The relationship between traditional psychoanalysis and religion/ spirituality has been somewhat fraught, and often seen as a distraction or derided by analysts. (This is in contrast to Jungians, often called analytical psychologists, who are like Jung, more open minded about explorations about God and the inner world.) The psychoanalytic position still broadly reflects Freud’s attitude. Freud saw psychoanalysis as an approach committed to scientific atheism, and religion either as an outdated stage of cultural history and a relic of past civilisations, or, as an illusion to overcome resulting from the human capacity to repress or sublimate feelings, in other words a human pathology.

However, the psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion moved away from Freud’s strict scientific atheism by taking inspiration from religion and mysticism in order to understand what could very occasionally happen in his work with patients. Bion described a depth dimension expressed in psychic processes that he designated by the sign O. This depth dimension was a spirit of mysticism he saw as a fundamental dimension of human psychic experience in relation to others, and to the world.

‘I shall use the sign O to denote that which is the ultimate reality represented by terms such as ultimate reality, absolute truth, the godhead, the infinite, the thing-in-itself. O does not fall in the domain of knowledge or learning save incidentally; it can be “become”, but it cannot be “known”.’

Such an experience of the senses can only become known once it can be somehow formulated into words. It’s been noted that Bion was influenced by the writings of John of the Cross, and the concept of O links to John of the Cross’ writing where he says that to know God we have to let go of all preconceptions, any memories, or expectations: instead becoming open to uncertainty. In the same way, Bion thought that the analyst must relinquish their knowledge of past material, assumptions, and past insights so that in openness O can emerge. Like John of the Cross, Bion views the suspension of both memory and desire as a prerequisite for a transformation in O, which, for Bion, depends on the “at-one-ment” of analyst and analysand. This means that both the God-seeking person described by John of the Cross and the analyst together with the analysand in the therapeutic situation can only undergo a profound experience and transformation by an emptying of the mind.

As in mysticism coming into contact with O requires something a bit like an act of faith, a vulnerability, and the ability to not-know: negative capability. The ‘at-one-ment’ that Bion describes is a dynamic process that transforms one’s view of the world and causes it to appear in a new light. An example of O (ultimate reality or absolute truth) involves a moment of sudden, ineffable insight that transcends all pre-existing theories, beliefs, and expectations. This change is in the psychic landscape of both the analyst and the patient, leading to a profound sense of the truth of the moment.

Perhaps the person in therapy is dealing with a deep sense of dread that they cannot find the words to describe. Instead of rushing in with an explanation to fix the unhappiness, the analyst sits with the not-knowing bearing the feeling of disintegration within themselves. In this shared endurance of feeling so dreadful, a moment of transformation in O can occur, where the sheer reality of the patient’s internal experience is met and contained, potentially allowing a new thought or capacity for symbolization to emerge. An experience of being utterly understood: ‘face to face’ … ‘I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known’ (1 Corinthians 13:12).