AIDMT (AI-Designed Meditative Technique) refers to meditation methods generated and adjusted by artificial intelligence systems, typically within mindfulness applications. The concept was developed to describe how digital technologies personalize and automate contemplative practices. AIDMTs are characterized by real-time data collection and algorithmic feedback that replaces human instruction.
With an emphasis on the adaptation and mediation of Buddhist meditation within Western societies, the research explores the transformative interaction of traditional contemplative practices and modern technologies. By means of an extensive ethnographic investigation carried out in multiple European locations, the research sheds light on the significant influence that digital devices—specifically, smartphone applications—have on the accessibility, practice, and conception of meditation. These digital tools become guides that not only democratize access to meditation but also fundamentally change its nature, making it more individualized, commodified, and integrated into the field of self-care and therapeutic modalities from a deeply philosophical and communal practice. This inquiry critically looks at the two outcomes of this shift: the good that meditation is now more widely available and the bad that it is losing its conventional discipline and philosophical profundity.
- meditation and technology
- surveillance studies
- transculturation
- mindfulness
- digital ethnography
- techno-mindfulness
Introduction
AIDMT, or AI-Designed Meditative Technique, is a term introduced in Biopolitics of Techno-Mindfulness[1] to describe a contemporary evolution of mindfulness and contemplative practices mediated through artificial intelligence. Defined as “the algorithmic generation of personalized contemplative paths that adapt in real time to user data and psychophysical feedback”[1] (p. 2), AIDMT represents the convergence of ancient ascetic disciplines with the emergent digital infrastructures of self-monitoring and behavioral optimization. Within the anthropology of technology, it is regarded as the most advanced stage of what has been elsewhere called techno-mindfulness[2] that is, the integration of meditative practice with the logics of datafication and self-surveillance.
Definition and Origin
The article first proposed the category of AIDMT in the context of ethnographic analyses of European practitioners who employed smartphone applications for meditation. In these systems, “the role of the trainer or meditation teacher is gradually fading until it is the algorithm itself that suggests the most suitable mindfulness path based on the user’s needs—and personal health data that has been collected”[1] (p. 2). The algorithm becomes a surrogate guru, generating adaptive instructions, selecting auditory or visual stimuli, and producing what users often describe as “personalized guidance”.
In this sense, the AIDMT “creates a symbiotic relationship between the user and the application”[1] (p. 3). The human practitioner provides biometric and emotional data; the program returns optimized exercises, thereby closing a feedback loop that reproduces both therapeutic and disciplinary functions. AIDMTs thus mark the passage from guided meditation to algorithmic meditation—from a human master-disciple relation to an automated regime of behavioral correction.
Historical and Conceptual Background
In From Meditation to Techno-Mindfulness[2], this transformation is contextualized in the long process of transculturation and medicalization of Buddhist contemplative techniques in the West. Beginning with the “de-Buddhicisation”, (p. 127) inaugurated by Jon Kabat-Zinn’s Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), meditation was secularized, standardized, and reframed as therapy. This process “enabled biomedicine to assimilate meditation as a psychotherapeutic device suitable for clinical needs within well-defined and standardized protocols” (p. 126).
The next historical step is the absorption of these therapeutic devices into the digital infrastructure of everyday life: “the foreseeable subsequent phase in the development of mindfulness anticipates its integration with technological dispositives, which, having already arisen from the necessity of social surveillance, intersect with mindfulness to enhance and refine its aspects geared towards controlling dispositions” (p. 130). AIDMTs therefore embody the biopolitical culmination of this trajectory, fusing contemplative discipline with algorithmic governance.
AIDMT and the Biopolitics of Techno-Mindfulness
In Biopolitics of Techno-Mindfulness[1], the notion of AIDMT is introduced within a Foucauldian framework of biopower. the research observes that meditation apps “not only democratize access to meditation but also fundamentally change its nature, making it more individualized, commodified, and integrated into the field of self-care and therapeutic modalities” (p. 1). Yet this democratization comes at the cost of deeper philosophical and communal dimensions.
AIDMTs transform meditation into a biopolitical tool, “a psychological practice of inspection” (p. 5) that tracks and molds docile subjectivities. Through constant monitoring of attention, stress, and respiration, they “generate exercises that are not necessarily aimed at well-being, but rather at shaping docile subjectivities useful to the neoliberal system” (p. 3). The ethnographic interviews with app users reveal how algorithmic guidance often replaces human instruction, producing feelings of both dependence and relief—“it’s like having a human guide … and I need to let go … it’s the app’s [control] that relaxes me” (p. 8).
Ethnographic and Anthropological Significance
From an anthropological perspective, AIDMTs exemplify the endogenization of digital ritual—a phenomenon in which cultural techniques of self-formation (anthropotechnics, in Sloterdijk’s sense) become internalized within technological ecosystems. The paper situates AIDMTs in what he calls “the converging spaces of digital and physical realms” (ibid., p. 5), emphasizing that ethnography must now account for the virtual mediation of bodily and spiritual experiences.
AIDMTs are also central to surveillance studies, since they illustrate how wellness technologies merge self-care with self-tracking. The meditating subject becomes simultaneously the observer and the observed, embodying what Foucault described as “a real and effective incorporation of power … to the bodies of individuals, to their acts, attitudes, and modes of everyday behavior” (p. 131).
This dual role—subject and object of observation—renders AIDMTs invaluable to contemporary anthropology, which must analyze not only the content of spiritual practices but also the infrastructures of data that sustain them. Furthermore, “mindfulness is not simply becoming an instrument of biopower, but … with its most recent transformation into techno-mindfulness … it is in fact taking on the role of a surveillance device” [1] (p. 5).
Distinction between AIDMT and MBMA
While AIDMTs share some methodological origins with MBMA (Mindfulness-Based Medical Approaches), the context is what differentiates them sharply. MBMA operates within a biomedical framework that “assimilates meditation as a psychotherapeutic device suitable for clinical needs”[2] (p. 126), emphasizing measurable health outcomes and standardized protocols.
AIDMT, by contrast, is post-clinical: it merges the logic of therapy with that of automation. The feedback loop between human and machine replaces the therapist’s interpretive function with algorithmic prediction. Where MBMA remains anchored in human supervision, AIDMT transfers authority to the code itself—its “virtual doctor” that autonomously diagnoses, adjusts, and prescribes[1] (p. 4).
Philosophically, MBMA expresses the epistemic confidence of technomedicine; AIDMT extends it into the regime of technopolitics, where ethical and spiritual cultivation is delegated to artificial intelligence. Thus, AIDMT is not merely a therapeutic innovation but “the paradigm of a new anthropological condition in which the self is continually optimized through digital inspection” (p. 5).
Issues and Implications
The proliferation of AIDMTs raises profound ethical and cultural concerns. Their promise of personalization relies on the continuous collection of intimate data, which may be exploited for commercial or disciplinary purposes. The paper warns that “through constant tracking of individuals’ health data, [AIDMTs] generate exercises … aimed at shaping docile subjectivities” (p. 3). The meditator’s quest for self-knowledge is thus mediated by infrastructures of surveillance.
Moreover, the algorithmic simplification of contemplative traditions risks the loss of the rigorous ascetic and philosophical foundations of Buddhist meditation: “Meditation was not developed as a method for relaxation or stress reduction, but as a rigorous ascetic practice … not without negative emotions, effort, and significant obstacles” (p. 4). The AIDMT’s design for convenience and efficiency may further entrench neoliberal ideals of productivity, transforming spiritual cultivation into another form of performance optimization.
At the same time, the article acknowledges the potential for AIDMTs to democratize access to contemplative practice, particularly for those isolated by modern lifestyles or mobility constraints. The anthropological challenge, therefore, lies in distinguishing between ethical augmentation and technological domestication—between tools that support self-awareness and devices that convert awareness into data.
Relevance to Modern Anthropology and Surveillance Studies
The study of AIDMT is foundational for understanding how human consciousness is reshaped by algorithmic infrastructures. It bridges digital anthropology, religious studies, and biopolitical theory by revealing how technologies of the self evolve into technologies of control. The ethnographer must now consider “how the guidance or control exerted by these facilitating tools is experienced by meditators” (p. 5).
Within surveillance studies, AIDMTs illustrate the internalization of monitoring systems: the gaze no longer comes from an external authority but from the device in one’s own pocket. The “liquid effect” of techno-mindfulness (p. 3)—its adaptability to any social container—makes it a paradigmatic example of late-capitalist spirituality, where freedom and regulation coexist under the guise of self-improvement.
Sociological Problems
Research on techno-mindfulness and app-based meditative practices indicates that the sociocultural context of the early 2020s has become significantly more complex. This complexity is not merely due to the challenges of maintaining autonomous communities in the present day, but also to the inescapable interconnection between individual and collective spheres, wherein personal practices cannot detach entirely from social dynamics and institutional frameworks. We will examine here some ethnographic examples from the article Biopolitics of Techno-mindfulness.
Sociological studies following the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate that the alienation resulting from widespread isolation did not lead to genuine forms of inner retreat or contemplation. Instead, the boundaries between private and professional life became increasingly blurred. Many workers—particularly freelancers—experienced heightened stress rather than rest or introspection, as the domestic sphere was transformed into an extension of the workplace. The normalization of the home as a site of labor effectively dismantled the temporal division between work and rest, thus undermining the autonomy of private life. This erosion of separation has also impacted practices of self-care, which have historically been relegated to non-working hours.
The expansion of mindfulness and meditation applications during this period reflects a growing emphasis on health-related self-regulation. Ethnographic data reveal that the pandemic catalyzed the adaptation of traditional meditation centers toward remote or hybrid formats. As reported by one Brussels-based instructor, “the pandemic necessitated the adaptation of our center to facilitate home meditation”, while participants increasingly demanded digital solutions that could be integrated into everyday routines, such as meditating during commutes or at the workplace (Susie, June 2022)[1].
Fieldwork data collected in various urban contexts confirm this shift. Observations show that for many practitioners, meditation has become another scheduled activity within an already fragmented daily routine, resembling an additional obligation rather than a genuine withdrawal. This observation aligns with earlier ethnographies documenting workers rushing to yoga studios or mindfulness centers for a brief session before returning to domestic or professional responsibilities. The integration of meditation apps into daily life appears to reinforce, rather than alleviate, the acceleration and compartmentalization of modern existence.
The research also examines the institutionalization of corporate and academic “mindfulness spaces”. In 2021, Amazon introduced “Mindful Practice Rooms” or “AmaZen” booths, designed to offer brief meditative breaks for employees. Similar installations, such as “Mindful Nests” in Belgian and Dutch universities, provide guided-meditation applications and light-based sensory aids to promote focus and relaxation. Official statements emphasize their positive impact on concentration and productivity (University of Antwerp Press Releases, 2022)[3].
Ethnographic observation of these installations reveals that users, predominantly students or office workers, perceive them as effective tools for temporary relief. Participants often describe meditation apps as “personal” and “convenient”, allowing them to maintain consistent routines through notifications and digital reminders (Vincent, March 2022). Others emphasize the perceived “guidance” and “control” provided by the app, describing the process as a form of surrender that paradoxically enables relaxation (David, May 2023).
Researchers have described this phenomenon as a form of self-hacking—the appropriation of digital technologies to optimize mental performance and well-being. These applications integrate seamlessly into the logic of contemporary technoculture, which privileges efficiency, immediacy, and quantifiable progress. While users frequently report satisfaction, some field notes indicate frustration with the prescriptive nature of such tools, which can feel “commanding” or “artificial,” suggesting tension between technological mediation and authentic contemplative experience.
From a cultural-anthropological perspective, the adaptation of meditation to digital platforms raises questions regarding cultural appropriation and epistemic transformation. Scholars note that traditional Buddhist meditation was developed within ascetic and monastic frameworks specific to its historical context. The reconfiguration of these practices to suit contemporary needs—emphasizing productivity, emotional regulation, and cognitive efficiency—reflects what has been termed “epistemic colonization”. In this process, ancient contemplative traditions are selectively reinterpreted through neoliberal frameworks that privilege measurable outcomes and self-discipline.
Modern techno-mindfulness thus represents a shift from transcendental aspiration to utilitarian self-management. It transforms contemplative detachment into a therapeutic exercise designed to increase resilience and adaptive capacity, qualities that align with corporate productivity and neoliberal values of self-optimization. The emphasis on attention, present-moment awareness, and non-reactivity is marketed less as spiritual liberation than as a technique to sustain performance and mitigate stress without challenging structural conditions.
Techno-Mindfulness as a Surveillance Device
Contemporary research characterizes techno-mindfulness as a biopolitical dispositive—a mechanism that promotes self-regulation and internalized surveillance. Scholars have noted that while classical models of surveillance relied on external observation, techno-mindfulness internalizes the process: “the surveilled themselves become self-surveillants through technologies of the self aimed at self-disciplining and internalizing the normative order of the surveillant”[5]. This transformation marks a shift from Foucault’s external panopticon to an “all-surveillant inner eye”[6], embraced voluntarily as a path to self-improvement.
The rise of do-it-yourself (DIY) biohacking practices has made techno-mindfulness particularly compatible with neoliberal ideals of autonomy and self-enhancement[8]. Interviews with practitioners frequently emphasize accessibility, speed, and performance benefits. One user reported: “I can step away from the office for ten minutes—because my nerves are shot—and this meditation allows me to recharge and get back on track quickly” (Steve, December 2023). Another explained how short, repetitive sessions help “face all difficulties” with renewed composure (Marisa, January 2023).
These testimonies reveal how the discourse of calm and inner balance coexists with rhetoric of combat and endurance, signaling the hybridization of mindfulness with neoliberal work ethics. The concept of “mindful minutes” encapsulates this logic—brief, quantifiable intervals of re-education embedded into daily productivity cycles.
Scholars such as Kelly (2013)[10] and Shusterman (2008)[11] have identified mindfulness as a “technology of the self” that may reinforce rather than transcend social conformity. Traditional Buddhist meditation, oriented toward anattā (non-self), sought liberation from sociocultural constructs of identity[12]. By contrast, the psychologized and biomedical adaptation of mindfulness situates the self as the central object of protection and enhancement.
The epistemic system of clinical mindfulness derives largely from cognitive-behavioral psychology, emphasizing self-regulation over transcendence. This orientation aligns mindfulness with the neoliberal culture of productivity and performance. Consequently, modern mindfulness is often described as “white mindfulness”[13]—a culturally appropriated, secularized, and commodified version of Buddhist practice embedded in Western biopolitics[14].
Ethnographic accounts corroborate this integration of mindfulness into neoliberal biopower. Practitioners frequently express trust in technological systems that visualize inner states through biometric feedback. As Bruun (2025)[9] observes, part of the appeal lies in “the technologies’ visual representation of users’ interiority”. Interviews with participants confirm that data visualization—charts, graphs, and progress indicators—creates a sense of “tangibility” and control: “It’s like seeing an X-ray”, one meditator explained, “I can visualize the result of my discomfort” (Silvia, June 2023).
This dynamic constitutes what Castagnino (2018)[15] calls participatory surveillance: individuals willingly submit biometric data to meditation apps in exchange for perceived therapeutic feedback. Devices such as EEG-like headbands further extend this practice, transforming the contemplative act into a form of quantifiable self-monitoring.
Such developments illustrate how techno-mindfulness functions as both a wellness commodity and a disciplinary mechanism. Users interpret the monitoring of attention and calmness as empowerment, even as these processes replicate the structures of control characteristic of biopolitical governance. The ethnographic evidence consistently links the perceived benefits of techno-mindfulness—efficiency, adaptability, calm—to its capacity to reproduce conformity to social and economic systems rather than to disrupt them.
Ultimately, research concludes that techno-mindfulness has evolved into a paradigmatic case of internalized surveillance within late modernity. By merging contemplative traditions with digital self-tracking and algorithmic feedback, it exemplifies how spiritual technologies of liberation can be reoriented toward the optimization of productive subjectivities. As a result, techno-mindfulness is now recognized as both a therapeutic instrument and a disciplinary apparatus—an innovation that blurs the line between self-care and self-control.
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/humans5040027
References
- Divino, F.; Biopolitics of Techno-Mindfulness: Anthropological Reflections on the Issue of Modern App-Based Training of Focused Attention. Humans 2025, 5.4, 27, .
- Divino, F.; From Meditation to Techno-Mindfulness: On the Medicalization of Contemplative Practices and Future Prospects. Histories 2024, 4(1), 125-143, .
- University of Antwerp Press Releases and News. (2022). Mindfulnests—Students meditate in mindfulnests: Soundproof cabins in university of antwerp library are a first for Belgium. Available online: https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/about-uantwerp/press/press-releases-news/2022/mindfulnests/ (accessed on 31 July 2025).
- Colombo, M. (2020). Who is the ‘other’? Epistemic violence and discursive practices. Theory & Psychology, 30(3), 399–404.
- Zuboff, S., & Rose, S. (2021). Un capitalisme de surveillance. Etudes, Février(2), 57–66.
- Pène, S. (2023). Les théories de la surveillance. Du panoptique aux surveillance studies. Communication & Langages, 214(4), 163–165.
- Barker, K. K. (2014). Mindfulness meditation: Do-it-yourself medicalization of every moment. Social Science & Medicine, 106, 168–176.
- Lakhan, S. E. (2025). The evolution of do-it-yourself brain hacking: From fringe to frontier. Cureus, 17(6), e85330.
- Bruun, M. K. (2025). Watching our selves: Fitness and mindfulness as practices of self-monitoring in Britain. In Rhythm and viglance: Ethnographies of surveillance and time (pp. 25–42). Bristol University Press.
- Kelly, M. G. E. (2013). Foucault, subjectivity, and technologies of the self. In A companion to foucault (pp. 510–525). Wiley.
- Shusterman, R. (2008). Somaesthetics and care of the self: The case of foucault. In Body consciousness (pp. 15–48). Cambridge University Press.
- Samuel, G. (2015). The contemporary mindfulness movement and the question of nonself. Transcultural Psychiatry, 52(4), 485–500.
- Karelse, C.-M. (2023a). Disrupting white mindfulness. Manchester University Press.
- McMahan, D. L. (2008). The making of Buddhist modernism. Oxford University Press.
- Castagnino, F. (2018). Critique des surveillances studies. Éléments pour une sociologie de la surveillance. Déviance et Société, 42(1), 9–40.