Van Dam et al. raise a number of critical issues in contemporary research on mindfulness and meditation and offer a prescriptive agenda for future work in this area. While we agree with all of the key points made in their article, there are a number of important issues omitted that are central to a comprehensive agenda for future research in this area. This commentary highlights five key points: (a) Many of the key methodological issues the article raises are not specific to research on mindfulness; (b) contemplative practices are varied, and the landscape of modern scientific research has evolved to focus almost exclusively on one or two types of practice to the exclusion of other forms of practice that are potentially highly impactful; (c) mindfulness and related contemplative practices were not originally developed to treat disease; (d) key issues of duration, intensity and spacing of practice, and the extent to which formal meditation practice is required or whether practice can be piggybacked onto other non–cognitively demanding activities of daily living (e.g., commuting) remain as among the most important practical questions for disseminating these practices more widely, yet have received scant serious research attention; and (e) the use of mobile technology in both disseminating contemplative training and assessing its impact is going to be required to solve some of the key methodological challenges in this area including standardizing training across sites and addressing individual differences (which will require very large- N studies).