{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015558698727015558, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.87378640776699, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A CRITIQUE OF GELLHORN AND KIELY'S MYSTICAL STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: Neubophysiological and Clinical Aspects

Gellhorn and Kiely's attempt to generate a neurophysiological theory which accounts for the psychophysiological states produced during Zen and Yoga meditation is criticized because it: a) ignores fundamental differences within and between the various meditations; b) fails to consider certain important published evidence on Yoga meditation; and c) provides an ambiguous interpretation of trophotropic and ergotropic effects on the orienting reflex. It is concluded that their theory is in need of revision before it can adequately explain the differential effects of both Zen and Yoga meditation.