A wave of recent research is calling into question the idea that meditation is universally beneficial. While mindfulness has deep roots in Buddhist traditions and is widely promoted in modern Thailand as a tool for stress relief and wellbeing, new findings show potential adverse effects for some practitioners. Reports point to anxiety, depression, dissociation, and even psychotic symptoms in rare cases. As mindfulness expands into Thai schools, workplaces, and healthcare, these findings carry important implications for teachers, administrators, and policymakers.
Thai readers have often seen mindfulness and meditation championed by temples, wellness apps, and the public health sector as simple remedies for daily pressures. The new evidence raises critical questions about safety and scope. The Dharmatrāta Meditation Scripture, dating back over 1,500 years, notes psychological disturbances such as depression and distorted thinking after meditation. In today’s Thai mindfulness movement, discussions about potential negative outcomes are not always present, despite its rapid growth.
Recent studies show that adverse effects are neither rare nor restricted to those with prior mental illness. A 2022 U.S. study of 953 regular meditators found that more than 10 percent experienced negative effects like persistent anxiety, depression, dissociation, or psychosis for longer than a month, impairing daily functioning. A broader review across four decades of mindfulness research indicates that even healthy individuals can be affected, with a range of symptoms from mild fear to significant distress.
Western science has echoed these concerns. Early work in the 1970s warned that indiscriminate meditation could trigger psychiatric problems, including psychotic episodes. More recently, a major international study supported by the Wellcome Trust examined over 8,000 UK children and found that mindfulness programs did not consistently improve wellbeing and could harm those predisposed to mental health challenges.
The mindfulness boom—sometimes labeled “McMindfulness”—has become a multi-billion-dollar industry with limited regulation about safety. In Thailand, mindfulness centers, online wellness platforms, and schools have embraced the practice widely. Yet, warnings about potential risks are not as prominent as the ongoing international debates.
An associate professor of experimental psychology at a UK university notes that the issue is not the absence of benefits but the near-silence on adverse effects within the mindfulness industry. In Thailand, some instructors—trained abroad or locally—have struggled to address student distress, sometimes advising continued practice regardless of symptoms. Such guidance can worsen suffering and undermine trust in mindfulness programs.
In Thailand, mindfulness is increasingly integrated into school curricula to boost emotional resilience and focus. The recent UK study suggests that without safeguards, mindfulness interventions may harm youths at risk for mental health issues. Thai educators and the Ministry of Education should review program guidelines and incorporate protections for vulnerable students.
The risks extend to professionals in high-stress fields, including healthcare. Workplace mindfulness programs can yield benefits, but without proper screening and ongoing support, employees may experience lingering side effects that require clinical attention. Reports from academic handbooks and support networks for affected meditators document symptoms lasting weeks or months in some cases.
Ethical questions are central: should providers of meditation apps, instructors of mindfulness classes, or clinicians who prescribe mindfulness be required to inform users of potential risks? Across the globe, experts increasingly favor transparency and informed consent. In the United States, a clinical service has emerged to assist meditators dealing with serious or long-lasting side effects—an approach Thai health authorities may study as mindfulness grows.
A Coventry University perspective emphasizes that while mindfulness can offer benefits, scientific understanding of consciousness-altering states remains incomplete. This limits safety guidance for practitioners. Teachers, monks, and policymakers must rely on evolving evidence, open dialogue, and ethics to guide Thailand’s approach to mindfulness.
For a Buddhist-majority society like Thailand, where meditation is deeply woven into daily life, these findings are sensitive. Mindfulness is often viewed as a shield against suffering and a promoter of moral conduct. The commercialization of mindfulness, if not balanced with safeguards, risks overlooking potential harms.
Looking ahead, Thailand faces choices about regulation and education. International best practices call for clearer teacher training, risk screening for mental health vulnerabilities, and accessible support when side effects occur. There is a clear need for more Thai-centered research to ensure mindfulness enhances health and happiness without unintended harm.
Practitioners who wish to explore mindfulness should stay informed and seek guidance from teachers or clinical psychologists who acknowledge potential risks. Start with shorter sessions and monitor mental health closely, especially for individuals with a history of mental health issues. Institutions must keep pace with evolving research and present a balanced view of mindfulness as a therapeutic tool with both benefits and risks.
As global attitudes evolve, Thailand’s blend of tradition and innovation offers an opportunity to model an ethical, evidence-based approach to mindfulness that serves public welfare. For readers seeking deeper insights, researchers suggest reviewing comprehensive overviews of adverse effects and engaging with qualified mindfulness professionals who emphasize safety and informed practice.
In the words of international experts, informed mindfulness is responsible mindfulness—balanced, transparent, and attentive to potential harms as well as benefits.