A study published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry in February (2026) found that “a person’s spiritual belief or a steady religious practice had a protective effect from addiction.”

It’s hard for the unaddicted (sic) to understand the addicted. But that’s because us unaddicted only see addiction in relation to bad things, like drugs, sex, alcohol, gambling. It gives addiction a type of stigma it probably shouldn’t have and doesn’t deserve. Why? Ai describes addiction as “a chronic condition influenced by genetics, environment, and life experiences. It is characterized by the compulsive use of a substance or engagement in behavior despite harmful consequences.”

And more, from Ai: “The word has its roots in the Latin word, ‘addictus’…which means ‘to deliver’, ‘to yield’, or ‘to devote’.” Anyone see religious tones in this old word? Not yet? Per Ai, the Romans had a “legal process called addictio” where a person who could not pay their debts was “given over” or “assigned” by a judge to their creditor, “and literally became a slave to the person owed the money.” This process resulted in “the addicted” being essentially a slave to his or her new “owner”.

The Roman “legal” addiction sounds bad, but can there be anything bad about being addicted to a God? Jesus? Healthy eating? Exercise? Especially if that addiction keeps us from the common destructive addictions of our modern world? Perhaps our modern “addiction” should be redefined by context and results instead of past experience and harmful consequence. Yes, religious addiction can have “harmful consequences” when it turns into zealotry and fanaticism, but at least it won’t rot your teeth.

The Journal Article does not distinguish between Spiritual Addiction and the regular, researched Medical Addiction. Why not? It’s clear religious people “yield” and “devote” so is it possible intent makes a difference? Does anyone take up a drug with the intent to become addicted? And no one unintentionally “stumbles” into a spiritual addiction, unless they had existing psychological problems, right? That last sentence is loaded, isn’t it. Is it saying you can’t have spiritual faith unless you already have psychological problems?

Would it even be a nicer world if everyone were simply addicted to religion?

Maybe, but one of the hardest parts about religion is the question of “Which One?” Sharia Law in the Muslim world, for example, is heaven to some and hell to others of that very faith, let alone infidels. And Christians did burn witches at the stake in the OG.*

By the way, Ai “Sharia Law” for its literal Arabic translation.

Friends of mine recently discussed religion, Karl Marx’s “The Opium of The People”, and how organized religion influenced the World. The Crusades, Sharia Law, Sin, and redemption were the themes this past Easter. We did not try to put a number on how many people have died from being addicted to the wrong religion for the time or society in which they lived.

Addiction, then, is it good or bad? Healthy or unhealthy? Productive, life-affirming, or destructive and life-threatening?

Like everything else in our Dichotomous Universe (Old Testament, New Testament?), life is what we make it. Choose your addictions carefully.**

*OG: The Old, Good days? OG, per Ai, comes from the hip-hop “Original Gangster” and overtime morphed into “Old School”, or “Old Days”. Yes, it still fits. Those witch burning Christians were probably the Original Gangsters.

**Yes, you can have more than one. Who knew?