I’ve done precisely such research, at least I like to think I have done.

I would give one word of caution, which is that “Nietzschean psychology” is a misnomer. I mean, there is no positivist psychology that can be related back to Nietzsche.

I think that if we trace things back through Bataille to Nietzsche, we find the actual structure of Nietzschean psychology, as it combines with primeval religious feeling. It is in the idea that however one asserts oneself as a free entity, one is doing so at the prohibition of “a god/God”.

In Bataille, it is a matter of honor for us humans to become authentic beings by asserting ourselves against the laws that are written in our unconscious fears, and which warn us that we will draw the fire of “a god/God” if we disobey the tenets of conventional morality.— i.e. the tenets of timidity.

I do think Bataille was more realistic, as well as more pessimistic than Nietzsche was, since Nietzsche emphasized freeing oneself from superstition. However, for Bataille the main trap to extending freedom was the fear of offending the transcendental law that humans were supposed to obey, at peril of death.

For Nietzsche, acquiescence to moral precepts and ideas was an act of intellectual confusion, oftentimes cowardice, which required a remedy of thinking straight and being “manly”. For Bataille, though, human nature was itself caught in this trap of moral acquiescence, and it required a new primeval religion, that was more pure than Christianity, to bring humans into a mode where they could gain self-relevance and recover the meaning of what it means to be alive. He thought that the immediacy of experience, when one confronted one’s fear of not conforming (and in so-doing faced the judgement of “death” from one’s subconscious) was important. Furthermore, to face the reality of violence, in terms of human inner nature was the way forward to embrace authentic experience.

To elucidate his idea, Bataille put forward the controversial idea that Christ was on the cross because humans had intended to kill him. This human sacrifice spoke of people overcoming their own fear of what was transcendental — “God”—, in order to embrace the inherently contradictory relationship of humans to their own life experiences. That is, they had to embrace their freedom of independent conscience by killing “God”. (Here, Nietzsche explicitly is in disagreement. As I said, less pessimistic, less French…)

Bataille then went on to criticize Christianity as having embraced a “morality of the decline”. This is to say, after humans had done the deed of killing their god, they then went on to say, “We didn’t intend to kill him.”

To Bataille this was like Nietzsche’s “pale criminal”, lacking the strength for what he had done. But more importantly, this change in psychology marked the transition for a genuine primitive religion, to an inauthentic institutional religion. Bataille thought that humans ought to have remained in the zone of guilt for their own deeds, whilst never repenting or passing the blame onto someone else. In doing so, they would understand that guilt and the capacity for action were necessarily combined (in a psychological sense). As much as we have the capacity for action, we have to develop a capacity for the sensation of guilt. And once we have both, we enter the realm of authenticity (and primeval religion).