By attempting to provide a scientific approach in this manner it is not my intention to argue against the need for other approaches.
A scientific approach - in the way I intend - certainly has great potential merits. However it cannot replace the value of other treatments (which communicate meaning in a distinctive fashion).
So my own attitude to development would be catholic in that I recognise the value of using a wide range of methods.
However in terms of the outlining of the primary structures of development, the scientific (holistic mathematical) approach would have a distinct advantage.
I would maintain that for the most part the major religious traditions are dealing (phenomenally) in secondary structures to communicate meaning. Though such structures have particular value for those raised within the respective traditions - by their nature - they cannot be successfully transferred across all traditions.
Thus the Bardo teachings of Tibetan Buddhists might therefore carry very little resonance for Christians.
However it should be possible for - say - a Buddhist and Christian to largely agree regarding the primary structural nature of "higher" stages while choosing very distinctive secondary patterns of devotion.
Indeed I would go further. The secondary phenomenal representations of religious traditions could in turn be greatly enriched through closer relationship to their primary structural nature.