buddhist meditation theory. As their name suggests, these “stages” of deepening meditation include experiences of “fear,” “misery,” “disgust,” etc. Yet, in this traditional framework, they are preceded and followed by stages which could fit many or all of the above criteria. Also, notice again that several variants and phases of “knowledges of suffering” are traditionally distinguished. Even if one chose to consider that later commentarial texts like the Vissudhimagga where this model was elaborately described and expanded on beyond its roots in the Abhidhamma and Khuddaka Nikāya, are “inauthentic,” one could respond that some texts which are canonical in all branches of Buddhism [the Pali canon] contain ample evidence that “mystical experience” is not just what James and Stace described. Beyond these two traditions, grief and trauma and generally speaking suffering-related experiences acting as triggers of spiritual development is a well-documented phenomenon. In fact, one may even say that in various traditional texts, mystical life begins with suffering and systematically involve negative experiences, sometimes to extreme degrees. This is reflected in Joseph Campbell’s monomyth, or Hero’s journey, a universal model of the unfolding of narrative and mythological stories in world literature, where the hero enters the Underworld or Abyss, or undergoes some profoundly challenging Quest, before coming back transformed or renewed to the known world. Obviously, challenging EPEEs abound [...], such as negatively valenced and sometimes terrifying psychedelic experiences (“bad trips”). Yet these may have long-term positive effects (as well as further negative effects) on one’s spirituality and life in general, be existentially and paradigmatically transformative, and result in beneficial long-term outcomes. All these examples show that we should not frame “mystical” experiences and generally EPEEs as only “pleasant” and ignore or fail to properly categorize and study non-pleasant, sometimes challenging EPEEs, at the risk of fueling what has been described as the “overly positive presentation of meditation in the media”. One may argue that contemporary research has developed specific instruments to that effect (e.g., the Challenging Experiences Questionnaire) but it is also clear that appraising all experiences which do not fit a simplistic definition of mystical experience as “challenging experiences,” “adverse effects” or “adverse events”, is problematic.
2. These criteria also exclude [...] seeming encounters with various types of beings, entities, or presences — which do not necessarily involve a sense of inner or outer unity, nor any other of these criteria. Such experiences were one of the most common type of experiences across all modalities in our inventory. This also means a large portion of world literature, such as prophetic, oracular, or visionary texts; archetypal psychology; the effects of many psychedelic compounds (such as LSD, 5-Meo-DMT, Ibogaine, N,N-DMT, or Salvia Divinorum); the effects of various meditation practices; and even spontaneously occurring such experiences, or these that are reported in various contexts like having an accident or going through coma — these would all be disqualified as mystical experience. Yet to experiencers, these may be felt as deeply “mystical,” profound, and transformative. More importantly, from a pragmatic, human, as well as clinical point of view, such experiences are often causal and may have a wide range of impacts on real world personal, family, and societal outcomes.
3. As we just showed, beyond excluding important experience types, Jamesian and Stacian characteristics of mystical experiences lack differentiating power, as they could in fact correspond to several forms of emergent phenomena which are distinguished both in Christian mystical theology, and Buddhist meditative theory. For instance, within the developmental models we just presented, these could correspond, within Carmelite theory of mystical development, either to the initial fruits of practice for beginning meditators before they enter the unpleasant and challenging purification of the Dark Nights, and/or to later phases of practice. Similarly, within buddhist stages of insight meditation, “mystical experience” fits well with either the very early phases of meditation, or to the all-important fourth stage of “Arising and Passing Away,” which immediately precedes the “Dukkha ñanas,” or to the one that immediately follows these “Dukkha ñanas” (called “Equanimity”). The 4, 8 or 9 jhānas would likely all qualify as mystical experiences, yet they each represent specific, differentiated experiences. It is highly likely that this comparison could be extended to almost all other mystical traditions. Thus, as with most current taxonomies of what we call EPEEs, recent definitions of mystical experience lack a sense of a differential diagnosis of possible states and stages that might present very similarly in some particulars but yet possibly be developmentally quite different.
4. Overall, the “transiency,” “ineffability,” “noetic,” and “passivity” criteria in James do not stand scrutiny with either traditional, or contemporary qualitative research. Indeed:
   1. The question of ineffability, might be an invalid criterion all together. Difficulty articulating a novel experience happening at the pre-reflexive level is a well-known fact of life. That is a basic premise of phenomenological research, with qualitative methods such as micro-phenomenology having been designed, precisely, to help experiences make “what experiences are like” explicit [...]. The (perfectly legitimate) sense that talking about a given event would somehow diminish its value, leading to a form of privacy or secrecy, is not exactly the same thing as that experience being impossible to express.
   2. As for transiency, traditional knowledge and recent research shows that various meditative states, sometimes highly refined and rare, such as Buddhist Nirodha Samāpatti can last quite a long-time (in the case of NS, Laukkonen et al. (2023) report a duration of 90 min, and the commentarial literature, such as the Visuddhimagga, reports such attainments may last for 7 or more days). Further, if one considers the “Dark Nights” and “Dhukka ñanas” as variants of mystical states, then these could actually last for months, years, or decades.
   3. The noetic criterion — meaning the experience involves a sense of “knowing,” or of perceiving something “true” — although sometimes seemingly very valid, should be used with discernment, as it can be misleading or even deceptive, and some (though not all!) forms of “noesis” are commonly described as pitfalls in many traditions. For instance the “Arising and Passing Away” stage we mentioned is described in some Buddhist mediation manuals as involving the arising of a “brilliant light,” “strong mindfulness,” “keen, strong, and lucid knowledge,” “strong faith,” “rapture in its five grades,” “tranquillity of mind,” “a very sublime feeling of happiness,” “energy,” “strong equanimity,” and “a subtle attachment”. Yet these are clearly noted as “ten corruptions of insight” and “mistaking what is not the path for the path”. The prescription here is to “purify” these corruptions by noticing that “The brilliant light, and the other things […] are not the path” and that “Delight in them is merely a corruption of insight”. This applies to the noetic component, but also to other phenomenal features which are commonly attributed to mystical experiences by, e.g., Stace. Similar warnings around the early fruits of meditative practice can be found in Christian manuals. In fact, classical mystical texts like the Cloud of Unknowing, would likely make the case that high mystical states rather involve a sense of unknowing, or not knowing (Wolters, 2001). The value of the sense of “knowing” in EPEEs is also questioned in contemporary research on psychedelic experiences (e.g., Timmermann et al., 2022 argue that “the ability of psychedelics to induce noetic feelings of revelation may enhance the significance and attribution of reality to specific beliefs, worldviews, and apparent memories […] might exacerbate the risk of iatrogenic complications that other psychotherapeutic approaches have historically faced, such as false memory syndrome”),
   4. The passivity criterion seems less ambiguous, but is nevertheless contradicted by the canonical description of, e.g., the first jhāna, which as we have seen involves intentionally “aiming” and “maintaining” one’s attention on the meditation object. Yet many would call the first jhāna a mystical experience.
5. Various other terminological issues also arise:
   1. Idiosyncratic use of the term “mystical.” Indeed, if we turn to classical early European mystical texts, such as those by late-antiquity author Plotinus, we find that they describe “mystical ascent,” the phases of which are described in Mazur et al. (2021), as culminating in a total “annihilation” into the “One” called henosis (Greek for “union”), which is followed by a “desubjectification.” Similarly, the last stage of the “path to God” as described by 13th-century German Mystics like Meister Eckhart or his student Tauler, is called a “modeless good”, referring not as much to an “experience” with specific phenomenal features, but as a going beyond all manifest appearances (including going beyond feelings of bliss, of sacredness, of unity, of transcendence, etc.). Early mystical theologies like that of 5th- or 6th-century church father pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite — a ubiquitous influence on medieval contemplatives — and later ones [...] describe unio mystica as “an obscure and luminous darkness” and a “going forth from the flesh.” The same is true of other Abrahamic traditions, as described in Fisher (2022). All of these quintessentially mystical experiences seem to bear more resemblance with the Buddhist notion of “cessation of consciousness” than with Jamesian or Stacean “mystical experience,” which likely should be correlated with phenomena and experiences encountered at earlier phases of these developmental models. Note that in Theravada texts, even such “cessations of consciousness” are classified into various types depending on their setup, mode of entrance, and phenomena and effects after the exit.
   2. Furthermore, the term “mystical” is to some degree culturally-bound. Why would the Latin-originated expression of “mystical experience” be adequate to speak about the experience of Buddhist, Muslim, or Hinduist contemplatives? Why not use their terms instead? Cultural and historical boundaries must be respected, but it must also be acknowledged that insisting on using them in research, clinical or scientific contexts creates problems, not only culturally, but also regarding scaling globally into clinical, public health, and scientific contexts.

Additional history and criticism of these definitions and the psychometric instruments that derive from them can be found in Taves (2020). The author also reminds us that, “When William James criticized the contemptuous disregard with which scientists treated the ‘mass of phenomena generally called mystical’ in 1890, he presupposed a widely accepted definition of mysticism that included ‘divinations, inspirations, demoniacal possessions, apparitions, trances, ecstasies, miraculous healings and productions of disease, and occult powers’”. Furthermore, “James also linked such experiences with drugs”, writing that, “The drunken consciousness is one bit of the mystic consciousness,” and with certain “pathological conditions”. It is only later that he, alongside others, adopted a “narrower definition”, crystallizing in Stace’s limiting, contradictory, and biased definition of mysticism, which would inform 20th century thinking and research. Clearly, James’ original view of mysticism was closer to what we call emergent phenomena, experiences, and effects (EPEEs). Thus, in many ways, we are returning to the original Jamesian spirit.

In sum, there are key issues with the definition of mystical experience which lies at the root of questionnaires like the MEQ and other scales derived from the definitions proposed by Stace and James, and we suggest adopting expanded perspective grounded on reviewing both traditional and contemporary phenomenological evidence, as we are attempting here, would likely be beneficial.