When meaning changes place: what EEG and fNIRS can (and cannot) measure in deep transformations of consciousness
When meaning changes place: what EEG and fNIRS can (and cannot) measure in deep transformations of consciousness
For a long time, many of us carried conceptual prejudices about deep inner experiences. One of the most common—and most misunderstood—ideas is the claim that “what happens in the universe also happens inside the living human body.” When treated superficially, this phrase slides into naïve mysticism. But when viewed through contemporary neuroscience and the Damasian Mind lens, it points to something more interesting: deep shifts in consciousness are not primarily about the universe “out there,” but about a reorganization of where meaning becomes embodied.
Reports of intense experiences—whether in contemplative practice, therapeutic settings, or non-ordinary states of consciousness—often describe similar phenomena: a sense of light in the chest, identity dissolution, merging with nature, or symbolic cycles of death and rebirth. A rushed interpretation labels them “spiritual” or “hallucinatory.” A more productive hypothesis is that these events may reflect deep reorganizations of the relationship between body, symbol, and consciousness.
This is where the Damasian contribution becomes decisive. If consciousness emerges from the integration of interoception (feeling the body from within) and proprioception (feeling oneself in space), then radical shifts in meaning can occur when this bodily axis reorganizes. Not necessarily because new words appear—but because the body that sustains those words has changed.
What exactly changes in these experiences?
One of the most sophisticated transformations reported in such states is a shift in the qualia of words and symbols. “Qualia” is often treated as abstract, but in practice it points to something concrete: the place where meaning is lived.
Before certain boundary experiences, meaning tends to be primarily cortical, semantic, narrative. Afterward, meaning can become embodied. Words are felt in the body. Emotions stop being only interpretations and become clear physiological states. Symbols stop merely representing and begin happening.
This change can be described as a relocation of the bodily semantic locus. Instead of:
word → cortical semantic memory
it becomes:
word → lived body → embodied episodic memory
In emerging Latin American neurophenomenology, this resonates with concepts such as Pei Utupe (soul as embodied memory) and with the broader idea that meaning is not “in language,” but in the body that carries language.
Where do EEG and fNIRS enter?
If these transformations are embodied, an inevitable question arises: can we measure them?
The honest answer is: partly, yes.
EEG and fNIRS are among the most accessible tools to investigate dynamic changes in consciousness today. Each offers a distinct window.
EEG captures brain electrical dynamics with high temporal resolution. Shifts in consciousness frequently appear as:
changes in microstates
changes in event-related potentials (e.g., P300, N400)
reorganizations of functional coherence
shifts in oscillatory activity (alpha, theta, gamma)
For example, identity-dissolution states can be accompanied by reduced P300 responses (less “surprise” or context-updating), or changes in N400 (suggesting altered semantic integration).
fNIRS provides a complementary hemodynamic window. By measuring changes in cortical oxygenation—especially over prefrontal regions—it allows inference about:
cognitive load
autonomic regulation (indirectly, via task-state coupling and physiology integration)
flow-like regulation
cortical metabolic redistribution
In deep contemplative states, it is not uncommon to observe patterns consistent with reduced hyperfrontality combined with greater global physiological coherence, depending on the protocol and controls.
When combined, EEG and fNIRS enable a powerful multimodal approach, capable of capturing both electrical dynamics and cortical metabolic shifts associated with subjective transformation.
But there are clear limits
Despite the technological excitement, it is essential to acknowledge: EEG and fNIRS do not measure meaning. They measure physiological correlates.
This distinction matters.
No EEG plot shows “an awakening.” No fNIRS topomap detects “a spiritual experience.” What these tools capture are neurophysiological signatures associated with reorganizations of attention, emotion, semantics, and self-referential processing.
The risk appears when researchers confuse correlation with essence. Deep states of consciousness are first-person phenomena. Current technologies capture only partial physiological shadows of those lived experiences.
This leads to a central point: the quality of the scientific question matters more than the sophistication of the equipment.
The importance of asking the right questions
The same technology can generate revolutionary science—or irrelevant noise—depending on the question guiding it.
If we ask:
“What is the EEG signature of enlightenment?”
we will likely produce pseudoscience.
But if we ask:
“How do interoceptive reorganizations alter embodied semantics?”
we open a legitimate research domain.
Or:
“Which multimodal markers track durable changes in the qualia of symbols?”
we enter fertile territory.
This approach requires abandoning simplistic dichotomies between science and experience. The goal is not to validate spiritual narratives, nor to reduce them to neural noise. The goal is to build rigorous methodological bridges between first-person reports and third-person measurements.
Why this demands cognitive flexibility
The greatest challenge may not be technical, but epistemological.
Researchers studying deep states of consciousness inevitably walk at the intersection of science, culture, and religion. Ignoring any of these dimensions impoverishes the investigation.
Without science, we fall into dogma.
Without culture, we fall into epistemic colonialism.
Without spirituality, we ignore core dimensions of human experience.
Twenty-first-century neuroscience needs a new posture: rigor without rigidity.
That requires cognitive flexibility to formulate questions that cross boundaries—questions that can dialogue with contemplative traditions without abandoning method; questions that respect subjective experience without sacrificing evidence criteria.
In Latin American contexts, this becomes even more important. Many Indigenous cultures never separated body, spirit, and territory. Ignoring that legacy can mean losing scientifically valuable hypotheses.
The role of Decolonial Neuroscience
This is where Decolonial Neuroscience emerges—not as a rejection of science, but as an expansion of its horizon.
It can be grounded in three simple principles:
The body is the first laboratory.
Culture is a legitimate experimental variable.
Meaning is always embodied.
From this perspective, EEG and fNIRS stop being tools of “validation” and become tools of dialogue. They do not replace experience; they help map its physiological borders.
That opens space for bolder experimental designs, such as:
longitudinal studies of embodied semantic change
structured phenomenological reporting integrated with biomarkers
hyperscanning in collective meaning-making contexts
protocols combining language, interoception, and culture
Where do we go next?
The next leap will not come only from better sensors, but from better questions.
We need studies that investigate not only acute states, but durable transformations: when an experience changes where meaning “lives,” what remains months later? Are there physiological signatures of that reorganization? How do we distinguish a peak experience from structural change?
Answering these questions will require collaboration among neuroscientists, anthropologists, clinicians, and contemplative practitioners—plus methodological humility and intellectual courage.
Conclusion
Deep experiences of consciousness do not need to be romanticized or dismissed. They can be studied with rigor—if we accept their paradoxes.
EEG and fNIRS already allow us to observe fragments of these transformations. They can reveal changes in electrical dynamics, cortical oxygenation, and functional organization. But we remain far from “measuring meaning” itself.
Perhaps because meaning is not a detectable object, but a lived process.
If we want to advance, the challenge will not only be technological. It will be human. It will demand researchers capable of holding multiple languages at once: the language of graphs, the language of the body, and the language of sense.
In the end, perhaps the most important question is not “Can we measure consciousness?”, but:
Are we asking questions large enough to deserve the answers we seek?
Publications (post-2021)
Scholkmann, F. (2022). Psychedelics and fNIRS neuroimaging: exploring new opportunities. (Review/Outlook).
Tanaka, G. K., et al. (2022). Open monitoring meditation alters the EEG gamma coherence in expert meditators. Consciousness and Cognition, 102, 103354. (Latin American affiliation—Brazil)
Guevara, E., Mesquita, R. C., & Orihuela-Espina, F. (2025). Emerging panorama of functional near-infrared spectroscopy in Latin America. Neurophotonics. (Latin American authors/region focus)
Sugawara, A., et al. (2024). Interoceptive training impacts the neural circuit of interoception… Translational Psychiatry.
Duda, A. T., et al. (2024). Mindfulness meditation is associated with global EEG spectral changes in theta, alpha, and beta amplitudes. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 206, 112465.
Yücel, M. A., et al. (2025). fNIRS reproducibility varies with data quality, analysis pipelines… Communications Biology.
Koning, E., et al. (2024). Exploring the neurobiological correlates of psilocybin-assisted… (SpringerOpen review).
