The Holy Mushroom (Irvin 2008) Calls to Abandon the “Secret Heretical Sect” Premise, But Remains Stuck in Amanita Primacy Fallacy

Contents:

Citation

The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity
Jan Irvin
October 29, 2008
Color edition:
https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Mushroom-Evidence-Mushrooms-Judeo-Christianity/dp/1439215170/ –

I definitely recommend the color version, not the b/w. It’s a solid book by any measure and it essential for the field. Pairs with God’s Flesh (Europe vs. Americas).

Blurb, by John Rush:

“Christianity and the Piltdown Hoax (one of the largest academic scandals in history) share many similarities:

“In both stories, the information was constructed and then salted into the information stream, and, through the word of noted scholars, presented as fact, the truth.

“Scholars have egos and once committed to their ideas through scholarly publications, faculty meetings, and conferences, have difficulty seeing, hearing, or even appreciating an adverse view.

“To waver from a strongly held opinion could spell academic ruin and withdrawal of acclaim.

“This leads to lively debate, counter stories, and even character assassination if one side or the other is being out trumped in the symbolic mêlée.

“Jan Irvin has captured what we might call an “anthropology of clarification” regarding whether or not mushrooms, and mind-altering substances in general, played any role in the development of not only Judaism and Christianity but the total culture in play at that time.

“It is now recognized in many academic communities (anthropologists, sociologists, psychiatrists, psychologists) that sufficient evidence exists of the importance of these substances, both textual and visual, to say “yes” in very large letters.

“It is no longer theory.

“The questions Irvin asks are these:

“If mind-altering substances did play this major role, then how would this affect our interpretations of the Bible and the Qur’an?

“Would this shed light on the origins of mystical experiences and the stories, for example Abraham hearing voices and Ezekiel’s convenient visions?

“What would this suggest about the shamanic behavior of Jesus?

“What impact would this have on organized religion?”

“These are bold questions.

“This is a very useful volume for those interested in the Holy Mushroom and the politics of truth.

“Detailed and wonderfully illustrated; great bibliography.”

“~ Professor John A. Rush, Sierra College”

Rush’s 2022 book 2nd Edition ignores Irvin’s 2008 call to abandon the “Secret Heretical Sect” stingy restrictive premise.

The Secret Amanita Heretical Sect/Cult theory, which Irvin repeatedly calls to reject, has a huge conflict of interest: that narrative commitment strives to perpetuate Prohibition of psilocybin to save the Narrative of Defeat, that’s the #1 mission and objective of entheogen scholars.

‘Entheogens’ Means Amanita Exclusively: Un-believable: Irvin Announces Commentary on “All Entheogen Citations”, then Suddenly Switches to Exclusively Covering Amanita

April 24, 2023

This confusion (inadvertent and improper, covert/deceptive rhetoric that’s not on the up-and-up) is why the infinitely vague umbrella terms “entheogen” and “mushroom” are on the Forbidden Word List.

Forbidden Word List for Effective Theory Construction in Psychedelics History and Psychedelic Science
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/04/24/forbidden-word-list-for-effective-theory-construction-in-psychedelics-history-and-psychedelic-science/

I have 4 page photos, marked up, for scholarly purposes, because it is hard to accurately describe the situation, really the only possible way to convey for scholarly discussion is to share and discuss the page photos. You have to see the surrounding context of the rhetorical moves.

If you jerk the scope all over the place like this, you need to justify doing so. Irvin flips the football field around to “shift” the goalposts, and does not acknowledge that he’s just radically redefined whether the scope is:

  • “Amanita“
  • “entheogens” (by which Irvin sometimes means “any plant”, and sometimes means “Amanita only”)
  • “mushrooms” (meaning Amanita and Psilocybin).

The more that Irvin employs vague umbrella wildcard terms “entheogens” and “mushrooms”, the more Wasson-type dirty tricks Irvin does, cheap stage magician trying to get away with treating psilocybin as irrelevant and of no interest (“not important for our study” (p. 31-32 twice), “not important for our discussion” (p. 49 twice), “not critical to our discussion” (p. 59)).

— and then when it serves his god Amanita, then he abuses psilocybin to pretend that Griffiths’ psilocybin research proves that Amanita causes mystic experience, and falsely claims on p. 107 that psilocybin is “in discussion”, when he explicitly wrote FIVE TIMES that psilocybin is “not important/critical for our discussion/study”.

Either psilocybin is IN discussion, or is NOT in discussion.

Make up your damn mind; this is failed theorizing.

If you change the scope, you have to state that you are, and why you are, and if you again change, ditto.

Irvin 2008 keeps flipping the scope willy-nilly, uncontrolled, confused and confusing – bunk, garbled theory results.

This is not The Way of STEM.

Irvin’s 2008 Book The Holy Mushroom Tries to Force Blue Cap to Be Red Hue and Irvin 2009 SMC Doesn’t Correct Ruck’s Assertion that It’s Red

From:
Cut Right Trunk in Salamander Bestiary Image (Dancing Man, Roasting Salamander in Bodleian)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/04/13/salamander-mushroom-tree-right-side-cut/

From The Holy Mushroom, Irvin 2008
“Salamander-MS-Bodl-602-fol-027v-zoom-capture.png” 7.4 MB (insanely high-res) [7:33 p.m. February 17, 2023] https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/05f663d9-1fcb-4750-9ce3-03d0eb687648/surfaces/ca3ce84c-c589-4340-afa6-0733ecce5acf/

AHAHAHA Hatsis Did Totally Bust Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck for Taunting Based on WRONG Guess that Salamander Cap Is Red and White 
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/03/27/ahahaha-hatsis-did-totally-bust-carl-amanita-promoter-ruck-for-taunting-based-on-wrong-guess-that-salamander-cap-is-red-and-white-%f0%9f%a4%a1%f0%9f%8d%84/

Consistent pattern:

  • Irvin 2008 The Holy Mushroom misrepresents the image as extremely red-shifted.
  • Irvin 2009 doesn’t correct Ruck in Fungus Redivivus appendix of Sacred Mushroom & The Cross when Ruck says about this image: “One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians … a typical mushroom-tree beside him. The mushroom has a red cap spotted with white“

Article: Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita (Hoffman 2006)

Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita
Michael Hoffman, 2006
Journal of Higher Criticism
http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm

Motivation for Creating this Page

The Holy Mushroom is a good book, an essential must-have for everyone in the field of entheogen scholarship. The book is the authority on Wasson vs. Allegro, and it builds on my excellent 2006 Fresco article that includes Irvin’s research. The book is the opposite of how Hatsis misreads and misrepresents.

This page started on April 12, 2023 within page:
Egodeath Mystery Show Ep245 🤫🍄 Secret Amanita vs. Psilocybin Eucharist (April 8-10, 2023)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/04/11/egodeath-mystery-show-ep245-%f0%9f%a4%ab%f0%9f%8d%84-secret-amanita-vs-psilocybin-eucharist-april-8-10-2023/

My Book Review at Amazon

Michael Hoffman
5 of 5 stars
Title of review: Solid scholarship to force assessment of entheogens throughout Christian history
Reviewed December 27, 2008
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2N7A02P8Y2H5T/
search present site for R2N7A02P8Y2H5T:
1 hit, hardly real: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/?s=R2N7A02P8Y2H5T

Copy of my 2008 review (broken up per sentence):

—

Every entheogen historian needs to read this book, to see how the field has been distorted and prematurely limited by too much uncritical respect for Wasson.

The strange case of Wasson and Allegro is inherently interesting, and I expect the casual reader of entheogen history to find this investigation and correction every bit as interesting as I did ever since I began investigating and unravelling what exactly Wasson wrote.

—

Why should anyone care about some esoteric nitpicks about what Allegro and Wasson wrote?

This is the most interesting subject, because the history of this scholarship shows how entheogen scholarship has gone dreadfully wrong in the past, and how we need to fact-check every statement and assumption by even the most renowned scholars such as Wasson, and Allegro, and I now add T. McKenna.

—

The most important subject in the world is the question of to what extent were visionary plants used throughout Christian history.

This book provides the right kind of evidence and argumentation to reverse the refusal to countenance that question, a refusal for which the exagerratedly venerated hero Wasson is largely to blame.

There is a great abundance of evidence in support of the maximal entheogen theory of Christian history, which can be readily seen if one ignores Wasson’s efforts to stymie the investigation.

Examining the entire issue of use of all visionary plants in all religions in all eras, including all forms of evidence, it is now a certainty that Christianity has centrally incorporated visionary plants all throughout Christian history — the question is no longer “did Christians use entheogens?”; the question has become “to what extent did Christians use entheogens?”

—

Irvin and I worked up many of these ideas together.

What a time of revolutionary revision that has been, because what a cesspool of shoddy, flimsy argumentation, a travesty of scholarship, the whole Plaincourault issue has been.

Plaincourault served as a proxy issue:

Per Wasson’s strategy of suppression, if Plaincourault isn’t a mushroom, then we must not permit the question of the extent of visionary plant use in Christian history; per Allegro’s side (which Allegro didn’t take nearly far enough), if Plaincourault is a mushroom, then we must hasten to open that question wide up: just exactly how many Christians have ever used visionary plants as the Eucharist?

Quite a few, it is clear from a coherent interpretation of the texts and iconography (there are countless pictures of mushrooms in Christian art, and many yet to be photographed and documented).

—

My systematic theory, published online and already announced to a wide variety of scholars in email, is that Christianity began not in themes from Egypt as Irvin and Acharya S would have it, but rather, first and foremost, as a counter-propaganda rebuttal to Roman Imperial theology.

Roman imperial theology utilized the era’s ubiquitous use of visionary plants such as in mystery initiation and symposium “drinking” parties, to prop up and justify Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar’s violent, crucifying system of empire.

—

In rebuttal, Christianity was created and became popular by utilizing anti-Roman, Jewish-styled themes, fabricating a counter-Caesar figure of Jesus.

The origin of Christianity has two main parts: the use of visionary plants (which was utterly normal and ubiquitous in late antiquity), utilized for the purpose of not only individual spiritual enlightenment as Irvin would have it, but even more for the purpose of erecting an alternate, egalitarian, social-political support network, using a Jewish-like synagogue network that was separate from the official culture’s honor-and-shame hierarchy.

—

The first centuries of Christians were all about using the plant-induced altered state to support an alternate social-political system, against the Roman Empire’s use of visionary plants to prop up Caesar’s honor-and-shame hierarchy system.

This political motive for visionary plant use, which is my original research published online, is missing from Irvin’s work — he only has the visionary plants themselves, and connections to Egypt instead of the more relevant connections to the overall culture of the Roman Empire such as ruler cult.

—

I look forward to more books by Jan Irvin, Prof. Rush, and Carl Ruck blowing open the world’s most important field of investigation, and the world’s most suppressed and oft-evaded question: to what exact extent were visionary plants utilized throughout Christian history?

First we need to quit the blinding dogmatic emotional attitude of T. McKenna and other entheogen historians that Christianity was evil and therefore cannot be countenanced to have centrally incorporated entheogens.

It doesn’t matter how evil Christianity was, the evidence must be permitted to speak for itself, that Christianity has always incorporated visionary plants to a substantial and central extent.

/ end of my 2008 review of The Holy Mushroom

Wasson Sort of Asserted No Mushroom After Genesis 3

Update p.m. April 12, 2023: As I predicted probably during one of these recordings, I found better than hoped:

Irvin claims on p. 4 that Wasson reject it in Ezekiel, Revelation, and later Christian practice.”

The extent that Wasson covers Amanita in Judeo-Christianity is to afffirm its use in Genesis but reject it in Ezekiel, Revelation, and later Christian practice.

Irvin p4 The Holy Mushroom

I disproved the latter half of the sentence, the assertion by Irvin; it is too definite/active.

I said in the recording “I bet the book contains no quote from Wasson saying no Fly Agaric after Genesis 3.”

And I reasoned “If Wasson wrote that, Irvin would include it. I predict no such quote in Irvin’s book; therefore (given that Irvin is thorough), Wasson definitely DID NOT WRITE the assertion that Irvin attributes to him as if Wasson definitely published such a negative assertion.

In fact, Wasson never wrote “There was no Fly-Agaric in Judeo-Christianity after Genesis 3.”

Irvin prevaricates, is squishy: sometimes he paints a picture of Wasson definitely rejecting all mushroom trees as mushrooms. Sometimes he implies Wasson didn’t state anything beyond Gen3.

“Wasson never admitted anywhere … that mushroom trees were understood and recognized through the time that Revelation was written.”

Mushroom trees were understood in 1000 (or 500) BC (Genesis) and 100 AD (Revelation) and 1000 AD (Medieval art).

Conflation about “the mushroom” page 152: “Griffiths 2006 gives evidence that the holy mushroom produces mystical experiencing.” (paraphrase)

Irvin states that “the holy mushroom” = Amanita, then claims Griffiths proves “the holy mushroom” gives X effects – but, Psilocybin effects != Amanita effects.

Irvin Calls for Rejecting and Abandoning the “Secret Heretical Sect” Premise/Paradigm

Hatsis Totally Misrepresents Irvin, and Tries to Steal Irvin’s Call

Interesting, page 150 IRVIN GOES AGAINST ALLEGRO (hell freezes over): “Therefore, I submit, against what Allegro and others[sic] scholars have argued, that this was not a “mushroom cult” of the “fringe heretical sects” at all.

Therefore, I submit, against what Allegro and others[sic] scholars have argued, that this was not a “mushroom cult” of the “fringe heretical sects” at all.

I propose that the holy mushroom had a widespread and integrated role not only in Greek Orthodox Christianity, but, as the spread of iconography across Europe shows, as a fundamental part of the origins and history of Christianity as a whole.”

Irvin, p. 150, The Holy Mushroom

vague: “the holy mushroom” = Amanita? Psilocybin?

Emphasis on ‘against‘ is in the original(!)

Irvin goes against Allegro for being TOO RESTRICTIVE; Irvin moves away from the “Secret Cult” paradigm, proving that HATSIS STRAWMANS AND MISREPS IRVIN AND ATTRIBUTES RUCK’S VIEW TO IRVIN.

Hatsis lifts (steals) Irvin’s call to move away from the “secret heretical cult” paradigm, and then (as badly as Wasson is flipped 180 degrees by Ruck),

Hatsis accuses Irvin of being a Secret Christian Amanita Cult theorist, when in fact, Irvin 2008 The Holy Mushroom makes the case AGAINST the “secret heretical cult” presupposition/premise/ habit of thought.

Citations: p. 5, 103, 104, 150, proves Hatsis is full of shiite!

Irvin repeatedly calls for normalcy, not abnormalcy / secrecy — in articulate fashion, then Hatsis, who evidently CAN’T READ, falsely attributes the very opposite view to Irvin, specifically re: the book The Holy Mushroom.

Hatsis the thief STEALS Irvin’s critique and falsely misrepresents Irvin as asserting the opposite of what Irvin asserts and calls for.

— just like Ruck says “poor Wasson 😢 asserted his realization of mushroom trees means mushroom, but the mean, biased obstructionists rejected Wasson’s assertions.” — the 180-degrees EXACT OPPOSITE of the truth! Thanks a fkking lot, Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck.

Today I got something better than hoped for: Irvin saved me trouble of reading THM.

Irvin himself explicitly, pointedly states p. 100 (contradicting p. 4):

Beyond the Genesis story, no statement exists giving any clear indication as to what extent Wasson further believed mushrooms existed in the Bible.

Irvin, p. 100, THM

So:

Irvin:

“Wasson rejected Amanita in Ezekiel, Revelation, and later Christian practice.” [citation needed!] and:
“all of Wasson’s arguments against … the use of mushrooms beyond 1000 BC in Judeo-Christianity.” [citation needed!]

Also Irvin:

“Beyond the Genesis story, no statement exists giving any clear indication as to what extent Wasson further believed mushrooms existed in the Bible.”

Irvin’s Conflation of Neutral/Silent vs. Negative, Conflates Negative re: Fresco with Negative re: Later than Genesis 3

Irvin conflates “Wasson makes no position statement re: Fly-Agaric after Gen3” with “Wasson states the absence of Fly-Agaric after Gen3.”

Errata for My 2006 Analysis: 1952, not 1969 (nor 1986)

The p. 100 paragraph starts with my name. In The Holy Mushroom on p. 102, I wrote that Wasson wrote the Pers. Quest passage in 1969.

I corrected my 2006 analysis yesterday: clearly Wasson must have written the PQ passage (published in 1986) no later than he wrote about Genesis and fresco: in 1952 – not 1969.

con’t:

Similarly, just as I couldn’t prove with 1 quote that Brown asserts “tapestry isn’t entheogen”, to my surprise, I couldn’t prove either of these assertions, which would surprise Irvin who probably THOUGHT he declared an extreme explicit position:

Irvin 2008 writes “Eucharist/Logos = mushroom”. No one sentence states that, surprisingly. THM lacks the word “entheogen”. The book doesn’t omit Psilocybin; there are index entries.

Irvin 2022 writes “Eucharist/Logos = ‘mushroom”. No one sentence states that, surprisingly.

But I believe the surprising thing is not merely the lack of such a direct “smoking gun” re: Brown or Irvin — but rather, THIS IS HOW EVERYONE WRITES: ROUNDABOUT MEALY MOUTHED especially in this taboo-driven fields.

You get all the impression that Irvin 2008 says Eucharist = mushroom, and also Irvin 2022 says Eucharist = not mushroom. But you can’t PROVE either assertion is made by Irvin – I think this lack of clear, direct position statements would surprise Irvin.

I think that Irvin understood himself to be asserting “Eucharist = mushroom” in 2008, and to be asserting “Eucharist = not mushroom” in 2022, but interestingly, you can’t simply prove either statement;

You can’t simply prove Irvin 2008 wrote “Eucharist = mushroom”.

You can’t simply prove Irvin 2022 wrote “Eucharist = not mushroom”.

So, conclusion: you must write plainly and directly! p. 104, Irvin criticizes “Ruck and Gonzalez refuse to state emphatically that Christianity has a direct basis in entheogens.” Irvin himself never states directly in THM the firm positive assertion, and likewise, Irvin 2022 never states directly the firm negative position. I really want to write:

Irvin directly contradicts himself 2008 vs 2022:

Irvin 2008 states “Eucharist is mushrooms”, but Irvin 2022 states “Eucharist is not mushrooms”. Alas, Irvin like everyone, writes in a roundabout, indirect way. Granted, he does write, “Christianity has a direct basis in entheogens.” That falls short of being the extreme opposite of what Irvin 2022 writes in God’s Flesh, where he APPEARS to write “Eucharist is not mushrooms.”

I suspect Irvin THINKS he clearly wrote in 2008 “Eucharist is mushrooms”.

I suspect Irvin THINKS he clearly wrote in 2022 “Eucharist is not mushrooms”.

If he did, it would be easy for me to quote Irvin 2022 as DIRECTLY asserting the EXACT OPPOSITE of Irvin 2008.

Anyway it’s my job, not Irvin’s, to reconcile the noises of Irvin 2008 with the noises of Irvin 2022:

As used in Europe, Eucharist = Psilocybin eg Golden Teacher Cubensis.
As used in Americas, Eucharist != Psilocybin; there is no Eucharist.

“The Holy Mushroom” Is Thoroughly Entrenched in the Amanita Primacy Fallacy — as if we could Remove “Secret” and “Heretical Sects/Cult”, but Keep the Monofocus on Amanita

The Whole Way Entheogen Scholarship Has Been Approached Is Completely Wrong and Self-Defeating/ Counterproductive!

THE HOLY MUSHROOM = SECRET FLY-AGARIC 🍄 HERETICAL SECTS

“The Holy Mushroom” (as Book Title and Concept) Remains Thoroughly, Hopelessly Entrenched in the Amanita Primacy Fallacy

The Amanita Primary Fallacy is Actually “Secret Amanita Counterculture Heretical Deviant Sect Group Cult Fertility Ritual” Paradigm/Narrative, an ENTIRE worldview/paradigm/ approach / mindset / presupposition-set/ package deal

Carl Ruck paradigm = Secret Amanita Heretical Sect = Secret Eleusis Ergot Cult

🤫 🙌 🍄

Proof/ Symptoms:

  • Hatsis wrote “these lesser-looking mushrooms”, regarding psilocybin-based mushroom trees. Proves that the assumed (presupposed) reference point is THE GREAT KING, ALL DOMINANT, ALL IMPORTANT, *THE* MUSHROOM = THE SACRED MUSHROOM = THE FLY-AGARIC = KIDDIE AMANITA 🙌 🍄
  • John Rush blurb: “The sacred mushroom; Amanita muscaria.” John Rush’s No-Mushrooms Narrative vs. His Evidence Base
  • Hatsis video titled “Proof of no mushrooms in Christianity”, content of the video is only about Amanita. Hard conflation of Amanita vs. “the mushroom”.
  • book THM: Gallery begins with 9 photos of Amanita and only, after that, 6 photos of Psilcybin.
  • book THM: Gallery begins with the fly agaric fresco. (are you unsure which fresco I mean? Alas no, you know all too well which one I mean)
  • book THM: Foreward by Judith Brown positively HAMMERS the reader with rank conflation of “the mushroom; Amanita”. And “fertility cultic ritual = divine knowledge”
  • book THM gallery: Dancing man salamander image is grotesquely color-skewed in a desperate attempt to make the blue cap red.
  • book THM gallery: Strong preference for Amanita, even with Psilocybin mushroom trees.
  • Samorini Figure 20 attempts to use the fly agaric fresco as a paradigm that enwraps even psilocybin mushroom trees as well ie “the Saint Sauvin tree type” in relation to “the Plaincourault tree type”.
    https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/mushroom-trees-in-christian-art-samorini/#Figure-20 – “we have discovered a precise typological differentiation among mushroom-trees in Christian art which corresponds with the variation in naturally occurring psychoactive mushrooms” – BALONEY! You can’t even find 3 examples! None of the Golden or Canterbury psalter’s mushroom morphology fits this failed, ham-fisted classification attempt that’s based on the worst possible foundation, the Fly-Agaric Fresco.

See Also

Egodeath Mystery Show Ep246 ☸️⚖️ Mainstream Psilocybin Control Restabilization (April 18, 2023)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/04/20/egodeath-mystery-show-ep246-%e2%98%b8%ef%b8%8f%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-mainstream-psilocybin-control-restabilization-april-18-2023/
See section “Irvin’s book The Holy Mushroom does many dirty sloppy obfuscating moves, first to ignore psilocybin, then to declare psilocybin irrelevant, and then to try to abuse and force psilocybin to prop up the Amanita paradigm”

The Entheogen War: “Secret Amanita Cult” Prohibitionists vs. “Psilocybin Eucharist” Repealers
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/04/10/the-fly-agaric-paradigm-vs-psilocybin-paradigm-of-entheogen-scholarship-way-bigger-difference-than-merely-amanita-primacy-fallacy/

John Rush’s No-Mushrooms Narrative vs. His Evidence Base
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/01/30/john-rushs-no-mushooms-narrative-vs-his-evidence-base/

Egodeath Mystery Show Ep245 🤫🍄 Secret Amanita vs. Psilocybin Eucharist (April 8-10, 2023)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/04/11/egodeath-mystery-show-ep245-%f0%9f%a4%ab%f0%9f%8d%84-secret-amanita-vs-psilocybin-eucharist-april-8-10-2023/

God’s Flesh: Teonanácatl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom (Irvin 2022)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/03/27/gods-flesh-teonanacatl-the-true-history-of-the-sacred-mushroom-irvin-2022/

Irvin’s Changed Focus, vs. Constancy of the Egodeath Theory
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/05/14/irvins-changed-focus-vs-constancy-of-the-egodeath-theory/

Martin Ball Review of Irvin DVD Pharmacratic Inquisition
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/05/14/martin-ball-review-of-irvin-dvd-pharmacratic-inquisition/

Jan Irvin Is Proved 100% Correct About Amanita Vial, Brown Mistaken About Serrations
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/04/11/jan-irvin-is-proved-100-correct-about-amanita-vial-brown-mistaken-about-serrations/

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment