The term kenosis as adapted from the Gospels and St. Paul can be read as incarnational theology in which Jesus "empties himself" of divinity to become fully human and to suffer and die. There is also that disturbing injunction to followers of Jesus: "Take up the cross". This has been spiritualized by mystics, ancient and modern, to mean a metaphorical self denial that leads to growth, renewal, rebirth, enlightenment, divinization, etc. In some cases, these ideas run counter to the incarnational conception of becoming more human.
In the early church self denial often meant persistence in faith while being rejected by family, friends, and even attacked or made into a literal martyr for the kingdom of God. Martyrs were venerated and even emulated. The ascetics tended to spiritualize the severe teachings of Jesus to the degree that "mortification of the flesh" seemed the most noble attempt at godliness.
A lot of good came out of the efforts of spiritual athletes, but it came mainly after the era of desert hermits and stylites. The mature monks created communities with rational boundaries. The monastic orders became centers of scholarship and industry. They founded universities and did scientific research based on their erudition in many cultural traditions.
There have been many attempts to draw parallels between the idea of Christian kenosis and Hindu or Buddhist spirituality. The Eastern mystics say or imply that emptying the self, even annihilation of the self, leads to spiritual growth or divinization. I think, to the degree that this makes sense, it shows the similarity of the ascetic overreach of Christian mystics and Eastern mystics.
Self denial can induce spiritual growth, if it is rational: that is to say, it serves some purpose, other than an attempt to be good. People deny themselves for many reasons. Parents deny themselves many pleasures to raise children well. Artists deny themselves a salaried income and often having a stable family life to pursue their music or literary careers. Married people sacrifice some autonomy to live together harmoniously. In this sense, self denial is better described as self discipline. Christians have the severe teachings of Jesus that call them to sacrifice for the kingdom of God.
I'm pretty verbose on this subject, so I'll refer to more than you'll likely want to read in a couple of places. The opera Thais is an artistic rendering of the battle of flesh and spirit: http://sacredopera.blogspot.com/.../a-meditation-on-thais...
Also, the "self denying receptivity to God's formative power" is a considerably anti-masculine virtue: http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0200-dodaro
Finally, there is the question of whether there is anything left if one succeeds in self denial. To succeed at anything requires discipline, but self denial could negate the object of the discipline. Ayn Rand, the advocate of selfishness, notes that a woman who denies herself a new wardrobe to support the expense of raising her child is not sacrificing much unless she values a new dress more than her child. Any musician trying to sustain his art doesn't sacrifice self by living in penury to continue being a musician. Sacrificing self would be giving up the music and denying what he most wants in life.
Who we are is what we have to give to other people and to the achievements to which we strive. It's a balance, trying to make everything we are and what we hope to achieve fit into one lifetime. The mystical impulse to become a spiritual athlete by mortification of the flesh and any and all aspirations, is likely to lead to some quandaries.
