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 humble sense, the sense of proportion, of smallness before something larger (Weiss et al., 2023).
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 introspection. Natural settings offer different inputs — more aesthetically complex, more emotionally resonant, more evolutionarily relevant, more conducive to awe. Both are understood as environments that act upon an essentially interior event.
This account has a structural problem. It assumes mind is purely a product of the individual brain, and that environment influences that interior process from the outside. 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, suggests that mind does not arise just from the brain. It arises through ongoing structural coupling between organism and environment. Perception is not the passive representation of a pre-given, stable world. The organism actively brings forth a personally 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.
The environment, in other words, is not backdrop to cognition and psychedelic experience. It participates in it.
This connects directly to the neuroscience of psychedelic states. The REBUS model, developed by Carhart-Harris and Friston (2019), 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 coupled to begins to matter more than usual.
Setting as Co-Author of the Psychedelic Experience
From an enactive standpoint, the natural setting does not simply provide better inputs to an interior psychedelic process. It participates in enacting the experience itself.
In a clinical room designed to facilitate therapeutic transformation, environmental signals are deliberately minimal: muted lighting, chosen music, neutral surfaces. That curation is a legitimate design choice, well suited to certain therapeutic goals. In a living landscape, the signals are entirely different in character. Wind, birdsong, the texture of bark, the smell of soil after rain. These are not neutral sensory inputs. They are signs.
Biosemiotics, the field Jesper Hoffmeyer helped establish to study 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. Much of what the living world continuously broadcasts, chemical, acoustic, tactile, gets filtered out.
Under a psychedelic, that filtering relaxes. The Umwelt expands. Birdsong that was scenery becomes something more immersive and meaningful. The mycorrhizal network beneath your feet, ordinarily irrelevant to human cognition, becomes part of the felt field of the world. The Umwelt itself is reorganising, temporarily, rather than producing an abstract and internally fabricated hallucination. In other words, it is a temporary reorganisation of organism-environment coupling or dynamic interaction that allows more of the living world’s semiotic richness to register as meaningful.
A clinical room cannot offer this, because there is not much life in it to register. A forest can, because it is saturated with semiotic activity. The natural setting produces different experiences not because it is more relaxing, but because it is a different kind of world to be coupled to.
What the Psychedelic Research Shows
With that frame in place, the research findings become more interesting.
Kettner and colleagues (2019) 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 (2017) found that lifetime psychedelic experience predicted pro-environmental behaviour, mediated by self-transcendent experiences. Paterniti and colleagues (2022) found that mystical experiences during psychedelic sessions predicted increased pro-environmental behaviour, particularly among those reporting eco-conscious purchasing and conservation actions.
The pattern is consistent: the relational and ecological character of the experience, not just its intensity, predicts what changes. Natural settings appear to amplify precisely those relational dimensions. Carhart-Harris and colleagues (2017) 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: connectedness is the felt quality of organism-environment coupling itself, arising from the ongoing interaction between a complex environment and an organism’s own structure.
The Importance of Awe
One piece the connectedness literature has been slower to integrate is awe.
Natural settings are among the most reliable inducers of awe available to ordinary experience, and awe research offers its own account of what happens when a person’s frame of reference meets something vaster than itself. Piff and colleagues (2015) found that inductions of awe produce a diminished sense of individual self, alongside increased ethical behaviour and generosity, an effect they attribute to a temporary loosening of self-focus rather than to any specific belief the awe experience produces.
That “small self” effect maps onto the enactive account rather than competing with it.
Awe is not an emotional reward layered on top of a purely interior psychedelic experience. It is one more expression of what happens when habitual cognitive priors loosen in the presence of something the organism cannot immediately assimilate: a grand canopy, a vast coastline, a starlit night sky undiminished by streetlight. The forest does not need to be interpreted as sacred for this to register. It only needs to be encountered as more than the egoic mind’s existing categories.
Not All Nature Is Equal
The research to date mostly compares natural settings against indoor ones, as though nature were a single undifferentiated category, even though it isn’t. Old-growth forest, degraded scrubland, and a municipal park are not interchangeable inputs to organism-environment coupling. Some environments carry more of what biosemiotics would call signal density: more species, more sensory layers, more of the world actively doing something.
Forstmann and Sagioglou’s (2025) more recent work on psychedelic-induced connectedness found that natural settings specifically amplify and prolong increases in nature-relatedness, suggesting the effect has real ecological specificity rather than being a generic byproduct of being outdoors. Gandy and colleagues (2020), reviewing the potential synergy between psychedelic administration and nature contact more broadly, note that most existing evidence comes from naturalistic and self-selected samples rather than controlled comparisons, and that the ecological complexity of a setting remains understudied as its own variable.
This matters for the framework, not just the research design. If setting participates in the experience rather than merely hosting it, the ecological richness of a place is not incidental detail. It is closer to the substance of what becomes available.
The Harder Question
Natural settings were the only setting type in the Weiss and colleagues (2023) study associated with participants perceiving humans as insignificant. This was flagged as a possible buffer against ego-inflation, and that observation is worth pursuing. The deeper implication runs further.
One persistent risk in the current psychedelic renaissance is that experiences catalysed by these compounds get absorbed into frameworks of self-improvement and personal expansion within a highly individualistic culture. 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 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 room. When the environment you are coupled to is itself alive, itself a participant in semiosis across species boundaries, the experience that arises is genuinely relational. The forest is doing its thing, and the organism is temporarily able to sense more of it. That calls for a different kind of integration.
Immersion as Threshold
The research on natural settings tends to focus on their role during the experience itself. There is less attention to what sustained time in nature might do around it, before and after.
Ecotherapy and wilderness practice both point to a related observation: prolonged immersion, on the order of days rather than hours, tends to loosen habitual cultural attention and re-establish a baseline attunement to the living world, an effect that shows up independently of any psychedelic use. If ecological attunement is understood not as a feeling to be processed but as a mode of organism-environment coupling to be consolidated, this has direct implications for how a psychedelic experience is prepared for and integrated. A session that follows several days of genuine immersion, rather than arriving cold into a landscape, may meet an already-shifted baseline. This is one reason wilderness rites of passage work — extended time on the land, undertaken deliberately rather than incidentally — sits so naturally alongside psychedelic practice, even where the two are not combined directly.
Shinrin-yoku, the Japanese practice of forest bathing, offers a lower-threshold version of the same principle. Its documented physiological benefits are legitimate, but from an ecological standpoint its deeper value may be that it sustains the organism’s sensory engagement with semiotic richness, reinforcing patterns laid down during expanded states rather than letting them be overwritten by the contracted Umwelt of daily life.
Research by David Luke found that a majority of respondents reported more interaction with nature following psychedelic experiences, with many reporting they gardened more, suggesting some of this reorientation happens on its own. The task of integration is to give that movement somewhere specific to go.
What Nature Cannot Promise
None of this makes a natural setting a safer or more controllable one.
Weather, terrain, and remoteness introduce risks that a clinical room does not have, and the practical questions of dosage, supervision, and preparation for using psychedelics outdoors are real and substance-specific in ways this piece will not attempt to resolve. That territory, the how of using psychedelics well and safely in the field, belongs properly to harm-reduction practice rather than to a discussion of what setting means.
Readers looking for that can learn more via this practical essay from How to Use Psychedelics.
What can be said here is more limited and more structural: an unfamiliar, uncontrolled environment changes what the experience is coupled to, and that fact carries real weight for how an experience unfolds, for better and for worse.
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 his own history rather than through theory. As a child, he described a walk on a forest path one morning during which the world appeared to him in an unusually clear light, and he associated that early experience of unity and joy with the scientific curiosity that eventually led him to ergot fungi, and to LSD. The theory now offers some explanation for what he had already lived.
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 interior, psychological, oriented toward biographical history and personal therapeutic transformation. That has its uses, for certain conditions, in certain people.
In a living landscape, the organism is permeable to a world that is itself alive, itself full of signals that ordinarily go unheard. What becomes available is not psychological processing in a prettier location. It is a temporary reorganisation of the organism’s relationship to the living system it is embedded in.
The disconnection from the living world that defines the current planetary crisis is, at root, a perceptual and relational disconnection. Organisms adapted to attune to the more-than-human world have lost much of that attunement through generations of increasingly indoor, increasingly mediated life. Psychedelics, in the right setting, may temporarily restore it. The Psygaia Framework frames this restoration not as a private psychological event but as a reorganization of participation in living systems a person was never actually separate from. The setting is not incidental. It determines what kind of reconnection becomes possible. Whether the word means anything at all is the whole question.
Sources
Belleau, L. (2025). The Psygaia Framework: A Systems View of Psychedelics.
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Erritzoe, D., Haijen, E., Kaelen, M., & Watts, R. (2017). Psychedelics and connectedness. Psychopharmacology, 235(3), 547–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-017-4701-y
Carhart-Harris, R. L., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.118.017160
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881117714049
Forstmann, M., & Sagioglou, C. (2025). Psychedelics and connectedness to natural and social worlds: An examination of the evidence and a proposed conceptual framework. Current Opinion in Psychology, 62, 101992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.101992
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). https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102920978123
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. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245147
Paterniti, K., Bright, S., & Gringart, E. (2022). The relationship between psychedelic use, mystical experiences, and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678221111024
Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000018
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.
Weiss, B., Sleep, C. E., Beller, N. M., Erritzoe, D., & Campbell, W. K. (2023). Perceptions of psychedelic personality change, determinants of use, setting and drug moderation: Toward a holistic model. Journal of Psychedelic Studies, 7(3), 200–226. https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2023.00291
