From Selfcare to Taking Care of Our Common Home: Spirituality as an Integral and Transformative Healthy Lifestyle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the introduction the authors start from a large panorama, and take the concept of ‘the theory of everything’ as a starting point. The article contains several inspirational, original and relevant insights for many professional disciplines. Insights on selfcare and care for the common home (planet earth), and the importance of a transdisciplinary approach. Then a chapter on spiritual care in a post-secular society, followed by a chapter on the concept of spiritual care, with two definitions of spiritual care. Chapter 3 is the largest, with an interesting piece based on the work of Foucault, on spirituality and transformative selfcare, seeking not only individual transformation, but also the way we relate to the world and others, in a very powerful and and transformative way, on a political, social and cultural level. . In this chapter the authors also refer to the work of Hadot on ancient spirituality and selfcare, expressed through practices and exercises. Chapter 4 brings, ‘from self-care to care for the common home, aims to bring two agenda’s together, the UN sustainable development goals and the perspective from the Laudato Si Encyclical Letter by Pope Francis, which focuses on the environment, social justice, interconnectedness, and care for the environment is grounded in the Bible. This feels like a different perspective, after the previous chapters, especially 1 and 2, where the authors approach the concept of spirituality explicitly from a post- secular perspective. The synthesize an interesting model distinguishing the cultural, economic, society and bio-sphere, and the overlap between the UN program, and the Laudato Si Ecyclical letter.  

First, the content of this paper is interesting and refreshing for many professional and research fields. Also, the title and the content of the paper align, but I would like to make the following . For me, the first three chapters have a ‘flow’ with the post-secular concept of spirituality as axis, and it’s transformative power. The fourth chapter is more a standalone, with a different (religious, as it is a Roman Catholic Encyclical letter) concept of spirituality. Also, the flow in this part is different, with two recent publications brought together in one model, describing shared goals.

The current conclusions are more of a summary now, a little ‘sharper’ summarized and formulated. I think the different content and approach from chapter 4  makes it difficult to come to a real discussion and conclusion, that may contain recommendations for people in general, for health care professionals, or for compassionate communities. I would suggest the authors to consider to write two papers, one on chapter 1-3 and maybe one on chapter 4

I would also also suggest the authors to look at the references in chapter 1 and 2: from line 46-65 an 110-134 it is unclear to me if these are the author’s perspective, or derived from the reference at the end.

On average the quality of English is good, there are some double spaces and a few sentences that are not completely clear, maybe the authors can let the manuscript be read by someone who is is a native English speaker? 

Author Response

Please see the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 The article addresses one of the compelling issues in spiritual care.  The most significant contribution of this article is to bring together the surrounding domains of spiritual care; health care, medicine, political power, religions, philosophy, Eastern and Western spirituality, and environmental issues.  The most appealing significance of this article is to relate individual health care to the Common Home as an action to strive to promote spiritual care as common practice for Common Home. 

This article's other strength is providing a working definition of spirituality, which provides an integrative picture of spirituality in real life. 
One question is whether the discussion around translating scientific knowledge and critical sense into common sense was necessary or not (on page 2). It could support why the author brings disconnected areas into this article. But to some degree, this could distract the readers, resulting in losing the coherence of the article.   

Author Response

Please see the file attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf