Plaincourault Partly Contradicts Allegro’s Thesis

_{Site Map}

Contents:

• Cyberdisciple’s Critique: “Graham Hancock foreward to Muraresku, The Immortality Key”
• Allegro’s Self-Contradiction: Yet Another Way in Which the Moderate Entheogen Theory of Religion Is Incoherent
• Time to Stop Questioning Whether Entheogens Were in Our Religions, and Discuss What It Means that Entheogens Manifestly Were in Our Religions

Cyberdisciple’s Critique: “Graham Hancock foreward to Muraresku, The Immortality Key”

Here is the critique I’m responding to, though I’ve previously written about this self-contradiction of Allegro.

Graham Hancock foreward to Muraresku, The Immortality Key

“This is a bit like the model of John Allegro, but with the chronology extended to Constantine. Whereas Allegro had only* the first generation of Christians using mushrooms, Hancock has ‘primitive’ Christians using psychedelics in secret until stamped out after Constantine.”

Allegro’s Self-Contradiction: Yet Another Way in Which the Moderate Entheogen Theory of Religion Is Incoherent

The great irony and self-contradiction of Allegro’s book is that he says Christianity immediately forgot the authentic eucharist, and yet, Allegro presents the Plaincourault fresco from much later, as evidence bolstering the case for the presence of Amanita in Christian history.

If Christianity much later had Amanita, then Allegro’s primary thesis, that Christianity quickly forgot Amanita and instead Amanita became literalized as the historical Jesus, is contradicted. The result is almost as garbled as Wasson’s insulting, double-talk, pompous self-aggrandizing statement that the Plaincourault painter depicted mushrooms but didn’t realize it.

The moderate entheogen theory of religion typically is self-contradictory and inconsistent, with unresolved contradictions. Allegro makes no attempt to acknowledge or explain this contradiction.

Time to Stop Questioning Whether Entheogens Were in Our Religions, and Discuss What It Means that Entheogens Manifestly Were in Our Religions

The Church Fathers write about the Eucharist in such a way that strongly suggests that they recognized it as an entheogen. The McKennaesque argument is a baseless presupposition, a priori, that the big bad Catholic church completely eliminated the use and recognition of entheogens.

There is more than enough evidence, of various types, to support the ever-present use and recognition of the entheogenic Eucharist. The question is no longer “is there evidence”, but rather, what to make of such practice, and how to accurately revise the historical recounting.

We’re even past that point now. We now perceive and recognize that entheogens were valued throughout our own history. We now need to move further ahead to ask whether such manifest historical veneration of entheogens and Transcendent Knowledge was justified then, and whether entheogens (and what they reveal) can today be justified, against skeptical, puritanical, anti-drug critique.

Given that mushrooms (and the Transcendent Knowledge that they reveal) were evidently venerated throughout Greco/Roman and Christian history, what are the actual risks and potential benefits? How were they societally regulated throughout history, and how should they be?

Should we keep no-free-will secret, and not reveal that secret on the world-wide web? In published books that are available for anyone to buy on Amazon, there are advocates who argue that no-free-will is the case, but that we should keep this secret from the public.

There are advocates who argue that entheogens were used and venerated throughout our own religious history, but that we should keep this fact secret from the public.

I of course advocate keeping this knowledge secret; spread the word and make sure everyone knows to keep this knowledge secret.