The holidays have a way of drawing even the most secular people toward houses of worship. So whether religion is part of your everyday life or Christmas Eve is the last time anyone will spot you near an altar until Easter, it’s likely you’ll encounter someone undergoing a spiritual experience in the coming days. Ask someone what it’s like to “feel the spirit,” and they’ll probably describe it as mysterious, even unknowable. Yet, thanks to new research, neuroscientists can tell us exactly what’s happening in the brain at that moment.


According to recent findings published in Social Neuroscience as part of an ongoing study called the Religious Brain Project, researchers have found evidence that when a brain is “on God,” its reward circuits are activated—just as they are when listening to music, having sex, getting high, or falling in love.

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]I have had spiritual experiences where I think they must be like getting high, but without the hangover.[/quote]

Michael Ferguson, a postdoctoral associate in the department of Human Development at Cornell University who does not practice any religion, served as the lead researcher for the study, which he says he undertook in an attempt “to understand the nature of the exquisitely powerful experiences” of the Mormon faith of his upbringing. Together with colleagues at the University of Utah, Ferguson drew on the large Mormon population in the area to initiate the first leg of this multireligion project, inviting 17 practicing Mormon participants to engage in religious activities typical of Mormon worship while inside a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner.

These activities included quiet personal prayer, reading scripture from The Book of Mormon, and watching videos of religious leaders preaching. Participants were asked to report when they were—as noted above—feeling the spirit. “We used the cultural lexicon rather than trying to generate some type of awkward scientific language for the questions,” Ferguson says.

To Ferguson’s delight, when participants reported religious connection, their brain’s “dopaminergic reward circuitry” lit up—the same part activated by drugs or gambling. The structure is known as the nucleus accumbens, connected to the medial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with focused attention. These results might explain why people’s experiences of religious or spiritual experience often seem to have an element of ecstasy or euphoria, one akin to more illicit behaviors.

Lissa Provost, a Pentecostal Christian from California who has never had a drink or taken drugs, says she was once pulled over for drunk driving after a church service. “There have been times when I have had spiritual experiences where I think they must be like getting high, but without the hangover.”

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]Religious or spiritual connectedness could offer protective benefits against depression.[/quote]

The Utah study did reveal some slight differences in the way the reward system lights up during religious experience that differs from drugs, however. “This wasn’t just a release of dopamine,” Ferguson clarifies. “We saw high levels of thought and abstract engagement from prefrontal regions, which we think are probably amplifying the phenomenal components of this religious experience.”

In other words, a drug experience will activate the nucleus accumbens independent of other brain regions, whereas a religious experience brings about a “coordination of regions.” While Ferguson says that a case can be made that religious experience is “habit-forming,” much like drugs or alcohol, he makes clear that “to just immediately dismiss all habit-forming behavior as vice and unhealthy is unwarranted.”

For Boston writer Britni de la Cretaz, who primarily considered herself an atheist and “a nonpracticing Jew” until she got sober, “a spiritual experience and connection with a higher power” wasn’t just a healthier habit. It was the thing that stopped her from drinking and doing drugs, she says.

“When I was an atheist, I fancied myself too smart to believe in God,” she says. Yet it was through the spiritual component of the Twelve Step recovery program, Alcoholics Anonymous, that de la Cretaz connected with a higher power and finally became sober. “I’ve been sober five years, and I credit that to forces greater than me because everything in my power I’d ever tried up until I tried believing in God hadn’t worked,” she says.

Jameelah Obadiah Schmidt, who was raised in an Islamic family, had a memorable religious moment of ecstasy in “a dream of the world ending in fire.” She says that Islam teaches that “for those who have properly prepared for and executed the five daily prayers on the Day of Judgment, there would be a glow about you.” After that dream, she says, “I never saw the world the same again. Every color was brighter, every laugh more joyful, every hug more warm and meaningful than before.”

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]To just immediately dismiss all habit-forming behavior as vice or unhealthy is unwarranted.[/quote]

Even those with spiritual practices that don’t use “God” in their language, like Amy Elizabeth Robinson, a practicing Zen Buddhist, says she has felt “held by something larger than myself, larger than the apparent objective universe” as a result of her regular meditation practice.

Excited by his early results, Ferguson aims to look deeper into the “genetic, biological aspects of the dopaminergic system,” recruited in the religious experiences of his participants. “I’m very interested to understand why one person is just not susceptible to belief and they maintain states of disbelief and doubt, whereas other individuals seem to be very susceptible to speculative ideas or supernatural ideas.” He wonders if this might be linked to differences in “dopamine physiological variations.”

The idea that one’s propensity for religious experience might be rooted in biology brings some relief to Rebecca Chamaa, who attends a Lutheran Christian Church and who has schizophrenia, a brain disorder that can lead to psychosis. “Considering that there is always someone waiting to tell me I am demon-possessed—which I find cruel beyond measure—I find this oddly comforting,” she says.

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]After a religious dream, I never saw the world the same again. Every color was brighter, every laugh more joyful, every hug more warm and meaningful than before.[/quote]

Chamaa, who feels closest to God when she is “contemplating or witnessing in action the teachings of Christ,” has had her most intense connections with God during her numerous psychotic episodes, and misses those conversations when they end.

“It does seem like a reasonable hypothesis that religious or spiritual connectedness could offer protective benefits against depression or feeling hopelessness, but we would need to do follow-up studies,” says Ferguson. Next up, he will work to deepen science’s understanding of religious ecstasy and euphoria by studying Catholic and Muslim populations—revealing unexplored realities about the social function of religious and spiritual experiences, grounded in biology.

  • A pet‑friendly homeless shelter pilot reduced the rate of homelessness among the people it helped in California
    Photo credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images A homeless woman in Los Angeles holds her dog after a free veterinary visit in 2024.
    ,

    A pet‑friendly homeless shelter pilot reduced the rate of homelessness among the people it helped in California

    A California program suggests pets can play a bigger role in helping people find stability.

    When homeless shelters allow people to stay with their dogs and other pets, more unhoused people become more willing to stay in a shelter.

    That’s what my team at the University of Southern California’s Homelessness Policy Research Institute learned when we evaluated California’s Pet Assistance and Support Program.

    California’s Department of Housing and Community Development established this pilot program in 2019. Its goals were straightforward: to make homeless shelters more accommodating to people with pets – mostly dogs – so that people living on the streets don’t have to choose between staying in shelters or abandoning their pets.

    The program disbursed US$15.75 million between 2020 and 2024 to 37 organizations across the state. The funding allowed shelters to build kennels or other pet-friendly spaces, provide pet food and supplies, and offer basic veterinary care. It also covered the costs of staffing and maintaining insurance required to operate pet-friendly shelters.

    Evaluating the program

    We did this evaluation in collaboration with My Dog Is My Home, a nonprofit that supports pet-inclusive housing and services for the homeless, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

    By all accounts, the program was a success.

    We found that the program helped 4,407 people experiencing homelessness keep their pets while getting support. Many were able to enter shelters, and their animals received needed veterinary care. A total of 886 people ultimately moved into permanent housing with their pets – a higher success rate than the statewide average for homeless people in California.

    Theoretically, this funding should have reduced the number of pet owners living on the streets. Yet since 2019, the year the program began, the number of homeless people in Los Angeles with dogs and other pets has increased.

    A homeless man walks a dog toward a group of tents lining a sidewalk.
    A homeless man walks a dog toward a group of tents lining a Los Angeles sidewalk in 2026. Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images

    I’ve seen this change firsthand.

    Since 2017, I’ve led the USC research team that produces the annual homeless count estimates for Los Angeles. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires this exercise for any city seeking federal funding for homelessness services.

    One of the questions my team asks when interviewing thousands of homeless people each year is whether they have any pets.

    Before the pandemic, we generally found that roughly 1 in 8 people did. We also found that nearly half of homeless pet owners had been turned away from a homeless shelter because it couldn’t accommodate their animal.

    Despite programs like California’s Pet Assistance and Support program, my research team has found that the share of people living on the streets of Los Angeles who say they have a pet increased to roughly 1 in 5 by 2025.

    Need for more pet-friendly programs

    We still don’t know why the share of homeless people with pets has gotten so much larger.

    It could be that rising housing costs, which is the main driver of homelessness, is pushing more pet owners into homelessness. Or, perhaps more homeless are adopting pets to deal with their social isolation and loneliness, two common conditions for people with nowhere to go.

    An apartment building with a rectangular green space is shown.
    The Weingart Tower, where some of Los Angeles’ formerly homeless people reside and receive social services, has a small dog park. Grace Hie Yoon/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Either way, proposed cuts by the federal government to affordable housing and homeless services will only make matters worse.

    The number of homeless people in Los Angeles has fallen by more than 4% since 2023 to just over 72,000 people in 2025. But based on my research findings, I would expect the number of people living on the city’s streets – with and without pets – to rise over time unless more affordable housing becomes available.

    And growth in the homeless population may be hard to avoid without more efforts like California’s Pet Assistance and Support Program – on a larger scale than the pilot we studied.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • ‘Eternal Loop’ question asks how you’d spend eternity if you could only do one thing over and over
    Photo credit: Canva(Left) Woman enjoys a beautiful sunset and (Right) a woman looks in the mirror.

    What if you were stuck in a time loop of doing the same thing over and over again for eternity? What would you want that thing you’re doing to be? This idea was posed by @jaredraygilmore on his Instagram. Jared Ray Gilmore suggests this question is a quick and easy way to get to know a person on a date, in work relationships, and even with friends.

    He believes the answer provides a lot of information about both a person’s value system and the things they don’t like. As thousands of people shared their responses, what flooded back suggests a seemingly harmless question quickly shifts once you actually imagine living it.

    Frederick Nietzsche’s philosophical thought experiment

    The premise offered by Gilmore holds deep and powerful roots in historical philosophy. Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th-century German philosopher who shared profound critiques about morality, individualism, God, and conventional values.

    In his book The Gay Science, Nietzsche proposed the idea that a person’s entire life could repeat infinitely, playing out the same way each time. This thought experiment, called “eternal recurrence,” he considered a metaphysical fact and one of his most important philosophical discoveries.

    eternal recurrence, Frederick Nietzsche, infinity, thought experiment, metaphysical
    A repetition of self.
    Photo credit Canva

    People ponder positive memories versus living an undeniable nightmare

    As people began to share their own thoughts about Gilmore’s proposed topic, many comments reflected pleasant nostalgia and appreciation for life’s simple loves.

    “First thing that came to mind was having breakfast with my husband in our breakfast nook, the side window open for the cat, and the dog resting at our feet.”

    “Garden, I’d be in the garden. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, repeat.”

    “Going to the beach and enjoying the waves, laughing with my fiance and friends”

    “Have deep conversation with people that are making groundbreaking advancement in their field of passion.”

    Yet, others rejected the premise immediately and found the whole idea somewhat horrifying.

    “Whatever you’re choosing, even if that’s THE thing you’re absolutely fan of, is gonna be an absolute nightmare to do at one point.”

    “pushing a rock up a hill”

    “I’m legitimately at a loss for what would be my ideal loop because everything that comes to mind scares me a bit.”

    “This would be just hell to me as a person with ADHD. I love my hobbies but I could never do one on a loop for eternity.”

    daily routines, variation, predictable patterns, lack of meaning
    Daily routines.
    Photo credit Canva

    The paradox of routine vs variation

    People rely heavily on routines because they offer stability. A 2025 study in Springer Nature Link found that individuals use routines to gain more than pleasure. The small sense of control over their lives creates a comforting predictability for what to expect during the course of a day. Repetitive behavior reduces cognitive workload.

    A 2024 article in WebMD revealed that routines create structure, reduce stress, and improve mood. A lack of routine generates more behavioral and emotional difficulties. Giving the brain predictable patterns reduces fatigue from daily decision-making.

    However, people find the idea of living even a perfect day over and over, difficult. A 2025 study in Sage Journals showed that repeating the same day yields feelings of boredom and a lack of meaning. An eternal loop doesn’t feel infinite. A repeated experience will eventually collapse into a dull distortion of time.

    self-reflection, life significance, therapy, self identification
    Self-reflection.
    Photo credit Canva

    The value of thought experiments like the “eternal loop”

    Hypothetical questions can be interesting to explore. Especially when they’re big, existential questions about life and the universe. A 2025 study in Frontiers showed people like to think about meaning in life and feeling influential. However, it was difficult to measure whether a person felt their life was actually significant.

    A 2024 study in the National Library of Medicine found existential questions about life, purpose, and death are considered important. This was consistent whether people found them uncomfortable or helpful.

    Gilmore’s “eternal loop” question rapidly split responses. While some imagined it comforting, others found it unsettling. Science demonstrates that routines are beneficial, but people adapt quickly to repeated experiences. Something that feels great at first can eventually lose its meaning. At the same time, studies show that existential questions like this can help people identify what matters most to them.

  • Controversy over Reese’s ingredients reveals standard food industry practices most consumers never notice
    Photo credit: Garrett Aitken/iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images A ‘triangle test’ involves mixing up two of the original products with one of the new reformulation – or vice versa – to see whether taste testers notice the difference.

    Controversy over Reese’s ingredients reveals standard food industry practices most consumers never notice

    A family fight over Reese’s ingredients reveals how often food companies quietly change recipes.

    Springtime in Pennsylvania is peanut butter egg season. This year some consumers may taste the eggs a bit more critically and scrutinize the ingredients and label more carefully.

    Reese’s, a Hershey brand, is known for combining chocolate and peanut butter in delicious and iconic ways. Reese’s products come in a variety of formats, called “line extensions.” These include everything from peanut butter chips for baking and chocolate peanut butter popcorn for snacking to limited-time offers for holidays – such as the popular Reese’s Peanut Butter Eggs for Easter.

    On Feb. 14, 2026, Brad Reese, grandson of the founder, issued an open letter criticizing the Hershey Company for introducing line extensions – in this case, mini hearts for Valentine’s Day, with the flavors familiar to Reese’s lovers but made with cheaper ingredients, such as “chocolate candy” and “peanut butter creme.”

    Ingredients like these seem similar but do not meet the FDA standards of identity for milk chocolate and peanut butter, the key components of the original Reese’s cups. For example, the FDA standard for milk chocolate requires at least 10% chocolate liquor.

    Hershey responded in a statement: “As we’ve grown and expanded the Reese’s product line, we make product recipe adjustments that allow us to make new shapes, sizes and innovations that Reese’s fans have come to love and ask for, while always protecting the essence of what makes Reese’s unique and special: the perfect combination of chocolate and peanut butter.”

    I am a certified research chef and food and hospitality professor in Philadelphia, where I founded the Drexel Food Lab, a culinary innovation and food product development lab. I am also a huge fan of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. When my older daughter was a toddler, learning her colors and shapes, I trained her to organize her trick-or-treat loot by separating the orange squares for dad.

    As someone with decades of experience in product formulation, I am not surprised that the ingredients for some Reese’s products have changed over the years. One of my first jobs as an intern in corporate R&D was formulating cost reductions for existing products and later developing cost-effective line extensions building on the brand equity of the original product. What Hershey is doing with the Reese’s brand is Consumer Packaged Goods Marketing 101.

    Three wrapped packages of Reese's peanut butter cups
    Reese’s recently introduced some variations of its classic peanut butter cups that use ‘chocolate candy’ compound coatings and ‘peanut butter creme’ instead of real chocolate and peanut butter. AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar

    How food manufacturers deal with rising costs

    Much has changed in the marketplace since Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups were developed by H.B. Reese in 1928 in Hershey, Pennsylvania, about two hours northwest of Philadelphia.

    Inflation, tariffs, labor costs, fuel costs, employee benefits, competition and the vulnerability of climate-threatened crops, such as cacaovanilla and sugar – none of which are produced anywhere near Pennsylvania – have made the confectionery business increasingly challenging.

    When faced with rising costs, food manufacturers have three options:

    1. Shrink the product. Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups have gradually shrunk from 0.9 ounce in the 1980s to 0.75 ounce today. That’s a 17% reduction. This phenomenon has been dubbed “shrinkflation.”

    2. Raise prices. There is certainly a market for premium peanut butter cups, but how much will a consumer pay for the Reese’s brand? $5? $10? I suspect most consumers expect a single serving to be a couple of bucks at most.

    3. Lower costs. While the company can improve operational efficiencies, changing the formula to reduce or eliminate high-cost ingredients is a standard industry practice to keep prices consistent for consumers in the midst of a dynamic supply chain. This phenomenon has been dubbed “skimpflation” and is Brad Reese’s main complaint.

    Reformulations are common in the food industry. In addition to prices rising in general, a supplier could go out of business or have a shortage. A regulatory change or shift in consumer sentiment might prohibit the use of an ingredient. Warstariffs or climate change can raise costs temporarily or permanently.

    Reformulations can be done well

    Sensory and food science tools that we teach in our Drexel culinary and food science programs help ensure little market disruption and a consumer mostly unaware of the changes.

    For example, a consumer discrimination test that food product developers love is a called the triangle test. Two samples from the original formula and one sample from the new formula – or vice versa – are presented to the consumer. If the consumer can identify the different one, the product developer did a poor job in preserving the beloved brand through the reformulation. But if consumers can’t tell the difference, the reformulation may be able to move forward.

    Three bags of chips -- Lay's potato chips, Doritos and Ruffles potato chips
    In 1998, Frito-Lay reformulated some of its signature products using a synthetic fat called olestra – with the brand name Olean – that could cause unpleasant side effects, including anal oil leakage. John T. Barr/Hulton Archive via Getty Images

    Sometimes product developers get it wrong in introducing a new formulation. Some of us are old enough to remember Crystal Pepsi, the McLean Deluxe burger or Doritos made with olestra. These products failed, respectively, due to lack of defined consumer benefit, misalignment with the brand, and bad press due to digestive side effects.

    But most reformulations go unnoticed – the good work of food technologists who strive to keep food safe, affordable and delicious for consumers.

    So, are these new Reese’s products inferior to the original? Maybe. Like with taste in art or wine, if it tastes good to you, it’s good. If not, vote with your wallet, or send the company a note like Brad Reese did.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

Controversy over Reese’s ingredients reveals standard food industry practices most consumers never notice

Health

Researchers are blowing people’s minds after revealing the ideal shower length

Well-being

Happiness expert’s refreshing take that the best friendships are useless

Well-being

Benefits of mindfulness meditation go far beyond relaxation – here’s what it is and how to practice it