Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
Preprints.org · October 16, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background More than one billion people live with a mental health condition, roughly seven in ten adults experience at least one traumatic event in their lifetime, and about one in five people living in conflict-affected settings has a current mental disorder. Yet these figures describe only the clinically visible part of human suffering. Loneliness, shame, structural deprivation, loss of meaning, chronic pain and ecological grief sit largely outside the indicators that guide policy, and the disciplines that study them (psychiatry, public health, peace studies, contemplative science) rarely share a common map. Objective This review proposes such a map. It presents the Global Pain and Trauma Map (GPTM), a seven-domain taxonomy of human suffering, and its inverse, the Fundamental Peace Index (FPI = 100 − GPTM), and links both to a staged pathway from "shadow" states to Fundamental Peace. Methods Integrative narrative review of global epidemiology (Global Burden of Disease, WHO World Mental Health Surveys, conflict meta-analyses), trauma and attachment theory, contemplative and hypnosis neuroscience, and the author's Shadow-Gift-Essence (S-G-E) framework; every statistic was re-checked against its primary source for this version. We also report a descriptive analysis of the GPTM platform dataset (version 4.9; 196 countries and 321 communities, each scored 0–100 on seven domains). Framework The seven domains are Individual/Psychological (D1), Relational/Social (D2), Collective/Cultural (D3), Structural/Systemic (D4), Existential/Spiritual (D5), Somatic/Biological (D6) and Environmental/Planetary (D7). A place's GPTM composite is the mean of its seven domain scores; its FPI is 100 minus that composite. Across the 196 countries the mean composite was 59.1 (SD 8.8; FPI 40.9); no country reached FPI 60, and 26 exceeded FPI 50. Structural pain (D4) was the highest-scoring domain on average and existential pain (D5) the lowest, with sharp regional contrasts. The current scores are expert-rated estimates, not measurements; their inter-domain correlations (r up to 0.95 between D1 and D2) suggest substantial rater halo. We describe a field instrument, the GPTM Village Profile (GPTM-V), that applies the same formula to key-informant ratings, and grade each proposed intervention by strength of evidence. Conclusions The GPTM is best understood as a structured hypothesis about where suffering concentrates and how it might be relieved across levels, from the individual to the planetary. Its value now is heuristic and organising; its scientific value depends on the validation programme set out here, beginning with transparent scoring rules, independent raters and convergence with population survey data.