Cultural Politics Corrupts Entheogen Scholarship: Indigenous Shams Do NOT Have “Psychedelic Wisdom” (Psychedelic Eternalism)

Michael Hoffman 12:50 p.m. Feb. 17, 2026

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman

Contents:

links work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

How Prohibition, Cultural Politics, and the Anything-But-Drugs Academic Agenda Corrupts and Distorts Entheogen Scholarship

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, “Plaincourault-cultural-politics-annot.jpg” 62 KB, 8:18 a.m. Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen ALSO Adam & Eve’s YI hand shapes (8:40 am)

todo: crop w/o “cultural politics”, add YI hand shapes. signif of 4 branches like

  • 4 limbs
  • 4 fingers vs. 1 thumb
  • lower pair of mushroom branches = legs/feet, upper pair = hand shapes

4 branches is common in the mushroom-tree genre.

4 branches: a branch means, branching, of the hands, and of their feet/legs.

  • branching of his feet/legs
  • branching of his arms/hands
  • branching of her feet/legs
  • branching of her arms/hands

Proper Definition of “Psychedelic Wisdom”, Against Winslow’s Throwing Around that Term to Invalidate and Delegitimize Entheogen Scholarship, Following Mosurinjohn & Ascough

Indigenous Shams do NOT have “psychedelic wisdom”, which is comprehension of psychedelic eternalism, per Classic Western entheogen culture

Indigenous Shams do NOT have “psychedelic wisdom”, which is comprehension of psychedelic eternalism, per Classic Western entheogen culture.

I criticize the individual Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art but they did not invent; they PARTICIPATE in Prohibition & anything-but-drugs academia corrupting influence.

Weaponization of Indigenous Shams by Anything-But-Drugs Academics

Sharday Mosurinjohn has literally declared she’s an anything-but-drugs academic in a sense; she has published calls for everyone else other than her own book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism, she’s here to tell everyone in entheogen scholarship that they need to double down on non-drug psychedelics.

REPEAT THE INCANTATION:

PSYCHEDELICS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY LIKE EXTREMIST Michael Hoffman OF EGODEATH SITE SAYS; THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS THAT CAN/ COULD/ MIGHT/ MAY/ PRODUCE “AN ALTERED STATE” SAME AS 10 GRAMS OF CUBENSIS. FOR EXAMPLE SPINNING IN A CIRCLE, BREATHWORK, CAVE MEDITATION, HIT HEAD W/ HAMMER, SUPER ERGONOMIC AND EFFECTIVE.

This repetition is propaganda and dogma. Sharday Mosurinjohn joins in, telling us one thing we entheogen scholars must do is pay more attention to non-drug psychedelics than psychedelics.

The Performative Magic Utterance “There Are Many Other Ways than Psychedelics” Dogma Ritual Repetition

It’s not an argument; it’s a ritual performance under the “special, taboo topic” conditions of Prohibition, politics, & repression in the post-Allegro era.

The “many other ways can same as psychedelics” dogma ritual repetition, religiously ritually repeated by all academics, is a way of falsely elevating poor methods (meditation) to the high level of respect of the one good method (psychedelics) that produces control transformation.

How to Properly Use Indigenous Shams to Attack Your Opponents

The purpose of Indigenous Shams is to serve as a blunt club to beat Western entheogen scholars, to discredit.

Like the fake “journalists” blocked from conf bc they are parasites trying to destroy the entire field.

How Injecting Politics Killed Atheism Culture and Attacks Entheogen Scholarship Likewise

Comparable:

Richard Carrier’s New Atheism, the ahistoricity writer overnight killed Atheism conferences by CO-OPTING ATHEISM, INJECTING CULTURAL POLITICS and killing Atheism culture/community.

Why did Atheism die? How did Carrier’s imported politics kill it?

Atheism stock went up and down after 2001.

I examined a 4 New Atheists book: the book had zilch sense of mysticism in religion; no concept of esotericism in author’s mind.

Junk Atheism, ignorance, narrow topics, conventional thinking.

Where Atheism (a brand, a worldview, a paradigm): Start w/ run of the mill modern Christian then negate. A poor-quality Christian in drag as a poor-quality Atheist, nothing changed.

Low-grade Christianity converts to low-grade Atheism: does God exist, yes or no? Worthless.

The Atheists shuffled the Outsider exoteric deck chairs, nothing changed.

Mosurinjohn Pusher of Non-Drug Psychedelics

I have no thoughts about Indigenous Shams

though – so persuasive –

Mosurinjohn & Ascough put on a show for anything-but-drugs academia

Mosurinjohn & Ascough wheel out the artifice, beating on entheogen scholars with Indigenous Shams, for the purp – Mosurinjohn & Ascough are not actually valuing Indigenous Shams execpt as a momentary affectation, — CIPHER / BLUNT CLUB, the purpose is not to elevate Indigenous Shams; or help them; the purpose is to harm W entheogen scholarship.

adbaa /

The Mission of Anything-But-Drugs academics: Discredit, Disrespect, Invalidate, Suppress, to Self Elevate; Abuse Indigenous Shams Strategically, Weoponized to Inflict Harm on Entheogen scholarship in order to Self-Promote: the Parasite Strategy

Some of my best friends are Indigenous Shams.

Mosurinjohn & Ascough don’t care about the topic of Indigenous Shams. Sharday Mosurinjohn is not writing a book …

Sharday Mosurinjohn Needs to STOP Writing a Book Fantasizing in Vain about Psychedelics in Western Esotericism, and Needs to Write a Book on Indigenous Shams Instead

She’ll tell YOU what YOU have to study, or submit to rather.

But SHE has free reighn to write an entire book

She is not serious about Indigenous Shams, it’s striking a pose, momentarily taking up this useful cipher. Let’s see you write a series of

If Indigenous Shams Are So Damn Awesome, Why Is Sharday “Don’t Mis-Hear Me” Mosurinjohn Ignoring Indigenous Shams, and Writing a Book About Psychedelics in Western Esotericism Instead?

I do not intend to make any point about Indigenous Shams at all. I don’t think about them, I don’t care about them, they are not part of my mental world, Indigenous Shams have nothing to do with this page.

I am purely counter-attacking the Newbie anything-but-drugs academics.

I do not care about Indigenous Shams.

I have actually voiced respect for Indigenous Shams, it’s hard work requiring creativity.

I have huge respect for Indigenous Shams.

I’m sad for Indigenous Shams because Sharday Mosurinjohn abuses them as nothing but a momentary weapon blunt club to harm entheogen scholarship, then she casts away and writes her own book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism, NOT on Indigenous Shams – she

Sharday Mosurinjohn never actually loved the Indigenous Shams at all. 😢

Sharday Mosurinjohn was just USING the Indigenous Shams for her own momentary strategic gain, the strategy of the moment – DON’T MIS-HEAR ME,

I’m saying the opposite of what I said, and the explanation for that is, you are mis-hearing me, you are in error.

fake — fake — fake and Why, again, were Mosurinjohn & Ascough kicked out of every journal such that they were forced to produce their own special issue of Religions journal because no one would publish their fake articles.

Ascough didn’t read my article but he’ll tell you what’s in it: his view. He’s just using my article just as he used the poor Indigenous Shams but doesn’t GAF about them.

Hey Ass Cough, why aren’t YOU doing entheogen scholarship on Indigenous Shams, big talker, eager to lecture the whole field of entheogen scholarship that it needs to shut down and re-center on Indigenous Shams

Ascough cares nothing and knows nothing about Indigenous Shams.

Fake and empty arg’n from Mosurinjohn & Ascough, it’s all put-downs and posturing

Gauge How Poor the Scholarship from Ascough on this “Special, Taboo” Topic: He Poorly Represents My 2006 Plaincourault Fresco Article

Academic Corruption and Fradulent Censorship

Conflicts of Interest

This “Special, Taboo” Topic of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Justifies Abandoning Standard Scholarly Practices

This “Special, Taboo” Topic of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Justifies Wasson, Letcher, & Huggins Abandoning Standard Scholarly Practices (Publishing and Citing Articles) and Instead, Abnormal: Personally “Consult” the Art Authorities in Submission

As usual, show photo of my p. 180, Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality, Gordon Wasson, 1968, https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Mushroom-Immortality-Gordon-Wasson/dp/B000MFKOJA/ & http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm

Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality (Wasson, 1968)

Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality
Gordon Wasson, 1968
https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Mushroom-Immortality-Gordon-Wasson/dp/B000MFKOJA/
http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm

Citation-type keyboard shortcut:

Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality, Gordon Wasson, 1968, https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Mushroom-Immortality-Gordon-Wasson/dp/B000MFKOJA/ & http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
gw68

Back cover of hardcover (I have the paperback):

“One of the key enigmas of cultural history has been the identity of a sacred plant called Soma in the ancient Rig Veda of India.

“Mr. Wasson has aroused considerable attention in learned circles and beyond by advancing and documenting the thesis that Soma was a hallucinogenic mushroom – none other than the Amanita muscaria, the fly-agaric that until recent times was the center of shamanic rites among the Siberian and Uralic tribesmen.

“In his presentation he throws fascinating light on the role of mushrooms in religious ritual.

“A section on the post-Vedic history of Soma is contributed by the Sanskrit scholar Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty.”

Cultural Politics of Religion vs. Psychedelics

Reading how Ascough misuses my 2006 Plaincourault fresco article, you learn about Ascough’s view & arg, but nothing about my article’s view & arg.

I can tell how poor quality the articles: Ascough just makes up sh*t about my article and ignores what I say, and it is.

I wish Ascough had written “I agree with Michael Hoffman’s conclusion: sideline and retire Allegro.”

That was certainly not Irvin’s message in 2006.

Had Irvin written my 2006 Plaincourault fresco article, had he driven and designed the article, the article would have been like The Holy Mushroom, pro-Allegro propaganda for the purpose (explicitly, on the book cover) of elevating Allegro.

Jan Irvin falsely credits Allegro with Affirming the CLASS of mushroom-trees means mushrooms, not just the Plaincourault fresco

Allegro’s Abuse of Nascent Entheogen Scholarship to Smear and Defame Christianity with a Disgusting Sex-Cult Fungus

Allegro’s purpose was not entheogen scholarship, it was to WEAPONIZE DISGUSTING Amanita SEX CULT & ACADEMIC ANTHROPOLOGY THEORY TO DEFAME AND RIDICULE Christianity.

In The Holy Mushroom, Jan Irvin falsely tries to credit Allegro with the CLASS of mushroom-trees.

Here’s PROOF that Allegro NEVER WROTE ONE WORD ABOUT MUSHROOM-TREES as a class:

The Holy Mushroom doesn’t cite Allegro making statements about mushroom-trees as a class.

Why then take the “mushroom-trees entire class” medal from Wasson and give the medal falsely to Allegro?

The “mushroom-trees entire class” medal, Ruck falsely granted to Wasson in “Daturas for the Virgin” at quote: “Wasson’s conclusion”(!) as if Wasson asserted mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.

Ruck wrote “mushroom-trees look like mushrooms and that’s exactly what they are” – “Daturas for the Virgin”.

See “Daturas for the Virgin” p. 56 photo that Irvin reputs, at “Wasson’s conclusion”:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/24/entheos-issues-1-4-mark-hoffman/#Daturas-for-the-Virgin-p-56

Poor, poor Wasson, per Ruck’s lie and history revision, Wasson kept telling all the world, ALL MUSHROOM-TREES MEAN MUSHROOMS”.

Jan Irvin’S false rebuttal: “Wasson did the exact oppositite of that. It is ALLEGRO who went around telling all the world “ALL MUSHROOM-TREES MEAN MUSHROOMS” – and I have no quotes of Allegro to back up my claim.

A Mushroom-Tree Is NOT a Mushroom, Ruck, It’s the Transformative Experience of Eternalism, giving Y’ on One Hand and & YI or Y’I on the Other Hand

[Y’, YI] = One Hand: Modified Possibilism-Thinking; Other Hand: Integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism Thinking

10:59 p.m. Feb. 17, 2026 I’m in ordinary-state, = closed scroll, and I have possibilism-thinking , branching possibilism-thinking, though I know there’s the eternalism state and the Eternalism mental model. Y’ means all that. qualified possibilism-thinking, in ordinary-state.

the two states correspond with two mental models: possibilism & eternalism BUT the mental model that’s in ordinary-state changes.

ordinary-state , basic possibilism-thinking

alt-state, basic possibilism-thinking and eternalism feeling

alt-sta

simpl’d:

O P = ordinary-state, possibilism-thinking

  1. O P
  2. A P
  3. A E
  4. O E + P’

The mental model that’s in ordinary-state is inistially possibilism ; basic possibilism-thinking

later in ordinary-state the model is: qualified possibilism-thinking + eternalism-thinking

[Y’, YI] = qualified possibilism-thinking + eternalism-thinking

by virt of fingers attached to thumb, these fingers are NOT same as fingers on other hand; these fingers are integreated in relation with thumb, they work toegeher to hold and control.

I am saying the opposite of what I was saying but that’s because you are mis-hearing me. fake. no integrity.

NO INTEGRITY, NO CONSISTENCY,

WILL TRY ANY (ever-changing) TACTIC TO SELF-ELEVATE, ESPECIALLY DESTROYING THE FIELD OF ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP TO BE ITS CORRECTOR-TO-DEATH

Why All Journals Rejected Mosurinjohn & Ascough: Self-Appointed Correctors-to-Death of the Field:

We Are Here to Smugly Condescend, Accuse, Namecall, Invalidate, Discredit, Critique Parasitically, and Posture to Win Favor with the Academic Cabal, Anything-But-Drugs Academia

I SEE AN OPPORTUNITY IN THIS WEAK TRENDY FIELD TO SELF-PROMOTE AS THE ACCUSER, THE CORRECTOR, THE SELF-APPOINTED JUDGE AND DIRECTOR OF EVERYONE ELSE’S RESEARCH

What You Are Studying Is Wholly Invalid, Illegit, Pathetic, in Vain, a Myth

You (but not I) Need to Make Indigenous Shams the Center of Your Adulation, while i write my book on NOT Indigenous Shams, but on psychedelics in Western Esotericism

it’s my strategy of the moment, my feigned random interest so i don’t have OVERLOAD BOREDOM

That’s why I invaded the field of entheogen scholarship, to be its corrector and director.

DON’T MIS-HEAR ME BEING FAKE, PHONY, Rude, Wrong, Self-Contradictory, Inconsistent

Why Won’t Anyone Publish Our Toxic Parasitic Smear Article to Sweepingly Discredit, Invalidate and Dismiss the Entire Field of Entheogen Scholarship for Personal Gain?

If you want to know Sharday Mosurinjohn’s view, among her backtracking, tactic-shifts, read Winslow who interviewed her.

Winslow leaks the real voice of Sharday Mosurinjohn. Which matches some of what she wrote in article abstract and lecture abstract. Her theory is that New Religious Movements (NRMs) are looking for a legacy and legitimation, but they are not legitimate.

She’s here to discredit, to delegitimate the entire field, but she – in her hundredth strategy pivot (DON’T MIS-HEAR ME), now gets to write a book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism.

Even though she said that sort of thing is COLONIALIST VIOLENCE and RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM. but DON’T MIS-HEAR ME.

I hear a broken robot, an empty, shifting persona. One moment, ingratiate with anything-but-drugs academics, the next, ingratiate with entheogen scholarship?

I can’t imagine her ingratiating w/ entheogen scholarship, she is SO scorched-earth – has she ever given entheogen scholarship any credit, or always totally illegit and it’s her job and profit to point that out to shut down the field.

I’M HERE TO SHUT DOWN THE FIELD BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING BUT RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM & COLONIST VIOLENCE / I’M HERE TO WRITE MY BOOK ON PSYCHEDELICS IN Western Esotericism, DON’T MIS-HEAR ME

Thomas Hatsis’ 2025 book Psychedelic Injustice: How Identity Politics Poisons the Psychedelic Renaissance https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634312783 & https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/17/psychedelic-injustice-how-identity-politics-poisons-the-psychedelic-renaissance-hatsis-2025/

Entheogen Scholarship Conference Security Table: Not Allowed in: Mosurinjohn & Ascough

I care about toxic parasite invaders of the field of entheogen scholarship, who are here to steer the field into a ditch, for personal gain, by abusing a cipher, “Indigenous Shams” purely to beat on and destroy entheogen scholarship.

bc she’s inconsistent, an empty tactic applyer, she has no actual views, so she can dance her position now over here, now over there, contradiction? “Don’t mis-hear me.”

Who the F says that?! No one is ever “mishearing”

Sharday Mosurinjohn, she communicated her tear-down-the-other bile perfectly well.

An empty cipher, “I NAMECALL THEREFORE I AM” — When YOU write entheogen scholarship about psychedelics in Western religious history, you are pathetic and in vain, and ought to be all-focused on Indigenous Shams instead.

When Sharday Mosurinjohn writes entheogen scholarship about psychedelics in Western religious history, she is magically exempt from religious fundmaentalism and colonialist oppression SHE COMES ACROSS AS FAKE, POSING, POSTURING, EMPTY MARKETING, all just an affectation, trying incohernnetly one self-promotional stratetgy one moment, the next on video walks back, “DON’T MIS-HEAR ME, it’s GOOD that you try pathetically in vain”

What is her position? It depends what self-presentation she’s experimenting with at the moment.

Whoa that tack didn’t work, better PIVOT strategies!

REJECTED AGAIN BY 18TH TYPE OF JOURNAL.

All Those Journal Editors Can’t Be Wrong, Rejecting Mosurinjohn & Ascough for YEARS

Conference Entry Table: No-Entry list: Parasite Fake Journalists and Mosurinjohn & Ascough not Allowed In

psychedelics in Western Esotericism
pwe

The Deniers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Have a Serious Academic Corruption Problem that They Must Answer For

Exemplified by Huggins covering for Wasson’s censorship of Panofsky and Brinckmann, which Huggins describes Brinckmann as “noted exception”, when in fact Wasson went far out of his way to actively lie by omission.

It was definitely, CERTAINLY Wasson’s academic and moral DUTY to pass-on to use the Brinckmann 1906 citation from Panofsky, as I exclaimed and explained in my 2006 article.

I could tell that Panofsky had provided weak citations to Wasson, and Wasson withheld them.

My 2006 proof of that:

  • I very much desire to read everything the art historians wrote on mushroom-trees.
  • Panofsky aggressively claims and emphasizes that art historians are 100% EMPHATICALLY THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR with mushroom-trees.
  • Normal standard academic practice (for non-taboo topics): publish writings about the topics that are familiar, in this case mushroom-trees.
  • IF art historians are SO familiar with mushroom-trees, then CERTAINLY they would’ve published SOMETHING I can read.
  • Panofsky MUST HAVE provided citations, as standard practice for a topic “we’re totally thoroughly familiar with”, a topic in the art field.
  • But Wasson doesn’t show any citations with Panofsky’s letter, p. 180 SOMA 1968.
  • 2006: I am mad at Wasson because he withholds the (probably thin & weak) citations that Panofsky MUST HAVE provided – while at the same time, Wasson chides, insults, name-calls, berates, lectures, prances, fulminates, blusters…. THIS IS PROPAGANDA.

THIS IS ACADEMIC CORRUPTION.

Huggins, who sleeps with Wasson and hangs out and is buddies with Wasson, is responsible for the sins of Wasson.

You can’t use Wasson for your (Deniers) side of the argument, without being held accountable for Popebanker Wasson’s fraudulent cover-up and MASSIVE, MAXIMAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Wasson’s conflict of interest utterly ruins Wasson’s credibility (believability) re: his (rude-toned, snide, pushy, insulting, high-pressure) total denial of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

To this day, 2026, we STILL do not have the 2 mushroom-tree art works that were attached to the first Panofsky letter: WHY NOT, HUGGINS?

WHY DID WASSON WITHHOLD THE MUSHROOM-TREE ART FROM ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS?

The Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art have academic CORRUPTION, FRAUD, and CONFLICT OF INTEREST, to answer for.

Huggins and the other Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are in a poor position to morally lecture and chastise entheogen scholars on their errors.

If we’re going to lecture and morally chastise, then let’s discuss Popebanker Wasson’s dishonest, manipulative, deceptive censorship of:

  • Letter 1
  • Letter 2
  • Art work 1
  • Art work 2
  • Brinc cit 1
  • Brinc cit 2

… for DECADES, energetically and actively, as a professional propagandist (exposed by Jan Irvin).

This is the worst-case, lack of any credibility of Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Let us see the degree of Huggins’ credibility:

Huggins argues that these Day 3 trees cannot mean mushrooms, because they have branches.

Huggins in strawman, not steelman fashion, avoids the crushingly OBVIOUS point and no-brainer objection: these branches look EXACTLY, LITERALLY like mushrooms, and don’t themselves have branches:

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman

Huggins calls the below, Day 4 plants “trees”, in passing, without giving any justification, and without drawing any attention to them.

Huggins pulls a stage-magician trick on the audience: indirection:

LOOK AT the smaller plants among the trees: These smaller plants also appear on the Mushroom Mount folio image (in that scene, interspersed with mushroom-trees).

Huggins avoids the screamingly OBVIOUS point and objection:

These plants have no branches, and are not mushroom-trees, nor trees, but only match mushrooms:

Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
Day 1 panel above; Day 4 panel below
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Plants in Day 4 panel

That shows you the degree to which Huggins can be trusted: ZERO.

Huggins provides a slanted, biased, skewed, agenda-driven cover-up, thinly disguised as neutral, investigative scholarship that’s seeking the accurate interpretation and description.

Huggins cannot describe these plain-as-can-be mushrooms except in an extremely biased, prejudiced way, as “trees”, for NO REASON.

Huggins is not a sincere scholar, but is being manipulative and DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING and MIS-DESCRIBING the Great Canterbury Psalter.

Huggins is compromised, by being in bed with corrupt, anything-but-drugs academia, trying to appease their censorious demands and make them happy, even if that requires Huggins to deliberately mis-describe and misrepresent plain-as-can-be mushrooms, misleadingly, as just “branches” (in Day 3 panel: branches “rather than” mushrooms), and as “trees” (in Day 4 panel: trees that somehow have no tree features; no branches).

todo: mark up hardcopy and analyze same-page proximity of discussing Day 3 “branch” and Day 4 “tree”.

  • what page does Hug show Day 3? 1, 8, 11 (entire f11), 12, 22, 24
  • what page does Hug discuss Day 3?
  • what pages say “branch”? 14 2x (Panofsky quote), 16, 17, 18 7x, 19 5x, 20 4x, 21 2x, 27 2x (“Conclusion”),
  • what page does Hug show Day 4? 11 (entire f11), 22, 26
  • what page does Hug discuss Day 4?

Hypothesis (need to check page layout of the article):
Huggins cannot allow the Day 3 & Day 4 pictures to be on the same page as his false and misleading, mis-description that misrepresents the pictures.

Huggins is in bed with corrupt, anything-but-drugs academia.

Like Popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, Huggins has a conflict of interest, and is a propagandist for hire by corrupt, anything-but-drugs academia.

Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019

Why does “On John M. Allegro’s … Plaincourault Chapel”, Ronald Huggins, Oct. 2025, omit to cite the most relevant article, Samorini 1997?

The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault (Giorgio Samorini, 1997) https://www.samorini.it/doc1/sam/sam%20plaincourault.pdf

Every Type of Journal Rejected Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s Toxic Parasitical, Self-Serving, Smear-Piece Article for YEARS, so Now Mosurinjohn, Greer, Ascough, and Huggins Created their Own, Special Issue of Religions Journal

Why did the anything-but-drugs academic journal Religions permit Mosurinjohn & Ascough to publish articles, and run a special issue, when every type of journal for YEARS rejected the 2025 Mosurinjohn & Ascough article?

Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience; Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough (July 2025); journal: psychedelic medicine; https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/28314425251361835?journalCode=psymed; https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/08/psychedelics-eleusis-and-the-invention-of-religious-experience-mosurinjohn-ascough-2025/

Indigenous Shams Do NOT Have “Psychedelic Wisdom”, against Winslow, Houot, Mosurinjohn & Ascough, etc.

The term ‘wisdom’ means specifically, integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.

Indigenous Shams do NOT have integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.

Europeans have vastly more developed technology than Indigenous Shams — against the anti-Western propaganda.

Mosurinjohn & Ascough: “You Entheogen Scholars Are Pathetic and Illegitimate, Wishing in Vain for Psychedelics in Mystery Religions; We Know for a Fact There’s No Psychedelics in Mystery Religions, since We Denier-Academics Made Sure to Wash Away the Only Evidence That Counts”

Winslow’s Bottom-of-Barrel, Poppest of Posts

Winslow reveals what Mosurinjohn & Ascough are going around telling uncritical thinkers:

  1. There’s no evidence, of an ultra-particular kind, after we washed away the dirt, in vessels, at Eleusis.
  2. That’s the only evidence that counts, because – post-dishwasher – this particular type of evidence is lacking, and thus suits our cause.
  3. Thus we proved that there were definitely no psychedelics in mystery religions.
  4. We uttered the sounds, “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”, therefore, it’s ok that we argue on that premise, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
    [Julie Brown: “I swear I will only state what I see. I see the mushroom caps have been painted over or somehow made not visible.”]
    The voicing of the name of a fallacy, is abused as a COVER to legitimize committing that fallacy.
  5. Look critically at Ruck, who shifts his writing-tense from “Maybe there were psychedelics in mystery religions” to writing as if “There were psychedelics in mystery religions.” This grammar shift is a major problem, not merely a practical way of communication. Pay attention to this big problem, that’s documented in our formal article.
  6. (Don’t pay attention to US doing the exact same shift: fudge & shift from “Maybe there were not psychedelics” to aggressively writing as if, “There were not psychedelics; ROGAN’S BEEN DEBUNKED!!“)
  7. Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s legs are worn out from sprinting repeatedly between:

Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s Motte-and-Bailey Argumentation

Projection of their Own Fallacious Argumentation onto Ruck

  • Mosurinjohn & Ascough covertly shift from writing “possible”:
    Dr. Jekyll mode: Their defensible (but worthless) Motte position:
    Maybe there weren’t psychedelics; d/k; need measured, reasonable, research, look how credible and careful we are, model scholars, unlike the sloppy Affirmers.
  • … to writing as-if fact:
    Mr. Hyde mode: Their aggressive, indefensible Bailey position:
    THERE CERTAINLY WERE NO PSYCHEDELICS, YOU PATHETIC, ILLEGITIMATE MORONS, PUSHING A MYTH!! YOU MUST ONLY STUDY INDIGENOUS SHAMS, WHO ARE SUPERIOR TO YOU!🤜💥

Please publish our smear-article; we’ve been rejected by all types of journals for YEARS!

We are on your crooked side, Anything-But-Drugs propagandists!

Academic corruption, on this “special”, taboo topic, causes garbled, nonsensical, self-contradictory argumentation, bluffing, and rhetoric.

The purpose of academic research on entheogen scholarship, as per the ABD Newbies gang, is to PREVENT scholarly investigation, while PRETENDING to pursue investigation – it’s a cover-up operation.

Winslow’s Pop Post Voices, Reveals, and Exposes Mosurinjohn’s Incoherent Narrative

section copied from https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/01/26/the-egodeath-theory-corroborates-carl-rucks-psychedelic-mysteries-paradigm/#debunking-the-psychedelic-theory-of-the-eleusinian-mysteries-winslow-aug.-2025 (good page) —

Debunking the Psychedelic Theory of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Winslow, Aug. 2025)

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

“What do Joe Rogan, a freshly minted neoshaman, and half the speakers at psychedelic conferences have in common? They all love telling people that the ancient Greeks’ rites of passage were psychedelic ceremonies. According to this popular theory, the secret sauce behind the legendary Eleusinian Mysteries was ergot-laced barley that sent initiates on revelatory, near-death-like psychedelic journeys. But is it even true?

“Researchers from Queen’s University think not. So they just dropped a thorough takedown of the whole theory in the journal Psychedelic Medicine. Drs. Sharday Mosurinjohn (whom I interviewed in April) and Richard Ascough systematically dismantle what they call “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis,” pointing out there’s zero archaeological evidence for psychedelics at Eleusis. They say proponents are presenting speculation as fact, and the entire narrative is built on shaky foundations and circular reasoning.

“So why does the myth persist? The authors argue it’s about legitimacy. People want to believe there’s a ‘respectable’ Western pedigree for psychedelics with our European ancestors. Never mind that there are plenty of Indigenous lineages around the world that have preserved psychedelic wisdom for millennia. If we need history’s stamp of approval to justify research and policy reform today (we don’t), surely that’s enough.”

/ end of Winslow’s Pop Slop post

/ end of copypast from Corrob page

My commentary on that is below.

Winslow’s Pop Slop, with Commentary

section copied from Idea Development page 33:

Who wrote the stupid wrong vague anti-Western phrase, “psychedelic wisdom”?  Henry Winslow’s awful post:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/01/26/the-egodeath-theory-corroborates-carl-rucks-psychedelic-mysteries-paradigm/#debunking-the-psychedelic-theory-of-the-eleusinian-mysteries-winslow-aug.-2025

The Pop writer, anti-scholarly, poor thinker Winslow wrote:

“Researchers from Queen’s University think not.

[not “no evidence”; they think DEFINITELY NOT psychedelics in mystery religions – why? they slip from “possibly not” to “= definitely not”, exactly as they make a stink about Ruck doing, in the positive direction. -mh]

“So they just dropped a thorough takedown of the whole theory

[ultra vague, non-scholarly, untestable, undefined assertion -mh]

in the journal Psychedelic Medicine. 

“Drs. Sharday Mosurinjohn (whom I interviewed in April) and Richard Ascough systematically dismantle

[ultra vague, non-scholarly, untestable, undefined assertion -mh]
what they call “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis[sic, PARADIGM],” 

pointing out there’s zero archaeological [RESTRICTIVE QUALIFIER] evidence for psychedelics at Eleusis [RESTRICTIVE QUALIFIER].  

[dirty rhet arg’n strategy: only accept 1 type of evidence: whatever type of evidence your side (Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art) has destroyed (washed out 🗑 these particular cups), and is minimal.]

“They say proponents are presenting speculation as fact, and the entire narrative is built on shaky foundations and circular reasoning.”

[Hypocrites Mosurinjohn & Ascough present their speculation …

Maybe there were no psychedelics in mystery religions. The only type of evidence that that counts is the dirt that we Deniers washed away🗑, and by that arb. definition, “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. 😑 “

… as if fact (We showed that there’s definitely no psychedelics in mystery religions; DEBUNKED ROGAN. & Muraresku. & ruck) -mh]

Winslow con’t:

“So why does the myth persist?”

[the above presenting of negative speculation as negative fact by Mosurinjohn & Ascough has now MAGICALLY become factual, so that we can say confidently with a con-artist’s tone of finality, “the myth of psychedelics in mystery religions”.]

“The authors [Mosurinjohn & Ascough] argue it’s about legitimacy.

[ie, YOU ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS ARE ILLEGIT & PATHETIC & discredited and invalidated – like Wasson p. 180 SOMA smearing blundering “mycologists” ie Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art eg John Ramsbottom.

Ramsb. more than effectively retaliated, by re-printing his new book just to add:

“We are committed skeptics, not interested in truth re: mushroom imagery in Christian art.”

– signed, Popebanker Wasson, privately to the top mycologist (Affirmer), John Ramsbottom

As Jan Irvin figured out during research with me in 2006, it took Wasson decades to figure out that he’d been, for years, DESTROYED & EXPOSED as a committed liar, by the top myc’ist, Ramsbottom.]

Winslow con’t:

“People want to believe there’s a ‘respectable’ Western pedigree for psychedelics with our European ancestors. 

[ie YOU ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS LACK A RESPECTABLE PEDIGREE]

[now wheel-out the weaponized Indigenous Shams:]

“Never mind that there are plenty of Indigenous lineages around the world that have preserved psychedelic wisdom[sic] for millennia. 

“If we need history’s stamp of approval to justify research and policy reform today (we don’t), surely that’s enough.”

/ end of Winslow’s Pop Junk post

Motivation for this Page

A reactionary page reacting against fools attacking the field by abusing Indigenous Shams as a blunt club for the purpose of delegitimizing and discrediting and insulting entheogen scholars, to fakely try to elevate themselves and make a name for themselves.

These RUDE & WRONG, hostile newbies have read only a single book: The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020, and Pollan 2018, and fantasize that they are equipped to appoint themselves as a new, Easy-Mode career role, as Entheogen Scholarship Critic.

Mosurinjohn & Ascough bring Rogan-level Pop shallow substitute for scholarly research that moves the field forward constructively to reach its potential. Proof that Mosurinjohn & Ascough are nothing but mere Pop Junk writers POSING as serious academics, like Huggins POSES and play-acts at writing a scholarly article and yet:

Day 3

Huggins says Day 3 is “ruled out” from meaning mushrooms, because the plants “have branches”.

What the hell is WRONG with Huggins that he FAILS to point out that these “branches” are identical to mushrooms?

Answer: Huggins is PROPAGANDA to appease, ingratiate himself with, and cater to ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS ACADEMIA.

The “scholarship” presented by the anything-but-drugs academics are not sincere investigative scholarship trying to find the truth regardless of academia’s corrupt demands.

Huggins is required to reach the desired, negative conclusions. Revealed in his garbled, bizarre, arbitrary “Conclusion” section so he can next utter: “Every instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art FAILED THE TEST.”

What test? The utterly, to the core, nonsensical test:

  1. Art historians defined a class, mushroom-trees.
  2. Criteria for a tree to be included in the class, “mushroom-trees”:
    The tree must have some tree features and must also have some mushroom features.
  3. Huggins’ ploy: Consider any particular isolated instance of a mushroom-tree, by that class-definition.
  4. Ask “whether” that isolated tree instance has any tree features.
    This is a ploy and deception. It’s already plainly known, that by definition, every instance has tree features; otherwise, that instance would not be included in the class.
  5. “IF” the instance has tree features (by definition, that’s guaranteed), then in that particular case, you should just ignore the mushroom elements and exclusively pay attention and honor and respect the tree elements.
    (Arbitrary bias.)
  6. Voila, now you can utter the phony “conclusion” of this SENSELESS CHARADE, this phony put-on:
    “So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art. We discovered, surprise: every single mushroom-tree instance was discovered to have branching.
    HELL WE EVEN INCLUDED DAY 4’S 4 PLANTS, WHICH HAVE NO BRANCHING AT ALL and are not eligible for inclusion in the class “mushroom-trees”.
  7. In your next article, shift from possibility to fact. Huggins 2025 tries to soften his basically aggressive “rules” (ie, the arbitrary decree: Always ignore any mushroom features) by treating them simultaneously as mere “suggestions” and yet also, at the same time, as objective, binding “rules”.

This “Conclusion” section strategem is an affectation, a phony put-on, dissimulation, a way of pretending to “conclude” “Always ignore all mushroom features“, without admitting you are doing that sweeping, blanket, arbitrary dismissal.

Why such garbled arg’n? Because of academic corruption and denial; committed skeptics.

If anything-but-drugs academics were authentic, Huggins would STEELMAN INSTEAD OF STRAWMAN:

An HONEST HUGS (an alternate reality) would:

  • Discuss that the Day 3 panel’s “branches” match mushrooms.
  • Discuss that the Day 4 panel has not mushroom-trees or trees, but purely, mushrooms, with no branching.
  • In the “Conclusion” section, not concoct the pointless, redundant, fake “testing” of members of a class to “discover” whether they have tree features – a nonsensical charade, since you already know ahead of time this is guaranteed to always be the case in every instance.

The fake & nonsensical charade of “testing” each tree within the class mushroom-trees, in the “Conclusion” section of Huggins 2024, is a BLUFF by an insincere, pseudo-scholar trying to ingratiate himself with CORRUPT, ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS ACADEMICS; COMMITTED SKEPTICS who are trying to OBSCURE and COVER-UP the truth, not find the truth.

Day 4

Huggins says Day 4 contains “trees”. Ludicrous!

They are plain, simple, no-branch mushrooms.

What is WRONG with Huggins, that he declined his duty to STOP and discuss these mushroom images that have no branches?

Ans: Huggins — like Mosurinjohn & Ascough — is playacting, putting on a show to impress the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia.

Articles by the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are propaganda disguised as scholarship.

Huggins’ Conclusion Ruse: Sweep ALL Mushroom-Trees Away, while Pretending to Individually Analyze Each Instance

Ronald Huggins’ Conclusion Section Amounts to a Request for Explaining Branching on Mushroom-Trees as a Class

Huggins concocts a nonsensical test that’s totally redundant with any given tree’s inclusion in the class of mushroom-trees, in his Foraging Wrong article’s “Conclusion” (rather, his Irrational Decree section).

Then in his Next, 2025 Article: “Each Mushroom Image FAILS THE TEST” and Is “Ruled Out”, by His Fraudulent & Nonsensical “Test”.

Huggins Conclusion section pretends to examine individual members of class ‘mushroom-trees’ to ask “whether” that instance, that member of the class, has any tree features at all.

What insanity! a put-on! a ruse!

It is a GIVEN that by definition, all members of mushroom-tree class have tree elements; otherwise that tree instance wouldn’t be in the class.

FOR EXAMPLE: Day 4’s four simple, literal mushrooms are NOT in the class “mushroom-trees”, because they don’t have ANY branches AT ALL.

Huggins pulls a CHEAP cheap, sleazy STAGE-MAGICIAN sleight-of-hand, misdirection of attention:

“OH HEY LOOK OVER THERE AT THOSE SMALLER PLANTS AMONG THE FOUR TREES, THEY APPEAR IN OTHER FOLIO IMAGE!!”

Biased propagandist Huggins abusively manipulates the reader and sneakily avoids discussing these no-branch mushrooms – they are not “trees”, by anyone’s assessment, yet he bluffs the reader (hope no one notices) by calling these plain, no-branch mushrooms, “trees”.

Corruption in Academia Around Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art: the Anything-But-Drugs Agenda, Instead of Investigative Scholarship

Ronald Huggins is dishonest propaganda, to impress and cowtow to the anything-but-drugs academic cabal; not sincere, authentic scholarship.

Yet, Mosurinjohn & Ascough cite Huggins AS IF he’s a credit to their position, their side.

Huggins reasons in a sweeping, blanket way, while PRETENDING to be nuanced per each mushroom-tree instance. It’s a ruse; a put-on, an affectation to deceive.

Huggins’ actual argumentation or assertion is:

Branch features ALWAYS should be ignored for ALL mushroom-trees.

Huggins’ PRETENDED argument is, “if a specific, isolated, individual mushroom-tree has any tree elements of any kind, ignore its mushroom elements”.

OBVIOUSLY this is the case, by definition, for EVERY member of the class.

THIS IS ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS ACADEMIA PROPAGANDA, not sincere scholarship.

The Panofsky/ Wasson/ Huggins Sleazy and Dishonest Cover-up Operation

Why doesn’t Huggins cite the article that published the two censored Panofsky letters on the World-Wide Web for ALL scholars to access?
Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019

Why does Huggins make-believe entheogen scholars have been aware of both of the Panofsky letters, and their Brinckmann citation, since 1952 or 1968?

What’s Huggins’ motive for pulling the two Panofsky letters and the Brinckmann citation out of nowhere, out of thin air?

It’s a dirty, scholar-warfare tactic to block other scholars from accessing and leveraging the Panofsky letters.

Huggins tries to cozy up to Popebanker Wasson, pretending like Wasson is on the up-and-up.

Huggins helps the liar, Popebanker Wasson in a cover-up operation, by refusing to cite and credit and help other scholars (Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art) utilize the Panofsky letters that Popebanker Wasson egregiously and fraudulently and maliciously censored.

Instead of standard scholarship, for this “special”, taboo, charged topic, Huggins directs us to the goddamned DRAWER at Harvard, which the Affirmer of mushroom imagery in Christian art Jan Irvin is forbidden from accessing.

Wasson p. 180 SOMA 1968, similarly deletes actual scholarly practice (citations of published writings), and sneakily tries to get us, on this special magic taboo topic, only, to use wildly abnormal, non-scholarly methods, of “consult” art authorities.

The expert art authorities must be obeyed by Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art why?

These art historian frauds, cover-up operators for hire in the wake of the Allegro violation (combining Jesus’ ahistoricity + entheogen origins of Christianity) have never written ANYTHING about the existence of hundred of mushroom-trees, with the “NOTABLE” (Huggins’ cover-up for censored-by-Wasson) single, weak, lone exception:

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

Intro

Indigenous Shams Do NOT Have “Psychedelic Wisdom”, against Winslow, Houot, Mosurinjohn & Ascough, etc.

This page is to RETURN IN KIND a big F U to rude, anti-scholar, self-promoters, toxic parasites invading the field only to fall on their faces, Mosurinjohn & Ascough.

Expecting to score cheap & easy points in the anything-but-drugs academic cabal, Mosurinjohn & Ascough are hell-bent on discrediting their betters who CREATED the field – INCLUDING those selfsame entheogen scholars who created the field of Indigenous Sham Studies, that Mosurinjohn & Ascough (with Greer & Huggins) — the ABD Newbie Fools — think they can weaponize against Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Greco/ Roman/ Jewish/ Christian art.

The Anything-but-Drugs Newbies

Looking to Make a Cheap and Easy Name for Themselves in the Trendy Entheogen Scholarship Field by Appeasing & Selling Themselves to CORRUPT Anything-but-Drugs Academia, Instead of Authentic Scholarly Investigation

  • Mosurinjohn
  • Ascough
  • Greer
  • Huggins

The ABD Newbies think they can invade this field that entheogen scholars created, invading the field in lazy, SLOPPY, Easy-Mode.

Mosurinjohn & Ascough cite Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest (Huggins, 2024) AS IF the article is sound, beyond Huggins’ correcting of trivia.

I agree with ABD Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art on some points:

  • Entheogen scholarship needs correction, routinely.
  • Reject 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
  • Advocate 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).

Entheogen scholars make mistakes; I made a page with a long list of such errors:
Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars

Entheogen scholars are correct about what matters:
The best, most authentic, Classic, authoritative religion and myth comes from none other than psychedelics.

Creating a page is sometimes a guess and a speculative investment.

Not always sure how much potential, or how much such a page/title is needed.

Todo

todo: copypaste today’s txt msgs Feb. 18, 2026

See Also

todo: link to new page: Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality, Gordon Wasson, 1968

todo: link to new page: Plaincourault fresco

Jan Irvin’s 2022 book God’s Flesh: Teonanacátl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom, August 2, 2022 https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Flesh-Teonanac%C3%A1tl-History-Mushroom/dp/0982556225/ & https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/27/gods-flesh-teonanacatl-the-true-history-of-the-sacred-mushroom-irvin-2022/

Thomas Hatsis’ 2025 book Psychedelic Injustice: How Identity Politics Poisons the Psychedelic Renaissance https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634312783 & https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/17/psychedelic-injustice-how-identity-politics-poisons-the-psychedelic-renaissance-hatsis-2025/

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment