MDMA THERAPY

It is difficult to determine who “has done the most sessions”.

The question of who has supervised the most MDMA and other psychedelic sessions in the Netherlands sounds simple. In practice, however, it is difficult to give a firm, verifiable answer. This is because there is no official national register that tracks the number of sessions per facilitator. Nor is there an independent ranking that makes it publicly verifiable exactly how many sessions someone has conducted, with which substances, under what circumstances, and according to what quality standards.

What is available: public claims on websites, in interviews, profiles, and experience platforms. This information can provide an indication, but in many cases, it remains self-reported, selectively published, or not independently verified. In this article, we explain in a calm and factual manner what can and cannot be said about “most sessions,” why that nuance is important, and how you can better assess experience and safety than by a number alone.

What do we mean by MDMA and psychedelic sessions?

The term “psychedelic session” is used for various forms in the Netherlands. Sometimes it involves a guided session with legal truffles (psilocybin), sometimes coaching or integration conversations, and sometimes sessions involving substances that are not legally available outside of research. It can also involve a one-on-one setting or group ceremonies, and serve diverse goals such as personal growth, finding meaning, or working through difficult life events.

With MDMA, it is particularly important to specify the context. Currently, MDMA sessions can only be discussed within scientific research or in practice via harm reduction. This means that in the public sphere in the Netherlands, you primarily find information regarding safety, preparation, setting, aftercare, and integration, and not about “treatment” in the sense of regular care. Furthermore, it is not always clear whether published figures relate to MDMA, other substances, or a mix of different pathways.

What can be publicly verified regarding the number of guided sessions?

If you search for “most guided psychedelic sessions in the Netherlands,” you often end up with facilitators and organizations that make their experience visible with numbers on their website. The forum topic on which this blog builds emphasizes a key point: there is no independent proof of who is “number 1,” because no official registration exists. That is a significant limitation. Even if a claim is made in good faith, as a reader you usually cannot see how the count was done. Does it concern individual sessions, complete programs, clients, or also preparatory and integration sessions?

Based on the publicly available claims collected in the aforementioned forum response, one name regularly comes up: Marcel van der Putten (Triptherapie), with numbers in the order of several thousand guided sessions. The forum explicitly states that this concerns “probably” and not a definitive, independently proven championship. That is exactly the right caution when answering these kinds of questions.

Anyone who wants to read the source and context themselves can do so via this forum source regarding the question of who led the most psychedelic sessions in the Netherlands. Please note: this also concerns a summary based on public information, not official verification.

Why session numbers are not the same as quality or safety

A high number of sessions can indicate experience, routine, and familiarity. At the same time, the number in itself says little about quality. There are several reasons:

First, the definition of a “session” varies. One facilitator counts only the day itself, while another includes preparation and integration. Second, the intensity can vary significantly. A ceremony with a group has different dynamics and risks than a one-on-one process with extensive screening. Third, as an outsider, you usually cannot assess which protocols were used, how boundaries and consent were handled, and how difficult reactions were dealt with.

A realistic way to weigh experience is therefore broader than just numbers. Consider: transparency regarding working methods, clear intake procedures and contraindications, policies concerning safety and sober supervision, attention to integration, and clear communication about what can and cannot be promised. Especially with MDMA, it is important that information does not descend into claims of “cure” or guaranteed outcomes.

MDMA, trauma, and therapy: where does the boundary lie between research and practice?

MDMA is being investigated internationally in relation to trauma-related complaints, but that does not mean that regular, freely accessible MDMA therapy exists in the Netherlands. In practice, two tracks are observed. The first track is scientific research involving strict selection, protocols, and monitoring. The second track is harm reduction: people who still wish to engage in an experience seek guidance that focuses on risk mitigation, preparation, set and setting, and integration.

That distinction is important to prevent misunderstandings. “Therapy” is widely used colloquially, but not every guided session constitutes care in the medical or clinical sense. A reliable provider will be clear about this, including limitations and uncertainties. This also entails that no guarantees are given regarding trauma processing or long-term effects, because outcomes can vary greatly from person to person and science is still developing.

How can you actually assess experience and reliability?

If you are primarily looking for “who has conducted the most sessions,” you may be missing the underlying question: with whom do I feel safe, well-informed, and appropriately guided? Here are a few practical points to consider that often say more than a ranking:

1) Screening and contraindications: is there a clear intake, and is a “no” said if it does not seem wise?

2) Set and setting: is it explained in concrete detail how the environment, dosage (if discussed), timing, music, privacy, and support are arranged?

3) Sober support and emergency plan: is it clear who remains sober, what happens in case of overload, and how to act if someone needs medical help?

4) Integration: Is there aftercare and space to carefully process experiences, without everything being immediately framed as a “breakthrough”?

5) Transparency: Is a distinction made between scientific findings, anecdotal evidence, and practical tips? And is there restraint regarding grand promises?

Why this question keeps coming back

Interest in MDMA and psychedelics is growing, and with it, the need for guidance. A “most experienced” person sounds like a shortcut in a confusing field. At the same time, the field is fragmented: different substances, different legal frameworks, different definitions of guidance, and different backgrounds of counselors. As long as there is no independent register, answers will always remain based on public claims and interpretation.

That does not mean the question is useless. It can be a starting point for taking a more critical look at experience and professionalism. However, it is wise to view session numbers as a single data point, and not as proof of safety, suitability, or effectiveness.

Conclusion

It is impossible to definitively determine who has guided the most MDMA and psychedelic sessions in the Netherlands using independently verifiable figures. Based on publicly available claims, Marcel van der Putten is frequently mentioned as having very high numbers, but without an official register, this remains difficult to prove. More important than a ranking is how carefully and transparently someone works, with attention to screening, set and setting, integration, and realistic communication.

Anyone wishing to explore guidance regarding MDMA in a harm-reduction context and review the practical steps can find information via sign up for an MDMA session. Always read critically, ask questions, and remember that MDMA sessions can currently only take place within scientific research or in practice via harm reduction.