Talk:Transcendental Meditation

State of the research
I'm adding this so we can begin to look at potential updates to the research on TM. I had requested above we not make changes until Doc James is back on Wikipedia or 6 months to give him a chance to be part of this. I can't enforce this of course, but I am complying with this and hope others will too. I can add results from newer research if wanted.

Problematic sources

•Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2017)

Louise HartleyAngelique MavrodarisNadine FlowersEdzard ErnstKaren Ree

Withdrawn From the review. This Cochrane Review has been superseded. See 'Meditation for the prevention and management of heart disease'. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

•Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (2006)

T Krisanaprakornkit 1, W Krisanaprakornkit, N Piyavhatkul, M Laopaiboon•"

Limited to two studies and only one on TM (Review of one primary study). Authors consider the review limited in scope/more research needed.

• '''Meditation practices for health: state of the research. (2007)'''

Maria B Ospina, Kenneth Bond, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Lisa Tjosvold, Ben Vandermeer, Yuanyuan Liang, Liza Bialy, Nicola Hooton, Nina Buscemi, Donna M Dryden, and Terry P Klassen

Archived Archived for historical reference only

More recent review/clinical updates

•Transcendental meditation for lowering blood pressure: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2017)

SooLiang Ooi, Melissa Giovino, Sok Cheon Pak

•First-line Psychotherapies for Military-Related PTSD (2020) /Clinical update (2020)

Maria M. Steenkamp, PhD1; Brett T. Litz, PhD2,3; Charles R. Marmar, MD4

Clarifying what the source says
In the article which I edited:''The authors' analysis of a subset of these studies, those that studied specific categories of outcome, found that TM might perform better in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and improving markers of learning, memory, and self-actualization, but perform more poorly in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, improving attention and mindfulness and cognition, in comparison with other meditation approaches. ''

The source says: ''A thorough comparison of the three kinds of meditation was difficult, due in part to the small number of studies that used a given category of dependent measure. Again, we only included results that could be calculated from at least three studies. On the basis of these data...there might indeed be differential effects. Comparatively strong effects for TM...were found in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and being helpful in learning and memory and in self-realization...For mindfulness meditation, such comparatively strong effects were identified in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, and improving attention and mindfulness...(other meditation techniques) yielded a comparatively large effect in the category of cognition...TM yielded noticeably larger effects than mindfulness meditation for the categories negative emotions, neuroticism, trait anxiety, learning and memory, and self-realization. The opposite results were found for negative personality traits and self-concept, where the effects of mindfulness meditation were larger...For most of the specific categories that could be analyzed, we found quite a variation in effects. These results indicate that different approaches to meditation might have differential effects. To date, it is difficult, however, to deduce any consistent differences therefrom''

...found that TM might perform better in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and improving markers of learning, memory, and self-actualization, but perform more poorly in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, improving attention and mindfulness and cognition, in comparison with other meditation approaches is not what the source says. See bold.

The source compares TM in this instance specifically to Mindfulness meditation not other meditation approaches See bold.

When using scientific sources I think we have to be very accurate in terms of language- to follow the source accurately. I don't think we can extrapolate. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If you read the source in full you will see the comparison they make is to two other categories: mindfulness meditation, and a heterogenous group of all other techniques. The performance is comparative to all these other groups. No extrapolation here; just relating what’s in the source. While using sources we should reflect what they report: not do so while trying to add whatever positive spin for TM that we can think up. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The content states a very specific comparison to Mindfulness Meditation.


 * TM yielded noticeably larger effects than mindfulness meditation for the categories negative emotions, neuroticism, trait anxiety, learning and memory, and self-realization. The opposite results were found for negative personality traits and self-concept, where the effects of mindfulness meditation were larger,...


 * Not sure why you insist this is a positive spin on anything. TM seems, according to the source, to be stronger in some areas while Mindfulness is, in others, but this isn't a positive spin on Mindfulness? While "more poorly" is actually accurate grammatically it is very awkward sounding so it could be changed. No interest in this kind of accusatory discussion so will not contest your changes further.Littleolive oil (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And by the way you and BonCourage are adding inaccurate content. I wonder why. Your choice, I won't fight either of you on this kind of editing. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't think I 'added' anything, just made a citation of a Cochrane source respect WP:V. That's what the source says right? Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you point to the content
Could anyone point to the section of the review that specifically indicates this edit:

"There is no good evidence TM is of any use for reducing anxiety."

The review, author-conclusions states,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,...

I see two conclusions in reference to TM: One, that a small number of studies doesn't indicate conclusions for mediation therapy in general. And two, that TM compares to other kinds of relaxation therapies.

We could say," A 2006 review indicates no conclusions could be drawn on meditation as therapy, including TM, because of too few studies investigated.

The date is pertinent as is the reason the review cannot draw conclusions.

I'd note per MEDRS,WP:MEDDATE that this source, at 2006, is outdated. There are more recent, pertinent, MEDRS compliant sources than a source that is 18 years old, with two studies and only one that pertains to the topic of this article, and that states, no conclusions could be drawn.

There is no evidence, per this review, that the small number of studies reviewed can lead to evidence that meditation therapy is effective in anxiety reduction. The review does not say is of no use. That is an extrapolation, and not accurate per the review we are looking at.

Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If the source says evidence does "not permit any conclusions to be drawn" that equates to "no good evidence" (in part because the default assumption is 'no effect'). Per WP:MEDSAY it's best not to include the gubbins about what the document type is. Cochrane reviews are exempt from WP:MEDDATE because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes; this is set out in WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree and have updated the article to reflect this. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Add: per your comment on Cochrane: There is much research now on meditation techniques that indicate reduction of anxiety. This review is poor in terms of the reviews and also in date. Maybe take look at the state of the research in meditation techniques. A lot has changed in almost 20 years. The same is true of anything we might call Fringe. What was fringe 20 years ago may now be mainstream. That's the nature of science and research. Salk research on the polio vaccines would by our standards have been considered Fringe at one time, but now with research is no longer so. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? This is a page specifically about Transcendental Meditation. From a quick look the research scene is moribund (mindfulness is the new kid on the block). Which are the WP:BESTSOURCES on TM and anxiety? Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look deeper. And if you're in a looking mood you might want to check the Mindfulness article, a conglomerate of mindfulness related content rather than anything clearly delineated. The Effects of Meditation article is wracked with non- MEDRS sources and is clearly a mindfulness-dominated, POV article. I don't edit Wikipedia much anymore. Too Busy. And I don't try try to add new content or update this article in terms of research. There is a point where the fight isn't worth it. There is research being done on many meditation techniques from what I've seen. New kid might be a red flag, though; how much is MEDRS compliant? I am busy again for quite a while but I'll see about adding content on the state of the research on this article topic. It's not a competition. Meditation has become mainstream and there has to be room to accurately describe any  forms that have  verifiable, reliable sources. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also: Health effects section is organized to indicate the history of the research given this meditation has a relatively long history in research and the article follows that history. So the date of the Cochran review should be added back in. Right now there’s a bit of a gaping hole where research date was removed. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of date with out summary comment
Bon Courage. You've reverted with out any reason given. As I said here, the section is organized by date. You've removed the date. We do have another option. The review we are discussing has only one study on TM. Th authors conclude that with only that one study and whatever issues that study had no conclusions could be drawn. So per our own MEDRS guidelines this isn't a legitimate review since we are looking for replicated results. The whole thing should probably be removed. Further and again the review itself is outdated.

I have to wonder why you're insistent in removing the date and ignoring context. I refuse to get into some weird edit warring situation so if you honestly and with out bias feel it is appropriate to exclude the date when information has been ordered historically and since you also seem to have no reason to make that deletion I will leave the edit. I can't argue with what is illogical. If you do have a bias do you really think our readers are stupid enough to wonder about the bald statement now in the article which makes no logical sense. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * See above where I put "Cochrane reviews are exempt from WP:MEDDATE because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes". So the assumption is what Cochrane says is current. I'd suggest you actually engage with points made. The rest of that section needs to be made compliant with WP:MEDSAY too. If you think that Cochrane rewiews are "not legitimate" that is not something Wikipedia can fix. Bon courage (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah well. You've sidestepped the points I made-red herring. You reverted the date of the review with out reason- no real edit summary given. And noting the information is not describing the source; this is supposedly a reliable source and this is just content. You've twisted WP:MEDSAY. Why are you afraid of adding a date? You've decided the research is moribund. I'm sure it is in this article because editors trot along and remove whatever doesn't suit their positions as you have done. You've worded the review inaccurately. I have no problem with adding whatever the review says but I do have problems with what appears to be illogical at best and biased at worst reading of the review. I'm no stranger to this kind of argument, and I know the only way too deal with it is to walk away. Should I add more research of which there is quite a bit, as the research on all forms of meditation increases yearly when this is what one deals with? You win! I don't deal with bullying or arguments that sidestep the issues. There's no point. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Olive, it is really impossible to respond meaningfully to that. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: Cochrane is not the only reliable;e source. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What, for TM & anxiety specifically? It's not obvious that's the case. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sire what point you're making?


 * You're probably right. I really don't want to be here haggling over this article again. So my responses may not be complete. As perspective. I am a strict, maybe rigid, supporter of MEDRS. So, the subtle implication that I am supporting bias is frustrating. This article is not moribund, it's stable after years of contention. Let's see if I can make my position clear, as apparently I haven't. My perceptions.

The source in question is poor per MEDRS. It includes 2 studies, only one is about TM. MEDRS is meant to protect the reader from "Fringe" information- information that may with time become mainstream, but not now. As long as we have physicians who use Wikipedia for diagnosis( I'd head for the door if my physician did this), we have a responsibility to include only replicated studies/information. This review, such as it is, is not showing replicated information.

The source very clearly says,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,..." the source does not make an overarching statement about anxiety and TM. This article is, however, making an over arching statement; we are misrepresenting the source in part by deliberately excluding context: The small number of studies does not allow any conclusions to be drawn. TM is comparable....

The section has been organized by date. WP:MEDSAY does not forbid basic information about the source being used. Using WP:MEDSAY as some kind of edit summary seems disingenuous to me. There is implied consensus in a years long stable article that you ignored in favor of your own edit leaving a bald, dateless inaccurate statement.

The MEDRS position would be to remove the source. There is no replication, and there was not enough information to draw any conclusions.

Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war and to enter the morass that follows that kind of contention. I attempted to compromise by agreeing with an edit you made, whether I bought the argument or not, but you went further with out agreement. I either walk away or am forced into an edit war. Is there frustration at being forced into such a position. Yes. But I don't care enough to engage in that kind of mess.

The article as it stands now is weaker than it was, if MEDRS is a legitimate standard. I think it is. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war &larr; not at all, you could raise a query at WT:MED. But if you are going to argue that a Cochrane review is poor or fringe you'd better have a strong case! It is hallmark of good systematic reviews that they exclude poor sources; poor reviews tend to include all sorts of crap. But surely the main point is that this is the ONLY review of TM/Anxiety in existence. Unless you know of others? Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You've sidestepped once again: Why did you remove a date? And, the content you support does not faithfully reflect the source.
 * No one suggested Cochrane in and of itself is not reliable. No source is valuable to us unless it specifically supports specific content and complies with our standards.
 * No one suggested the review is fringe.
 * I don't have to go to a notice board to know the content you are supporting does not reflect the source. Further NB are often a time sink, and the positions raised there are not binding on any article. Often they are a waste of time, of which I have little, in part because they are not binding
 * For starters, please look at the rest of the reviews in the section for TM and anxiety.
 * I've done what I can do here. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A date is only needed if the information is time-bound in some way. Has the view on TM/Anxiety changed? Per WP:MEDSAY we should just deliver the knowledge payload without needless detail. The conclusion of the review says "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders" which we summarize well (i.e. no good evidence to support). As to other sources: good tip. That Goyal source is comparatively recent (2014), but was badly mis-summarized. Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Maharishi effect
"The square root of 1%" is 10%. I'm not sure what 0.00016% is in relation to 1%, but it's not the square root. 2600:1700:37E0:6890:7CCA:BDEB:A173:B2C8 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What they mean is: the square root of (one per cent (1%) of the population), not (the square root of one per cent (1%)) of the population. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten that part of the article, omitting the 0.00016%. It appears that the global population was ~4 billion in 1974, 1% of that is 40 million, and √(40 million) is 6324.5553 (0.000158% of 4 billion) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)