Independent news reporting and media coverage of meditation retreats, safety discussions, and related incidents for readers researching public information.
Meditation and mindfulness aren’t as good for you as you think
In this commentary, Miguel Farias and Catherine Wikholm challenge the popular portrayal of mindfulness as a near panacea for modern psychological difficulties. Responding to media coverage of research suggesting that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy may be as effective as antidepressants in preventing depressive relapse, they argue that such findings have often been interpreted more positively than the data warrant.
The authors state that, despite thousands of studies on meditation and mindfulness, there remains limited clarity about how these practices work, who benefits most, and how durable the effects are. While some meta-analyses show moderate evidence for reductions in anxiety and increases in positive mood, they contend that comparisons with relaxation techniques or placebo controls remain inconclusive. They also question what the “active ingredient” of mindfulness-based programmes may be, suggesting that group support or cognitive components could play as much of a role as meditation itself.
A central concern in the article is the lack of attention to potential adverse effects. The authors note that meditation practices derived from Buddhism were historically intended to transform one’s sense of self and perception of reality, not simply to increase happiness. As such, experiences such as anxiety, dissociation or depression may arise for some practitioners. They argue that these possibilities are rarely emphasised in public discourse, research reporting or training programmes.
The article concludes by cautioning against adopting mindfulness uncritically. Emphasising individual differences in response, the authors suggest that mindfulness, like medication, may be beneficial for some, ineffective for others, and potentially harmful in certain cases.
The authors state that, despite thousands of studies on meditation and mindfulness, there remains limited clarity about how these practices work, who benefits most, and how durable the effects are. While some meta-analyses show moderate evidence for reductions in anxiety and increases in positive mood, they contend that comparisons with relaxation techniques or placebo controls remain inconclusive. They also question what the “active ingredient” of mindfulness-based programmes may be, suggesting that group support or cognitive components could play as much of a role as meditation itself.
A central concern in the article is the lack of attention to potential adverse effects. The authors note that meditation practices derived from Buddhism were historically intended to transform one’s sense of self and perception of reality, not simply to increase happiness. As such, experiences such as anxiety, dissociation or depression may arise for some practitioners. They argue that these possibilities are rarely emphasised in public discourse, research reporting or training programmes.
The article concludes by cautioning against adopting mindfulness uncritically. Emphasising individual differences in response, the authors suggest that mindfulness, like medication, may be beneficial for some, ineffective for others, and potentially harmful in certain cases.