Bridging the Abyss: Reclaiming Spirituality in Academic Knowledge Production

Abstract

Over recent decades, Western academia has shown a growing interest in spirituality, accompanied by methodological innovations and epistemological expansion. Nevertheless, spiritual inquiry continues to be subtly subordinated to scientific rationalism, with Western science often presiding as gatekeeper over what is considered legitimate knowledge. Drawing on Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ concept of abyssal thinking, this article argues that spiritual and experiential forms of knowing remain largely relegated to the far side of an epistemic divide, valued only insofar as they can be reframed within scientific norms. Despite increasing institutional recognition of spirituality in fields such as education, psychology, and medicine, these validations frequently rely on criteria set by the dominant paradigm, thereby reinforcing the hegemony they purport to challenge.

To explore the possibility of a more equitable dialogue between science and spirituality, this article looks at the life and work of Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925), whose spiritual science (Geisteswissenschaft) offers an early example of first-person inquiry grounded in rigorous cognitive training. Steiner’s anthroposophy represents an integrated onto-epistemology that seeks to bridge the Cartesian divide by cultivating enhanced faculties of perception through disciplined practice. I examine how Steiner’s contributions have been, in part, validated in educational and agricultural contexts, while also noting the discursive vacuum around his spiritual methodologies.

Ultimately, the article calls for a reconceptualisation of research into spirituality, one in which inner experience is not merely documented by others but is recognised as a valuable site of knowledge production. It suggests that meaningful convergence between science and spirituality will require researchers who are also spiritual practitioners, and spiritual practitioners with a grounding in research practices, inhabiting both epistemic domains with rigour and integrity. Only then might we move beyond the entrenched schism between soul and science, one born of Western rationalism’s claim to epistemic supremacy, and begin to imagine-–and practise-–a more inclusive and integrative vision of knowledge.