Religion and the Sacred

A work about Sacred places should address two fundamental questions: Are religion and faith inherent and necessary for humans and their societies, and is the experience of the Sacred essential to the religious phenomenon? The answer to both is affirmative. Historical evidence shows that every human society, from prehistoric times onwards, has believed in spiritual beings, an afterlife, a hidden reality, and some form of deity. Religious belief is a natural and indispensable part of the human experience, akin to art, music, and mythology—three domains deeply intertwined with religious experience. These elements have been part of human society since the early stages of our evolution, from the time humans lived in caves. The religious experience is closely linked to the workings of the human mind, specifically to human consciousness. Central to the religious experience is a mystical personal encounter with the Sacred, bringing about a transformation that has sparked the inception of all major religions and defines the charismatic aspect of religion.

According to the psychology of religion, humans possess two centers of reception in the brain. The first is the sensory perception of reality; the second is the mind’s interpretation of this reality[1]. For example, if your senses detect a lion moving in a meadow, you then interpret, based on experience, whether it appears hungry and consider options to divert its attention—such as throwing a stone to make it turn away, thereby buying time to run and climb a nearby tree. If there is no time, the reaction is instinctive, but otherwise, a process of strategic thinking and planning actions occurs. Other animals’ instinctive reaction to the lion might display similar behaviour, but their responses won’t include a layer of thoughtful planning, resulting in more uniform outcomes. Through thought, humans create an interpretation of reality, an inner reality filled with meanings. This capability is foundational for the development of art, literature, and religion, where meanings are constructed and explored beyond immediate sensory perceptions..

According to environmental psychology, the environment is perceived through a dual filter. The internal reality, comprised of words, images, ideas, feelings, and other symbolic representations, supplants the external reality characterized by shapes, sizes, objects, movements, sounds, and other features of the environment. Essentially, humans recreate their surroundings based on pre-existing perceptual patterns within themselves[2].

The perception of the world as embodying a dual reality—both physical and spiritual—is reinforced by the profound experiences during sleep. In dreams, a person encounters a different reality, leading to the belief in a hidden, miraculous realm with its own laws. This alternate reality can also be accessed through trance rituals involving music, drumming, and the use of mind-altering substances. Humans are capable of experiencing—or some would argue, hallucinating—other extraordinary worlds, both day and night. This occurs even before resolving the question of whether invisible worlds truly exist, and if so, whether they can be experienced.

Even without delving into the question of whether spiritual worlds exist, it is evident that there are aspects of a person that are not physical, such as feelings, values, and consciousness. For instance, care is not a physical entity, nor is attention. While these qualities may be reflected in bodily secretions and chemical or hormonal changes, the relationship is not straightforward; for example, no hormone pill has been invented that can increase care. Drugs may aid concentration, but it’s important to distinguish between concentration, awareness, and attention. Such qualities will always belong partially to the occult or spiritual realm, reinforcing the idea that humans comprise both body and soul.

The body and the spirit operate in two distinct domains. Logical thought cannot bridge these realms because it does not apply in hidden and unconscious areas, such as dreams. This is where art and faith become crucial; they serve as gateways to the spiritual or subconscious aspects of a person that are otherwise inaccessible. Engaging with these parts is not only natural but essential for a person’s mental health, making access to them vitally important.

According to prominent researchers in the field of the psychology of religion, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi and Michael Argyle, religion is defined as “a system of beliefs in a divine or superhuman power, accompanied by acts of worship or other rituals directed towards that power. All religions include the belief in spirits that inhabit the invisible world and our relationship with them.” [3] To support their arguments, they reference Anthony Wallace, who stated, “The supernatural must be placed as the cornerstone for defining human behavior as religious. At the base of every religion, there are souls, supernatural beings, and supernatural forces,” and Charles Loomis, who noted, “All religions promote an idea of a world invisible, inhabited by creatures, gods, angels, and demons, who control what happens to us.” [4] We can conclude that the belief in an invisible world is what distinguishes religious ideologies from other belief systems. However, it is important to differentiate between religion and other forms of belief such as magic, occultism, and superstitions, as religion uniquely incorporates the element of the Sacred.

Many psychologists view religion as a human response to stimuli from the natural and social worlds, rather than as a reaction to the existence of a supernatural realm, whether virtual or actual. They often suggest that religious behaviour may reflect underlying motives, viewing it as an expression of filial love, or as connected to the superego or the subconscious[5]. Historians, on the other hand, analyze religions through the lens of historical development. Sociologists regard religion as a social phenomenon, and anthropologists see it as a system of cultural symbols. Meanwhile, theologians approach the principles of religion as efforts to decipher the enigma of existence, employing tools like the ontological argument and a plethora of other philosophical ideas.

However, the branch of religious studies that I trust employs a phenomenological approach, asserting that religious phenomena can only be fully understood by recognizing the religious experience as a unique and independent capacity of humans, which emerges under certain conditions and cannot be fully explained by other disciplines. This approach to the phenomenology of religion acknowledges two levels of human existence: the everyday and ordinary, and the eternal and sacred. This perspective was pioneered by William James in his seminal work on the religious experiences of individuals[6], continued with Rudolf Otto’s efforts to define the religious emotion in his book on the sacred[7], and is evident in Mircea Eliade’s phenomenology of the Sacred[8]. This approach has also been advanced by Rennie and others who aim to integrate Eliade’s ideas with broader theories of cognition, phenomenology, and the study of human perception and consciousness[9].

And yet, it must be reiterated that there is a distinction between conventional, institutionalized religion with its myriad behaviours and emotions, and the religious experience related to the Sacred, which is more individual and unrestrained. This experience involves an encounter with a different, super temporal, and ahistorical reality, as Mircea Eliade describes. This concept is also embraced in the field of transpersonal psychology, albeit under different terminologies

According to the theories of religious sciences, reality is divided into eternal and temporal aspects, which are not ontologically external but internally connected to human perception. This connection can be associated with specific places and times. When individuals engage with the Sacred, certain mental, emotional, and cognitive systems are activated within them. Thus, the religious experience is not merely worship, ceremony, or theology; rather, it is a mode of cognition that may arise in some individuals when they visit charismatic Sacred places. This cognition is facilitated by the presence of generators of the Sacred in these locations, or more precisely, by how these elements are perceived by the individual.

The external and inner religious experience

Research in the psychology of religion indicates that the majority of individuals engage with their faith through rituals, the memorization of prayer formulas, and routine experiences that lend structure and instill confidence in their lives. Few people connect their religious life with mystical inner experiences[10]. In reality, there are two distinct types of religiosity: deep, personal involvement versus a social identity framework. For the majority, the latter is more common, but for some, personal involvement is more dominant. This delineates the divide between what can be termed ‘cult religiosity’, which is emotional and cohesive, and ‘church religiosity’, which is characterized by routine and structure.[11].

Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle identify two distinct approaches to religion: an internal approach and an external approach. The internal approach views the religious experience as an end in itself, while the external approach regards the church (as well as synagogues and mosques) primarily as a social venue for meeting friends and a means for community building[12]. These approaches stem from different origins and yield different outcomes. While boundaries between these approaches are not rigid, adopting Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle’s concepts suggests that the charismatic sacred place primarily engenders a sense of the Sacred in individuals with an inward religious orientation.

In the external approach, the purpose of prayer is seen as a form of protection and refuge; the church, synagogue, or mosque serves as a social gathering spot. In this perspective, certain aspects of life remain outside the religious sphere, the external approach focuses on morality and societal values. Here, religion offers comfort, and prayer is merely a ritual. The engagement of the masses with religion often involves minimal involvement with myths and inner experiences, thus the Sacred place becomes associated with the ego and is valued for identity, attachment, and sentimentality, marking a distinction between oneself and one’s religious group and others. For those with an external approach, the Sacred place generally fails to evoke an experience of the Sacred because they perceive it through preconceived templates, believing they already understand it, and thus they are not open to fresh and unmediated impressions.

This analysis is not judgmental but is grounded in research-based claims by scholars in the fields of psychology of Religion. According to Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, studies indicate that many religious individuals with an external approach tend to be dogmatic, rigid, and impatient, struggling to engage with new information, in contrast to secularists who embrace an external approach and are typically more open-minded. The capacity for a mystical religious experience is linked to the ability to hold two opposing viewpoints simultaneously, a skill that those approaching religion from an external perspective often find challenging.[13].

Maslow argues that conventional religion constrains individuals, confining the religious experience to specific times and places, and thereby inhibits connections with the entirety of the universe. Paradoxically, this can distance people from true religious engagement. It fosters a sense of familiarity that prevents them from reaching peak experiences in these settings. This phenomenon is not exclusive to religion but also applies to music and art. The assumption of knowing all there is to know leads to a blindness towards new experiences[14].

I emphasize the distinction between the two types of religiosity because the research presented here focuses on the type of inner religious experience, the kind triggered by Sacredness Generators. However, this distinction is not strictly binary, as every individual possesses elements of both types. Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle propose that at the heart of religiosity in internal religion lies the conversion process—a transformative experience involving deep engagement of the ego, resulting in profound internal change[15]. Conversion is understood not merely as repentance but also includes taking vows (like those of priests or nuns), dedicating oneself to religion, and undergoing significant personal transformation.

The religious experience according to Religious studies

The science of religions studies the religious phenomenon as a human experience that has a right to exist independently. William James, in his seminal work “The Varieties of Religious Experience,” portrayed religious experiences as consistent across all religions and cultures, emphasizing that such experiences are not confined to institutionalized religion but are deeply personal and mystical in nature[16]. Rudolf Otto described the emotional aspect of these experiences, coining it the “numinous emotion,” and explored its various expressions in his influential book “The Idea of the Holy.”[17] Following James and Otto, Mircea Eliade expanded on their ideas, furthering our understanding of the sacred. Today, scholars like Corbett continue to explore the impact of religious emotion on the psyche. ^[18].

James argues that the human experience of the Sacred, which involves elevating the spirit, unifying with the universe, and opening towards other dimensions, manifests consistently across all religions and cultures with specific characteristics[19]:

• A sense that one is part of a broader, ideal existence embodied by a divine force—God.
• A perception of a benevolent relationship with this divine force and a willing submission to its governance.
• Profound elation and a significant sense of freedom that transcend the boundaries of the self.
• A shift in the emotional center towards a realm of harmonious feelings and affection, moving from negativity to positivity.

James identifies four expressions of this sacred experience:

1. Abstinence.
2. Bravery of the soul.
3. Purity.
4. Compassion.

James contends that mystical experiences are akin to profound emotional states. He emphasizes that one cannot fully communicate the quality or significance of a particular feeling to someone who has never experienced it themselves. Additionally, James views mystical experiences as not only emotional but also cognitive, imbuing them with what he calls a “noetic quality.” This refers to insights that possess profound depths of truth, which are beyond the grasp of the ordinary, earthly mind[20].

A mystical state is marked by a sense of passivity, where the individual feels that “a superior power has taken control and is sustaining them.” [21] Often, this experience is linked to a phrase or saying that suddenly assumes a new, deeper meaning. It can manifest as sensory experiences reminiscent of “light actions on land and sea, musical sounds, and smells.” [22] Additionally, there is frequently a sense of familiarity or homecoming, evoking dimly remembered experiences akin to “dream states”—suggesting a pre-existence or prior familiarity. This feeling of mystery and metaphysical recognition is what the Greeks referred to as Anamnesis, meaning “Remembering.” [23]

According to James, the typical daytime consciousness, which is rational and ordinary, is just one specific type of consciousness among many. He suggests that surrounding this everyday awareness are various other forms of consciousness that differ only slightly but significantly. James notes, “We can go through our entire lives without ever realizing the reality of these other forms; however, with the proper stimuli, they can be fully experienced.” [24] These stimuli are often encountered in sacred or Sacred places, where these alternate states of consciousness can be more readily accessed and experienced.

Otto posited that within humans lies a distinct capacity to perceive the sacred, analogous to the aesthetic sense. He argued that this capacity does not belong to the realms of anthropology or sociology but pertains to a unique and distinct experience outside the conventional scope[25]. In certain settings, specific triggers can activate this sacred perception, much like certain stimuli can evoke the aesthetic sense. For instance, the renowned classical Greek sculptor Phidias is credited with evoking the religious experience through his art, which was integral to temples. Notably, it was said that anyone who beheld the statue of Zeus at Olympia would be profoundly moved, often to tears.

Otto discusses the concept of the Sacred, particularly prevalent in Semitic religions, referred to as “Hagios” in Greek and “Sanctus” or “Sacer” in Latin. However, he notes that these terms often conflate the sacred with the concept of the good. Thus, he introduces an alternative term, “numinous,” derived from the Latin “Numen,” which signifies a type of divine power. Otto endeavors to delineate the various numinous movements that occur during the religious experience. According to Otto, the Sacred is characterized by the activation of mental attitudes that are deeply intertwined with feelings of awe and transcendence, dependency, and a profound sense of insignificance in the presence of the divine. This state evokes a combination of awe and fear, alongside a spectrum of emotions commonly found in religious literature, particularly the Bible[26].

Otto indeed distinguishes between two types of emotions in humans: one that is mundane and originates from the ego, and another that is elevated, relating to the higher aspects of the self. The first focuses on the individual, while the second opens to the world. The latter type is evoked only in religious or artistic contexts and is expressed through feelings of awe, wonder, a sense of being part of creation, majesty, redemption, illumination, purity, exaltation, and transcendence. These words and feelings gain their significance as components of something greater than the ego, something that encompasses and sustains humanity. They are akin to the emotions one might experience standing on a cliff in the Judean desert at sunrise, provided one is not distracted by their smartphone. Religion originates from this numinous feeling, yet it also shapes its followers through laws and commandments, thereby establishing a social system.

According to Otto, the initial numinous expression is tied to the feeling of creation that arises within a person—a feeling of self-deprecation, akin to being ‘dust and ashes,’ in the presence of the divine. This sensation leads to a humility and lowliness of the religious spirit. This mindset serves as a reflection of the supreme power and is most eloquently expressed in Abraham’s response to God in Genesis 18:27: “Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, who am but dust and ashes.”

The second numinous expression Otto describes is the “terrible mystery” (Mysterium Tremendum in Latin). According to Otto, this is often encountered around churches and synagogues and is palpable in the atmosphere of rituals and worship. The challenging biblical concepts of God’s wrath are elucidated through this same numinous lens, associated with the emotions of fear and awe. However, these are not ordinary fears and awe. God’s anger is not a human attribute but an overwhelming force that defies conventional explanation.

The third numinous expression Otto identifies is termed “majesty” (Majestas in Latin). The fourth is known as “the fascinating” (fascinans in Latin)—this pertains to the joy derived from being in the presence of the Numen, an attraction to it, embodying the happiness that comes with love. The fifth expression is called “terrible majesty” (Deinos in Greek), indicating something otherworldly and awe-inspiring in its original, non-negative sense, transcending our usual perceptions. The sixth numinous expression is referred to as “sanctity” (Sanctum in Latin), or the “sublime emotion” (Augustum in Latin)—a recognition of God’s glorification because he truly merits it.

Eliade developed a comprehensive approach to the study of religion that focuses on identifying the patterns and principles underlying its manifestations—its phenomenology—rather than delving into narrow, specialized aspects of specific religions or their historical contexts. According to his methodology, the general interpretation and understanding of religious superstructures and the hermeneutics of religious phenomena are imperative. Researchers of religion are urged to explore vast realms of meaning and to achieve new levels of human awareness in both academic and broader human contexts, aligning with the concept that humans are inherently “homo Religiosus.” From its inception, human culture has been intimately connected with religion, and the world is perceived as inhabited by divine, extraterrestrial beings. For the common man, the world’s meaning remains linked to an order that exists on another plane but manifests occasionally on Earth through the display of the Sacred, known as Hierophany, or displays of divine power, termed Kratophany[27].

The researcher of religious phenomena is called to pursue a cultural interpretive synthesis rather than the analytical analysis typical of the natural sciences; generalizations are favoured over particulars[28]. A well-crafted book on religious history should engage the reader, leading them on a journey of anamnesis (remembering), which will foster a new phenomenology of thought. The history of religions should aim to unveil previously unknown states of consciousness. Eliade highlights the parallels between religious experience and art, arguing that the study of art should be linked with the study of religions. He notes that while artists like Picasso have significantly contributed to human knowledge, the contributions of artists are often not taken as seriously as they should be. The surrealists, for instance, sought a state between wakefulness and dreaming similar to yoga or Zen techniques, aiming to return to primal totality, reconcile opposites, and negate history—all concepts inherent to religious thought[29].

At the beginning of human culture, every cultural creation, such as institutions, art or ideology, was an expression of religion or had a religious origin and justification. Everything was religion, and you can’t understand man without understanding that. At the heart of it all was the search for a sacred space, a sort of world axis, where things have meaning and order, and from which one can go forth strengthened for the adventure of life. Every house or village was a kind of such a center. There is a common denominator for the worldview of all human beings, there is a living tradition of a common cosmogonic myth in “primitive” societies, and this can be seen in the study of different cultures. The historian of religion reveals it

At the onset of human culture, every cultural creation—whether institutions, art, or ideology—was either an expression of religion or had a religious origin and justification. In essence, everything was intertwined with religion, and understanding humanity requires an understanding of this fact. Central to these early cultures was the quest for a sacred space, envisioned as a sort of world axis where meaning and order converged, empowering individuals for life’s adventures. Each house or village functioned as such a center (world axis). There exists a common thread in the worldview of all humans, characterized by a living tradition of a common cosmogonic myth found in “primitive” societies[30]. The study of diverse cultures reveals this thread, which the historian of religion diligently uncovers.

Eliade passed away in 1986, and despite the controversy he sparked, today there are scholars who further develop his ideas and continue his legacy. According to Rennie, Hierophany, a term used by Eliade, refers to any element of the world, as experienced by humanity, that reveals the sacred[31]. Hierophany, being a part of human experience, straddles both the sacred and the profane. It underscores both the immeasurable vastness of the sky and the profound solidity of stone—both exist, yet are incomprehensible to the human mind. Existence itself is a miracle, and hierophany merely unveils this; it does not fabricate non-existent entities. For instance, water, inherently formless and thus infinitely potential, is the birthplace of life; all things with form emerge distinct from water, marking an infinite ontological presence of watery Hierophany. The idea of Hierophany hinges on perception and interpretation. According to Rennie, there occurs a dual process of mutual interpretation that is not automatic but is linked to religiosity, mysticism, symbolism, etc[32]. It is perception that transforms an event into a Hierophany; otherwise, everything would be sacred and the sacred would lose its significance.

The Sacred represents a potential capacity inherent in every individual, intersecting in various ways with the states of consciousness explored in transpersonal psychology. It embodies an encounter with an otherworldly, eternal, and wondrous dimension. This experience is accompanied by a unique set of emotions, generally transcending time and place, and it connects the individual with the universe and their destiny.

The Sacred is an experience of sublime feelings within a person that goes beyond traditional symbols like white clothing or meditation. It can be accessed through various experiences such as watching the sunrise from a cliff in the Judean desert, enjoying a concert by Mozart (or any composer of your choice) performed by the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, or through ecstatic dancing, among others. Essentially, each person has their unique pathway to encountering the Sacred. One might describe the sensation of the Sacred as follows: individuals use their senses to interact with the world and perceive reality. However, occasionally, they encounter a reality that transcends the physical—a different reality, or the Sacred, also known as hierophany in Eliade’s terminology. In essence, the Sacred represents a distinct plane of experience that emerges through elements present in the ordinary, everyday, and mundane experiences of the world, as elucidated by Eliade[33].

Supportive arguments for Religious studies theories

Jane Hubert, a British social anthropologist, noted that the English word “sacred” originates from Latin, signifying “dedicated to the gods, separate from everyday places and things so that its special meaning can be recognized and the laws regarding it can be obeyed.” [34] The term is associated with self-consecration, the temple, and yielding to the needs of God—a holy person consecrates themselves for God. Additionally, the concept of being “holy” implies purity, which finds echoes in Akkadian, Aramaic, and other Semitic languages.

In Judaism, the essence of the Sacred involves distinction and exaltation. The Hebrew root “Kadesh” connotes an active essence related to sanctification and consecration. However, it also encompasses the experience of knowing God and uniting with Him, along with feelings of exaltation and transcendence. Thus, the experience of the Sacred is connected to the spiritual journey and various levels of mystical union.

The psychology of religion concurs with the philosophical-philological insights presented above but adds an important qualification. It suggests that the religious experience is characteristic of a select few. This type of experience is often considered religious because it is associated with the founders of religions and holy men. The extraordinary behaviors exhibited by these few become, among the majority, an incomprehensible ideal or evolve into myth. This is because most people, even the most devout believers, are distant from such experiences[35].

The evolving research in the psychology of religion reinforces the distinctions established by scholars of religious phenomena and offers further insights into the nature of religious emotion, particularly within the context of Inner religious experiences[36]. According to transpersonal psychology, the Sacred is a fundamental and essential human aspiration. It serves to integrate the individual, possessing both personal and impersonal qualities. It transcends the ego’s illusions and facilitates connection to the higher aspects of the personality, often referred to as the Self. The Sacred is seen as an integral experience necessary for personal fulfillment, as it links the individual to a higher level of experience, which is considered the natural domain of the spiritual elements within humans.[37].

The burgeoning field of phenomenology assists in elucidating religious experience as a distinct type of perception, a topic I explore in this research[38]. Additionally, the critique of art and aesthetics provides valuable insights into understanding religious experiences. The stimulation of the aesthetic artistic sense through an encounter with a work of art parallels how religious experiences may arise in interactions with charismatic Sacred places and the Sacredness Generators associated with them. The interplay between the spiritual and the physical, as seen in colors[39], for instance, reflects the relationship between a place and its interpretation. Similarly, the impact of artistic compositions on the aesthetic sense suggests that there could be a comparable influence from the Sacredness Generators on the inner religious experience of Sacred places.

The experience of the Sacred is distinguished by its connection to an overarching system of meaning and goodness, as highlighted by Maslow in his description of peak experiences. He notes that there are moments in life when a person encounters perfection, fulfillment, and eternity—peak experiences during which the senses and consciousness operate differently. These experiences signify a liberation from ego attachment and an opening toward the entire universe and the continuum of events. They foster a sense of unity, suggesting that everything is part of one harmonious whole leading to an undetermined destination. Consequently, the fear of death diminishes, as individuals realize they are part of something larger than themselves.[40].

According to Maslow, the peak experience correlates with religious experiences, but not with what is typically considered “Ordinary” religion. In religion, there are essentially two factions: the mystics, who experience these peak states, and the legalists, who often reinterpret religious tenets in ways that may diverge from the founders’ original intentions. Consequently, “Ordinary” religiosity can sometimes obstruct the peak experience, particularly dulling perception in individuals who are anxious. This interference can be so profound that one might pass through extraordinary and beautiful places without truly seeing or noticing anything.[41].

In the experience of the wondrous climax, awareness is penetrated, and this is, among other things, the role of art. It has an innocent perception, which is contrary to the normative blindness. That is, there is a perception of a peak, everything is amplified, there is an expansion of awareness and confidence, and this is the answer to anxieties. The peak experience is related to changing the state of awareness. The feelings that arise in the peak experience are wonder, awe, astonishment, modesty, submission and worship before the greatness of the experience

In the peak experience, awareness is deeply sharpened, a phenomenon that is, among other things, facilitated by art. Art nurtures an innocent perception, which counters the usual obliviousness or “normative blindness.” During a peak experience, perception is heightened, awareness expands, and confidence grows, providing a potent antidote to anxieties[42]. The peak experience involves a transformation in the state of consciousness. The emotions evoked in such moments include wonder, awe, astonishment, humility, submission, and worship in the face of the experience grandeur[43].

Indeed, the characteristics of a peak experience as described by Maslow resonate with Otto’s concept of religious sentiments and James’ accounts of religious experiences. According to Maslow, individuals undergoing a peak experience feel detached from the constraints of time and space, experiencing a sense of completeness and harmony, devoid of internal conflicts. They utilize all their abilities and skills effortlessly and function at their optimum. These individuals feel wholly responsible for themselves, including their emotions and motivations, free from inhibitions, fear, or hesitation. They are able to express themselves spontaneously without compromises, their minds are liberated and fertile with creativity and ideas, and they are fully present in the moment[44].

Footnotes

[1] Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, The Psychology of Religious Behavior, Belief and Experience, p. 95

[2] Ittelson et al., An Introduction to Environmental Psychology, p. 85

[3] Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, The Psychology of Religious Behavior, Belief and Experience, p. 6

[4] Anthony F. C. Wallace, Religion: An Anthropological View, New York: Random House, 1966, p. 52; C. Grant Loomis, White Magic: An Introduction to the Folklore of Christian Legend, Cambridge, MA: The Medieval Academy of America, 1948, p. 3

[5] Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, The Psychology of Religious Behavior, Belief and Experience, p. 8

[6] See Footnote 12

[7] See Footnote 17

[8] See Footnotes 15 and 18

[9] See Footnote 12

[10] Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, The Psychology of Religious Behavior, Belief and Experience, p. 4

[11] Ibid p. 35

[12] Ibid p. 44

[13] Ibid p. 167

[14] Maslow, Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences, p. 30

[15] Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, The Psychology of Religious Behavior, Belief and Experience, p. 114

[16] see foonote 12

[17] רודולף אוטו, הקדושה

[18] see footnote 33

[19] ג’יימס, החוויה הדתית לסוגיה, עמ’ 179.

[20] שם 250

[21] שם

[22] שם 251

[23] שם 253

[24] שם 255

[25] אוטו, הקדושה, עמ’ 12

[26] שם 11

[27] Idem, The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion, tr. Willard R. Trask, New York: Harcourt, 1959, p. 11

[28] Idem, Patterns in Comparative Religion, p. 58

[29] Idem, The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1969, p. 58

[30] Ibid p. 59

[31] Rennie, Reconstructing Eliade, p. 15

[32] Ibid p. 13

[33] אליאדה, המיתוס של השיבה הנצחית, עמ’ 13-11.

[34] Jane Hubert, “Sacred Beliefs and Beliefs of Sacredness”, in David L. Carmichael, Jane Hubert, Brian Reeves, and Audhild Schanche (eds.), Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, London: Routledge, 1994, p. 11

[35] Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, The Psychology of Religious Behavior, Belief and Experience, p. 74

[36] Ibid p. 89

[37] ליבליך, האדם שבקצה האגו, עמ’ 27.

[38] Eliade, The Sacred and The Profane, p. 15

[39] Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual in Art, p. 52

[40] Maslow, Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences, pp. 65-74

[41] Ibid p. 68

[42] Ibid

[43] Ibid p. 75

[44] Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, The Psychology of Religious Behavior, Belief and Experience, p. 59