Science and spirituality as partners: researchers who refuse to pick a side

The Short Version

Six people with scientific training, speaking on four different podcasts, refuse the usual choice between the lab and the prayer mat. Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman, cell biologist Bruce Lipton, neuroscientists Emily McDonald and Andrew Newberg, Columbia psychologist Lisa Miller and psychologist Jordan Peterson all say that science and spiritual life are looking at one reality from two directions, and several of them add that science itself starts from commitments it cannot prove [1][2][3][4][5][6]. They are not equally careful. Newberg describes his scanning methods and says he is not claiming that anyone's experience is right or wrong [4]; Hoffman marks his own speculation as speculation [1]; McDonald labels one of her ideas a personal belief [3]; Miller reports large protective numbers and reads them as evidence of a creator [5]; Lipton makes sweeping claims with little detail behind them [2]; and Peterson offers an argument, not a study [6]. The useful thing for a reader is the pattern underneath: the practices they recommend (silence, prayer, ritual, service, community) overlap far more than their explanations do, and the explanations are where you need to keep asking how each speaker knows.

Table of contents

What They Said

Donald Hoffman: science has rigor, spirituality has the right starting point

Hoffman, a cognitive scientist at UC Irvine and author of The Case Against Reality, arrives at spirituality through mathematics. Working with colleagues including Chetan Prakash, he used evolutionary game theory to test the common assumption that seeing the world accurately makes an organism fitter. His conclusion, in his words, is that "the probability that any organism has ever been shaped to see any aspect of reality as it is, is zero" [1]. What evolution gave us instead, he says, is something like a virtual reality headset for playing the game of life. His example is Grand Theft Auto: the player sees a steering wheel and a road, the reality is a computer flipping bits, and a player who tried to toggle the bits directly would lose to the one using the fake wheel [1].

From there he makes the claim most relevant to this question: every scientific theory begins with assumptions it cannot explain. "So no scientific theory is a theory of everything", he says [1]. Deeper theories can explain earlier assumptions, but they bring new assumptions of their own, so science never reaches a final account. He applies this to his own work, saying he hopes someone overturns his theory with a deeper one in his lifetime [1]. He also points to physics as a field already finding its own limits: general relativity and quantum theory both assume spacetime is fundamental, yet together they show spacetime loses operational meaning at the Planck scale, about 10 to the minus 33 centimeters and 10 to the minus 43 seconds. Since around 2013, he says, physicists have been working with positive geometries, mathematical structures outside spacetime that encode particle interactions inside it [1].

Hoffman's own position is that consciousness, not spacetime, is fundamental. He says 95 to 99 percent of consciousness researchers are physicalists, many of them friends he calls brilliant, and his challenge to them is to give a mathematically precise account of even one experience, such as the taste of mint. "And they have zero experiences that they can explain", he says [1]. He goes as far as saying neurons do not exist when they are not perceived and cause none of our behavior, while insisting that neuroscience deserves more funding because the brain is the data needed to reverse engineer the code behind the headset [1].

On science and spirituality he is even-handed in a way that is easy to miss. Science, he says, built a virtuous cycle of precise observation, mathematical theory and prediction, and nothing with that precision has existed in the spiritual traditions. Those traditions had the deep insight about consciousness, but he is blunt about the rest: "There's been absolute nuggets of truth and it's been covered in lots of nonsense" [1]. He adds that the traditions historically resisted science, citing Galileo's house arrest, while science mistook the headset for objective reality [1]. His conclusion: "So what we need is the best of both" [1], meaning rigor from science and the recognition, from the spiritual side, that consciousness comes first.

He also argues that the inner practice he recommends is not mystical in any strange sense. He teaches it by what he calls ostensive definition, the way a parent points and says cat: ask yourself what your next thought will be, wait, and notice the silence. "So this stuff is not like spiritual in some weird way", he says; it is how we learn the word cat or the color red, "but you have to know it for yourself" [1]. He reports that this practice eased his own anxiety and poor sleep, and that it took work: "I've spent tens of thousands of hours in silence because I knew I needed to practice" [1]. The ethical upshot he draws is the oldest one in religion. "The heart of spirituality is love", he says; if your neighbor is yourself in a different avatar, loving your neighbor as yourself follows [1].

Hoffman is candid about his standing and about where he is guessing. Most colleagues, he says, "respect me and they're sorry for me", because he left a promising conventional career [1]. Before discussing his collaboration with Andrew Gallimore, who studies DMT, on whether reports of higher-dimensional experiences reflect a changed parameter in the headset's software, he warns that "the next thing i'm going to say is more speculative", and he names the rival hypothesis himself: that the drug is simply producing a hallucination [1].

Bruce Lipton: spirit is a field, and that is biology

Lipton, a cell biologist and former medical school professor, makes the strongest version of the claim that spirituality is a science. He tells Lewis Howes that "spirit is not a new age concept or just a religious concept. It's a quantum physics biological concept. It's a science." [2]

His argument starts with organ rejection. The immune system recognizes what is not self through identity receptors on the surface of cells, and no two people share the same set. What matters, he says, is not the receptor but the signal it reads from the environment [2]. He then borrows the idea of fields, defining a field as "Invisible moving forces that influence the physical world," and says that is the same definition he gives for spirit [2]. The picture he builds is a television: the body is the set, each person is a unique broadcast picked up by those receptors, and when the set breaks the broadcast goes on. "You are the broadcast." [2] Race and sex, in this picture, belong to the television. He ties the idea to karma and to the possibility that a future body with the same antennas could receive the same broadcast again [2].

As evidence he offers a study he attributes to astronaut-scientist Brian O'Leary, in which cells from O'Leary's body, placed 350 miles away, reportedly reacted at the same moment he had an emotional response, and research finding cells with Y chromosomes in the regenerated livers of women who had carried male babies, which Lipton connects to mothers sensing their children from afar [2]. He also links the conscious mind, which he places behind the forehead, to spirit, and the subconscious to a hard drive of programs downloaded mostly before age seven [2].

Lipton separates spirituality from religion sharply. "I am a spiritual person," he says, not a religious one, and he argues that religious programs of separation have driven many wars; his example is Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, who share a story of love and forgiveness [2]. In his book Beyond Darwin, one of the cultural myths he names is the loss of spiritual understanding, the forgetting that the body is an accessory to spirit [2].

The summary of his conversation adds a caution that belongs in any fair account: many of his claims about medicine, genetics and quantum physics are bold and presented without much detail, and listeners may want to weigh them carefully [2]. That includes statements such as the one that less than 1% of disease is connected to genes and that "More than 50% of medical healings are all placebo," [2]. These are his claims as he made them on the show; the conversation does not supply the studies behind them.

Emily McDonald: neuroscience as a bridge, with the guesses labeled

McDonald, a neuroscientist and mindset coach, describes a path through three positions on God: a Catholic school upbringing, then an atheism rooted in depression (if God existed, she reasoned, God must be evil), then spirituality [3]. What moved her was the overlap between what she was learning in the lab and what friends showed her in The Untethered Soul: the eyes take in only light, and the image a person sees is assembled after passing through thoughts, emotions, beliefs and memories. Personal experiences in meditation, and research on things like 432 Hz music for sleep, convinced her that neuroscience could be a bridge to spirituality [3]. She now calls her years of depression, illness and a suicide attempt in high school "the curriculum" that prepared her to help others [3].

Her treatment of manifestation shows how she handles the bridge. The neuroscience version, she says, is that "we don't get what we want in life, we get what our brain is wired for." [3] She explains it with a classic experiment in which kittens raised seeing only horizontal stripes later failed to react to a vertical bar: the opportunity can be in front of you while your brain is not wired to perceive it [3]. She adds mechanisms she learned in training: Hebb's law for why repeated affirmations become dominant pathways, and the amygdala, which under stress filters reality for threats so that, as she puts it, the thing you want could walk in the door unnoticed [3].

Then she marks the line. Nervous systems co-regulate, which is why one person feels another's anxiety, and she extrapolates, explicitly as her personal belief, that the universe can feel your nervous system too [3]. The first part is offered as science; the second is offered as faith, and she says so.

She also argues for belief ahead of evidence. Being what she calls delusional is, in her account, a requirement for achieving the unimaginable, because belief without evidence is often necessary at the start; "belief is a biological advantage", she says, improving performance and motivation, while doubt drains dopamine [3]. She quotes Wayne Dyer: "no one knows enough to be a pessimist," [3]. In the same conversation Howes mentions a recent guest who began praying because the research showed it made people healthier and happier [3].

Andrew Newberg: study it carefully and claim only what the scans show

Newberg, a neuroscientist and physician who directs research for integrative health at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, has spent about 30 years scanning people while they meditate, pray and speak in tongues [4]. His field is called neurotheology. He came to it as a child troubled that people looking at the same world held different religions, politics and moral views; he loved science but saw its limits when it came to consciousness and subjective experience, so he also studied philosophy, theology and religious studies [4]. He describes his own work as "a combination of a kind of scientific and spiritual pursuit" [4]: data and systematic narrative collection on one side, a contemplative practice on the other, during which he had experiences that sounded like the mystical experiences others report [4].

His definitions are wide. The most common meaning of spiritual, he says, is "connecting with something greater than the self", and that can be God or a universal consciousness, but also nature, creativity, music or humanity [4]. Religion usually differs in being an established tradition with shared definitions [4].

His methods are the most concrete in this set. Quiet practices can be done inside an MRI scanner. For active ones he uses nuclear medicine: a radioactive tracer that tracks blood flow or a neurotransmitter is injected through an IV placed beforehand, while the person is mid-practice, even moving and singing; a scan 15 to 20 minutes later shows what the brain was doing at the moment of injection [4]. Because a scan cannot tell him what a person is experiencing, he also surveyed a couple of thousand people in their own words [4].

The findings he reports: activity in the parietal lobe, which builds the spatial sense of self, falls in deep prayer or meditation, and people report the boundary between self and world dissolving. The limbic system becomes very active, marking the moment as important and writing it into memory, which is how such experiences reshape beliefs. The thalamus shifts in moments of clarity. The frontal lobes, busy during concentration, quiet at the point of surrender [4]. After a retreat based on the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, participants' brains were more sensitive to dopamine and serotonin [4]. From the survey came five elements almost everyone described: unity, intensity, clarity, surrender and transformation, with about 90 to 95% saying the experience changed them for the better [4].

What sets Newberg apart is restraint. People often say they perceived reality at a more fundamentally real level, and he is careful to say he is not claiming they are right or wrong [4]. He does not expect science to prove or disprove the spiritual, only to enrich understanding, though he allows that a colleague studying near-death experiences may someday produce paradigm-shifting results [4]. He insists the spiritual is not a separate faculty: "we don't have a separate brain that becomes spirit" [4]. After decades, he says, "the questions are more than the answers" and "we've just scratched the surface" [4].

Lisa Miller: the brain is built to perceive a loving creator

Miller, a psychologist and Columbia University professor, goes where Newberg will not. She says ten years of MRI studies point to three circuits everyone is born with: a bonding network through which we know we are loved and held; a shift from the narrow dorsal attention network to the wide ventral attention network, where guidance is received; and a parietal network that can let us feel part of a larger oneness [5]. "We are a point and we are a wave." [5] Together, she says, they let us perceive that we are "Loved, held, guided, and never alone", which she maps onto a creator who is all-loving, all-knowing and all-present [5].

She is explicit that she means more than a feeling. Her word is God, she says, and others have their own sacred word; "That relationship is real." [5] When Howes asks whether this is just something bigger than ourselves, she draws a line: a cult is also bigger than we are, while what she describes is loving, guiding and ever present [5]. She contrasts a 20th-century view of the brain as a factory that makes thoughts with a 21st-century view of it as "an antenna that receives consciousness." [5]

She separates capacity from tradition using twin studies: the capacity for spiritual connection is partly innate, and the awakened brain "is one third innate, two-thirds cultivated", while religion, the texts and practices and community, is passed on through environment. For about two-thirds of Americans, she says, the two go together [5]. She also says MRI research shows the same neural patterns in people of every tradition, including the spiritual but not religious, when they are in dialogue with ancestors or a higher power [5].

Her numbers are the most striking in the set. She says a strong spiritual life is 80% protective against the onset of addiction in adolescence, 70% protective against risk-taking, and, when shared among teens, 82% protective against completed suicide; a child who inherits a deep practice from a parent is 80% protected against major depression through mid-to-late adolescence, rising to 90% across two generations [5]. In her final study of what strengthens the awakened brain, she says, the top predictor was altruism, love of neighbor [5]. She also cites a survey of 270,000 young people in which character strengths clustered in the same children, who had a strong spiritual core [5].

From these she draws conclusions in the voice of science. "science says waiting is to foreclose," she tells parents who plan to let children decide later [5]. Children, she says, are born with implicit spiritual cognition, such as sensing that consciousness continues after death, and lose it only when adults dismiss it [5]. Her closing lesson, to teach your children to love God, she presents as a scientist's gift as well as a mother's [5].

Jordan Peterson: the scientist has already taken a vow

Peterson supplies the philosophical half of the planned point. Asked by Lex Fridman who God is, he offers what he calls a biological definition: God in the highest sense is "the spirit that you must emulate in order to thrive" [6]. Admiration is the clue. To admire someone is to want to be like them; if you extracted what makes every admirable person admirable, repeatedly, the purified result would be as close to a representation of God as we can get [6].

Then he turns to science. A real scientist, he argues, believes in whatever contradicts the theory more than in the theory, and assumes that contact with that reality is redemptive, freeing people from want, disease and ignorance [6]. Of the direction science takes he says, "That's a narrative direction, not a scientific direction." [6] The narrative, in his account, "posits a transcendent reality", holds that it is corrective, and demands humility about our knowledge structures. "You have to take a vow to follow that path if you're going to be a real scientist." [6] Why bother with science at all? So people don't starve, he answers, so life can be more abundant; the whole enterprise sits inside an ethic [6]. A reductionist who says it is just nature presumes to know what nature and matter are, which he says no one does [6].

His account of faith is practical, not doctrinal. Declaring the world good is "an act of faith", he says, "because the evidence is ambivalent." [6] The test is to act: "the more you act out the proposition that it's good, the better it gets." [6] He compares it to marriage, where you find out whether this is the person for you by binding yourself to them; the commitment has to come first [6].

Duncan Trussell: a comedian's version of the same invitation

One voice here is not a researcher. On The Joe Rogan Experience, comedian Duncan Trussell says many people who reject religion experienced "religious trauma", where honest questions were met with threats of hell, and he invites skeptics to try praying for a few days as an experiment, with one condition: "don't let anyone subvert your rational mind." [7] Rogan calls religions moral scaffolding meant to help humans move beyond primate instincts [7]. Trussell adds that real science has always been done by eccentrics, naming Newton, Freud and Tesla, and worries that a sanitized image of the scientist discourages outsiders [7].

The same episode shows the weak end of the evidence range. Rogan says he believes some telepathy is real, citing The Telepathy Tapes; Trussell says his mother hypnotized away a wart; both treat the placebo effect, which they have heard is "one of the most powerful effects in medicine", as a doorway to bigger questions [7]. They also name the problem themselves: Rogan says many people fake special abilities because everyone wants to be special, and Trussell warns that people who believe someone has powers tend to trust them blindly [7].

Where They Agree, and Where They Don't

Agreement one: the two are not enemies. Every one of these speakers treats science and spiritual life as compatible. Hoffman wants the best of both [1]; Lipton calls spirit a science [2]; McDonald calls neuroscience a bridge [3]; Newberg calls his career a scientific and spiritual pursuit at once [4]; Miller says the science points to God [5]; Peterson says science is embedded in an ethic it did not generate [6].

Agreement two: science rests on something it does not prove. Hoffman and Peterson make this argument directly and by different routes. Hoffman's is logical: every theory starts from unexplained assumptions [1]. Peterson's is ethical: the scientist vows to follow the truth and assumes the truth redeems [6]. Newberg adds a milder version, that science has limits when it comes to subjective experience [4]. The others do not argue the point; Lipton and Miller mostly speak as if science has already delivered the verdict [2][5].

Agreement three: perception is constructed. Hoffman's headset [1], McDonald's kittens and her account of the assembled image [3], Miller's illness of perception [5] and Trussell's remark that the neocortex works like VR goggles [7] all say that what we take for the plain world is filtered. Three speakers independently reach for a receiver image: Lipton's television [2], Miller's antenna [5], Hoffman's headset [1].

Agreement four: love and practice. Hoffman, Lipton, Miller and Peterson all end on love as the highest value [1][2][5][6], and all six recommend something to do, not only something to believe.

Disagreement one: does the brain produce the experience or receive it? Newberg stays neutral: the scans show what the brain does and cannot settle whether experiencers perceived something real [4]. Miller says the relationship is real and the brain receives consciousness [5]. Hoffman goes furthest, saying consciousness creates the brain and neurons cause nothing [1]. Hoffman himself reports that nearly all his colleagues are physicalists who hold that consciousness emerges from neural activity [1]. Each side has its reason: Newberg because a scan cannot reach the content of an experience [4], Miller because she reads universal circuits as equipment for perceiving something that exists [5], Hoffman because he says the mathematics rules out physicalism and no physicalist theory has explained a single experience [1].

Disagreement two: who or what is on the other end? Miller means a loving, guiding creator and rejects the looser phrase about something bigger [5]. Newberg accepts exactly that looser phrase, and counts nature, music and humanity [4]. Peterson defines God as a pattern to emulate [6]. Hoffman describes one consciousness looking through many headsets [1]. Lipton describes a field unique to each person [2]. These are not the same claim, and the speakers never met to sort it out.

Disagreement three: religion. Miller treats faith traditions as the way most people cultivate an inborn capacity, and urges youth groups and houses of worship [5]. Lipton says religious programs of separation have driven wars [2]. Hoffman credits the traditions with insight and charges them with nonsense and with resisting science [1]. Trussell notes how many people were hurt by religion and still recommends the experiment [7].

Disagreement four: how much to claim. This is the sharpest difference and it is about method, not doctrine. Newberg says there is no specific study on feeling stuck before offering his explanation, and says a walk in the woods carries no guarantee [4]. Hoffman flags speculation and names the dull alternative [1]. McDonald labels a personal belief [3]. Miller states that every bit of science says the most important thing is to teach children to love God [5], a far larger claim than a scan or a survey can carry by itself. Lipton moves from cell receptors to reincarnation in a few sentences [2].

Why It Works

The sources offer mechanisms at three levels.

In the brain. Newberg's account is the most detailed: reduced parietal activity goes with the felt loss of the boundary between self and world; limbic activation makes the moment feel important and stores it; frontal quieting goes with surrender; and a retreat left brains more sensitive to dopamine and serotonin, the system antidepressants also act on [4]. He adds that a study of older adults who began meditating showed brain changes, so "whether you're 85 or five, you can change your brain" [4]. McDonald supplies the learning rule, that neurons firing together wire together, and the stress pathway in which doubt keeps a person braced, raises cortisol and lets the amygdala hijack perception [3]. Newberg uses the same wiring rule to explain why repetition both builds a practice and can lock a person in [4].

In health. Newberg says the data are pretty clear that engaging the spiritual side helps people manage stress, anxiety and depression and, through the autonomic nervous system, can support immune function; he places it inside integrative medicine's four dimensions of a person, biological, psychological, social and spiritual, and cites a large study linking optimism with longer life and less disease [4]. Miller's protective figures for teenagers belong here, as she reports them [5]. Lipton's account of stress fits the same frame: behavior divides into growth and protection, "You cannot do both at the same time.", and chronic stress shuts down maintenance, immunity and clear thinking [2]. None of this replaces care: for depression, addiction, medication decisions or serious illness, see a qualified professional. Peterson himself says that when a person has relationships, work and health and still feels awful, an antidepressant will probably help [6], and McDonald says medication helped her as a crutch during a transition [3].

In the logic of science. Hoffman's point is that a theory's assumptions need only be consistent, and that a great theory gives you the tools to find its own limits, as relativity and quantum theory did at the Planck scale [1]. Peterson's is that the choice to pursue truth, and the belief that truth helps, are made before any experiment [6]. Both arguments explain why a scientist can hold a spiritual commitment without contradiction; neither shows that any particular spiritual claim is true.

What the sources do not give is a mechanism that carries the larger claims. Lipton's field and Miller's antenna are analogies offered alongside findings, not findings themselves [2][5]. Hoffman says his mathematical model, which he calls trace logic, is still being built and that the field will shift only once someone shows how spacetime emerges from consciousness [1].

Where It Applies, and Where It Doesn't

It applies to practice. The best supported claim across these conversations is modest: contemplative and spiritual practices change how people feel and function, in people of any tradition or none. Newberg found common brain patterns across traditions and says small experiences, a sunrise, a Mozart concerto, holding a child, sit on the same continuum as mystical ones [4]. Miller says the same neural patterns appear in the spiritual but not religious [5].

It applies to humility about science. Hoffman's and Peterson's arguments are a fair warning against treating current theory as final [1][6]. Hoffman adds a practical edge: theories of consciousness that cannot be tested on a single experience should not be used for life-and-death decisions [1].

It does not settle metaphysics. Newberg says outright that he does not expect science to prove or disprove the spiritual [4]. A brain pattern during prayer is compatible with Miller's reading and with a physicalist one. A reader should treat survival after death, a universal field and a universe that senses your nervous system as convictions held by Lipton, Hoffman, Miller and McDonald, not as results [1][2][3][5].

It does not license every claim made in its name. Lipton's statements about genes and cancer and Rogan's about telepathy come with no detail that would let a listener check them [2][7]. Rogan and Trussell's own warning applies: wanting to be special makes people fake it, and believers trust too easily [7].

It is not one-size-fits-all. "There is never a one-size-fits-all", Newberg says; each person has a different lock and a different key [4]. Hoffman acknowledges that his path is much harder for someone raised to feel worthless [1]. Miller notes that a child harmed by a religious adult may conclude the flame itself is false, an injury she says needs a trustworthy adult and a direct connection to heal [5].

Belief needs action. McDonald warns that affirmations without follow-through teach the brain not to trust you [3], and Peterson says the proposition can only be tested by living it [6].

What To Do With It

1. Write your own definitions first. Newberg asks people to write down what spirituality and religiousness mean to them, then name the goal (less anxiety, connection, something religious), research practices that fit, try them, and change direction if they feel wrong [4].

2. Try Hoffman's silence. Ask what your next thought will be and wait. Practice at home when things are calm, so the habit is there under stress; in traffic, feel the irritation and watch it instead of being it. He says it can dissolve quickly or take 10 to 15 minutes [1].

3. Run the prayer experiment honestly. Trussell suggests praying for a few days as a test while keeping your rational mind intact [7]. Miller suggests dusting off a prayer from childhood and expecting it to feel awkward the first time or two [5].

4. Build a ritual if you feel stuck. Newberg's advice is a conscious effort to break the pattern with a new ritual or practice; Mel Robbins adds looking back at moments when you felt unity, intensity, clarity, surrender or transformation for clues [4].

5. Serve someone. Miller says altruism was the top predictor of a stronger awakened brain and advises anyone who feels stuck to go out and serve [5]. Peterson gives young people the same instruction: take on responsibility and serve someone [6].

6. Find people to practice with. Miller says no teenager can do this alone and names a youth group, sangha or fellowship; her four P's are a practice, people, a purpose and your own path [5]. Newberg says social support matters for health and even mortality [4].

7. Match belief with action. McDonald's test: would you trust a friend who says one thing and does another? Keep your word to yourself, and make a resiliency plan for doubt in advance, such as exercise or calling a friend who believes in you [3].

8. With children, listen before you correct. Miller's one never is "That's not real is the worst thing you can say to your child." [5] Ask what the child felt, and repair your own failings with an apology [5].

9. Sort every claim into three bins. Measured (Newberg's scans and surveys) [4], argued (Hoffman's and Peterson's cases about assumptions and faith) [1][6], and believed (the field, the antenna, the universe that feels you) [2][3][5]. Follow the speakers who do this sorting themselves: Hoffman flagging speculation, McDonald labeling belief, Newberg declining to rule [1][3][4].

10. Act as if, and watch what happens. Peterson's wager is that the goodness of life cannot be judged from the outside, because the evidence is ambivalent; you bind yourself to it and find out [6]. Newberg's counsel for the same road is patience: there are many paths up the mountain and good views along the way [4].

Sources

1. Donald Hoffman on Why We've Never Seen Reality: Evolution, Spacetime and Consciousness · The School of Greatness
2. Bruce Lipton on the Subconscious Programs Running 95% of Your Life · The School of Greatness
3. Emily McDonald on Identity Shifting, Neuroplasticity, and Why Your Brain Decides Before You Do · The School of Greatness
4. The Science of Spiritual Experiences: How to Rewire Your Brain for More Happiness & Purpose · The Mel Robbins Podcast
5. Dr. Lisa Miller on the Awakened Brain: How Spirituality Protects Kids and Changes How We See Life · The School of Greatness
6. Jordan Peterson on Beauty, God, Death, Fame, Power and Meaning · Lex Fridman Podcast
7. 2247 - Duncan Trussell on The Joe Rogan Experience · The Joe Rogan Experience