PSYCHEDELICS - Sciencemadness.org

298___________
____________________________________________________ Psychedelics
experiment did not proceed beyond ten sessions for a variety
of reasons ranging from job conflict (the procedure calls for
three experimental sessions per week, during the day) to an
inability to adopt the way of psychological functioning required.
Four subjects continued for thirty to forty sessions.
One additional subject completed 106 sessions and is currently
involved in a different experiment.
The data with which this paper is concerned came primar-
ily from the two subjects, A and G, who completed the long-
est series of sessions. These subjects had the most intense and
unusual experiences of the group, approximately in direct re-
lationship to the number of sessions. In this connection, it
should be noted that vivid experiences seemed, on the one
hand, to indicate a tolerance and compatibility with the pro-
cedure and, on the other hand, to motivate the subject to
continue over a long period of time. Subjects C, D, and L
(thirty to forty sessions) appeared to have gone part way
along the same paths as A and G in that they experienced the
beginnings of breakdown in the self/object distinction, and
had some experience of light, strange imagery, and the like.
However, they appeared less able to relinquish control and
"accept whatever happens."
Subject A was a thirty-eight-year-old psychiatric nurse who
was undergoing psychoanalysis at the time of the experiment. 2
Subject G was a forty-year-old housewife. Both subjects were
personally known to the experimenter and were asked to par-
ticipate in the experiment on the basis of their apparent in-
telligence, interest, and available time. Subject G was paid;
subject A was not. It seemed clear that money was not a cru-
cial factor in their participation. There was evidence of neu-
2 When questioned (at the end of the experiment) as to any in-
teraction between her psychoanalysis and the meditation, A replied,
"... my guess would be that, had I not been in analysis, I would
have not had the same kind of experience that I did in this. I think I
would have been less prone to or I would have been far more re-
stricted ... there were two very special experiences going on at the
same time and there was interaction between them but they both
remained separate in their own ways and were special in their own
ways." She replied in the negative when the experimenter asked if
any of the things she had found out about herself in the analysis had
explained any of the experiences she had had in the experiment.