Psychedelic Churches and the Tyranny of "Religion"

Dominant thought contends that religious freedom laws provide legal support for religious practitioners to exercise religion on their terms. Scholars of religion and law increasingly question this view. Critical scholarship has demonstrated three key points: first, that “religion” is a malleable term lacking a stable or inherent meaning; second, that Christian notions of religiosity influence American laws; and third, that these laws privilege Christian-based models of religiosity more broadly. Based on these insights, religious freedom laws do not merely protect “religion”—they prioritize forms of social organization that mirror institutional Christianity. Practitioners in the so-called psychedelic renaissance particularly feel the impact of these laws, especially people seeking legal protection as religious practitioners. These practitioners often consult attorneys who study the models of religiosity articulated by the courts and then coach their clients and members to replicate those models.

The result is a paradox wherein religious freedom laws ostensibly exist to protect religious expression yet simultaneously constrain it by reinforcing a narrow, Christian-influenced paradigm. Scholars of law and religion have highlighted how religious freedom cases frequently involve the state deciding what counts as legitimate religious practice. This legal framework does not emerge in a vacuum; rather, it reflects historical entanglements between Christian institutions and state governance. Consequently, practitioners of non-Christian traditions, including Indigenous and entheogenic religious communities, find themselves navigating a legal landscape that demands conformity to models of religiosity alien to their traditions.

This paper will highlight the arbitrariness of these laws, the pressures these laws impose on practitioners, and the various ways that these laws require practitioners to modify Indigenous practices to suit models of religiosity articulated in U.S. law. Practitioners who engage in entheogenic rituals must often reframe their traditions to fit within categories legible to American courts. This includes demonstrating elements such as hierarchical leadership, formalized doctrines, and structured rituals, which align more closely with Christian ecclesiastical frameworks than with the fluid, community-based practices characteristic of many Indigenous traditions. In doing so, these laws do not merely protect religious expression; they actively shape it, producing forms of religiosity that conform to the expectations of American jurisprudence.

To these ends, this paper will examine laws in several South American countries that protect the use of psychoactive substances outside the framework of religious freedom. Countries such as Brazil, Colombia, and Peru have developed legal protections for Indigenous and traditional uses of psychoactive substances that do not depend on religious freedom arguments. Instead, these protections emerge from frameworks recognizing Indigenous sovereignty, cultural heritage, and traditional medicine. For example, Brazil has explicitly legalized the sacramental use of ayahuasca through regulatory measures that acknowledge its cultural significance rather than forcing practitioners to conform to a Christian-derived religious model. Similarly, Peru recognizes ayahuasca as part of its national cultural patrimony, granting it a legal status that does not necessitate practitioners defining their practices in relation to Western religious categories.

By contrast, American laws are deeply embedded within the religious freedom paradigm, requiring practitioners to argue for legal protection through claims of religious sincerity and legitimacy. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and court decisions such as Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006) have allowed certain groups to use ayahuasca under religious exemptions. However, these cases illustrate the broader constraints at play. Groups must demonstrate structured leadership, coherent belief systems, and continuity of practice—criteria that align with Christian ecclesiology rather than Indigenous spiritual traditions. In this context, legal protection is not granted based on the inherent cultural or spiritual value of entheogenic practice but rather on its ability to conform to legal definitions of religion.

Finally, drawing on ethnographic research, this paper will contrast Indigenous models of ayahuasca consumption in Peru with church-based models in the U.S. Indigenous ayahuasca practices often occur in communal settings without rigid institutional structures. Healing and spiritual guidance are typically provided by shamans, or curanderos, who operate within dynamic and evolving traditions. These practices emphasize direct experience, community participation, and relationships with the natural world, all of which stand in stark contrast to the structured, hierarchical frameworks of U.S.-based ayahuasca churches. In the U.S., groups seeking legal protection under religious freedom laws frequently adopt church-like models, complete with formal membership, clergy, and codified beliefs. This shift reflects the pressures exerted by American legal frameworks, which compel practitioners to mold their traditions to fit Christian-influenced standards of legitimacy.

This analysis demonstrates that, despite aiming to protect religious freedom, American laws and court decisions often coerce practitioners to navigate and adjust to Christian-influenced paradigms of religiosity. By requiring entheogenic religious practitioners to conform to specific legal definitions, the U.S. legal system exerts a form of epistemic and structural violence that reshapes religious expression. This paper also argues that legal models of religiosity in the U.S. motivate practitioners to modify Indigenous practices, arguably committing neocolonial violence in the “postcolonial” world. By contrast, South American legal frameworks provide a compelling alternative, offering protections that do not rely on Christian-derived religious categories. This comparative perspective underscores the limitations of American religious freedom laws and highlights the need for legal approaches that recognize and respect Indigenous and entheogenic traditions on their own terms.