The Grofs’ Model of Spiritual Emergency in Retrospect
In this 2010 review, Darlene B. Viggiano and Stanley Krippner evaluate the ongoing relevance and clinical utility of Stanislav and Christina Grof’s model of “Spiritual Emergency.”
Evolution of the Concept
The authors trace the lineage of the concept from William James and C.G. Jung, through Assagioli, up to David Lukoff’s successful push to include “Religious or Spiritual Problem” in the DSM-IV (see From_Spiritual_Emergency_to_Spiritual_Problem). They differentiate between “spiritual emergence” (a gradual, gentle unfolding) and “spiritual emergency” (an acute, disruptive crisis).
Clinical Relevance and Adaptations
The paper argues that the Grofs’ model was remarkably prescient (“ahead of its time”), anticipating a cultural shift where mainstream psychology is now forced to acknowledge spiritual diversity and cultural competence. The model has proven clinically useful in differentiating genuine psychopathology from transpersonal crises, allowing clinicians to support rather than pathologize profound human development.
Future Directions
Recent studies suggest expanding the Grofs’ original typologies to include phenomena like “creative flooding” and transcendent sexual experiences. The authors suggest that the medical establishment still needs to catch up, noting the resistance within mainstream psychiatry to integrating non-pharmacological, supportive approaches for patients undergoing intense psycho-spiritual distress.
See Also
- Spiritual_Emergency — the hub concept this paper reviews
- Spiritual_Emergency_The_Understanding_and_Treatment — the Grofs’ original paper
- From_Spiritual_Emergency_to_Spiritual_Problem — the DSM-IV category
- Kundalini — the most commonly cited trigger
- Carl_Jung — one of the intellectual ancestors of the model