Michael Hoffman 7:00 pm p.m. Feb. 2, 2026
Contents:
- Claim 1. “The Plaincourault fresco depicting a hallucinogenic mushroom has been debunked, repeatedly, by scholars in the best position to interpret it”
- Claim 2: “Bible scholars debunked that the root of all religion is psychedelic, and that the mysteries of Eleusis were psychedelic, 30 years ago, and 60 years before that, many times”
- Claim 3. “The Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis Has Been Considered; It Is so Wrong, that We Don’t Need to Keep Repeating it” AND “Psychedelics NEVER Show Up in the Academic Literature about Mystery Religions”
- If an Academic Writes Truth (“Psychedelics Are the Source of Religion”), They Lose Their Job & Opportunities
- If an Academic Writes Falsehood (“Psychedelics Have No Role in Religion”), They Are Manifestly a Fool, and Lose Credibility
- Bibliography
- References
- Footnotes
- Citations
- Endnotes
- Evidence
- Substantiation
- Proof
- Quotes
- Citations Backing up Emma Betuel’s Claim
- Citations Backing up Professor Sharborg’s Claim
- Citations Backing up Professor Asscough’s Claim
- Names of Bible Scholars Who Credibly Debunked Psychedelics in Western Religious History
- See Also
Claim 1. “The Plaincourault fresco depicting a hallucinogenic mushroom has been debunked, repeatedly, by scholars in the best position to interpret it”
If the idea of the Plaincourault fresco depicting a hallucinogenic mushroom has been debunked, repeatedly, by scholars in the best position to interpret it, why does it persist?
Emma Betuel (2021), Does This Medieval Fresco Show A Hallucinogenic Mushroom in the Garden of Eden?
Does This Medieval Fresco Show A Hallucinogenic Mushroom in the Garden of Eden?
Emma Betuel, Aug. 5, 2021
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/muscaria-hallucinogenic-mushroom-fresco
Qualifications to Make Pronouncements & Assessments About Mushrooms in Religious Art
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/15/qualifications-to-make-pronouncements-assessments-about-mushrooms-in-religious-art/
The above quote is covered at
https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/04/scholarly-fail-quotes-hall-of-shame/#plaincourault-been-debunked
Claim 2: “Bible scholars debunked that the root of all religion is psychedelic, and that the mysteries of Eleusis were psychedelic, 30 years ago, and 60 years before that, many times”
We debunked that the root of all religion is psychedelic, and that the mysteries of Eleusis were psychedelic, 30 years ago, and we debunked that 60 years before that, many times.
Anonymous Bible Studies scholars, citations available upon consulting the authorities
Video: Can Psychedelics Replace Religion? – Sharday Mosurinjohn, “debunked repeatedly”
The video says May 30, 2025, but there’s a 2021 copy of same vid, apparently.
Video title:
Ep. 57: Can Psychedelics Replace Religion? – Sharday Mosurinjohn
YouTube channel: Atheists United
May 30, 2025
Beyond Atheism Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onlx_Lr0SQI&t=1200s (= 20:00) —
[20:00]
“he has as a lawyer helped establish over 30 other such churches. So there’s a big entheogenic church movement.
“But then there’s also just stuff like,
“You would not believe the number of psychedelic scientists who say to me,
[ridiculing, mocking tone:]
“Did you know that the root of all religion is psychedelic?
“And did you know that the mysteries of Eleusis were psychedelic?
Interviewer: Laughs.
“[inaud. under laughing; sounds like: The ones who were] actually psychedelic?”
“And then I go to my biblical studies friends and colleagues and I say, you know, they’re saying this still.
“And they go,
“We debunked that 30 years ago, and we debunked that 60 years before that. Like how many times?”
“Um, so there’s that.“
There’s what citations? Where is this repeated debunking?
30 years ago = 1995 – citations needed.
90 years ago = 1935 – citations needed.
Claim 3. “The Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis Has Been Considered; It Is so Wrong, that We Don’t Need to Keep Repeating it” AND “Psychedelics NEVER Show Up in the Academic Literature about Mystery Religions”
Claim 3. Richard Ascough: The Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis Has Been “Considered”; It Is so Wrong, that We Don’t Need to Keep Repeating “it”; and yet also, “Psychedelics NEVER Show Up in the Academic Literature about Mystery Religions” (kettle logic; inconsistent multiple arguments).
Video title:
Psychedelics, and the Birth of Christianity – Dr. Richard Ascough
YouTube channel: Ayush Prakash
Dec. 25, 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8GcCjja74M&t=2730s (45:30)
He definitely says there was no usage of psychedelics in mystery religions. Hypocrite: He says Ruck slips from possibility to fact — here, hypocrite/ projecting, Ascough slips from possibility of not psychedelics in Mystery Religions, to the as-if fact of no psychedelics in mystery religions.
A CHEAP TRICK by Anything-but-Drugs academics/prostitutes/ propagandists.
The following sections are copypasted from https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/01/22/richard-ascough-on-psychedelics-in-western-religious-history/#section-of-the-hu-blogpost-with-commentary —
Myth-busting psychedelics in ancient Greece: 5 Questions for religious studies professors Sharday Mosurinjohn and Richard Ascough
“The professors discuss the scant evidence for the idea that the Eleusinian Mysteries used psychedelics, and why it persists anyway.”
Jane Hu, Sep. 15, 2025
https://themicrodose.substack.com/p/myth-busting-psychedelics-in-ancient
My page:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/01/20/psychedelics-eleusis-and-the-invention-of-religious-experience-mosurinjohn-2025/#Myth-busting-psychedelics-in-ancient-Greece
copypaste from Hu, emphasis added, sentence-per-para:
“You’ve already given us some sense of this, but what do scholars make of these claims?
Do they take them seriously?
Richard Ascough:
“Well, one of the critiques is that perhaps classists don’t take it seriously because we’re afraid of it.
The narrative is we’re afraid of it because it’s so radical.
And my response is, no, it has been considered, and it’s so wrong that we don’t need to keep repeating it!
[weasel word: “considered”. citation needed. -mh]
I work on the Mystery religions, but psychedelics never show up in the academic literature about them.
[Reporter’s note: Mystery religions are secret religious groups or cults from Greco-Roman times.]
It’s very rare and if it comes up at all, it’s something like,
“There is this fringe element that talks about psychedelics but they have no evidence.”
And yet, at these psychedelics conferences, it keeps coming up again and again.
There’s a disconnect between what has been said [CITATION NEEDED!] by biblical scholars and classists, and what’s being promoted within the psychedelics community.
That forced us, then, to dig deeper:
Where does this disconnect come from?
Why is there this disjuncture?”
/ end of Hu excerpt
It’s an asymmetry:
- Affirmers publish/ write/ think/ talk about psychedelics in Western religious history.
- Deniers don’t publish/ write/ think/ talk about psychedelics in Western religious history.
In what sense is this situation a “disjuncture” or “disconnect”?
Section of the Hu Blogpost, With Commentary
- Citations needed. WHERE HAVE SCHOLARS WRITTEN skeptically about the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis? (or other variant point of dispute)
- Which specific scholars? Name names. What decade?
- WHICH SPECIFIC ARTICLES?
- WHICH SPECIFIC BOOKS?
- WHICH SPECIFIC TREATMENTS OR PHONE CALLS OR TELEGRAPH MESSAGES, CARRIER PIGEONS, SMOKE SIGNALS? ON WHAT DATE?
Same hazy bluff as academic fraud Wasson telling us to “consult” the art historians – (in 2006,) I’d love to, but you censored the single lone thing they ever wrote: (revealed in 2019:)
Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings
Brinckmann, 1906
86 pages. 5 mentions of ‘pilzbaum’; mushroom-trees.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/
“You’ve already given us some sense of this, but what do scholars make of these claims? Do they take them seriously?
“Richard Ascough: Well, one of the critiques is that perhaps classicists don’t take it seriously because we’re afraid of it.”
[We’re only asking you to take psychedelics in mystery religions seriously enough to write something, anything, on the topic – but you chicken sh*ts cannot publish anything on your taboo topic, because:
- if you publish “no psychedelics in mystery religions”, you know you are a liar and making a bad bet, and
- if you publish “psychedelics in mystery religions”, you’ll be effectively shut out and your “competent scholar” status revoked by the anything-but-drugs agenda.]
“The narrative is we’re afraid of it because it’s so radical.
[His word “repeated” implies repeating publications – but doesn’t say “publications”, b/c that would be a lie.]
Against the Wasson/ Panofsky/ Ascough BLUFF, classicists have given NO thought to psychedelics in Western religious history. No discussions, no “considered”, no telegrams, no phone conversations, nothing.
Against the Wasson/ Panofsky/ Ascough BLUFF, classicists have published NO articles or works on psychedelics in Western religious history.]
Ascough:
“Psychedelics in Mystery Religion Has Been Considered by Classicists, We Don’t Need to Keep Repeating That”
“considered” is a euph. for “not considered, and certainly not published”. Ascough tries to spin academics sticking head in sand, with a rebuttal and “need for communication” but Affirmer journal eg the Journal of Psychedelic Studies rejects Denier article, the specific article “and the Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis”
Even the title screams “look how obnoxious we are; king of the Deniers, it’s our brand”:
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience
For years the article was rejected by eg the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, and religious studies journals.
Also Ascough, in the next sentence:
“Psychedelics Are NEVER Mentioned in Academic Literature about Mystery Religions”
So what is there to repeat? Re-publish your (non-existent) articles.
It took zero effort to not write the article the first time.
What does “considered” mean? It means: We considered what happened to Allegro.
/ end of copypaste from https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/01/22/richard-ascough-on-psychedelics-in-western-religious-history/#section-of-the-hu-blogpost-with-commentary
If an Academic Writes Truth (“Psychedelics Are the Source of Religion”), They Lose Their Job & Opportunities
If an Academic Writes Falsehood (“Psychedelics Have No Role in Religion”), They Are Manifestly a Fool, and Lose Credibility
If an Academic Writes the Truth (“Psychedelics Are the Source of Religion”), They Lose Their Job & Opportunities.
If an Academic Writes a Falsehood (“Psychedelics Have at Most a Minor Role in Religions”), They Are Manifestly a Fool, and Lose Credibility, contradicted by evidence.
That’s why Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian or Hellenistic art never discuss or publish about entheogens.
That’s why the result is a confused, inconsistent, contradictory bluff and bluster, vague, no citations, non-scholarly.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art must avoid proper scholarly engagement and keep the conversation in the Pop gutter.
Bibliography
References
Footnotes
Citations
Endnotes
Evidence
Substantiation
Proof
Quotes
Citations Backing up Emma Betuel’s Claim
Citations Backing up Professor Sharborg’s Claim
Citations Backing up Professor Asscough’s Claim
Names of Bible Scholars Who Credibly Debunked Psychedelics in Western Religious History
See Also
- Deniers’ Logical Fallacies in the Pilzbaum (Mushroom Trees) Debate
- Richard Ascough on Psychedelics in Western Religious History
- Video: The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences (Mosurinjohn, Sep. 2025)
- Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Mosurinjohn & Ascough, 2025)
The Egodeath theory 