Academics re: Psychedelics in Religion Have No Credibility, only Bluster, Bias, and Fallacious Arguments, to Be Ignored and Ridiculed by Entheogen Scholars

Michael Hoffman, 6:09 pm Feb. 4, 2026

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Tree, per Academia.

Contents:

There Is Little Hope of the Anything-But-Drugs Academics Producing Anything Worth Taking Seriously by Entheogen Scholars

From the end of Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong”:

“[In addition to declaring above that we should simply ignore the mushroom elements of mushroom-trees and only respect the tree elements,] We also identified key issues that generally discredit the PMTs [Psychedelic Mushroom Theorists’] arguments.

“All these issues contribute to the PMT’s [Psychedelic Mushroom Theorists’] lack of accuracy which in turn undermines the credibility of their work.

“Until we see significant improvements in these areas there is little hope of their producing anything worth taking seriously by artist historians, religious scholars, or other academics interested in the history and use of entheogens.

Anything-But-Drugs Academics Are Liars, Dishonest, Compromised, Sellouts, Bad-Faith Arguers, Committed Skeptics

The anything-but-drugs academics Have Nothing but Bluster and Propaganda.

Wasson Is Honorary and the Leader in Chicanery Here.

Academic Deniers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art are Shady, Have Bad Character, Condone Lying by Omission, and Are Suspect of Academic Foul Play

  • The Day 3 plants have branches, so cannot mean mushrooms, but must mean trees.
    • Never mind that these “branches” look identical to mushrooms. BRAIN = DEAD. A worthless argument.
  • The Day 4 plants are trees.
    • Never mind that these “trees” have no branches and look identical to mushrooms. BRAIN = DEAD. A worthless argument.
  • Huggins’ Conclusion section: As a class, “mushroom-trees” have tree elements and mushroom elements. We can invent a rule (without providing justification) that says “IF a mushroom-tree has mushroom elements, ignore the mushroom elements, and only pay attention to the tree elements.”
    • BRAIN = DEAD. A worthless argument.
    • “If the tree has mushroom elements” – but this is always the case, for all instances of the class, “trees that have mushroom elements and tree elements”.
    • This arbitrary rule, with no justification provided for the pro-tree, anti-mushroom bias, is a blanket statement that for all mushroom-trees, ignore the mushroom elements.

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

“8. Conclusion

“The PMT’s [Psychedelic Mushroom Theorists’] fanciful interpretations have provided us with an opportunity in this article to reflect in a positive way, using as our entry point one of the most exquisite 13th century examples [ie. the Great Canterbury Psalter], upon the range of artistic solutions to the problem of illustrating the hexameron [6 days of creation] in the 11th–13th centuries, and especially the third day of creation (Genesis 1:9–13).

“The imagery of the third-day scene specifically features the creation of trees, making way for us to explore how stylized trees were commonly approached by the artists of the period.

[Ans: trees were depicted via {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs. -mh]

“Trees, being peripheral to the more central features of medieval iconography, are not often discussed by art historians.

“A noted [ie, censored by Wasson] exception is Albert Erich Brinckmann’s Baumstilisierungen in der mittelalterlichen Malerei (1906), a work [censored by Wasson 1968 p. 180, top, at “. . . .”] recommended by Panofsky in his letters [multiple Panofsky letters?! censored by Wasson!] to Wasson back in 1952 [but not revealed to scholars until the Browns’ 2019 article.-mh].”

/ end of Conclusion excerpt from Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong”

Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong” fails to credit and cite Browns’ 2019 article (the first publication of the two Panofsky letters) and helpfully link to the article; Huggins only cites the Browns’ 2016 book.

Huggins says nothing about the delayed-by-67-years, 2019 initial publication of the two Panofsky letters. Huggins only cites the goddamn DRAWER(!) at Harvard, unhelpfully.

Since 2006, I NEEDED to see Panofsky’s censored argument about branches, which Huggins nonchalantly repeats, as if egregious censorship and academic obstruction by Wasson had not taken place.

Had I read Panofsky’s ultimate argument, about branches, in 2006 (in the 1968 book SOMA), I would have developed sooner than 2020, my interpretation and recognition of integrated {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

See the below section, “1997 Core Theory & Egodeath Yahoo Group Post #1 (2001) Contrasts “Branching vs. Non-Branching” Universe Models in Physics, Connected to Myth and Mythic Art in 2011-2022“.

Huggins’ gives apologetics claiming that Wasson’s denial of mushroom imagery in Christian art is excusable, because it didn’t prevent Irvin from publishing.

Wasson’s deceitful academic obstructionism set me back by 2020-2006 = 14 years.

We should have been allowed to read Panofsky’s “branching” argument in 2006 or 1968 – not delayed to 2019 and then nonchalantly referenced by Huggins in 2024, suddenly materializing the Panofsky letter out of thin air, as if scholars have had & known about the letter since 1952.

Huggins’ out-of-nowhere citing of Brinckmann, and Huggins’ citing the branching argument in the 2nd(!) Panofsky letter, stinks of foul play by the deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

How can Huggins 2024 not be aware of the 2019 article publishing the citation and both letters?

It is an omission and flaw of the Foraging Wrong article, to fail to cite and credit Browns 2019. Suspect of deliberate omission, to impede scholars from leveraging the Panofsky letters and to hide the egregious censorship by Wasson, on the Deniers side.

I hold Ronald Huggins personally responsible for the academic sins of Wasson, here, because Huggins should acknowledge & condemn that censorship, rather than condoning and covering-up such foul play, on his side of the debate.

  • Medieval art historians never think or write about trees, because trees are merely incidental. A” noted” exception is Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906) https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/.
    • Brinckmann’s book is SO “noted”, that Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson entirely censored this strongly urged citation from Panofsky, but Huggins doesn’t mention that situation.
    • Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are SHADY and SUSPECT of academic FOUL PLAY.
  • See the drawer at Harvard containing the two Panofsky letters censored by Wasson.
    • But don’t cite and link to Browns 2019 article which first published the letters.
    • And don’t mention Wasson’s chicanery, conflict of interest as banker for the pope, and Wasson censoring key, relevant academic content: Brinckmann’s 1906 book, the two Panofsky letters, and Panofsky’s two attached art pieces showing “emphatic mushroom shapes”.
    • Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are SHADY and SUSPECT of academic FOUL PLAY.
    • The “little” book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906) only mentions pilzbaum 5 times, and does not make the case that Panofsky claims the book makes.
      • Against Panofsky, Brinckmann 1906 does not 1) lay out mushroom-trees by century, 2) trace the development over time from umbrella pine to “emphatic mushroom shape”, and then 3) argue that the gradualness of development from pine to mushroom proves that the end result, “emphatic mushroom shape”, is unintentional.
      • Panofsky’s argument is brain-dead and totally arbitrary; DOES NOT FOLLOW. The alleged steady morphing from pine to mushroom over time, in no way is evidence that the mushroom shape was unintentional and doesn’t mean mushrooms. I argue the reverse: The consistent shifting from (alleged) umbrella pine shape to mushroom shape, is evidence that the mushroom shape is intentional.
      • Browns’ article in 2019, by publishing both Panofsky letters (sans 2 attached art pieces), proved and confirmed my 2006 accusation in Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita, that Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson must have censored citations from Panofsky, citations that Panofsky would certainly have had to provide to back up his claim that art historians have “considered” mushroom-trees, and that the publications cited by Panofsky are weak treatments of mushroom imagery in Christian art, and don’t really support the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
  • Rely on and repeat Panofsky’s ultimate objection, that branches on mushroom-trees need to be explained.
    • But don’t mention that Wasson censored this argumentation from Panofsky in SOMA 1968.
    • Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are SHADY and SUSPECT of academic FOUL PLAY.

1997 Core Theory & Egodeath Yahoo Group Post #1 (2001) Contrasts “Branching vs. Non-Branching” Universe Models in Physics, Connected to Myth and Mythic Art in 2011-2022

In 2001 at start of Egodeath Yahoo Group (Message #1, June 10, 2001, composed at Principia Cybernetica website in Feb. 1997), I posted about branching manyworlds quantum physics vs. non-branching block-universe (Minkowski, Relativity) containing frozen worldlines, in the context of Physics, not in myth or mythic art motifs.

Find “branching” in that archive page of the first 50 posts: 8 hits; 5 passages:

  • “Even if the time axis is warped, relative, or branching, and there are more than 3 dimensions of space, one can coherently and usefully frame the experienced world as an ultimately unchanging, 4-dimensional spacetime block.
  • “Time, change, flexibility, variability, and movement are all fixed at all points along the time axis or branching axes.
  •  “Forking futures and multiple branching universes is unnecessarily complicated.
  • “Multiple universes considers the future open in the sense of forever branching. Perhaps each branch preexists – the book The End of Time seems to take this position.
  • “I endorse simplicity as a principle for choosing between metaphysical systems, and I maintain that the single-future, non-branching block universe is simpler than the branching-future multiverse.”

Around 2010, while on hiatus from public Egodeath theory development, I walked the mushroom forest paths daily, and wondered if {branching vs. non-branching} is prominent in myth.

Every November, I made deeper breakthroughs confirming that {branching vs. non-branching} is prominent in myth, for several years around 2011-2013.

I failed to perceive in my 2006-2007 main article’s art images, the {branching & non-branching} motifs, until around 2022 — even though I articulated branching vs. non-branching in Physics in Self-control Cybernetics, Dissociative Cognition, & Mystic Ego Death (1997 core theory spec) (Hoffman, 1997) https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/30/self-control-cybernetics-dissociative-cognition-mystic-ego-death/.

It took me 2022-1997 = 25 years to hook up from branching vs. non-branching in Physics, to branching vs. non-branching in the art pieces in my 2007 main article.

A key discovery or confirmation was in Nov. 2013, confirming the emphasis on {branching vs. non-branching} motifs in Greek & Christian art.

Yet it took from 2013 to 2022 (9 years) to recognize the {branching vs. non-branching} motif in the art pieces in my 2007 main article:

The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death (Hoffman, 2007 main article) http://egodeath.com/EntheogenTheoryOfReligion.htm & https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/the-entheogen-theory-of-religion-and-ego-death-2006-main-article/

Panofsky Repeatedly, Strongly Urges the Brinckmann 1906 Citation, But Wasson Censors It Out, Committing Academic Fraud and Obstructionism

The Forced, Mandatory Profession of Faith and Doctrinal Commitment Allegiance by Anything-But-Drugs Academics

“Chanting, breath techniques, dancing, rhythmic driving, cave contemplation, mortifying the flesh, and anything you can think of, can/ could/ might/ may produce the same effect as 10g of psilocybin mushrooms.”

(So, No Psychedelics in Western Religious History.)

The above statement must be ritually repeated.

The power of that statement or argument is so weak, the statement must be ritually repeated in EVERY video interview; in EVERY article (all 3 of them in the past 100 years, by academia).

Are we supposed to give academics a medal, for parrotting this obligatory line, that couldn’t be more tired?

The academic/naysayer tries to falsely elevate methods that don’t work sufficiently to cause transformation of the mental model from possibilism to eternalism, by the false-equivalence fallacy:

  • 10g of psilocybin mushrooms “can” cause transformation of the mental model from possibilism to eternalism.
  • hyperventilating “can” cause transformation of the mental model from possibilism to eternalism.

Compare:

  • You “can” withdraw $20 from the bank.
  • You “can” win a million dollars at the casino.

The word “can” is used in both statements, which seems to make them EQUALLY likely. But “can” in one instance is ~0% likely, and other, ~100% likely.

It’s a cheap illusion, abusing the word “can” to falsely elevate non-drug entheogens to the same efficacy as psychedelics.

“non-drug entheogenic practices” term is from Wouter Hanegraaff, cheered on by Erik Davis, who would NEVER ruin and wreck Davis’ pet word ‘psychedelics” that way.

Erik, I noticed that you applaud Wouter Hanegraaff claiming — based on fallacious argument-from-etymology — that “entheogen” means anything, everything, nothing – and that you do NOT condone ruining and cheapening your word ‘psychedelics’ this way.

Erik Davis would laugh and mock the proposal of “non-drug psychedelics”, yet he applauds Wouter Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens, or “entheogenic practices”.

Who is Hanegraaff trying to appease by this tired, worn-out declamation, “There are many non-psychedelic ways that can/ could/ might/ may produce the same effect as a 10-strip of blotter”.

Please demonstrate, Hanegraaff.

“can” is a misleading, deceptive euphemism for “doesn’t”.

Everything such academics say re: psychedelics, is anything-but-drugs academic propaganda.

Academia Can’t Even Accept Non-Drug Ecstatic States, Much Less Psychedelics as the Source of Religion

Every academic is required to put that statement in every (rare) statement they make in rebuttal of the too-popular book The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020.

The character of committed-skeptic anything-but-drugs agenda after The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020, has changed a little.

The Psychedelic Mysteries Paradigm, Against “the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis” (an Alien, Hostile, Biased-Lexicon Term)

Academia can no longer simply ignore “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis” (Professor Richard Ascough’s phrase). In retort against him, I say nay,

the psychedelic mysteries paradigm
pmp

Dirty-arguing, biased academics (Deniers), try to make affirmers operate in a bad, non-paradigm framework, biased, where they are guaranteed to lose.

“There is no chemical evidence at Eleusis in the cups we washed out; and no other evidence counts, because we arb’ly say so, b/c shutting out and washing away the evidence benefits our false position. You affirmers are required to operate in our bunk frame, where you automatically lose. Using our criteria; our goals; our agenda.”

Ritually Repeat for the Zillionth Time: “Against the Enthusiasts, We Must Remember that Psychedelics Are Not the Only Way to Produce an Altered State; the Traditional, Non-Drug Methods of the Mystics

the traditional, non-drug methods of the mystics
tndmm

Per the Hoffman Uncertainty Principle, we cannot know what an academic believes; we can only know what they publicly claim to believe when their position is pressed and probed.

Normally, academics cannot say anything about the topic of psychedelics in Western religious history.

If an academic affirms psychedelics in Western religious history, the academic is attacking their own gang, and they lose opportunities.

If an academic denies psychedelics in Western religious history, the academic shows that they have no credibility; they lose credibility and cannot be taken seriously.

Naming the Parties & Positions: Deniers vs. Affirmers; Academics vs. Entheogen Scholars; Art Historians vs. Mycologists

The position-names or parties per Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson’s 1968 book SOMA:

  • “Mycologists” = affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art & psychedelics in Western religious history.
  • “The art world” = “art historians” = deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art & psychedelics in Western religious history. Naysayers. Debunkers.

Not All Academics. The anything-but-drugs academia agenda.

Wasson was not an academic, yet on the topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art, Wasson sets the pace for fraud, lying, censorship, and world’s record conflict of interest as banker for the pope, trust me when I pressure and harangue and bullsh!t you:

“No psychedelics in Western religious history. Those hundreds of mushroom trees mean trees, not mushrooms; we know, because the art authorities say so, in their non-writings avoiding the topic.”

See SOMA p. 180, below, in which Wasson berates affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art for not “consulting the art world” (whatever the hell non-scholarly action that’s supposed to mean), while in the same paragraph, duplicitously censoring the extremely strongly urged by Panofsky, citation of Brinckmann’s “little” book.

Fittingly, Huggins treats Wasson as if he’s on the up-and-up, while Huggins whips out of nowhere – not crediting Browns 2019 – the Brinckmann citation and both of the censored, secret letters from Panofsky to Wasson in 1952.

I accuse Huggins of condoning academic fraud by Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, on his side of the arguers.

What’s wrong with Huggins that he fails to credit Browns 2019, but instead cites a damned DRAWER at Harvard, uselessly?

Thanks for not helping entheogen scholars check references.

Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906) https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/

Intro

Full Title of this Article

Anything-But-Drugs Academics re: Psychedelics in Western Religious History Have No Credibility, only Bluff, Bluster, Bias, Prejudice, Fallacious Arguments, and Errors, Deserving Ignoring and Ridicule, as Entheogen Scholarship Continues to Make Progress

cut words:

Academics re: Psychedelics in Religion Have No Credibility, only Bluster, Bias, and Fallacious Arguments, to Be Ignored and Ridiculed by Entheogen Scholars

Names of Bible Scholars Who Non-Credibly “Debunked” Psychedelics in Western Religious History

  • Hatsis: Psychoactives are throughout Western religious history. Except for mushrooms (which is identical with Secret Christian Amanita Cult). See his articles online somewhere at his defunct site that’s not at Archive.
  • Panofsky 1952 based on his interpretation of Brinckmann 1906 who shows that over time, trees in medieval art develop into emphatic mushroom shapes, proving that the development must have been unintentional.
  • Panofsky 1952 pointed out that there are too many mushroom-trees for them to mean mushrooms.
  • Ronald Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article, which concludes: mushroom-trees have mushroom elements and tree elements, therefore must be trees and cannot mean mushrooms. Day 3 plants have branches, therefore cannot mean mushrooms.

Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest (Huggins, 2024)

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

Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024), https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/11/23/huggins-foraging-psychedelic-mushrooms-wrong-forest/ & https://www.academia.edu/118659519/Foraging_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_the_Wrong_Forest_The_Great_Canterbury_Psalter_as_a_Medieval_Test_Case

eg Day 3 panel’s plant two has branches, therefore must mean tree and cannot mean mushrooms:

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Fourth Day of Creation, Plants

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 4, 2025

Day 4 plants fail to be mushroom-trees, so they don’t count.

Site Map > Ronald Huggins
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Ronald-Huggins

So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Been debunked, many times since 90 years ago.

Scholars are tired of having to repeatedly debunk psychedelics as the engine of religions, with this level of compelling thoroughness.

Credibility Check of Anything-But-Drugs Academics: Huggins Calls this Explicit, Botanically Accurate Mushroom a “Tree”

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 2025. Plant 3 in Day 4 Panel, Great Canterbury Psalter

Showing Academia’s Extreme Degree of Denial, Bias, and Prejudice: Brazen Cover-Up Operatives for Hire

Huggins ends his Foraging Wrong

Huggins Designates the 4 Branch-Free Mushrooms in Day 4 Panel as “Trees”, without Providing any Justification

from “Foraging Wrong”:

“The GCP artist does not however depict seed-bearing herbs in the [Day 3] scene, but waits to include them in the fourth-day scene, which is otherwise dedicated to the creation of the sun and moon (Fig 22 [shows Day 3 & 4]).74 Having details left out of third-day scenes but included on the fourth day also occurs elsewhere, as for example in the Acre Bible”

— no mention of the four branch-free mushrooms in Day 4

“The GCP artist does not however depict seed-bearing herbs in the scene, but waits to include them in the fourth-day scene, which is otherwise dedicated to the creation of the sun and moon (Fig 22).74 Having details left out of third-day scenes but included on the fourth day also occurs elsewhere, as for example in the Acre Bible”

— no mention of the four branch-free mushrooms in Day 4

Huggins Nonsensically Writes “Trees in the Fourth-Day Scene” (Has Four Non-Branching Mushrooms and Five Wispy YI Plants)

p. 22:

“74  The artist also shows little interest in depicting the same trees in both the third- and fourth day scenes.”

“Since Genesis 1:11 focuses on trees and plants containing seeds,75 a third-day image might represent all trees, as in the GCP,76 or a mix of trees and plants, or even something as simple as stand of grain (Fig. 24).77“

“76 This seems to be the case because we find them[sic – trees? but – no branches!] mixed with smaller plants in the subsequent scene, which represents the fourth creation day, as well as in another scene later (fol. 6v [https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f22.item.zoom = mushroom mountain]).”

Day 3 = row 1 col 3 https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom
Day 4 = row 2 col 1 https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom

p. 26 shows Day 4 isolated, w/ caption:
“Fig. 31: Great Canterbury Psalter, fol. 1r (detail); The Creation of the Sun and Moon.”

— no mention of the four branch-free mushrooms in Day 4

Huggins Says Mushroom Trees Have Branches, but then Calls Day 4’s 4 Branch-Free Mushrooms “Trees”

See quotes from Foraging Wrong above.

f11 row 2 left: Day 4 of Creation: four pilzbaum without branches, & plants (Bible: Sun, moon, & stars)

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 4, 2025

Features:

  • thumb against open book = eternalism-thinking – mentioned this decoding a few days before today; today is Feb. 5, 2026.
  • R hand pinkie & ring visually cut the middle & index fingers. figured out a few days ago, not sure I logged this decoding, b/c overwhelmed with jackpot of too many discoveries too quickly, with this week’s jackpot week: hand-shape theory. today is Feb. 5, 2026.
  • Hand-Shape Theory. I declared Tue., Feb. 3, 2026 the official representative day for peak breakthrough of hand-shape theory.

Copied the above to page:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2021/01/04/log-of-discoveries-achievements/#Feb-3-2026-Hand-Shape-Theory

Fourth Day of Creation, Branchless Mushrooms Called “Trees” by Huggins

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 4, 2025

This is the garbled analysis from Huggins:

  • Day 3 must mean trees not mushrooms, because they have branches. [But the branches look identical to mushrooms. -mh]
  • Day 4 shows trees. [But they have no branches, and look identical to mushrooms. -mh]

This is garbled argumentation from a biased writer.

Huggins has no justification for labelling Day 4 as trees instead of mushrooms, given that they have – against his strong statement in the article – no traces of ramification.

Huggins can’t define a coherent set or scope, “trees that have mushroom elements and tree elements”.

Huggins provides no jusification for ignoring the mushroom elements and exclusively paying attention to the tree elements.

By definition, the trees in question are the mushroom-trees, ie, trees that have both mushroom elements and tree elements.

The presence of tree elements does not cause the mushroom elements to go away, and vice versa.

Not limited to an entire plant having to match the shape of 1 whole mushroom.

Mushroom elements, not “does the whole plant match a photo of 1 whole mushroom?”

Academia Has No Credibility, Been Exposed as Committed Skeptics Shifting from Possibility (“no evidence of the type we washed away”) to Fact “No Psychedelics in Mystery Religion; Debunked Ruck, Multiple Times” (No Citations Given)

The anything-but-drugs academics’ un-desired but easy-to-defend Motte position:
oh we just merely mean that we debunked the pop story that Ruck has evidence (of the particular kind we carefully washed away the dirt) (there’s no chemical evidence, you fools making stuff up)

The anything-but-drugs academics’ desired, aggressive, but indefensible Bailey position:
“debunked Muraresku & Rogan & Ruck!”.
“There were no psychedelics in mystery religions/ Western religious history.”
“We academics have considered the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis many times [and wrote about it zero times; no citations available].”

motte: “we merely caught them shifting possibility to as if fact”

There were no psychedelics in mystery religion. – Mosurinjohn & Ascough as if fact.

Also Mosurinjohn & Ascough:

We don’t know if there were psychedelics in mystery religion.

(Mosurinjohn & Ascough do not relish the above line of thinking with passion; making this point is a token gesture only.)

Sharday Mosurinjohn Has Fully Discredited the Academia Borg, which is All Dance Moves Bad Faith Fallacies Committed Skeptic Wedded to the the anything-but-drugs agenda propaganda pre-set commitment to psychedelics-diminishing framing/ paradigm

THE ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS AGENDA FIRM COMMITMENT TO BATTLING AGAINST THE POWER OF PSYCHEDELICS.

Sharday Mosurinjohn Reveals the sordid truth – she reveals:

  • the agenda-driven anti-psychedelics bias.
  • the anything-but-drugs agenda.
  • anything-but-drugs academics.
  • the anything-but-drugs academia agenda.
  • anything-but-drugs academic propaganda. abdap
  • anything-but-drugs apologists. abdapl

Academics sold out their credibility on the topic of psychedelics in mystery religions.

Yet the anything-but-drugs academics have the nerve to dismiss wholesale, entheogen scholars.

The ones short on credibility are anything-but-drugs academics, not entheogen scholars.

Anything-But-Drugs Phrases

keyboard shortcuts = key concepts

anything-but-drugs
abd

anything-but-drugs academics
abda

anything-but-drugs academia
abdaa

anything-but-drugs academia agenda
abdaag

anything-but-drugs academic dogma
abdad

anything-but-drugs agenda
abdag

anything-but-drugs academic propaganda
abdap

anything-but-drugs apologist
abdapl

anything-but-drugs apologetics
abdapl

anything-but-drugs apologetics
abdaps

anything-but-drugs propagandists for hire
abdph

anything-but-drugs propaganda
abdp

the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia
abdfoo
whittle down per context each use

Psychedelic Religion Is the Gold Standard Reference for Authentic Religion

Official Egodeath Theory Main Mission: Assert that.

Scholars talk about entheogen scholars who are extreme.

I am more extreme than anyone else; my only competitor is Evil Future Me slipping a toe or giant foot in the gap I leave.

“You gotta admit: the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics.”
The only method of the mystics is psychedelics.

“Be reasonable: not all religion is psychedelic.”
The only real religion is psychedelic. Religion comes from none other than psychedelics.

Psychedelic Religion Is the Standard for any Brand of Mystic Religion and Transcendent Knowledge

Religion Comes from None Other than Psychedelics

The Engine of the Mystery Religions Is Psychedelics

They Preferred Psilocybin as the Gold Reference Standard.

my 2004 Egodeath Yahoo Group post (8 years before Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff’s keynote/article) titled “entheogenic esotericism”: hardcore statement that only psychedelics, none other than psychedelics, are THE engine of mystery religion.

Not the made-up B S cowtow toe-the-line fervent proclamation by every idiot academic:

“Other ways, traditional methods of the mystics, CAN/ COULD/ MIGHT/ MAY produce same control transformation effect as 10 sessions of 10g of Psilocybin mushrooms eg Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Panaeolus.”

Day 3: Creation of Plants (Great Canterbury Psalter), Showing Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, and Amanita Mushroom-Trees

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 29, 2026
fullscreen

Hanegraaff’s Non-Drug Entheogens from Hell, Preserving Possibilism-Thinking without Adding Eternalism-Thinking

From a scholar who presents in a thick expensive book, a purported model of the cosmos for astral ascent mysticism, that cannot even figure out which sphere # (ans: 8, it’s a trivial elementary given) the fixed stars go in.

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity (Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022) https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/07/14/hermetic-spirituality-and-the-historical-imagination-altered-states-of-knowledge-in-late-antiquity-hanegraaff/ & https://www.amazon.com/Hermetic-Spirituality-Historical-Imagination-Knowledge/dp/1009123068/

If Erik Davis & Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff and even Carl Ruck want to redefine the word ‘entheogens’ to mean not entheogens, f*ck them; then I am saying ‘psychedelics’ instead of their ruined, tainted, weakened, SOLD-OUT term ‘entheogens’.

Thanks for one more reason not to say entheogens but convenient: psychedelics in religious pov;

A tilt away from ‘entheogen’ to ‘psychedelic’

Anything you can think of meets the criteria for being entheogenic – watered down to mean anything thus nothing. Live podcast: light bulb, oven, gas engine – all of them readily meet the stringent criteria for entheogenic practices.

Erik Davis tosses away ‘entheogen’ valueless word to Hanegraaff.

Erik Davis does not advocate non-drug psychedelics,
Davis advocates non-drug entheogens.

The religious dimension of psychedelics = entheogens, religion-psychedelics

psychedelic religion is the only real religion

non-psychedelic religion is false and retains only possibilism-thinking not adult eternalism-thinking. stunted.

There are only two types of religion:

  • psychedelic religion specifically psychedelic eternalism religion
  • stunted pseudo-religion

Psychedelic Eternalism Is the Highest Form of Religion: The Medieval Art Genre of {mushroom-trees}

Your theory brand of Transcendent Knowledge is not valid unless:

The only correct brand of Transcendent Knowledge must have:

  • psychedelics
  • eternalism

the psychedelic eternalism theory

the theory of psychedelic eternalism

transcendent possibilism

joke was?

Only Psychedelic Eternalism Is Real Religion

Cybermonk’s Extreme Egodeath Theory Position Beyond the Pale

Psychedelics Are the Only Way to Be Saved

From Freewill, to Determinism, to Existing-Future Eternalism

Atheists Believe in Weak Determinism as if Opposite of freewill thinking

The opposite of freewill thinking is not domino-chain determinism that will eventually create the future.
Opposite of freewill is not about separation & unity, that kind of Unitive paradigm (of purposes, measures, standard of ref’c)

The opposite of freewill thinking is

  • 4-D block universe
  • block-universe eternalism
  • absolute four-dimensional spacetime​ – IM GOIN W PETKOV HERE against wimpy misnamed, haze-headed “relativity”. i always felt something off w/ Ein’s descriptions / framing. I want Petkov-Minkowski framing;
  • Minkowski absolute spacetime emphasis framing per Petkov
    against
    Einstein spacetime relativity emphasis framing
  • Block-Universe Mysticism
  • Quantum Manyworlds Physics.

quantum branching universe – dangling ‘quantum’ ; manyworlsd

manyworlds branching universe
mbu
the branching possible manyworlds universe possibilism

block-universe, non-branching, eternalism
branching possibilities, possible, manyworlds

presentism, possibilism, eternalism non-branching {snake frozen in rock} future already exists, u can’t change it, cast in stone before born, king turned to stone frozen saw snake carved in rock

lift the lid to see from vantage point outside the system personal control system

see and see from the eternalism level

perceive from pov of eternalism

see via the eternalism POV

retain & use the possibilism POV

Psilocybin Is the Reference Standard for Testing Brands of Transcendent Knowledge

Can’t claim guar; god willing. I got my handle hat on, reminding, control thoughts always remember are consciously occur embed frozen spacetime block control-thought anytenna, i tune in to will of god puppetmaster little doll is you

Michael Hoffman

branching possible manyworldsbranching possible manyworlds

RGood Brand of Transcendent Knowledge, the Egodeath Theory Psychedelic Leveraging

add the mature psychedelic eternalism, psychedelic-certified psychotomimetic divine madness mania fury pulled up by the god to the banquet and made to take x cups rounds of mixed wine at banquet brought by the god

Personal Cosmopolitan Hellenistic Savior Religions Salvation

savior religions personal salvation supposedly = mystery religions,

hellenistic era scattering of individuals need cosmopol mystery religion intiation like the

the mushroom tree guild of artists initiation lockbox cubensis communal table of {stand on right foot} training, the two world models, tree, snake, … no snake 1 serp snake on pole.

the Mytheme theory

from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake frozen in rock}
k w s – king, wine, snake

anything-but-drugs
abd

anything-but-drugs academics
abda

anything-but-drugs academia
abdaa

the anything-but-drugs agenda
abdag

txt msg to AM [8:39 pm Feb. 3, 2026]

The rebis is holding the Y in his branching fingers & non-branching thumb.

Knowing & employing both models of time & control (possibilism & eternalism) enables the rebis to hold the Y, which has a non-branching stem below, + a branching V on top.

2 POVs Married: End Up Permanently Having Two Vantage Points of View, Across Both States of Consciousness

Crop by Michael Hoffman

von Trimberg: Pair of Hands of Figure 1 King Holds Scepter in Thumb and Fingers

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 3, 2026

Index finger = I vs. 3 fingers; splayed.

Leopard-watering Bowl as Amanita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiasus
“Triumph of Dionysus on a fragmentary Roman mosaic (3rd century, Sousse Archaeological Museum)“
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Triumph_of_Bacchus_-_Sousse.jpg

Thiasus – Triumph of Dionysus on a fragmentary Roman mosaic (3rd century, Sousse Archaeological Museum)

Photo: Michael Hoffman, 10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010, IMG_1971 my chalice Amanita crop.JPG
Photo by Michael Hoffman (ego death),
10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010

txt msg to AM [8:17 pm Feb. 3, 2026]

even ignoring all my refinements 1988-2026, the “instant effortless” way took me at least 2 years of intensive theory-construction 

resent that being called “instant effortless”; more like – to close the circle – my hand-shape theory, cinched/ clinched today, took 

1985-2026= 41 years of autism-attack to accomplish

_____

hand-shape theory “closes the circle” because it is so extremely simple: use 10 fingers/thumbs shapes to depict 2 mental models: 

1) possibilism = branching shape eg Y (index finger or thumb splayed)

2) eternalism = non-branching shape = I 

3) integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking = both branching & non-branching, eg IY 

theory of art: complete.  elegant.  part 3 (achieve harmony between possibilism “vs” eternalism) was the hardest work, April-Aug 2025, 

Church elder invited/ challenged me to stop trashing “freewill / possibilism delusion”, to tell a harmonious framing to the sgc church. 

It was a fundamental deep rethink.

Now hand-shape theory reveals that the artist initiation guild reached same philosophy:

The goal is YI hand, affirming BOTH branching fingrrs AND non-branching thumb. 

Elegant; complete; mature; Wm James pragmatism-approved though he hated block-universe eternalism alone.

true, as James says: our experience is mainly branching, “revealed metaphysics” be damned.  

Max Freakout and I reached the same conclusion & making the same push: 

need a PURE COGNITIVE PHENOMENOLOGY approach, not armchair academic epist, metaph, or ontology. 

No neurobaloney reductionism-away of the “cognitive”.

I did a form of harmonizing possibilism branching (FALSE!! trashcan!) with eternalism non-branching 

I advocate against branching manyworlds physics.

I advocate Minkowski (“/Einstein”) absolute four-dimensional spacetime​ (since 1988).

In terms of pure cognitive phenomenology, the mind harmonizes possibilism & eternalism. 

I’m right, so I am spoiled by confirmation:

Physics accepts non-branching eternalism as routinely standard (established), while branching manyworlds possibilism is mere conjecture/ speculation.  

What saved me in 2025, to be able to harmonize “deluded” branching possibilism with the “truth” of non-branching eternalism, was two art images:

 (prior to this week’s hand-shapes ✋ strong affirmation of glorious, elegant whole-hand YI , instead of “Y sucks, I is truth”🤚 ):

1) rebis w male head & female head; Rick helped re-find that image of rebis holding a Y

2) Roman antiquity (3rd Century) mosaic of Dionysus & Ariadne, wedding, she holds branch in Left hand; he holds straight spear in Right hand.  5 mushroom hem tigers + Amanita leopard watering bowl & mushroom grape clusters in vines.

txt msg to AM [7:45 pm Feb. 3, 2026]

The alleged “other methods”, the purported “non-drug methods of the mystics”, are not sufficient ways to produce the alt-state, but as activities to do within & direct the plant-produced alt-state.

A big false dichotomy, false dilemma: rare articles point this out: 

Which one?  “instant effortless pill, or recurring, sustained effort?”

A rare article points out: 

“What about effortful use of pill, recurring, eventually producing transformation?” 

AM replied:

“False dichotomy seems to be the starting point for a ton of dubious scholarship.”

txt msg to AM [1:23 Feb. 3, 2026]

re:
Debunking the psychedelic theory of the Eleusinian Mysteries
Henry Winslow, Sep. 2025
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/henrywins_what-do-joe-rogan-a-freshly-minted-neoshaman-activity-7361038406467948546-63ak

Where is the “thorough takedown” and “systematically dismantle”??

Does Winslow (the Pop pot calling the Pop kettle “black”) merely mean that Mosurinjohn & Ascough show “there’s no evidence”? 

How does “no evidence” (even were it true) flip and become “thorough takedown”?

Answer: “No evidence for X” does not become “Disproved X.”

This is a Motte-and-Bailey flip-flop.

The undesired, though defensible (no one disputes) Motte position:

“I’m merely pointing out that there is no chemical evidence in the Eleusis vessels” (because we foolishly washed the “dirt” away, and now have the audacity to omit that fact while crowing “No evidence!”)

The desired but indefensible Bailey aggressive position:

“There’s definitely no psychedelics in mystery religions.”

Debunking the psychedelic theory of the Eleusinian Mysteries
Henry Winslow
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/henrywins_what-do-joe-rogan-a-freshly-minted-neoshaman-activity-7361038406467948546-63ak

txt msg to AM [1:18 Feb. 3, 2026]

i remember my other good hypocrite/ projection example:

Mosurinjohn & Ascough sneer and snicker at the popular-audience spreading of the maximal entheogen theory of religion:

“Why don’t scholarly academic journals communicate their debunking of maximal entheogen theory of religion that they’ve published many times and have never published?”  

They can’t write “published”, so they employ weasel words: “considered”, “consult”.

Yet Mosurinjohn & Ascough are going around on non-scholarly podcasts – who don’t know to say “wheres the goddamn citations?!, u r empty bluster!”  where the pop audience laps up their swill, “Ruck’s been debunked, many times!  Definitely no psychedelics in Western religious history!” [no citations provided]  

so the pop non scholars now instead of parrotting “psychedelics are THE source of religions”, now Mosurinjohn & Ascough re-steer the pop audience to parrot:

“the maximal entheogen theory of religion’s been debunked, many times!” 🦜

txt msg to AM [12:27 Feb. 3, 2026]

for UI good luck at library etc: turn phone between landscape & portrait orientation 

Responsive Web Design is based on width of viewport (window)

text msg to AM [12:12 Feb. 3, 2026]

combination from hell: naysayer anything-but-drugs academics:

* wrong/incorrect

* smug, insulting, snickering, disrespectful attitude (a bluff)

* vague: “been considered” ? citations needed; “we dont need to keep repeating it how many times”: what is “IT”; citation fkking needed! 

Mosurinjohn & Ascough do lots of projection: 

THEY shift possibility into fact;

THEY refuse to publish any mention of the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis, then crow about their many rebuttals and disproofs (ie, none; but, they cursory cite

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

which contains zero valid arg’n

i get it: anything-but-drugs academia has no arguments, just bluster

text msg to AM [8:26 pm Feb. 2, 2026]

psychedelics in Buddhism has been considered by academic scholars, and it’s so wrong that we dont need to keep repeating it, how many times?!

[ie: Wasson-level bluff and bluster, using vague language, insults, psy op, banker for the pope – above all, no citations provided]

Weasel Words by Deniers: ‘Considered’ or ‘Consult’, Instead of Proper Scholarly and Specific ‘Wrote’, ‘Published’, or ‘Citation’

“I was impressed by the celerity with which trained-dog academics parrotted their paid line: No mushroom imagery in Christian art; no psychedelics in mystery religions.” – Wasson, Letcher, etc, arguing in a non-scholarly mode.

Shut up your pope-paid anti-scholarly propaganda, Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, and give us the goddamn Brinckmann citation and two art pieces, “emphatic mushroom shape” from Panofsky, you fraud and con artist.

Why pay any attention to biased, proven-fraudulent academics, who are masters of junk, fallacious arg’n? Reverse Huggins’ declaration at the end of Foraging Wrong:

[In addition to the entirely unjustified ignoring of mushroom elements, favoring only the tree elements, above,]

“We also identified key issues that generally discredit the PMTs [Psychedelic Mushroom Theorists’] arguments, most notably

  • (1) their lack of supportive evidence from texts,
    [text is b.s. – the mushroom-tree artists don’t care about texts; they care about artist initiation guild -mh]
  • (2) their tendency to press similarities and ignore differences,
    (3) their multiple errors stemming from a lack of familiarity with the iconography and the texts underpinning the images they seek to interpret, and
  • (4) their dismissive attitude toward art historians like Panofsky.

[Panofsky deserves attention and ignoring.

But Huggins, how do we avoid dismissing Panofsky, when Wasson deceptively withheld most of the arg’n from Panofsky?

Wasson disrespected Panofsky, in censoring him.

Panofsky’s two letters and two art pieces attached, were heavily censored by Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson.

Huggins FAILED to credit Browns for exposing liar Wasson.

Huggins fails to point out Wasson’s deceptive censorship re: mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Huggins is an arm/ operative of the cabal-of-liars.

Academics have no credibility, and need to be ignored, mocked, and ridiculed.

-mh]

“All these issues contribute to the PMT’s [Psychedelic Mushroom Theorists’] lack of accuracy which in turn undermines the credibility of their work.”

[Academics, more than entheogen scholars, have a severe lack of credibility. -mh]

“Until we see significant improvements in these areas there is little hope of their producing anything worth taking seriously by artist historians, religious scholars, or other academics interested in the history and use of entheogens.”

There Is Little Hope of Academics Producing Anything Worth Taking Seriously by Entheogen Scholars

This is a DIVORCE.

Anything-but-drugs academics have NO CREDIBILITY.

Anything-but-drugs academics are COMMITTED SKEPTICS who go SO FAR as to:

  • arb’ly label a mushroom as a “tree”. Day 4 plant 3, Great Canterbury Psalter.
  • say “This tree can’t mean mushroom, because it has branches.
    [That are identical to mushrooms. -mh]
  • arb’ly say: “Mushroom-trees by definition have tree and mushroom elements, and the mushroom elements are to be ignored in favor of the tree elements.”

My conclusion:

Until we see significant improvements in these areas, there is little hope of the anything-but-drugs academics producing anything worth taking seriously by entheogen scholars or others interested in the history and use of entheogens.

The list of flaws by academics far exceeds this alleged list of flaws by entheogen scholars.
Deniers’ Logical Fallacies in the Pilzbaum (Mushroom Trees) Debate

copypaste from https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/01/26/the-egodeath-theory-corroborates-carl-rucks-psychedelic-mysteries-paradigm/#soma-p.-180-more-cussing-fewer-annotations-dec.-2-2024 —

SOMA p. 180 (More Cussing, Fewer Annotations, Dec. 2, 2024): Weasel Wasson Writes ‘refrained from consulting the art world’, Instead of Scholarly Citation of Published Writings

Hey Wasson, you phony; SELLOUT!:
Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906)
as Panofsky extremely strongly urged mycologists to read – no thanks to your duplicitous censorship and going OUT OF YOUR WAY to fraudulently attack affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, while you fakely chide them for failing to consult the IGNORAMUS art “authorities”.

The below sound like pompous, insincere, con-artist horse sh!t, because that’s exactly what it is:

SOMA, p. 180 (Less Cussing, More Annotations, Jan. 8, 2025): Weasel Wasson Writes ‘refrained from consulting the art world’, Instead of Scholarly Citation of Published Writings

Motivation for this Page

A Counter-Blow Against the Academic Blowhards Who Try to Bluster Their Way to Denial of Psychedelics in Western Religious History

Academic liars sneer at entheogen scholars eg the end of Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong”. I want to send an official message to the anything-but-drugs agenda: We entheogen scholars see what you’re doing.

Entheogen scholars have TEN TIMES the disrespect for anything-but-drugs academics, as that sort of academic professes to disrespect entheogen scholarship.

Moved many of the present sections from the recent article where they were tacked on and didn’t perfectly fit: https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/02/03/anything-but-drugs-academics-are-weary-and-tired-of-repeatedly-publishing-their-disproofs-of-psychedelics-in-western-religious-history/
The sections will help toward the present targeted, weaponized page, a counter-blow against the academic blowhards.

Smug, Dismissive, Condescending Bluster from Academics, Instead of Compelling Argumentation

This article is to directly counter the smug, dismissive, condescending, sneering, rude, cocksure, self-proud, insulting, belittling Mosurinjohn & Ascough & Ronald Huggins type of throwing insults at entheogen scholars.

Entheogen scholars make mistakes – Cyberdisciple distinguishes between small vs. large mistakes, in a post/page, maybe about Hatsis and Allegro.

“Scholar” as Brand and Style

This critique applies to Mosurinjohn & Ascough & Huggins & Letcher; deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

The article “Criticism of mushrooms in Christian art by Tom Hatsis and Chris Bennett” by Cyberdisciple includes the section ““Scholar” as Brand and Style”, excerpted below:
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2021/09/26/criticism-of-mushrooms-in-christian-art-by-tom-hatsis-and-chris-bennett/#personality –

Cyberdisciple wrote the following paragraphs (several pages, here; broken up per sentence here):

In the context of mushrooms in Christian art, Bennett writes that “I prefer things, like actual textual references, etymological research and most of all archeological evidence.”

With this statement, Bennett suggests that he relies on “superior,” empirical evidence and method when it comes to the topic of mushrooms in Christian art.

Thomas Hatsis relies on similar kinds of statements, championing the superiority of his method.

These statements are not themselves proof of superiority, but are instead a kind of stylistic statement.

They allude to the kind of scholar Hatsis and Bennett want to be known as.

This “kind of scholar” is set in opposition to the kind of scholar they do not want to be known as, specifically (their conception of) scholars who recognize mushrooms in Christian art.

There is an aspect of “branding” to Hatsis’ and Bennett’s articles on mushrooms in Christian art.

They want to convince you, the reader, that they are scholars superior to those unserious scholars who recognize mushrooms in Christian art.

They tell you repeatedly that they are superior scholars with superior methdology, while the targets of their criticism are amateur dilettantes with no understanding of proper methodology and history.

Most importantly, these awful, bad “scholars” are hindering the field by drawing attention away from the good scholars to whom everyone should be listening (guess who the good scholars are in this story).

Hatsis and Bennett employ aggressive rhetoric about their own superiority, but do they deliver the goods in their criticism?

As I point out above,

a) their treatment of pre-modern art, far from being some advanced historical methodology, is simplistic and reductionist, and

b) they use Allegro’s book uncritically to cast doubt on the targets of their criticism.

On the positive side, Hatsis and Bennett advocate for more rigor in scholarship in this field and for more attention to be paid to the historical context of evidence.

There is some good in this, and they have provided corrections to errors in citation and basic historical information published by some authors.

There is a limit to such correction, however, and in their criticism they have elevated what is essentially an editorial problem to the level of conceptual error, and in some cases to intellectual deficiency on the part of the target.

This last tactic confuses criticism, turning scholarly criticism into personal attack.

What amounts to citational errors and imprecision about historical context serves as part of Hatsis’ and Bennett’s rationale for radically dismissing their targets.

This is a dangerous tactic, because using such an all-or-nothing attack requires that the attackers’ own writing be error-free.

Employing such tactics in public criticism is tricky and should be reserved for special circumstances.

Indiscriminate use of such tactics can result in a kind of arms race, with scholars breaking out into hostile camps.”

/ end section from Cyberdisciple

See Also

Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars

Official Declaration by Entheogen Scholarship: John Allegro Is Not an Entheogen Scholar; Entheogen Scholarship Is Permitted to Centralize Psychedelics and Assert Mythicism

Anything-But-Drugs Academics Are Tired of Repeatedly Publishing Their Disproofs of Psychedelics in Western Religious History

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)

Site Map > Ronald Huggins
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Ronald-Huggins

Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., explaining, bottom up: possibilism-thinking; then psychedelic eternalism-thinking; then integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment