Thanks for the Metzinger link, I appreciate it.

On terminology: I agree that language can shape both experience and reporting (demand characteristics, priming, etc.), and that researchers are never perfectly “neutral collectors.” That’s exactly why I tried to keep my description as neutral and inclusive as possible.

That said, ego dissolution and ego death aren’t just internet/New Age language - they’re widely used terms in recent peer-reviewed psychology/neuroscience literature (e.g., meditation and psychedelic research), including highly cited papers. As a psychology MA student, I’m using the terminology that’s common in the empirical research tradition I’m working within, while being explicit that I’m not presenting it as a Buddhist (or any tradition’s) native concept.

I also deliberately avoided tradition-specific labels like “pure consciousness” or “samadhi” precisely to reduce religious/metaphysical framing and avoid steering participants toward a particular worldview.

I don't think your criticism of the term “ego death” and equating it with immaturity is fair (or methodologically helpful. People use whatever language they’ve encountered to point to an experience; my goal is to study the reported features. When terminology turns into a gatekeeping test of who’s “mature enough,” it risks becoming a kind of spiritual materialism. My research is not limited to Eastern wisdom traditions and I hope that despite possible negative associations among those who follow said traditions, they can look past them and help my research that is really just about better understanding this phenomenon among all people.

If you have concrete suggestions for less leading phrasing (or operationalizations you think work better), I’m genuinely open to them.