Methodological and Ethical Concerns in Interpreting the Biological Effects of Meditation Retreats

In a newly published article, Jinich-Diamant et al. (2025) report neural, molecular, and cellular changes following a 7-day retreat led by Joe Dispenza. Although the study presents an extensive range of biological measures, its central conclusion that the retreat produced the observed changes cannot be supported by this research design. The study lacks a control group, relies on only 20 self-selected participants, and applies deep phenotyping despite severely limited statistical power. Under these conditions, this is a pilot study, and the findings should be interpreted as preliminary and hypothesis-generating, yet the abstract and narrative framing suggest causal inference where none is warranted. Further concerns arise regarding conflicts of interest and research integrity. Joe Dispenza, a chiropractor with no formal scientific research training who has built a commercial enterprise on unsupported claims, is listed as a co-author despite contributing no identifiable scientific input beyond leading the retreat. As discussed below, this combination of financial and authorship roles raises questions about independence, objectivity, and whether the study serves commercial interests rather than contributing to the scientific understanding of meditation retreats.