Cited by 251Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyPain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and Treatments

An fMRI study measuring analgesia enhanced by religion as a belief system.

Open access
Wiech, Katja, Farias, Miguel, Kahane, Guy, Shackel, Nicholas, Tiede, Wiebke, Tracey, Irene·2008·Pain

Abstract

Although religious belief is often claimed to help with physical ailments including pain, it is unclear what psychological and neural mechanisms underlie the influence of religious belief on pain. By analogy to other top-down processes of pain modulation we hypothesized that religious belief helps believers reinterpret the emotional significance of pain, leading to emotional detachment from it. Recent findings on emotion regulation support a role for the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC), a region also important for driving top-down pain inhibitory circuits. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging in practicing Catholics and avowed atheists and agnostics during painful stimulation, here we show the existence of a context-dependent form of analgesia that was triggered by the presentation of an image with a religious content but not by the presentation of a non-religious image. As confirmed by behavioral data, contemplation of the religious image enabled the religious group to detach themselves from the experience of pain. Critically, this context-dependent modulation of pain specifically engaged the right VLPFC, whereas group-specific preferential liking of one of the pictures was associated with activation in the ventral midbrain. We suggest that religious belief might provide a framework that allows individuals to engage known pain-regulatory brain processes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2008.07.030

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wiech, K., Farias, M., Kahane, G., Shackel, N., Tiede, W., & Tracey, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Wiech, Katja
Venue
Pain
Published
2008-10-15
Volume
139
Issue
2
Pages
467-476
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2083236941
Cited by
251
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
10.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (acceptedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation
  • Wellcome Trust (086041)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
religious beliefs, analgesia, pain modulation, right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, emotion regulation, religious images, ventral midbrain, Catholics
MeSH terms
Adult, Analgesia, Culture, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pain, Religion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review