{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.052873563218390804, 'fraction_numerical': 0.06436781609195402, 'mean_word_length': 5.2214285714285715, '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}}
Psychology of Religion in Search of a Theory

Carole Rayburn’s (2006) review of Handbook for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (Paloutzian & Park, 2005) invites a useful discussion. Mentioned in the review but not in the book, I am inclined to share some observations about my work in the psychology of spirituality and overlooked implications for the field (see also Helminiak, in press-b). Since a first tentative statement decades ago (Dunn & Helminiak, 1981), I have championed a non-theist-sometimes called ‘‘naturalistic’’-psychology of spirituality and have elaborated it in numerous publications (Helminiak, 1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1996a, 1996b, 1998a, 2005c, 2008c). My key claim is that appeal to God or other metaphysical entities cannot function as an essential facet of a psychological theory (Helminiak, 2005b, 2006c, in press-a). Rayburn (1996c) has