Sir,The recent Guest Editorial[1] highlights the potentially confusing complexity of the phenomenon of loneliness. Apart from the problem of numerous dimensions of what can be called as loneliness, one problem relates to how the word “loneliness” may get understood in view of varieties of cultural contexts that can be considered as normal.Therefore, before debating on the illness status or otherwise of “loneliness,” it is essential to formulate a “working definition” of “loneliness” for the purpose of studying the extent and severity of its problem in the society. For example, does the term refer to self-imposed social aloofness, or to social isolation consequent to abandonment, either physical or psychological?. Or, does it refer entirely to the subjective perception of “being lonely?”If it is perceived loneliness, is it causing distress by exceeding the tolerance level of the individual? Is such a distress momentary or continued? Or, is the perceived loneliness attributable either to language or to cultural barriers as in the case of migration or to psychopathology in the individual? Our profession would do well to study this aspect in a thoroughly planned step-wise manner, both in depth and width.