Home Browse Neuroscientific, Behavioural, and Mental Health Interventions for...
ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
▬
✚
Study Protocol

Neuroscientific, Behavioural, and Mental Health Interventions for Survivors of Unethical Religious Healing Practices: A Scoping Review Protocol

[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
THALUKANYO CLOEPATRA MUFUNWA SADIKI
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6045-3935
1,2, Mashudu Edward Muthivhi
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2418-4436
1,2
THALUKANYO CLOEPATRA MUFUNWA SADIKI
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6045-3935
1,2, Mashudu Edward Muthivhi
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2418-4436
1,2
PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2026
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW

This article is included in the Health Services gateway.

Abstract

Trauma and long-term psychological distress have been made increasingly apparent by the recognition of unethical religious healing practices as a source of trauma amongst survivors through methods such as spiritual coercion, psychological manipulation, causing physical harm, and neglect of medical needs. Though religious healing can be an important form of coping and creating meaning for many communities, its harmful applications create significant ethical, neurological, behavioural, and mental health issues. Support for survivors has been researched, but the literature is not well synthesised across disciplines, thereby limiting the evidence available to support effective interventions. This protocol for a scoping review will describe the systematic process for mapping neuroscience, behavioural, and mental health interventions for those who have experienced unethical religious healing practices. Using the Arksey and O’Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, this scoping review will identify and chart peer-reviewed and grey literature on intervention types, targeted populations, theoretical underpinnings, and reported results. It will explore how trauma associated with unethical religious healing is conceptualised among and between disciplines, describe what interventions are used to help support survivors, and identify gaps in research and practice. The results of this scoping review will improve trauma-informed mental health care, foster ethical pastoral practice, and provide guidelines for addressing religiously mediated harm through an interdisciplinary approach.

Keywords

Behavioural Interventions, Mental Health, Neuroscience and Trauma, Spiritual Abuse, Trauma Informed Care, Unethical Religious Healing

Corresponding author: THALUKANYO CLOEPATRA MUFUNWA SADIKI
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Copyright:  © 2026 SADIKI TCM and Muthivhi ME. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite: SADIKI TCM and Muthivhi ME. Neuroscientific, Behavioural, and Mental Health Interventions for Survivors of Unethical Religious Healing Practices: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2026, 15:985 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.180142.1) First published: 20 Jun 2026, 15:985 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.180142.1) Latest published: 20 Jun 2026, 15:985 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.180142.1)

Introduction

The role that religious/spiritual healing plays in many cultures is vital, especially when access to healthcare through conventional systems is limited or non-existent.1 Religious healing can also be a source of comfort, a way to cope with life challenges, and a means to develop psychological resilience and/or enhance one’s spiritual well-being.2 While most people’s experiences with spiritual healing have been positive, there is now considerable evidence to suggest that unethical spiritual healing does exist and can severely damage the mind, body, and spirit of those who have experienced it.3,4 entails that unethical religious practices include coercion, which uses guilt and fear to manipulate another person into ritual performances. These acts inflict physical harm upon another person for religious purposes. Medical care is mostly neglected and replaced by an abusive religious authority that exploits one’s vulnerability.5

In many cases, survivors of unethical/spiritual healing report feeling spiritually abused, traumatized, and having had their autonomy violated.6,7 supports saying that the psychological effects of unethical spiritual healing are not only spiritual or theological in nature, but they are often seen in patterns of mental health issues which can include anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms, dissociative disorders, and changes in behaviour. According to neuroscientific evidence, prolonged exposure to fear, coercion, or abuse in a religious setting can lead to persistent stress reactions, impair one’s ability to manage emotions, and impact the areas of the brain responsible for processing trauma and recovering from it.8 Additionally, studies have shown that traumatic events negatively impact the way that the brain functions, regulates stress hormones, and has neuroplasticity; thus, traumatic experiences shape how individuals behave and interact over time.9 To support survivors of trauma, researchers must consider belief systems as well as understand how traumatic events affect people’s bodies and brains.10

Behavioural scientists provide additional insight into this area by researching how harmful spiritual healing practices can create a pattern of people complying with those who have harmed them, as well as teach individuals to be subservient, helpless or avoidant, or use unhealthy coping mechanisms.11 As a result, many survivors experience challenges related to trusting others after leaving a harmful religious group, as well as reconstructing their identity and making effective decisions. According to,11 a combination of behavioural change strategies and support from others will be important components of success during healing.

Recently, more mental health interventions that incorporate trauma-informed principles have been developed for populations impacted by experiences of abuse, violence, and complex trauma.12 However, there has been little published material on specific treatment modalities for survivors of unethical religious healing, and the existing research has not been consistently documented or reported. Furthermore, the current literature on treatment for survivors is scattered across several different disciplines (e.g., psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, religious studies, ethics, and pastoral care), making it difficult for researchers and practitioners to obtain an integrated overview of the available literature.13

There is a growing body of research documenting the harms caused by religion, but at this time, there is no summary of the research on neuroscience, behaviour, and mental health interventions designed to support survivors of unethical religious healing practices.14 This lack of a synthesis hinders the development of evidence-based, ethically informed, and culturally appropriate responses to survivors of unethical religious healing practices in clinical and faith-based settings.14 To remedy this situation, this scoping review protocol aims to develop a systematic framework for identifying and mapping the existing literature on interventions to support survivors of unethical religious healing practices. This review will identify the various therapeutic approaches, theoretical constructs, and reported outcomes for each therapy, thereby contributing to an interdisciplinary body of scholarship.15 In addition, the proposed scoping review will support trauma-informed mental health practitioners and contribute to the larger discussion of ethical issues related to religious healing and the treatment of survivors.16

Aim of the study

In this scoping review, we will develop a systematic map to delineate all studies about the use of neuroscientific, behavioural, and mental health intervention(s) to address survivors of unethical religious healing practices; this will allow us to identify the extent, type, and nature of current evidence, and to identify areas lacking evidence for both future research and future practice.17

Objectives of the study

The specific objectives of this scoping review are to:

  • 1. Identify and map neuroscientific, behavioural, and mental health interventions reported in the literature for supporting survivors of unethical religious healing practices.

  • 2. Examine how harm and trauma associated with unethical religious healing are conceptualised across neuroscience, behavioural science, and mental health disciplines, including the theoretical assumptions informing intervention design.

  • 3. Describe the scope and characteristics of the literature, including survivor populations, cultural and contextual settings, intervention frameworks, and reported psychological, behavioural, neurobiological, and psychosocial outcomes.

  • 4. Identify gaps, limitations, and implications for future practice and research, with particular attention to ethical considerations, cultural sensitivity, and applicability in low-resource and faith-based contexts.

Main scoping review question

What neuroscientific, behavioural and mental health interventions have been used in literature to support individuals subjected to unethical religious healing practices?

Sub-questions:

  • 1. How does the neuroscientific, behavioural and mental health literature define the impact of unethical religious healing practices in relation to trauma or harm?

  • 2. What types of support interventions (neuroscientific, behavioural, psychological, psychosocial or integrative) have been demonstrated in the scientific literature for those who have experienced unethical religious healing practices, and what theoretical and/or conceptual model(s) are referenced for these support interventions?

  • 3. For whom and in what context are there populations from the survivor perspective present in the scientific literature (i.e., demographics, culture, religion, and location)?

  • 4. What outcomes, ethical issues, and/or gaps in evidence have been identified in literature for support interventions for survivors of unethical religious healing practices, particularly in relation to efficacy, cultural relevance, and integration across disciplines?

Optional PCC mapping (for your Methods section)

  • • Population: Survivors of unethical or harmful religious healing practices

  • • Concept: Neuroscientific, behavioural, and mental health interventions

  • • Context: Clinical, community-based, faith-adjacent, and multidisciplinary settings

Research design and methods

Study design

The proposed research project will apply a scoping study methodology to locate and categorise all published work that has examined neuroscientific, behavioural, and mental health interventions to help individuals recover from exposure to faith-based abuse through abusive faith-based healing activities. In delivering the report, we will follow Arksey and O’Malley’s18 framework for scoping studies and adhere to PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

Search strategy

A systematic literature search for both peer-reviewed and general literature will be performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and the ATLA Religion Database. Our search terms will focus on topics related to unethical use of faith to provide spiritual healing services, along with spiritual abuse or trauma, and any interventions that have been supported through research to assist individuals in recovering from harm associated with these types of practices. All duplicate records will be removed from the proposed studies prior to screening.

Key terms include:

  • • “Unethical Religious Healing.”

  • • “Spiritual Abuse.”

  • • “Trauma Informed Care.”

  • • “Neuroscience and Trauma.”

  • • “Behavioural Interventions.”

  • • “Mental Health.”

Selection of sources

Inclusion criteria

Studies will be considered for inclusion if they meet the following criteria:

  • 1. Population: Survivors who have experienced unethical or damaging practices in religious-based healing.

  • 2. Concepts: Studies that discuss neuroscientific, behavioural, mental health, psychosocial, and psychological interventions that support survivors.

  • 3. Context: Studies will be included from clinical, community-based, faith supportive, or multiculturally related research sites and organisations (pastors/churches/religious institutions).

  • 4. Types of Sources: Peer-reviewed journal articles, books, book chapters, theses, dissertations, reports, and relevant grey literature.

  • 5. Language: Published in English.

  • 6. Time Frame: No date restrictions will be applied to ensure comprehensiveness; all relevant studies up to the date of the search will be included.

Exclusion criteria

Studies will be excluded if they meet any of the following:

  • 1. Focus solely on positive religious coping or general religious practices without reference to harm or unethical practices.

  • 2. Do not address interventions or support strategies for survivors.

  • 3. Opinion pieces, commentaries, or editorials without analytical or empirical data.

  • 4. Published in languages other than English.

  • 5. Studies unrelated to religiously mediated harm or interventions for survivors.

Selection of sources

All records will be imported into reference management software with duplicate records deleted. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts for eligibility before conducting full-text screening of each record. Disagreements regarding eligible studies will be resolved by either discussion or by the involvement of a third reviewer. This screening process will be reported using a PRISMA flow diagram.

Data extraction

Data from the included studies will be extracted using a pre-designed data charting form. Key information will include:

  • • Author(s) and year of publication

  • • Study type and design

  • • Population characteristics (e.g., age, gender, context)

  • • Type of intervention (neuroscientific, behavioural, mental health, psychosocial)

  • • Theoretical or conceptual framework

  • • Outcomes reported (psychological, behavioural, neurological, or psychosocial)

  • • Key findings relevant to survivor support

The data extraction form will then be pilot tested using a sample of studies to ensure consistently and comprehensively extracted data. Each study will be independently extracted for data by two reviewers, and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion and with the assumption of a third reviewer. Extracted data will be synthesised descriptively and thematically to map the range and characteristics of interventions, outcomes, and conceptual approaches in survivor support.

Timeline

It will take 6 months to complete the entire scoping review process. In month 1 of the scoping review process, the protocol will be finalised, the search strategy developed, and the pilot test of the Data Charting Form conducted. Pilot testing aims to ensure consistency and comprehensiveness across all studies included in the scoping review. Months 2 and 3 will be spent conducting database and grey literature searches, removing duplicates from these records, and completing title and abstract scans for records identified as possibly eligible.

Month 4 will involve full-text scans of records that pass title and abstract screening for potential eligibility, while month 5 will involve extracting and charting data from these full-text records. During month 6, all extracted data from prior months will be compiled and thematically analysed, while writing and reviewing the final report to ensure completeness, following PRISMA-ScR. This structured timeline provides an efficient, systematic approach to conducting a scoping review while ensuring sufficient time is built into each month for quality control processes, reviewer discussions, and adherence to all PRISMA-ScR requirements.

Expected results

The review is expected to:

  • 1. Map the range of interventions (neuroscientific, behavioural, and mental health) available for survivors of unethical religious healing.

  • 2. Describe survivor populations, contexts, and theoretical frameworks used in interventions.

  • 3. Identify reported outcomes, including psychological, behavioural, neurological, and psychosocial effects.

  • 4. Highlight gaps and limitations in the existing literature, providing guidance for future research, practice, and trauma-informed, ethically grounded interventions.

The findings will provide a comprehensive, interdisciplinary overview to inform mental health professionals, pastoral caregivers, and researchers working with survivors of religiously mediated harm.

Ethical consideration

This research will analyse literature that already exists; therefore, there is no requirement for ethical clearance as there will be no collection of primary data. Ethical standards include proper citation and acknowledgement of sources, as well as correct representation of results.

Conclusion

The scoping review protocol outlines a systematic method by which a mapping of interventions associated with disordered/benignant behaviour (NBH) and mental health (MH) of individuals recovering from religious abuse will occur. This review aims to collate evidence from multiple disciplines to develop a broader understanding of the similarities/differences in the nature, characteristics, and outcomes of available treatment modalities, and to identify gaps in the literature. As such, the findings from this review will also assist in the development of trauma-informed practices in the mental health field and in the facilitation of ethical, pastoral care. The findings will inform future research in this new area by laying out an interdisciplinary framework to create best practice, evidence-based interventions that are sensitive to the cultural diversity of individuals who are subjected to religiously based abuse.

Author contributions

MEM is responsible for conceptualising the study and drafting the first version, while STCM is responsible for developing the title, protocol, and manuscript. MEM is responsible for study design, including preparation of methodology and search strategy. STCM is also jointly responsible for conducting literature searches, screening, extracting, and analysing all results. MEM & STCM contributed to drafting/revising the manuscript. MEM approved the final version of this paper and accepts complete responsibility for all components.

Supplementary material

The supplementary materials will include complete search strategies for each database, the data charting tool, any other tables used to summarise the included studies, the characteristics of the intervention, and the outcome data extracted from each study.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this scoping review will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Extracted data, including study characteristics, interventions, theoretical frameworks, and outcomes, will be stored securely and shared in accordance with ethical and data protection standards.

Extended data

Sadiki, T., & Muthivhi, M. (2026, May 27). Neuroscientific, Behavioural, and Mental Health Interventions for Survivors of Unethical Religious Healing Practices: A Scoping Review Protocol. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DP9YX.19

References

  • 1.  Borkor KI: Religion and Spirituality in the Lives of the Aged in Dormaa Traditional Area. University Of Ghana; Doctoral dissertation.
  • 2.  Riley-Seymour SY: Bruised by Their Transgressions: A Phenomenological Study of Healing from Traumatic Religious Experiences.2023.
  • 3.  Al Shelali M, Alibrahim H, Alomar N, et al.: The good, the bad, and the ugly of faith healers and psychiatric illnesses: a systematic review of the literature in the Arab world. J. Relig. Health. 2024; 63(2): 857–876. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 4.  Gogashvili M: The Invisible Mechanisms of Control in Authoritarian Regimes: From Coercion to Consent and Moral Normalization. German International Journal of Modern Science/Deutsche Internationale Zeitschrift für Zeitgenössische Wissenschaft. 2025; 119.
  • 5.  Muthivhi ME: Overview of contemporary Practical Theology in Africa: Conceptualisations of spiritual abuse. Stellenbosch Theological Journal. 2025; 11(2): 1–22. Publisher Full Text
  • 6.  Taylor EH: The myth of spirituality. J. Soc. Work. 2023; 23(6): 1005–1021. Publisher Full Text
  • 7.  Tahir TA: Bridging the Gap to Reduce the Duration of Untreated Illness-Spirituality and Mental Health. Journal of Pakistan Psychiatric Society. 2025; 22(1). Publisher Full Text
  • 8.  McGraw DM, Ebadi M, Dalenberg C, et al.: Consequences of abuse by religious authorities: A review. Traumatology. 2019; 25(4): 242–255. Publisher Full Text
  • 9.  Gentsch A, Kuehn E: Clinical manifestations of body memories: The impact of past bodily experiences on mental health. Brain Sci. 2022; 12(5): 594. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 10.  Leung T, Schmidt F, Mushquash C: A personal history of trauma and experience of secondary traumatic stress, vicarious trauma, and burnout in mental health workers: A systematic literature review. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy. 2023; 15(S2): S213–S221. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 11.  Al Shelali M, Alibrahim H, Alomar N, et al.: The good, the bad, and the ugly of faith healers and psychiatric illnesses: a systematic review of the literature in the Arab world. J. Relig. Health. 2024; 63(2): 857–876. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 12.  Kearns J, Davidson G, Shannon C, et al.: How trauma-informed are we? A comparative framework analysis of early intervention service guidelines for psychosis and trauma-informed principles. Psychosis. 2026; 1–19. Publisher Full Text
  • 13.  Wood HJ, Babusci C, Bendall S, et al.: Trauma and trauma-informed care in early intervention in psychosis: state of implementation and provider views on challenges. Psychiatr. Serv. 2023; 74(12): 1240–1246. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 14.  Koch D, Edstrom L: Development of the spiritual harm and abuse scale. J. Sci. Study Relig. 2022; 61(2): 476–506. Publisher Full Text
  • 15.  Cénat JM: Complex racial trauma: Evidence, theory, assessment, and treatment. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2023; 18(3): 675–687. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 16.  Igwea EU, Peter-Anyebeb AC, Onojac AD: Integrating Trauma-Informed Pastoral Counseling into Correctional Behavioral Health: A Review of Evidence-Based Practices and Spiritual Care Models. Journal of Healthcare in Developing Countries (JHCDC). 2025; 5(2): 01–11. Publisher Full Text
  • 17.  Rosmarin DH, Kaufman CC, Ford SF, et al.: The neuroscience of spirituality, religion, and mental health: A systematic review and synthesis. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2022; 156: 100–113. Publisher Full Text
  • 18.  Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005; 8: 19–32. Publisher Full Text
  • 19.  Sadiki T, Muthivhi M: Neuroscientific, Behavioural, and Mental Health Interventions for Survivors of Unethical Religious Healing Practices: A Scoping Review Protocol.2026, May 27. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2026
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Article Versions (1)
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
 - -
Citations
SEE MORE DETAILS
CITE
how to cite this article
SADIKI TCM and Muthivhi ME. Neuroscientific, Behavioural, and Mental Health Interventions for Survivors of Unethical Religious Healing Practices: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2026, 15:985 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.180142.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2026
Comment

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment
Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

    Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
    Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
    Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
    Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
    Sign In
    If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

    The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
    Email address not valid, please try again

    You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

    To sign in, please click here.

    If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

    You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

    To sign in, please click here.

    If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

    Code not correct, please try again
    Email us for further assistance.
    Server error, please try again.