Serpents and the Clinic: Kundalini Research at the San Francisco-based Kundalini Clinic

This paper explores a key episode in the modern re-transformation of kundalini, focusing on the San Francisco-based Kundalini Clinic and the interpretation of kundalini as a physiological mechanism, potentially observable in a clinical setting. Rooted in South Asian tantra and yoga texts and practices, concepts of kuṇḍalinī have undergone profound transformations since the late nineteenth century. Through processes of modernisation, premodern South Asian views of kuṇḍalinī evolved into modern kundalini concepts, which became a globally discussed topic of late twentieth-century religion and science. This transformation process peaked between the late 1960s and the mid-1980s, a period characterized by the institutionalisation and international collaborations of empirical kundalini research. Within this context, the San Francisco-based Kundalini Clinic emerged as a central hub for studying and treating kundalini-related psycho-physiological phenomena during this period. 

By analysing previously unexplored data concerning the San Francisco-based Kundalini Clinic, this paper positions the Kundalini Clinic as a critical site of empirical research and clinical intervention in the broader history of modern kundalini discourse. The historical significance of the Clinic lies particularly in its attempt to integrate kundalini into clinical frameworks and its classification as a disease pattern, the so-called “kundalini syndrome”. The Clinic’s work contributed to an increasing perception of kundalini as a physiological rather than a subtle phenomenon, thus participating in ensuing discussions on the intersection of religion, science, and alternative medicine.

The Kundalini Clinic was likely co-founded between 1974 and 1975 by Lee Sannella (1916–2010), Gabriel Cousens (b. 1943), and Harold Streitfeld (1921–1983), and continues to exist to date, if in a considerably altered form. The precise details surrounding its establishment remain ambiguous, as conflicting narratives from key figures—along with scarce archival material—have obscured its exact origins, methodology, and institutional structure. This paper seeks to clarify these uncertainties by examining newly uncovered historical sources and insights gained from interviews with Gabriel Cousens and Stuart Sovatsky (b. 1949), both of whom claim leadership roles in the Clinic’s current iteration. Additionally, this paper critically reassesses the “kundalini syndrome” as a diagnostic framework, thereby contributing to the analysis of discussions on the medicalisation and scientification of kundalini during the twentieth century. 

The Clinic’s emergence must be understood within the context of the anti-psychiatry movement, which gained traction during the 1970s and called for alternative approaches to mental health treatment. The Clinic’s founders positioned it as a refuge for individuals undergoing psycho-physiological conditions linked to religious experiences, commonly categorized under the broader umbrella of “spiritual emergencies.” This concept gained further prominence through the work of Christina (1941–2014) and Stanislav Grof (b. 1931), who co-founded the Spiritual Emergency Network (SEN) in 1980. The increasing recognition of the Clinic was further propelled by the popularity of Sannella’s seminal work Kundalini: Psychosis or Transcendence? (1976), which framed kundalini-related experiences as distinct from psychiatric conditions. The precise relationship between the Clinic’s methodologies and the conceptual framework outlined in Sannella’s book remains uncertain: it is unclear whether the Clinic’s practices directly informed the book’s arguments or whether the book retrospectively shaped perceptions of the Clinic’s approach. In any case, the Clinic and the publication are deeply intertwined and must be examined in conjunction.

At its core, the Clinic sought to provide alternative therapeutic models for spiritual emergencies, with the so-called “kundalini syndrome” representing a paradigmatic case of spiritual emergency. However, the idea of the existence of a “kundalini syndrome” predated the Grofs’ engagement with kundalini in the context of SEN. Instead, this notion can be traced to the intellectual exchanges between Lee Sannella and Itzhak Bentov (1923–1979), two central figures in the Clinic’s early development.

This paper argues that it was Sannella’s collaboration with Bentov that led to the conceptualisation of kundalini as a physiological mechanism with identifiable signs and symptoms. While Bentov initially proposed the idea of a “kundalini syndrome”, it was Sannella’s 1976 publication and the clinical work at the Kundalini Clinic that solidified the widespread belief in kundalini’s physicality, its purifying therapeutic potential, and the distinction of its symptoms from psychiatric disorders. This framing contributed to a growing conviction that kundalini could be empirically studied, medically classified, and even harnessed for healing purposes. Consequently, the Clinic’s therapeutic interventions were designed to ameliorate the physical and psychological distress associated with kundalini activation. 

By critically examining the Clinic’s functions, activities, and epistemological frameworks, this paper highlights the mechanisms through which knowledge about kundalini was produced, legitimized, and disseminated in both clinical and religious contexts. Additionally, it reassesses the “kundalini syndrome”, by situating it within broader debates on the scientification of religious concepts and the entanglement of religious experience with medical discourse.

This paper pursues two primary objectives: First, to reconstruct the history and operational strategies of the San Francisco-based Kundalini Clinic, emphasising its far-reaching impact on the clinical examination of rare psycho-physiological processes in the context of “spiritual emergencies”; and second, to investigate the Clinic’s role in efforts to demystify kundalini through scientistic methodologies – a process that sought to redefine kundalini as an empirically observable, physiological process rather than a subtle force. While significant gaps remain due to the fragmentary nature of available sources, this paper underscores the pivotal role of the Kundalini Clinic and its key figures in advancing kundalini research and thus contributing to kundalini’s scientification.