Where is the essence…

A new paper in the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences maps, with considerable care, the historical traffic between Western esotericism and psychology. The author, Júlia Gyimesi of Pázmány Péter Catholic University in Budapest, published “How Psychology Can Benefit From the Academic Study of Esotericism” in 2025, and traces the lineage from Mesmer’s animal magnetism through the spiritualist movement, the Society for Psychical Research, Freud’s secret interest in telepathy, Jung’s debt to alchemy and Gnosticism, and Herbert Silberer’s forgotten work on functional symbolism.

And – But …the whole thing is written from outside the building.

Gyimesi’s thesis is that esotericism has never been peripheral to psychology. She is right. The founding figures of depth psychology, Freud, Jung, Janet, Myers, James, were all deeply entangled with the occult, whether as investigators, believers, or reluctant fellow-travellers. The mainstream history of psychology has suppressed this, presenting a clean narrative of rational scientific progress. Gyimesi wants to correct that suppression. Fair enough.

But there is something the paper cannot see, and the blind spot is structural.

The paper treats esoteric practices as sources of psychological content: mesmerism contributed the concept of the unconscious, spiritualism drew attention to altered states, psychical research raised the problem of telepathy. In each case, the esoteric furnishes raw material that psychology then processes into respectable theory. The direction of travel is always the same. Esotericism provides phenomena; psychology provides explanation. The practitioner produces the experience; the academic provides the framework.

What never appears in this picture is the operator.

By operator I mean the trained practitioner who works deliberately with inner space, not as a subject producing interesting symptoms for the psychologist to classify, but as someone navigating a specific interior terrain with specific tools, toward specific outcomes. Franz Bardon’s step-by-step training system is the clearest example in the Western tradition. It does not produce interesting unconscious content for analytical interpretation. It trains the practitioner to differentiate inner states, to work with elemental qualities, to hold and direct charged intention in what I have elsewhere called the ultra-subjective hyperspace. The USH is not an analytic construct. It is a navigable space.

Gyimesi ends her paper with five characteristics of what she calls esoteric psychology: a collective conception of the unconscious, fluid boundaries of the psyche, mysterious interconnections between minds, parapsychological capacities, and connection to a superordinate intelligent order. These five characteristics are accurate as far as they go. They describe what the practitioner encounters. But they describe it from the outside, the way a description of swimming describes water without ever getting wet.

The USH accounts for all five structurally. The fluid boundary of the psyche is not a mystery requiring parapsychological speculation; it is a feature of interior space that becomes navigable through training. The interconnection between minds is not a theoretical puzzle left over from the telepathy debate; it is an operational fact in a space where the individual operator and the larger field are not simply separate. The superordinate intelligent order is not a metaphysical postulate; it is what the practitioner encounters when intentionality is held at maximum pressure in the right conditions.

Psychology studied esotericism for over a century and produced excellent intellectual history. What it did not produce is a first-person phenomenology of what it is actually like to be inside that space, and what happens when you know how to work there.

That is the gap. And that gap is exactly what a training manual for authentic inner work needs to address.

---

Reference: Gyimesi, J. (2025). How psychology can benefit from the academic study of esotericism. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 61, e70004. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.70004