What finally makes the headlines in reports about scientific findings are the speculations at the end of an article. The hard findings come before that section. And they are much more likely to persist than the speculations.

Looking for physiological correlates is a very valuable way to gain knowledge. I see no alternative research program from the other side bringing even a fraction of the results. What we now know more about mystical experiences, schizophrenia, epilepsy etc. is more than two thousand years worth of philosphying.

PP is of course wrong in one title-giving aspect: it is not the rational explanation but a. I like it nevertheless.

Re 'Abraham': Did god talk to him or was he a lunatic are not the only alternatives. A whole branch of archeological and historical research thinks that there never was a single 'Abraham' but that the authors of the Pentateuch writing at much later times weaved some legends into a more or less coherent narrative and invented names to go with the legends.

The good thing is that mentioning such possibilities doesn't get one killed any longer like in the old times and like now still in Muslim countries. Mention the possibility that Muhammed might have had visions from the firing of his neurons and not triggered by god and you are in danger of life.

Wolfgang