iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Lisa Bieberman’s 1967 pamphlet Session Games People Play: A Manual for the Use of LSD has drawn renewed attention because a recent survey found broad agreement with 18 of its 19 advice points. That finding suggests many surveyed psychedelic users and guides still find much of its practical advice persuasive. It does not show that following the pamphlet prevents harm, establish that every claim in it is accurate, or make an unsupervised psychedelic session safe.
What is the 1960s guide?
Session Games People Play: A Manual for the Use of LSD is a 1967 pamphlet by Lisa Bieberman, published by the Psychedelic Information Center at 26 Boylston Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, according to the Luminist archive. It is distinct from the better-known books associated with Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert.
Contemporary reporting describes Bieberman as a Radcliffe student who worked in Leary and Alpert’s orbit, but whose pamphlet focused on preparation and avoiding difficult situations rather than psychedelic evangelism. Its opening frames that intent plainly: “This book then is no tourist’s guide through paradise, but a down – to – earth discussion of the sorts of things that can go wrong in an LSD session and how to prevent them.” The wording and spacing here follow the archived introduction.
The pamphlet is available online as an archival text; Nautilus says it is unclear how widely known it remains among recreational users. Its historical value is as an early example of practical, lay-facing risk-reduction writing about trust, privacy, expectations, anxiety, and interpersonal “games”—not as a contemporary medical authority.
#1 Best Overall
What does the recent survey actually say?
A 2026 Nautilus feature reports that a research team surveyed more than 500 psychedelic users and guides; 86 percent of respondents had taken psychedelics in the preceding year. Popular Science describes the sample as nearly 600 self-described users of LSD, MDMA, ketamine, psilocybin mushrooms, and other substances. The two reports use slightly different rounded descriptions, and the journal paper was not accessible to verify exact recruitment or denominators. Both report broad agreement with 18 of 19 advice items.
That is agreement with advice, not a test of outcomes. The reports do not establish that the advice prevented injuries, improved clinical outcomes, or validates the pamphlet’s full set of assertions. Daniel Kruger, a study co-author and University at Buffalo researcher, told Nautilus that respondents strongly supported themes including:
- People sharing a session should know, like, and trust one another.
- A guide cannot do all the work for a participant.
- The experience eventually ends, and anxiety does not automatically mean something is wrong.
- A private place where participants will not be disturbed is preferable.
These are reported themes of respondent agreement, not a professionally validated checklist or a guarantee of safety.
Where did respondents disagree?
Advice about mirrors
The pamphlet’s mirror advice was the clear outlier: responses varied widely, leaving the average effectively canceled out. Some respondents found mirrors unsettling; others considered them meaningful. The survey therefore offers no simple consensus that mirrors are either helpful or harmful for everyone.
Rank #3
Going out in public
On whether going out in public is a bad idea, Kruger told Nautilus: “I don’t think anybody has studied whether it’s a bad idea to go out in public.” He added that he personally would not recommend it. That is his interview opinion, not a result established by the survey.
Why the pamphlet’s advice needs historical context
The 1967 text includes categorical claims about danger, control, duration, and supposed “antidotes.” Those statements belong to the pamphlet’s historical context and should not be repeated as current medical facts. Agreement with some advice in a modern survey does not validate those claims.
Rank #4
- Used Book in Good Condition
The contemporary reporting notes possible serious risks, including psychosis, mania, suicidality, and cardiovascular risk, and distinguishes naturalistic use from structured clinical settings. It is not a complete clinical risk review, so it cannot support a full account of individual risk or treatment. This article does not offer dosing instructions or imply that taking LSD without supervision is safe. Nautilus also reports Kruger’s observation that nearly all use he described occurs outside regulated environments, while clinical research settings are structured and supervised; that is an interview statement, not a timeless prevalence estimate or a complete account of laws and access.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Why it is being discussed now
The renewed interest comes from the apparent persistence of some practical themes—not from proof that a 59-year-old pamphlet is a reliable guide to modern psychedelic use. Nautilus presents Bieberman’s work as pragmatic information-sharing at a time when more prominent psychedelic writing often emphasized spiritual or cultural claims. Popular Science quotes Kruger, a study co-author and University at Buffalo psychologist, saying: “As a public health professional, I believe we need to protect these users,”
The evidence available in the two 2026 reports supports a limited conclusion: surveyed respondents broadly agreed with 18 of 19 pieces of advice. The inaccessible journal paper leaves exact sample details unresolved, and reported agreement cannot establish whether the advice works in practice.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
