Psychedelics and promises of healing

The promise that “one ceremony will free you from addiction” speaks to an understandable wish: to stop struggling every day. It may be especially attractive after unsuccessful treatment, loss or prolonged exhaustion. A person is entitled to seek relief, meaning and a different understanding of themselves. But an intense experience, a feeling of insight, a change in substance use and sustained recovery are different outcomes. One does not automatically establish another.

It helps to clarify your own need first. “I want to understand what I live for,” “I want to drink less,” “I want to stop losing money and relationships,” and “I am unsafe right now” call for different kinds of help. A promise of healing sometimes blends these needs so that any emotion can be declared a success, while a lack of improvement is attributed to the participant not being open enough. That explanation cannot be honestly tested.

Relief can be real even when its mechanism has not been established. It does not oblige someone to accept every explanation offered by a facilitator. Equally, disappointment after an intense experience does not make someone weak or spiritually inadequate. Questions about addiction concern the person's condition, behaviour and consequences, rather than how compelling their account of the experience sounds.

A clinical study asks a defined question: in which participants, using which outcome and compared with what is the result assessed? The FDA's final guidance of July 2026 discusses investigational product quality, the validity of conclusions and participant protection. The guidance itself does not establish the effectiveness of any substance, retreat or treatment promise. Its scope is clinical investigations. FDA, final guidance.

These studies face a particular difficulty: a participant may recognise that they received the active substance. Expectations can influence the assessment of outcomes; the contributions of the substance and accompanying psychotherapy also need to be distinguished. An impressive personal account therefore cannot replace a comparison between groups. For a reader, this is a reason to ask how a promise was tested, rather than a set of instructions for a personal experiment.

Participant selection and observation limit how broadly findings apply. Without further evidence, a result in the studied group cannot be promised to someone with a different history, combination of medicines or care arrangements. A facilitator's qualification alone likewise does not turn a particular offer into an established treatment.

In a 2022 study by Bogenschutz and colleagues, 95 adults were randomly assigned to groups. Psilocybin was compared with an active placebo, and both groups received psychotherapy. The proportion of heavy drinking days over the assessed period was lower in the psilocybin group. This supports further investigation of that particular approach. It does not establish that the substance alone treats every addiction or that the result can be reproduced at a commercial retreat. Bogenschutz et al., 2022.

A different, small study published by Rieser and colleagues in 2025 examined people with alcohol use disorder after withdrawal treatment. The analysis with completed four-week follow-up included 37 people. No significant difference between groups was found in the main drinking outcomes at the specified assessment periods. This is a limited finding from a small study, rather than proof that all psychedelic approaches are ineffective. Rieser et al., 2025.

The studies differed in participants, intervention, support and outcomes. They cannot be reduced to “already proven” or “completely disproven.” A subjective reduction in craving should also be distinguished from a change in drinking. When choosing help, a clear expected outcome and an honest account of uncertainty matter more than the confidence of an advertisement.

Richard Spruce's book, published in 1908 and edited by Alfred Russel Wallace, describes an observation from November 1852. In a village house at Urubu-coara on the Uaupés River, near Panurê, a caapi beverage accompanied the Dabocuri, or “Feast of Gifts,” and dancing. The author calls the plant Banisteria Caapi. This is a particular observation conveyed by a colonial explorer, rather than an account of all Amazonian peoples. Locator: volume 2, pages 415–416 and 419. Spruce, volume 2.

In his 2004 chapter, anthropologist Edward MacRae describes Santo Daime, founded in Rio Branco, Acre, in 1930: Daime use is connected with religious meaning, hymns and community. The beverage he describes combines the caapi vine and Psychotria viridis leaves; this is the composition described in that work, rather than a single formula for every drink called ayahuasca. Beliefs about healing or learning belong to the tradition's explanations; anthropological description is not a clinical test of effectiveness. In a separate branch associated with Padrinho Sebastião and CEFLURIS, he discusses cannabis under the name Santa Maria. This does not justify attributing cannabis use to every Santo Daime church or every Amazonian ceremony. MacRae, 2004.

The name, composition and social role of a substance each need their own context. Caapi, modern beverages called ayahuasca, psilocybin in a study and cannabis do not become a single tool because altered consciousness is a common theme. The religious meaning of an experience can be respected without accepting a treatment claim without examination. A “strong mind” is not a safety criterion, and addiction does not demonstrate personal weakness.

When considering a promise of healing, it helps to separate participants' accounts from verifiable information about the offer itself. Who is responsible for care? What exactly is called treatment? Which evidence concerns this approach, and which comes from a different study? How is an unsuccessful outcome explained? What conditions for consent, refusal, leaving and further care are disclosed in advance?

These questions clarify responsibility; they are not a checklist that makes substance use safe. An attractive location, a high price, ancient symbolism and a persuasive story do not automatically answer them. Charging for a service does not, by itself, prove fraud either. What matters is the content of the promise and whether its basis can be checked.

If doubts are labelled spiritual immaturity, someone is told to hide events from relatives or their clinician, results are guaranteed, or boundary violations are declared necessary for healing, they are entitled to refuse. Sexual coercion, violence and humiliation are not justified by the language of spiritual growth. Refusing does not require first proving that an entire tradition is wrong.

A psychedelic promise should not postpone available help for addiction or another condition. Someone does not first have to find a perfect purpose in life, completely change their surroundings or prove their readiness. Work, support and meaning may help recovery, but they do not replace assessment of the person's situation and necessary treatment.

Prescribed medicines should not be stopped independently to take part, “purify” oneself or meet a retreat's conditions. If an offer affects treatment, it can be discussed with the prescribing professional. Questions for that conversation are more useful than a homemade preparation regimen. This article does not propose trying a substance, changing prescriptions or treating withdrawal on your own.

An immediate threat to life or risk of self-harm calls for urgent local help; collecting notes and discussing philosophy can wait. NIMH, Depression. For a routine appointment, one accessible contact can be enough to begin, with language, cost and appointment conditions clarified beforehand. Not feeling fully ready does not close that route. SAMHSA, setting up an appointment.

A relative can listen, help formulate questions, offer to accompany someone to an appointment or provide practical support—with their consent. They do not have to endorse a promise of healing in order to remain involved. It is possible to acknowledge the meaning of an experience while also discussing its consequences for daily life.

Support has boundaries. A relative should not become the sole person responsible for treatment, supervise every step or endure threats and violence for a supposed breakthrough. A child must not be made an observer, keeper of secrets or rescuer of an adult. If home is unsafe, protecting those harmed has value in its own right.

A relative's own care and rest are not a betrayal. It helps to describe manageable support concretely: what they are willing to do and where others need to be involved. Looking after themselves preserves their ability to participate without promising control over another person's choices. SAMHSA, caring for yourself while supporting someone.

Record only what is already known. This is not a diagnostic questionnaire or a requirement to have a new experience. Any field can be left blank; notes are unnecessary during an immediate emergency.

1. The promise and my need. What I was promised would change, and what I myself want to change in my life.
2. What is already known about the offer. Its name, stated purpose, participation conditions and responsible contact; mark unknown information as unknown.
3. Experience and consequences. If an experience has already happened: what I find helpful and what changes or difficulties I notice. Do not repeat it to test the result.
4. Current care and obstacles. Prescribed treatment, available support, language, cost or other circumstances that matter for the conversation.
5. One next contact. Whom I can approach and which question to ask first. Looking for meaning can continue alongside getting help.

This article distinguishes clinical evidence, historical observation, religious explanation and practical questions. It does not establish a diagnosis, individual suitability, legality or service availability. These sources do not guarantee an outcome for an individual. Selected sources were checked on 14 October 2026; the specified parts were read, rather than every work they cite.

• FDA, Psychedelic Drugs: Considerations for Clinical Investigations — final guidance, July 2026; the extracted text of 16 pages was read. Research limits, expectations, accompanying care and participant protection were used; procedural regimens were not transferred.
• Bogenschutz et al. — JAMA Psychiatry, 2022, 79(10), 953–962; DOI 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.2096. The PubMed record and full abstract were read, rather than the full paper. A brief independent summary is provided; the full publisher text's licence was not established.
• Rieser et al. — eClinicalMedicine, 2025, 82, 103149; DOI 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103149. The record and full abstract were read, with the opening of the open text and CC BY 4.0 notice for this particular work checked separately. The entire full text and supplementary materials were not verified.
• Spruce, Notes of a botanist on the Amazon & Andes, volume 2 — Macmillan, 1908, edited by A. R. Wallace; selected OCR passages, including pages 415–416, 419–424 and the start of 425. Only the named observational episode was used. Publication age is not claimed as proof that all rights are free; the book's text and images are not reproduced.
• MacRae, The ritual use of ayahuasca by three Brazilian religions — 2004 chapter, printed pages 27–45; the initial part of the extracted text was read, including Santo Daime and Santa Maria. This work is not used to establish present legal conditions or medical effectiveness.
• NIMH, Depression — revised 2024; the section on urgent help for threats to life and risk of self-harm was used.
• SAMHSA, How to Set Up an Appointment — updated 24 April 2023; substantive content on a first contact was read, reusing the author's own reading within this series.
• SAMHSA, Caring for Yourself — updated 24 April 2023; substantive content on boundaries and personal support was read, reusing the author's own reading within this series.

psychedelics; addiction; alcohol; clinical studies; promises of healing; retreats; ayahuasca; caapi; Santo Daime; cannabis; consent and boundaries; support for relatives

Andrey Zarinsh is the author and founder of United Wisdom. He explores inner transformation, the unity of traditions, intercultural dialogue and contemporary spiritual discipline. Instagram: @andrey.zarinsh.

Maria Evilkut is a co-author of United Wisdom. Alongside her research, she seeks to test these ideas in practice and observe how principles of unity and mutual understanding work in real life between people and cultures. Instagram: @ilkutki.