Michael Hoffman Feb. 11, 2026
Contents:
- The World’s Record Conflict of Interest: The Banker for the Pope Says There’s No Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
- The Different Roles of Wasson, Panofsky, and Huggins in the Anything-But-Drugs Academia Cover-Up
- The Accidental Contributions to Entheogen Scholarship from Deniers, Despite Themselves
- Proof that Entheogen Scholars Have Not Even Vigorously Begun to Try to Recognize Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
- Motivation for this Page
- Huggins Is Extremely Suspect in Not Citing Brown & Brown 2019, which Reveals the Panofsky Letters & Brinckmann Citation (& Two Mushroom-Trees) That Were Dishonestly Censored by Wasson
- Photos of SOMA p. 180 with Annotations
- Irvin Exposed Popebanker Wasson
- Irvin in Hoffman 2006 Exposed Popebanker Wasson
- Brown 2019 Exposed Popebanker Wasson
- See Also
The World’s Record Conflict of Interest: The Banker for the Pope Says There’s No Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
Conveniently (suspiciously) not addressed by propagandist Huggins.
The Different Roles of Wasson, Panofsky, and Huggins in the Anything-But-Drugs Academia Cover-Up
Wasson = evil; Panofsky = stupid.
Huggins facilitates Wasson’s con-artistry:
- by not citing Browns 2019;
- by pulling Panofsky letters out of thin air in 2024 & 2025 (“drawer”?!, get out of here);
- by pulling the Brinckmann citation out of thin air.
- by not asking what the 2 “emphatic mushroom shape” mushroom-trees images that Panofsky sent Wasson in 1952.
Huggins tries to ally with the academic criminal Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, so, Huggins doesn’t want it revealed, Popebanker Wasson’s deceitful chicanery; his academic obstructionism and pressure tactics.
Popebanker Wasson dishonestly and manipulatively censored the Panofsky letters, on p. 180 of Wasson’s 1968 book SOMA.
If Wasson were honest, in 1952 & in 1968, he would’ve helped investigation of mushroom-trees move forward, by showing the two letters, the Brin. citation, and the two mushroom-trees images, sent to Wasson in 1952.
As I deduced in 2006, confirmed by Brown 2019, Panofsky MUST have provided (weak) citations to Wasson in 1952. In 2006 I was cussing,
“Give me the goddamn citations that Panofsky MUST have provided to you!
“I WANT to “consult” the academics, as Wasson chastises (unconstructively) the “mycologists” ie Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, for having failed (in the past) to do.”
By replacing the Brinckmann citation and two art pieces by ellipses (. . . .), Wasson the liar & con artist ENSURED that Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are unable to check what Brinckmann wrote, showing that Wasson is insincere and dishonest, a sleazebag, deliberately deceiving and misleading people, while insulting and attacking mycologists, and misrepresenting what Panofsky sent to Wasson.
The Accidental Contributions to Entheogen Scholarship from Deniers, Despite Themselves
Hatsis’ articles WERE useful for me to construct the Hatsis Gallery of mushroom imagery in Christian art, until he deleted his articles, crazily. Hatsis’ providing hi-res Dancing Man was useful to me on Christmas 2015.
Hatsis provided the first hi-res, color image of Dancing Man, provided by an entheogen scholar, in his article for a UK zine.
We beggars can’t be choosers. Too few people work in entheogen scholarship.
Hatsis & Huggins while writing articles debunking mushroom imagery in Christian art, provide for the wrong reasons, benefits for entheogen scholarship.
Their project is futile, like defenders of the geocentric model 1510-1687, 177 years from proposal to widespread, dominant acceptance.
We’re in such a period now, despite some denier-morons claiming that we can draw negative conclusions now.
Proof that Entheogen Scholars Have Not Even Vigorously Begun to Try to Recognize Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
I proved that we have not even STARTED looking.
Proof that entheogen scholars have not even STARTED looking, and are missing the most major mushroom recognition, even in the Great Canterbury Psalter folio page f11 images that they have been publishing since 2000, discovered by Paul Lindgren:
On Jan 13, 2025, I discovered proof that God in f11 Day 1 of Creation holds mushroom-filled {balance scale} pans, in Great Canterbury Psalter.
No entheogen scholar has even tried to imagine what’s in the pans.
If entheogen scholars are looking at f11, they have been looking with eyes squeezed tightly shut, until my eyes were finally opened Jan. 13, 2025, per Day 4’s {open book with God’s thumb over it} motif.
Day 1: Creation of Light: {balance scale} Pans Are Indicated as Containing Panaeolus & Amanita Mushrooms
Before that, I proved that the blue vase in f134 row 3 middle contains psilocybin mushrooms.
Like f11 (Day 1 & 4), I similarly first “jokingly” asserted that the item contains mushrooms, but I was in error (defeatist attitude) in ASSUMING that the artist failed to indicate this.
Months later, I finally opened my eyes and actually looked for indicators, and found that the artist provided clear indicators.
Cubensis Harvest Cycle
The Blue Krater Harvest Collector Looks Up at the Mushroom Dispensary Bins
Entheogen scholars have not even started to look for evidence of psychedelics in Western religious history – yet deniers want to declare the field closed and finished, drawing extremely premature negative conclusions.
2012 or 2014: “No one has even TRIED to claim psychedelics in Buddhist religious history” – Patrick Lundborg’s book’s endnotes.
2016: Mike Crowley book comes out, making hash out of Lund premature closing and “conclusions”.
2026: AM, an Asian Studies scholar, finds more evidence than Crowley.
- An Aztec Narcotic (Safford 1915) – extremely premature negative conclusion, Wasson 1957 points out was disproved entirely.
- Wasson 1968 draws the same, prejudiced, way-premature negative conclusion, falling into his own pit of mockery that Wasson set up in 1957 for himself to fall into.
Motivation for this Page
A “cover-up” framing is useful for analysis.
Who is behind the cover-up operation? Why?
Getting a clear big-picture view on the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia, popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson’s cover-up operation & censorship of the two Panofsky letters including the Brin. citation.
Huggins Is Extremely Suspect in Not Citing Brown & Brown 2019, which Reveals the Panofsky Letters & Brinckmann Citation (& Two Mushroom-Trees) That Were Dishonestly Censored by Wasson
Huggins 2024 & 2025 articles fail to cite or address the args in Browns 2019.
Photos of SOMA p. 180 with Annotations
SOMA p. 180 (More Cussing, Fewer Annotations, Dec. 2, 2024)
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)
Irvin Exposed Popebanker Wasson
The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity (Jan Irvin, 2008) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439215170
Irvin in Hoffman 2006 Exposed Popebanker Wasson
Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita (Hoffman, 2006), http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm exposed Popebanker Wasson.
And accused Wasson of withholding citations (weak ones) that Panofsky MUST have provided to substantiate the claim that art historians are familiar with mushroom-trees and have “considered”(?) them. CITATIONS NEEDED.
My accusations were confirmed by Browns 2019 exposing the two Panofsky letters.
Huggins points you to “drawer” (Jan Irvin is not permitted to enter the room at Harvard) instead of citing Browns 2019.
Why is scholar Huggins ignorant of Browns 2019, which is the ONLY place to publish Panofsky’s letters (sans 2 attached “emphatic” mushroom-trees)?
Erwin Panofsky’s Letters to Gordon Wasson, Transcribed
Huggins doesn’t cite Browns 2019 so that people other than Huggins can read the Panofsky letters, including Brin. citation, that were censored by Popebanker Wasson in SOMA on p. 180 top (1968) in order to prevent and obstruct research in mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are shady, suspect, and have a conflict of interest, in the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia.
Brown 2019 Exposed Popebanker Wasson
Did The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault (Giorgio Samorini, 1997) https://www.samorini.it/doc1/sam/sam%20plaincourault.pdf expose popebanker Wasson?
See Also
Site Map sections:
- Jerry Brown
- Cyberdisciple
- Thomas Hatsis
- Ronald Huggins
- John Lash
- Andy Letcher
- Sharday Mosurinjohn
- Erwin Panofsky
- Carl Ruck
The Egodeath theory 