Extraordinary Experiences and Mental Health: What Research Shows
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Extraordinary Experiences & Anomalistic Psychology · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Extraordinary experiences can be deeply convincing, emotionally powerful, unsettling, comforting, or difficult to describe. A person may sense an unseen presence, hear an unexpected voice, perceive an uncanny connection between events, remember an unusual encounter, or feel that an experience exceeds familiar explanations. These reports are legitimate subjects of psychological research because the experience, its circumstances, its interpretation, and its effect on everyday life can be investigated. The external explanation a person proposes remains a separate question requiring evidence.
Research establishes a central distinction: an unusual experience does not, by itself, establish mental illness. Psychological well-being, clinical symptoms, distress, and functioning vary widely among people who report extraordinary experiences. A systematic review covering 157 empirical studies found a complex relationship shaped by appraisal, context, duration, perceived control, and measurement decisions Maraldi et al., 2024. This article evaluates that evidence, examines clinical and nonclinical pathways, and explains when supportive or medical assessment becomes appropriate. For the wider map of reported experiences, meanings, and psychological research, see Extraordinary Experiences: Types, Meanings, and Psychological Research.
What Counts as an Extraordinary Experience in Mental-Health Research?
Researchers use overlapping terms such as anomalous experience, nonordinary experience, unusual perceptual experience, and psychotic-like experience. Their definitions and samples differ. An extraordinary experience, in the scope of anomalistic psychology, is a subjectively unusual event that may be difficult to reconcile with a person's ordinary expectations, may be attributed to a paranormal cause, or may invite an exceptional personal interpretation. This is a research description of a reported event, not a psychiatric classification.
Examples include a sudden sense of another person's presence despite limited sensory evidence, a vivid voice-like event while alone, a striking feeling that an event was foreseen, or an interpretation that an extraordinary coincidence has personal significance. Some reports occur during sleep transitions, grief, periods of uncertainty, intense stress, or ordinary waking life. Each requires contextual description before explanatory conclusions are drawn. The clinical status cannot be decided from the strangeness of a report.
The broader literature on nonordinary experiences also encompasses experiences of unity, transcendence, or profound meaning. Such categories appear in interdisciplinary reviews because researchers sometimes measure them together. The present article focuses on health associations and the psychology of interpreting an unusual experience. Questions about religious identity, prayer, sacred traditions, and spiritual meaning belong to the separate psychology-of-religion field; those practices should never be reduced to a psychiatric symptom on the basis of religious content Maraldi et al., 2024.
Four different questions researchers must keep apart
The first question is phenomenological: what did the person notice, feel, perceive, or remember? A careful account includes the sensory qualities, emotional tone, timing, and level of certainty. The second is causal: what processes and circumstances could account for the experience? A plausible psychological mechanism may fit without being demonstrated in that particular case.
The third question is clinical: does the person have distress, functional impairment, another relevant symptom, or a medical condition that warrants professional attention? The fourth is evidential: is a claimed event or external agent independently documented? A person's sincerity establishes the importance of listening carefully; sincerity and external verification address different evidential questions. Keeping these questions distinct protects both scientific validity and respectful care.
What Does the Overall Research Show?
The 157-study systematic review
Maraldi and colleagues screened 725 references and included 157 studies reporting empirical data in their systematic review of nonordinary experiences, well-being, and mental health. Their synthesis did not produce a simple universal association between extraordinary experience and psychiatric illness. Instead, links varied across types of experience, people, context, and the way studies measured outcomes. Appraisal—how someone makes sense of the experience—emerged as a particularly important factor Maraldi et al., 2024.
The review also emphasized serious methodological obstacles. Some scales combine experience with its assumed meaning, so a measurement can conflate having an event with interpreting it as supernatural, pathological, beneficial, or distressing. Others define unusual experience partly in terms of psychological well-being or symptoms and then correlate that score with well-being or symptoms. This creates conceptual overlap and can make associations difficult to interpret.
The authors identified a need to measure duration, controllability, daily functioning, and the wider context of an experience more carefully. Their findings support a multidimensional assessment model: researchers need to ask what happened, how often, how it was appraised, what preceded it, and what consequences followed. A review of heterogeneous research does not license a diagnosis of any particular individual Maraldi et al., 2024.
What the 2026 evidence adds
A systematic review published in May 2026 synthesized 111 studies of psychotic-like experiences and distress in nonclinical populations. The authors distinguished distress directly associated with an unusual experience from broader psychological distress and grouped correlates into experience characteristics, psychological factors, and environment or life circumstances. More frequent, intense, or persistent experiences, co-occurring depression or anxiety, difficulties regulating emotion, stress, discrimination, trauma, and substance use were among the factors associated with greater distress Rockenschaub et al., 2026.
Those findings apply specifically to psychotic-like experiences as defined by the included studies. They cannot be applied wholesale to every coincidence, superstition, felt presence, or unusual memory report. The review's synthesis is principally observational, and associations do not determine which factor caused which outcome. Some apparently protective correlates, including self-compassion and problem-focused coping, offer research directions rather than universal prescriptions.
A scientifically responsible conclusion
The best-supported broad conclusion is that extraordinary experiences and mental health have a variable, context-dependent relationship. For some people, the experience passes quickly or becomes a valued memory. For others, it generates uncertainty, fear, social conflict, preoccupation, or disruption. For a clinically important minority, an unusual perception may form part of a wider syndrome requiring assessment. The task is to determine which explanation and level of care fit the whole presentation Maraldi et al., 2024.
Are Extraordinary Experiences a Sign of Psychosis?
Psychosis describes a constellation of symptoms involving disruptions in perception, thinking, and reality testing. Hallucinations and delusions can occur in psychosis, but clinical evaluation looks at the broader pattern, persistence, associated symptoms, functioning, and potential medical or substance-related causes. A person can also experience psychosis without receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia. These distinctions are reflected in guidance from the National Institute of Mental Health.
An isolated unusual coincidence, paranormal belief, intuition, sensed presence, or vivid recollection is not a clinical diagnosis. The terminology matters: paranormal belief names an interpretation; unusual perception names an experience; psychotic-like experience is a study construct; psychotic disorder is a category requiring clinical criteria and professional evaluation. Neither a single questionnaire response nor a story told retrospectively can establish psychiatric illness.
What is a psychotic-like experience?
Psychotic-like experiences, often abbreviated PLEs, are experiences that resemble some positive symptoms of psychosis but can occur outside diagnosed disorders. Research measures them through questions about unusual perceptions or beliefs, frequently using population surveys. A systematic review and meta-analysis involving 61 cohorts reported a median prevalence estimate of 7.2% for psychotic experiences and a median annual incidence of 2.5%. These figures concern that defined construct, not all extraordinary experiences or paranormal beliefs Linscott and van Os, 2013.
A continuum in experience frequency or intensity should not be mistaken for the statement that every unusual experience is an early stage of schizophrenia. Persistence, accompanying symptoms, changes in function, and contextual risk factors are relevant, and the majority of population reports are not equivalent to clinical psychosis. The estimates also change with the wording of questions, reporting thresholds, developmental stage, and samples Linscott and van Os, 2013.
Clinical concern depends on the complete presentation
Clinical concern rises when experiences become persistent, frightening, strongly disruptive, or associated with confusion, fixed dangerous beliefs, disorganized speech or behavior, severe insomnia, impaired self-care, or major decline at school, work, or home. Such features do not prove any one diagnosis; they indicate a need for timely evaluation. The NIMH clinical overview describes changes that can accompany psychosis and discusses potential psychiatric, medical, medication-related, sleep-related, and substance-related causes.
NICE guidance recommends assessment without delay when someone has distress and declining social functioning together with transient or attenuated psychotic symptoms or other features suggesting possible psychosis. It recommends comprehensive assessment across psychiatric, medical, psychological, trauma-related, social, and cultural domains. That clinical threshold is more informative than asking whether an event simply sounded paranormal NICE guidance CG178.
Distress, Meaning, Appraisal, and the Need for Care
Appraisal is the meaning attributed to an experience. Someone who senses a presence could consider it strange but harmless, interpret it as protective, or fear an immediate threat. These interpretations can be emotionally consequential even when the sensory event is similar. Appraisal research is strongest in particular classes of experiences and needs caution when generalized across other phenomena.
The Unusual Experiences Enquiry study compared 84 people in clinical care, 92 people with persistent psychotic experiences who did not need clinical care, and 83 controls. Participants' interpretations of induced unusual experiences and interviews about persistent experiences suggested that threatening and paranoid appraisals help distinguish clinical relevance. The study was an experimental and comparative investigation; it did not prove that changing one belief alone causes or eliminates a disorder Peters et al., 2017.
A later synthesis of voice-hearing research found associations between distress and appraisals of voices as threatening, powerful, or intrusive in clinical samples. Such studies help explain why the perceived meaning and power of an experience matter, while also acknowledging other determinants of suffering. For extraordinary experiences more broadly, a comprehensive model should include emotional state, bodily sensations, stress, cultural resources, relationships, opportunity for discussion, and medical status Peters et al., 2017; Rockenschaub et al., 2026.
Distress and impairment are different dimensions
Distress refers to fear, sadness, confusion, or emotional suffering. Functional impairment concerns interference with sleep, relationships, work, learning, self-care, and daily responsibilities. One person may experience a frightening event that resolves without persistent difficulties. Another may feel little immediate fear but gradually lose sleep or withdraw from friends because of ongoing preoccupation.
Clinical assessment should ask about both dimensions and about the person's preferred explanation. It is also useful to understand controllability, recurrence, duration, whether the experience occurs exclusively during sleep transitions, and whether perceptions change with illness, medication, or substance exposure. None of these answers independently identifies a supernatural cause or a psychiatric diagnosis Maraldi et al., 2024; NICE guidance CG178.
When an experience feels meaningful or beneficial
A remarkable experience may contribute to curiosity, perspective, personal narrative, hope, or a sense of connection. These psychological outcomes can be studied without presuming an external extraordinary agent. Positive meaning should be considered in context: some experiences are empowering without being clinically relevant, while a beneficial interpretation can coexist with a sleep or medical issue requiring attention.
It is equally important not to impose a positive interpretation. A person frightened by an experience needs their fear taken seriously. Research indicates that neither reassuring language alone nor dismissive certainty substitutes for understanding the actual symptom pattern and circumstances. The most appropriate stance is supportive inquiry, careful clarification, and proportionate clinical evaluation where needed Maraldi et al., 2024.
Felt Presence, Unusual Perceptions, and the Body
A felt-presence experience is the compelling impression that another person or agent is nearby without sufficiently clear external sensory evidence. A major review in The Lancet Psychiatry described occurrences in nonclinical life, endurance situations, sleep paralysis, anxiety, psychosis, paranoia, and neurological cases. The experience varies from comforting to disturbing and from vague to sharply personified Barnby et al., 2023.
Felt presence illustrates why one label cannot predict mental-health status. Researchers study body representation, perceived agency, cognition, and sensorimotor processing to understand the phenomenon. Those are credible research approaches, yet a mechanism supported in one experimental paradigm cannot be assigned automatically to someone else's personal event. The clinical importance of felt presence depends on the surrounding history, associated features, recurrence, distress, and functioning Barnby et al., 2023.
Voices and experiences that resemble hallucinations
Hearing a voice or perceiving an image without a matching external stimulus may occur in several contexts, including medical and psychiatric conditions and nonclinical life. Descriptions vary in clarity, internal or external localization, content, perceived control, and emotional consequences. Some individuals with persistent voice-hearing experiences do not meet criteria for a psychotic disorder or require care. Clinical comparisons show why the need for care should be examined instead of inferred from the mere presence of a report Peters et al., 2017.
A detailed clinical account differentiates waking experiences from dreams and sleep transitions, perceptual disturbances from memories or intrusive thoughts, and brief anomalies from prolonged states. The presence of voice-like experiences alone cannot be used to classify the person's beliefs, character, or clinical prognosis. When such experiences are persistent or upsetting, a clinician can evaluate the broader pattern and possible causes National Institute of Mental Health.
Sleep, Fatigue, and Timing of the Experience
Some extraordinary experiences occur while falling asleep, waking, or recovering from disrupted sleep. Sleep paralysis can involve the temporary inability to move at sleep–wake transitions, sometimes accompanied by vivid perceptions or a sensed presence. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 76 observational studies across 25 countries documented wide prevalence variation and major heterogeneity; its pooled estimates should not be treated as a precise personal probability Hefnawy et al., 2024.
The timing of an event is informative. A sensation that occurs only as someone wakes has a different clinical context from recurring daytime perceptions accompanied by confusion or impaired function. Severe sleep deprivation can also contribute to psychotic symptoms. A history of sleep quantity, sleep schedule, medications, and medical conditions is therefore clinically useful NIMH, Understanding Psychosis.
The full explanation of the physiology, prevention, and management of sleep paralysis is covered by the English Hub article Sleep Paralysis: Symptoms, Hallucinations, and What Helps. This page addresses sleep phenomena specifically as differential contexts for extraordinary experiences and mental health.
Grief, Absence, and Perceived Presence
After a death, people may sense the presence of someone they have lost, hear a familiar voice, or feel that a deceased person is nearby. An interdisciplinary review of sensory and quasi-sensory experiences in bereavement concluded that most reported experiences are benign and should be understood in their biographical, relational, and sociocultural contexts. Their presence alone is not a diagnosis Kamp et al., 2020.
The relationship between these experiences, grief-related distress, and complicated clinical presentations varies. The important questions are whether a person finds the event comforting or painful, how it fits their loss, and whether they are able to continue living and functioning. Research about bereavement belongs primarily to the psychology of grief, while the present article explains why loss-related experiences should not be folded indiscriminately into an assessment of paranormality or psychosis.
Trauma, Stress, and Dissociative Experiences
Stress and traumatic experiences can be associated with changes in attention, memory, self-experience, and perception. Dissociation describes phenomena such as disruptions or alterations in the integration of awareness, memory, and identity; clinical classifications require a particular pattern of symptoms and impairment. Having an extraordinary experience is not equivalent to having a dissociative disorder.
A 2025 systematic review of 40 studies involving 6,941 participants examined developmental trauma, dissociation, and psychosis. The evidence suggested a moderate association between developmental trauma and dissociation and possible mediating pathways in some analyses. Most included evidence could not establish temporal causation, and the findings relate to populations with psychotic features rather than every unusual-event narrator Melegkovits et al., 2025.
A compassionate assessment can ask about trauma where relevant without demanding disclosure, presuming trauma explains a particular event, or encouraging speculation about hidden memories. A memory narrative is a report that deserves respectful listening; specific historical claims require independent evidence. The concepts of dissociation, trauma-related symptoms, and psychosis need their own clinical evaluations rather than an automatic label attached to an unusual experience NICE guidance CG178.
Memory, Suggestion, and Retrospective Reports
Extraordinary encounters are frequently described long after the event. Human memory is reconstructive and can be influenced by subsequent information, expectations, conversations, and leading questions. Controlled research on the misinformation effect documents ways that later misleading input can change what people report about earlier experiences Loftus, 2005.
These findings support caution when interpreting vividness and confidence as proof that all remembered details are historically accurate. They also do not justify declaring any particular person's report false. A responsible investigator separates contemporaneous notes from recollections formed later and distinguishes what was perceived from what was subsequently inferred. Clinical interviewing should avoid suggestive pressure, including efforts to retrieve alleged hidden encounters through hypnosis.
The mental-health effect of uncertainty can matter even when external verification is unavailable. Repeated questioning, social conflict, or fear of disbelief may intensify distress. Support can focus on the person's present safety, sleep, relationships, and functioning without attempting to establish disputed historical or paranormal causes Loftus, 2005; Maraldi et al., 2024.
Cultural Meaning and Respectful Clinical Assessment
The same type of perceptual event may be understood differently depending on personal background, community narratives, language, and cultural expectations. Cultural context affects the words used for an experience, its significance, whether someone shares it, and the kind of help sought. An interview study of voice-hearing among people diagnosed with schizophrenia in the United States, India, and Ghana found differences in how participants understood and related to voices; its modest and purposive samples limit generalization Luhrmann et al., 2015.
Clinical competence requires asking about a person's cultural and social frame without assuming all members of a group interpret experiences alike. NICE recommends attention to cultural and ethnic differences, explanatory models of illness, and social circumstances in the assessment of psychosis. Cultural respect belongs alongside precise evaluation of distress, impairment, sleep, medical conditions, and other symptoms NICE guidance CG178.
A sacred or devotional interpretation belongs to the person's religious life and should be discussed without evaluating the truth of a tradition. Clinical attention is directed to needs, functioning, safety, and symptoms where appropriate. Scientific inquiry into perception or memory does not confer authority to adjudicate theology. The English Hub treats the psychology of religion and spirituality as a distinct canonical subject.
Does Paranormal Belief Predict Mental Illness?
Paranormal belief is a heterogeneous category covering very different convictions, interpretations, and cultural practices. Endorsing a belief does not establish hallucination, psychosis, obsessive-compulsive disorder, dissociation, or any other diagnosis. A survey correlation between a belief score and a symptom score would not establish a causal effect, nor would a group average describe a specific person.
Studies sometimes compare intuitive reasoning, perceptual tendencies, stress, personality measures, or reports of extraordinary events among people holding different beliefs. Such studies vary in how they define belief and often use cross-sectional self-reports. The mental-health implications are especially uncertain when scales confound unusual experiences, supernatural interpretation, conviction, and distress. The systematic review by Maraldi and colleagues explicitly identifies construct overlap as a major limitation Maraldi et al., 2024.
Belief can be a framework through which someone processes an event. Whether it accompanies reassurance, anxiety, isolation, belonging, or preoccupation depends on the broader context. When a belief is linked to compulsions, intense fear, or a loss of function, clinicians evaluate those symptoms according to their own diagnostic criteria rather than treating the belief label as a diagnosis.
When Might an Experience Indicate a Medical or Neurological Issue?
Changes in perception and thought can also arise in medical or neurological conditions, medication effects, sleep deprivation, and alcohol or drug use. The NIMH includes these among possible contexts of psychotic symptoms. A relevant clinical history may include a new or escalating experience, fever, confusion, severe headache, seizures, a recent medication change, use of substances, or marked sleep disruption National Institute of Mental Health.
A qualified clinician determines whether medical examination, medication review, neurological assessment, sleep evaluation, or mental-health referral is indicated. Sudden confusion, significant disorientation, severe neurological symptoms, or a safety emergency warrants urgent medical attention rather than interpretation through a paranormal framework. The evidence supports evaluating medical causes and respecting the person's lived account simultaneously NICE guidance CG178.
For a detailed clinical discussion, the English Hub maintains a separate published article, Psychosis Due to a Medical Condition: Causes and Evaluation. The present topic remains focused on the associations between unusual experiences and mental health.
Risk Factors Are Not Diagnoses or Personal Predictions
Population research can identify groups and circumstances associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing distress or a clinical condition. It cannot diagnose a person on the basis of group membership, age, stress history, or unusual beliefs. Estimates of psychotic-like experiences differ across studies, and cross-sectional correlations cannot establish causal sequences Linscott and van Os, 2013.
The 2026 systematic review found distress associations with experience intensity and persistence, other emotional symptoms, exposure to adverse circumstances, and difficulties in coping. These are correlates, not a validated individual prediction model. Equally, the absence of distress at one point does not rule out a later need for support Rockenschaub et al., 2026.
Some studies of psychotic experiences—not all extraordinary experiences—have also found associations with later suicidal thoughts or behavior. A longitudinal systematic review and meta-analysis of ten population studies reported higher subsequent risk in people reporting psychotic experiences. The result calls for clinically appropriate assessment when there are accompanying safety concerns, not for using a strange coincidence or benign sensed presence as a proxy for suicide risk Yates et al., 2019.
How Should Researchers Measure Extraordinary Experiences and Mental Health?
Experience, explanation, and outcome must be measured separately
Sound research distinguishes the content and occurrence of an experience from the interpretation placed upon it, the degree of conviction, distress, benefit, and functional consequences. If a survey asks whether someone has encountered a supernatural being, a yes response combines the event and an external attribution. A more informative design asks what was experienced, how it was categorized, and how the category was selected. Construct overlap is among the principal limitations identified in systematic review Maraldi et al., 2024.
Better study designs and methodological safeguards
Cross-sectional studies can identify associations but are especially limited in determining whether anxiety preceded an unusual experience, followed it, or shared a third cause. Longitudinal cohorts can establish ordering, while prospective diaries and experience-sampling methods may reduce reliance on reconstructed memories. Controlled experiments can test specific expectations and perceptual mechanisms but may not reproduce the emotional and social circumstances of a rare personal event.
For interventions or causal claims, investigators should define outcomes in advance, preregister hypotheses where feasible, limit analytic flexibility, report missing data, use sufficiently powered samples, and seek independent replication. Sensitivity and specificity matter when questionnaires are used for screening, and measures should be checked across different cultural populations. A striking case report can help formulate a testable question but does not independently validate a disputed external cause. These are general methodological standards applied to the particular problems raised by unusual experiences Maraldi et al., 2024.
Evidence table: what can be concluded?
Documented reports: people describe extraordinary experiences, and researchers can analyze these reports; their psychological reality and potential consequences can be studied. Established mechanisms: memory misinformation effects and sleep-related perceptual phenomena have experimental or clinical evidence, although attribution of one person's event requires individual facts. Correlational evidence: mental-health associations, appraisals, stressors, and coping patterns vary by population and methods. Contested external claims: neither the intensity of a report nor its publication as a case establishes paranormal causation. Clinical diagnoses: require a professional assessment using established diagnostic criteria Loftus, 2005; Maraldi et al., 2024; NICE guidance CG178.
Practical Responses to an Unsettling Experience
A respectful response begins with the person's account: what happened, when, how it felt, and whether they feel safe. Ask what interpretation they give the event without forcing agreement with it. Discuss the surrounding circumstances, including sleep, illness, stress, substance exposure, recent loss, and changes in functioning. This method provides better information than ridicule, automatic reassurance, or immediate diagnostic labeling.
Someone who is calm, sleeping normally, functioning well, and describing an isolated experience may want only conversation, reliable information, or the freedom to leave the cause unresolved. Someone losing sleep, becoming preoccupied, frightened, or withdrawn may benefit from a conversation with a qualified mental-health professional. Supportive care can focus on distress and daily functioning while remaining open about an event's unresolved external origin Maraldi et al., 2024.
If a report is new, rapidly worsening, accompanied by confusion or other medical symptoms, or linked to substantial functional decline, a medical or mental-health assessment is appropriate. If the person feels compelled to act on a dangerous command, cannot maintain safety, or may imminently harm themselves or another person, emergency help is indicated. In the United States, urgent mental-health crisis support is available through 988; immediate medical emergencies require local emergency services National Institute of Mental Health.
What supportive conversations can sound like
A useful response communicates curiosity and concern: “That sounds vivid and important. Can you describe what you noticed and how it affected you?” Another possibility is, “We may not know the cause, but we can understand what you experienced and what would help you feel safe and rested.” These formulations respect the person's perspective without confirming an unverified external explanation or attributing the event to a disease.
Avoid attempts to recover supposedly repressed details, leading interviews that presuppose an abduction or external entity, and unsupervised changes to prescribed treatment. Those practices can complicate memory evidence or care. A clinician may recommend assessment or treatment based on the entire clinical picture; a psychology encyclopedia cannot individualize that decision Loftus, 2005; NICE guidance CG178.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can mentally healthy people have extraordinary experiences?
Yes. Reports of unusual sensations, voices, presence, coincidences, and other nonordinary phenomena occur across clinical and nonclinical contexts. Such a report alone does not establish a mental disorder. Researchers investigate timing, interpretation, duration, and life impact to understand its significance Maraldi et al., 2024; Barnby et al., 2023.
Does seeing a ghost or sensing someone nearby mean schizophrenia?
No diagnosis can be inferred from that description. Feeling a presence occurs in multiple clinical and nonclinical circumstances. Assessment becomes relevant if there are other concerning symptoms, repeated impairment, or medical concerns Barnby et al., 2023; NIMH.
Are extraordinary experiences more common during stress?
Some studies find associations involving stress and psychotic-like experiences, but results depend on the construct and setting. Stress should be considered as one factor among sleep, prior experiences, health, and social context, rather than imposed as the explanation of each report Rockenschaub et al., 2026.
Does a positive or comforting experience require treatment?
A positive, isolated experience without distress or impairment generally does not by itself establish a mental-health treatment need. Clinical evaluation is guided by the entire context, accompanying symptoms, and the person's actual health concerns Maraldi et al., 2024.
Can an experience be real to a person even when its cause is unknown?
Yes. The person's phenomenological experience is a valid subject for careful description and empirical study. Whether a proposed external event actually occurred is a separate evidential question. Psychological research can examine experiences and mechanisms without making unsupported declarations about a specific external agent.
What is the difference between unusual experiences and psychotic-like experiences?
Extraordinary or anomalous experiences is a broad psychological and interdisciplinary category. Psychotic-like experiences are a narrower, study-defined category of perceptions and beliefs resembling some psychosis symptoms. Population estimates and risks derived from psychotic-like experience studies cannot be transferred to the broader category without evidence Linscott and van Os, 2013.
Can a religious interpretation be evidence of a mental-health disorder?
Religious meaning or belief alone is not a mental-health diagnosis. Assessment requires attention to the person's cultural context, distress, ability to function, and clinical symptoms. Clinical standards emphasize cultural competence and avoiding misinterpretation of belief or expression NICE guidance CG178.
Can hypnosis establish whether a remembered extraordinary event occurred?
No. Hypnosis and suggestive interviewing cannot serve as independent verification of an extraordinary historical claim. Human memory is vulnerable to later misleading input, and confident recollection does not guarantee historical accuracy Loftus, 2005.
When should someone seek professional help?
Seek assessment when unusual experiences are persistent or worsening, cause major fear or sleep loss, interfere with daily life, occur with confusion or other concerning symptoms, or raise safety concerns. Urgent evaluation is appropriate for acute medical or safety emergencies NIMH; NICE guidance CG178. For additional ways to navigate distress and support, see Distressing Extraordinary Experiences: Psychological Support and When to Seek Help.
Can science determine that every extraordinary event has the same cause?
No. The reports span different sensory, cognitive, emotional, social, and medical contexts. Established mechanisms explain some classes of phenomena, and individual events can remain causally unresolved. Scientific standards require independent evidence for a proposed external cause, as well as adequate tests of alternative explanations.
Conclusion
The relationship between extraordinary experiences and mental health is best understood through careful differentiation. Experience, belief, interpretation, distress, impairment, and diagnosis are distinct variables. The highest-quality reviews show heterogeneity and identify appraisal and context as important, while calling for more reliable measures, longitudinal research, and stronger study designs. Feeling something unusual can be significant, comforting, frightening, or clinically relevant depending on the entire picture Maraldi et al., 2024; Rockenschaub et al., 2026.
An intellectually responsible and humane approach is to hear the experience accurately, evaluate causal claims according to evidence, and respond to actual needs. Where there is no distress or impairment, an extraordinary report does not demand medicalization. Where distress, safety, or functioning are affected, skilled assessment offers a pathway to support without prejudging the person's account.
Related Articles
References
Barnby, J. M., Park, S., Baxter, T., Rosen, C., Brugger, P., & Alderson-Day, B. (2023). The felt-presence experience: From cognition to the clinic. The Lancet Psychiatry, 10(5), 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00034-2
Hefnawy, M. T., Amer, B. E., Amer, S. A., et al. (2024). Prevalence and clinical characteristics of sleeping paralysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus, 16(1), e53212. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.53212
Kamp, K. S., Steffen, E. M., Alderson-Day, B., et al. (2020). Sensory and quasi-sensory experiences of the deceased in bereavement: An interdisciplinary and integrative review. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 46(6), 1367–1381. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbaa113
Linscott, R. J., & van Os, J. (2013). An updated and conservative systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological evidence on psychotic experiences in children and adults. Psychological Medicine, 43(6), 1133–1149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291712001626
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.94705
Luhrmann, T. M., Padmavati, R., Tharoor, H., & Osei, A. (2015). Differences in voice-hearing experiences of people with psychosis in the USA, India and Ghana: Interview-based study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 206(1), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.139048
Maraldi, E. O., Taves, A., Moll, J., Hartle, L., Moreira-de-Oliveira, M. E., Bortolini, T., & Fischer, R. (2024). Nonordinary experiences, well-being and mental health: A systematic review of the evidence and recommendations for future research. Journal of Religion and Health, 63(1), 410–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-023-01875-8
Melegkovits, E. A., Tang, R., Pounds, O., Ashcroft, K., Jung, P., Kennerley, H., Fonagy, P., & Bloomfield, M. (2025). The experience and role of dissociation in psychosis following developmental trauma: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 117, 102564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102564
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2014, updated). Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: Prevention and management (CG178). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg178/chapter/recommendations
National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Understanding psychosis. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/understanding-psychosis
Peters, E., Ward, T., Jackson, M., Woodruff, P., Morgan, C., McGuire, P., & Garety, P. A. (2017). Clinical relevance of appraisals of persistent psychotic experiences in people with and without a need for care: An experimental study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 4(12), 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30409-1
Rockenschaub, J., Renner, A., Friedrich, F., et al. (2026). Unravelling distress in psychotic-like experiences: A systematic review of non-clinical populations. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 20(5), e70175. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.70175
Yates, K., Lång, U., Cederlöf, M., Boland, F., Taylor, P., Cannon, M., McNicholas, F., DeVylder, J., & Kelleher, I. (2019). Association of psychotic experiences with subsequent risk of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide deaths: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal population studies. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3514