Letcher’s False Citation: “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in, such as Stamets & Gartz”

Michael Hoffman, January 11, 2025 10:19 am UTC+0

Contents:

What Stamets Actually Wrote, in Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World (1996)

“bronze door … bas-relief … depicting God, Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit — a taxonomic facsimile of Psilocybe semilanceata, the Liberty Cap or Witches’ Hat Mushroom“

Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide
Paul Stamets, 1996
https://www.amazon.com/Psilocybin-Mushrooms-World-Identification-Guide/dp/0898158397/

p. 15, caption of photo of the Blame panel of Bernward Door:

“From the bronze door of a cathedral in Hildesheim, Germany, a bas-relief (circa A.D. 1020) depicting God, Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit — a taxonomic facsimile of Psilocybe semilanceata, the Liberty Cap or Witches’ Hat Mushroom.”

Stamets wrote “the forbidden fruit”; the word ‘forbidden’ is normal Christian language.

Stamets has no hint of the image being forbidden or secret. Heinrich says the fruit of the tree gives visions but Bernward depicted the entire tree as mushroom (with branches and cut branches).

Bernward throws off Heinrich’s arg that tree of knowledge is specifically Amanita.

What Gartz Actually Wrote, in Magic Mushrooms around the World (1996)

“Bronze doors with mushroom motif entitled “Trial and Judgment””

Magic Mushrooms around the World: A Scientific Journey Across Cultures and Time: The Case for Challenging Research and Value Systems
Jochen Gartz, 1996 (German), 1997 (English)
https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Mushrooms-Around-World-Challenging/dp/0965339904/

Chapter 1: p. 9: photo of Blame panel of Bernward Door. Caption:

“Figure 6 – Bronze doors with mushroom motif entitled “Trial and
Judgment” at Hildesheim Cathedral, Germany (ca. 1020).”

That is the ONLY thing Gartz writes about the topic of mushrooms in Christian art in this book.

Gartz only uses the concept of “secret, hidden” to describe LBMs little brown mushrooms hiding in grass – he never applies that concept to “mushrooms were secret & hidden suppressed in art”.

Gartz Says “Amanita = Europe; Psilocybin = Not Europe” Is a Myth Due to Forgotten Knowledge

The next page:

Chapter 2, paragraph 1:

“It is remarkable that cultures native to the American continent knew about a relatively large number of natural mind-altering substances compared to early cultures that evolved in Europe or Asia.

Botanical evidence does not support the notion that Europe is home to fewer hallucinogenic plants than other regions.

Furthermore, the growing number of recently discovered European mushroom species containing psilocybin indicate a flourishing psychotropic mycoflora in Europe similar to those found in other countries.”

Chapter 2, paragraph 2:

“It is unlikely that early European cultures learned less about local plants and mushrooms through usage and experience than cultures elsewhere in the world.

Most likely, early cultural knowledge of European psychoactive plants and
mushrooms was lost or destroyed at some time in history, probably as early as several hundred years ago [eg 1687 AD].’

1996-300 = 1696 AD. 1696-1687= only 9 years off from first publication of Principia.

I use Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, first published in 1687, as a reference point for when Hane’s rejected knowledge of esotericism including mushrooms.

Chapter 2, paragraph 3:

“The discovery that the fly agaric mushroom (Amanita muscaria) was known for its psychoactive properties in Siberia invited the conclusion that this mushroom was used as a psychotropic agent in medieval Europe as well.

In fact, there is very little evidence from the Middle Ages to indicate widespread knowledge of the effects of specific mushrooms on human consciousness.

However, I believe that past reports on psychoactive mushrooms were causally linked to Amanita muscaria simply because this was the only known psychotropic mushroom in Europe at that time.”

Chapter 2, paragraph 4:

“While the usage of Amanita muscaria among Siberian tribes has generated reports of spectacular hallucinations, European accounts of fly agaric intoxications do not generally include descriptions of such intensely hallucinatory effects.”

Chapter 2, paragraph 5:

“Accordingly, the potent hallucinogenic effects of specific Psilocybes and related species are likely to have had a much more significant influence on early European cultures than the delirium-like visions induced by Amanita muscaria, a species that is also known to induce unconsciousness and severe somatic side effects.

This hypothesis is corroborated by data from comprehensive field studies conducted in Mexico.

I believe that historic accounts including those described below – indicate a knowledge of and familiarity with psychotropic mushrooms in Europe that is most likely derived from usage of Psilocybes and related species, rather than experience with Amanita muscaria.

However, it is extremely difficult to reject or confirm this hypothesis, due to the lack of conclusive data available for analysis today [1996, the year Samorini gave presentation in the San Francisco conference].”

Which writers actually suggested the “secret” narrative? Allegro, Ruck, & Pop Cult writers?

Robert Graves 1952[?] makes “secret” fundamental to his theory / narrative. Emphasizes “secret, suppressed”.

Wasson 1952[?]-1968 makes “secret” fundamental to his theory / narrative. Emphasizes “secret, suppressed”.

Allegro 1970 makes “secret” fundamental to his theory / narrative. Emphasizes “secret, suppressed”.

Ruck ~1976+ makes “secret” fundamental to his theory / narrative. Emphasizes “secret, suppressed”.

Passages Recounting History of the Hypothesis of “Secret, Suppressed” Mushrooms

Letcher’s book Shroom traces the history of the idea (d/k if coherently) of spread of secret Amanita.

Letcher falsely — when discussing a Psilocybin implementation of Heinrich’s Genesis 2-3 tree of knowledge pictured by Bernwarn — extremely conflates “secret” and “mushrooms”, and acts as if to disprove “secret” is the same thing as disproving mushrooms.

Letcher reasons fallaciously: “I disproved your guyses’ assertion of “secret mushrooms”, therefore I disproved mushrooms.”

The Shared Narrative of “Original Glorious Amanita, Later Forced to Substitute Mere Psilocybin”

Books that I surveyed in 2023 for passages about Wasson’s failed hypothesis (& wet-dream wishful fantasy) that Amanita effects = Psilocybin effects such that a useful, sound analytical category is ‘mushrooms’ (“sacred mushrooms”; “psychoactive mushrooms”, etc.), defined as [Amanita + Psilocybin]:

Heinrich 1995 Strange Fruit – “the” mushroom = Amanita, unfortunately had to substitute mere Psilo instead. Storyline per Heinrich.

McKenna, Food of the Gods

Wasson – Persephone’s Quest might mention the tale, “Original awesome Amanita, alas substituted for inferior Psilocybin later.”

Thomas Reidlinger book The Sacred Mushroom Seeker — a collection of articles about Wasson or by Wasson. Has something about Wasson’s negative conclusion re: his 1950s hypothesis that Amanita = Psilocybin = mushrooms.

Wasson’s book SOMA, 1968. Does it mention the tale, “Amanita was replaced by Psilocybin as a substitute?”

Does Ruck tell story of/ recount the history of the “secret” hypoth?

Ruck’s article “Daturas for the Virgin” 2001 argues that a good substitute for Amanita (the real deal original glorious thing) is Datura (not Psilocybin)!

Ruck is right in a bad way: the merely Deliriant effect of Amanita is indeed similar to Datura scopolamine; NOT similar to Psilocybin.

The Graves/Wasson 1950s Hypothesis “Amanita = Psilocybin = mushrooms”: Wasson’s 1986 Assessment: That hypothesis has been FALSIFIED

Various authors, such as Jochen Gartz, give a negative terminus final assessment of the Graves/Wasson conjecture hypothesis from 1950s that it is effective to lump together Amanita = Psilocybin = mushrooms.

John Lash hates Wasson’s Amanita Primacy Fallacy and Wasson’s story of spread of a single Amanita cult; Lash rejects Amanita, since Psil is vastly superior.

Max Freakout’s Email

Max Freakout wrote:

“Please see Jochen Gartz’ book: ‘MAGIC MUSHROOMS around the world’, which I obtained from [Wassonian mystery ellipses], an excellent source of . . . . books.

“. . . .🔍🧐🤔 it is very easy to search for keywords, and a search for the words ‘secret’ and ‘hidden’ quickly shows that these words do not appear in anything like Letcher’s context.

“Letcher has fabricated the claim of ‘secret and hidden mushrooms’ in both Stamets and Gartz, Letcher has clearly misquoted these two writers — very unscholarly behaviour!”

– Max

Letcher’s Dismissal of Liberty Cap on Bernward Door Rests Entirely on the “Secret, Hidden” Aspect – Which Was Fabricated by Letcher Himself

Letcher’s Dismissal of Liberty Cap on Bernward Door Rests Entirely on the Rebutting the “Secret, Hidden” Aspect — Which Was Entirely Invented by Letcher, Not at All by Stamets or Gartz, as Letcher Falsely Claims.

Letcher’s dismissal rests directly and exclusively on the point of secret Liberty Cap.

Letcher in no way counters Liberty Cap depicted on Bernward Door, only “secret” Liberty Cap.

But Letcher’s “secret” component (tail wagging the dog), is entirely made up by himself, as his strawman that he fabricates and then defeats.

Nowhere does Stamets or Gartz say secret, hidden, cult, oppressed. That’s the only foe that Letcher defeats, not the Liberty Cap identification: He argues:

The Liberty Cap is not secret, therefore, the affirmers of mushrooms in Christian art are disproved. eg Stamets and Gartz.

But they don’t say secret. Letcher here disproves nothing regarding the actual published position in those two books.

Secret and Hidden? That Actually Sounds like Wasson’s Ellipses. . . . 🔍🧐🤔

Wasson’s ellipses keep scholarly citations hidden and keep the lone, single, little, outdated writing by an art historian secret from mycologists:

Page: Deniers of Mushrooms in Christian Art Can’t Be Taken Seriously
Section: Wasson’s Repeated Censorship of the Brinckmann Citation, at the Same Time as Berating Mycologists for Failing to “Consult” Art Historians
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/deniers-of-mushrooms-in-christian-art-cant-be-taken-seriously/#Wassons-Repeated-Censorship

Max Freakout completed the smoking-gun finding that Letcher’s citations are phony, by confirming in Gartz’ book that Andy Letcher in book Shroom fakely cites.

Along with fakely citing Stamets – who does not say the Liberty Cap in Bernward Door is “secret” or “hidden” or “suppressed” or “prohibited” – none of that Letcher-type narrative that Letcher falsely attributes to these two books: Gartz & Stamets.

Gartz does not have any whiff at all, of framing Bernward Door’s Liberty Cap as “secret” or “hidden”.

Various writers suggest [Letcher’s made-up storyline fabricated by himself].

“Various writers suggest cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult.31” (Next page: “surreptitiously slipped in”.)

Endnote 31: “Stamets & Gartz” (no page numbers specified)

Stamets’ book: says NO SUCH THING.
Gartz’ book: SAME!

BUNK LETCHER FAKE CITATION PHONY FABRICATION confabulation, fake footnote, fake attribution.

This is posing as scholarly apparatus, but is sheer put-on, the affectation of scholarly citation.

Stamets and Gartz say NONE of that slathered-on narrative storytelling, it’s purely Letcher is the only one writing anything like that – not Stamets, not Gartz.

This fake citation is purely for show. It’s not a real citation.

As soon as you hit the endnotes (endnotes SUCK, footnotes rock – there’s a special hell for endnote writers) you see something drastically wrong: no page numbers.

Full-text search both books for “secret hidden”: worse than 0 hits: the instances of ‘secret’ or ‘hidden’ in these books have nothing at all to do with this topic.

The entire ‘secret hidden’ narrative is fabricated by Letcher and falsely attributed to Stamets and Gartz through Letcher’s fake & vague citation.

Stamets & Gartz have no mental connection between ‘secret’/’hidden’ and Bernward Door’s Liberty Cap mushroom-tree.

Endnotes make it hard to use and easy to hide fake citations.

No page numbers, wtf kind of “endnotes” are these? the make-sht-up type of endnote misuse.

Shroom Page 35: Bunk Endnote 31 at end: “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in; for example, Stamets & Gartz”

photo caption: “In fact,” Letcher is making sh*t up about what Stamets and Gartz assert, and arguing from authority instead of scholarly citation.

“In fact,” Letcher is making sh*t up about what Stamets and Gartz assert, and arguing from authority instead of scholarly citation.

Shroom Page 36

Straw Man, False Attribution of “this interpretation” (that Letcher himself concocted) to Stamets and Gartz, whose books say absolutely nothing of “secret”; they simply present the door panel.

Of the 3 writers — Stamets, Garts, and Letcher — the ONLY ONE of them who is saying “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in” is Letcher.

Shroom Page 305

Shroom Page 331

Shroom Page 344

Shroom Page 336

Fake & Vague Citations

Letcher is caught making up fake citations to give the appearance of sound scholarship, but entirely vague and bluffing citations: he co-cites both Gartz and Stamets, giving page numbers for neither book, to cover his tracks.

I already found that Stamets’ book fake-cited by Letcher doesn’t say what Letcher claims it says.

Letcher’s citations in this Door passage are phony, bunk, fake, pretend-academic, pretending to be citations.

Letcher gives no page number in Gartz, no page number in Stamets.

Letcher specifically claims that Gartz and Stamets claim that the Liberty Cap in Bernward Door is secret and hidden.

Stamets has not even a faint trace of that framing, same with Gartz.

Email 1: Where Is Letcher Getting “Secret Hidden” Liberty Cap from, at “Various writers suggest cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in31“?

Cyberdisciple site ambig whether you have Letcher book.  

Letcher sites cites two works re Bern Door: Stamets 1996, which shows Stamets’ photo of door with no hint at all of “secret” or “hidden”.  

Andy Letcher even contacted Stamets to get permission to publish his photo of Bernward Door in Letcher’s book Shoom – yet that book vaguely falsely asserts that Stamets frames it as hidden secret.  

Letcher must be getting “secret hidden” door from prominent German mycologist Jochen Gartz.

Gartz is misspelled in Ruck’s book Apples of Apollo as “Goertz”.  1996

Letcher Shroom pp 35-36: Bernward Door awful mis-treatment. 

Letcher p 35: endnote 31 p 305 = “Gartz 1996; Stamets 1996 [p. is 15]” =

Biblio p 331 = Jochen Gartz 1996 Magic Mushrooms around the World: A Scientific Journey Across Cultures and Time.   

biblio p 344 Stamets Psil Msh World.

No page numbers given, re this massively botched interp!  it figures.

I lack Gartz, race u to purchase the $300 copy.  Which page does Gartz say Bern Door “hidden, secret”?

Letcher is silent on Bernward Column, though “Conj Eden” 2001 details around 5 Liberty Cap instances there!  which amplifies Door. 

Letcher p 36: endnote 32 p 305 “Lasco 1972”: bib p 336 =

Peter Lasco, Ars Sacra 800-1200

Letcher p 36 endnote 33 = p 305 “Henrietta Leyser , pers. comm.” = no Biblio listing for historian Leyser!  Her work is so feebly relevant, all Letcher says about her work is “pers. comm.”

pages above:  photos are attached:

35

36

305 endnotes

Biblio:

331 Gartz

336 Lasco 

344 Stamets

Motivation for Page

Motivation for post: A short announcement post rather than an article like Deniers of Mushrooms in Christian Art Can’t Be Taken Seriously.

Max Freakout completed my investigation into whether Letcher’s citation is entirely false, not just half of it known to be false (Stamets) and the other half unverified whether false (Gartz).

It’s now determined that both citations are false; the cited books say nothing of the sort, that Letcher falsely asserts that they are examples of saying anything like “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.

If anyone asserts that position and framing, it’s not the Stamets and Gartz books cited as endnote 31, which gives no page numbers.

The citation is a put-on, a shallow veneer of affectation just for show, not a real citation. It’s a pose, a stance, pretended scholarship.

Book History

I was one of the first in the U.S. to order, read, and review the book Shroom by Letcher.

As I understand the timeline, the book was probably finished 2005, published UK 2006, US early 2007, I may have pre-ordered from Amazon U.K.

The book is good in some ways, bad in some ways – like books generally are.

I never expected him to have all the required library publications for the specialize topic of mushrooms in Christian art.

Letcher does a somewhat careless drive-by sloppy inadequate handling of the topic.

It’s hard to say that about Huggins 2024, an experienced scholar, who also does a careless, inadequate, drive-by dismissal – even though I appreciate the amount of standard-type scholarship done by Letcher Hatsis Huggins – it’s not good enough.

My early review of Shroom was read by people and they challenged Letcher, asking him about the Michael Hoffman review, then Letcher wrote in effect a challenge to me specifically in a comment in his webpage, a 4-part argument, claiming no religious mushroom use can be proved.

I proved PEAK religious experiencing, beating Letcher on 5 of his 4 points, taking his challenge even further, to the max.

The idea of “hidden” and “secret” re: door does not at all come from Gartz and Stamets as Letcher specifically claims.

I provided 6 pages from Letcher with my complete analysis and markup. Checking my remaining space for images:

35% of 6 GB space used, for Images at this Site: Too Many Mushrooms

I now have more space, since Brown said this site is the closest to his continued call (2016, 2019, 2021) for a database of mushrooms in Christian art for scholars to interpret in an orderly way.

The Brown db would be a place for me to register my Dec. 13, 2020 id’n of Day 3 of Great Canterbury Psalter: Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama (Day 4 image swaps the order slightly).

A place to register my correction of Walburga tapestry: Irvin says Amanita, Brown says Vial, I say vial shaped like Amanita.

Citations Are to Check Claims of Scholars

Houot’s Master’s thesis tipped me off: I was aware of Griffiths article saying like 35% of people had bad trip from high-dose synth Psil. Houot wrote “almost 40%”, so I found a different Griffiths paper saying 39%. How did 39% in one paper, magically decrease to like 35% in a subseq. paper??

I checked Houot’s citation and it was genuine and helpful, not only revealed the jarringly high incidence of bad trips from real dosage amounts, but also revealed playing Math games by Griffiths, trying to “game downwards” the observed … which Griffiths fails to explain how one year they report 39%, and another year like 30% I think it was. I wrote this up at this site around 2023, maybe Dec. 2023, when reading Houot thesis.

So, Doesn’t Count 🚫🍄🌳

These are emails with 6 photos of Shroom book and its fake bunk pseudo-citations of Gartz and Stamets, and the irrelevant ignoramous blundering Medieval England historian personally interrrogated by Letcher, “personal communication” endnoted by Letcher, “its a fig tree” –

Said so crisply by the authority, we know it is for sure true, that the Liberty Cap on the door

And we may be equally confident this applies to the 4 Liberty Cap trees on the Column as well, they are all fig trees, so stop saying that the Art Historians describe them with their own term, pilzbaum, mushroom-trees.

Bernward Doors and Column, Hildesheim

Art Historians only use the term ‘pilzbaum’ for convenience in conversation, explains Panofsky, SO, DOESN’T COUNT.

To be a competent pilzbaum denier, just:

[fill in this blank with anything, doesn’t matter], SO DOESN’T COUNT.

See endnote whatever, with no page number, so you know I’m right; and to seal the certainty, the local authority responded CRISPLY and within 0.35 seconds, therefore our conclusion is grounded reliably on the top scholarship by scholars who never read, thought, or wrote anything about trees in Christian art, because everyone knows trees are just peripheral.

So you mycologists are just ignorant for not consulting these tree art experts.

Day 4 of Creation: Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Panaeolus, Amanita

Crop by Crop by Michael Hoffman. Identified by me some time ago as Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama.

Jan. 17, 2025: History of discovery: the above image & following section was written just 2 days before looking at Day 1 & Day 4 at the same time, which proved that the balance scale’s brown items are specifically indicated as Panaeolus, & broadly indicated as Lib, Cub, Pan, & Ama.

That discovering was a shock, entirely unexpected, b/c I had simply assumed it’s impossible to identify; wrongly & pessimistically in self-defeating form, assumed Eadwine gives no evidence.

My shattered defeatism there was exactly same pattern as Feb 2023 I said blue big bowl contains Cubensis, assuming impossible to prove – then received totally unexpected proof.

Analyzing Day 4’s Four Plants

In Day 4, I identified the large four plants some time ago as Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama.

Liberty Cap; Cubensis; Panaeolus; Amanita. Day 4 of Creation, Great Canterbury Psalter. No branches.

Panofsky speaks falsely: All pilzbaum have at least traces of branching. Here’s four that don’t, unless the grid of liberty caps in the Liberty cap (plant 1) & Cubensis cap (plant 2) are treated as relatively branching.

But even that fails to be Erwin Panofsky’s “at least traces of branching”. Given that inches away is these same 4 images, with branches (that look like mushrooms), it’s not feasible to dismiss these as “not pilzbaum”; “not mushroom-trees”.

Crops of the 6 Days of Creation, Great Canterbury Psalter

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#Six-Days-of-Creation —

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Day 1 of Creation: God Weighs a Double Dose of Golden Teacher

Crop by Michael Hoffman

I pasted the above picture Jan 11 2025, just two days before the Jan 13 2025 discovery that the Panaeolus on Day 4 panel below Day 1 panel points to the left pan of balance scale, and the other 3 mushrooms point symmetrically to the branching compass ʌ & right pan of balance scale.

Day 1 Creation of Light Scale Balance Bowls Contain Mushrooms

Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman
[1:15 am Jan. 13, 2025]
Y Y I I
Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama

ƛ [lambda]
ʌ [“latin small letter turned V”]

Ronald Huggins in Foraging Wrong ridicules Day 1 of Creation, above, as Amanita cap.

The Day 1 of Creation (Light) image in Great Canterbury Psalter depicts Cubensis in the scale balance.

This is signalled to us as Cubensis being weighed/dosed, by considering the entire systematic motif vocabulary that Eadwine takes from the genre and develops to a breathtaking extent.

By doing the opposite of Letcher’s predictable “isolate, ignore, dismiss” strategy.

My greater interest right now is inventory of all John Lash-like White Light Psilocybin Peak Sun images.

{fire light circle sun} motif ☀️🔥

f11: God Creates Light

In f11, Day 1 of Creation, above.

f20: Jesus and Sophia Dancing

Crop by Michael Hoffman

I think there might be one or two more, when sun and moon are shown, eg https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#f20

f27: God with Sun, Moon, and Red Rays Lifts King from Ossuary

Crop by Michael Hoffman
Crop by Michael Hoffman

f49: Wheels, Forge, Red Sun Light Ball

Crop by Michael Hoffman

f134: Lighting of Chamber of Self-Threatening Psalter Reader

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f134 row2 middle fire light circle sun.jpg” 296 KB, Jan. 11, 2025 1:23 pm

In f134 row 2 middle
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/07/19/psalter-rows/#fire-light-circle-sun

The Sun Light is in the chamber room of the Psalter Viewer, row 2 middle (the center of the entire image) where – most amazingly – the Psalter Viewer is threatened or not threatened, based on whether his left or right index finger is closer to the ground, meaning which mental model he relies on: branching causes threat; non-branching relieves the threat.

f82: Three Mothers, Passion, Sun, Moon, Table

Crop by Michael Hoffman

f177: On Right, Non-branching Side of Tree, Sun Touching Blue Cap/Crown

Crop by Michael Hoffman
Correction Dec. 2024: The horses look up higher at fingers, not palm.

In f177 row 1 left, touching the right of the horses’ tree. https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/12/4-horses-mushroom-tree-right-foot-balancing-great-canterbury-psalter-f177/

I think that’s a new recent late-2024 realization by me: that:

The Psilocybin Sun Light is touching the right (good, non-branching) side of the horses’ tree.

Are there any other instances of this Psilocybin Sun Light motif in Eadwine’s images? It’s powerful, when recognized.

John Lash emphasizes white light Psilocybin and he criticizes his hero/ idol/ god Wasson for the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

Tridents in Day 3 of Creation Mean Branching, Based on f73

[11:58 pm Jan. 11, 2025] Trident means branching per f55 row 1 middle-right IY tree.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f55

Therefore in Day 3 of Creation (Creation of Plants),

  • The two left pilzbaum mushroom-trees (trident form) both mean branching.
  • The two right trees mean non-branching (relatively).

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f73 — stars (8) are depicted same as sun in f27. like Day 4 in f11, there is a pair of trees: left tree is trident (touched by spear blade), right tree is a YI tree; ie,
branching on left; non-branching on right. Same as f11 Day 4.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f73 pair of trees.jpg” 213 KB 2:09 pm Jan. 11, 2025
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f73.item.zoom#

f73 depicts this valuation:

  • left tree: rejecting (spearing with blade) branching.
  • right tree: affirming the contrast of branching vs. non-branching.

Apply same interp to Day 3 of Creation, f11:

Crop by Michael Hoffman
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Left: trident = branching.
Right: YI & IY/YI = non-branching.

purely symbolic entheogens

Pendell: “Amanita is the supreme symbol.”

from Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck

If you think about entheogens, you are using “Wasson’s theory, including considerable departures from it” — per John Lash, high on Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens and Ruck’s purely symbolic entheogens (a chymical discovery by Cyberdisciple).

Huggins in his title proposes Great Canterbury Psalter as a test case.

I agree to your terms of battle, because you are bound to lose by those terms.

When we consider the entire genre, all 4-6 integrated motifs, and the set of all Eadwine art, we can safely conclude that Eadwine signals Cubensis in Day 1’s balance scale.

Hellenistic art may have originated these motifs, such as mosaic of Dionysus’ victory wedding procession.

Such scholars THINK they got easy pickins… they wrongly mis-assess the situation.

They spot some sloppiness by affirmers of mushrooms in Christian art, and they assume they can self-promote in this easy topic to casually dismiss – I see John Rush claims God holds something in his hand, but clearly he does not.

Therefore the Pop flimsy view is easy to dismiss & reveal the foolishness of — such opportunist, non-specialist researchers think.

Letcher and Hatsis and Huggins all did a substantial amount of research in the history of pop entheogen scholarship.

Not good enough though. Not complete enough.

Letcher has not changed views after 2025-2006 or 2005 = 20 years.

Letcher has had 20 years to read Entheos, Conjuring Eden, Brown 2016 and 2019, Egodeath.com, and everything, but Letcher continues to act like the 1% of evidence that he treated, regarding mushrooms in Christian art, is adequate.

It continues to feel like Letcher disproved the entire topic of mushrooms in Christian art by treating ONLY the single mushroom-tree in Bernward Door, and he gave the worst possible handling of that. His argumentation is extremely poor.

I studied the passage in 2007 and again in 2024 in detail.

I see no indication that Letcher has treated the 4 Liberty Caps in Bernward Column together with the single Liberty Cap he mis-treats in Shroom.

Email 3 to Max Freakout & Cyberdisciple

I wrote:

Gar Book looks good, better than expected.  Wow, not any trace of “secret” re: Bern. door!  

Letcher indeed bunk, I expected Gartz must frame the door as secret, since Samo certainly doesn’t.  

A bluff by Letcher, or a projection (not originating from him; originating maybe from ancients and from 1st Gen = 20th C entheogen scholars).

Like when Hatsis says “you guys assert Secret Christian Amanita Cult” – where is such assertion actually originating from?  1952 mind of Graves/Wasson?

Jochen Gartz’ book: ‘MAGIC MUSHROOMS around the world’ [mysterious wasson-like ellipses here, what’s being hidden here?

. . . . 🔍🧐🤔🤨📘🖼🖼🍄🌳📘

cough up that citation wasson we know you got it and hand over the two pilzbaum too

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-2-9

Please keep my poor little pictures as long as you wish. And I really recommend to look up that little book by A. E. Brinckmann.

Panofsky to Wasson, handwritten conclusion of letter 2; May 20, 1952

Replaced by Wasson with: obey the art authorities, because of how quick their disavowal, not because of what they wrote about trees. all of them were quick! that’s the argument. Not only authorities, but quick authorities, about that topic Ronald Huggins tells us they have never written anything about – trees!

With the single, “noted” [read: censored] exception of the book which Panofsky told Wasson way “BACK IN 1952” about Brinckmanns book, which is the only thing that art historians have ever written about trees in Christian art, or mushroom-trees.

That’s according to Ronald Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article. See Ronald Huggins’ Dizzy article for more of same quality of scholarship.

Trees, being peripheral to the more central features of medieval iconography, are not often discussed by art historians. A noted exception is Albert Erich Brinckmann’s Baumstilisierungen in der mittelalterlichen Malerei (1906), a work recommended by Panofsky in his letters to Wasson back in 1952.

Ronald Huggins, Foraging Wrong, 2024

Ronald Huggins lectures us as if WE have had Brinck’s citation from Panofsky since then, censored 1952-1968-2019 by Wasson.

When did you first become aware of the Brinc citation, Ronald Huggins?

How did you get the drawer number, when?

Why is Brown 2019 not mentioned, having been made available to me – I don’t know about you – in 2019.

Not ever before then did the world of scholars have Panofsky’s two letters in hand, from Brown 2019, both the existence of them announced by Brown, and the actual delivery to everyone, the publication of the two – not one – letters from Panofsky, in hand now for everyone, because of Brown 2019.

Huggins did not publish the Panofsky letters that he mysteriously cites as drawer of Harvard – as if we can make use of that – how does Ronald Huggins expect readers to follow his citation of the drawer? Closed scholarship.

1986-1952 = 34 years of hiding the citation and two pilzbaum art. while repeatedly chasticizing mycologists for not consulting the authorities.

Ronald Huggins: “Art historians have never written about trees in Christian art, because trees are incidental”

Why should anyone “consult” an “expert” who wrote nothing about this topic of trees, and double nothing about trees that look like mushrooms. This experitiese is blind and worthless, the art historian numbskulls know-nothings.

Let’s consult art historians regarding the topic which Ronald Huggins tells us is ignored by art historians that they give very least – no coverage at all of trrees, he says, mush less of mushroom-trees.

Email 2

Letcher Caught Faking Citations of Stamets and Gartz

I wrote:

Max [Freakout],

Awesome, thanks for filling this gap, to make this finding substantial & complete/confirmed.

I noted a Ruck typo of author name Gartz: 

https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/14/idea-development-page-21/#Mushroom-Branches-Prove-Mushroom-Trees-Arent-Mushrooms

“Apples of Apollo by Ruck Committee has “Goertz 1996”, Error?” Yes.  References section, p 256.

I might update that section based on what’s in the book by Gartz.

Cyberdisciple in an article differentiates between mere editorial-type errors vs. errors of arg’n/substance.  This Letcher error is a serious type of arg’n error.

I found all 4 of the pilzbaum inventoried in Conjuring Eden 2001 Ruck Committeee – Letcher dismisses 1 on door, ignores 4 on Bernward Column.  Letcher was probably lacking Entheos 1 & 2.

So we have stats!  Science! — Letcher had to ignore 4 of 5 pilzbaum in the Bernward bronze works.  The “isolate, divide, diminish” strategy.

Who recently rejected Bern Door saying the pilzbaum is in the wrong panel?  “It’s in the Blame panel, not the Eating Tree panel – so DOESN’T COUNT.  

Likely Huggins, in Foraging Wrong, but do not overlook his Dizzy article that’s not only about Dancing Man, the roasting salamander image.

Errors make scholarship difficult

Same with:

  • mistakes
  • typos
  • mis-characterization
  • made-up narratives packed w/ presuppositions
  • lies
  • lies by omission
  • bending language
  • buckets designed to bend meaning, like ‘sacred mushrooms’

Amanita Causes Psilocybin Effects, in Myth Land

Irvin 2008 THM page 152:

  • Amanita = sacred mushrooms, 
  • Psil = sacred mushrooms; 
  • Hopkins proves Psil gives mystic exp., 
  • Therefore, Amanita gives mystic exp (proved by Hopkins!)

That’s the misimpression that the author tries to give – even if author tries to set up plausible deniability, ie “I didn’t write a sentence directly making that claim – so I’m innocent.”

That’s what the author wishes to say.  

Since 1950s, the entire field of entheogen scholarship has WISHED Amanita delivers like Rutajit claims: intense classic Psych effects.  

To this day, the field continues playing the game as if their wish were true. 

Even ancients fell into this wrong turn – they, too, wished and depicted Amanita AS IF causes Psil effects.  

eg Genesis 2-3 re: tree of knowledge;

Rev 10:8-11 re: scroll in hand:  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2010%3A8-11&version=NIV

In Myth-Land, Amanita causes the best Psyched’c effects.  It’s true, in Myth Land; for Myth Land.  

When painter presents Amanita, it means: “gives classic Psyched. effects.”  B/c that painting is in Myth Land.

It’s not reality-based history; it’s myth-based history.  (A distinction I attribute to Wouter Hanegraaff.)

Myth-based art depiction of Amanita: Rutajit’s 20025 book (foreword by Irvin) accurately describes myth-based Amanita, but he claims that reality-based Amanita is the best thing ever.

A myth-based depiction of Amanita means literal Psil.  

The head shop woman, says she’s been there many years, agreed: {spotted mushroom} is understood to reside in Myth Land, but doesn’t mean ingesting Amanita in the real world; 

{spotted-msh} means classic Psyched’s (or even cann.).

Errors in entheogen scholarship

* Mark Hoffman article in Jour. Toxicology gives 1976 publication date coining ‘entheogen’ instead of 1979.  

I read-aloud during podcast, got confused and had to fact check Hoffman’s bibliography entry.

* maybe another Ruck error I thought of.  Deniers have a field day with easy errors like John Rush saying “God holds like a mushroom in hand” – plainly empty hand, like everyone points out.  

* Brown mis-transcribed Pan. letter changing from:

finished “product” (meaning, Pan’s alleged/confabulated prototype we are to imagine the Plainc. painter slavishly following) 

to: 

finished “project” (the fresco as seen by painter after painting it).  

That typo threw off my interpretation/critique in a podcast and I had to re-analyze Pan’s puzzling prototype-heavy arg’n.

* I misread new article by Huggins, Foraging Wrong — I had to adjust my rebuttal.  I tangled two distinct arg’s from Ronald Huggins.  Because haven’t read the full article multiple times yet.

Samorini: Veil Looks Like Branches; Huggins: Too Transiently; Hoffman: Gills and Veil Look Like Branches

Image search: mushroom gills
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=mushroom+gills

Georgio Samorini over-specifically says veil of mushrooms looks like branches.

Ronald Huggins says “no, that’s too transiently true, that veil looks like branches.”

My much stronger, easily defensible interpretation:

It’s better to sum together “gills + veil of mshrooms look like branches”.

Photo: Michael Hoffman, Jan. 2025

Not meaning that the medieval artist had just 1 specimen; when you look at 100 different species, the trend is, you can compare veil+gills to branches under tree crown/cap.  You don’t have to have in hand the exact species in the exact desired lifecycle stage.  

Even the idea of lifecycle stage is misleading; every Amanita has a different shape – speaking from a lot of experience photographing them.  One I uploaded looks exactly like tomato in grass, bright shiny red fruit: no veil remnants.

Friend advises to ignore deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, like Huggins.  I only half agree that that’s strategically effective.  And depends what type of article I’m writing.

Gills Look Like Branches Under the Cap/Crown

Crop by Michael Hoffman
image addr: https://imgcdn.stablediffusionweb.com/2024/12/17/53a8fdbb-d8e0-49b0-84dd-5a01fbc7504f.jpg
in page: stablediffusionweb.com%2Fprompts%2Fpsilocybe-bohemica-landscape (malware: popup blocker)

stablediffusionweb.com – seems AI-gen’d images, including many mushroom art images but in my old browser here, getting malware-like popup blocker preventing site on desktop.

Image search: psilocybin bluing
x https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=psilocybin%20bluing

Mycology Books

Amazon in “Your Books” list tells me that my personal library includes:

* A reprint of 1925 Rolfe & Rolfe Romance of the Fungus world.  

“A Curious Myth” section > “It is impossible to say whether…”  No, it’s possible, 100 years later.

* Ramsbottom’s 1953 book Mushrooms & Toadstools.

I’d like to see or re-view the “Rightly or wrongly” Wasson quote that exposed him as committed skeptic.  

This early year 1953 supports my accusation that Wasson took every opportunity from 1952 to 1986 to actively deceive and steer everyone away from actually consulting art historians, ie their writings, not phoning them up (to see that they got nothin). 

In 2006 I literally wanted to see what citations Pan. gave Wasson, so I could read what art historians say — ie write — about the pilzbaum question.

Favoring familiar word-choice: the development from pilzbaum to mushroom-tree

I had to move away from the word pilzbaum b/c someone asked me what it means.

I had to change to common English: mushroom-trees.

Critiquing Entheogen Scholarship / Pop Sike Cult: Transcendent Knowledge podcast on James Kent

Finishing re-listening to Transcendent Knowledge podcast episodes on James Kent.

Transcendent Knowledge Podcast episodes
https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/07/transcendent-knowledge-podcast-episodes/

Psychonautica Podcast with Max Freakout
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2024/12/24/psychonautica-podcast-with-max-freakout/

Amanita Usage Techniques & Effects

All indications consistently are that Amanita mainly acts as deliriant, not psyched’c.  

That’s sufficient (not ideal first-hand) for me to do Theory; to relate Aman. to Psil.  

Feeney‘s Amanita Fly Agaric Compendium book (borrowed) is ideal & good; pictures; various contributors.  

Fly Agaric: A Compendium of History, Pharmacology, Mythology, & Exploration (2020)

https://www.amazon.com/Fly-Agaric-Compendium-Pharmacology-Exploration/dp/0578714426/

His chapter on “Effects” is exactly written to answer my questions.

Feeney joined our opening meeting for Amanita usage prep.  

You ingest X qty of gummybear freezer ice cubes w/ desired balance of IboAcid & Muscimol.

Batch-based, like I and another independently concluded would be the best way to use Psil, batched into capsules.

See Also

Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control (Houot 2019)

“Goertz” is Gartz misspelled by Ruck Committee in Apples of Apollo
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/14/idea-development-page-21/#Mushroom-Branches-Prove-Mushroom-Trees-Arent-Mushrooms

God Creates Plants: Identifying the Four Plants

Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom (Letcher 2006, UK)

Bernward Doors and Column, Hildesheim

Left: Letcher. Right: Cybermonk. Great Canterbury Psalter, Spain painter. Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Photo: Michael Hoffman, 2024
Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment