The phrase “sincere religious belief” has long been central to how the government determines whether a religious organization is entitled to certain protections. Historically, this analysis has been fairly consistent and rigid, with DEA, IRS, and courts applying similar standards to assess whether a group qualifies as a legitimate religious entity. However, a recent development may be poised to change this.
In February 2025, Judge Jill N. Parrish of the United States District Court in Utah issued a significant order in Jensen et al v. Utah County et al (“Singularism”), granting a preliminary injunction that could alter how courts assess the sincerity of religious beliefs– particularly for new religions focused on psychedelic sacraments. If upheld, this decision could offer a roadmap for religious groups that use psychedelic substances, such as psilocybin, as part of their spiritual practice.
Interest has grown in establishing legal churches centered around the use of such substances, particularly as states like Oregon and Colorado have legalized forms of psychedelic-assisted therapy. Many individuals reach out seeking guidance on how to form these churches, and a key factor I evaluate during these discussions is whether the religion’s belief system is genuine or whether it is simply a cover for using and distributing illegal substances. In this blog post, the term “church” is used broadly to refer to any place of worship.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
The establishment of churches and the legal protections they receive is largely governed by the RFRA, which mandates that the government cannot infringe on religious practices unless it demonstrates a compelling interest, and unless it does so in the least restrictive way. This blog post is not a deep dive into RFRA. For a deeper understanding, I recommend Chacruna Institute for Psychedelic Plant Medicines, which provide comprehensive resources that support the spiritual use of psychedelic substances. Much of the information I have learned and discuss below comes from Chacruna and their best practices guide.
Background: the First Amendment and government burden
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom, stating, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This protection ensures that the government faces a high burden when challenging an individual or group’s religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot question whether a belief is “mistaken or insubstantial,” but must assess whether there is an “honest conviction” or a “sincere religious belief.”
In the context of psychedelic churches, a group seeking protection under RFRA must show that a government prohibition on their religious use of psychedelics substantially burdens their religious exercise, and that their beliefs are sincerely held. If a church can demonstrate this, the government then must prove that the law it enforces serves a compelling interest and does so in the least restrictive manner.
Government factors in determining sincere religious belief
When it comes to determining whether a religious group is sincere in its beliefs, four main government actors are involved: (1) the DEA, (2) the IRS, (3) state law enforcement, and (4) federal courts. Each entity has its own approach to evaluating these beliefs.
- The IRS tends to use characteristics associated with mainstream religions, which can present challenges for groups that seek to establish themselves as psychedelic churches. Some choose not to seek official IRS recognition, as churches are not required to hold a 501(c)(3) designation to be considered a nonprofit. However, obtaining formal designation can offer benefits.
- The DEA has historically assessed factors such as whether:
- the use of a psychedelic substances is essential to the religion’s purposes;
- the religion maintains strict controls on the substances;
- the religious activities are consistent with traditional religious activities or akin more to a clinic or therapeutic setting;
- the religion operates on a nonprofit basis;
- whether there is evidence that the church is not a front for commercial activities.
- The Courts have similarly evaluated the role of psychedelic substances in a religious practice, considering whether the substance is integral to the church’s beliefs, whether the church has a consistent religious practice, and whether there is a commercial aspect to the use of substances.
In most cases, when a church fails to meet these criteria, its religious use of controlled substances is not recognized. However, the Singularism case, described below, presents a notable shift in how courts may apply these standards.
Singularism and the Utah court’s ruling
Singularism, a religious group founded by Bridger Lee Jensen in Provo, Utah, incorporates psychedelic experiences into its spiritual practices. The church uses psilocybin ceremonies as a core part of its teachings, blending ancient mystical traditions with modern empirical practices. After local government officials seized psilocybin and other religious materials from the Singularism center in 2024, the group filed a lawsuit asserting violations of its religious rights under the First Amendment and Utah’s newly adopted RFRA.
Last year, the Utah District Court issued a temporary restraining order, finding that Singularism was likely to succeed in showing that its religious use of psilocybin was sincere and that the government had not demonstrated a compelling interest to justify preventing its use. This led to a preliminary injunction being issued last month, which required the government to return the psilocybin and cease interfering with the religious practice while the case continues.
Unique aspects of the court’s decision
The court’s ruling in favor of Singularism expands the traditional understanding of sincere religious belief. The court acknowledged that Singularism does not follow a rigid set of prescribed beliefs but instead encourages adherents to explore their own spiritual experiences, making each participant their own prophet. The government argued that this approach, along with the lack of a defined moral or ethical system, undermined the group’s religious status. However, the court ruled that these features did not detract from Singularism’s legitimacy as a religion, emphasizing that the protection of religious practices under RFRA goes beyond prescribed rituals or established moral codes.
The court also rejected arguments that the reliance on scientific and medical principles in psilocybin ceremonies meant the group was operating more like a clinic than a religion. It noted that while participation in psilocybin ceremonies is not mandatory, it is an essential part of the church’s practice, and the beliefs underlying this use were sincere and religious. The court emphasized that the government’s role is not to interpret the religious practices but to determine whether they are motivated by sincere beliefs.
Conclusion: a potential shift in religious recognition
The ruling in Singularism represents a potential shift in how courts may assess the sincerity of religious beliefs, particularly for emerging religions centered around psychedelics. This court’s order underscores that religious practice does not need to conform to traditional, rigid structures or prescribed dogmas to be protected under the First Amendment and RFRA. As more states experiment with psychedelic-assisted therapies, this decision, if upheld throughout litigation, could pave the way for the recognition of new religious movements that incorporate psychedelics as a sacrament, offering a framework for how such beliefs may be evaluated moving forward.