2 Ways Religious Beliefs Can Impact Your Well-Being, By A Psychologist
When life feels uncertain, everyone needs something to hold on to; a hope that things will get better, or perhaps the belief that you're part of something greater than yourself.
That something is often faith: a steadfast trust that things will work out, even when you can't yet see how. And, hope is the emotional fuel that can keep you moving forward, no matter how heavy the present may feel.
While both faith and hope can feel like mere abstract ideas, religion can make them tangible for many. This can be through rituals, stories, community and a sense of being held by something greater. Religion offers structure to believe in and a source of meaning.
An April 2025 study explored the relationship between religiosity, religious orientation and sleep health. Researchers specifically looked at the roles of anxiety and depression, which are two key indicators of mental well-being that are also closely tied to sleep.
Researchers collected data from over 200 adults (both religious and non-religious), using questionnaires and two-week sleep diaries.
They assessed whether participants identified as religious and how they related to their faith. This relationship was understood based on whether they saw religion as a deep life purpose, a means to an end or an ongoing spiritual quest.
The results reveal how deeply our beliefs and the emotional states they generate can influence both mind and body.
Here are two ways religious beliefs can impact your well-being.
1. Religious Belief Can Ease Anxiety And Help You Sleep Better
Sleep is often thought of as a solely physical need. However, it can be quite deeply tied to your emotional world, especially to experiences of anxiety. You may have noticed that when your mind is restless or racing, your sleep can suffer. In fact, it's quite common for people to find themselves caught in a trap of overthinking late at night.
Ikea conducted a large-scale global sleep survey with over 55,000 participants. The results showed that 11% named 'overthinking' as a major barrier to sleep, alongside stress (17%) and anxiety disorders (12%).
As your sleep suffers, so do many other aspects of your mental health, such as your mood, focus, energy and even emotional regulation. Over time, this can create a vicious cycle where poor sleep and chronic anxiety feed into each other, creating a loop that damages your well-being.
In the April 2025 study, researchers found that religious individuals reported significantly lower levels of anxiety compared to non-religious participants.
Anxiety didn't just coexist with poor sleep, but mediated the relationship between religious belief and sleep health completely. Being religious was linked to better sleep because it was linked to lower anxiety. This held true for both sleep quality and sleep efficiency.
However, depression didn't play the same role. The impact of religious belief on sleep was about how calm and secure a person felt inside.
Based on these findings, the real power of religious belief might lie in its ability to quiet mental overactivity. This could be through prayer, surrender or a sense of divine protection.
Religion has the ability to offer a kind of emotional anchoring that may help ease emotional spirals or internal restlessness that can disrupt sleep for many.
So, when the mind is calm, the body can rest.
This study is a reminder that faith, when rooted in emotional safety, can be more than just spiritual. Religion, or any other form of faith that can help soothe your inner chaos, might just be the key to deeper rest.
2. How You Relate To Religion Shapes Its Impact
When we think of religious beliefs, it's important to remember that they can look different for everyone. For some, it's a quiet personal truth. While for others, it's a ritual passed down through generations, or merely a space to ask deeper questions about life.
The April 2025 study didn't just look at whether someone was religious. It also looked at how they related to their faith. This is what researchers referred to as 'religious orientation.'
They explored three key orientations:
The study found that how one relates to their faith significantly influenced their mental and sleep health.
Researchers found that participants who viewed religion as an end in itself experienced lower anxiety and reported better sleep quality and efficiency.
On the contrary, those who saw religion as a quest — as an ongoing, questioning approach to faith — experienced higher anxiety. This, in turn, was linked to poorer sleep efficiency, as well as to decreased sleep quality.
These effects were all mediated by anxiety. This means that the emotional state influenced by one's relationship with religion played a key role in shaping sleep outcomes.
This study highlights that belief isn't always comforting by default. It's a truly supportive factor when it feels more personally meaningful and emotionally settled. While doubt and questioning are natural parts of any spiritual journey, when they linger without resolution, they may actually add to mental strain.
Let this be a reminder to reflect on how you engage with your faith and whether it brings clarity or confusion. This can be an important step not just in your spiritual life, but in your overall well-being.
Faith And Fear Can Change The Way You Experience Life
Faith can offer inner grounding in a world of chaos. When anchored in genuine trust, it can change the way you move through life's challenges and help soften fear.
Remember that fear, in essence, is just faith turned inside out and an inner belief in things going wrong. So, when fear drives your thoughts, religion or any sort of inclination in faith can provide belief in possibilities.
This shift alone can change not just how you feel, but also what you're able to choose and create in your life in any given moment.
In the long run, this shift can change everything. A fearful mind only narrows your vision and convinces you that your options are limited, even when they aren't. When led by fear, you may stop looking for solutions because you've already decided none exist.
But faith has the power to allow you to see what can be done, and pay attention to how things can work out, even if not right away.
That said, while it may be tempting to use faith as a constant emotional safety net, you must remember not to let it become a form of bypass — or something you reach for just to avoid discomfort. True faith can help you be prepared to meet life with strength and softness alike.
Wondering how your sensitivity to anxiety might be shaping your perspective and sleep? Take this science-backed test to find out: Anxiety Sensitivity Test
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
22 minutes ago
- Medscape
Meta-Analysis Finds Biologic Switches Effective in Psoriasis
TOPLINE: Interclass biologic switching is effective and safe in patients with psoriasis, though switching from an anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-alpha to an anti-interleukin (IL)-17A treatment was associated with higher risk for adverse events (AEs), according to a meta-analysis. METHODOLOGY: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of switching treatments after an initial biologic treatment fails, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 24 randomized clinical trials published through January 25, 2025, which included 12,661 adults with psoriasis who switched from one biologic agent to another within the same class or in a different class. Eight switching categories were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 score, and secondary endpoints included safety. TAKEAWAY: PASI 90 improved significantly in patients after interclass biologic switching both at week 4 (11 studies; odds ratio [OR], 6.53; 95% CI, 2.58-16.51) and long term (OR, 28.61; 95% CI, 12.89-63.47). All switches were effective in the short term, whereas most switches achieved a PASI 90 response in the long term, except for switches from anti-IL-17A agents to anti-IL-17A/F agents. Long-term, marked improvements were observed when switching from anti-TNF-alpha agents to anti-IL-23p19 agents (OR, 23.72; 95% CI, 4.29-130.98) and from anti-IL-12/23p40 agents to anti-IL-23p19 agents (OR, 19.87; 95% CI, 10.40-37.94). No major safety differences were observed overall, except for increased serious adverse events (AEs) when switching from an anti-TNF-alpha agent to an anti-IL-17A agent (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.25-4.83). Switching from anti-TNF-alpha agents to anti-IL-23p19, anti-IL-17A, or anti-IL-12/23p40 agents was associated with infection rates of 0.62%, 0.54%, and 0.39%, respectively. The highest risk for Candida infection (0.16%) was observed when switching from anti-TNF-alpha agents to anti-IL-17A/F agents. Switching to a different biologic class showed comparable effectiveness and safety with continuing the same agent, with regards to AEs. IN PRACTICE: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that 'interclass biologic switching was effective, and there were no safety differences for most patients,' the study authors wrote. 'Switching to anti-IL-23p19, anti-IL-17A, or anti-IL-12/23p40 agents from anti-TNF-alpha agents posed the greatest risk of infection,' they added, recommending 'vigilance for infections while switching to different biologics.' SOURCE: The study was led by Miao Zhang, MD, Department of Dermatology, Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China, and was published online on August 6 in JAMA Dermatology. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included heterogeneity in study designs, potential differences between biologics and batch variability which could have affected effectiveness comparisons after switching, insufficient data for several comparisons. DISCLOSURES: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Key Discipline Construction Project of Shanghai's 3-Year Action Plan for Strengthening the Construction of Public Health System, Shanghai Oriental Talent Program for Top-notch Project, CACMS Innovation Fund, Shanghai Healthy Special Project, The Shanghai 2022 Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan Medical Innovation Research Special Project, the Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Center, the High-level Chinese Medicine Key Discipline Construction Project, Evidence-based dermatology base sponsored by State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the Shanghai Hospital Development Center Foundation. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
New study reveals cycling can reduce dementia risk by 88%
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Getting older is inevitable, but there's been a host of studies that prove regular exercise is one of the best ways to future-proof your health. Data shows that women make up two thirds of dementia cases globally, with the loss of estrogen during menopause increasing the risk of the most common types of dementia. Yet a 44-year study, published in the journal Neurology, has linked cycling to long-term brain protection. What the study shows The study looked at a sample of 1462 women aged 38 to 60. At the start of the study, between 1968-1970, 191 of the women completed a maximal cycling test on a stationary bike. They performed various cycling intervals, cycling at a low intensity, and increasing the intensity every few minutes until they reached exhaustion. Their peak workload achieved at exhaustion was recorded. This was measured in watts, and researchers used it as a marker for their maximal cardiovascular fitness level. The researchers concluded that high fitness delayed the age of dementia onset by 9.5 years, and that the women who demonstrated high cardio fitness had an 88% lower risk of developing dementia. The women in the study were then examined for signs of dementia in 1974, 1980, 2000, 2005, and 2009. This included neuropsychiatric examinations, interviews with the women, and hospital records. The researchers also looked at socioeconomic factors, like income and education, as well as the women's diets, smoking habits, and any existing illnesses. The results showed that only 5% of the highly fit women, based on the scores in the cycling tests at the beginning of the study, developed dementia, compared to 32% in the moderate group. The researchers concluded that high fitness delayed the age of dementia onset by 9.5 years, and that the women who demonstrated high cardio fitness had an 88% lower risk of developing dementia. How to get started with cycling If you're not into cycling, or you don't have the space to install one of the best exercise bikes in your home, don't panic. Building cardiovascular fitness can be achieved through swimming, running, and even fast walking, so it's not just biking that holds memory-boosting benefits. Of course, while this is an impressive longitudinal study, there are limitations — for example, the women classified as 'highly fit' are likely to have a better diet and healthier habits. What's more, the study only looked at Swedish women. More research is needed into the subject, but staying fit and healthy as you get older is definitely beneficial for your physical and mental health. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button. More from Tom's Guide Forget running and swimming — study finds this sport adds 10 years to your life Forget swimming and yoga — according to research, this type of exercise adds years to your life Strength training vs cardio: Which is better during menopause?
Associated Press
4 hours ago
- Associated Press
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.' John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
