I do think there are things in the "mystical" world that are not yet explained by science. And not because these things are unexplainable in their nature, but because they just haven't been fully studied yet. And because a lot of consciousness type things are basically only yours to experience, so it's impossible to really "study" and observe. Taking drugs as an example, you do see consistant biological changes associated to certain substances. And you can measure heart rate, do fMRIs and measure electrical activity. Or ask a person about how they feel and conduct tests. But that doesn't mean you can see what they are seeing that moment or feeling what they are feeling.

Similarly, I think a lot of religious rituals have created frameworks and techniques that can reliably achieve certain results. Stuff like kundalini meditation and chakras seems like a bunch of spiritual mumbo jumbo at first, but it's been around thousands of years. Anyone that does these exercises, even for a really short period of time can feel some strange sensations in their body. And I've actually heard accounts of people doing those exercises, triggering some irreversible process and going trough literal hell with physical symptoms for YEARS. Stuff like extreme chronic pain and insomnia that doctors could not help with. But apparently though work with Gurus, people have resolved their issues. It doesn't mean that the beliefs behind those practices are true, but that a lot is still unexplained by science. And that going through the motions of an age old practice when there is no alternative, can actually mysteriously help.

With all the belief I have in modern science (and being the successful recipient of a brain surgery that cured my epilepsy that would have been impossible 30 years ago), I think matters of the mind are an area we really don't know much about. And everyone is so individually different, with different chemistry, life experiences and circumstances. Even the troubles we can identify (depression, adhd, ptsd, addiction), we often can't cure or manage successfully. We're getting better every year, with new therapies and medication, but we're far from success. So I see no harm in therapies that seem weird or without scientific explanation if they do work.

I think the NGT quote goes both ways. This is also a prime example of why making this arbitrary distinction between science and religion is the wrong way to look at the world, and can get very arbitrary with a quickness. After all, the scientific explanation doesn't preclude the religious one.

From the rebuttal you linked:

I am sometimes questioned by well-meaning but confused scientists who do not understand the role that scientific skepticism plays in society. Isn’t science itself enough? Aren’t all scientists skeptical, or at least they should be?

The author is not acting as a scientist when he consults on demonic possession. He's acting as a healer. Primum non nocere on this one is "are there any psychiatric treatments that will help the patient?" There may not be. If the patient is Catholic, living in a Catholic environment, a Catholic treatment may be the most effective course of action.

Further, the author is putting forth his anecdotes as anecdotes and his beliefs as beliefs. He has not convinced me in the reality of demonic possession. He has, however, convinced me of his belief in demonic possession, which is of greater pragmatic value in the solution-space of "devout Catholics whose loved ones think they're possessed".

I have always thought that, if requested to help a tortured person, a physician should not arbitrarily refuse to get involved. Those who dismiss these cases unwittingly prevent patients from receiving the help they desperately require, either by failing to recommend them for psychiatric treatment (which most clearly need) or by not informing their spiritual ministers that something beyond a mental or other illness seems to be the issue. For any person of science or faith, it should be impossible to turn one’s back on a tormented soul.

A quote of yours, if I may:

Saying 'I don't know, gotta be the devil tho' is essentially an evil act because it is thought terminating.

I think that's unnecessarily dismissive. He's not saying "I don't know, gotta be the devil tho." He's saying "I've ruled out everything but the devil." A secular psychiatrist would probably not make that statement. She would probably blitz right through Beelzebub and move on to whatever else looked promising. But the thing is, clinical trials and useful effects in the field don't overlap all that great, particularly when it comes to psychoactives.

Here's the question: is there potential harm from a religious ritual? I'm trusting that a clinically-trained psychiatrist does not condone exorcism rituals that have the potential to make things psychiatrically worse but that's trust, not knowledge. If my trust is well-placed, is there any harm from shaking a bible at a crazy person?