The experiences described in this piece highlight a critical problem—one that isn’t just about religious coercion in psychiatric spaces, but about how materialist power structures dictate what forms of meaning, healing, and spirituality are institutionally permitted. Christianity’s dominance in these spaces isn’t necessarily about its doctrine itself, but rather about how it has been shaped through centuries of integration with Western governance, healthcare, and social control. It remains the default lens for moral and existential framing, not because it’s uniquely effective, but because the institutional systems that sustain it have evolved to reinforce their own ideological continuity.
A deeper issue here is the failure of both science and secular institutions to account for non-materialist dimensions of human experience. The physicalist paradigm, while powerful in many ways, is incomplete when it comes to the subjective, interconnected, and emergent aspects of consciousness. Other spiritual and religious traditions—whether polytheistic, animist, or non-theistic—offer robust frameworks for mental and emotional well-being, yet they are systematically ignored or dismissed in favor of the dominant paradigm. Not because they are less effective, but because integrating them would challenge entrenched hierarchies.
This isn’t just about theology or mental health—it’s about how societies decide what forms of human experience are valid, and what narratives are allowed to shape our understanding of ourselves. When the institutions charged with care and healing prioritize ideological conformity over actual well-being, they reveal the limits of their own self-awareness.
The experiences described in this piece highlight a critical problem—one that isn’t just about religious coercion in psychiatric spaces, but about how materialist power structures dictate what forms of meaning, healing, and spirituality are institutionally permitted. Christianity’s dominance in these spaces isn’t necessarily about its doctrine itself, but rather about how it has been shaped through centuries of integration with Western governance, healthcare, and social control. It remains the default lens for moral and existential framing, not because it’s uniquely effective, but because the institutional systems that sustain it have evolved to reinforce their own ideological continuity.
A deeper issue here is the failure of both science and secular institutions to account for non-materialist dimensions of human experience. The physicalist paradigm, while powerful in many ways, is incomplete when it comes to the subjective, interconnected, and emergent aspects of consciousness. Other spiritual and religious traditions—whether polytheistic, animist, or non-theistic—offer robust frameworks for mental and emotional well-being, yet they are systematically ignored or dismissed in favor of the dominant paradigm. Not because they are less effective, but because integrating them would challenge entrenched hierarchies.
This isn’t just about theology or mental health—it’s about how societies decide what forms of human experience are valid, and what narratives are allowed to shape our understanding of ourselves. When the institutions charged with care and healing prioritize ideological conformity over actual well-being, they reveal the limits of their own self-awareness.
True on all counts. Thank you for your comments.