The Experiment That Challenged "God is Imaginary" Concept

In the 1950s–60s, early researchers noticed something strange:

Certain people given psychedelics (LSD or psilocybin) described mystical-type experiences—the same kind described by monks, saints, advanced meditators.

But the entire field was shut down in the 1970s because psychedelics were made illegal.

So the research stopped.

Around the early 2000s, a few scientists wanted to restart this line of research scientifically:

What exactly happens in the mind and brain during a mystical experience?

• Can it be produced in a controlled, safe environment?
• Is it measurable?
• Does it have lasting psychological benefits?

This wasn’t to “prove God.”

It was to study consciousness, religious experience, and mental health effects using rigorous methods.

The leader of the Hopkins team, Roland Griffiths, was from a clinical pharmacology background — he wasn’t a spiritual man. He was a scientist interested in two things:

• Human consciousness
• Treating suffering (depression, addiction, anxiety)

He suspected mystical experiences might have mental health benefits.

This was the root motivation.

WHAT DID THEY EXPECT TO HAPPEN?

Their expectations were actually very conservative.

They expected:

• Temporary hallucinations

Colors, shapes, altered perception — standard psychedelic effects.

• Emotional shifts

Maybe some joy, nostalgia, fear, or introspection.

• Visual distortions

Swirling patterns, geometric visuals.

• Some reports of “spiritual-like” feelings

But they assumed these would be vague, chaotic, and variable.

WHAT QUESTION WERE THEY TRYING TO ANSWER?

They were specifically testing whether psilocybin could reliably generate a “mystical-type experience” as defined by existing psychological frameworks.

A mystical experience has measurable criteria, such as:

• unity

• transcendence of time/space

• sense of sacredness

• deeply felt positive mood

• ineffability (hard to describe in words)

• sense of encountering ultimate reality

This wasn’t religious.

It was psychological research using a standardized scale.

They wanted to know:

• Can a chemical reliably produce this state?
• If yes, can this state improve mental well-being?

If the answer was yes, it meant:

• potential treatments for depression

• potential treatments for addiction

• new understanding of consciousness

It was scientific and clinical — not metaphysical.

WHAT WERE THEY CHALLENGING?

They were challenging two major assumptions in psychology and neuroscience:

Assumption 1: Mystical experiences are random or purely religious.

Before this experiment, mystical experiences were considered:

• rare

• unpredictable

• limited to monks, pray-ers, meditators

• connected to religion only

Hopkins challenged this by asking:

What if mystical experiences are a regular brain function that we simply don’t know how to access?

Assumption 2: Meaningful spiritual experiences cannot be produced reliably or studied scientifically.

They challenged the idea that:

• spirituality is only cultural

• “encountering God” is just imagination or myth

• these states cannot be studied in a lab

• science should avoid studying “religious-type” states

They wanted to treat mystical experience as a real, measurable mental phenomenon, not a religious claim.

This was bold.

No one had done it in decades.

WHAT DID THEY ACTUALLY WANT AS OUTCOMES?

Their desired outcomes were straightforward:

Wanted Outcome A:

Determine if psilocybin can reliably produce a mystical-type experience.

Wanted Outcome B:

Measure whether this experience improves well-being.

Wanted Outcome C:

Develop a safe, structured way to use this in clinical therapy.

Wanted Outcome D:

Open a new field of research into human consciousness.

None of their goals were spiritual.

None were about proving or disproving God.

It was pure consciousness science.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED (THE SHOCK)?

They accidentally produced extremely deep, extremely consistent mystical experiences that resembled ancient spiritual accounts — across participants — even atheists.

This was unexpected and scientifically uncomfortable because:

• it created “encounter” experiences
• the “presence” felt intelligent
• people were psychologically transformed long-term
• the experiences were structured, not chaotic
• participants insisted the experience felt “more real than waking reality”

This was not predicted by any psychological model at the time.

It forced scientists to reconsider how the brain constructs reality.

WHY THIS STORY IS IMPORTANT

Because the experiment essentially said:

• Mystical experiences are not rare.
• They are not tied to religion.
• They are not random.
• They can be produced reliably.
• They have deep psychological meaning.

And the deeper question scientists didn’t want to ask but were forced to face:

Why does the human brain have the circuitry to produce a state that feels like encountering a conscious presence?

That’s the core of the story.