If glossolalia is also associated with mental illness, it would be nice to have another paragraph, preferably written by someone with some exposure, if not training with this aspect of mental illness.
These links do not point to archival literature.
A search on the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association websites returned 0 results on the query glossolalia. How shall I assess your claim?
I will continue to change that definition back to what it should be, because it is manifestly wrong. Glossolalia does not even appear to be syntactically viable language. Who thinks so, besides you? More importantly, consider the merits of your definition as a definition. The essential feature of glossolalia is not that it "utterance of what appears to be syntactically viable language, sometimes as a form of religious worship (religious glossolalia), and sometimes by the [mentally ill]?." According to that definition, the English language would be glossolalia; it certainly appears to be syntactically viable (unlike glossolalia), and it is sometimes used as a form of religious worship (e.g., preaching), and sometimes by the mentally ill. No, the distinguishing feature of glossolalia is that it appears to be nonsense. Now, we can argue 'til we're blue in the face about whether it is nonsense or not; but it's just a fact about what the word means that it appears to be nonsense. --LMS
Ok, you win.