Somatization processes are usually associated with a lack of insight or with emotional unawareness, especially in adolescents where the ability for self-reflection is beginning to mature. However, the extent to which different levels of insight explain variations in somatization remains understudied. This study aimed to evaluate whether high-level emotional awareness (comprehension) but not low-level awareness (only attention) is needed to psychologically cope with suffering, thus leading to lower somatization. Specific predictions were: 1) High attention along with High comprehension will be associated with significantly lower frequency of somatic complaints than other combinations (Low attention and Low comprehension, or High attention but Low comprehension); 2) In absence of comprehension, no attention will be more optimal than attention only, because only-attention might work as an amplificatory of suffering without the possibility of processing it. Self-reports of meta-cognitive processes, somatization, and control variables were obtained from 264 adolescents from a non-clinical population (54.5% female; aged 12–18, M = 14.7, SD = 1.7). In line with expectations, results revealed significant differences in the effects of insight positions on somatization: Attention+Comprehension (M = 4.9, SE = 0.9) < Nothing (M = 7.1, SE = 0.3) < Only attention (M = 8.9, SE = 0.7). Compared to Nothing, Attention+comprehension was associated with significantly reduced somatic complaints (B = -2.2, p = 0.03, 95% CI -4,1 to 0.2). However, Only attention was associated with increased somatic complaints compared to the other two conditions (B = 1.8, p = 0.03, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.4; B = 4, CI 95% 1.6–6.3, p = 0.001, respectively). This highlights the role of higher-order awareness (i.e., comprehension or clarity) in the processing of suffering and stresses its value in the adaptive coping of emotional distress.

Scientific research has provided theoretical evidence on the implementation of religious/spiritual interventions (RSI) as a complementary health therapy, where spiritual improvements are also a factor to consider. Despite the above, there are few studies that have evaluated the clinical applicability of these findings. This study was an intervention with older and younger adults divided into two treatment groups and one control group. What is expected is that the two treatment groups will score better than the control group; however, the group with a Christian spiritual focus is expected to perform better than the group without a spiritual focus. Measures of gratitude, meaning of life, forgiveness, spirituality, religiosity, and expected prejudice were recorded. The hypothesis is fulfilled that Christian spirituality enhances psychological interventions on factors associated with personal well-being, mainly in older adults: spirituality (M = 26.00, SE = 2.127/M = 29.38, SE = 1.953, t (12) = −2.436, p < 0.05, r = 0.58), goals (M = 22.92, SE = 1.022/M = 24.54, SE = 0.739, t (12) = −2.298, p < 0.05, r = 0.55), and benevolence (M = 17.31, SE = 1.554/M = 21.08, SE = 1.603, t (12) = −3.310, p < 0.05, r = 0.69). The most powerful results of the study are those associated with religiosity/spirituality.