Meaning in life (MIL) is a crucial factor in living a fulfilling life. The current integrative conceptualization of MIL encompasses three primary dimensions: comprehension, purpose, and mattering (George and Park, 2016; Martela and Steger, 2016). Specifically, MIL can be described as the extent to which individuals perceive their lives as coherent, guided by meaningful goals, and having significance in the broader world—each of these reflecting the three core dimensions (George and Park, 2016, p. 2). Grounded in this conceptual framework, a growing body of empirical research over the past few decades has reinforced the theoretical understanding that MIL is central to human experience. It is increasingly recognized as a key contributor to human flourishing and as a coping mechanism for adapting to life's challenges and suffering (e.g., Czekierda et al., 2017; Russo-Netzer and Vos, 2026). However, despite this expanding research and deeper understanding of MIL—its sources and its influence on human functioning—much of the focus remains on the individual level. Yet the experience and manifestation of meaning can vary significantly across different contexts, with various sociocultural factors likely affecting the sources and processes of MIL (Steger et al., 2008). Religion can be seen as such a sociocultural framework that facilitates meaning-making processes for its members (Dahinden and Zittoun, 2013; Park, 2005).

In institutionalized religions, overarching narratives are often sustained and reinforced through ideologies, practices, coping mechanisms, symbols, community support, and shared beliefs and traditions (e.g., Pargament and Mahoney, 2009). Such a framework contributes to an individual's sense of control, purpose in life, and overall security, ultimately fostering positive psychological outcomes and wellbeing (Park, 2005; Silberman, 2005). Religions further provide an organized worldview, instilling a coherent set of values, standards, and guidelines for living a meaningful and worthwhile life (Krok, 2014). Through shared belief systems and worldviews that offer moral guidance from birth to death and beyond, religions also provide clear directives on beliefs and values. However, less is known about the psychological mechanisms that may be in play in the relationship between such cultural-religious structures and an individual's sense of meaning in his or her life (Abu-Raiya et al., 2020; Steger and Frazier, 2005).

Moreover, given that much of the research on meaning in life has been conducted in North America and Europe, calls have emerged to extend knowledge beyond specific cultural backgrounds (what has been termed as WEIRD: Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic; Diener et al., 2018; Henrich et al., 2010) and include more international and diverse samples (Russo-Netzer and Vos, 2026). Thus, the present study aims to expand the scope of understanding cultural differences in levels of meaning in life, by comparing ultra-Orthodox religious individuals to their secular counterparts, and to examine two underexplored factors that may be in play in such experiences: one's sense of connection with the transcendent (i.e., attachment to God) and synchronicity awareness.

Surprisingly, as can be seen in Table 3, no significant differences were found between the SA scores of the ultra-Orthodox group (M = 2.31, SD = 0.88) and the secular group (M = 2.23, SD = 1.04). Moreover, no significant differences were found between the MD scores of the ultra-Orthodox group (M = 4.54, SD = 1.16) and the secular group (M = 4.55, SD = 1.29). However, significant differences were found between the two groups in all of the other variables. Presence of MIL in the ultra-Orthodox group was significantly higher (M = 5.37, SD = 1.35) than in the secular group (M = 4.30, SD = 1.22), with a large effect size (d = 0.83). Regrading attachment to God, ultra-Orthodox participants reported on higher levels of attachment anxiety (M = 2.61, SD = 0.98) than secular participants (M = 2.24, SD = 1.30), with a small to medium effect size (d = 0.32). Secular participants reported on higher levels of attachment avoidance (M = 4.64, SD = 1.47) than ultra-Orthodox participants (M = 2.14, SD = 1.20), with a large effect size (d = −1.86).

The prevalence of synchronicity experiences in both groups was high. In the secular group, all participants reported encountering at least one synchronicity experience. In the ultra-Orthodox group, 98% reported on at least one synchronicity experience (only two participants reported they had never experienced one).

Regarding descriptive statistics, Table 2 presents the internal reliabilities (Cronbach's alpha), means, and standard deviations of the variables. In addition, to estimate the associations between the study's variables, an analysis of all pairwise Pearson correlations was conducted. The analysis revealed that SA was significantly and positively correlated with synchronicity MD (r = 0.64, p < 0.001(, presence of MIL (r = 0.23, p < 0.001(, and anxious attachment to God (r = 0.14, p = 0.03). SA was significantly and negatively correlated with avoidant attachment to God (r = −0.14, p = 0.03).

It was further found that synchronicity MD was significantly and positively correlated with presence of MIL (r = 0.28, p < 0.001(and anxious attachment to God (r = 0.24, p < 0.001(. Synchronicity MD was significantly and negatively correlated with avoidant attachment to God (r = −0.21, p = 0.001). A sense of MIL was significantly and negatively correlated with avoidant attachment to God (r = −0.50, p < 0.001). No significant correlations were found between presence of MIL and anxious attachment to God. Finally, anxious attachment to God was negatively correlated with avoidant attachment to God (r = −0.31, p < 0.001; see Table 2).

The study's hypotheses were tested using 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrapped samples and 95% confidence intervals, following the recommendations of Aguinis et al. (2017), Hayes (2009), and Hayes (2012), multiple mediation analysis outline. Since our aim was to test the directional hypotheses among the constructs rather than to re-evaluate the psychometric properties of the scales, which had already been established in prior studies, we conducted path analysis with manifest variables, based on aggregated scale scores (e.g., Granqvist et al., 2012; Littman-Ovadia and Steger, 2010; Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2023). Moreover, given the sample size and model complexity, path analysis with manifest variables provided a more parsimonious and statistically stable approach (Hayes et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2009). Avoidant attachment to God and anxious attachment to God were exogenous variables, while SA and synchronicity MD were the mediators, and MIL was the endogenous variable (see Figure 1). Testing of the suggested full model showed very good fit [χ² (1) = 0.973, p = 0.324, NFI = 0.996, TLI = 1.001, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.000, SRMR = 0.01, ECVI = 0.162], meaning that this model provided an excellent starting point for further analysis.

Although the fit of the hypothesis model was very good, examination of the separate paths revealed that avoidant attachment to God and anxious attachment to God were not significantly related to SA and avoidant attachment to God was not significantly related to synchronicity MD. Therefore, these paths were removed from the final model (see Table 4). Removing statistically non-significant paths while transparently reporting both the original and the adjusted model is an accepted and recommended practice in mediation and path analysis research (e.g., Rohrer et al., 2022; Schuler et al., 2025).

The fit of the final model was excellent, and all paths were statistically significant. Table 5 details all standardized, unstandardized, and significance levels of the model coefficients. The final model had fit indices that met criteria for excellent model fit: [χ² (2) = 3.479, p = 0.176, NFI = 0.987, CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.02, ECVI = 0.164]. The trimmed model was significantly superior to the full model, since an increase in degrees of freedom was coupled with a non-significant chi-square change: Δχ²(1) = 2.506, p > 0.05.

The findings (displayed in Table 5) support both hypotheses: H1 that anxious attachment to God is directly and negatively associated with presence of MIL [β = −0.23, SE = 0.07, p = 0.00, 95%CI (−0.34, −0.13)] and H2 stating the same for avoidant attachment to God [β = −0.53, SE = 0.04, p = 0.00, 95%CI (−0.62, −0.42)]. Testing for the indirect effects between anxious attachment to God and MIL in the model via the bootstrapping procedure (Hayes, 2009) yielded two significant indirect effects. The indirect effect of SA to MIL through synchronicity MD was found to be significant: b = 0.20, β = 0.14, SE = 0.06, 95%CI [0.07, 0.22], thus partly supporting H3 and H4. The indirect effect of anxious attachment to God on MIL through synchronicity MD was also found to be significant: b = 0.04, β = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95%CI [0.01, 0.07], supporting H5. H6 was not supported. See Figure 2 for the final model paths with their standardized coefficients.

This study sought to explore cultural variations in the sense of MIL by comparing ultra-Orthodox religious individuals with their secular counterparts. By delving into these distinct groups, the research aimed to uncover how different worldviews shape the sense of meaning people derive from their lives. Additionally, the study addressed several underexplored factors that might contribute to these experiences, including the role of attachment to God, as well as individuals' awareness of synchronicity and their ability to detect meaning in everyday occurrences. Through this investigation, the study provides new insights into how these elements interact and influence the overall experience of meaning, shedding light on the complex interplay between cultural context and personal perception.

The findings suggest significant differences between ultra-Orthodox and secular individuals as to anxious and avoidant attachment styles. Ultra-Orthodox individuals were found to exhibit a more anxious attachment style to God, while secular individuals tended to display a more avoidant attachment style. These findings can be explained through a combination of theological, cultural, and psychological factors. In ultra-Orthodox communities, God is often perceived as an intimately involved and omnipotent presence, deeply integrated into every aspect of life (Silberman, 2005). This perception fosters a personal relationship with God that can mirror human attachment styles, with anxious attachment characterized by a strong desire for closeness, fear of abandonment, and concerns about one's worthiness in the eyes of God (e.g., Cherniak et al., 2021; Granqvist et al., 2012). Research indicates that individuals with anxious attachment to God often seek reassurance through prayer, rituals, and adherence to religious norms, reflecting a need to maintain and secure this divine relationship. This attachment style appears to be reinforced by a religious framework that emphasizes God's omnipresence and active involvement in one's daily life, leading to heightened dependency and emotional investment in this divine connection (Granqvist, 2020; Kirkpatrick, 2005).

Another possible explanation for the heightened levels of anxiety attachment style reported by ultra-Orthodox individuals is the high standard of religious observance among ultra-Orthodox communities, fostering an environment of stringent expectations. In such a community, the pressure to meet these standards can intensify fears of divine disapproval or punishment, contributing to an anxious attachment style, marked by a heightened need for validation and reassurance from God (e.g., Tung et al., 2018). This sense of anxiety is not only a personal concern but is often reinforced by the social structure of the community, where adherence to religious norms is closely monitored and deviations are discouraged (Klonover et al., 2023; Russo-Netzer and Bergman, 2020). In a broader sense, the communal emphasis on piety and moral behavior can amplify anxiety, as individuals continuously strive to meet both divine and communal expectations (Exline et al., 2011).

Conversely, secular individuals tend to exhibit a more avoidant attachment style to God, reflecting broader secular attitudes toward religion often characterized by distance, skepticism, or disinterest. Avoidant attachment to God involves emotional disengagement and a reluctance to depend on or to seek comfort from a divine figure. For many secular individuals, God may be seen as distant, uninvolved, or irrelevant, which aligns with a preference for autonomy and self-reliance over reliance on a higher power (Kirkpatrick and Shaver, 1992). This avoidant stance is often underpinned by secular values that prioritize independence and personal control, reducing the need for a close relationship with a deity (Granqvist and Hagekull, 2000).

Ultra-Orthodox and secular individuals reported similar levels of SA as well as MD, suggesting that regardless of religious background, this phenomenon is quite widespread. This further corroborates previous findings regarding the scope and prevalence of the phenomenon among non-clinical general population samples (e.g., Fach et al., 2013; Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2023). Some studies, though, have suggested that SA may be positively related to the level of religiosity (e.g., Coleman et al., 2009). Rosenstreich et al. (2024), which included participants from the US and the UK, revealed a small positive association between both SA and MD and religiosity. One possible explanation for the inconsistent patterns of relationship between religiosity and SA may reflect a distinction between the frequency of such experiences and the subjective phenomenological interpretation granted by individuals. Thus, the encounter with synchronicity experiences may represent a universal, widespread human experience (Coleman et al., 2009), which is not necessarily bounded to a specific religious or cultural background. However, such background may shape the ways in which individuals make sense of these experiences as part of a larger cultural “web” of meanings in their lives (Russo-Netzer and Mayseless, 2021). (Russo-Netzer and Icekson 2020) conducted an in-depth qualitative exploration of synchronicity experiences, suggesting that sociocultural context may play a crucial role in shaping how both secular and religious individuals interpret synchronicity with participants with religious beliefs viewing synchronicity as affirmations of their faith and overarching worldview and attributing such moments to divine providence or personal guidance. Future studies should further expand the exploration of synchronicity experiences to include varied religious tendencies and sociocultural backgrounds.

The findings also suggest that ultra-Orthodox individuals experience more MIL than secular individuals. This finding may be explained through several interconnected factors related to purpose, community, structure, and values. Ultra-Orthodox individuals' lives are guided by a clear framework of religious teachings, rituals, and community expectations that provide direction and purpose (Russo-Netzer and Bergman, 2020). This is supported by research suggesting that having a coherent sense of purpose, particularly one grounded in spiritual or religious beliefs, is strongly associated with higher levels of MIL (Cohen and Rozin, 2001; Park, 2005).

Furthermore, the ultra-Orthodox lifestyle is deeply embedded within close-knit communities that offer strong social bonds and support systems (e.g., Russo-Netzer and Bergman, 2020). These communities provide a profound sense of belonging and interconnectedness, enhancing individuals' overall sense of purpose and meaning (Krause, 2015). Social support and community involvement may function as significant contributors to perceived MIL, as they fulfill basic psychological needs for connection and belonging (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Secular individuals often navigate more individualistic environments, which may lack the same depth of communal ties and support structures (Russo-Netzer, 2016; Zuckerman et al., 2016).

Another key factor is the highly structured nature of ultra-Orthodox life, which centers around daily routines of prayer, study, and religious observance. This structured framework imparts a sense of order and direction, engaging individuals in meaningful activities and habits (Heintzelman and King, 2014). For example, regular practices such as expressing gratitude can enhance wellbeing (Russo-Netzer et al., 2021). Moreover, these consistent religious rituals continually reinforce one's values and purpose, contributing to a stable sense of identity and meaning (Silberman, 2005).

Ultra-Orthodox beliefs also often involve a sense of transcendence, connecting individuals to something greater than themselves, such as God or a divine plan. This connection can provide a profound sense of existential meaning that secular individuals, who may lack such a framework, might struggle to find (Park, 2005). Religion offers answers to existential questions about life, death, and purpose, reducing existential anxiety and enhancing perceptions of meaning (Pargament, 2011; Pirutinsky, 2009). Finally, ultra-Orthodox communities place a strong emphasis on family values, tradition, and the passing down of beliefs from one generation to the next, which can foster a sense of legacy and purpose beyond oneself (e.g., Ganz, 2024).

The findings also point to a rather new direction in understanding the relationship between attachment to God and MIL. Insecure attachment to God (avoidant or anxious) was negatively associated with MIL. This finding provides further support for the religion-as-an-attachment process (Kirkpatrick and Shaver, 1992; Kirkpatrick, 2005; Shaver and Mikulincer, 2012), suggesting that an unstable relationship with the transcendent may lead to a decreased sense of MIL. Given that an essential component of MIL is a sense of coherence, connection, and order, an inconsistent, unsteady, and uncertain connection to the transcendent may fail to serve as a trustworthy source of meaning (George and Park, 2016; Heintzelman and King, 2014; Martela and Steger, 2016).

Further, the present findings emphasize the eudaimonic aspect of wellbeing, particularly the sense of MIL, through the lens of attachment to God (e.g., Culver and Lundquist Denton, 2017; Keefer and Brown, 2018; Stroope et al., 2013). This dimension of wellbeing has been relatively underexplored in previous research, which primarily focused on mental health outcomes, quality of life, and psychopathology (e.g., Bradshaw and Kent, 2018; Granqvist et al., 2012; Hiebler-Ragger et al., 2016; Stulp et al., 2019; Tung et al., 2018). These earlier studies tended to overlook the role that attachment to God and a sense of MIL can play in an individual's overall wellbeing.

The negative relationship between insecure attachment to God and sense of MIL may also be considered an expression of a spiritual struggle: “experiences of tension, conflict, or strain that center on whatever people view as sacred” (Pargament and Exline, 2022, p. 6). Spiritual struggles, doubting one's faith, or experiencing conflict with one's beliefs, are directly linked to reduced MIL because they challenge the core aspects of a person's spiritual worldview (Exline et al., 2014). These struggles may undermine the sense of coherence, purpose, and connection that typically arises from secure spiritual beliefs. Rather than providing a source of comfort, guidance, and meaning, an insecure attachment to God can become a source of internal conflict and existential distress.

Put differently, insecure attachment to God, whether anxious or avoidant, often involves feelings of distrust, fear, uncertainty, or emotional distance from God (Cherniak et al., 2021; Kirkpatrick, 2005). These attachment styles mirror the difficulties individuals face in their human relationships and project them onto their spiritual relationship with God, leading to a strained and conflict-ridden connection. This strained relationship can contribute to spiritual struggles, where individuals grapple with doubts, fears of divine abandonment, or feelings of unworthiness, all of which undermine a stable sense of MIL (Exline, 2013; Pargament and Exline, 2022).

While most previous studies validated the connection between interpersonal attachment styles and meaning (e.g., Shaver and Mikulincer, 2012; Dewitte et al., 2019), the current study broadens the scope of our understanding to include attachment to God as an independent source of MIL. An anxious attachment to God involves a persistent fear of divine rejection, disapproval, or punishment. People with this attachment style may constantly seek reassurance through religious practices but remain doubtful of God's love or acceptance. This emotional instability can erode the sense of meaning, as the individual is caught in a cycle of seeking and fearing God's presence, unable to experience the comfort and purpose that a secure attachment to God typically provides. Instead of feeling supported by a benevolent higher power, the anxious individual may feel perpetually judged and anxious, hindering their ability to derive a stable sense of meaning from their spirituality. Similarly, an avoidant attachment to God reflects a spiritual struggle characterized by emotional distancing, mistrust, and reluctance to engage with the divine. Avoidant individuals often view God as distant, uninvolved, or untrustworthy. The lack of a deep, meaningful connection with the divine can leave avoidant individuals feeling a diminished sense of meaning (Bryant and Astin, 2008). Future studies should validate these preliminary findings and further explore their potential interplay.

Findings of the mediation analyses suggest that synchronicity MD significantly mediated the association between anxious attachment to God and MIL. This suggests that individuals with anxious attachment to God tend to interpret synchronistic events as meaningful, which, in turn, enhances their overall sense of MIL. This finding aligns with previous research indicating that anxious attachment style may drive individuals to seek more personal or spiritual signs to mitigate their anxiety (e.g., Henderson and Kent, 2022; Granqvist et al., 2010). This finding is also consistent with the idea that religious doubts and questioning might be part of a healthy process and suggests that meaning-making of unordinary experiences regulates the impact of religious doubt on MIL, as suggested by studies on quest approaches to religion (Exline et al., 2014). The positive relationship between synchronicity MD and MIL also corroborates previous preliminary findings (Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2023). In a broader sense, it can be suggested that meaning-making processes of unexpected coincidences may regulate the impact of doubtful connection with God on MIL: the higher the anxiety level, the more benefits of meaning it brings through synchronicity experiences. This direction should be further explored and validated in future studies.

Interestingly, SA was not found to significantly mediate the association between anxious attachment to God and synchronicity MD. It seems that it is not merely the recognition of synchronistic events but the interpretation of these events that plays a critical role in fostering a sense of MIL for individuals with anxious attachment styles. SA refers to an individual's general sensitivity to noticing coincidences or events that seem meaningful. However, noticing such events alone does not necessarily provide emotional or existential comfort. It is a more passive form of awareness that does not always result in a deeper sense of meaning. In contrast, synchronicity MD involves actively interpreting these events as meaningful or as signs that resonate with personal beliefs, particularly spiritual or religious frameworks (Rosenstreich et al., 2024; Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2020). This active interpretation may provide a sense of purpose and direction that may be especially important for individuals with anxious attachment?

Another significant effect refers to the relationship between SA and MIL, mediated by synchronicity MD. Along the lines of the REM model (Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2020), the process of detecting synchronicity goes beyond passive awareness. It involves active cognitive engagement, where individuals consciously connect their unexpected events with their personal beliefs or spiritual or cultural frameworks. This active engagement in the recognition of significant patterns allows for the construction of a meaningful narrative, offering individuals emotional support and validation (Jung, 1969; Roxburgh et al., 2018). This interpretation may lead to enhanced MIL, as individuals weave these experiences into their personal narratives (e.g., Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2020). Overall, the interplay between SA and MD of such experiences appears to be an active, complex process, involving pattern recognition and personal/cultural interpretations, which calls for further unpacking in future studies.

Avoidant attachment to God was not significantly related to SA and MD. Thus, SA and MD did not mediate the relationship between avoidant attachment to God and MIL. Previous research suggests that individuals with interpersonal avoidant attachment styles tend to be less exploratory in their environment and relationships (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007). The reduced tendency to explore could lead to fewer opportunities to notice and interpret synchronistic events. Further, studies have shown that individuals with avoidant attachment styles tend to score lower on measures of mindfulness (Pepping et al., 2014) and openness to experiences (Marrero-Quevedo et al., 2019). Given that SA typically requires a degree of present-moment awareness and openness to experience (e.g., Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2023), higher avoidance style toward God may be less relevant to SA and MD tendencies.