Abstract
In the contemporary UK, holistic practices – concerned with healing an interconnected mind, body, and spirit of the person – appear to be establishing themselves across more popular, or ‘mainstream’ settings. Simultaneously, the UK has seen increasing numbers of individuals identifying as not religious, and within this a significant population identifying specifically as ‘Spiritual But Not Religious’ (hereafter SBNR). This work consists of a survey that explores British holistic practitioners’ understandings and experiences of spirituality in relation to their practices. It identifies and compares answers across three groups of practitioners: the SBNR, the other not religious, and the religious. Findings demonstrate little difference between SBNR and other participants’ understandings and experiences of spirituality through their practice. Regardless of their varying identities, British holistic practitioners largely favoured the incorporation of ‘spirituality’ into their practice yet wished to distance their practice from ‘religion’. For many practitioners, this meant a desire to keep holistic practice separate from notions of ‘dogma’ or ‘institution’ that may restrict themselves or others from engaging with holistic spirituality. Attention is also given to the implication that, for some, this rejection of ‘religion’ may more specifically reflect a rejection of association with Christianity. Findings suggest that SBNR holistic practitioners do not particularly present as a distinct group with unique beliefs. Rather, it would appear that an engagement with ‘spirituality-without-religion’ is embraced within the UK holistic practitioner community as a whole.
Highlights
In the contemporary UK, holistic practices – practices concerned with healing the interconnected ‘mind, body, and spirit’ of a person (Oh and Sarkisian, 2012) – appear to be establishing themselves across more ‘mainstream’ settings
While 41% identified as religious, this was distributed across various religious groups, whereas 80% of spiritual but not religious’ (SBNR) individuals identified only as ‘spiritual’. These findings suggest that SBNR may be the most prominent single identity across the British holistic practitioner population, and certainly the most prominent nonreligious identity amongst practitioners
Practitioners’ emphasis on spirituality-withoutreligion in many ways echoes the 1960s NAM “right to explore spirituality in total freedom” (Bloom, 1991, xvi cited in Sutcliffe, 2000, p 19). It mirrors the values held within the Human Potential branch of the NAM, which originated as a rebellion against both mainstream psychology and organised religion and began the widespread Western interest in holistic practice (Puttick, 2000, p 201)
Summary
In the contemporary UK, holistic practices – practices concerned with healing the interconnected ‘mind, body, and spirit’ of a person (Oh and Sarkisian, 2012) – appear to be establishing themselves across more ‘mainstream’ settings. Evidence suggests that more individuals in Britain may identify as not religious than religious, and within this a notable number of individuals identifying as ‘spiritual but not religious’ (SBNR) (Woodhead, 2017; Lee, 2014). This raises the question of how and why contemporary holistic practices may for some provide a sense of spirituality, and whether understandings and experiences of this differ depending on religious (or not religious) identity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
