Depression and anxiety symptoms were evaluated according to the characteristics of the individual prayer practices, and also according to visits to temples, terreiros, centers and community prayer spaces. The one-way ANOVA showed significant differences in relation to individual prayer practices (F [8.1329] = 8.773; p < 0.001). People who prayed alone showed fewer depression episodes (∆ = -1.097; p < 0.05) compared to those who said they never prayed. Attendance to religious institutions (F [6.133] = 7.907; p < 0.001) was also significant. The group that resorted to community prayer exhibited fewer depression symptoms compared to the group of participants who never visited these spaces of prayer (∆ = 1.787; p < 0.05). Trait anxiety was lower among individuals who prayed alone daily (F [8.1330] = 7.885; p < 0.001), compared to those who prayed once or twice a year (∆ = -3.237; p < 0.001).

The one-way ANOVA also detected a significant difference in connection with the development of anxiety according to praying practices (F [8.1330] = 3.547; p < 0.001): anxiety was lower in the group that prayed alone every day compared to the group that used to pray twice a year (∆ = 1.976; p < 0.001). Participants who were anxious at the time, but who indicated a regular religious practice (F [6.1332] = 6.243; p < 0.001), presented a significant positiveness as compared to those participants who did not follow such religious practices (∆ = -1.636, p < 0.005), Those who prayed alone had also significant anxiety outcome (F [8.110,464] = 7.885; p < 0.001), when compared to those who never prayed (∆ = 3.072; p < 0.005).

The S/R coping strategy was also positive (F [6.409] = 73.469; p < 0.005): the group with assiduous religious attendance yielded a more expressive result in terms of anxiety compared to the group with no religious attendance (∆ = 3.072; p < 0.005). As for the individual prayer practice included the S/R coping strategy, individuals who often prayed alone also experienced significant positive results (∆ = 3.161; p < 0.005). The results achieved are reported in Table 2.

The group formed by religious people was evaluated in relation to their members’ beliefs and attitudes towards social and religious situations. Indeed, this group showed consistency with regard to their religious beliefs, since they claimed to believe in God (t [544] = -16,054; p < 0.001), trust that spirituality is an important factor for well-being (t [ 547] = 10,186; p < 0.001) and participate in religious and spiritual services (t [547] = -24,179; p < 0.001). In turn, the group formed by people who said they are spiritual showed the same consistency and stated they believed that spirituality and religiosity are different subjects (t [795] = 3,969; p < 0.001), that spirituality helps to develop well-being (t [795] = 13,127; p < 0.001) as well as those who also pray alone (t [795] = -21711; p < 0.001).

The comparison of groups formed by non-religious and religious people indicated that the aspects of depression, as well as the anxiety trait and positive religious/spiritual coping, present significant differences. People who considered themselves to be very religious had a lower mean on the BDI-PC (M = 2.38; SD = 2.67) compared to those who said they were not religious (M = 3.47; SD = 3.73).

Very religious people (M = 13.05; SD = 3.71) also had lower anxiety traits than non-religious people (M = 1.18; SD = 4.04) in STAI-T. As for coping, the “Very Religious” group (M = 4.53; SD = 0.95) and the “Not Religious” group (M = 1.42; SD = 1.12) also showed significant differences. Table 3 shows results that are different with regard to these aspects.

In Table 4, we can observe that the group of people who considered themselves to be very spiritual had a lower average in the BDI-PC (M = 4.29; SD = 4.07). Very spiritual people (M = 13.11; SD = 3.73) also showed lower anxiety traits compared to the less spiritual people (M = 14.57; SD = 3.87) in the STAI-T. With regard to positive coping, the “Very Spiritual” group (M = 4.18; SD = 1.18) and the “Little Spiritual” group (M = 1.85; SD = 1.35) also showed significant differences.

Finally, a 0.518 (p < 0.001) correlation was established on the potential link between religiosity and spirituality.

The present study investigated whether the S/R binomial was associated with health outcomes in the framework of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. The results showed that people with high levels of S/R were significantly less impacted with respect to aspects of depression and anxiety. According to Koenig (2012), it is believed that individuals with high levels of S/R tend to present better results in terms of mental health, as they develop cognitive and behavioral mechanisms to face adversity throughout the life process. In addition, it was possible to verify that spirituality and religiosity are phenomena that, although connected, present a certain degree of independence.

The S/R binomial has been widely remembered as a coping instrument for mental suffering caused by stress and trauma, adopting the so-called spiritual coping as a strategy (Harrison et al., 2001). People can make positive or negative use of coping, since, according to Pargament et al. (1988), coping can have deleterious or positive consequences. The present survey aimed to highlight the positive use of spiritual coping much more than its negative use, demonstrating that the sample studied was composed of people who use their S/R beliefs in an adaptive way.

In this investigation, it was found that the way in which people pray and attend religious places tends to modulate their mental health conditions. The data point out that praying may always be associated with fewer episodes of depression and anxiety compared to non-praying. Regarding the potential effect of the S/R binomial, the results obtained partially converged with those of Lucchetti et al. (2020).

Similarly, it was also found that people who performed religious practices privately and in community spaces exhibited lower scores for depression and anxiety. For Scorsolini-Comin et al. (2020), the S/R binomial can be used both at a collective and individual level to face the adverse effects resulting from the pandemic. Attending community prayer spaces, such as temples, prayer houses, churches and terreiros, among others, proved to be a protective factor against depression and anxiety. People who said they always attended religious spaces exhibited lower scores for depression and anxiety compared to those who rarely or never visited religious settings. A large cohort study of US women (n = 89,708) showed that assiduous religious attendance reduced by five times suicide odds (Vanderweele et al., 2016).

Our investigation points out the variables of the S/R binomial and of private and community prayer practices for positive outcomes during the pandemic (Koenig, 2020). According to Nicola et al. (2020), private prayer practices can promote benefits similar to those of practices in religious institutions, acknowledged in research as being the most positive.

There is evidence of psychological impairment in people with low S/R levels (Weber et al., 2017).We can observe that the results in relation to depression and anxiety are better in the group in which the S/R binomial is high. According to Gato et al. (2018), participation in community prayer is a social interaction that reduces sadness, anxiety, and depression.

Our study presented consistent results considering the participants’ S/R beliefs, and found a positive relationship with the practice of community and individual prayer, similar to the results already reported by Astuti et al. (2015); Koenig (2012); Maria and Novais (2020).

A study reported by Weinberger-Litman et al. (2020), that reviewed the association between spirituality and religiosity during the pandemic and its importance to health did not find a significant relationship. The investigators recruited participants from specific and very religious traditions, which led to low statistical variability.

The limitations of the present study consist of a sample composed mostly of women, who tend to be more religious than men, and the levels of a high S/R presented may have been caused by this limitation; in addition, this study is cross-sectional and not a cause-and-effect study. Since Brazil is considered an extremely religious country, further studies are needed in different frameworks. Most of the population assessed had a graduate level, which may have impacted the result regarding the association between the negative effects of COVID-19 and S/R levels.

The results obtained suggest that the S/R binomial is an efficient mechanism to deal with mental suffering, and the sample studied included a group that considers itself spiritual/religious and was benefited by this resource. Further studies will be important to emphasize similar results and in different contexts.