Practices in search of legitimacy. The contemporary use of ayahuasca, between religious and therapeutic vindications

Dupuis situates the paper in the broader phenomenon of Western interest in ayahuasca and ‘‘shamanic’’ rituals since the late 20th century, which has produced a proliferation of shamanic centres in Peruvian Amazonia catering to foreign visitors. Earlier research and public debate frame these places as hybrid sites that mix mestizo and indigenous Amazonian healing techniques, biomedical practices and elements drawn from Western contemporary spirituality (New Age). The author highlights Takiwasi, founded in 1992, as a prominent example that combines local pharmacopeia and ritual with clinical and psychotherapeutic frameworks. This study investigates how Takiwasi’s practices and public representations have changed over time and asks whether these changes can be read as strategies of legitimisation in the context of globalization, legal uncertainty and political stigma attached to ayahuasca use. Dupuis aims to show the roles played by religious traditions and the medical field in constructing and maintaining hybrid therapeutic–ritual practices around ayahuasca, and to explain the institution’s evolving identity between therapeutic, New Age and Catholic registers.

The analysis draws on two complementary sources. First, Dupuis analyses the institution’s public communications (articles, conferences, documentaries, websites and similar materials) to trace how Takiwasi presents itself and seeks legitimacy. Second, the paper is grounded in ethnographic fieldwork totalling 18 months divided into three research stays in the San Martín region (High-Amazon of Peru) between 2008 and 2013, most of the time at Takiwasi. During a first four-month stay in 2009 the investigator focused on the addiction treatment programme, using participant observation of daily and ritual interactions and conducting interviews and life histories with about ten drug-dependent patients and key institutional actors (ritual specialists, psychologists). The second stay (six months in 2011) included attendance at four seminars for foreign clients (15–20 participants each), shared daily/ritual activities, and around thirty individual interviews. The final eight-month visit in 2013 involved attendance at three seminars (total 45 participants), weekly interviews with two inpatients hospitalized for six months, plus occasional interviews with other patients. Ethnographic methods emphasised participant observation of ritual and daily practices, and life histories to access emic representations. The fieldwork was complemented by a comparative study of regional mestizo/Lamista folk medicine to situate Takiwasi’s practices within local therapeutic repertoires. The extracted text does not detail formal analytic software or a coding framework; analysis appears to be interpretive and synthesis-oriented, combining documentary analysis with ethnographic observation and interviews.

Dupuis reconstructs the institutional history of Takiwasi and its evolving practices. Founded in 1992 by the French physician Jacques Mabit with Peruvian and European collaborators, Takiwasi combined research on traditional medicines with a therapeutic community model for treating addictions. The centre received state authorisation early on and benefited from a mix of funding (private donors, French government, European Community, United Nations) to build facilities and staff a multidisciplinary team. By the time of fieldwork, Takiwasi employed about forty people, including a laboratory team of six producing herbal preparations, physicians, psychologists and ritual specialists. The clinic runs a nine‑month residential therapeutic community for around fifteen patients at a time, advertising that it has treated more than five hundred drug addicts. The treatment model mixes daily communal work and workshops, weekly psychotherapy sessions, mandatory ritual practices (weekly emetic purge and ayahuasca ceremonies) and periodic ten‑day dietary confinements every two months. In 2014 the psychology team was reported to include four psychologists of various nationalities. The authors describe an original etiological and therapeutic theory promoted by Takiwasi staff. Addiction is framed less as a purely biomedical disorder and more as a form of spiritual malaise or ‘‘counter‑initiation’’ arising from an unmet aspiration for transcendence in secular societies. This perspective draws on transpersonal psychology and the psychedelic therapeutic tradition (Grof, et al. are cited in the paper). Ayahuasca is represented as a psychotherapeutic catalyst that facilitates imagery, abreaction and access to perinatal, transgenerational or transpersonal material; ritual ingestion is followed by integration through individual interviews and group discussions, so that the experience becomes a heuristic tool for psychological insight. Dupuis also traces the role of contemporary Western religiosity and New Age imaginaries in shaping Takiwasi’s public image. Jacques Mabit’s biographical narrative—portrayed in institutional communications and documentaries as an ‘‘initiation path’’ involving ayahuasca visions—has contributed to his charismatic authority and to the institution’s attraction for Western clients. Over time, however, a notable shift toward Catholic elements occurred. From around 2004 Takiwasi incorporated Catholic liturgical elements, exorcism prayers and symbols (crucifixes, holy water), consecrated chapel space and invoked Catholic notions such as ‘‘infestation’’ to explain certain psychopathologies. The institution thus began to present ayahuasca ritual both as a therapeutic tool and as compatible with, or amenable to, Catholic frameworks. Legal and political pressures emerge as a central part of the findings. Between 2000 and 2004 Takiwasi and linked French associations faced accusations in France of ‘‘sectarian’’ behaviour and of harms allegedly linked to psychospiritual practices. Judicial investigations and wide media coverage damaged Takiwasi’s reputation; French governmental bodies (MIVILUDES) characterised the group in reports that linked neo‑shamanic practices to manipulation risks. Subsequent regulatory moves in France in 2005 added plants potentially used in ayahuasca to a list of prohibited substances, complicating legal status. Dupuis situates these events within a broader international policy field where other ayahuasca‑using religious groups (Santo Daime, União do Vegetal) have pursued religious‑freedom strategies with mixed legal outcomes (the paper notes successful exemptions in the USA and Brazil in 2006 for strict religious use). As a result of stigma and legal uncertainty, Takiwasi pursued dual strategies of legitimisation: aligning ritual practices with an established religion (Catholicism) and producing clinical data to demonstrate therapeutic efficacy. The paper documents efforts to publicise research, host international meetings and partner with French associations to export practices, while also noting that, publicly, the centre maintains an emphasis on addiction treatment rather than overt religious affiliation. Dupuis reports that other ayahuasca groups have likewise sought legitimacy through scientific studies and regulatory engagement to demonstrate safety and benefits.

Dupuis interprets Takiwasi’s diachronic transformation as a response to social, political and legal pressures generated by the globalisation of ayahuasca use. The shift from an initial emphasis on ‘‘traditional Amazonian medicine’’ and biomedical rhetoric toward New Age framings and, later, Catholic incorporation is read as part of a process of legitimation: invoking established authorities—medical institutions, scientific research and recognised religions—helps protect hybrid practices from accusations of sectarian abuse and from prohibitive drug policies. The author situates these changes within broader patterns identified in earlier research on neo‑shamanism and the internationalisation of ayahuasca use. Dupuis notes that charismatic biography, transnational networks and the export of ritual practices resemble the dynamics of emerging religious movements, but stresses that Takiwasi publicly presents itself as a clinical centre rather than as a religion. The incorporation of Catholic concepts (for example, ‘‘infestation’’) and liturgical elements is therefore interpreted both as an ideological shift and as a tactical adaptation to the French policy context, which is particularly sensitive to ‘‘sectarian’’ deviations. Key limitations and uncertainties are acknowledged indirectly: the analysis is based on public communications and ethnographic data from one institution and its associated networks, so conclusions pertain primarily to Takiwasi as an emblematic case rather than to all ayahuasca‑using groups. Dupuis also emphasises the heterogeneity among groups using ayahuasca—some pursue religious‑freedom strategies (Santo Daime, União do Vegetal), others foreground therapeutic claims—and warns against overgeneralising from a single institution. Implications the author raises include the enduring centrality of medical and religious authorities in legitimising ritual therapies in Western and postcolonial contexts. Dupuis highlights that both therapeutic discourse and affiliation with established religions remain powerful resources for groups seeking legal recognition and public acceptability. The paper suggests that studying these legitimacy strategies can illuminate how hybrid practices are constructed, maintained and regulated in globalised contexts of psychedelic use.

Dupuis concludes that Takiwasi’s evolution—from a project framed in medical and ‘‘traditional medicine’’ terms, through a period marked by New Age influences, to increasing incorporation of Catholic elements—can be understood as a set of responses to social pressures including neo‑shamanism’s popularity, sectarian accusations and prohibitive regulatory moves. The case exemplifies how institutions that use ayahuasca mobilise established authorities—medical expertise and recognised religions—to secure legitimacy for practices that might otherwise face legal or social exclusion. The author emphasises that, despite diversity among ayahuasca groups, the monopoly of established medical and religious authorities over legitimating body‑ and soul‑care persists in Western and postcolonial societies.