A consistent pattern has emerged across psychedelic research: people who have their experiences in natural settings report greater increases in nature-connectedness than those who have them indoors. They describe more positive personality changes, more meaningful experiences, greater well-being. One study found that natural settings were the only setting type reliably associated with participants considering humans “insignificant” — in the best sense, the sense of proportion, of smallness before something larger.
These findings are significant, but the explanations currently offered for them are less developed than the findings themselves. Natural settings are described as “beneficial,” as “synergising” with psychedelics, as “restorative.” Attention restoration theory gets invoked. Stress biomarkers come down. Cortisol levels, birdsong, fractal patterns in fern fronds. All of this is true.
But why?
Mind as Co-Constituted
The standard account treats the psychedelic experience as something that happens inside the person, and the setting as the container in which it happens. A better container produces better outcomes. Clinical rooms are engineered for safety and inner focus. Natural settings offer different inputs — more aesthetically complex, more emotionally resonant, more conducive to awe. Both are understood as environments that act upon an essentially interior event.
This account has a structural problem. It assumes that mind is located inside the individual, and that the environment influences that interior process from the outside. But there are strong theoretical grounds — and a growing body of empirical support — for questioning whether that is the right model of mind at all.
The enactive account of cognition, developed by Varela, Thompson, and Rosch, holds that mind does not reside inside the brain. It arises through the ongoing coupling between organism and environment. Perception is not the passive reception of a pre-given world. The organism actively brings forth a meaningful world through embodied engagement with an environment — through sensation, movement, orientation, and the history of its interactions with its surroundings. What the brain does is mediate and organise that coupling.
In other words, the environment is not backdrop to cognition. It participates in it.
This is not a fringe philosophical position. It has been developed across four decades of cognitive science and philosophy of mind, and it connects directly to the neuroscience of meditation and psychedelic states. The REBUS model describes how psychedelics temporarily relax the precision-weighted hierarchical predictions through which the brain ordinarily constrains perception. When those top-down priors loosen, bottom-up environmental signals gain greater influence over conscious experience. What the organism is embedded in, or what it is coupled to, begins to matter more than usual.
Setting as Co-Author
From an enactive standpoint, the natural setting does not simply provide better inputs to an interior psychedelic process. It participates in the enactment of the experience itself.
When habitual predictive structures loosen under a psychedelic, the organism becomes more open to the signals reaching it from its environment. In a clinical room designed to facilitate therapeutic transformation, those signals are deliberately minimal — muted lighting, carefully chosen music, neutral surfaces. The environment is curated to reduce distraction from an inward process. That is a legitimate design choice, well-suited to certain therapeutic goals.
In a living landscape however, the signals are entirely different in character. Wind, birdsong, the texture of bark, the movement of water, the smell of soil after rain, etc. These are not neutral sensory inputs. They are signs. Biosemiotics, the study of meaning-making in living systems, offers a precise way of understanding this. Every organism navigates its environment through a species-specific perceptual world — what Jakob von Uexküll called the Umwelt. Under ordinary conditions, the human Umwelt is heavily shaped by cultural, linguistic, and ego-centred habits of attention. Many of the signals that the living world is continuously broadcasting — chemical, acoustic, tactile — are filtered out or backgrounded.
Under a psychedelic, that filtering relaxes. The Umwelt expands. What was background can become foreground. The birdsong that was scenery becomes something you are inside of. The mycorrhizal network beneath your feet, normally invisible and irrelevant to human cognition, becomes part of the felt field of the world. This is not hallucination. It is a temporary reorganisation of organism-environment coupling — one that allows more of the living world’s semiotic richness to register as meaningful.
A clinical room cannot offer this, because there is not as much life in it to register. A forest can, because it is saturated with semiotic activity. The natural setting is not producing better outcomes because it is more relaxing. It is producing different experiences because it is a different kind of world to be coupled to.
What the Data Are Showing
With that theoretical frame in place, the research findings become considerably more interesting.
Kettner and colleagues found that increases in nature-relatedness following psychedelic experiences persisted at two-year follow-up, and that natural settings amplified and prolonged these effects. Forstmann and Sagioglou found that lifetime psychedelic experience predicted pro-environmental behaviour, and that this relationship was mediated by self-transcendent experiences. Paterniti and colleagues found that mystical experiences during psychedelic sessions predicted increased pro-environmental behaviour, particularly among those who reported more eco-shopping, conservation actions, and felt connection to the living world.
The pattern is consistent: the relational and ecological character of the experience, not just the intensity of the experience, predicts what changes. And natural settings appear to amplify precisely those relational and ecological dimensions. This is exactly what the enactive account would predict. When organism-environment coupling is reorganised under a psychedelic, and the environment in question is the living world, the experience that arises reflects that coupling. The organism doesn’t just have a profound inner experience in the presence of nature. It enacts a different world. A world in which the boundaries between self and living system are temporarily more permeable, and the signals of interdependence are temporarily more salient.
Carhart-Harris and colleagues identified connectedness — including connection to the natural world — as a primary mediator of therapeutic outcomes in psychedelic work. What that research could not fully address is why. The enactive account offers an answer: because connectedness is not a feeling that arises inside the individual and then radiates outward. It is the felt quality of organism-environment coupling itself. It is what becomes available when the habitual narrowing of attention around the ego-centred self temporarily loosens.
The Harder Question
Natural settings were the only setting type in the personality change study associated with participants perceiving humans as insignificant. This was flagged as a possible buffer against ego-inflation, and that is an observation worth pursuing. But the deeper implication runs further.
One of the persistent risks in the current psychedelic renaissance is that the experiences catalysed by these compounds get absorbed into frameworks of self-improvement and personal expansion. The individual has a profound experience, and that experience becomes their experience — their insight, their awakening, their healing. The living world that may have participated in enacting that experience becomes backdrop to the personal human story of transformation.
Natural settings may resist this particular distortion. Not because they produce humility as a psychological side effect, but because the experience enacted in a living landscape is structurally different from the experience enacted in a clinical therapy room. When the environment you are coupled to is alive — when it is itself a participant in semiosis, in the production of meaning across species boundaries — the experience that arises is genuinely relational. The forest is doing its thing, and you are temporarily able to sense more of it.
That is a different experience. And it calls for a different integration.
Setting as Integration Practice
The research on natural settings tends to focus on their role during the experience itself. There is less attention to what natural settings might offer in the days and weeks following, when the question of integration becomes most pressing.
If ecological attunement is understood not as a feeling to be processed but as a reconfigured mode of organism-environment coupling to be consolidated, then integration practice has to include sustained re-engagement with the living world. Not just as therapy conducted outdoors, but as genuine participation in the relational field that the experience may have made temporarily visible.
Some of this might be simple: time in particular places, with particular species, across seasons. Shinrin-yoku — the Japanese practice of forest bathing — has documented physiological and psychological benefits, but from an ecological standpoint its deeper value may be that it sustains the organism’s sensory engagement with semiotic richness. Sitting in a forest and attending to what is actually happening there is a practice of ecological coupling. It reinforces the neural patterns laid down during expanded states rather than allowing them to be progressively overwritten by the contracted Umwelt of daily life.
Research by David Luke found that a majority of survey respondents reported more interaction with nature following their psychedelic experiences, with many reporting that they gardened more, suggesting that some of this reorientation happens spontaneously. The organism moves back toward the living world. The task of ecological integration is to give that movement somewhere to go: toward specific relationships, specific places, specific forms of reciprocity with the more-than-human world.
The Molecule Is a Key
Albert Hofmann, asked about the optimal context for an LSD experience, said simply: always use it in nature. He had arrived at this through experience rather than theory. The theory now provides some explanation for what he intuited.
The molecule is a key, not a message. What it unlocks depends entirely on what the organism is coupled to when the lock turns. In a clinical room, designed to minimise environmental influence and maximise inner focus, the experience that arises is shaped by that coupling: interior, psychological, oriented toward personal history and meaning. That has its uses because for certain conditions, in certain people, it is exactly what is needed.
In a living landscape — in a forest, on a coast, in a meadow at dusk — the experience arises from a different coupling. The organism is permeable to a world that is itself alive, itself doing something, itself full of signals that ordinarily go unheard. What becomes available in that coupling is not just psychological processing in a prettier location. It is a temporary reorganisation of the organism’s relationship to the living system it is embedded in.
That matters as an ecological and therapeutic variable. The disconnection from the living world that is one of the defining features of the current planetary crisis is, at its root, a cognitive and thus perceptual, emotional, and relational disconnection. Organisms adapted to attune to the more-than-human world have lost that attunement through generations of increasingly indoor, increasingly mediated, increasingly abstracted ways of being. Psychedelics, in appropriate settings, may temporarily restore it.
The setting is not incidental. It is constitutive. It determines, in part, what kind of reconnection becomes possible, and whether the word reconnection means anything at all, or whether it remains a metaphor gesturing at something the experience itself is unable to deliver.
Sources
Belleau, L. (2025). The Psygaia Framework: A Systems View of Psychedelics.
Carhart-Harris, R., Erritzoe, D., Haijen, E., Kaelen, M., & Watts, R. (2017). Psychedelics and connectedness. Psychopharmacology, 235, 547–550.
Carhart-Harris, R., & Friston, K. J. (2019). REBUS and the anarchic brain: Toward a unified model of the brain action of psychedelics. Pharmacological Reviews, 71(3), 316–344.
Forstmann, M., & Sagioglou, C. (2017). Lifetime experience with (classic) psychedelics predicts pro-environmental behavior through an increase in nature relatedness. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 31(8), 975–988.
Forstmann, M., & Sagioglou, C. (2025). Psychedelic-induced connectedness: A multidimensional account.
Gandy, S., Forstmann, M., Carhart-Harris, R. L., Timmermann, C., Luke, D., & Watts, R. (2020). The potential synergistic effects between psychedelic administration and nature contact for the improvement of mental health. Health Psychology Open, 7(2).
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An Examination into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs. University of Scranton Press.
Kettner, H., Gandy, S., Haijen, E. C. H. M., & Carhart-Harris, R. L. (2019). From egoism to ecoism: Psychedelics increase nature relatedness in a state-mediated and context-dependent manner. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 5147.
Paterniti, K., Bright, S., & Gringart, E. (2022). The relationship between psychedelic use, mystical experiences, and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Humanistic Psychology.
Uexküll, J. von (2010). A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans. University of Minnesota Press.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press.
