By Writing “Wasson’s conclusion”, Ruck Leaked that Wasson Knew that Mushroom Trees Mean Mushrooms

Michael Hoffman, March 15, 2025

When you’re a liar, it’s hard work keeping your lies straight.

Site Map

Contents:

🤥👖🔥🤞

Art Historians Have Never Thought or Published about Either Mushrooms or Trees, According to Wasson and Huggins

Terms:
mushroom imagery in Christian art (MICA)
MICA Deniers
MICA Affirmers

MICA Deniers Say Affirmers Are Supposed to Care What Art Historians Think about Mushroom-Trees, as “Expert Authorities on Related Matters”, Even Though Art Historians Have Never Given Any Thought about Either Mushrooms or Trees

Yet We’re Supposed to Personally Consult These “Expert Authorities on Related Matters” to Become No Longer Ignorant about Their Final, Established Conclusions Specifically about Interpreting Mushroom-Trees

Per the private MICA Affirmer, public MICA Denier “Gordon . . . . Wasson”, art historians don’t read mycology books.

Art historians of course do not read books about mushrooms.

Gordon . . . . Wasson, SOMA, 1968, p. 180

Per MICA Denier Huggins, art historians don’t think about trees, which are merely peripheral in Christian art; proving that rule, is the single, lone, 1908, 86-page book, in German, by Brinckmann.

“Trees, being peripheral to the more central features of medieval iconography, are not often discussed by art historians. A noted [read: censored] exception is Albert Erich Brinckmann’s Baumstilisierungen in der mittelalterlichen Malerei (1906)”

Ronald Huggins, “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”, 2024, Conclusion section, p. 26

These are expert ignoramuses that we are supposed to consult to find the cast-in-stone factual verdict conclusions from them, who have never given trees or mushrooms any thought.

Gordon . . . . Wasson, SOMA, p. 180, “Art historians of course do not read books about mushrooms.”

Huggins Doesn’t Parrot Panofsky’s Circular Non-Argument “Plaincourault Can’t Mean Mushrooms, Because There Are Hundreds More Like It”

“… but You Are Too Ignorant & Blundering to Know That, Else You Would Instantly Retract, Were I To Inform You that There’s Hundreds of Other Mushroom-Trees”

It’s too lame and obviously circular of a presupposition-drenched argument for even such a low-tier arguer as Huggins to own this one.

Huggins does own the insult part, gladly – but his tone isn’t so pompous and cringeworthy as Panofsky’s and Wasson’s.

The argument from ignorance is a fleeting card, when you play it, it instantly becomes false: turns out, being informed of hundreds of mushroom-trees in no way halts MICA Affirmers from affirming mushroom imagery in Christian art.

This information INCREASES the likelihood of asserting mushroom imagery in Christian art.

I am surprised that duplicitous Wasson let “the public” see the fact of hundreds of mushroom-trees – a risky ploy.

Compound (next-tier) fallacious arguments: weave together insults to throw off the opponent.

Huggins is willing to channel Panofsky re: the good branches question, but doesn’t want to be associated with this crazy non-argument floating on a cloud of presupposition.

Not even Huggins stoops that low.

As a MICA Denier, you don’t care about the merit of arguments; just make a lot of noise and act like you’re putting forth actual arguments, throw 100 off-the-wall reasonings against the wall, and trust the audience to lap it up as if there were any substance — never mind that these wack arguments can’t stand up to a moment’s pushback.

The sheer weirdness & quantity of the obviously fallacious arguments is a tactic to throw off balance the MICA Affirmers.

Gnostic Informant Recounts How Richard Miller Hears Christian Scholars Who Know No Classics Deny that Jesus’ Resurrection Is Like Classics’ Ascension Stock Motif

At around 5:00 in the livestream vid now, Gnostic Informant says again, what they said recently, a good point:

The mass of ignorant scholars reacts this stupid way: “I haven’t heard that idea, so it’s probably false.” In a field that the person is not in.

eg Christian school scholar has never read Classics, and says “I never heard of that idea about antiquity, so it’s probably not credible.”

That reminds me of GREAT point:

Idiot poser ignorant art historians have not studied mushrooms, and have not studied trees.

Huggins says art historians have never given any thought to trees, because trees are merely peripheral, in Christian art, and that the single lone exception is Albert Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.

The exact quote is in:

Livestream Video: MythVision & Gnostic Informant: Why Are We Obsessed with Mythology?

I watched this live.

Channel: MythVision Podcast
286K subscribers
Livestream right now: Mar 19, 2025
Streamed live 3 hours ago
Derek from MythVision is joined by Neal from Gnostic Informant to cover mythology we love.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwUfy26-alA —

Richard Miller’s book Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity shows that the {resurrection} motif is standard in Classics.

Christian school scholars are 100% ignorant about Classics and rebut:

“I am completely ignorant about Classics, therefore Jesus’ resurrection is not similar to Hellenistic stock themes.“

That’s equivalent to art historians:

“I am completely ignorant about mushrooms and trees in Christian art, therefore mushroom-trees don’t mean mushrooms.”

Wasson Says Art Historians Are Ignorant about Mushrooms, and Huggins Says they are Ignorant About Trees

Argument from Tone and Quickness of the Authority’s Disavowal

Personally phoning an authority with stopwatch in hand is stock move by the MICA Deniers phonies who don’t care at all about good argumentation.

  • Gordon . . . . Wasson phones up Erwin Panofsky. and one other named lying ignoramus authority, and other unnamed lying phonies. Stopwatch in hand.
  • Letcher copies Wasson bunk move and phones his endnote contact. Stopwatch in hand.
  • Huggins phones his bunk authority. Stopwatch in hand.

I am impressed by the celerity and crispness with which these phony MICA Deniers play this same BUNK CARD.

WE DISAVOW!! with impressive celerity [Wasson’s words], and argument from tone (crispness) [Letcher quote p 36?] That’s our argument, so, CASE CLOSED.

Wasson cites Erwin Panofsky, setting the bunk pattern of arg from empty-headed authority.

Which Wasson would never take seriously, but he play-acts as con artist that WE MICA Affirmers are supposed to lap up the swill he serves up for us, garbage argument from authority, worthless & fallacious.

— authorities who are untainted by ever having given one moment of thought about either trees or mushrooms.

Letcher cites England historian Henrietta Leyser: Bernward Door blame panel depicts a fig tree: There is no evidence anywhere — such as 6 other Liberty Cap mushroom-trees, {floating mushroom hems}, {mushroom hems}, mushroom roof toppers and gate toppers, & Liberty cap roofs — to suggest that this lone, isolated instance is Liberty Cap mushroom.

Huggins Acts Like His Worthless Consulting of Blundering Ignoramus Elina Gertsman Is an Argument

Huggins equivalently bunkly cites Elina Gertsman.

The more that MICA Deniers show a complete lack of concern with good argumentation that could actually stand up to pushback, the more that MICA Affirmers emphasize utter DISRESPECT.

The MICA Deniers’ desperate, obviously fallacious argumentation exposes: THEY GOT NOTHIN.

Nothing but empty argument from authority, argument from non sequitur which is argument from prejudice, argument from bullying and censorship.

What Kind of Sleazy Characters Are MICA Deniers?

Letcher p. 35 endnote 31 mis-attributes the Allegro-Ruck Secret Amanita paradigm to Stamets & Gartz, who actually – entirely the reverse – are the scholars who provided the opposite, Explicit Psilocybin paradigm that Letcher used to disprove the Secret Amanita paradigm.

Gordon . . . . Wasson tries to FORCE others to conclude what he knows is false and baseless.

These low writers are willing to lie, deceive, misrepresent, censor, mislead, and insult MICA Affirmers.

Huggins covers for Wasson censoring Erwin Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann. Doesn’t credit Brown 2019 for exposing Wasson’s naked lies and cover-up ploy.

Huggins doesn’t point people to Brown 2019 so that everyone, not just Huggins, can see and cite (properly this time unlike Huggins) the censored Panofsky letters, showing anti-academic Wasson’s dirty strategies for deception and dissimulation.

Wasson claims a Medal of Grandest Discovery for himself, a medal of brilliance for figuring out mushroom-trees, at the same time as saying no it’s only indirect Amanita in Genesis Eden text in 1000 BC.

Wasson sells us that he’s the first to ever think of connecting the tree of knowledge with Amanita, at the same time as this expert at BS says that 42 years before him in 1910, the French mycologists were ignorant blundering simpletons for saying the fresco’s tree of knowledge = Amanita.

Huggins “Conclusion” section gives “criteria for deciding whether a given mushroom-tree is a tree or it is a mushroom” – ie, sheer arbitrary assertion that mushroom motifs are always to be ignored, “because” of a blast of argumenty-sounding noise by the paid, corrupt, compromised MICA Deniers.

MICA Deniers have the lazy, easy road, team of dirty players cheered on by all the phonies in the world, by the Salvation Salesmen and the Meditation Hucksters, who compete against Psilocybin except they can’t compete.

Although heavy breathing delivers an altered state of dizziness, like Thomas Hatsis’ deliriant scopalamine, only Psilocybin delivers the genuine goods: transformation from possibilism to eternalism, from {branches} to {cut branches}.

Photo Credit Julie M. Brown.
Image processing & crop by Michael Hoffman.

🖐–>👆

Crop, image processing, and interpretation by Michael Hoffman.

Teams in the Interpretation Derby
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/04/03/teams-in-the-interpretation-derby/

https://www.amazon.com/Roller-Derby-Sensation-Caused-Confessions/dp/0615692451 – don’t slip your skates on a bane-ana, Psychedelic Witch!

The more Wasson & Huggins demand unearned respect, the more we kick their butts over the cliff deservedly: Wasson’s, Erwin Panofsky’s, Huggs’, & Leyser, Letcher, Gertsman — they’ve got nothing but they act like they’ve got substance when they argue like Erwin Panofsky:

“The Plaincourault fresco can’t be mushroom, b/c there are hundreds like it.”

The deniers have nothing but bullying and posturing, with these insultingly worthless non-arguments, committing every fallacious argument all at the same time.

That deserves the most intense disrespect.

MICA Deniers show complete lack of concern with good argumentation – it’s an insult to the topic and to MICA Affirmers.

Another pair of con artists teaming up, so compelling of an argument!

Huggins has no self-respect foisting this bunk, garbage argumentation on MICA Affirmers.

It’s all empty posturing, consulting people who have never given a moment’s thought to trees or mushrooms.

It’s all a put-on, puffing up his article with worthless citations from “pers. comm.”

What has this token cipher of an authority, Gertsman, ever written about mushroom-trees, or Psilocybin effects?

Foraging in Wrong Forest (Ronald Huggins) bunkly describes the tone of his authority’s reaction when consulted.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/29/idea-development-24/ –
quick paste from other page b/c no anchor link yet:

“When questioned on the topic by the writer, prominent [i got something prominent 4 u: 👆] art historian Elina Gertsman responded crisply:

“I very much do not think that Ottonian or Romanesque imagery was in any shape or form influenced by psychedelic mushrooms.”62

62 Gertsman to the author (Nov 23, 2023).

[“responded” on telephone, spoken, not via published writing – there are no published writings by art historians about trees, according to Hug, because trees are merely peripheral, according to these EXPERT “on related topics” art authorities, whose judgement we must therefore respect — based on their crispness of denial, not on their non-existent “expert” writings.]

/ from idea development page 24

Letcher Shroom p. 36: “Consult” Expert Henrietta Leyser: ITS FIG TREE.😑

Letcher “consults” the England history authority Henrietta Leyser (pers. comm.) to CONCLUDE this Liberty Cap mushroom-tree is a fig tree.

p. 35, Shroom:

Shroom, p. 36, mid-page endnote 33 “consults” the England history authority Henrietta Leyser (pers. comm.) to CONCLUDE this is a fig tree:

That’s what MICA Deniers tell us MICA Affirmers we need to do, “consult the art authorities [but DO NOT CONSULT . . . . Albert Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings].”

Authorities on “related topics“, ie, they know jack about THIS TOPIC; these TWO topics: trees, and mushrooms, and never gave either topic any thought.

So they are authorities (on related matters), and, case closed. Therefore, if you affirm mushroom-trees, you are a blundering ignoramus (Wasson’s words).

Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (Miller, 2014)

Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity
Routledge Studies in Religion
Richard C. Miller, 2014
4.6 out of 5 stars    44 ratings
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Reception-Christianity-Routledge-Religion/dp/1138048275/

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/29/idea-development-24/ – no heading link yet, so Find “Miller” book ref there, vid link.

Blurb:

“This book offers an original interpretation of the origin and early reception of the most fundamental claim of Christianity: Jesus’ resurrection.

“Richard Miller contends that the earliest Christians would not have considered the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ resurrection to be literal or historical, but instead would have recognized this narrative as an instance of the trope of divine translation, common within the Hellenistic and Roman mythic traditions.

“Given this framework, Miller argues, early Christians would have understood the resurrection story as fictitious rather than historical in nature.

“By drawing connections between the Gospels and ancient Greek and Roman literature, Miller makes the case that the narratives of the resurrection and ascension of Christ applied extensive and unmistakable structural and symbolic language common to Mediterranean “translation fables,” stock story patterns derived particularly from the archetypal myths of Heracles and Romulus.

“In the course of his argument, the author applies a critical lens to the referential and mimetic nature of the Gospel stories, and suggests that adapting the “translation fable” trope to accounts of Jesus’ resurrection functioned to exalt him to the level of the heroes, demigods, and emperors of the Hellenistic and Roman world.

“Miller’s contentions have significant implications for New Testament scholarship and will provoke discussion among scholars of early Christianity and Classical studies.”

Wasson Knows Art Historians Are Ignorant Fools, but He Bullies Mycologists to Submit to What He Knows Is Their Foolish, Prejudiced, Ignorant, Wrong Disavowals

I have NO reason to give art authorities ANY respect on mushroom-trees.

No problem, art historians being ignorant – but Wasson calls me a blundering ignoramus because I do the same as Wasson: Disrespect art authorities.

Wasson is smart and evil.

Wasson knows everything, short of comprehending {branching} on Psilocybin. Wasson is no fool. He knows art historians are fools and compromised.

Why Negative, Critical Rebuttals Are Basic in Scholarship

Teams in the Interpretation Derby
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/04/03/teams-in-the-interpretation-derby/

We must identify WHY Wasson used Panofsky (a non-censored portion of one of two letters) to publicly claim (pretend, make-believe, bluff) to reject mushroom-trees and bully anyone who asserted mushrooms.

Wasson’s Extreme Conflict of Interest

Wasson has a greater conflict of interest on the topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art, than anyone else ever had any conflict of interest about anything.

Wasson has such an extreme conflict of interest, any negative assessment of mushroom imagery in Christian art is completely worthless.

Wasson had every incentive to lie and dissimulate and be duplicitous on this topic.

There is no way Wasson can have any credibility – unless he puts forth actual compelling reasoning & evidence, but the only thing he puts forth is fallacious argumentation that obviously he doesn’t believe.

We can be certain he doesn’t believe it – he is sharp, he is no dummy.

It would be an insult to Wasson’s intelligence, to think he’s stupid rather than a liar.

Out of respect for Wasson’s intelligence, I am certain and completely confident that he’s a liar, not stupid.

We have every reason to firmly conclude that Wasson has no credibility here and every reason to lie about his view (that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms) and fake-out “the public”, as a top industry propagandist, agent, ambassador, and banker for the Pope.

SKY-HIGH EXTREME CONFLICT OF INTEREST! Ruins any possibility of credibility regarding mushroom imagery in Christian art, if he gives a negative assessment.

The Hoffman Uncertainty Principle Regarding Scholars’ Public Disavowal of Mushroom-Trees

The Hoffman Uncertainty Principle: Given the tabu against mushrooms in religion, if a scholar asserts a negative view, we do not know their view.

They may very well hold a positive view and publicly lie, claiming publicly to hold a negative view.

A friend advises me to ignore the folly of others, and only state what is the case per my theory.

That’s 99% true, but: there are pros & cons of ignoring or attending to fools and folly in entheogen scholarship & theory of esotericism.

It is NECESSARILY important to me what Wouter Hanegraaff says about fixed stars & sphere 8 Ogdoad, in his new book about Hermetic Spirituality & Altered States. Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022.

The Egodeath theory is OBLIGED to engage with such scholarship.

Much of scholarship inherently is, handling the previous scholarship, the state of play, and engaging in that conversation in order to redirect and steer that state of play.

The hard work of identifying what’s true, false, and off-base or garbled in previous scholarship.

eg: The Holy Mushroom by Irvin 2008 rebuts and quotes Andy Letcher 2006 book Shroom, where Letcher reasons:

If Wasson rejected the Plaincourault fresco as Amanita, therefore, we should too.

“Wasson badly wanted the Plaincourault fresco to be Amanita, but when the authority Erwin Panofsky set Wasson straight, Wasson immediately fell into line and cowered, trembling before the overwhelming authority of the greatest art scholar ever, Panofsky, who is as final of an authority as Aristotle, which is why modern science should not have begun, and we should have bowed down to Aristotle instead.”

“If the ultra-independent scholar Wasson came to an instant, total halt, kissing the feet of Panofsky the Great offering his neck in full submission, that proves that we must halt all talk of mushroom-trees being mushrooms.”

— Paraphrase of Letcher’s book Shroom, as quoted in Irvin’s The Holy Mushroom.

Wasson obediently accepted … … mushroom-trees to be rejected …

Track Record of No Credibility for Ruck and Wasson

Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/03/conceptual-errors-misinterpretations-and-bad-argumentation-from-entheogen-scholars/

mushroom imagery in Christian art (MICA)

Astoundingly Major Errors by Ruck

At best, if we were overly charitable, Ruck Committee is guilty of extreme ambiguity and a host of problems, where he writes “Wasson’s conclusion” – is that phrase supposed to refer to:

  • Wasson’s assertion Genesis tree of knowledge = Amanita.
  • Paradise trees mushroom-trees = mushrooms (which Wasson publicly lied and pretended to deny).

Is Ruck telling scholars to agree with Wasson’s conclusion that Genesis text tree of knowledge = Amanita?

That was Wasson’s conclusion about a strenuously limited assertion/topic; as Irvin well writes, “tries to limit”: Wasson tries to limit, Ruck tries to limit. Limit the assertion to Genesis text 1000 B C; limit The Mushroom to walled-about, members-only, heretical sects.

So -called counterculture sect/ group/ cults/ communities — called that not by the Church, but called that by prohibition-dependent, prohibition-compliant, prohibition-accomodationist, prohibition-collaborator Ruck Committee; the Secret Amanita paradigm.

Is Ruck telling scholars to agree with the assertion that tree of knowledge mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, which Wasson lyingly and deceptively fought against to prevent anyone from asserting that, because of Wasson’s sky-high, record-breaking, truly EXTREME conflicts of interest?

You’d be a FOOL – like Letcher – to believe Wasson’s pretended rejection of mushroom-trees, to ignore the atomic blast of conflict-of-interest that Wasson has.

Like:

I REALIZE THAT WASSON WAS PAID ONE MILLION DOLLARS by the Vatican TO PERSECUTE MICA Affirmers, BUT STILL, I BELIEVE WASSON IS BEING HONEST, DESPITE 15 INTENSE REASONS FOR WASSON TO BE A LIAR ON THIS POINT. – Signed, Andy Letcher & Ronald Huggins.

Had scholars agreed that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, Wasson would have pretended to disagree and would have attacked the scholars as blundering ignoramuses that need to kiss Erwin Panofsky’s feet and submit to Panofsky’s ignorant, prejudiced, low-IQ, false view, which Wasson knew is false and feebly argued by Panofsky.

Panofsky was good to ask the meaning of branches, as Huggins parrots – in censored letter two (which Huggins ignores Wasson’s censorship of).

That was an intelligent question/ objection from Panofsky.

I have answered perfectly and profoundly that objection by Panofsky-Huggins.

… … Wasson’s (lying) public “conclusion”, or pretended conclusion.

Has Ruck ever proved wildly, bafflingly unreliable before?

Yes: 2009: “Ultimate proof of our paradigm is Dancing Man mushroom has red cap” (it’s blue).

Irvin and I independently noticed in “Daturas for the Virgin” p. 56 Ruck Committee’s bizarre, massive error, or contradiction and inversion of history, where he places the phrase “Wasson’s Conclusion”; Ruck is telling a story that is the opposite of what happened.

In fact, Wasson vehemently went out of his way to bully, attack, and block anyone who said mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, from 1953-1986, never changing that public stance.

So how is it possible for Ruck to chastise scholars for “not agreeing with Wasson that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms”?

How can Ruck be either 100% confused about Wasson’s stated / professed position, or else telling such a whopper of a malicious lie & revision/ inversion of history?

The present article presents a highly plausible explanation, which is most likely correct:

Ruck Committee in 2001 “Daturas for the Virgin” got mixed up between:

  • Wasson’s actual, private, secret realization that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.
  • Wasson’s public pretending to believe Erwin Panofsky’s denial.

Wasson’s public pretending was very aggressive, mean, rude, pushy, & forceful, pretending to believe Erwin Panofsky’s denial.

Wasson did not believe Erwin Panofsky’s denial of mushrooms.

Wasson knew that Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings and Panofsky’s two, secret, censored paintings he attached to letter 1, censored by Wasson in SOMA p. 180, supported the affirmers of mushrooms, not the deniers.

Wasson did his best, using his aggressive propaganda skills, to actively impede research into mushroom-trees. For that, he forfeited his title, “Father of Ethnomycology”.

Wasson is revealed by Brown 2019 + my analysis since 2006 of the ellipses placed right where I desired to ACTUALLY “consult” what art historians had published about pilzbaum.

In 2006 I WANTED to read what art scholars discussed about mushroom-trees – and I was mad at Wasson for not passing along the citation(s) that Panofsky HAD TO HAVE PROVIDED when Erwin Panofsky made huge claim “we art historians are thoroughly familiar w/ pilzbaum.”

I wrote in several paragraphs in 2006 the Plaincourault fresco article at Egodeath.com, accusing Erwin Panofsky of exagerrating how many publications there are, how strong their case in the publications, and I accused Wasson of withholding citations that Erwin Panofsky had to have provided to back up Panofsky’s very strong claim of “thoroughly familiar”.

I said I doubt you guys are so expert, at all, and I detect Wasson withholding the probably feeble citation(s).

I was proved right on both of my 2006 accusations, by Brown 2019.

Wasson is revealed to be the father of lying propaganda, paid by Vatican to lie and cover up mushroom-trees.

As a draft article author wrote, “SURELY Wasson MUST have realized the plainly obvious: the “hundreds of mushroom-trees” reported by Panofsky in 1952 mean mushrooms.”

That is true, but, KEY REALIZATION OF MINE A COUPLE DAYS AGO, any time we say “Wasson’s view”, we have to differentiate between Wasson’s publicly stated view that he rudely pushes onto others by force of propaganda, vs. Wasson’s private view.

For purpose of contrast: Wasson is a liar, Panofsky is an idiot.

Wasson disrespected Erwin Panofsky’s two letters.

As a propagandist and smart person about mushrooms, Wasson knew Erwin Panofsky was wrong & just biased/ prejudiced.

Pan’s arg from “the Plaincourault fresco can’t be mushroom b/c there are hundreds like it” proved to Wass that Erwin Panofsky is clearly arguing purely from prejudice.

Huggins proves that by parrotting Erwin Panofsky branches arg and then in Concl section paragraph, Huggins pretends to derive “criteria for deciding whether”, but what Huggins delivers there is pure 100% textbook case of non sequitur aka argument from prejudice, pure decree that no mushroom-trees mean mushroom and we are to – for no reason provided – just ignore the mushroom features and only affirm the tree features (branches).

Huggins is a terrible person for not acknowledging Brown 2019 publishing of Erwin Panofsky TWO censored letters. Huggins lamely cites: see the drawer at Harvard, which you are not allowed (as Irvin documented, probably in a suit) – and does not point us to Brown 2019.

Huggins impedes access to the Panofsky/Wasson correspondence, and yet leverages it in his own arg’n — sleazy scholarship dirty tactics.

Huggins uses, yet doesn’t even properly cite Brinckmann or Brown 2019 or Panofsky’s letters in his Biblio References section of Foraging in Wrong Forest.

Huggins mentions Brinckmann’s book and Panofsky’s letters in the article body or footnotes, only.

An academic ethics violation from Huggins, like Matt Johnson charged Hopkins with.

Huggins sides with the bad people: Wasson & Erwin Panofsky. Huggins plays defense for these wretches.

Huggins hangs out w/ the wrong low-credibility crowd, BadCo, the MICA Deniers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXQJpyQBShU –

Six-gun in my hand, propagandist covering up Union Carbide Affair.

Covering up mushroom-trees til the day I die, working for the Pope.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST = ZERO CREDIBILITY Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔 Wasson = infamy.

Huggins in Foraging in Wrong Forest demands — parroting Erwin Panofsky’s censored letter 2 — that entheogen scholars explain branches in mushroom-trees. I have done so.

Psilocybin gives an experiential vision of non-branching possibilities; Psilocybin transformation from possibilism to eternalism, depicted efficiently by genre of mushroom-trees, as non-branching; via the combination of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

Wasson is smart, but an evil liar propagandist, the opposite of a scholar: the anti-scholar, on the topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Panofsky is an idiot (though we can weigh Panofsky’s argumentation, eg the branches problem that he points out, that Huggins parrots in “Foraging in Wrong Forest”).

Astoundingly Major Errors by Wasson

Has Wasson ever proved to have no credibility before?

Yes, Brown 2019 revealed the TWO(!!) Panofsky letters + SOMA p. 180 ellipses (pointed out/ connected by my deep analysis) to impede library consulting while at the same time as condemning us to “consult” art authorities.

Samorini 1997 + Brown 2016 noted it’s unbelievable and incredible that bold Wasson would instantly cave to art authority with no trace of pushback at all, AS IF some dipsh!t know-nothing who never wrote a word on the topic of trees in medieval art, constitutes rock solid, cast-in-stone, final word, that warrants no critical pushback whatsoever – what an act, a put-on – and it actually worked!

Totally inconsistent of Wasson, 0% believable, as Samorini & Brown pointed out.

We had to wait until Samorini 1997/98 to finally have an entheogen scholar follow-up on Erwin Panofsky 1952/1968 lead “Hey everyone, there’s hundreds of mushroom-trees, not only the Plaincourault fresco!“

That marks the start, 1998 article Samorini, of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm), against 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).

Irvin exposed Wasson’s extreme conflict of interest as Vatican banker, & the Union Carbide Affair propagandist.

Astoundingly Major Errors by Heinrich

Also comparably, Hein 1995 Strange Fruit wrote “Allegro said Jesus was leader of a mushroom cult.”

This is 100% false and totally confused, not even remotely the case, almost the OPPOSITE of what Allegro asserted.

How could you not know that Allegro said Jesus didn’t exist but was “The Sacred Mushroom, Amanita”?

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SUCH A TOTAL, MASSIVE ERROR??!

Astoundingly Major Errors by Brown

How could anyone make such a colossal error?

As I efficiently listed recently in a valuable article, I listed/ summarized the many errors by entheogen scholars, such as Brown not having seen the popular images of Amanita with sometimes serrated base – how could you not know this?

Unbelievable.

And like the other examples, Brown manages to take this low-harm error, and put 100% focus on it so as to blow up with maximum damage; betting the farm on this one point of interpretation and then botching it.

Ruck says “This one fact will shut up art historians forever, case closed: the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree has red cap.”

(It’s plainly blue.)

Way to go, give an aggressive framing so as to inflict maximum damage on yourself and turn a minor error into maximum baffling loss of credibility.

Why Ruck Is Confused About Wasson’s Position as Publicly Presented to Other Scholars, vs. Wasson’s Actual Position

As Irvin points out, and as I separately flagged, Ruck chastises other scholars for not agreeing with Wasson’s assertion that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.

Carl Ruck is completely confused, or is maliciously misrepresenting what position Wasson publicly asserted, in order to give Wasson credit for asserting what Wasson in fact vehemently rejected, as far as Wasson’s feigned, pretended, public stance that Wasson vigorously pushed for decades, all his life into 1986.

Any scholar who did what Ruck is telling them they should have done – asserted that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms — Wasson would have viciously attacked and insulted that scholar as a blundering ignoramus, as Wasson did to the lead mycologist John Ramsbottom in 1953.

Ruck hung out with Wasson and that is how Ruck would have known and could easily detect that Wasson actually, privately believed: of course mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushroom.

Wasson lied about his position and attacked and insulted people who correctly recognized mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Wasson successfully tried to block and discourage ethnomycology research in Christian history, because Wasson had a conflict of interest, as the banker for the Vatican.

Items Censored by Wasson

Wasson has NO credibility, he forfeited any respect, and Brown 2019 rightly destroyed Wasson’s undeserved reputation, catching Wasson – even more than John Ramsbottom did in 1953 – deceiving and misleading the public by censoring the pair of letters from Panofsky to Wasson, including censoring:

As Wasson’s Intimate, Ruck Got Confused, and Mixed Up Wasson’s Actual Position with Wasson’s Pretended, Public Position, and Demanded Scholars Agree with Wasson’s Actual Position, not His Pretended Position – OOPs, Leaked the Truth

Ruck was exposed to both Wasson’s actual position – that of course mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, and also Wasson’s lying, pretended public position, that anyone who says mushroom-trees mean mushrooms is blundering and ignorant and has failed to consult the facts from art authorities (a 1-way consultation; do not ask questions or call B.S. on the ignorant art authorities).

Ruck got mixed up about Wasson’s actual private view vs. Wasson’s prepostrous, feigned public view, which is how Ruck managed to write, against all historical reality, saying “Wasson’s conclusion” immediately after Ruck wrote that mushroom imagery in Christian art proves Wasson was right about Genesis text’s tree of knowledge indirectly meaning Amanita in 1000 BC.

The placement of the phrase “Wasson’s conclusion” within Ruck’s sequence of points, can only mean that Ruck is chastising scholars for not affirming mushrooms as Wasson affirmed mushrooms – as if Wasson publically affirmed mushrooms!

Wasson did the extreme opposite!

“Daturas for the Virgin”, first page

“Daturas for the Virgin” page 56

“Daturas for the Virgin” page 57

“When Amanita is not available, a close equivalent producing similar effects is the deliriant, Datura [not the psychedelic, Psilocybin!]” – Ruck Committee.

Ruck Got Mixed Up between His Close Associate Wasson’s Personal, Actual, Sane Position, and Wasson’s Lying, Phony, Pretended, Insane Public Position

Ruck forgot that publicly, Wasson did not affirm mushrooms, but vehemently denied mushrooms and shot down anyone who affirmed mushrooms.

“Wasson’s conclusion”: p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin”, Ruck et al, Entheos 2, 2001

Ruck says obstinate scholars refused to discuss “Wasson’s conclusion” that mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushrooms.

Irvin chastises Ruck’s inversion of historical fact.

Wasson persecuted, insulted, defamed, and harrassed mycologists who asserted that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, from Dec. 1953 to 1986, all his life.

Samorini (1997), Brown, and other entheogen scholars have exclaimed how uncharacteristic and unbelievable it is that the bold, independent thinker Wasson halted instantly the moment art authorities made a sheer claim that mushroom-trees don’t mean mushrooms, as if the decrees of art historians are cast in stone and automatically binding.

eg Wasson’s letter to Ramsbottom Dec. 1953, citations in Egodeath.com the Plaincourault fresco article with research by Irvin & me.

Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” says:

Art historians don’t think or write about trees, because trees are merely peripheral — with the single exception of Albert Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/

Irvin Falsely Credits Allegro with Asserting that Mushroom-Trees Mean Mushrooms

Allegro only wrote that our sacred because Amanita-based the Plaincourault fresco was mushrooms, which, per Cyberdisciple, was not an original idea, and was not integrated into Allegro’s theory.

Allegro is not even an entheogen scholar; he’s a “smash Christianity” linguist and anthropology theorist.

Irvin is wildly wrong and commits almost the same egregious inversion of historical fact as Ruck:

In The Holy Mushroom, p. 103, Irvin criticizes Ruck for falsely crediting Wasson with asserting mushroom-trees mean mushrooms — when, publicly, Wasson did the extreme opposite.

But Irvin turns right around and makes almost the same outrageous, bunk move, of baselessly crediting Allegro for asserting that mushroom-trees (as a class, in reference to Ruck’s phrase in “Daturas for the Virgin” p. 56: “paradise trees”) mean mushroom.

Irvin asserts in italics that Allegro’s position was that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.

But Allegro never said anything about the class of hundreds of mushroom-trees mentioned by Panofsky 1952/1968, or else such a quote would be displayed on the cover of Irvin’s book The Holy Mushroom.

Irvin falsely gives Allegro credit for asserting that Panofsky’s hundreds of mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.

Yet Irvin gives no evidence that Allegro ever even thought about any mushroom-trees other than the Plaincourault fresco.

Wasson SOMA p. 180 reads like pure bullsh!t — because that’s what it plainly is

. . . .🔍🧐🤔🤨

🤥👖🔥🤞–>🤑💰

Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann 1906)

Erwin Panofsky’s Letters to Gordon Wasson, Transcribed
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/

A Lying Argument from Authority; an Authoritarian Cover-Story Ploy

Gordon Wasson, Father of Academic Obstructionism of Mushrooms in Christian History

Banker for the Pope, Conflict of Interest, Zero Credibility

Wasson’s word “consult” is pure bullsh!t.

Aasson chastises “blundering, ignorant” mycologists for not “consulting” — while at the very same time, Wasson deletes the Brinckmann citation, to deliberately PREVENT consulting the only publication that the “competent” art historians have ever written about trees in Christian art.

Key Distinction: Wasson’s Private View vs. Wasson’s Publicly Stated View [private public]

Someone wrote “We can safely assume that SURELY Wasson MUST have realized mushroom imagery in Christian art means purposeful mushroom imagery.”

I said “citation needed”; Wasson WROTE no such thing, as every entheogen scholar points out.

I should have said: You are correct but:

When you are a liar, it’s hard work keeping your lies straight.

As analyzed by Jan Irvin in The Holy Mushroom, 2008:

Carl Ruck wrote, in “Daturas for the Virgin” article, p. 56:

“Wasson’s conclusion”; ie: Ruck means Wasson’s PRIVATE conclusion, which only buddy Ruck was privy to.

Irvin told me in 2006: Ramsbottom LEAKED Wasson’s dirty strategy of lying to the public about his view.

“Rightly or wrongly, we are going to claim that mushroom-trees don’t mean mushrooms.”

Gordon Wasson didn’t figure out that his public posture of committed skeptic was exposed in John Ramsbottom’s 1953 book, until 1970 when Allegro endnote quoted Wasson’s admission of lying about his view.

p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin”, Ruck et al, Entheos 2, 2001 – trainwreck at “Wasson’s Conclusion” that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms

Pros and Cons of Rough Simplified Assertions

Censoring yourself, to avoid any imprecision, is a mental constraint and handicap. the diamond hammer of interpretation: Punchy Forceful Pronouncements, use heavy-handed theorizing, confident and aggressive.

Push back against the cheating biased dirty players.

The scholarly playing field for theory-construction is not level.

Do not play the game as if life is fair and unbiased.

Motivation for this Page: Buggy Mobile App

I updated the WordPress JetPack app before I started this page, because the app was sluggish, buggy, and spazzy.

When writing on mobile device, I must post short, fresh posts, not edit the long idea development page 26.

Great 4-hour, In-Depth Voice Recording

Excellent 4-hour voice recording today Sat Mar 15 2025 Egodeath Mystery Show.

I read aloud Brown 2016 book passages from The Psychedelic Gospels.

I read aloud pp 103-105 The Holy Mushroom Irvin 2008.

Many passages are of great interest now, since I have been intensively studying & analyzing so many points of dispute for years and marking up the books and articles.

My commentary is increasingly insightful: half truths by Ruck, Irvin, Letcher, Brown; entheogen scholars.

I’m getting really clear about why Hanegraaff is blocked from placing the fixed stars in the Ogdoad.

This week I watched a YouTube video conversation between astrologer Chris Brennan, who wrote a book on history of astrology, & Dr. Justin Sledge:

video: Fate & Astrology.

Sledge further confirmed my hypothesis from around 2004, that Early Antiquity had a 2-level model:

Transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

As a backlash and 1-upping, that involved inverting from positive to negative valuation of eternalism:

In 150 AD, Late Antiquity changed to a 3-phase model:

Transformation from naive possibilism, to eternalism, to qualified possibilism.

I said aloud against Brennan:

It’s not true that Christianity was distinctive for inventing freewill; so did Hermeticism, Mithraism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, etc.

Then Sledge repeated my words verbatim, but omitting Mithraism & adding 150 AD Jewish religion.

See both of their channels, to see both intros.

Sledge: ESOTERICA YouTube channel.

See Also

Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann 1906)

Erwin Panofsky’s Letters to Gordon Wasson, Transcribed
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment