Psycho-Anthropological Perspectives on the New Frontiers of AI-Designed Meditative Techniques

Seminar at the Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome — November 19

On November 19, at 3:00 p.m., I returned to the Faculty of Medicine and Psychology of Sapienza University of Rome to offer the second lecture of my visit, held once again at the university building in Via dei Marsi 78. This seminar was organised and introduced by Professor Marilena Fatigante, whose work explores the dialogue among disciplines that study the person, with special attention to existential questions in psychology and to the ways in which knowledge, care, and cultural practices intersect. The seminar emerged from a shared interest in the profound transformations brought about by artificial intelligence and in the implications of these transformations for psychological life, anthropological theory, and contemporary contemplative practices.

Artificial intelligence now permeates almost every domain of everyday experience. Defined as software capable of simulating aspects of human reasoning through learning, pattern recognition, and problem solving, AI influences not only technical and biomedical fields but also the psychological and relational dimensions of ordinary life. Among young people between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, for example, the use of AI exceeds ninety percent, and their engagement with these systems goes far beyond searching for information or completing schoolwork. Many turn to AI when faced with emotional difficulties, anxiety, or sadness, drawn by the immediacy of its availability and the absence of judgement in its responses. The fact that a machine is always present, always attentive, always responsive, explains why so many prefer it to human interlocutors. In this context, it is not surprising that AI has begun to enter the domain of meditative practices as well. Practitioners of mindfulness increasingly turn to ChatGPT and similar systems to request guided meditation exercises or personalised contemplative instructions. Even those seeking forms of Buddhist spiritual practice often ask the machine for sequences of meditation adapted to different levels of difficulty.

My seminar addressed precisely this phenomenon, reflecting on how AI-based meditative systems intersect with anthropological, psychological, and contemplative traditions. In my view, these technological developments raise essential questions about the nature of attention, the cultural meaning of meditation, and the assumptions that underlie contemporary understandings of mental well-being. One of the central risks, which I discussed in depth, is that AI-mediated meditative practices may amplify the consumerist drift already present in much of today’s mindfulness culture. I expressed my concern that mindfulness, in its popularised Western forms, often appears detached from its historical and philosophical roots, reduced to a device for cultivating inner calm and emotional stability while encouraging passive adaptation to the environment rather than a critical and transformative engagement with it. This tendency becomes even more pronounced when meditation is delegated to a machine, which inevitably reinforces simplified and commodified representations of contemplative traditions.

Drawing on my long-term work with early Buddhist texts in their original languages, I argued that such depictions obscure the more radical and socially aware dimensions of Buddhist thought. The Pāli Canon, for instance, reveals a tradition that was anything but committed to passive acceptance. Buddhist communities historically held critical positions toward hierarchical power, caste divisions, and entrenched social norms, and their conception of contemplative practice was inseparable from this ethical and political engagement. By comparison, the current Westernised form of mindfulness appears drastically stripped of its doctrinal complexity and of its capacity to challenge the very structures that generate suffering. In my recent commentary and translation of the Discourse on the Practice of Awareness, I have emphasised how the Buddhist reflection on the body and on contemplative discipline is far more intricate than the pared-down exercises that dominate contemporary mindfulness culture. This philosophical and cultural depth, I argued, risks being further diluted when meditation becomes an algorithmic service, crafted to meet expectations shaped by market logic rather than by the tradition’s original intent.

Throughout the seminar, I combined phenomenology and the ethnography of contemplative practices to examine the significance of this technological shift. The goal was not merely to criticise the use of AI in meditation but to understand what happens when a cultural system of attention, born within specific historical and philosophical contexts, is translated into computational procedures designed to respond instantly and adaptively to users’ requests. The seminar became an occasion to reflect on the conditions under which technology may either support or distort our relationship to consciousness, embodiment, and the world of experience.

The event was enriched by the thoughtful moderation of Professor Fatigante, whose reflections on the psychological implications of AI provided an essential framework for our discussion. Together, we considered how these technological developments may reshape our understanding of care, relationality, and the cultivation of presence, and how they invite us to engage critically with the cultural future of meditation.

As in the previous meeting, I was moved by the attentiveness and curiosity of the Sapienza community. The conversation that followed was lively, generous, and intellectually stimulating, offering a space in which anthropology, psychology, semiotics, and contemplative theory could meet. I remain deeply grateful for the invitation and for the opportunity to reflect collectively on these rapidly evolving transformations. These seminars have reinforced my conviction that the dialogue between Eastern contemplative traditions and Western psychology—especially regarding consciousness, perception, relationality, and the shaping power of language—remains one of the most promising avenues for understanding the mind in our technologically mediated world. I look forward to continuing this conversation and to future opportunities for collaboration with such an engaged and thoughtful academic community.