Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Mosurinjohn & Ascough, 2025)

Michael Hoffman, Aug. 7, 2025

SONY DSC

Contents:

most links might only work on desktop Chrome or Edge:

Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Mosurinjohn & Ascough, July 25, 2025)

Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience
Sharday Mosurinjohn, Richard Ascough
Journal: Psychedelic Medicine
Volume 0:0 [?]
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/28314425251361835?journalCode=psymed

Web search: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Psychedelics%2C+Eleusis%2C+and+the+Invention+of+Religious+Experience%22+mosurinjohn

Not sure if Travis Kitchens contributed to or is connected with this article.

pdf file name:
Mosurinjohn___Ascough__2025__Psychedelics,_Eleusis,_and_the_invention_of_religious_experience.pdf

Her Terms for the Theory in Question

Her terms:

  • the psychedelic hypothesis [broad? narrow?]
  • entheogenicist theories
  • Western psychedelic histories
  • the entheogenicists
  • psychedelic religious origins for the West
  • the Eleusis entheogenicists [narrow]

Notes from My 2nd Full Reading of the Article

I did a 2nd pass of printing the article, making margin notes, and copying the notes to here.

Sufficient notes are are below. Aug 6, 2025.

My first-pass reading notes are in bottom half of this webpage.

p. 1 of Reading 2, Notes

Her core args/ objections:

  • (1) European drug focus bad b/c not focused on Indigenous.
  • (2) Drug focus is bad b/c not focus on non-drug practices.

In fact, Road to Eleusis covers Indigenous & SOMA. Only The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 perhaps lacks that coverage. Mosur is wrong that Euro focus “might miss” “well evidenced” SOMA & Indigenous.

(3) The Suppresssion hypoth: no evidence for suppression of ergot kykeon. She asserts herbs, non-ergot wine in Greco-Roman ritual.

She approves Soma as drug.

She approves Indigenous drug use history.

She disapproves some shifting, unstable target: Western ancient origins of religion as drug-based. Yet she asserts cannabis in Jewish altar; and she asserts Greco-Roman herb wine.

Or does she only ojbect to the narrow specific particular hypoth, Suppressed Ergot Eleusis kykeon, as the Origin of Christian Euch? She keeps conflating the two – broad vs narrow, motte vs baily.

Her tone/ noises/ stance/ affectation:
There’s no evidence for [suppressed ergot kykeon as the origin for Euch]; (narrow); therefore,
there’s no evidence for [Western ancient origins of religion as drug-based] (broad).
She asserts moderately broadly:
There are some psychedelics in Western religious history.
That’s a kind of moderate entheogen theory of religion.
She’s against the maximal entheogen theory of religion, in the case of Western religious history.

Yet she is writing an entire book asserting entheogens in history of Western Esotericism.

She allows that, but does not allow the original Euch being psychedelic.

She explains reasons to try to look, and SOMETIMES she says it’s ok to try to look for entheogens in Euro history / origins.

Her position is shifting and indeterminate, it’s a mess.

It is hard to critique a slip-n-slide writer, and that is TYPICAL HALLMARK of Deniers of entheogen W history.

WTF is Wasson’s position (as a Denier)?

WTF is Letcher’s position (as a Denier)? He retreats and grants, “we naysayers were wrong: there WAS, after all, Liberty Cap in ancient England – but no delib religious use of it.”

WTF is Mosurinjohn’s position (as a Denier)?

There was plants in Euro history – but not indigenous tradition origin of major Euro religion.

She says there is no evidence of any use for decrim.

Forte argues in 2008 edition of Road to Eleusis , she quotes, — glad to see her write (p. 6, no history of use for whites per the courts).

p. 2 of Reading 2, Notes

p. 3 of Reading 2, Notes

end of page 3, into p. 4: “bummer trips” (in early modern individual experimentation w/ ergot) – this is the fallacy: “non-pleasant therefore non-mystical”.

argues: ergot gave bummer trip, therefore, not religious experience.

p. 4 of Reading 2, Notes

p. 5 of Reading 2, Notes

no notes, thank God

p. 6 of Reading 2, Notes

She argues:
Trying to look for psychedelics in the origin of W religion is “religious fundamentalism”; she argues:

Because there is no evidence for [narrow: suppressed ergot kykeon as origin of Euch?] [broad: psychoactive plants in W religious history?], therefore the motivation of “the Eleusis entheogenicists” must be religious fundamentalism.

the courts in the United States have been “unreasonable” in only allowing Indigenous peoples to use “‘hallucinogens’ as sacraments” because they have a long history of such use, which was not the case “for the white man”

Mosur re: Forte in RtE 2008 edition

Vague terms there are “history”, “tradition”, “long history”. Does intense, fully developed mushroom use in 900-1300 A D, in a Christian Biblical context, “count”??

I reject not the project of finding history of use;

I reject the albatross of “secret/ suppressed” and “mainstream tradition” — too nebulous and tangential.

I only inventory the likely total use throughout origin and history, in entire W region. I avoid employing as explanatory constructs, any considerations of “secret/ suppressed” and “mainstream tradition”.

Because it’s too hard and too unimportant, to attempt to assess that.

We are only able to see THAT there was MUCH use. My project is epxlaingin how the mind works, and identfiying evidence by reading religious myth / motifs.

I excel at explaining how the mind changes from Psilocybin.

I excel at explaining how to recognize myth motifs that describe by analogy how the mind changes from Psilocybin.

I ignore questions of; I don’t care about details of what kind of social groups had The Mushroom and which kind of social groups lacked or suppressed The Mushroom.

I am not here to do social drama narrative. Ruck & Muraresku make that project their foundation, and they lose the plot, and they are readily attacked by Deniers; the Suppression Drama narrative is an attack vector (an unneeded addition/ burden), as demo’d by Mosur.

The Allegro/ Ruck/ Muraresku Suppression Social Drama Narrative is an unneeded addition/ burden. Unhelpful for my two projects.

Mosur speculates why there is decreasing use of the Suppression Social Drama Narrative for the purpose of decrim – IDK that it has decreased.

Much of her arg’n/writing is just UNCLEAR, she uses words in a vague way. What exactly is she asserting and not asserting?? She needs to differentiate what she is asserting and denying, specifically; narrow & broad. Be specific and clear, not vague.

We are NOT able to assess details about “secret/suppressed” and “mainstream tradition”, and that is a tangential, separate, messy proposition to try to theorize and find evidence for that detail.

Mos wrote:

“Road to Eleusis in 2008 … Robert Forte who notes … the courts in the United States have been “unreasonable” in only allowing Indigenous peoples to use “‘hallucinogens’ as sacraments” because they have a long history of such use, which was not the case “for the white man”34

“(Canada has mirrored the United States in making legal exceptions for traditional Indigenous peyote use and Indigenous-related ayahuasca groups while denying them to groups unconnected with Indigenous communities of practice35).”

p. 7 of Reading 2, Notes

p. 8 of Reading 2, Notes

p. 9 of Reading 2, Notes

Book: Entheogenics: Psychedelic Experiences as Revelatory Events in the History of Western Esotericism (Mosurinjohn, in progress per 2022)

Asserting that there are psychedelics in history of Western Esotericism contradicts half of the posturing in her article!

A contradiction-filled article, waffling and shifting constantly, asserts “Greco Roman herbal wine” yet says no evidence for ergot kykeon specifically, and ok’s Soma as historical precedent, and ok’s Indigenous as historical precedent for decrim of Psilocybin, but makes tut-tut vague & shifting objections to trying to look for history psychedelics in European Western history.

Article contradicts itself and is hazy what she’s saying that scholars should do. waht What EXACTLY is your complaint and your direction for what you are directing scholars to do?

Try to be more accurate?

Drop the Suppression hypoth? ???

She is allowed to write an entire fukking BOOK asserting historical psychedelics in Europ (Western Esotericism), but OTHER scholars are bad for even trying to look for — for what? for specifically/ narrowly, [SUPPRESSED ERGOT KYKEON]? or, broadly, for [psychedelics in Western history], which is exactly what this book asserts?

She plays motte/baily fallacy in article: the narrow “suppressed ergot kykeon” has no evidence according to her, so she acts – most of the time (inconsis.) — as if the broad general theory (psychedelics in W history) has no evidence.

She avoids making a clear distinction between mot vs baily , narrow The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 view vs. broad entheogens in W religion view.

  • the motte (easy to defend, but not desirable):
    “I merely, reasonably argue that there was psychedelics in W history, but not suppressed ergot kykeon.” “I merely call for more precision in scholarship.”
  • the baily (desirable, but indefensible):
    “I aggressively argue that the effort to fabricate psychedelics in W history is bunk. You are only allowed to assert Soma & Indigenous, not European.”

SLIP ‘N’ SLIDE tactic of writing. wtf exactly are you asserting and not asserting? Hazy, so she gets to have it both ways, asserting that cannabis is proved in ancient Jewish temple, yet, we’re not allowed to assert what, “suppressed ergot kykeon”? “any use of entheogens in W history”?? WTF!! What the hell is your position and argument?

She accuses of “the entheogen history claim” of being merely a fake strategy, yet she also says,

  • cannabis is proved in Jewish history
  • greco-roman wine = herbs
  • writes an entire BOOK asserting entheogens in W history of Western Esotericism.

DOUBLE TALK! BUNCH OF WISHY WASHY HOT AIR AND PUFFERY BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF HER POSITION & ARG’T IS NOT THERE. Like my experience reading Letcher in 2007.

Rhethoric, posturing, tut-tut noises, self-promotion, vague & shifting disparagement of others. Inconsistent arg’n and position, both. Smoke & noise, but no fire. HYPOCRITE! She ought to be clarifying to scholars the correct nuances, but she only delivers self-contradiction.

She allows herself to assert history of psychedelics in Europe, but when Muraresku asserts suppression ergot kykeon, she dismisses that as merely a strategy to prop up history for decrim.

I hope I am clear when I list what Ruck school gets right & wrong, specifically.

  • Ruck contradicts himself, b/c driven by the Suppression premise, so he strives to neutralize all evidence by forcing a framing of the evidence as alien infiltration into Christianity.
  • Mosur contradicts herself, by not tracking carefully when she’s talking about the broad theory and its evidence – psychedelics in W history — vs when she’s taking aim against the narrow theory [suppression kykeon ergot].
    “There’s no evidence for suppression ergot kykeon, therefore, no psychedelics in W history, so can’t use that to bolster decrim.” Article seems to assert that.

I cannot engage clearly w/ her article, b/c littered w/ the topic of Suppression Premise.

I wish the article would bracket-aside the Suppression Premise, and discuss evidence for specific claims, that are not tangled with Suppression Premise.

We cannot have a clear discussion, because she keeps garbling and mixing

  • The Suppression Premise.
  • The “suppression kykeon ergot” narrow hypothesis.
  • Narrow focus/debate about what – “the mystieries”? or narrower, “Eleusis”? aweful vague term “the mysteries” can mean all use of wine throughout Antiquity, or, exclusively, Eleusis, by the sleight of hand vague shell-game term, “the mysteries of Eleusis”, = “mystery religions”, = “herb-laced wine in Greco-Roman culture” = “in the ancient mysteries” – did you mean all mixed wine, or did you mean strictly kykeon in the Eleu. mysteries???
  • The broad hypoth of the psychedelic origin of & history of W religion.

Are we debating about:

  • narrow: ergot
  • broad: entheogens

Are we debating about:

  • narrow: the Eleusis mystery religion
  • all mystery religions
  • broad: all use of mixed wine throughout Antiquity

Are we debating about:

  • narrow: ancient origins of W religion
  • broad: psychoactives throughout W relig history

SLIP-N-SLIDE, SHIFTY, MOTTE-AND-BAILY ARG’N

How the F can I critique her artilcle, which constantly shifts between:

  • kykeon vs. wine;
  • ergot vs. psychoactive plants;
  • Eleusis vs. all mystery religions vs. all Greco-Roman use of wine?

Are you saying not to try to find any psychedelics in:

  • narrow: Eleusis, ergot, kykeon, suppression
  • broad: mixed wine, all psychoactive plants, throughout W history, open secret

She is good to mention that the typical theory is the “secret Amanita cult” theory.

The “secret Amanita cult” theory is the absurdly narrow view of spread, hated by John Lash; Wasson’s particular theory, the one, lone, single ur-religion that spread from Ural mountains.

That specific theory of “spread” is ridiculed by Letcher.

Letcher & Mosur latch onto this narrow paricular theory of suppressed Amanita spread from a single origin in the Ural mountains, because it’s so easy to ridicule.

Even the #1 fanboi of Wasson — John Lash — hates this ridiculous narrow particular theory.

Andy Letcher rejects the entire proposition of W psychedelics history, with the narrow, most ridiculous model he can find.

The slip-and-slide, move goalposts inward, move.

Mosur needs to clarify her crit’m of each distinct theory:

  • suppressed ergot Eleusis
  • history of psychedelics in Europe

She constantly garbles and conflates the two scopes.

p. 6 col 2 mentions Western Esotericism – seems to hazily imply psychedelics in Western Esotericism , while she refuses to allow “indigenous” ie pre-Christian specifially Eleusis…

IS SHE GIVING GREEN LIGHT TO ALLOW PSYCHEDELICS IN Western Esotericism HISTORY BUT REFUSING TO ALLOW in roots of specifically Eleusis before Christianity?

Her REAL objection, perhaps, is a Western Indigenous ancient origin of religion in psychedelics.

She’s ok w/ Greco-Roman herb wine; with cannabis in Jewish altar; with psychedelics in Western Esotericism history.

But God forbid, “Indigenous” origin in ancient Europe.

This would be opposite of Wasson, who allows Amanita 1000 B C but not later. (he even waffles here: author of Rev, eg 70 A D, is “like on mushrooms”.)

She acts like Ruck group is not the ORIGIN of discoveries about Indigenous psychedelics history, when she claims that Ruck then Muraresku, by focusing on W relig, “risks missing Indigenous, which is well-evidenced.”

As if we weren’t BURIED in excessive emphasis already, of Indigenous 24/7.

What the hell is the point of exclusively dwelling on already-known discoveries, when the whole point of scholarship in Euro entheogens history is to make NEW discoveries?

Didn’t Ruck group bring MORE THAN ENOUGH focus already, on Indigenous? This is nothing but empty bitching and self-promotion, fake “critique” for the purpose of obstructionism and self-positioning.

She has no legit criticism of trying to find psychedelics throughout W / Euro history, so she pretends that the most narrow, brittle model – suppressed ergot eleusis as original Euch – is same thing as broad topic.

The article is a pseudo critique, what EXACTLY is she complaining and advising? Empty posturing, empty critique. A call for better scholarship? Be specific.

WHEN YOU PUT ASIDE HER RHETORIC, THERE’S LITTLE SUBSTANCE ARG’N LEFT.

She herself writes a book on psychedelics in history of Western Esotericism – doesn’t she “they miss seriously relating to the many … Indigenous histories” – that MIGHT stick, for Muraresku, but sure not for Ruck group!

Are you saying Ruck misses seriously relating to the many evidence for Indigenous use? You cannot assert that.

So, shift the vauge, hazy goalposts.

Make strong sounding accusations, then retreat:

  1. “Don’t try to find psychedelics in W history; that’s religious fundamentalism. Trying to find psychedelics in W misses a serious engagement with evidence for Indigenous use.”
    But Ruck group is the one who discovered evidence for Indig, so WTF are you asserting and whining about as an alleged limitation?!
  2. “I was ONLY correcting Muraresku and ergot secret kykeon as orig Euch.”
    Ok then your corrective caution amounts to nothing of substance. Motte & bailey arg’n.

Stupid, out-of-left-field, weird argumentation, like those from Hatsis and other Deniers.

Maybe she can accuse Muraresku of ignoring Indig, but she sure can’t accuse Ruck group of that – they are the discoverers of Indigenous.

Her arguments are only valid in a narrow way, not in the broad way she pretends.

The broad hypoth which she DISPARAGES half the time in the article: the psychedelic origin of W religion — yet which she asserts in some ways too.

A confusing & confused article.

https://queensu.academia.edu/ShardayMosurinjohn/CurriculumVitae — working on a book, In progress
Entheogenics: Psychedelic Experiences as Revelatory Events in the History of Western Esotericism (working title)
the most recent date there: 2022, three years ago. New article is mid-2025.

Critique of Article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience”

My notes about Mosurinjohn article.

Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience
Sharday Mosurinjohn, Richard Ascough
2025

Point #1: Your guys, the IDIOT archaeologists, WASHED AWAY the evidence in all vessels ever discovered, and after doing that, you then say “there is no evidence”. Because you morons THREW AWAY the evidence.

Point #2: We literally have not even STARTED to try to look for evidence.

Mosur sometimes targets ergot evidence; sometimes targets broader enth evidence.

Point #3: esp offensive about this article:

Biased propaganda prejudiced against ANY research into European history of visionary plants.

“We should avoid trying to do any research in Europe history, because that risks failing to bow down to Americas and non-European history.”

“We should avoid trying to research visionary plants, because that risks failing to research non-drug methods of changing consciousness.”

Sheer bias, prejudice, obstructionism, and de-legitimation from the very start. See Hatsis new book against PC in enth scholarship. Psychedelic Injustice.

The nerve! We are not allowed to try to find enth in Eur history, because scholarship has found enth in non-Eur history, and we must attend to that, instead, because…

We are not allowed to explore the superior potential of enths, b/c scholars have found non-drug methods that can/ could/ might/ may produce “an altered consciousness”; “a mystical-type experience”.

Anti-European propaganda pressure, “It is not legit to theorize and look for enths in Euro history – b/c risks not focusing instead on non-European.” Sheer bias, arb’y.

Like idiotic YouTube comments, “The Surfrajettes [an instrumental Surf band, genre] should be a girl singer pop band (genre) instead.”

That’s not even a real critique; like reviewing a book about X as if it were a book about Y.

“Your scholarship about Europe has a huge flaw: it should be scholarship about non-Europe instead. Because…”

“Your scholarship about psychedelic plants has a huge flaw: it should be scholarship about non-drug methods of altering consciousness instead [aka “practices”]. Because…”

Your theorizing and scholarship should elevate non-drug methods to the high level that’s accepted now for psychedelics, because… else you are an extremist fanatic proselytizer, unlike us who call anything at all “an entheogenic practice”, and who restrict enth’s to “Indigenous” ie non-Europe.

Blundering ignoramus mycologists fail to consult the academic authorities, who demonstrate an irritated tone and demonstrate how quickly and fervently they deny and disavow.

Consult them on this matter b/c they are experts on related subjects (ie, not on trees, not on mushrooms, b/c merely incidental & fortuitous [Huggins & Wasson]).

Europe 4x

Indigenous 15x

The two main, bunk args Mosur has, in exact quote:

Mosur wrote:

“But in doing so, they miss seriously relating to the many well-documented historical and living Indigenous histories of psychedelics,

or seeing contemporary psychedelic practice in continuity with other, and maybe even older, nonpharmacological methods of changing consciousness.

“Moreover, this search for ergot foregrounds the drug per se, unhelpfully emphasizing the importance of the substance and its phenomenology over the ritual and metaphysical tools needed to make meaning of it.”

Bunk args repeated throughout article:

* “Do not look for new [Europe] evidence, because you won’t seriously cover existing [non-Europe] evidence.”

* “Do not look for visionary plants evidence, because you won’t seriously cover non-drug methods that can give altered consciousness.”

Sheer academic obstructionism!

Mosur does potentially have some fair points; the Secret Ergot Eleusis theory has problems to identify – done better by Egodeath theory ie 2nd-gen enth schol.

you must commit to a explanatory theory / model and develop and test and refine it, it should be a good theory. All theories have cons & pros; cons do not “disconfirm” a theory in a simplistic total way per a crude model of how Science progresses.

[non-drug] “practice” is good; drug / fx is bad. Mosur is correct that 1st-gen theory stupidly attends to the drug plant itself, and should account for something like “practice” or how the drug is used to cause ultimate transformation of experiential model of personal control levels. Focusing on the plant’s form, and a tiny bit on its effect, is not enough, but Ruck halts there.

Per Irvin’s book Flesh of God, and some other recent critiques and exposes, it is debatable “Americas used enths for religious experience.” Yet Mosur criticizes the entire basic proposition of trying to do scholarly research in Euro history of enths, b/c Affirmers might “miss well-doc’d Indigenous, and non-drug methods of altering consciousness”.

This book about Windows programming is a bad idea, because it might miss Mac programming.

This book about cats is bad, because it misses dogs.

Lame, biased, bunk pseudo-critique – but to Deniers, the only thing that matters is sheer quantity of writing that SEEMS — to biased readers — to constitute argumentation.

It’s empty expression of prejudice; not actual arg’n.

Mosur tries to make it sound like Affirmers theorize and therefore are bad; they commit to a specific theory and therefore are bad, and ought to do certified academic scholarship instead.

Mosur is right to discuss Pop Culture reception of Allegro/Ruck’s crude 1st-gen myth-fantasy, poor theorizing – Secret Ergot Suppression.

But we must do a good job of critique/correction of Pop Culture reception of the superior 2nd-Gen theory/scholarship.

Goals of Mosur’s rhetoric; Deniers’ Rhetorical Pseudo-Arguments

(under the limitations of 1st-gen Denial of entheogen scholarship):

  • Push non-drug entheogens; elevate avoidance-methods to the high level that enths deliver.
  • Dissuade and condemn the study of Euro enth history.
  • Turn the supposed successes in Americas, into a barrier preventing scholarship in Europe.
  • Push indigenous; use the alleged findings in Americas serve as shutting the door to any scholarship of Euro history.
  • Demonize Affirmers of Euro enth history.
  • Self-aggrandize.

2nd-gen entheogen scholarship eg Brown must avoid leveraging the would-be explanatory construct of “secret vs. mainstream”.

Mosur, like Letcher, seizes on ‘secret’; the Suppression premise is nothing but a liability; a potential vector of attack by Deniers.

Deniers = 1st Gen; Deniers of 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.

Live by “Secret”, die by “Secret”.

The (1st-gen) Deniers CANNOT take down 2nd-Gen enth schol by attacking ‘secret’, b/c 2nd-gen theory doesn’t at all employ the Secrecy/Suppression premise, & doesn’t assert in terms of “mainstream tradition” (as Brown does at end of 2019 article/ 2016 book).

I couldn’t care less whether an instance of MICA is assigned to “heretical groups” or “elites” or “mainstream tradition” – Ruck wrongly thinks we are demanding that he explain how The Secret Enth was restricted yet present.

I reject any obligation to explain how enth were restricted or present. Don’t care! Irrelevant & unhelpful. I find more evidence than Ruck b/c I am entirely unconcerned with “restricted yet present”. I only measure presence – not alleged suppression.

Less narrative = more evidence.

Less narrative about “limited” or “restricted” (or, “mainstream”) = more evidence; the greedy mentality.

  1. Bad: 1st-gen Affirmer: Allegro/ Ruck/ Mura: the Secret Suppressed Ergot Eleusis theory.
  2. Bad: (would-be-“correction”): 1st-gen Deniers: Letcher/ Huggins/ Mosurinjohn: the bad-type, would-be “correction”: lazy, simpleton, scorched-earth denial.
  3. Good: 2nd-gen Affirmers: Hoffman: Theory of enths/ motifs/ analogies. This is an actual, good-type correction of 1st-gen enth schol.
  4. Non-existent: Denial of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).

Mosur/ Deniers provide critique of 1st-gen not 2nd-gen; Letcher to critique 1st-Gen actually leverages 2nd-Gen.

ie, Letcher uses the presence of explicit Psil msh tree imagery, to disprove Secret (and also Amanita).

Critical scholarship of goals and flaws of the Suppressed Ergot Eleusis; 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).

vs.

Critical scholarship of goal and flaws of the good theory; 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).

Entheogen scholarship was defeatism-driven; suppression-driven; more interested in crying about suppression by inst’l religion, than caring about ACTUAL enth (ie Psil) and caring about EFFECTIVE, goal-driven repeal of Psil Prohibition.

My finding of Great Canterbury Psalter msh images in late date 2025 is example: we been NOMINALLY “looking” since 2000 or 1910, but with eyes tightly shut.

eg McKenna’s book Food of the Gods is totally closed-minded about msh in Christian art; simply ASSUMES no mushroom imagery in Christian art.

My point is solid even though hyperbolic:

Entheogen scholarship has NOT even STARTED to try to positively look; instead, they tried to look for Secret Amanita & Secret Ergot, and any finding, is taken as proof that Xy lacked enth but only contained HERETICAL enth use.

And proves that entheogen use was LIMITED TO some closed group or other:

  • “certain Christian communities” (Georgio Samorini)
  • “heretical groups” (early Carl Ruck)
  • “1 or 2 elites” (later Ruck)
  • all elites (Jan Irvin AstroSham 1st Ed.: Conclusion 1st sentence)

Along with Terrible Theory that says, any mushroom imagery in Christian art is evidence of alien heretical infiltration into Xy from outside of Christianity.

2nd-gen entheogen scholarship must set its own goals motivating research

Key: Well-formed Affirmers must set our own goals of what motivates research.

The goal is to understand mental model transformation and myth as analogy describing psil xfmn; not history of actions ie proving who ingested what plant how many times.

Well-Formed Goals of 2nd-gen Entheogen Scholarship

  • Model the mind; model Psil transformation.
  • Figure out how to read analogy as description of Psil xfmn.
  • Construct theory / explanatory model.
  • Recognize plants & motifs in cultural history.
  • Understand mental model transformation.
  • Understand religious mythology as analogy describing mental model transformation.
    World religious myth especially Greco-Roman-Jewish-Christendom [incl tree of knowledge, the sacrifice of Isaac, Ezekiel, burning bush, bronze snake on pole; Jonah’s prayer]
  • Full repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition.
  • Theory-driven research. Do incorporate evidence, but use theory to construct (bring shape to, elicit, flush-out) evidence and drive the search for evidence.

Be driven by good theory (myth = analogy for ingesting then transforming control), not bad theory (Ama = Psil fx; Secret/Suppression, shows how awful the Church is!)

Theory driven, vs. defaulting to Denial/ ignorance, lack of explanatory model.

Glad that Mosur pays attention to the crybaby move, rhetoric against the big bad Institutional Church.

A better such critique is needed, just as the other Deniers are partially very right, but, poor & scorched-earth.

Mosur tries to contrast:

  • “Drug” & its effect (bad)
  • “Practices” (ie, code word for: the non-drug methods of the mystics) (good)

Mosur ought to say “here is a good critique: pros & cons of Ruck/Mura. Instead, Mosur sets up poor opposed positions/ options. eg:

End of Abstract:

“Instead of committing to
a specific (and erroneous) view of history,
psychedelic scholarship must commit to
academic discussion and debate.”

That pits as if:

committing to a specific (and erroneous) view of history
vs.
academic discussion and debate

Actually, we should BOTH, in a good way:

  • Commit to a specific (and sound) view of history:

* Myth is description by analogy of Psil-driven mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

* Religions come from enth, then they deny that b/c conflict of interest.

* A kind of “perennialism” or “essentialism” is sound: not the all-dominant modern transnational Advaita Vedanta (nondual unity oneness, cessation of mentally constructing the self/other boundary), but per Egodeath theory, mental model of personal control-in-world. The central focus of transformation isn’t unity; it’s personal control.

AND:

  • Academic discussion and debate:

* High quality, with high explanatory power.

Non-Goals of 2nd-Gen Entheogen Scholarship

  • Accurate detailed history of who ingested what chemical how many times.
  • History of actions ie proving who ingested what.
  • Evidence-*driven* research.
  • Narrative-driven research (social drama narrative of suppression; boundary-drawing between the good guys vs the bad guys; “Isn’t it terrible how the Institutional Church suppressed visionary plants?” Picked up well by Mosur.).
  • Narrow focus on Ergot
  • Narrow focus on Eleusis
  • Morally grandstand against the big bad Church, institutional.
  • Inferior plants: Amanita, LSA, scopolamine, cannabis.
  • Inferior methods (which are merely avoidance strategies).
  • Beginner-level slight experience.
  • Dividing line defining separate “suppressed users groups” vs “mainstream orthodox tradition”.

Forbidden constructs/words:

  • cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in
  • mainstream, normal, tradition

The Article Weighs LSA/Ergot as a Candidate

It would be good to quote the article where it assesses the merit of effects of ergot/ LSA and whether those effects match kykeon and Eucharist.

The article, in effect, debates whether ergot (possibly LSA) is as effective as Psilocybin.

Hofmann claimed LSA gave him a Psilocybin-type experience, but Wasson & Ruck claimed that Hofmann’s LSA batch only caused them lethargy.

Wasson also wrote eg to McKenna that Amanita failed to deliver Psilocybin effects; Wasson practically concluded that the effects in history that he tried to assign to Amanita actually should be assigned to Psilocybin.

The Wasson/ Ruck hypothesis was disconfirmed by Wasson, that Amanita effects are like Psilocybin effects.

In 2025 (Kevin Feeny book – who we spoke with in church book club; the “Effects” chapter), Amanita is now classed as a deliriant, not as a psychedelic.

Like Ruck correctly argued in the 2001 article “Daturas for the Virgin”, Datura (note: not Psilocybin!) is a suitable substitute for Amanita.

That is an ironic failure of Ruck:

Given that Ruck is correct that Amanita and Datura give the same effect, this means — against Ruck — Amanita and Psilocybin do NOT give same effect.

The ironic correctness of Ruck’s argument that “Datura can substitute for Amanita” proves that Amanita fails to give Psilocybin effects. Amanita cannot substitute for Psilocybin, against the Wasson/ Ruck hypothesis from perhaps 1952-1977.

Wasson’s 1977 letter to McKenna, disconfirming Amanita effects as psychedelic and suitable in strength and type of effect and reliability; see section in idea development page 30:
The “Secret Amanita” Paradigm Has Collapsed; It Is Now Past-Tense Seen in Retrospect from within 2nd-Generation Entheogen Scholarship (the “Explicit Psilocybin” Paradigm)
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/06/11/idea-development-page-30/#Secret-Amanita-Paradigm-Has-Collapsed

In practical usage based on Wasson and Ruck’s experiments:

  • Amanita is not as potent as Psilocybin.
  • Amanita is not as reliable as Psilocybin, in practical usage.
  • Amanita is not as psychedelic as Psilocybin; it’s a deliriant.

Max/Mod/Min Theory

Maximal entheogen theory of religion – Hoffman, 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)

Moderate entheogen theory of religion – Ruck; 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)

Minimal entheogen theory of religion – MICA Deniers; Mosurinjohn; Letcher; Huggins; Hatsis re: mushrooms

The Minimalist diminishers of enth in relig history aim against the Moderate Asserters. Likewise Egodeath theory aims against Moderate Asserters – a better critique angle.

Deniers frame debate as, who is right: either:

Asserters of Secret Ergot

Deniers of Secret Ergot

Superior critique of 1st Gen enth scholarship (Pop Myth) focuses on asserting Explicit Psil. The Moderates/ Deniers do not argue against the good, Explicit Psil theory; they ONLY argue against poor, week, Secret Ergot theory put forth by Ruck/ Mura.

Hit Counts:

  • ergot 24x
  • Psilocybin 3x
  • mush 6x
  • Eleus 63x
  • paradigm 4x
  • secre – 10x
  • suppress – 5x

Mosur mostly conflates:

  • The critique of specific theory of Elesuis & ergot hypothesis (1st-gen entheogen scholarship Affirmers).
  • The entire entheogen hypothesis (as put forth by 1st-generation entheogen scholarship, but ought to include 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship).

“the entheogenic paradigm”

“the empiricist paradigm” = many non-drug methods can/could/might/may “change consciousness”.

The flaw with all academic scholars, they all strive to emphasize that many methods can give altered consciousness, without any threshold requirements.

Instead, set the requirement as high as possible, instead of as low as possible!

To Wouter Hanegraaff and all Minimal or Moderate academic scholars who posture and strike an affected stance to try to be perceived as diminishing Psilocybin, any change of consciousness is the same as 12 grams of dried Cubensis for ten sessions.

There is no consideration of degree and ultimate result (other than nebulous “improved character in daily life”). Ergonomic degree is omitted in order to lower (ie diminish & belittle) Psilocybin and raise (elevate) non-drug methods fully up to the level of Psilocybin.

Like saying this toy plastic car is like a real car.

To Michael Hoffman/ 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship, altered consciousness only counts if it produces the ultimate altered-state effect: mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

What counts is not un-qualified “change of consciousness”. What matters is specific ability — strong powerful tendency — to change mental model: mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Does religious myth come from cave meditation? Does myth describe experiences from breath-meditation?

Myth describes sacred meal causing mental model transformation.

Given:

Ruck 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)

There are two different positions/critiques, not just one:

* the Egodeath theory

* MICA Deniers who push diminish Psilocybin, ie push “many non-drug methods can produce a change of consciousness”, who push entheogens in Americas but not in Europe history;

Mosur pulls same posturing as Huggins: make many statements, all with a TONE or framing of, “so, no enth entheogens”. “Furthermore, 1+2=3! [so, no entheogens, in Eur history] eg: “MICA Affirmers are motivated to look for evidence that psychedelics should be legalized b/c of historical evidence!”

It is true that Affirmers have a motivation to find entheogens in Euro history to end Psilocybin Prohibition.

This is NOT a mark against the merit of the Affirmers’ historical theorizing.

Might as well accuse Mosur of a conflict of interest:

“WE CANNOT TRUST ANYTHING MOSUR ASSERTS, B/C SHE HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN PERSUADING EDITORS AND AUDIENCE!”

Sharday Mosurinjohn
https://www.google.com/search?q=sharday+mosurinjohn

That is a fallacy, which in Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024)

https://www.academia.edu/118659519/Foraging_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_the_Wrong_Forest_The_Great_Canterbury_Psalter_as_a_Medieval_Test_Case

https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/11/23/huggins-foraging-psychedelic-mushrooms-wrong-forest/

I called it “argument from sheer quantity of arguments”, from sheer making of statements:

“I am making many statements and observations about this topic. … So, no mushrooms.”

Sprinkle decorative words: “Further, another reason Affirmers is wrong is, they are motivated by trying to persuade lawmakers. So, no mushrooms.”

Deniers make many statements that could contribute to enth research – but, we must transform/ reframe those “destructive-intended” statements, to become constructive contributions.

Need better pseudo-history & theory, not make the Suppression Hypothesis the central foundation focus explanatory premise.

My work against Suppression is negative theorizing; mere ground-clearing.

My theory itself does not employ or focus on Suppression (ie per 1st Gen enth schol).

I pay NO attention to constructs/ concepts/ explanatory constructs, “mainstream vs. suppressed”; “Group A lacks The Amanita” & “Group B has The Amanita” & “here is the boundary barrier dividing the two groups”.

Unlike them, 2nd Gen enth schol does NOT take it as a given that “we are expected to explain who suppressed whom re: The Secret Kykeon”.

Ruck feels that everyone expects him to explain “How did Big Bad Church suppress the heretical enth?”

But I do not believe such an explanation is demanded by anyone.

Ruck thinks “You are all demanding from me an explanation of how Suppression; here’s my theory of that.”

I do NOT think anyone is demanding of me an explanation of who suppressed whom, of how The Secret Ergot Kykeon / The Secret Amanita Cult was suppressed.

The latter is the motivating purpose for 1st Gen Enth Scholarship and is the central explnatory construct and concern. Not how the mind works; not Repeal; not real actual psychedelics (Psil); just crybaby moralizing grandstanding to smear and bellyache against Inst’l Religion (eg John Lash refuses to allow Jesus / Moses to have Psil, because they are harmful figures put forth by Inst’l Religion.)

Tail wags dog.

Addendum Not in Email, re: Mosurinjohn/ Deniers

The above sections, from my 1st reading of the article, I emailed to Cyberdisciple. That email didn’t include the following notes.

Mosurinjohn and Deniers are biased / prejudiced and ignorant.

McPriest and company stupidly treat Allegro/ Ruck/ Muraresku as if that = the theory; but, Ruck is merely 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.

You get worthless Denier scholarship (1st-gen entheogen scholarship Deniers) dismissing poor, 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.

1st-gen entheogen scholarship Denier scholarship is unproductive like the MythVision YouTube channel; negative mythicism: it can only reject a poor previous, literal theory.

  1. Bad Theory 1
  2. Debunking of Bad Theory 1.
  3. Good Theory 2
  1. Literalist Christianity.
  2. Negative Mythicism. Debunks Literalist Christianity without replacing it with truth and comprehension.
  3. Positive Mythicism. Here’s the deep meaning and referent of Christianity, or of religion prior to 1687 Newton/modern era.
  4. (hypothetical) Debunkers of the mature, 2025 Egodeath theory.
    Doesn’t count, b/c Hatsis didn’t know ANYTHING about my position: Hatsis’ reply to me, “You guys [me & Brown] aren’t allowed to switch from Amanita to Psilocybin, because you come from Allegro [false! projection!], and so you’d be a hypocrite. And, the shape of the Liberty Cap is anachronistic.”

No amount of debunking of Bad Theory 1 can ever produce Good Theory 2. — nor constitute a debunking or rebuttal of Good Theory 2.

Bad Deniers’ writings are — at most — debunking/ engaging Bad Theory 1. They are entirely far from debunking/ engaging Good Theory 2.

Mosur = debunker of Bad Theory 1, so Mosur’s scholarship is lame in the same way as poor treatments by the Deniers Panofsky, Letcher, Hatsis, & Huggins.

Eggs alike: similarly lame and clueless and having no prospect of ever getting it right:

Deniers: Panofsky, Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins, Mosurinjohn.
Join the club of Dead-End scholarship.

2nd-Gen Affirmers Must Divorce 1st-Gen Deniers

email to Cyberdisciple July 28, 2025

Need an official divorce between Deniers/ committed skeptics (of mushroom imagery in Christian art; of the entheogen theory of religion especially Greco Roman Christian).

Affirmers should not let Deniers direct the research and arg’n. 

Affirmers are most productive setting their own direction for arg’n. 

However, when someone tells me to ignore idiot naysayers, I continue to rebut and engage naysayers, which is somewhat profitable, and is successful.

Motivation for this Page

This content is copied from my Idea Development page 30, which is too long and is unstable on phone. Need to provide URL to colleagues, for a stable page.

See Also

todo

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment