Religious experiences play an essential role in human life because it is how a person can establish relationships with God and strengthen his or her fate. Spiritual readings usually introduce many approaches, either actual or delusory. According to Rowe, there are two significant attitudes toward religious experiences. One of them was offered by Rudolph Otto about the awareness of another as a holy divine in human affairs. I am familiar with this type of experience because the majority of people prefer such a belief that there is someone (God) who is holy and mighty. One cannot reach God and has nothing to do but believe, pray, and visit a church. Another approach was offered by religious mystics who believed in the awareness of an absolute union between the human and the divine. I consider this idea as something fanatical that may excuse even human losses and deaths (when people support self-immolation).
Each of these experiences has a specific value and determines the quality of life. Much depends on what people do to support their faith, demonstrate their passion, and prove their choices. The matter of each interpretation is the identification of the divine, which removes all delusions and makes religious experiences accurate. Taking into consideration the existing variety of people, their interests, traditions, and cultures, it is possible to believe that both approaches may describe the same experiences. However, as well as any person in this world, I am free to develop my position on this point. I believe that it is wrong to support religious mystics and unite the divine and the human. Such a position contributes to the growth of fanatics who quickly put human life under threat. The interpretation of Otto to divide but identify the power of the divine is necessary for people. On the one hand, it has a reason and sense, and, on the other hand, its impact can be controlled.