don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

Happy 2nd day of 2002. Today's topic is spirituality and well-being. Is there a connection between the two and if so, what is it? How can such a relationship be assessed and, most important, what are the implications of such relationships? Specifically, what messages do such studies send to those of us who wish to pursue wellness lifestyles and the highest possible health and life quality outcomes?

These questions come to mind whenever I read about a study that purports to demonstrate a connection between spirituality and well-being of one kind or another (greater longevity, less illness, more satisfaction with life and so on). The latest example of research on the spirituality/better health link appeared in the December 28, 2001 Wall Street Journal in the "Health Report" section of that newspaper. The article was entitled "Spiritual Health Plays Role In Long-Term Well-Being."

What role, exactly, might that be? Unfortunately, the Journal article reveals next to nothing. The term spirituality was employed in the study in such a broad fashion that the title of the article might as well have read, "Breathing Plays Role In Long-Term Well-Being." This is often the case with studies that seem to promise a positive link between spirituality and health.

At least 600 papers have appeared in medical journals exploring these questions. Religious groups and religious physicians, naturally, have a special interest in causal links between spirituality, as they understand it, and good health. Harvard's Medical School is just one among many leading medical groups that encourage such studies, and Harvard sponsors conferences that explore links between spirituality and healing. Recently, a North Carolina physician named Edwin Morris reported on his analysis of a heart disease study (with a sample size of 14 subjects!) that considered simple meditation as "spirituality!" Dr. Morris looked at the data and concluded that those who meditated AND exercised AND ate sensibly and so on reversed adverse symptoms of heart disease.

Well, duh, I guess so! If this is spirituality, then any infidel would agree that it's good for your health! However, doesn't "spirituality" imply something of a more religious nature than simple meditation? After all, many heathens meditate, as do godless atheists, agnostics, secular humanists and even Unitarians! In Dr. Morris' study of "spirituality," the concept was even broader than meditation! It included factors that would appeal as much to the impious as to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the Pope, the mullahs of the Taliban or the Archbishop of Canterbury! Elements of "spirituality" in the study included breathing exercises, repetitive movements of martial arts like T'ai Chi, a person's sense of meaning and purpose, level of materialism (whatever that means!), altruism, idealism, and feelings about things considered sacred or tragic.

Even this was not broad enough. Dr. Morris added "yoga, job satisfaction, volunteer work or time spent enjoying nature" as meditative qualities that might be beneficial and thus part of his notion of "spirituality." Again, all of these matters fit nicely in the meaning and purpose domain of self-management for lifestyle artistry, which is a 100 percent secular construct. This kind of meditation or "spirituality" will appeal equally to the devout as to the skeptical free thinker given to reason and science rather than the alleged truths revered by and revealed to the religious. Even the authors of the Wall Street Journal article acknowledged that "people who don't consider themselves religious...may rate high on the spiritual scale, while a regular churchgoer may score low." Just so.

Therefore, by classifying "spirituality" with such a broad brush, these studies reveal nothing. They render the term "spirituality" meaningless, for almost everyone who has a lifestyle that balances or at least includes the physical, mental and meaning/purpose domains of self-management is spiritual, by this definition. Researchers have not managed to establish a positive correlation or a compelling link of any kind with religiosity. There is no connection shown between the idea that most associate with "spirituality," namely, a belief in a single supreme being, and better health nor do the studies show that membership in, devotion to and conformance with the tenets of a religious sect such as Catholicism, Judaism or Presbyterianism is associated with improved health outcomes of any kind.

Even if the subjects in Dr. Morris' study had all believed in a single notion (as opposed to all manner of variations) of genuine religious belief (as opposed to enjoying a bit of quiet time), the study would have proved nothing. Why? Because the so-called "highly spiritual patients" (which by these definitions would include someone such as myself!) also made lifestyle changes of a very secular nature, such as exercising, managing stress and dieting! How much of the improvement noted was induced by "spiritual factors" (however questionably "spiritual" the activities classed as such might have been) versus those advances inspired by diet, stress management and exercise? We'll never know, at least not from the studies conducted to date.

I suspect the only reason pitifully weak links like this are given attention in the press, let alone tolerated in our universities, is that so many religious people desperately want to show that being religious ("spiritual") is good for your health. It may well be good for your health, but we'll never know unless some sensible studies are done on the kinds of questions such as those I listed. Again, these are:

1. What is the connection between spirituality narrowly defined and health?

2. How was the relationship assessed?

3. What are the implications of such relationships, that is, what message do such studies send to those of us who wish to pursue wellness lifestyles and the highest possible health and life quality outcomes?

It would also help if scientists who were to conduct such studies were validated as truly objective, without a special agenda to promote. We should know a few things about their own "spiritual" belief systems and weigh that with their recommendations. If, for example, the next research study published in the Wall Street Journal turns out to have been conducted at the Vatican or funded by televangelists, you might want to look closely at the methodology as well as the claims.

There is not likely to be a single scientist doing research at this time who does not recognize the positive health potentials of meditation and varied relaxation techniques, not to mention all the other positive lifestyle factors noted. However, let's not confuse these kinds of variables with "spirituality." Doing so is a disservice to science and an abuse of the word "spirituality," not to mention the word "meditation."

Be well, take care and always look on the bright side of life.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MENTAL DOMAIN under the skill area of emotional intelligence. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell