The reigning model of scholarship as disengaged, dispassionate, objective enquiry is based on an epistemic fiction. We want to convince ourselves that our academic work and our teaching is neutral and unbiased, that we are simply discoverers and transmitters of information. So we fool our colleagues, our students and ourselves into thinking that we are just presenting the facts, that we are merely describing, for instance, what Ramakrishna said or did, or that we are simply noting what, let's say, Oglala Sioux shamans believed or practiced years ago. As scholars of religion, most of us do not dare to admit that we might actually agree with Ramakrishna ‘s worldview, or to confess that we actually think that the shamans' insights into different levels of reality are appealing. It seems slightly disreputable, or somehow unrigorous or somewhat unacademic, to come out and openly state that we believe that the mystics might well be onto something real, something valuable. Above all, we most certainly do not ever want to reveal that we have had mystical experiences ourselves, let alone that we have a regular spiritual practice. Then we would be opening ourselves up for academic ridicule. Then we would risk being seen as hopelessly subjective and utterly devoid of critical awareness.