Massimo Introvigne v. Stephen Kent, here.
Kent's book is Psychobiographies and Godly Visions: Disordered Minds and the Origins of Religiosity (Palgrave Macmillan, 2025).
Of course you wouldn't like such a book when your career involves defending religious liberty and someone comes along and almost says that the myriads of misguided followers of these religions all belong in the nuthouse.
The review is as long on disappointment as the book apparently is on vituperation and makes little effort to engage with the substance of the claims, which in its own way is very amusing to those of us who have never granted that fields such as sociology and economics are real sciences.
Meanwhile, it would have been nice if this review had engaged the New Testament's statements, for example, that Jesus' family thought he was beside himself, or that Festus thought Paul's great learning had made him mad, but it didn't.
The topic is not illegitimate.
