The Mindfulness Myth

There are significant changes underway in how science evaluates Western forms of mindfulness. As a mindtraining practitioner, I am often asked if mindfulness is a form of mindtraining. The truth is yes and no. Traditional forms of mindfulness that place the needs of the meditator at the centre of the practice are likely to be consistent with the goals of mindtraining. Practices designed primarily to support the agenda of entrepreneurs, corporations, the military, and governments are unlikely to prioritise the needs of the individual. To add some much-needed clarity to concerns about the changing reception of mindfulness in society, I’ve summarised the current situation in this short article. If you have any thoughts or concerns, please submit a comment below or email us.

Many scientists and clinicians place Western forms of mindfulness in the ‘mindtraining’ category, which is, and always has been, totally incorrect. The mindfulness used clinically in the West is generally dualistic, lacking compassion and intention, three essential characteristics present in Buddhist mindfulness. Critics argue that mindfulness has been co-opted in the West to deliver low-cost health treatments, enabling people to continue producing and consuming even when under unreasonable pressure. In contrast, traditional forms of meditation are designed to benefit the practitioner rather than any institution or business. Similarly, mindtraining is a holistic approach that prioritises people over commercial or public policy concerns.  

Until recently, mindfulness, once hailed as a panacea for almost every form of psychological suffering, was a clinical, scientific and cultural mainstay—from NHS clinics to corporate boardrooms, from classrooms to smartphone apps. But as its popularity has soared, so too has a wave of critical scrutiny. And perhaps for the first time since its creation in the 1970s, Western mindfulness appears to be in a vulnerable position.

Several authoritative studies over the last decade have challenged many of the presumptions on which mindfulness has been built. For example, that it is in some way linked to Buddhist forms of meditation or it doesn’t create unwanted adverse effects or that it has (in any form) been scientifically validated. These criticisms contrast with tens of thousands of optimistic scientific studies published over the last 45 years (costing billions of pounds/dollars/euros). Westernised mindfulness has shown promise, but very few studies have produced replicated evidence that the practice can generate positive effects significantly greater than those of a placebo.

The lack of real progress made in evidencing the claims of mindfulness’s potential after 2014 led to significant concerns among a small but growing number of scientists. However, advocates for mindfulness working in social policy and the business community have continued to push the ‘mindfulness myth’. Several authoritative scientific studies published after 2015 confirmed that mindfulness, when subject to rigorous scientific investigation, rarely makes a significant difference to mental health. For example, one of the biggest mindfulness studies ever undertaken, published results in 2012, reported that mindfulness in schools does not improve mental health. An article in The Guardian described the findings:

The research was based on a cluster of five studies, carried out over eight years by about 100 researchers working with 28,000 teenagers and 650 teachers in 100 schools. It typically involved teachers learning mindfulness themselves, followed by training in how to deliver it to their students in 10 lessons of 30-50 minutes.

Until recently, mindfulness, once hailed as a panacea for almost every form of psychological suffering, was a clinical, scientific and cultural mainstay—from NHS clinics to corporate boardrooms, from classrooms to smartphone apps. But as its popularity has soared, so too has a wave of critical scrutiny. And perhaps for the first time since its creation in the 1970s, Western mindfulness appears to be in a vulnerable position.

One of the problems with the changing status of mindfulness is that scientists working in psychology often hesitate to highlight research where well-funded experiments fail to make meaningful progress. The first (and, to our knowledge, the only) complete explanation of how mindfulness was created and developed is my thesis, The Scientific History of Mindfulness: 1938 to 2020.This account provides a comprehensive historical and scientific examination of how mindfulness evolved from Buddhist monasteries to biomedical laboratories—and what may have been gained and lost in that translation. The research describes how Western Science created a meditation product based on the needs of governments and big business, and in doing so, lost much of the curative potential of traditional mindfulness meditation.

The key lesson to take away from the history of medicalised mindfulness is that if the primary purpose of any mindtraining method is not the benefit to those using the techniques, then the results of the training for practitioners will reflect this.