Pastoral Psychol

DOI 10.1007/s11089-015-0678-9

Saints Run Mad 2.0: Further Deliberations on Recovery

from Addictions Through a Transpersonal Lens
Peter Anthony Eng 1

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract This article examines major inconsistencies that arise between the broad theories,
spirit, and ideals of transpersonal psychology and its support of twelve-step programs. In place
of this alliance, an alternative spiritual framework for recovery is proposed that is construed
from the critical application of both contemporary transpersonal theory and addictions research. It is noted in conclusion that, although the transpersonal field has gone to great lengths
to promote intrapsychic forms of healing from addiction, additional research pertaining to the
socio-cultural dimensions of a distinct transpersonal recovery is imperative.
Keywords Transpersonal psychology . Addiction . Alcoholics Anonymous . Biopsychosocial
model

Introduction
Recently, there has been an outbreak of criticism of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in the
mainstream media, initiated by the heralded publication of Lance and Zachary Dodess The
Sober Truth: Debunking the Bad Science Behind 12-Step Programs and the Rehab Industry
(Dodes and Dodes 2014). The duo has ignited an impassioned debate by questioning both the
effectiveness of twelve-step groups and whether alcoholism is a medical disease. Lance Dodes
is an influential authority by virtue of his previous role as an assistant clinical professor of
psychiatry at Harvard. Sitting on one side of the continuum, there are those who argue, with
the support of numerous peer-reviewed studies, that AAs success rate in treating alcoholism is
no more than 510 %. On the other end, many insist, often anecdotally, that AA is the most
effective intervention available. In all probability, this quarrel will not be settled in the
foreseeable future.
Nevertheless, the conflicts open nature clears the way for reassessing the historical alliance
between the field of transpersonal psychology and AA. Owing to the lack of contention in
* Peter Anthony Eng
petereng40@yahoo.com
1

88 King Street, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA

Pastoral Psychol

transpersonal forums, many may have been reluctant to be critical of this relationship. AA is
sacrosanct in the eyes of many who claim to be liberated from alcoholism or who have known
people to be saved by the program. For these reasons Schoen (2009), a Jungian therapist and
author, attempts to head off critical inquiry at the pass by warning that he has Bvery little
patience and tolerance for theoretical A.A. bashing^ (p. ix).
Inaugurated in 1969, the express purpose of transpersonal psychology is Bthe reflective
study of transcendent experiences and its practical application to healing^ (Chinen 1996,
p. 17). Research into addiction is ideally suited for this school since addiction is Bunique in the
mental health industry in that it openly acknowledges . . . perceived metaphysical valences^
(Boeving 2010, p. 94). Simply put, the problem is tailor-made for transpersonal solutions. In
view of the fact that AA was already in the late 1960s at the forefront of treating addiction with
spiritual means, the transpersonal field naturally gravitated towards a Bmarriage . . . [with] the
Twelve Step Program^ (Grof n.d.). According to the most recent count available, 75.5 % of
U.S. treatment centers are twelve-step in orientation (Roman and Blum 2004).
In brief, the emphasis of AA and other twelve-step groups that it spawned is on spiritual
growth. The twelve steps are at the heart of its teachings and members are urged to seek
assistance from a higher power of their own preference. Miller (1998) reflects, BThe essence of
AAs program . . . is the understanding that the alcoholics best, if not only, hope for sobriety is
through recognizing, appealing to, and accepting help from . . . a transcendent power, referred
to as God in AAs twelve steps^ (p. 980).
By the mid-1990s, the number of publications on addiction from members of the transpersonal community began to dwindle, albeit with a sense of fait accompli. Common ground had
emerged and a distinct transpersonal recovery strategy came into being. Based on a consensus
in transpersonal literature (Carroll 1987; Firman and Gila 1997; Grof 1994; Grof 1987;
Metzner 1994; Small 1987; Sparks 1993; White 1979; Whitfield 1985) the optimal treatment
for addiction is described as (a) participation in a twelve-step program such as AA, (b) in
conjunction with psychotherapy that is amenable to spirituality in either individual or group
settings, (c) coupled with practices that can induce a therapeutic non-ordinary state of
consciousness (NOSC). Echoing the sentiments of William James and Carl Jung, the etiology
of addiction is deemed a Bcounterfeit quest for wholeness^ (Nixon 2011) with the therapeutic
corollary of ego-transcendence.
At a cursory glance, the marriage between AA and transpersonal psychology seems
appropriate, effective, seamless, and elegant. Indeed, Jung confirmed, in his famous letter to
AA co-founder Bill Wilson, that the formula for recovery is Bspiritus contra spiritum^ (Schoen
2009, p. 19). Further, the two parties acknowledged a silver lining in addiction whereby the
symptomatic despondency can boost Bthe necessary antecedent to change and integration^
(Godlaaski 1988, p. 248). Barring the occasional quibbles over the perception that AA
members are largely reluctant to engage in NOSC (Grof n.d.) and the overtly theistic bias of
twelve-step programs (Cortwright 1997), the matrimony seems destined to last until death do
us part. Even so, many unintended and inauspicious cracks can be detected in this conjugal
bond, from the time of consummation until the present.

A strange fitting tailor-made alliance

Christina Grofs (1994) The Thirst for Wholeness both reinforces AAs standing in the
transpersonal community and inadvertently reveals many immediate problems associated with

Pastoral Psychol

the marriage. For example, the author protests that Bsome Western religious attitudes feed into
and substantiate a negative, unhealthy view of ourselves as unworthy and even evil^ (Grof
1994, p. 93). She adds that Breligious texts . . . often emphasize the negative: human beings are
sinners, lost souls in need of redemption^ (p. 91). Yet, she omits indicating the obvious parallel
that, throughout its literature, AA perceives moral deficiency in ones character to be at the
core of alcoholism:
Selfishness self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles. Driven by a
hundred forms of fear, self-delusion, self-seeking, and self-pity . . . Above everything,
we alcoholics must be rid of this selfishness. We must, or it kills us! (Alcoholics
Anonymous 2001, p. 62)
In another instance, Grof (1994) takes the unstated liberty of modifying AAs third-step
phrase from BGod as we understand Him^ to BGod as we understand God^ (p. 119).
Presumably, she is attempting to make the program palatable to those who Bhave voiced
concern that the Twelve Steps . . . reflect[s] aspects of a patriarchal society^ (Sanders 2009, p.
9). Specifically, Grof (1994) laments that if we attend a Btraditional church or synagogue . . .
we become confused . . . . Even if God is represented as a loving God, he is almost exclusively
male and he exists apart from us^ (p. 94). Inexplicably, the author neglects to reveal anywhere
in her work that the same transgression occurs in AA. On every occasion that God is
mentioned in the Big Book (the primary text of Alcoholics Anonymous), God is invariably
referred to by the masculine personal pronouns He, Him, or His, which also serves to
emphasize the AA deitys externality.
Some of these discrepancies cannot be dismissed merely as Big Book semantics, trapped in
Depression-era biblical parlance. AA literature also contains serious deviations from the
perspective of any generally accepted school of counseling thought. To illustrate, Christina
Grof (1994) cautions that those who have a pattern of suppressing anger Brisk damag[ing]
[their] . . . integrity^ (p. 82). She goes on to say, BRather than expressing anger, we become
furious with ourselves or turn rage into depression^ (p. 81). However, she is silent on AAs
instructions to spouses to Bnever be angry. Even though your husband becomes unbearable and
you have to leave him temporarily, you should, if you can, go without rancor. Patience and
good temper are most necessary^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p.111). Battista (1996)
regards the repression of anger in spiritual practice as an example of Bfalse spirituality^
(p. 252). Le, Ingvarson, and Page (1995) cite Maslow, Rogers, Carkhuff, and Benjamin as
prominent psychologists who confirm that encouraging the repression of anger is
Btherapeutically unsound in denying clients rights to their true feelings^ (p. 607).
In fairness, similar contradictions can be uncovered in other transpersonal works that have a
tendency to support AA as a spiritual practice while at the same time casually disparaging
Judeo-Christian religiousness. The oft-repeated aphorism that AA is a spiritual, rather than
religious program camouflages AAs Bquasi-religious^ (Rudy and Greil 1988) temperament,
while a kind and generous perennialist attitude further pre-empts AA from censure. In this
vein, Grof (1994) suggests that Bif we take the time to look past the words at the broader
concepts and suggestions for healing within the Twelve Steps, we find an approach that
contains many of the ideas inherent in time-tested spiritual systems^ (p. 194).
However, the reflexive, seemingly benign, and hitherto unquestioned embrace of AA by the
transpersonal community obscures potentially harmful ramifications that naturally emerge
from this relationship. Essentially, the two groups have sharply contrasting ideas on the
underlying essence of human nature and, in turn, the foundations of spiritual healing. As I

Pastoral Psychol

will explain in greater detail, transpersonal theory, as a whole, arduously attempts to convey
that all persons are, at the core of their being, much larger than the limits narrowly imposed by
their personal egos. AA, in contrast, seeks to reveal and continually reinforce the supposition
that alcoholics, in effect, fall far short of the grandiose self-images suggested by their egos.
Recovery efforts of individuals attending AA may then be hindered precisely because of the
conflation of transpersonal theory and AA doctrine to paralyzing effect. In order to fully
appreciate this unacknowledged but polarizing rift, the origins of AAs spiritual assumptions
need to be considered.

The varieties of spiritual solutions to alcoholism

In 1934, AA co-founder Bill Wilson had a mystical encounter in a New York hospital room
after undergoing Belladonna treatment for a severe alcoholic binge (Alcoholics Anonymous
2001). Similar to St. Paul, the light of God suddenly appeared before Wilson and he underwent
a radical change in consciousness: BI must turn in all things to the Father of light who presides
over us all . . . God comes to most men gradually, but His impact on me was sudden and
profound^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 14). Mystical experiences are known to occasionally result in Ban inner marriage between the individual and God^ (Dwight 1996a, p. 135),
and Wilson, throughout the remainder of his life, bore the hallmarks of a Bfully surrendered,
willing Bbride^ or Bservant^ to the divine^ (Cortwright 1997, p. 48).
Wilsons mystical experience, which radically altered the trajectory of addictions treatment,
occurred for possibly one, or a mixture of two main reasons: (1) the hallucinogenic effects of
Belladonna, a then-popular detoxification treatment that is known to induce delirium and (2)
Gods directly choosing Wilson. To support their programs spiritual contentions, AA apologists are likely to prefer the latter reason and deny the first. Kurtz (2008) steers AA members
clear from investigating entheogenic avenues to sobriety and maintains that any such attempt
Bshares the core assumption of addictive thinking . . . and locates divinity in drugs^ (p. 44). On
the other side of the coin, the academic field of transpersonal psychology is inclined to be
interested in the first explanation (i.e., the belladonna). Mystical experiences that are stimulated by entheogens are easier to understand, investigate, and repeat.
Taking the assumption on face value, that God chose Wilson, and insomuch as Ban
unconditional and infinite effect can never be conditioned by a finite cause^ (Staal 1975,
p. 125), AA is compelled to present a different path to recovery than Wilsons sudden
unio mystica. The Beducational^ method, whereby a spiritual awakening Bdevelop[s]
slowly over a period of time^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 567), seems different
from what Jung postulated as a solution to alcoholism. According to the Big Book, in a
very rare moment in which Jung makes known his opinion on addiction (Schoen 2009),
Jung once confided to an American patient who was suffering from chronic alcoholism
that undergoing a Bvital spiritual experience^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 27) might
be the mans best alternative. In this situation, Jung is most likely referring to the
numinous (i.e., Bvital^) charge that is theoretically contained in abrupt mystical outbursts.
Jung wrote extensively on these types of experiences, which are alleged to seize, terrify,
and inspire awe to such effect that Beven a bishop may not release [a person from this
state of rapture]^ (Meister Eckhart, as cited in Nelson 2011, p. 230). Wilson confirmed
through his episode in the hospital that an immediate psychic change could result from
such a precipitous mystical onrush and pave the way to recovery.

Pastoral Psychol

Seeing that AA has forever linked itself with Jung through a pair of published letters
between Jung and Wilson (Schoen 2009), one might attend AA expecting a specific Junginspired solution for alcoholism. Oddly, in place of this one is steered towards a form of
evangelistic faith healing. It is improbable that working AAs twelve steps will lead to a peak
experience with as much dramatic urgency as Wilsons. None of the 42 personal stories in the Big
Book, which narrate how individual members found recovery through AA, resemble Wilsons
spontaneous conversion. They tend to be predictable and adhere to the following formula:
The overall storyline followed classical literary conventions for tragedy and comedy.
Prototypical stages included: (1) first or early drinking, (2) alcoholic regression, (3)
hitting bottom, (4) progress in the AA program, and (5) stable sobriety, embedded in a
subjective, evaluative function over time. (Stobbe and Kurtz 2012, p. 29)
On this note, both Kurtz (2008) and Diamond (2002) maintain that a key cathartic release
mechanism in AA is the repeated telling at AA meetings of ones personal journey to recovery.
Jung (1977) was fully aware of such a strategy being widely used for recovery, but he was
unimpressed with its long-term effectiveness:
A hysterical alcoholic was cured by this Group movement, and they used him as a sort
of model and sent him all round Europe, where he confessed so nicely and said that he
had done wrong and how he had got cured through the Group movement. And when he
had repeated his story twenty, or it may have been fifty, times, he got sick of it and took
to drink again. The spiritual sensation had simply faded away. (p. 272)
The fact that Wilson himself did not get sober by working the twelve-steps cannot be
overstated. He never drank again after the hospital incident, but the steps were not developed
until a few years later. Nonetheless, transpersonal psychology identifies its role in addiction
recovery through both facilitating spontaneous personal mystical experiences with its
Btechnologies^ (Grof et al. 2008, p. 156) and playing an adjunctive role in the twelve-step process.

Prelude to a puzzling spiritual framework for recovery

Dupre (1996) states, BAll genuine mysticism results in spiritual fecundity . . . . Having come to
partake in Gods life, the contemplative also feels called to share in Gods life-giving love^
(p. 14). Correspondingly, Wilson was gripped by a proselytizing impulse after the hospital
episode but, according to his own account, he felt disenchanted with organized religion. Yet, he
needed some kind of spiritual framework to convey his newfound bliss. There would appear to be
two main requirements: (1) an experiential, rather than blatantly religious practice, promising the
personal discovery of God, and (2) an appropriate container where he could coherently situate his
own life story as part of a larger narrative on the human struggle for spiritual redemption.
The design that Wilson chose for AA is widely known to be patterned after the Oxford
Group, a North American revival organization of which both he and AA co-founder Dr. Bob
were active members. This self-professed non-denominational Christian group that professed
itself more spiritual than religious had ignited a mass movement in the late 1920s with the
intent of establishing BA New World Order for Christ, the King^ (Layman with a Notebook
1933, p. 6). It set itself apart from major religions by claiming to complement and Brevitalize
existing religious organizations^ (Bufe 1998, p. 59). Central to Oxford Group doctrines are the
ideas that human immorality is responsible for all suffering, only God can change human

Pastoral Psychol

nature, and a mass conversion to Christ, whereby He is put in control of all human affairs,
would lead to a better world.
AA historian and arguably, its leading academic apologist, Ernie Kurtz, begrudgingly
acknowledges the extent of the Oxford Groups influence on AA. Both he and White
(White and Kurtz 2008) strongly imply that only six of AAs twelve steps are taken directly
from Oxford Group teachings. In contrast, later in his life, Wilson (1988) admits, in no
uncertain terms, the full scope of AAs appropriations from the Oxford Group:
Where did the early AAs find the material for the remaining ten Steps? Where did we
learn about moral inventory, amends for harm done, turning our wills and lives over to
God? Where did we learn about meditation and prayer and all the rest of it? The spiritual
substance of our remaining ten Steps [emphasis added] came straight from Dr. Bobs
and my own earlier association with the Oxford Groups [sic]. (p. 298)
Furthermore, B. (2003), in a scholarly effort to confirm AAs biblical roots, lists 28 of the
Oxford Groups most important principles and practices and it is clear that all of them are
absorbed in AAs twelve steps:
(a) God; (b) His Plan; (c) Our Obedience; (d) Initial belief that God is; (e) Surrender of
your Bwill^ to God; (f) A Bturning point: . . .; (g) Confidence; (h) Confession; (i)
Conviction; (j) Conversion; (k) ContinuanceBsteps^ that would eliminate Bsin^
Bblocking^ one from God and others; (l) Making restitution for harms caused by sins;
(m) Making Bdaily^ surrender . . .; (n) BGrowing^ spiritually through Bible study,
prayer, and Quiet Time observances enabling receipt of Gods revelation; (o) Becoming
BGod conscious^ as the result of such obedience; (p) Witnessing to what God had done
that the person could not do for himself; (q) Fellowshipping; (r) Serving. (s) Practicing
Christian principles . . . . (para. 24)
Kurtzs reluctance to grant full credit to the Oxford Group may be due to that movements
unsatisfactory track record on healing alcoholics (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001). Moreover,
the Oxford Groups leader, Frank Buchman, fell from media grace when he voiced support for
Hitler prior to World War II. Yet, at the Oxford Groups zenith, multitudes of fervent supporters
proclaimed to have experienced God and to have found healing directly through the movement: BThousands of these witnesses are convicted by the evidence in their own lives of what
the life changing of the Oxford Group has done for them and can do for all^ (Layman with a
Notebook 1933, p. 7).
To be sure, Wilson implemented many provisions designed to differentiate AA from the
Oxford Group and tailor his program specifically for all alcoholics, regardless of their religious
orientation. Examples include the fact that Christ is not mentioned by name, one is given the
freedom to choose a higher power of ones preference, steps one and two are unique to AA,
and the word sin is replaced by defects and wrongs. AA also pioneered the therapeutic
and revolutionary concept of one alcoholic helping another. In spite of these adjustments, AA
inherited, in its entirety, a theological platform directly from the mind of Oxford Group leader
Buchman. AA could not have modified the Oxford Groups ontological assumptions without
negatively affecting the accompanying mechanism for personal change. The Oxford Group
instructions are explicit and are mirrored by AA through its steps (Mercadante 1996).
Kurtz (2008) explains AAs spiritual/therapeutic process in a circuitous manner that
suggests AA is a form of esoteric practice: Bthe spirituality necessary to recovery [involves]
not the seeking of the magical, but being open to miracle accepting life as mystery to be

Pastoral Psychol

lived rather than a problem to be solved^ (p. 53). Still, and possibly for the purpose of
preserving mystery, he circumvents AAs paramount exoteric tenet. Since Bprobably no human
power could have relieved our alcoholism^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 60), an alcoholics only chance is the intervention of an omniscient, omnipotent, and creative being
overseeing every aspect of human existence. The Supreme Court of New York ruled in the
1996 case of Griffin v. Coughlin that AA is in fact religious as it urges the acceptance of a
BSupreme Being of independent higher reality than humankind^ (Peele 2001, p. 37).
In her study on AA, Bean (1975b) argues that AAs deity bears resemblance to an obstinate
and conditional father who will only intervene if a child obeys his commands. She speculates
that such beliefs Bmay produce a low level of maturity . . . . This is a disadvantage for those
who are capable of more insight^ (p. 90). Le, Ingvarson, and Page (1995) arrive at a similar
conclusion and ask whether Bthe messages of AA are the ones we wish to send to our clients^
(p. 605). Again, Kurtz (2008) sidesteps AA theology. In the entirety of his 51 page paper, Why
A.A. Works: The Intellectual Significance of Alcoholics Anonymous, he mentions the concept
of a higher power, which is at the very heart of AA doctrine, only once and in passing. At any
rate, the Oxford Group/AA theological mindset was familiar to Jung (1977), who confessed, BI
wish I were still a medieval man who could join such a creed. Unfortunately, it needs a
somewhat medieval psychology to do it and I am not sufficiently medieval^ (p. 163). In
retrospect, Jung never wrote or publicly uttered a single sentence that can be construed as an
endorsement of AA even though the organization flourished in his lifetime.
Kurtz (1991) concedes that there is an overt streak of anti-intellectualism in AA
(p. 188) but defends it by asserting that critical analysis by members of the program
is a form of denial. Still, since Kurtz was not only an intellectual mouthpiece for AA
but also an active member, it may be concluded that ones critical faculties can only
be applied to AA if it puts AA in a favorable light; otherwise, one is in danger of
imminent relapse. Bufe (1998) provides an extensive analysis of AAs anti-intellectual
leanings and, from a transpersonal perspective, Vaughn (1991) advises, BWhenever
critical intelligence is discarded in favor of blind devotion to a particular experience, a
person, or a cause, addiction becomes a risk^ (p. 110).

Miracles, not magic

In 1934 Marjorie Harrison, an English Protestant woman, wrote the sharp-witted Saints Run
Mad in response to the Oxford Group. Among many criticisms, she castigated members for
their lack of discernment, Bfor, in obedience to the teachings of the Movement, they have put
out the lights of reason and intelligence that have been given them^ (Harrison 1934,
Chapter 4). Her disapproval of the Oxford Group could have been reserved for the yet-tobe-conceived AA. For example, AA literature trumpets that Bhereafter in this drama of life,
God was going to be our Director. He is the Principal; we are His agents. He is the Father, and
we are His children^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 62). In her prescient critique, Harrison
(1934) writes:
To return to the simile of a father and his children. The Group teaches the child to regard
his father not as a guide and defence generally and a ready help in time of trouble, but
someone to whom the child turns for actual direction in everything he does. Father, shall
I play with my train or my bricks? Father, shall I build a house or a bridge? Father, shall I

Pastoral Psychol

use red bricks or blue? Father, shall I knock it down? Father, shall I build it up? Father
this and father that, until a father might well wonder whether his child is a half-wit,
instead of a reasonable being. (Chapter 4)
Harrison was not alone in her critical stance regarding the Oxford Group. The Bishop of
Durham wrote the forward to her book and the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr
(Niemur 1936) publicly detested the Oxford Group for doctrinal reasons that also apply to
AA: BA careful study of the gospel itself, particularly its abhorrence of the self-righteousness
of the righteous, would reveal the danger of any doctrine which promises powerful men the
possibility of fully doing the will of God^ (p. 1316). Ironically, Niebuhr is credited with
composing the Serenity Prayer that is recited at almost every AA meeting.
AAs Big Book reminds readers that Bour book is meant to be suggestive only. We realize
we know only a little . . .^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 62). Paradoxically, in contrast to
this veneer of epistemic modesty, AA issues a warning: BUnless each A.A. member follows to
the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his
own death warrant^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2010, p. 174). That being the case, a somber
inference can be made. Contrary to the pluralistic representations of AA, its members are
threatened at the expense of their lives, to adopt AAs philosophy, which essentially conveys
that Bgrace is our only hope for dealing with addiction^ (May 1988, p. 16). Given this, the
transpersonal field should take heed. Rosenfeld (2010) identifies this strain of religious belief
to be pernicious: BThey may believe that only God can heal, and [that] the ill need to replace
the thinking that created their disease with harmony by restoring their relationship with God^
(p. 515).
A burning question naturally emerges: Why did the members of the Oxford Group
eventually abandon the organization in droves? Perhaps most of them eventually moved on
to more robust spiritual belief systems. Buchmans ontological interpretations continue to exist
but only for a demographic subset who are consistently told that Buchmans particular
approach is the answer to addiction.

The point of no return

At this juncture, one could still assert that persons suffering from alcoholism can attend AA in
two other ways that are beyond a literal interpretation of the program: (1) individualistically
i.e., those Bexhibiting a high degree of critical thinking and analytical judgment in their
spiritual life^ who Bmay debunk the miraculous in their tradition^ (Dwight 1996b, p. 296),
or (2) symbolically i.e., Bthose possessing a mature openness towards the symbolic world^
who Bare alive in their own inner world to archetypal presences^ (Dwight 1996b, p. 297).
Even vocal critics of AA are apt to concede certain therapeutic qualities of the program:
Let me be clear here: the Twelve-step programs have many profoundly wonderful
qualities. They encourage open acknowledgement that the life of chemical dependency
is an unhealthy one; they provide an environment that nurtures the relationship of
sponsors and sponsorees; and they also encourage making amends. (Boeving 2011,
BTwelve-step programs Christian underpinnings^)
However, there is still the matter of the previously mentioned chasm between transpersonal
theory and AA theory. In Kurtzs (2008) evaluation, the recognition of Bessential limitation^

Pastoral Psychol

and the resulting Bshared mutuality^ or interdependency are the two main factors contributing
to why AA works (p. 179). Assuming that Kurtz is in fact correct, the Bembrace of fundamental
finitude^ (p. 196) offers the single most cogent reason why transpersonal psychology is
antithetical to the twelve-step process.
To begin, there is a bond of genuine empathy between transpersonal psychology and
persons afflicted by addiction. Addicted persons are often described as sensitive and
idealistic seekers or even as mystics who are misguided in their search for spiritual
wholeness (e.g., Grof 1994; Small 1987; Sparks 1993). The transpersonal field understands
and openly acknowledges every individuals Binnate impulses towards an ultimate state^
(Sutich 1973, p. 2).
At the core of transpersonal psychology and psychotherapy lies the metaphysical concept of
the Higher or transpersonal Self in every individuals psyche. Daniels (2005) identifies 19
complex interpretations of this BGod self^ (Carroll 1987, p. 46) that are subtly different in
meaning put forward by transpersonal theorists. Despite variances, the theories are united in a
primary goal, which is the Bmutually active process of surrendering control to the self.
Accepting responsibility and trusting ones inner wisdom to direct ones life are vital to the
therapeutic context [emphasis added]^ (Strohl 1998, BKey Points Revisited^). Accordingly,
the egos capitulation to the to the Higher Self (i.e., individuation or self-actualization) is the
key to recovery.
Grof (1987) relates that the journey to recovery is essentially a process of ego death and
rebirth. In other words, ones ego is revitalized in healthy ways. Likewise, AA works through a
process of ego deflation, but the similarity ends there. Schaub and Schaub (1997) find that Bin
this [AA] model, alcoholics and other addicts are characterologically and morally different
than non addicts^ (p. 24). They will always be Bin Jamesian terms sick souls^ (Kurtz
2008, p. 68). Kurtz (2008) maintains that the Bdeep root of alcoholic behavior lies in
character^ and he provides a list of the negative traits of alcoholics: Bgrandiosity, resentment,
defiance, dishonesty, and obsession with control^ (p. 95).
Although the transpersonal model of addiction is essentially one of self-medication,
AA cannot escape obvious comparisons with the moral model. The only caveat is that
AA does not view alcoholism as a volitional malady (Miller and Kurtz 1999). Bill
Wilsons life story fits well with AAs etiology of alcoholism. By his own account,
prior to his conversion Wilson was an educated, middle-class White male who was
arrogant, entitled, self-centered, and self-aggrandizing. Alcoholic individuals who
identify with his story of redemption will no doubt find a comforting home in AA.
But the same might not be said for many who have been severely traumatized by
abuse, poverty, neglect, discrimination, and a host of other societal injustices. They
might well arrive at the gates of AA through maladaptive efforts to self-medicate,
only to be told, through one of the Big Books personal and highly vaunted narratives,
that Bnothing, absolutely nothing, happens in Gods world by mistake^ (Alcoholics
Anonymous 2001, p. 417). Worse yet, their character flaws are solely to blame. If
they cannot recover in AA, they are cast aside as Bunfortunates . . . [who] are not at
fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping
and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty^ (Alcoholics
Anonymous 2001, p. 58).
According to Kurtz (2008), the purpose of inebriation is an attempt to transcend ones
humanness. Through his reasoning, it then follows that recovering persons need to relinquish
any Bclaim to ultimacy^ (p. 198) or, in effect, the capacity for progressing beyond the

Pastoral Psychol

personal to the transpersonal (Wilber 1996). Contrary to the transpersonal approach, BThe
minimal requirement of a higher power in AA is that it is not the self^ (OHalloran 2008,
p. 96). Kurtz argues that true recovery is cheerfully bowing to the fact that one is much less
than the illusions perpetrated by ones limitless ego. Hence, the twelve steps are more
concerned with exposing ones defects than uncovering resilience. In theory, AA works
through a process of inner personal contraction with the goal of fostering dependency on a
higher power outside of oneself.
On the other hand, transpersonal psychology strives to make it known that addicted
persons, as with all humans, are in reality capable of much more than their limiting
egos. Welwood (2002) relates, BThe less involved we are with images of who we are,
the more we will be able to recognize our deep bond with all sentient beings, as
different expressions of the mystery that also pervades our innermost nature^ (p. 47).
And for those who consistently hear the message that they are inadequate, the
transpersonal perspective offers solace and hope. Although working on ones shadow
is an integral part of transpersonal psychotherapy and diffuses the prospect of narcissism, one can still find perfect goodness and wisdom within oneself by pushing past
egoic constraints. In this way, transpersonal theory, when applied to recovery, works
through a process of inner personal expansion Bbeyond individuality, beyond the
development of the individual person into something which is more inclusive than
the individual person, or which is bigger than he is^ (Maslow, as cited in Boorstein
1996, p. 2).
Analogous to the two sides in the game of tug of war, transpersonal psychologys aims,
spirit, and ideals run contrary to AAs efforts. One might still argue that this results in an
effective spiritual fulcrum that provides checks and balances. But Edinger (1972), in opposition to precisely such situations, admonishes, BWhen the value of the Self is projected by
opposing groups onto conflicting political ideologies, it is as though the original wholeness of
the Self were split into antithetical segments which war on each other^ (p. 68).
In all likelihood, AA will never change to accommodate transpersonal theory. In
the past, there has been a propensity for transpersonal writers to reflexively project
their own spiritual ideals onto AA. To his credit, Kurtz (2008) understood the mutual
incompatibility of AA and transpersonal psychology. Mirroring Alexanders (1980)
criticisms, he thinly veils his contempt for what is, in essence, the field of transpersonal psychology. He uses William Jamess Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study
in Human Nature, first published in 1902, as his source for irrefutable wisdom and
abandons transpersonal psychology at the altar:
What James termed Bthe religion of healthy-mindedness^ is a vigorous, full-bodied,
optimistic type of spiritual sensibility that sees nature as beneficent and God as intimately, affirmatively, related to all His creatures. Characterized by the Binability to feel
evil,^ this spirituality Blooks on all things and sees that they are good.^ This is the
Bsimpler^ view, and it is aptly captured by the spiritualities of the New Age. (Kurtz
2008, pp. 6970)
One might argue in Jamess defense that he did not have access to over a centurys worth of
painstaking research into attachment theory, developmental psychology, trauma, social psychology, neurobiology, Jungian analytical psychology, and every other kind of contemporary
academic endeavor that strives to explain human pathology beyond a dualistic Bronze Age
framework of good and evil. What would be Kurtzs excuse?

Pastoral Psychol

Towards an alternate spiritual framework for recovery

The current trend in public policy on the matter of addictions recovery seems to favor a
transpersonal approach that steps outside the shadow of AA. In a recent official statement, the
U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announces:
BSelf-determination and self-direction are the foundations for recovery as individuals define
their own life goals and design their unique path(s) towards those goals^ (SAMHSA 2012,
BRecovery is person driven^). Reading between these lines, Peele (2012) observes that North
American recovery movement has been released from the dominance of twelve-step ideology
as reliance on an external higher power is no a longer a prerequisite for recovery. Embedded in
the SAMHSA statement, there is also an express recognition of multiple pathways leading to
recovery goals that are unique to every person. Likewise, there is a drive in contemporary
transpersonal theory to view liberation as an Bocean with many shores^ (Ferrer 2002, p. 133).
If, however, transpersonal psychology were to reduce the role of AA in its framework for
the treatment of addiction, how might this model appear? In order to arrive at a revised
transpersonal strategy for recovery, the views of major transpersonal theorists need integration
and inclusion. Aside from those who refer specifically to addiction, important contributors to
the transpersonal field (e.g., Wilber, Ferrer, Maslow, Washburn) tend to develop broad metaframeworks whereby Bthe goal is not merely to remove psychopathology but to foster higher
human development^ (Kasprow and Scotton 1999, p. 13). The practical application of their
theories toward the treatment of addiction must then be extrapolated from their works.
Hartelius, Caplan, and Rardin (2007) summarize transpersonal psychologys historical
unfolding as Ban approach to psychology that 1) studies phenomena beyond the ego as context
for 2) an integrative/holistic psychology; this provides a framework for 3) understanding and
cultivating human transformation^ (p. 11). Correspondingly, an integrated transpersonal
framework for recovery would embrace these three developments in the form of directives
or ideals.
To meet the first condition of intrapsychic (i.e., that which occurs in ones psyche)
well-being, there is already an overcrowded field of therapeutic skills offered by the
transpersonal community. They range from psychotherapeutic interventions (e.g., analytical
psychology, transpersonal psychotherapy, and psychosynthesis), to traditional spiritual
practices (e.g., yoga, meditation, and shamanic rituals), to atypical, peak-experienceinducing procedures that are developed with explicit reference to healing addiction (e.g.,
holotropic breathwork and entheogenic therapy). Admittedly, there is a lack of scientific
studies on the effectiveness of most transpersonal interventions in treating addiction. Two
notable exceptions are mindfulness meditation (Bowen et al. 2011) and the therapeutic
ingestion of entheogens (Krebs and Johansen 2012). Indeed, the evidence for the entire
field of psychotherapy in relation to addiction is underwhelming (Hester and Miller 2003).
This is especially true since cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), a demonstrably efficacious intervention (Miller et al. 2005), tends to be placed in its own category in studies
of addiction treatments. Still, it would be difficult to find any form of transpersonal
intervention that contravenes CBTs key assertion that every individual has an innate
capacity to take charge of his or her life.
Ken Wilber, to whom Ball transpersonal psychologists are indebted^ (Daniels 2005, p. 205),
facilitates the second stage requirement (i.e., an integrative/holistic framework) for a unique
transpersonal model of addiction. Based on his reasoning that Bdepth is everywhere.
Consciousness is everywhere. Spirit is everywhere^ (Wilber 2007, p. 60), Wilber provides

Pastoral Psychol

us with his comprehensive AQAL map that extends spiritual experience beyond the
customary realm as primarily intrapsychic events. This same map can be applied for
interpreting the manifest reality of any other phenomenon or event, including addiction
and recovery. Accordingly, there are four perspectives or quadrants of equal importance
that, when integrated, comprise addiction recovery: the upper left individual interior
(i.e.,intentional), the lower left collective interior (i.e.,social), the upper right individual
exterior (i.e., behavioral), and the lower right collective exterior (i.e.,cultural). Wilber
(1998) further simplifies his schema into the BBig Three^ (p. 74) of I, it, and we. In
turn, the therapeutic logic of applying his template to the treatment of addiction is
difficult to overlook. George Engel, who pioneered the biopsychosocial framework for
medicine, long argued for a medical model that Bmust include the psychosocial dimensions (personal, emotional, family, community) in addition to the biological aspects
(diseases) of all patients^ (Smith 2002, p. 309). In the treatment of addiction, there have
also been frequent calls for more integrative models (Brower et al. 1989).
From Wilbers integral perspective, there is no differentiation between biopsychosocial
and spiritual. Rather, spirituality engulfs the biopsychosocial dimensions. This distinction
may be noteworthy in the perception of spirituality and how it relates to addiction
treatment. A case in point is Miller, Forcechimes, OLeary, and LaNoues (2008) experiment wherein they attempted to isolate the variable of spirituality in addiction treatment.
The control groups received treatment as usual (TAU) without spiritual guidance. Contrary
to expectations, the groups that received impeccably formatted spiritual guidance in
addition to TAU, exhibited no improvement in outcomes over the control groups. In fact,
one of the groups receiving spiritual guidance experienced significantly higher levels of
anxiety. The researchers were at a loss to provide a convincing explanation for these
results but one might infer that the disassociation of spirituality, making it as an adjunct
entity of regular lived experience, carries an emotional burden. Parenthetically, Rothberg
(1999) indicates that Bindigenous traditions . . . do not typically separate out spirituality
from the life of the community or from every day life; indeed, there is no known word
corresponding to religion in indigenous languages^ (p. l37).
Wilber (1995; 1996) would argue that all major competing schools of addiction
thought offer something of value towards an effective and theoretically inclusive metaframework of recovery. A complex and integrated model of addiction would therefore
include the best of what each theory has to offer but would also note and transcend their
individual differences. Placed within Wilbers framework, a spiritual model of addiction
no longer competes with the medical or social model since spirituality encompasses the
physical and social dimensions of recovery. Studies conducted by pharmaceutical companies have disclosed that, even though it is not an official AA policy, twelve-step members
are often discouraged from taking their prescribed medications (Cheney et al. 2009;
Woody and McNicholas 2004).
Since one of AAs major contributions to recovery lies in mutuality (Kurtz 2008), an
integrative transpersonal framework for addiction could also include burgeoning support
groups such as LifeRing and SMART Recovery. The theories behind these groups do not
conflict in any way with transpersonal theory, and participation in these groups partially fulfills
the we or social dimension of recovery. Inadvertently, Kelly et al. (2009) would support this
development. In their pro-AA study, they conclude that AAs effectiveness stems more from
Bfacilitating adaptive social network changes^ than its Bspecific practices or spiritual
mechanisms^ (p. 236).

Pastoral Psychol

Amodia et al. (2005) and DuPlessis (2013) present outstandingly thorough mappings of
addiction/recovery using Wilbers AQAL map and integrating the different schools of addiction thought. They bypass the natural tendency to simply present biopsychosocial treatment
recommendations for addiction that originate from only one etiological perspective (e.g., that
addiction is a medical disease).
There is a subtle shift in the third phase of transpersonal psychologys development (i.e.,
understanding and cultivating the transformation of humanity) that, if applied, will have
significant ramifications on how addiction and recovery are perceived. Dupuy and Morelli
(2007), the founders of Integral Recovery indicate that Bthe problem [of addiction] is huge and
complex, with myriad social and cultural implications^ and their stated focus, Bhowever, is on
understanding and treating the individual [emphasis added]^ (p. 2). And while it is practical
for addictionologists to concentrate on individuals, these authors are only partially
implementing the spirit of Wilbers AQAL model. In the above quote, they have restricted
treatment primarily to Wilbers upper left and upper right quadrants (i.e., the BI^ interior and
exterior). But addiction is not a problem that is confined to individuals nor even their families.
There is a symbiotic reinforcement between an individual and the larger community during
both the addiction and recovery cycles (Alexander 2008; Peele and Brodsky 1976). By their
own admission, Dupuy and Morelli (2007) assert, BAny stressors in any of the quadrants will
place a burden on the other quadrants; and conversely, any gains made in any of the quadrants
will help stabilize and lift up the others^ (p. 8). This being the case, then an integral framework
for addiction should necessarily focus not only on the unwell individual but also on the ailing
culture and community. Put another way, the addicted person is the identified patient in a large
and dysfunctional social system. At the same time, and from the perspective of transpersonal
values, BSelf, culture, and nature must be liberated together or not at all^ (Wilber 2007, p. 36).
Much emphasis is placed on the I (i.e., psychological change) and the it (i.e., medications and physical health) dimensions in the current addiction treatment paradigm. In terms of
the we, there is a unidirectional expectation that, once addicts are rehabilitated, they will
become Bacceptable, responsible, and productive members of . . . society^ (Narcotics
Anonymous 2008, p. 18). Hence, a social change component is present mainly through the
healthy restoration of one addict at a time. It is also commonly believed that twelve-step
programs provide an all-nurturing social cocoon. And yet, AAs model of perpetual infirmity
and its emphasis that addicted persons are a different breed from the rest of the population
leads naturally to only partial social integration. The proposition that individual recovery needs
to take place alongside community healing is currently highlighted by research on aboriginal
communities and alcoholism (e.g., Jiwa et al. 2008; Legha and Novins 2012).
Brys and Bokor (2013), however, indicate that Bthe operative integration [emphasis added]
of social psychology, psychosocial studies, [and] social psychiatry^ (p. 23) is not explicitly
clear in Wilbers earlier work. In Ferrers (2002) opinion, Wilbers theories still retain a bias
towards intrapsychic enlightenment. For the purpose of finally solving the conundrum of a
theoretical transpersonal framework that Bsubsumes the intrasubjective, objective, and intersubjective dimensions and bridges their distinctions,^ Ferrer (2002) proposes that Ba participatory turn [takes place] in transpersonal and spiritual studies^ (p. 184). His theory Bconceives
transpersonal and spiritual phenomena, not as individual inner experiences, but as participatory events [emphasis added] that can occur in different loci, such as an individual, a
relationship, a community, a larger collective identity or place^ (Ferrer 2002, p. 184). Using
the metaphor of an event to situate spiritual experiences, Ferrers complex participatory
framework is seamlessly transposed onto a mentally effortless and accurate conceptual

Pastoral Psychol

mapping of addiction and recovery. Specifically, addiction and recovery can each be
envisioned as events that are co-created through an undetermined, not predetermined, combination of loci that are different for each individual. At the same time, there is an express
acknowledgement of the interdependency between the loci that are embedded in each of these
events. The application of Ferrers participatory theory would then fulfill the basic requirements of a comprehensive and effective model of addiction. Peele and Alexander (1976) note:
A successful addiction model must synthesize pharmacological, experiential, cultural,
situational, and personality components in a fluid and seamless description of addictive
motivation. It must account for why a drug is more addictive in one society than another,
addictive for one individual and not another, and addictive for the same individual at one
time and not another. (BThe requirements of a successful theory of addiction^)
Metaphorically speaking, it is evident that not everyone takes the same path to the alcoholic
gathering, nor does everyone need to mimic each other at the recovery celebration. At the very
least, what can be done at a group participatory level is to improve the venue, or social housing
for recovery and work towards tearing down the mansion that nurtures addiction. Perhaps even
distant and casual observers can begin to see that they somehow play a role in this unfolding
drama.
To summarize, an integrated transpersonal alternative for treating addiction would (1)
be proficient at restoring mental well-being, (2) provide an integrated vision for holistic
growth, and (3) facilitate positive social change. Deeper inquiry by the transpersonal
community is needed in the third area. The recent transpersonal forays into the environmental movement (e.g., Buzell and Chalquist 2009; Esbjrn-Hargens and Zimmerman
2009), promoting the simultaneous healing of both humans and their surroundings, reflect
the direction of the proposed transpersonal recovery movement. Alexander (2008) advocates social engagement as an antidote for what he considers to be at the heart of
addiction: alienation due to a lack of psychosocial integration. He refers to the highly
effective community reinforcement approach (CRA) to demonstrate the need for wider
recovery approaches. It is surmised that, through active participation in the improvement
of social conditions, persons suffering from addiction can rejoin the larger community,
revitalize their own processes of psychosocial integration, and move in a therapeutic
direction away from isolation.
As a postscript, it would be fair to ask where the construct of a higher power resides in this
revised spiritual framework. Although little is known about Marjorie Harrison, I would like
to defer to her, with the utmost respect, for an answer:
I cannot now remember the exact words of Mr. Bernard Shaw, but they were to this
effect: God is a Spirit. The world is material. The Spirit of God must therefore be
interpreted through material means. A spirit has no eyes, hands or feet, and without these
work cannot be done in a material world. Your faculties are the only means through
which God can work in this world. You are the body of the Spirit of God. Without the
co-operation of man God is powerless in this world. Without God, man is equally
powerless. Together they are omnipotent. (Harrison 1934, Chapter 10)
Acknowledgments Many thanks to my CIIS dissertation committee, Craig Chalquist, Carol Whitfield, and
James Nolan for their encouragement. A special hello to the kind folks I met at Southwestern College in Santa Fe,
NM and the usual suspects I have not had the pleasure of meeting: Orange, Silver, and Ken Ragge. Gratitude also

Pastoral Psychol
to Ebede Ndi, Attila Szabo, Victor Pobihuschy, Alexis Clarke, Wendy Salem, and Jorge Ferrer for their precious
input. And finally, mom, dad, Juliana, Andy, Jim M., Natalie, Peter James, Nicole Poelle, the editorial review
board at Pastoral Psychology, and Eve Donnelly.

References
Alcoholics Anonymous. (2001). Alcoholics anonymous (4th ed.). New York, NY: Alcoholics Anonymous World
Services.
Alcoholics Anonymous. (2010). Twelve steps and twelve traditions. New York, NY: Alcoholics Anonymous
World Services.
Alexander, G. T. (1980). William james, the sick soul, and the negative dimensions of consciousness: a partial
critique of transpersonal psychology. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 48(2), 191206.
Alexander, B. K. (2008). The globalization addiction. A study in poverty of the spirit. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Amodia, D. S., Cano, C., & Eliason, M. J. (2005). An integral approach to substance abuse. Journal of
Psychoactive Drugs, 37(4), 363371.
B., D. (2003). The steps, the facts, the Oxford Group. Retrieved from http://www.silkworth.net/aahistory/oxford_
group_connection2.html. Accessed 12 April 2014.
Battista, J. R. (1996). Offensive spirituality and spiritual defenses. In B. W. Scotton, A. B. Chinen, &
J. R. Battista (Eds.), Transpersonal psychiatry and psychology (pp. 250260). New York, NY:
Perseus Books.
Bean, M. (1975). Alcoholics anonymous, chapter V: a critique of A.A. Psychiatric Annals, 5(3), 83109.
Boeving, N. G. (2010). Sneaking God (back) through the back door of science: a call for a comparative
addictionology. Pastoral Psychology, 59, 93107.
Boeving, N. G. (2011). Is addiction really a disease? a challenge to twelve-step programs. Tikkun, 26(4), 22.
http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/is-addiction-really-a-disease-a-challenge-to-Twelve-step-programs. Accessed
30 May 2013.
Boorstein, S. (Ed.). (1996). Transpersonal psychotherapy (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Bowen, S., Chawla, N., & Marlatt, G. A. (2011). Mindfullness based relapse prevention for addictive behaviors:
a clinicians guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brower, K. J., Blow, F. C., & Beresford, T. P. (1989). Treatment implications of chemical dependency models: an
integrative approach. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 6, 147157.
Brys, Z., & Bokor, P. (2013). Evaluation of Ken Wilbers integral psychology from a scientific perspective.
Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 15(1), 1933.
Bufe, C. Q. (1998). Alcoholics anonymous: cult or cure? Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press.
Buzell, J., & Chalquist, C. (2009). Ecotherapy: healing with nature in mind. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club
Books.
Carroll, M. M. (1987). Alcoholism as an attachment and a gift on a spiritual journey. ReVision, 10(2), 4548.
Cheney, B., Galanter, M., Dermatis, H., & Ross, H. (2009). Medical versus spiritual orientations: differential
patient views toward recovery. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35, 301304.
Chinen, A. B. (1996). The emergence of transpersonal psychiatry. In B. W. Scotton, A. B. Chinen, & J. R.
Battista (Eds.), Transpersonal psychiatry and psychology (pp. 5261). New York, NY: Perseus Books.
Cortwright, B. (1997). Psychotherapy and spirit: theory and practice in transpersonal psychotherapy. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Daniels, M. (2005). Shadow, self, spirit: essays in transpersonal psychology. Charlottesville, VA: Imprint
Academic.
Diamond, J. (2002). Narrative means to sober ends: treating addiction and its aftermath. New York, NY:
Guilford Publications.
Dodes, L., & Dodes, Z. (2014). The sober truth: debunking the bad science behind 12-Step programs and the
rehab industry. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Du Plessis, G. P. (2013). The import of integral pluralism in striving towards an integral metatheory of addiction.
Paper presented at the Integral Theory Conference, San Fransico, 20 July 2013.
Dupre, L. (1996). Unio mystica: the state and the experience. In M. Idel & B. McGuinn (Eds.), Mystical union in
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: an ecumenical dialogue (pp. 323). New York, NY: Continuum.
Dupuy, J., & Morelli, M. (2007). Toward an integral recovery model for drug and alcohol addiction. AQAL:
Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 2(3), 2642.

Pastoral Psychol
Dwight, H. J. (1996a). Transpersonal psychology: roots in Christian mysticism. In B. W. Scotton, A. B. Chinen, &
J. R. Battista (Eds.), Transpersonal psychiatry and psychology (pp. 134144). New York, NY: Perseus Books.
Dwight, H. J. (1996b). Transpersonal psychotherapy with religious persons. In B. W. Scotton, A. B. Chinen, & J.
R. Battista (Eds.), Transpersonal psychiatry and psychology (pp. 293301). New York, NY: Perseus Books.
Edinger, E. (1972). Ego and archetype. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Esbjrn-Hargens, S., & Zimmerman, M. E. (2009). Integral ecology: uniting multiple perspectives on the natural
world. New York: Integral Books.
Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory. A participatory vision of human spirituality. Albany, NY:
State University Press of New York.
Firman, J., & Gila, A. (1997). The primal wound. Albany, NY: State University Press of New York.
Godlaski, T. (1988). Transpersonal psychology and the addicted experience. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly,
5(3/4), 245256.
Grof, C. (1994). The thirst for wholeness: attachment, addiction, and the spiritual path. New York, NY: Harper One.
Grof, S. (n.d.). Spiritual emergencies: Understanding and treatment of psychospiritual crises. http://www.
realitysandwich.com/spiritual_emergencies. Accessed June 11, 2013.
Grof, S. (1987). Spirituality, addiction, and Western science. ReVision, 10(2), 518.
Grof, S., Grob, C., Bravo, G., & Walsh, R. (2008). Birthing the transpersonal. The Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology, 40(2), 155177.
Harrison, M. (1934). Saints Run Mad: A criticism of the BOxford^ group movement. http://www.morerevealed.
com/library/saints/saints_front.html. Accessed 14 June 2015.
Hartelius, G., Caplan, C., & Rardin, M. A. (2007). Transpersonal psychology. Defining the past, divining the
future. Humanistic Psychologist, 35(2), 126.
Hester, R. K., & Miller, W. R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches. Effective
alternatives (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Jiwa, A., Kelly, L., & St Pierre-Hansen, N. (2008). Healing the community to heal the individual. Literature
review of aboriginal community-based alcohol and substance abuse programs. Canadian Family Physician,
54(7), 10001000.e7.
Jung, C. G. (1977). The symbolic life: miscellaneous writings (collected works of C. G. Jung, vol. 18). In C. G.
Jung & G. Adler (Eds.), R. F. C. Hull, Trans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kasprow, M. C., & Scotton, B. W. (1999). A review of transpersonal theory and its application to the practice of
psychotherapy. The Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 8, 1223.
Kelly, J. F., Magill, M., & Stout, J. S. (2009). How do people recover from alcohol dependence? a systematic
review of the research on mechanisms of behavior change in alcoholics anonymous. Addiction Research and
Theory, 17(3), 236259.
Krebs, T. S., & Johansen, P. (2012). Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) for alcoholism: meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 26, 9941002.
Kurtz, E. (1991). Not God. A history of alcoholics anonymous. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Kurtz, E. (2008). The collected works of Ernie Kurtz. Bloomington: iUverse.
The Layman with a Notebook. (1933). What is the oxford group? London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Le, C., Ingvarson, E. P., & Page, R. C. (1995). Alcoholics anonymous and the counseling profession:
philosophies in conflict. Journal of Counseling Development, 73, 603609.
Legha, R. K., & Novins, D. (2012). The role of culture in substance abuse treatment programs for American
Indian and Alaska native communities. Psychiatric Services, 63(7), 686692.
May, G. (1988). Addiction and grace. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Mercadante, L. (1996). Victims and sinners: spiritual roots of addiction and recovery. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.
Miller, W. R. (1998). Researching the spiritual dimensions of alcohol and other drug problems. Addiction, 93,
979990.
Miller, W. R., Forcehimes, A., OLeary, M., & LaNoue, M. (2008). Spiritual direction in addiction treatment: two
clinical trials. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 35, 434442.
Miller, W. R., & Kurtz, E. (1999). Models of alcoholism used in treatment: contrasting A.A. and other models
with which it is often confused. In E. Kurtz (Ed.), The collected Ernie Kurtz (pp. 91108). Wheeling: The
Bishop of Books.
Miller, W. R., Zweben, J., & Johnson, W. R. (2005). Evidence-based treatment: why, what, where, when, and
how? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 29, 267276.
Metzner, R. (1994). Addiction and transcendence as altered states of consciousness. The Journal of
Transpersonal Psychology, 26(1), 117.
Narcotics Anonymous. (2008). Narcotics anonymous (6th ed.). Chatsworth, CA: Narcotics Anonymous World
Services.
Nelson, K. (2011). The spiritual doorway in the brain. New York, NY: Dutton.
Niemur, R. (1936). Hitler and Buchman. The Christian Century Magazine, October 7, 13151316

Pastoral Psychol
Nixon, G. (2011, Nov. 24). Transforming the addicted persons counterfeit quest for wholeness through three
stages of recovery: a Wilber transpersonal spectrum of development clinical perspective. International
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 121. doi:10.1007/s11469-011-9365-y.
OHalloran, S. (2008). Talking oneself sober: the discourse of alcoholics anonymous. Amherst, NY: Cambria
Press.
Peele, S. (2001). Drunk with power: the case against court-imposed 12-step treatments. Reason, 33(1), 3438.
Peele, S. (2012). The meaning of recovery has changed, you just dont know it. Psychology Today. http://www.
psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201202/the-meaning-recovery-has-changed-you-just-dontknow-it. Accessed 12 May 2013.
Peele, S., & Alexander, B. K. (1976). Theories of addiction. http://www.peele.net/the-meaning-of-addiction-3theories-of-addiction/. Accessed 13 June 2013.
Peele, S., & Brodsky, A. (1976). Love and addiction. Watertown, MA: Broadrow Productions.
Roman, P. M., & Blum, T. C. (2004). National treatment center study summary report: private treatment centers.
Athens, GA: Institute of Behavioral Research, University of Georgia.
Rosenfeld, G. W. (2010). Identifying and integrating helpful and harmful religious beliefs into psychotherapy.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47(4), 512526.
Rothberg, D. (1999). Transpersonal issues at the millennium. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 31(1),
4167.
Rudy, D., & Greil, A. (1988). Is alcoholics anonymous a religious organization? Sociological Analysis, 1(50),
4151.
SAMHSA. (2012a). SAMHSAs working definition of recovery updated. http://blog.samhsa.gov/2012/03/23/
defintion-of-recovery-updated/. Accessed 12 April 2013.
Sanders, J. (2009). Women in alcoholics anonymous: recovery and empowerment. Boulder, CO: First Forum
Press.
Schaub, B., & Schaub, R. (1997). Healing addictions. The vulnerability model of recovery. Albany, NY: Delmar
Publishers.
Schoen, D. E. (2009). The war of the Gods in addiction. New Orleans, LA: Spring Journal Books.
Small, J. (1987). Spiritual emergence and addiction: a transpersonal approach to alcoholism and drug abuse
counseling. ReVision, 10(2), 2336.
Smith, C. S. (2002). The biopsychosocial revolution. Journal of Internal Medicine, 17(4), 309310.
Sparks, T. (1993). The wide open door: the twelve steps, spiritual tradition and the new psychology. MN.
Hazelden: Center City.
Staal, F. (1975). Exploring mysticism: a methodological essay. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Strobbe, S., & Kurtz, E. (2012). Narratives for recovery: personal stories in the Big Book of alcoholics
anonymous. Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery, 7(1), 2952.
Strohl, J. E. (1998). Transpersonalism: ego meets soul. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76, 397403.
http://www.cpd3.com/transpersonal.htm. Accessed 10 June 2013.
Sutich, A. J. (1973). Transpersonal therapy. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 3(1), 16.
Vaughn, F. (1991). Spiritual issues in psychotherapy. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 23(2), 105119.
Welwood, J. (2002). Toward a psychology of awakening: Buddhism, psychotherapy, and the path of personal
and spiritual transformation. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.
White, L. W. (1979). Recovery from alcoholism: transpersonal dimensions. Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology, 11(2), 117128.
White, L. W., & Kurtz, E. (2008). Twelve defining moments in history of Alcoholics Anonymous. Recent
Developments in Alcoholism, 18, 3757.
Whitfield, C. L. (1985). Alcoholism and spirituality: a transpersonal approach. East Rutherford, NJ: Perrin and
Tregett.
Wilber, K. (1995). An informal overview of consciousness studies. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 27(2),
107129.
Wilber, K. (1996). A brief history of everything. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.
Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.
Wilber, K. (2007). The integral vision. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.
Wilson, B. (1988). Language of the heart. New York, NY: AA Grapevine.
Woody, G., & McNicholas, L. (2004). Putting addiction medication to use: lessons learned. In H. Harwood & T.
Myers (Eds.), New treatments for addiction - Behavioral, ethical, legal, and social questions (pp. 125139).
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.