Hypnosis, Scripture, and Christian Spiritual Experience

Introduction

Christians in many traditions have been wary of hypnosis. Popular books, tracts, and sermons sometimes place hypnosis in the same moral category as witchcraft, magic, and spiritism, invoking Old Testament prohibitions against divination and New Testament condemnations of sorcery. At the same time, the 20th century saw the rise of clinical hypnosis as a medically recognized tool for pain control, anxiety, and behavior change, and some Christian therapists now employ hypnotic techniques within explicit faith commitments.

This tension raises several questions that cannot be resolved by proof-text or anecdote alone:

• Do biblical passages traditionally used to condemn hypnosis actually address the kind of clinical or pastoral hypnosis practiced today?
• How have theologians and church traditions re-evaluated these texts in light of historical context and modern psychology?
• What does neuroscience tell us about the similarities and differences between hypnotic states and Christian worship practices such as contemplative prayer, charismatic worship, and glossolalia?

This article approaches these questions by integrating biblical exegesis, historical theology, psychological research, and neuroscience. It argues that:

1. The key biblical texts condemn occult divination, magic, and necromancy—not altered states of consciousness as such. (Blue Letter Bible)
2. Modern hypnosis, understood as a technique for focused attention and suggestion, is best considered morally neutral, and its ethical status depends on its theological framing, purpose, and content. (ScienceDirect)
3. Neurophysiological and phenomenological data show significant overlap between hypnotic states and accepted Christian spiritual practices, suggesting that the human capacities involved are not inherently occult but part of normal cognitive and affective functioning. (PMC)

The goal is not to give a simplistic license to any practice labeled "hypnosis," but to provide a more precise framework for Christian discernment.

1. Biblical Passages Traditionally Applied to Hypnosis

Opposition to hypnosis in Christian popular literature generally appeals to a cluster of biblical passages. The argument typically proceeds by analogy: practices condemned as "sorcery" or "enchantment" in Scripture are thought to resemble hypnosis, which is then rejected along with them.

1.1 Deuteronomy 18:9–14 – Charms, Enchantments, and Forbidden Mediation

The most frequently cited text is Deuteronomy 18:9–14. Israel is warned not to imitate the nations' "abominable practices" on entering the land, including:

"…anyone who practices divination, tells fortunes, interprets omens, a sorcerer, a charmer, a medium, a wizard, or a necromancer."

Traditional English translations list a series of roles:

• Diviner (qōsem qesem)
• Soothsayer / omen-reader (meʿōnēn, menachesh)
• Sorcerer (mekaššēf)
• Charmer (ḥōbēr ḥeber)
• Medium / spiritist / necromancer (šōʾēl ʾōb, yiddeʿōnî, dōrēš el-hammētîm). (Blue Letter Bible)

The expression translated "charmer" or "enchanter" (ḥōbēr ḥeber) literally means "one who binds a binding." Classical lexicography and commentaries describe this as spell-binding or knot-magic, sometimes associated with serpent charming or incantatory magic used for divination. (Bible Hub)

In popular Christian critiques of hypnosis, this figure is sometimes identified with the modern hypnotist:

• Both, it is argued, use specialized words or gestures to bring another into an altered state.
• Both allegedly gain unusual control over another's behavior.

On this basis, Deuteronomy 18 is taken as a direct biblical prohibition of hypnosis.

However, the more carefully one examines the original language and historical context, the less secure that identification becomes. The "charmer" appears among a list of practitioners of occult divination and magic, associated with foreign gods and necromancy, in the context of a polemic against idolatrous forms of seeking guidance and power. (Blue Letter Bible)

Nothing in the immediate context suggests a value-neutral technique for focused attention, nor any connection to healing or therapy. The target is a religious-magical role, not a clinical practice.

1.2 Leviticus 19–20 and Isaiah 8 – Mediums, Spiritists, and Necromancers

Leviticus 19:31 warns:

"Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them."

Leviticus 20:6 threatens divine opposition against those who "turn to mediums and spiritists," and 20:27 prescribes the death penalty for such practitioners. (SSPX)

Similarly, Isaiah 8:19 criticizes those who advise consulting mediums and spiritists "who whisper and mutter," instead of seeking God:

"Should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?" (Sefaria)

Once again, the condemned practices involve consultation of the dead or spirits as sources of guidance and knowledge. The concern is divine rivalry—seeking help from other spiritual powers instead of the Lord.

Anti-hypnosis arguments sometimes appeal to these texts by suggesting that hypnosis "opens the door" to spirits or places one under another's spiritual control. But exegetically, the core issue is not the presence of a non-ordinary state of consciousness, but the act of consulting spirits or the dead as such.

1.3 New Testament Condemnations of Sorcery (pharmakeia)

In the New Testament, sorcery appears in lists of vices:

• Galatians 5:20 includes pharmakeia among "works of the flesh."
• Revelation 9:21; 21:8; 22:15 likewise condemn pharmakeia as characteristic of those excluded from God's kingdom. (e-Publications)

The Greek term pharmakeia covers a spectrum from poisonings and potions to magical practices using drugs or formulae. In the ancient world, "magic" frequently employed substances and rituals to induce altered states for divinatory or manipulative purposes.

Some contemporary Christians conclude that hypnosis, like psychoactive drugs, alters consciousness and therefore falls under pharmakeia. But again, this is an analogical extension beyond the specific historical usage.

The texts speak clearly against manipulative, idolatrous, or harmful uses of ritual and substances, not against every practice that modulates consciousness, including medically supervised anesthesia or evidence-based psychotherapy.

2. Alternative Christian Theological Interpretations

If the biblical data do not neatly map onto modern hypnosis, how have theologians and church bodies responded? Here we find a significant re-framing, especially in traditions that engage both historical-critical exegesis and clinical psychology.

2.1 Catholic Moral Theology and Magisterial Statements

The Roman Catholic Church's position is especially instructive because it has been repeatedly consulted on hypnosis.

A major review in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings notes that as early as 1847 the Church indicated that hypnosis, properly understood, is not morally forbidden, and in 1956 Pope Pius XII reaffirmed its licit use for childbirth and other medical indications, provided appropriate precautions were taken. (ScienceDirect)

In a 1957 allocution on analgesia, Pius XII explicitly grouped hypnosis with anesthesia and other means of pain relief, speaking of hypnosis as a kind of "psychic analgesic." He argued that altering consciousness for therapeutic reasons does not differ in moral principle from other accepted medical procedures, so long as the technique is used prudently and ethically. (NACN-USA)

Catholic moral reasoning here draws on a line of thought reflected in Thomas Aquinas:

• The temporary loss or alteration of rational control is not inherently sinful.
• Morality depends on the act that causes the alteration—its purpose, proportionality, and surrounding circumstances. (SSPX)

This framework allows hypnosis to be treated as a morally neutral tool whose permissibility is determined by:

1. Purpose (healing vs manipulation or occult use)
2. Means (respect for consent and dignity vs coercion)
3. Content (spirit-invocation and divination vs clinically grounded suggestion).

The modern Catechism of the Catholic Church continues to condemn all forms of divination and mediumship, but does not place hypnosis in that category; instead, it is silently presumed to be a medical or psychological procedure subject to ordinary moral criteria. (Catholic Culture)

2.2 Protestant and Evangelical Integrative Approaches

In the evangelical world, responses have been more diverse. Popular apologetic ministries sometimes warn that hypnosis constitutes a form of forbidden "enchantment" or opens a person to demonic influence. Yet within academic and clinical circles, evangelical and Protestant scholars have taken a more differentiated view.

A noteworthy example is the article "Hypnosis and Metaphor in Christian Context: History, Abuse, and Use" (1984) in the Journal of Psychology and Theology. Vance Shepperson and Earl Henslin trace both historical abuses of hypnosis in religious settings and its legitimate therapeutic uses. They conclude that: (SAGE Journals)

• Hypnosis has been misused for spiritual and psychological manipulation, sometimes under a Christian veneer.
• However, when understood as a technique to facilitate relaxation, concentration, and responsiveness to healing suggestions, it can be integrated into Christian counseling with appropriate safeguards.
• The critical issues are truthfulness, consent, and theological framing—not the mere induction of a trance.

Other Christian psychotherapists and pastoral counselors similarly interpret hypnosis as a form of guided imagery and focused attention that can be directed toward Christ-centered healing, cognitive restructuring, and trauma recovery. (Academia)

At the popular catechetical level, recent Catholic and Protestant resources tend to echo this nuanced stance:

• Using hypnosis for manipulative control, false memory implantation, or occult exploration is judged gravely wrong.
• Using it to assist with smoking cessation, phobias, or childbirth pain, under professional supervision, is generally judged morally permissible. (Catholic Answers)

The result is a two-tier discernment:

1. Occult or deceptive uses of hypnosis are rejected as incompatible with biblical prohibitions.
2. Clinical and pastoral uses, transparent and aligned with Christian anthropology, are regarded as acceptable tools.

3. Psychological and Neuroscientific Profiles of Hypnosis

To assess whether hypnotic states resemble Christian spiritual practices, we must first describe hypnosis as understood by contemporary science.

3.1 What Is Hypnosis?

Modern definitions converge on three elements:

1. Induction of focused, absorbed attention – attention narrows onto a specific stimulus (the therapist's voice, an image, a bodily sensation).
2. Increased responsiveness to suggestion – the person is more likely to experience suggested alterations in perception, memory, and voluntary control as subjectively "real."
3. Altered sense of agency – actions taken under suggestion may be experienced as happening "by themselves." (PMC)

Neuroimaging studies indicate that hypnosis is associated with:

• Decreased activity and connectivity in parts of the default mode network (DMN) involved in self-referential thought.
• Functional changes in executive and salience networks, adjusting the balance between inner focus and external responsiveness. (PMC)

In a recent mini-review, Penazzi and De Pisapia note that hypnosis and meditation share phenomenological and neurophysiological features, but are not identical. Hypnosis tends to rely more on hetero-suggestion and may involve reduced meta-awareness; meditation typically cultivates self-monitoring and non-judgmental awareness. (Frontiers)

4. Christian Prayer, Worship, and Altered States

Having outlined hypnosis, we can now consider how Christian spiritual practices affect consciousness and the brain.

4.1 Contemplative Prayer and Christian Meditation

Catholic, Orthodox, and some Protestant traditions teach practices such as:

• Lectio divina – slow, prayerful reading of Scripture.
• Centering prayer / hesychasm – silently attending to a sacred word or to God's presence.
• Ignatian imaginative prayer – entering into gospel scenes with the senses.

Over the last two decades, neuroscientist Andrew Newberg and colleagues have studied brain function during various forms of prayer and meditation. Their work shows:

• Altered activity in frontal and parietal regions associated with attention, self-representation, and spatial orientation during intense contemplative practice.
• Changes in the DMN similar to those observed in secular forms of meditation. (ScienceDirect)

These findings suggest that Christian contemplative prayer engages the same basic neural mechanisms as other meditative practices: focused attention, emotional regulation, and modulation of self-related processing.

4.2 Charismatic Worship and Glossolalia

Newberg also conducted one of the first functional neuroimaging studies of glossolalia ("speaking in tongues"). Participants were scanned while singing in their native language and while praying in tongues. The study reported: (Andrew Newberg)

• Decreased activity in frontal lobe regions associated with voluntary language production and executive control during glossolalia compared to singing.
• Changes in parietal areas and subcortical structures, consistent with altered self-representation and emotional engagement.

Participants described glossolalia as a surrender of control to the Holy Spirit. Subjectively, this experience of reduced volitional control is reminiscent of the altered sense of agency often reported in hypnosis, where suggested actions feel as though they "just happen."

Similarly, research on intense prayer in devout Mormons found specific activation patterns in reward and attention networks during strong spiritual feelings, paralleling responses to music, love, and other deeply meaningful experiences. (ScienceDirect)

4.3 Worship Services as Structured "Trance Environments"

Even outside explicitly charismatic contexts, many Christian corporate worship services employ elements known from psychology to facilitate absorption and suggestibility:

• Gradual build-up of music, often repetitive and emotionally evocative.
• Dimmed lighting and visual focus on the platform or altar.
• Unified bodily action (standing, kneeling, lifting hands).
• Extended monologue (sermon) by a trusted authority figure.

Scholars reflecting on the "hypnotic implications" of religious behavior argue that such environments naturally shape attention and expectation, creating a kind of socially shared trance that can be used for powerful good (worship, repentance, communal bonding) or, if misused, for manipulation. (Academia)

Crucially, the mere presence of these mechanisms does not make worship "hypnosis" in a clinical sense. But the overlap in attentional dynamics, emotional arousal, and social influence demonstrates that Christian practice already harnesses the same human capacities that hypnosis organizes more formally.

5. Comparing Hypnosis and Christian Spiritual States

We can now offer a structured comparison across three levels: phenomenological, neurophysiological, and theological-ethical.

5.1 Phenomenological Overlaps and Differences

Overlaps:

• Absorption: In both hypnosis and intense prayer/worship, individuals report deep immersion in the experience, with diminished awareness of extraneous stimuli. (PMC)
• Altered self-awareness: Reduced focus on ordinary self-talk and worries appears in both contemplative prayer and hypnotic states. (Frontiers)
• Changed sense of agency: Glossolalia and some forms of prophetic utterance involve a perceived surrender of control, similar to hypnotic suggestions experienced as involuntary. (Andrew Newberg)

Differences:

• Source of suggestion:
  • Hypnosis typically emphasizes a hypnotist's suggestions as the organizing principle.
  • Christian practices frame guidance and transformation as coming from God, Scripture, and the Spirit, mediated by but not reducible to human leaders.
• Metacognition:
  • Meditation (including Christian contemplative forms) often trains ongoing awareness of mental processes.
  • Hypnosis sometimes involves reduced metacognitive monitoring, as suggested in the Penazzi & De Pisapia review. (Frontiers)
• Communal versus dyadic context:
  • Worship and prayer are often communal and sacramental.
  • Hypnosis is usually dyadic (therapist–client) or individual (self-hypnosis), with a clinical goal.

5.2 Neurophysiological Parallels

Across studies:

• Both hypnosis and meditation are associated with changes in DMN activity, reflecting reduced self-referential rumination and more present-centered awareness. (PMC)
• Intense prayer and glossolalia also show modulation of frontal and parietal activity, overlapping in broad terms with patterns seen in meditative and hypnotic states. (Andrew Newberg)

Researchers emphasize that these are non-ordinary but normal states of consciousness; they are not evidence of supernatural causes one way or another, but of the brain's flexibility in supporting a range of attentional and experiential modes.

Thus, from a neuroscientific perspective, there is no basis for designating the mechanisms of hypnosis as inherently "occult" while treating similar mechanisms in prayer or worship as wholly different in kind. Theologically, what matters is how these mechanisms are framed and toward what ends they are used.

6. A Theologically Grounded Ethical Framework

Given this convergence of biblical exegesis and scientific data, how might Christians responsibly evaluate hypnosis?

6.1 Distinguishing Mechanism from Spiritual Content

First, we must clearly distinguish between:

• The mechanism: focused attention, altered DMN activity, increased receptivity to suggestion—human capacities that appear in many contexts. (PMC)
• The spiritual content and intent: whether the practice invokes spirits, seeks forbidden knowledge, manipulates others, or aligns with Christ-centered love and truth. (Catholic Culture)

The biblical prohibitions target idolatrous and occult content—seeking guidance from the dead, using magic to control others, divination that competes with trust in God—not the mere fact of entering an altered state.

By analogy, music can be used in pagan rituals or Christian worship; the moral evaluation depends on who is being worshiped and how. Similarly, hypnosis can be used as a vehicle for occult exploration or as a tool for clinically guided healing, pastoral care, and spiritual formation.

6.2 Criteria for Responsible Christian Use of Hypnosis

A theologically careful framework might set out the following criteria:

1. Rejection of occult frameworks
   • No invocation of spirits, "guides," or non-Christian deities as operative powers in the hypnotic process.
   • No use of hypnosis for divination, past-life regression, or channeling. These would fall under the logic of Deuteronomy 18 and related texts. (Blue Letter Bible)
2. Informed consent and respect for agency
   • Hypnosis is explained honestly as a psychological technique, not as irresistible mind control.
   • The person retains the right to stop at any time; moral conscience is respected. (ScienceDirect)
3. Therapeutic or pastoral aim
   • Goals are oriented toward healing, growth, and the person's flourishing before God (e.g., managing pain, overcoming addiction, reducing anxiety, processing trauma).
   • There is no exploitation for entertainment, coercive persuasion, or financial manipulation. (ScienceDirect)
4. Content congruent with Christian faith
   • Suggestions and imagery are consistent with Christian anthropology and ethics (e.g., affirming the person's dignity, supporting virtuous behavior, encouraging trust in God).
   • When used in explicitly Christian contexts, the process is framed as cooperating with God's grace through the wise use of created psychological capacities. (SAGE Journals)
5. Accountability and professional competence
   • Practitioners are appropriately trained, licensed (where applicable), and embedded in structures of clinical and ecclesial accountability.
   • Churches that employ hypnotic techniques in pastoral care do so transparently, with oversight and safeguards against spiritual abuse. (SAGE Journals)

When these conditions are met, hypnosis becomes analogous to other psychological or medical interventions that modulate body and brain (such as anesthesia, psychopharmacology, or cognitive-behavioral therapies) and is evaluated on the same ethical criteria.

6.3 Re-assessing the "Misapplication" of Biblical Prohibitions

Under this framework, it is clear where misapplication has occurred:

• Treating any altered state, regardless of content or purpose, as inherently occult fails to recognize that Scripture itself portrays visions, dreams, and ecstatic prayer as sometimes divinely inspired rather than intrinsically suspect.
• Equating all hypnosis with the "charmer" or "sorcerer" overlooks the historic and lexical specificity of those terms, which refer to occult practitioners operating within idolatrous religious systems. (Blue Letter Bible)
• Ignoring the hypnotic features of accepted worship forms while condemning hypnosis as such introduces an inconsistency that neither neuroscience nor careful theology can sustain. (Andrew Newberg)

More precise exegesis and a better understanding of human consciousness thus support the conclusion that biblical prohibitions have indeed been over-extended when applied to hypnosis wholesale.

Conclusion

The central questions guiding this investigation were whether Scripture genuinely forbids hypnosis, and whether hypnotic states share meaningful similarities with accepted Christian spiritual practices.

The evidence suggests:

1. Scriptural prohibitions in Deuteronomy 18, Leviticus 19–20, Isaiah 8, and the New Testament condemn occult practices of divination, magic, and mediumship—forms of spiritual infidelity and manipulation. They do not directly address modern hypnosis as a clinical technique. (Blue Letter Bible)
2. Christian theological traditions, especially within Catholic moral theology and integrative Protestant psychology, have increasingly distinguished hypnosis as a value-neutral tool from its potential misuse in occult or abusive contexts, approving its therapeutic use under clear moral conditions. (ScienceDirect)
3. Neuroscience and psychology show that hypnosis shares significant mechanisms with meditation, contemplative prayer, and intense worship—including modulation of the DMN, altered attention, and changes in sense of agency. These mechanisms are part of normal human cognitive and affective functioning, not inherently occult powers. (PMC)
4. Therefore, theologically responsible discernment requires distinguishing mechanism from spiritual content and intent. Hypnosis used for divination, spirit-contact, or coercive manipulation is rightly rejected in light of biblical teaching. Hypnosis used transparently, with informed consent, for healing and growth, and framed within Christian anthropology, can be considered compatible with biblical faith. (Catholic Culture)

In short, hypnosis is not automatically witchcraft, nor is every trance-state in church automatically holy. Both require discernment. What Scripture forbids is not the disciplined use of our God-given capacities for focused attention and imagination, but the idolatrous use of those capacities to seek power, knowledge, or control apart from the living God.

For Christian communities seeking to navigate this terrain, the way forward lies in carefully reading the biblical text in context, listening to the best available science on human consciousness, and applying enduring theological principles of truth, love, consent, and allegiance to Christ to the concrete practices of hypnosis, worship, and spiritual formation alike.