You speak such obvious bullshit, and yet with such authority.
You don't have evidence of any of the things you just said.
You don't have evidence of any of the things you just said.
Whether or not they're true objectively doesn't really matter if the participants believe them to be true.
If they believe those ideas to be true, and that belief is what causes the improvement (similar to how "finding religion" helps people), is that not enough?
Although I do agree that obviously just because they've internalized this experience, that doesn't make it objectively true.
Does that make it more palatable?
There are ways of knowing things that cannot be externally validated. That doesn't mean you can't study them within the four corners of the scientific method; we study pain, depression and lots of other things that take place in the head, too, and a big part of the input is "feelings".
But even without scientific rigor, we can know things. I don't need a study to know when to eat, and I know I've undergone perceptual shifts for various reasons. Since I'm not leading a policy crusade for legalization, a PR campaign to change public perception of legalization or a company that just really wants to sell mushrooms, I don't need more certainty.
TL;DR: there are different ways of knowing things that are good for different purposes.