Home / For Professionals
Where this sits beside the work you already know
For psychologists, psychiatrists, chaplains, educators, and public-health and civil-society staff working with existential health. This is not a new treatment model, and we do not present it as one.
The thirty exercises have their own composition and progression, but almost every process they use is already described somewhere in the clinical or contemplative literature. Mapping that honestly is more useful than claiming novelty — it tells you what the material is likely to do, what it will not do, and where it must not be used.
Below, each framework is given with the problem it addresses, its central mechanism, the capacity it strengthens, a rough orienting note on evidence, and the limitation that matters in relation to this material. The evidence notes are deliberately broad. They are not a systematic review and must not be used as clinical recommendations or as quality judgements on a whole tradition.
Phase by phase
The short version
| Phase | Adjacent frameworks | Shared processes | Decisive limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| I — Self-image | CBT, ACT, CFT | Defusion, reappraisal, self-compassion | Not the abolition of roles or of responsibility |
| II — Attention | MBCT, MCT, MBSR, yoga | Decentring, presence, observation | No conclusions about the ontology of consciousness |
| III — The observer | Phenomenology, ACT, Advaita, Zen | Investigation of self-experience | Particular care where there is fragility or dissociation |
| IV — Control | ACT, DBT, flow research | Acceptance, experienced agency, relational presence | Functional responsibility and boundaries remain |
| V — Compassion | CFT, SDT, positive psychology | Care, social connectedness, engaged action | Prosociality is a possibility, not a guarantee |
| VI — Integration | Existential therapy, mindfulness, palliative existential care | Everyday meaning, reflection on finitude | Does not replace care, grief support or crisis management |
Established psychological frameworks
What this is near
Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)
Problem dysfunctional thoughts and behaviours. Mechanism identifying, testing and restructuring thoughts. Evidence extensive across several diagnostic areas, with varying effect sizes. Limit engages less with the pre-reflective and existential level. Link the sessions on comparison, self-criticism and expectation assume thoughts can be observed and tested — a limited form of model awareness.
Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)
Problem cognitive fusion and experiential avoidance. Mechanism defusion, acceptance, values, self as context. Evidence meta-analytic support across several clinical problems. Limit not primarily a method for the deepest philosophical questions about the self. Link Phases I, II and IV closely resemble ACT processes.
Dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT)
Problem emotional dysregulation and relational difficulty. Mechanism skills training, the acceptance–change dialectic, an observing stance. Evidence support within correct indication and full treatment structure. Limit a thinner existential dimension. Link related to DBT’s observing skills, but does not replace its structure or its crisis support.
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
Problem depressive relapse and recurrent self-critical rumination. Mechanism decentring and present-moment anchoring. Evidence support for relapse prevention in recurrent depression, within studied populations. Limit often a thinner dimension of meaning. Link Sessions 6–10 use a closely related shift from content to stance, but make no claim to be MBCT.
Metacognitive therapy (MCT)
Problem rumination and worry. Mechanism detached mindfulness, change in metacognitive beliefs. Evidence promising, on a smaller base than CBT. Limit a narrow focus compared with a broad existential inquiry. Link the noticing exercises read as everyday metacognitive experiments.
Compassion-focused therapy (CFT)
Problem shame and self-criticism. Mechanism activation of soothing and affiliative systems. Evidence promising but still limited. Limit focuses less directly on cognitive self-models. Link CFT is the corrective that matters most here: self-inquiry must rest on safety and kindness, never on self-erasure.
Salutogenesis and sense of coherence
Problem what promotes health and manageability. Mechanism comprehensibility, manageability, meaningfulness. Evidence good correlational and public-health-relevant research, varying causal support. Limit says less about how coherence is actually created. Link existential orientation lies close to sense of coherence.
Self-determination theory (SDT)
Problem unmet basic needs. Mechanism support for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Evidence extensive. Limit engages less with the pre-reflective level of self-experience. Link an important corrective: inner exploration is not enough without real opportunities for autonomy, competence and belonging.
Logotherapy and existential therapy
Problem loss of meaning; anxiety before finitude, freedom, isolation and meaninglessness. Mechanism the search for meaning; authentic confrontation and reflection. Evidence philosophical depth, limited modern manualisation. Limit hard to standardise; needs adapting to person and situation. Link Session 28 and the closing chapter belong here, and are to be used carefully — never as simplified answers to death or grief.
Gestalt therapy
Problem splitting-off and loss of contact. Mechanism present-moment contact and experiment. Evidence more limited modern evidence, weaker manualisation. Limit a heterogeneous methodological tradition. Link several exercises use experimental attention to body, feeling and relationship in the present.
Contemplative and adjacent approaches
Including the ones we are most often confused with
MBSR and mindfulness-based programmes
Problem stress and reactivity. Mechanism attention, presence, non-judgement. Evidence moderate support for certain stress, anxiety and depression outcomes, with heterogeneous effects and a real need for active follow-up of adverse reactions. Limit risk of dilution, or of individualising problems too narrowly. Link Phase II is clearly related. The difference is that we do not stop at attention regulation: Phases III to VI take up the self-model itself, which mindfulness programmes generally leave alone.
Health Realisation and the Three Principles
Problem thought-bound experience. Mechanism insight into the role of thought in shaping experience. Evidence thin and contested in the modern literature. Limit hidden metaphysical assumptions can make the claims difficult to test. Link we share the practical question of how interpretation shapes experience, and part company on method: we try to state our assumptions where they can be checked, rather than presenting them as self-evident. We apply that same standard to ourselves — see our open questions.
Advaita Vedanta
Problem suffering understood as ignorance of the nature of the self. Mechanism self-inquiry and discernment. Evidence not evidence in the modern clinical sense, but a long first-person tradition. Limit strong metaphysical embedding. Link Phases III and V share the interest in self-inquiry while holding the ontological question open.
Zen
Problem fixation in concepts and dualism. Mechanism meditation, koan, direct inquiry. Evidence not evidence in the modern clinical sense. Limit easily misunderstood outside its practice context. Link Zen names the failure mode we watch for most closely: replacing a rigid self-image with a rigid “non-dual” self-image.
Yoga and tantra
Problem restlessness of mind; division between body and mind, everyday and sacred. Mechanism ethics, body, breath, concentration; integration of the whole of experience. Evidence growing but heterogeneous; not clinical in the tantric case. Limit varying schools and partly metaphysical language. Link a useful corrective — a flexible relation to models also means being able to inhabit life, body and relationship, not only to take distance from them.
Phenomenology
Problem naive conflation of interpretation with what appears. Mechanism bracketing assumptions and investigating the structure of experience. Evidence philosophical and methodological rather than clinical. Limit demanding, and not in itself a treatment. Link our separation of observation, interpretation and ontological conclusion is distinctly phenomenological. This is the closest methodological relative we have.
Across all of it the matrix points to three recurring resources: reflected flexibility, secure belonging and meaningful engagement. The first is close to what we call model awareness — but it is not new, and it is not a sufficient explanation of well-being. CFT, self-determination theory and logotherapy show precisely why safety, relationship and meaning cannot be reduced to cognitive distance.
Practice
Safety principles, and what we offer
Three safety principles
- Coherence before loosening. Where self-experience is fragile, or in acute crisis or dissociative tendencies, stabilisation, relationship and everyday structure take priority.
- Function before intensity. A dramatic experience is not more valuable than a quiet one. Everyday functioning, sleep, relationships and responsibilities weigh more.
- Context before universalism. The same exercise may be helpful, neutral or unsuitable depending on the person, culture, clinical picture and life situation.
What we offer professionals
- Training days on the three-level discipline as a shared working language across secular and religious actors
- Consultation for teams working with existential health
- Material for use inside existing programmes, under your own clinical supervision
- Joint seminars and case discussion
Our framing is grounded in the Public Health Agency of Sweden’s 2025 reports on existential health, the WHO’s WHOQOL-SRPB instrument, and Antonovsky’s salutogenic model. All of it is offered free of charge.