Darśana: A More Inclusive Spiritual Framework

The legal category of “religion,” rooted in a Euro-Christian episteme, has outlived its usefulness as a universal category. Despite this, it remains the dominant lens through which constitutional protections are granted, often inequitably and inconsistently. Emerging spiritualities, particularly those involving entheogenic (psychedelic) practices, are routinely marginalized by a system that was never designed to recognize them and that curtails their spiritual freedom. 

Rather than stretch the concept of “religion” beyond its breaking point, one might consider a paradigm shift: adopting the framework of darśana as a more inclusive and epistemically just category.

Derived from Sanskrit, darśana means “sight” or “vision,” but in philosophical terms, it refers to any system of thought that includes an ontology (what exists), epistemology (how we know), and soteriology (how we achieve liberation or transformation). Notably, a darśana need not include theism, clergy, sacred texts, or ritual orthodoxy. If a community can coherently answer the questions “What is real?,” “How do we know?,” and “How should we live?,” it can be considered a darśana. 

Many entheogenic communities meet these criteria. They often affirm the reality of plant intelligences, the transformative epistemic potential of altered states, and healing as a central aim. Yet their visions, while coherent and deeply meaningful for their members, remain unintelligible to the American juridical gaze. These communities aren’t incoherent or unserious; they simply articulate a darśana rather than a “religion” in the Christian-Protestant sense.

As psychedelic spiritualities grow, and often intentionally resist theistic, hierarchical, or scriptural models, the legal framework of “religion” becomes not just outdated but actively exclusionary. Their alienation from constitutional recognition is not incidental; it is structural, born of a legal system still tethered to Christian norms.

The Problem with “Religion” as a Legal Construct

U.S. constitutional law continues to centralize Christianity, privileging hierarchical institutions, belief in a supreme being, and formal doctrines. This blinds the judiciary to non-Western, non-theistic, and embodied spiritual systems, and, of course, to novel entheogenic practices.

For example:

• In United States v. Kuch (1968), the Neo-American Church’s use of LSD was denied protection based on Protestant standards of sincerity and theology.
• In Africa v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1981), a new spiritual movement was excluded for not addressing “ultimate concerns,” a deeply Christian framing.
• While Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) rightly declared belief in God is not required for legal recognition, that principle remains weakly enforced.

Even decisions that have upheld entheogenic use, like Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita (2006), which protected ayahuasca ceremonies under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, still force communities to present themselves using Christian legal templates.

Under a darśana -based model, groups like União do Vegetal or even Timothy Leary’s League for Spiritual Discovery wouldn’t need to prove they are “religions” in the Christian mold. They could instead be evaluated on their own internal coherence, as darśanas, philosophical and spiritual systems with their own ontologies, epistemologies, and paths to liberation.

Moving Beyond the Religious/Secular Binary

The religious/secular binary, a colonial construct, collapses when faced with psychedelic spiritualities. These communities integrate neuroscience, Indigenous wisdom, ritual, and healing in ways that defy simple classification as either “religious” or “scientific.”

In Africa, for instance, the court claimed the movement seemed “more secular than religious,” but such distinctions are meaningless within many entheogenic frameworks. These systems are darśanas, or ways of knowing, and do not fit the outdated and biased Western dichotomy.

When courts insist on fitting everything into a religious/secular binary, they function as gatekeepers, upholding one cultural norm while trivializing and deprecating others. A darśana-based legal model would not ask Indigenous or psychedelic communities to imitate Christianity or science. Instead, it would respect (and inspect) their systems on their own terms.

Toward Ontological Pluralism

The rise of psychedelic spiritualities challenges the supremacy of Western taxonomies and demands epistemic humility. Replacing “religion” with darśana is not simply a semantic update; it is a critique of the colonial and Christian foundations of constitutional law.

To adopt darśana is to admit that different worldviews offer legally acceptable paths to meaning, healing, and transformation. It allows the Constitution to reflect the pluralism it claims to protect, not by forcing every community to mimic Christianity, but by acknowledging the legal legitimacy of alternative ways of seeing, the multiplicities of darśanas. 

Under this model:

• União do Vegetal wouldn’t have to perform Protestant-style liturgy.
• Entheogenic communities could claim legal protection without distorting and contorting themselves into Judeo-Christian categories.

Conclusion: Reimagining Constitutional Freedom

The legal category of “religion” is not neutral. It is a colonial hangover, shaped by Christian norms and blind to many forms of modern spiritual life. It excludes more than it protects.

Adopting darśana as an alternative framework does not mean replacing one hegemony with another. It opens space for legal pluralism, ontological diversity, and epistemic justice. It would place Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, psychedelic spirituality, Indigenous wisdom, and secular humanism on equal constitutional grounds.

In such a system, communities that use Schedule I substances as sacraments would not be marginalized but treated as part of the variegated and iridescent American spiritual landscape. “Religion” would lose its special status, and in its place, darśana would offer a new perspective, and Americans might discover a deeper, freer vision of spiritual liberty.

This post is part of a digital symposium titled The PULSE of Psychedelics, Law, and Spirituality. Read the whole collection here.