There exists a kind of spirituality here in California which I've discussed quite a bit in passing or in minor call-outs: I call it New Age, but it's really a kind of repackaging of New Age spirituality which was in itself a repackaging of a lot of disparate cultural practices from around the world. New Age spirituality in particular and most of its offshoots draw a lot from the idea[1] of Indigenous North & South American "shamanism" as well as Eastern practices like yoga and some aspects of Buddhism. It's canonical in affluent LA and Bay Area circles, which means that Joshua Tree's tourism caters to it intensively, and generally it ties in pretty heavily with what I've seen called "wellness culture", which almost certainly was born here in California but has since spread nearly everywhere thanks to social media. It couches much of its ideology in "connection with one's body", in "getting back to nature", and in "healing" and yet it is obsessed with what it calls the "positive" aspect of all of these things, where healing is really more about choosing the right mindset than actually healing, and physical wellness is tightly coupled both with socioeconomic status and access as well as ignoring illness and injury to an almost pathological degree.

In other words, this spiritual framework that proclaims "connection" is actually encapsulating extremely severe disconnection from legitimate bodily experiences, from the failings of social structure, from the cultures it steals from, from the nature it claims to be "returning" to. Despite it's "everything is communal, everyone shares" bent, it also seems to uphold rigorous individualism with it's "everything is just a choice" ideology despite that it would not accept that this is actually a core tenet of itself. And notwithstanding its recreation of a lot of the potentially harmful aspects of fundamentalist Christianity[2], and notwithstanding its connection to a lot of potentially abusive practices in terms of child-rearing[3], it's extremely harmful in many circumstances because of this forced disconnection playing as deep connection. This concept of disconnection parading as connection, usually in the form of the outright refusal of emotions and experiences deemed to be undesirable, is known as spiritual bypassing.

Spiritual bypassing is difficult to navigate, and it isn't only this kind of quasi-New Age wellness culture that's guilty of pretending that if we just bypass the "negative" in our lives it goes away, but it does potentially typify this idea most clearly. This idea actually goes back to something called the Kybalion, and potentially earlier though I've yet to find concrete sources that use the same kind of obvious "power of positive thinking" language as the Kybalion does. The Kybalion is a text that claims to be sharing Hermetic knowledge, and in a way it is theoretically (if we're to trust the generations of translators, editors, annotators, and so on that have distributed this knowledge through the ages) based off of the Emerald Tablet. However, even the editors of the edition of the Kybalion that we have will admit that they're couching supposedly Hermetic doctrine – which in turn supposedly is a part of the key throughline of Western esotericism – in the language of early 20th century sophism and physics. These threads wove into the zeitgeist of that era, and therefore The Kybalion popularized a specific thread of esoteric concepts quite effectievely when it was published. The Kybalion is lauded as the inspiration to the early 2000's sensation book/movie The Secret, and if you read it you realize what a rip-off The Secret actually was. What it dictates is, to be a bit reductionist, that if you think positively positive things will happen. But this actually takes some untangling because that statement in and of itself is not in any real opposition to some of the underlying theory behind magical practice, be it witchcraft or Western ceremonial magick.

Under the Bypass or Bypassing the Overpass: Disentangling Language

One of the reasons that spiritual bypassing is such an effective form of gaslighting is because the underlying idea: that if we can control the way we think and what we project, we can alter what comes to us is ultimately the same as the idea that underlies a lot of very real spiritual practice. Well, it's not the same. But it sounds the same to a lot of folks, or it potentially is the same in some contexts even, but it's really easy to go deep into the ideology of certain New Ageisms or other "alternative spirituality" type movements and all the while think that this is the doctrine, well beyond your initial inquiries into the practices, because it's an ideology that's extremely self-reinforcing.

First: disentangling polarity

There is a critical distinction between saying that we must think positive to get positive and saying that we must learn to manage our psyche in a way where when we tug at cosmic threads we understand what's connected on either side. One asserts that there is something that is squarely positive and that what we are seeking is positive. The other is a plain assertion about evaluating relationality before we act on any level.

Western esotericism, of which the New Age or quasi-New Age category of spirituality derives from in part, utilizes polarity a lot in its language. Going back to the Kabbalah, which is yet another root of a lot of Western esoteric study, we see that the Tree of Life itself is divided into three columns: Chokmah and Binah, Mercy and Severity in aspect, sometimes Masculine and Feminine in aspect, and then the central column which contains the sephiroth that in some aspect balance upon or reconcile both. Kether, the crown, and Malkuth, the world are a part of this central column. As was discussed in On Gods, the Kabbalah is a framework for dialogue with forces, not necessarily a strict representation of what Is actually. When we see a lot of Western esotericism start to go off the rails, then, with these polarities and their associations with herbs, crystals, metals, colors, and so on, we forget that all of these associations were contrived initially as useful representations for meditation and certain kinds of magickal practice. The adepts of the tradition understood this, but it's seemingly commonly misunderstood as we pull old traditions into modern interpretation and praxis.

So it is with the idea of the "negative" and the "positive" that reverberates through much of New Age and similar spiritual frameworks – and their pragmatic, sterilized offshoots in the self-help and hyper-productivity worlds. Whilst using the terms "negative" and "positive" or "active" and "passive" can be useful in a kind of descriptive sense sometimes, overindexing on a perceived legitimate polarity is often detrimental, especially when we deem everything distasteful or unpleasant "negative" and to be strictly avoided and not even thought about, and everything pleasing to us "positive" and to be intensively sought.

It's no wonder that these frameworks have turned spirituality into such an industry: this kind of belief system is extremely sympathetic not only to the rugged individualism of American capitalism, but to shifting spiritual practice into something you seek and buy rather than seek within or truly alongside community members.

But I digress a bit. The point of this section is mostly just to name that there really is no true negative or true positive. These things are not objective. We comprehend in art, for instance, what negative space is: something un-filled. We comprehend that that space is necessary for a composition to make sense, to be, but it is not necessarily "good" or "bad". For instance, we do not strive to create maximum negative space, because that would defeat the very definition of what negative space actually is. Nor do we strive to create positive space only, because again, that would defeat the entire point of composition. And yet, when we evaluate our emotions, that which we deem "negative" is simply that which is unpleasant in the moment, and it is easy to think then that it would make sense to avoid the unpleasant feeling as opposed to understanding that there is a rich composition of life in balance through all things. We've lost not only the meaning of the word, but its purpose-as-relational-descriptor.

Second: disentangling intent

I knew a woman (well, know, I guess, she still lives just a few miles from me even though we don't speak) here who initially seemed really resonant with us, and we used to do playdates with our kids when my oldest was my only and was a bit younger. She initially portrayed a strong interest in ecological sustainability, community responsibility, and so on, and so we tried to be friends and it initially seemed like a promising relationship. But I remember very clearly there was a specific instance where she solicited information about my day "what have you been up to" or "how was your day" or something along those lines, and I started to share with her a really intense dispute we'd just had with our neighbors. It wasn't like she responded with "oh well look at the bright side" or "maybe we could reframe this", she literally ignored me. Like, turned her head and looked away ignored me.

It didn't take long before I realized that this wasn't a one-off, or a simple case of her not knowing how to set the boundary of "I can't receive this right now", but an intense pattern. As time went on, it became evident that this pattern manifested itself in more ways than just an abhorrence for anything that came across as complaining, and as it revealed itself to be actively dangerous we left the group.

So what's the point of me saying this? There are a few things here that are worth unpacking. First, spiritual bypassing takes form as an excellent form of social control. For instance, as the mom group run by this woman has taken shape and spread through our community, it becomes clear that this emphasis on "positivity" is one way members of this group are silenced. One mother told me her child almost drowned at a social function and that the women around completely ignored the incident and accused her of being malicious when she tried to address it, leading to the mother whose child was nearly killed to exit the group and lose a critical portion of her local social support. While examples are not always so severe, it's extremely difficult to see the dynamics of the local spiritual tourism scene and of the groups that organize around it without evaluating how there tends to emerge one charismatic leader figure and a lot of named subordinates who are vying to keep their place in the group through ensuring they never create conflict – because it's not that productive conflict resolution is central, but that conflict is not permitted at all, be it between members of the group or members of the group and those outside of the group. This creates not just the opportunity for exploitation or abuse, but quite often exploitation and abuse in actuality.

Second, whether the ideological inconsistencies behind spiritual bypassing are reflected inwards or into a community, spiritual bypassing is antithetical to real spiritual work or real healing. Physical wellness does not occur because we pretend that illness does not. Psychological wellness does not occur because we simply refuse to acknowledge the negative. And community well-being is impossible when we silence and refuse to hold space for the genuine experiences of others – be they "bad vibes" or not.

Living in the dark

There is another extreme that functions as spiritual bypassing but which is far less common, though I think given the kind of trendy hypergoth aesthetic it warrants a brief mention before we bring all of these considerations together again. I don't know exactly what to call it, except for potentially an obsession with shadow, or living in the darkness, and it's kind of what it sounds like: there is a way to get so into the unpleasant experiences of life that one becomes a kind of endless drain, pulling in experience and vanishing it into lamentation. There are variations upon variations of this: obsession with suffering that turns into some kind of projections of cruelty onto others or oneself, a kind of over-validation of difficult experiences where one becomes obsessed with suffering in an almost fetishized way, and so on. This is less commonly discussed when bringing up spiritual bypassing, because it is less common generally, or at least less noticeable, but it also does the work of disconnecting us from critical parts of the whole we should be seeking to balance or reconcile rather than deny.

There is potential for the kind of hegemonic cultural enforcement of the "love and light" spiritual bypassing to be reflected inversely in the "doom and dark" aspect where good news or someone doing well or someone actually starting to heal themselves makes other members of the social scene spiral and therefore these things are not allowed. However, contrary to the "love and light" flavor of spiritual bypassing, the shadow obsession doesn't fit as cleanly into mainstream culture in the way that the former fits into it and the profitable self-help industry, and so my hunch is that the groups that experience this kind of "dark" spiritual bypassing tend to be relatively small, very niche, and generally a bit insulated from spreading outwards as a result. In a way this makes this aspect of the spiritual bypassing conversation less concerning, except this is extremely relevant to a lot of folks embedded in online cultures particularly where news is central – you may have seen people reference behavior patterns they call "doomerism" and such, which I think is indicative that there are various degrees of this kind of alternative spiritual bypassing aspect that we are all perhaps guilty of (in the sense of "I cannot heal because others are suffering" or things like that).

So, what now?

One of the key things I'd like to be cautious of as I cultivate this discussion on spiritual bypassing is that I don't indicate somehow that we should necessarily throw out the idea that our thoughts have some bearing on what becomes reality. There most definitely seems to be some truth to the idea that if we shift towards gratitude, embody love towards all living beings, and avoid living in a suffer space even when difficult things happen to us, we generally feel like life is easier. But this isn't the same thing as ignoring or pretending or enforcing away the difficult experiences, and it must be said that truly embodying love towards all living things will also result in increased sensitivity to their suffering and to instances of what feels like injustice. Ultimately, I think there is more wisdom in withholding judgement against our experiences initially, but validating the way they make us feel, and allowing our bodies to do the work of processing experience than trying to make any more specific claim about what it looks like to find "balance" between the "positive" and the "negative".

Because there really just isn't balance, sometimes. Perhaps broadly there is, in a big picture sense, but from within our bodies sometimes we don't feel it. Sometimes there must be a season of trials that push us to our psychological breaking point, and sometimes there will be seasons where it's easy to say "let's just all be positive and grateful" because there are so many things we're grateful for. Sometimes both happen at once, and there really is some degree of choice in how we orient to the experience.

However, there's another aspect to this: we need to ensure we're not only putting the onus on ourselves to psychologically navigate experience. Sometimes externalizing experience and seeking support are the wiser things to do than attempting to go it alone and force yourself into whatever you think the "perfect" mindset and reaction is in that moment. Beating ourselves into a framework of "what I think is what I am and therefore my reactions must be perfect and level and balanced" is absolutely not the way, partially because that just sounds impossible and perhaps primarily because it's way to easy to pull ourselves into endless loops of our own thoughts and analysis and literally never find "perfect, level and balanced", but think we're striving towards it somehow all the while. Taking this up to the structural level: we should remain critical of the structures within which we live, and feel our power as magical beings while being capable of understanding where we are perhaps incapable of making immediate, direct change in the moment. Much of this spiritual bypassing behavior tends to read to me like the Christian "turn the other cheek, because it all gets worked out in Heaven or Hell" kind of deal. The doctrine claims that if only you're all good vibes, no matter what else is going on in the world, that's all that matters. After all, it says, you can't really do anything anyway, so why bother? Focus on you and your positivity. What a convenient doctrine, then, for castrating the power that rooted spiritual practice brings to a community.

Magic is as much about action as it is reaction, and when we emphasize reaction over action we lose a critical part of what witchcraft or a practice rooted in other traditions really aim to teach us. Yes, all is reflection, that's true. As within, so without, and vice versa. A hall of mirrors, all the way down, matter is force at all different levels. But how are we to force what is within into such a synthetic shape, when what is without is not so? Perhaps we must sit with all of the things and read their purpose, rather than deny them or fetishize them outright.

---

Thank you for reading. This is much longer than I originally planned, but still shorter than some of my other releases, but I hope that it lands well. I'm still planning on getting back around to Kanna, but I'm not on a strict timetable for it because I feel like there are so many other less niche and more valuable things I'd like to write about.

I appreciate you, and until next time ~

---

Notes

1. I say they drew from the idea of Indigenous practices and not the practices themselves because while a few kind of particularly charismatic component figures in these alternative spirituality movements have genuiinely attempted to embed themselves in the cultures they pull from (living in India for a while, living with Native Americans, etc) I think that there's not really a way for folks with literally no context to authentically recreate a culture's sacred practices and pretend like it's much more than performance. This isn't to say that there wasn't a kind of real, genuine attempt at using this inspiration to form something real and more accessible for folks outside of these cutlures, but that those attempts inevitably failed and have continued to fail and make a relative mockery to different degrees of the cultures they've pulled from.
2. I don't get into this too much in this article, but ultimately I see a lot of these circles in particular fetishize motherhood, but particularly pregnancy and having babies (because toddlers are much harder to project the "perfect divine mother" thing onto), with an emphasis and enforcement of things like going unmedicated, using midwives, having babies at home, not vaccinating -- and while any of these choices could be valid for people in a different cultural context for myriad reasons that get quite complicated, the kind of subtext with these (usually) white, very affluent people is "motherhood how God intended". There's a rewriting of the "woman's" role, couched in the language of the "maiden, the mother and the crone", and "the goddess" or the "divine feminine" which, again, all of these terms could be useful descriptors on their own, but they're being utilized in a specific way in the specific subculture I'm defining here. There are other things, too, with "trusting the Universe" and suffering being kind of an unavoidable part of "the plan" lining up nicely with "trust God's plan" and "put it in His hands", and I think it would take an entire essay to disentangle under what circumstances some of these phrases could be used as part of a genuinely non-Christian practice and when they're a thin veil over a kind of fundamentalism that's almost impossible to decouple from affluent circles, even in it's "new age" form.
3. In particular, because this spirituality overlaps with ideological anti-vaxxing (as opposed to anti-vaxxing as a choice made by folks who have real reason to take issue or be terrified of the medical industrial complex -- neither of which I'm making a moral statement on here) and a general disdain for engaging with the "negative" aspects of reality, I've seen this manifest in children with real injuries not get the care they need because of "trusting the process" or whatever. There's more, but I don't really think getting into deeply triggering topics in a note is the correct place.