[dbspin]

This is simply a variation of the no true Scotsman argument. In other words a classic fallacy. For someone to dispute the claims of <THEORY> they must be intimately familiar with <THEORY>. Were they familiar with it they would obviously not discount it. If they discount it, they must not be familiar with it.

As previously stated - you can believe anything you like, and it may even be useful to do so. For example there's solid research that religious belief has positive health outcomes. However that has no impact on the truth value of any religious or other metaphysical belief.

Again, theress a strong academic quantitate (and parallel quantitative) tradition of cross cultural psychology. Tacking such questions from a more rigorous point of view - including comparison of epistemic and ontological traditions. I'd recommend Mac McLaughin's text 'Culture and Health' as a good starting point.

https://www.google.ie/books/edition/Culture_and_Health/VAbbA...