Abstract
The research literature on mindfulness and meditation (MM) practices in psychology is replete with descriptions of the meditative process and its possible mechanisms of action. The mainstreaming of MM has endeavored to shed its practices of Buddhist truth claims, appealing to the universality of introspection and attentional control. However, ostensibly secularized studies and practices on MM may be committing to unsupported epistemic and metaphysical arguments through their use of language. This critique broadly addresses language used in the field of research psychology and clinical practice that suggests a level of epistemic accuracy of descriptions of MM practices—or the level to which a person is able to perceive truth in the world, as well as metaphysical claims about personal identity and the universe. The epistemic accuracy and metaphysical aspects of MM practices are not supported in secular research studies. Examples of these possible claims in secular research are presented and critiqued. Ethical considerations of language use in MM studies and instructions are also discussed. This commentary cautions against the use of poorly defined terms and calls for a broader philosophical review of epistemic and metaphysical claims in secular literature.