This book is a tricky one to review.

While I fully subscribe to its core message (high sensitivity is a strength, not a flaw) and appreciate the way in which Moorjani normalizes the experience of being an empath, I was turned off by all the New Age-talk of auras and wheatgrass.

I’m not opposed to spirituality (far from it, actually) but it bothered me here. For the past few days, I’ve been trying to figure out why, and it finally hit me: high sensitivity already gets a bad rap. It’s a poorly understood concept, and there’s relatively little scientific research out there exploring it even though we know that it’s a real thing, both physical and mental. It’s wonderful and tricky at the same time, so more awareness and subsequent research would be beneficial.
Yet, by tying the experience of being an empath to “auras” and “manifesting,” I fear that high sensitivity is being launched straight back into the realm of “floaty” concepts that have no basis in reality, just when it’s so important society takes it seriously (especially considering the crises we face, globally, from climate change to polarisation). I found that very frustrating.

Additionally, I had real problems with her implicit message that our thoughts, or our “suggestibility” can cause cancer or other illnesses.

Granted, pervasive stress can cause illness. We know that. I don’t dispute that. I also believe that the mind has some effect on our health - but just how much, I don’t dare to say.
Moorjani, however, constantly implies that her own fears of cancer made her sick, which is just insane. It puts the blame for sickness on patients, which is very harmful.
I doubt this was her intention, but it is hard to come to a different conclusion based on everything she’s saying.

Similarly, her hinting at alternative medicine to treat severe illness is also dangerous. To be fair, she does mention at some point that she doesn’t want to discourage anyone from seeking medical treatment, but in the same chapter she goes on and on about finding a doctor that makes you feel good, medical or otherwise.

Here, as with other passages, I agree with the core idea (if you don’t trust your doctor, then that’s not conducive to getting better) but the way she says it leaves so much room for misinterpretation that I fear it might do more harm than good.

A similar victim-blaming tendency seems to be happening in the passage about a radio show. Moorjani mentions she was on air, discussing the importance of following your calling and saying no to things that drain you. Yes! I’m with her on that.
But then a woman calls in, sounding very stressed, saying her job is causing her severe anxiety. She asks Moorjani what to do.
Moorjani tells her to quit.
The woman says: I will lose my health insurance and won’t be able to pay my mortgage if I quit.
Moorjani tells her to do it anyway, or stress will make her sick.

That passage just felt so tone-deaf. Not everyone has the safety net to just quit their job and hope everything will work out for the best. The implication seems to be that if the woman doesn’t quit, she is not following her calling, and therefore of course she will get sick.
That is just so…wrong.

Again, I don’t think Moorjani intends to send these messages at all, but I can’t read these passages any other way.

Overall, then, I was mildly disappointed with this book because it slants towards New Age writing and overlooks the fact that there are real social and political obstacles obstructing people’s functioning as empaths. Rather than indirectly blaming them for the fact that they get ill, it would be more helpful to consider what can be done structurally to make space for empaths in society. Real space.

Was this book a total waste of time? No. As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, I do appreciate the way in which Moorjani shows the value of being an empath, and normalizes empath-experiences. I also like the way she highlights the (Buddhist) idea of interconnectedness and ties it to her own experiences. It’s nice to read about all the positive aspects of being an empath when sensitivity is still often seen as a negative trait. I appreciate all of that, very much.

Still, I’m holding out for a book that strikes more of a balance between spirituality and rationality, and between personal experience and structural solutions.