Don't mistake me for an advocate of the bio model. I'm not an either/or, but a "both." What we see, experience, engage in, etc. affects the bio and visa versa. I think there exists a false dichotomy. At the heart of my criticism is the failure of the psych profession to bridge the two, and their inability to define what is a disorder and what isn't. Behavior and biochemistry is a false divide. I'm NOT genetically deterministic. However, the interplay between the "social" and the biochemical should be at the crux of psych, not two sides of a camp. Therefore, I am 100% open to drugs (bio) and psychotherapy (social/behavioral). The DSM-5, however, seems to be a concession of failure to understand anything about everything, and a failure to delve more deeply into biochem and its influence on behavior, and visa versa.
I stated your ideas are "weird." And I mean that. 100%. But that's not an insult, per se. Clearly psychosocial events -- be it religious rituals, dogs in the ICU, prayer, hospice patients seeing family members, bright flowers, light persisting longer during the day, or the smell of spring on a warm day in May -- ultimately changes neurochemistry and hence behavior. I don't think that's disputable. But psych needs to increasingly blend and incorporate both. The DSM-5 and too many in psych offering "novel therapy" has been anathema to making that happen.