The “Features” list in in branching-message mushroom trees draft article pages/ outtakes pages. to start, below only has pics. “silent gallery” like i made for all Great Canterbury Psalter images. STFU and look at pics.
Let the Pictures Do the Talking: The “Silent Gallery” Type of Webpage
The new article for church reader is kind of that: it separates the lists of motifs, from the pictures; lacks a Features list under each pic.
Entry into Jerusalem (Church of Saint Martin)
Photo by Julie M. Brown, used with permission.
Purification of Isaiah’s Lips and Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem. Fresco on south choir wall, Church of Saint Martin de Vicq, France. Early 12th century (photo by Julie M. Brown, used with permission).
todo: remove words except credit Brown.
Towers of Jerusalem (Church of Saint Martin)
Photo by Julie M. Brown, used with permission.
Figure 1. Detail from Towers of Jerusalem. Church of Saint Martin de Vicq, France. Early 12th century (photo by Julie M. Brown, used with permission).
todo: state justification for keeping this pic in this Entry into Jerusalem page.
Entry into Jerusalem (Otto Gospel)
Entry into Jerusalem. Page 94, Otto Gospel.
If you believe Archive org, this is the cover of the crucial 1906 Brinckmann book censored by Wasson the Pope’s banker.
Entry into Jerusalem (Lorenzetti)
Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (1320) by Pietro Lorenzetti. Provided by Cyberdisciple the Egodeath community.
Posting Convention for Mobile: Potentials of a Rough Draft Flow (non hidden)
limitation of Mobile app for WordPress called Jetpack:
sluggish with long pages.
be super careful to sync w Desktop browser edits drafts, else RISK LOSING CONTENT.
when i know i need to create a page on a good idea for a topic , get started: post it as outline sketch and not hidden. especially mobile.
this site is leading edge rough idea development then some pages reach polished state – including mobile experimental tech.
this post is presently a mow-bile rough starter outline.
i dont like saving a hidden draft of a post, it gets lost and hard to track; it is easier for me to post as draft.
joke: as a privilege for followers who pay $$$ they get to see early draft. ( = 💥🗑️ )
Intro
superdeterminism falsely claims to be more radical than determinism, but falls short of eternalism which falls short of eternalism with control ramif that The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897) objected to.
James, it is not – as i recently realized (wrmspirit emails) – a zero sum game
integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking – ie, not a zero-sum game between either possibilism-thinking wins & eternalism-thinking loses “or” eternalism-thinking wins &
Psychedelic RenaissanceTM — p r Psychedelic RenaissanceTM
todo: review all keyboard shortcut because = review all key concepts.
k c
key concept
keyboard shortcut = acronym (invented by me 4/87 for dadt-path idea development enabling figure out enlightenment ego transcendence in just 1987/04 to 1988/01/11 years ) = key concept
keyboard shortcut , acro, key concept
same thing – super powerful PROVED by how dast fast i went from reading the Way of Zen by Alan Watts like 4/87, to breakthru jan 88.
eternalism 4D block spacetime + ego dies from no-free-will + loose cognition / psychedelics
Minkowski keyboard shortcut absolute four- dim s
absolute four-dimensional spacetime
afds
absolute four-dimensional spacetime 🎉
a cool acronym to type on keyboard left fingers: A F D S — ez
absolute four-dimensional spacetime
absolute four-dimensional spacetime
per Petkov intro of Minkowski booki
Minkowski book
I found the words eternalism & superdeterminism (vs determinism ) on the day after i rearranged the separated Summary to become the inline Intro, on Sep 2007 main article, & rearranged phrases to not have nested sentences (to enable voice reading recording of article).
todo: gather past week of writeups
yesterday & past two days, wrote: …
copied emails to idea development p 30 or 31
eternalism is as far beyond determinism as determinism is beyond freewill !
search site: spectrum of determinism recent good list
find superdeterminism
The List of Spectrum Positions
freewill
determinism
superdeterminism
emily adlam version of superdeterminism wgat WHAT IS HER KEY TERM?, see my adlam page. & SEE V1 of this list recently by finf dFind in site: dt superdeterminism
eternalism per Snodfart Ency Phil – phil o time – omits ANY consid of control ramif
proper eternalism (with Control aspects) which Wm James 1897 railed against while pretending to rebut determinism
2 definitions of eternalism : without Control considerations, with
Degree of Grasping Eternalism 4D block spacetime by Minkowski vs Einstein (weak)
Einstein initially rejected or disrespected Minkowski s 4D block spacetime – Petkov book’s intro phrase:
absolute four-dimensional spacetime
“absolute four-dimensional spacetime”.
“absolute”, because everyone f’d up by the word ‘relativity’ connotations.
relativity is OF SIMULTANEITY, but still, everything is a frozen spacetime block per Minkowski / Ein.
posted 6 mo ago about this, Petkov page/ Minkowski page: 4D Spacetime Mysticism
petkov book says Minkowski grokked the full mind-blowing ramifs of 4D block spacetime unlike Einstein
stupid idiot Minkowski, his 1908 draft initially said, appropriately,
OMFG MIND BLOWN!! A BFD! THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING 😵🤯– then he struck that deaft draft clarification!
might have photo of that page at WordPress gallery here
he really screwed himself– FATAL MISTAKE. failure to self promote, so now everyone thinks Einstein both thought of 4D block spacetime and grokked it.
No one but Minkowski gradped ramif of eternalism 4D block spacetime – but James 1897 did and so h–
in 1897 Hames James tripped on nitrous and discovered 4D block spacetime , then rejected it when he returned to ordinary state — this is early example of my male female two headed final result: integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
against Wm Em James, do not reject eternalism and only affirm mental model 1.
afainst advaita, do not reject possibilism and only affirm mental model 2.
keyboard shortcuts:
William James
wj
The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897)
wj97
todo:
keyboard shortcut w the url of my page The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897)
The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897) url of my page & url of the pdf
wj97u
u suffix of a keyboard shortcut includes url of my page & of book or article
recent awesome convention for citation keyboard shortcuts: fl## — author initials + year (+ url!! fl##u )
new convention: u suffix – keyboard shortcut expansion tgat includes 2 urls:
url of my page
url of bk or article
the definition of determinism is rigid and not re definable as i wrongly attempted in 2007 main article
move out: Date of Main article 2006 & 2007: Fully Written 2006; Fixed Layout 2007
what is totally f’d up: 2006 fail: I developed an Intro ABOUT this article – a summ. of it — on the home page of Egodeath.com, then in 2007 had the good sense to start article w/ that condensed “progressive disclosure” summary. Then Sep 2007 I read-aloud and found too-long, nested sentences. Fixed those. Finalized in Sep 2007. Thus, “2006 / 2007 main article”. Next day, alas, found the word ‘eternalism’, shoulda replaced ‘determinism’
hell you could even research cybtrans.com at Archive.org in 2006 Sep. to see the nested senences and lack of Intro/Summary section.
todo: [heading from page “1987 notebooks”: History of Finalizing Article from Sep 2006 to Sep 20] – move present section to there? yes def. a good place to gather same info, even if not ideal
verdict: article written 2006; layout fixed 2007 to
bring the “Summary” section from the separate, home page of Egodeath.com, into the article inline as the Intro section (like part 0 then parts 1-4);
and to break out the nested sentences (discovered during recording reading aloud the article).
[The day after I finalized the article in Sep. 2007, I discovered & posted in Egodeath Yahoo Group about the words ‘eternalism’ and ‘superdeterminism’; should’ve changed ‘determinism’ to ‘eternalism’ in the article.]
Every phrase of the final article was written in 2006, not quite brought together properly inline, and not as readable due to long-because-nested sentences.
image photo 2006 draft p 1 toc missing Intro summary
by conventional standards, 2006 was merely a draft , because the Intro (called Summary, ) was outside the article as :
Summary of that article over there in other webpage
not :
inline as “Intro” in article’s webpage
(also, nested sentences not readable aloud) in main webpage of article in 2006
the wording choice is same in 2006 2007 but LOCATION of sections or phrases changed
image p 1 from recent 1987 Notebk post
wrote body 2006 4 main sections
wrote Summary of article on separate, home page 2006
2007 moved Summary from home page to start of article
[The next day (per Egodeath Yahoo Group posts): discovered and posted for the first time the words eternalism and super determinism; should’ve changed ‘determinism’ to ‘eternalism’ in the article.]
My First Ever Writing/Posting the word ‘eternalism’: Sep. 12, 2007
Superdeterminism is weak compared to eternalism which is weak compared to [eternalism incl control ramifications that The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897) objected to after etm was revealed on Nitrous, and Minkowski said OMFG 4D block spacetime changes everything!!🤯 — like recent video by Emily Adlam. url my page
BUT, neither Emily nor Minkowski nor James fully grasped, … James — BECAUSE he had a psychedelic, NITROUS, — grasped more than Minkowski or Adlam, the CONTROL aspects of eternalism
Adlam superdeterminism …. is stronger than regular superdeterminism – thus separe list items. on the spectrum list.
keyboard shortcut ie concept-label — making a keyboard shortcut acro is a big deal, it means crafting casting a new concept.
a keyboard shortcut = a super concept. april 1987 technique breakthrough : I invented the acronym. 👉😑
Inventor of the Acronym: Michael Hoffman April 1987
when my father died tgat month i had a huge breakthru in idea development technique and started thinking in terms of not wroking on myself control repair via blank books but instead big empty ruled binder sheets to develop a theory model; prototype project to set iut out intentionally to create an exmd em e
keyboard shortcut
explanatory model
exm
explanatory model 🎉
bad: keyboard shortcut thats part of english words eg : em
would not work
1987 binder sheete and word procesdor text file format:
absolute four-dimensional spacetime [AFDS]
allcaps keyboard shortcut feature is on desktop only
special feature of this software (no; desktop browser only, not mobile) : allcaps expansion is avail IF acro is lowercase:
absolute four-dimensional spacetime
absolute four-dimensional spacetime
didnt work. test:
keyboard shortcut
not work.
end of allcaps note
Concept of “explanatory model”
idea of explanatory model is per 350$ book of on the Science of Model-Based & Paul Thagard (cited there i think)
keyboard shortcut
Paul Thagard Conceptual Revolutions my url if any?? do i have page? TODO
who invented the acronym when? history: IBM even the damn name of the co is an acro
1987 notation:
foo bar [FB]
hand writing big init cap + all caps hand writing P205
FOO BAR [FB]
is how figured out ego transcendence by interrogating the Way of Zen by Alan Watts from 1987/04 to 1988/01 SHyT THATS HOW FAST I FIGURED OUT ego transcendence per STEM standards by using acro to speed thinking & forge key concept concept-labels as acronyms.
forge a new term + acro = powerful. started apr 87 doing that.
No longer sent’s in small, tightly bound blank books,
5 threw away in 4/87.
from 1985/10 thru 1987/03 , wrote 5 blank books in the effort to repair my dysfunctional cross-time control
engr class notes photo 1986 here shows my pre-theory-construction phase
When did i start CONSCIOUSLY developing the Egodeath theory ?
its not as if on day 1: Oct 26 1985 i thought “Im gonna create/ develop the Egodeath theory”
before i had started consciously developing theory.
no acros, blank books, not building a theory. 1985/10
no acros, figure out ego transcendence not because that was my goal, but, to repair / analyze dysfunctional cross-time control i should take 2 weeks to first per STEM standards figure out ego transcendence. started like 06/86
04/87 started acros = forging, constructing key concepts, name an acro for the key concept – super powerful. and, started intentionally thinking in terms of creating an explanatory model of nctc non dysfunctional cross-time control to write a book for everyone one; self help done right, incorping loose cognition lessons.
loose cognition
better notation tho for mobile:
foo bar
f b
i might have photo here of when i invented the acronym.
google:
when was the acronym invented? did Michael Hoffman invent the acronym, in 4/87?
AI response:
NO. The acronym was invented in -1987 B C by Joe Acronym, thats where the word comes from.
(stupid idiot)
see yesterday post 1987 Notebooks photo of artic printout missing Intro section just 4 main sections
metaphor
determinism
dissociation (psychedelics loose cognition )
fully tracked in article’s Subject thread at Egodeath Yahoo Group archive
make sure Cyberdisciple know my dates of 2006 2007 main article intro added 2007 , sentences de-nested & shortened for read aloud ability voice recording 2007
Egodeath Yahoo Group shows Sep 2007 day i finalized main article, the following day i first posted the word eternalism. Find that word at Egodeath Yahoo Group – Max Freakout Archive
Wasson’s Academic Fraud, Obstructionism, Censorship of Brinckmann Book Citation, Lying about What He Believes, Dissimulation at “Consult”
Wasson’s academic fraud/ obstructionism on p. 180 of his 1968 book SOMA where he heavily censored and misrepresented the TWO letters (not one, as Wasson lies) that the top art historian Erwin Panofsky wrote him in 1952.
Yet in the same paragraph where Wasson shows part of one of Panofsky’s letters, with that citation silently withheld, Wasson berates and insults mycologists for not “consulting” the art historians.
Recently, Ronald Huggins has the AUDACITY to describe Brinckmann’s censored-by-Wasson book as a “NOTED” exception to the rule that “art historians never think or write anything about trees, because trees are merely incidental in medieval art”. 🤦♂️🤦♂️
In fact, trees are the pinnacle of transcendent meaning/ the message, in medieval art.
And that’s what Wasson censors out, so what library works are we to “consult”? You mean, phone up? Why, because no academic ever wrote/published anything at all, so why then “consult” them in person? THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY on this (don’t say “related topics”) topic of trees, or, of mushrooms. 1952 academics are COMPLETE IGNORAMUSES having never thought or written anything about trees (per Ronald Huggins ’24) or about mushroom (per Wasson SOMA p. 180 1968).
Every aspect of Wasson’s argument is pure dissimulation, propaganda, B S, and he lies about what he — we really can be certain — privately believes. He lies about what he privately believes; pretends to not believe there’s mushroom imagery in Christian art but he privately knows that’s the case. He is banker for pope; max conflict of interest.
Panofsky MUST have cited some in his “letter” (a Wasson lie; it is letterS; directly relevant thus a lie to write “letter”).
Sorry, Page Not Found – If you have a medical emergency, please dial 911 on your phone.
The “Religious Leaders Study” Fiasco
Matt Johnson filed ethics violations complaints against his Hopkins team, so the 10-years-long-awaited article has “Conflicts of Interest” section that says:
“Do not use this article, it is unclean for building-up Science.“
Sections / entries from page Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science:
Sent to whistleblower last night, the snake oil image that came across when zooming through my pages looking for images yesterday
just thought of how funny such a new page called just “Psychedelic Snake Oil”
I Advised Portland Oregon Law Group in 2021 about the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control, and requirements of how to teach per Great Canterbury Psalter
The Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) Forces an Outcome of a Giant, Artificial “Grief” Category of Effects, by Ignoring Control-Related Challenges, Where the Real Action’s At
Exposing How the CEQ Sausage Was Made 🤢
Psychedelic-assisisted therapy as a pushed business model to profit Big Pharma, by people who know nothing of the Fear of God that’s packed into psilocybin.
The Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) forces a business-model driven, Premeditated Outcome, of a Giant Bloated “Grief” Category of Effects, for Profit-Driven “therapy/ healing”, By Simply Discarding and Ignoring the Classic, Hallmark, Control-Related Challenges, Where the Real Action’s At: The {shadow dragon monster}
The Experience of the Threat of Catastrophic Loss of Control
The therapists and scientists have NO IDEA what they’re dealing with: the dread ETCLOC: experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control
Omitted in the most-ugly process of fabricating the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ): OAV questionnaire’s Item 54: I was afraid to lose my self-control.
Hanegraaff put the stars into his “Rejected” wastebasket, to protect rebirth (phase 1 of 2) from being into heimarmene/ no-free-will/ eternalism.
Every schoolboy knows that when you look up, you see sphere 8 (the fixed stars).
Moving beyond sphere 7 (Saturn) does not mean, yet, transcending cosmic heimarmene, as he wrongly writes; only moving beyond sphere 8 (fixed stars) is transcending cosmic heimarmene.
The material cosmos = fixed stars = sphere 8. NOT sphere 7 (Saturn); the ancient texts contradict Hanegraaff’s fabrication.
He wrote a tower of books and articles about sound scholarship in the historiography of esotericism – so, citation needed., that sphere 8, beyond Saturn, is “beyond the cosmos, beyond heimarmene”.
Back to remedial ancient Ptolemaic cosmology 101, Darth Wouter, destroyer of the fate-soaked fixed stars:
Rebirth phase 1, from sphere 7 (Saturn) into sphere 8 (fixed stars) = your soul portion halts stuck in the stars fastened to the celestial cross for eternity at heimarmene/ no-free-will/ eternalism.
Rebirth phase 2, from sphere 8 (fixed stars) into sphere 9 (precession outside the physical cosmos) = your spirit portion, only, transcends heimarmene/ no-free-will/ eternalism.
Thus the title “On the 8th and 9th”, not “On the 8th/9th”. 8 and 9 are DIFFERENT, unlike Hanegraaff depicts, conflating them.
Your soul halts, stuck in the [5000, not just 7] stars, fastened to the celestial cross for eternity, never rises higher; only your spirit is lifted outside the 5000 stars. [August 22, 2025]
What ancient text says that the outer boundary of the physical cosmos is sphere 7 (Saturn), as Hanegraaff mostly describes it?
He fabricates — CITATION NEEDED, Hanegraaff! — and projects onto hermetic texts what is simply not there, an outsider’s confused, imagined tale of:
Transcendent Knowledge = mental model transformation from eternalism to possibilism; from disempowered no-free-will, to transcendent freewill power.
Hanegraaff VIOLATES HIS CLAIM TO BE DRIVEN BY THE TEXT EVIDENCE.
No ancient text says that rebirth from Saturn is immediately into the level “above heimarmene”.
I would have seen that text by now. I posted extremely detailed passages here.
First you must reconcile with and reach the Fate-ruled fixed stars, in the first rebirth phase. Only after that, do you arrive “beyond the stars” in the 2nd rebirth phase.
He places “beyond the [7] stars” too soon. ie his bunk, confused and confusing subheading Beyond the Stars.
7 planetary stars of the cosmos + 5000 fixed stars of the cosmos
The planetary stars are wandering, relative to the fixed stars.
Mental model transformation in the loose cognitive association state from psilocybin is from possibilism to eternalism.
The mind ends up with integrated possibilism/ eternalism thinking, transcending any single mental model, in a harmonious complementary, fecund combination of two different perspectives on control and posssibiltiy.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
{stand on left foot} = naive possibilism-thinking. sphere 1-7, planets, Saturn.
{stand on right foot} = basic eternalism-thinking. sphere 8: fixed stars.
{stand on no foot} = integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking. sphere 9: precession, beyond the stars.
Hatsis’ Deleted Sites and Articles with Logical Fallacies backed up by His Rich Gallery of mushroom imagery in Christian art, to Prove No Secret Christian Amanita Cult, therefore no mushrooms in Christian art
The Towering Edifice of Grand Psychedelic Science Rests on a Foundation of the Bogus, “Unitive” Model of Mysticism (Covert Neo-Advaita), not the Relational Model of Mysticism that’s Depicted in Greek Myth, Religious Art, and Christian Mysticism
Western Mystics Suck and Fail b/c Resort to Surrenderism, while Indigenous Shamans Have Sophisticated High Tech that Gives them Full Control of High-Dose Psilocybin via Technologies of Drum, Chant, & Dance
Crop and annotations by Cybermonk; art by Eadwine 1200 A.D., Great Canterbury Psalter
The New Phrenology: Science Proves the Brain Turns Orange
Psychedelic Brain Scans an Exercise in Outright Futility & Fraud, Trying to Generate Results, to Impress the Rubes
“neuroscientist so we’re going to look at all these flashy you
5:42know pictures of brains lit up with orange when they’re under the influence of LSD and think wow you know and it’s a
5:50lot of the feedback that I’ve had because I’ve been putting a lot more effort into promoting the podcast now
ack that I’ve had because I’ve been putting a lot more effort into promoting the podcast now
5:56that we’ve got some real theme shows I find it easier to promote those around the internet and the vast majority of
The reaction to Carhart-Harris (with the sole exception of Michael Hoffman) has been rube-like; “How can you possibly criticize that, he’s showing us all these wonderful things about what psychedelics due to the brain”, and I’m calling the bluff
“The vast majority of the feedback I’ve been getting — in fact with the sole exception of Michael Hoffman — has been to has been very rube-like;
it’s been just following on from the from the supposed meaningfulness of Robin Carhart-Harris’s results and saying:
“well how can you possibly criticize that? you know he’s showing us all these wonderful things about what psychedelics due to the brain.”
“And i’m i’m calling the bluff, and seems to be not very well understood exactly where where we you and I are really coming from in critiquing it in this way”
Concerned with Publicity: Don’t Want to Try to Explain Simulation of Psychotic Episodes to the Press; You Want the Bright, Shiny Orangeification of the Brain, to Spin to People
1987 Idea Development Notebooks from Interrogating Way of Zen to Adding Missing Determinism Key, to Discover Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence Breakthrough
Photo Credit: All Photos: Michael Hoffman 1986-2025
Today I read the 2001 email from Strangeloop asking about my pre-1988 writings that bridged from intensive interrogation of the Way of Zen by Alan Watts, to my Jan 11, 1988 breakthrough.
Server gallery month of upload the set of photos: Dec 2020
These photos are surely in posts here in Dec 2020 – with some writeup. Faster to redo now.
Not Able to Find Which Articles Dec. 2020 Show These Photos
Tried idea development pages Dec 2020, only found 1 pic.
ERROR: Site Map lacks 2020-2022 pages list in temporal order – really need all pages in chron order list. todo: Check private dashboard.
March 21, 2022 = email to Brown writing for first time “branching-message mushroom trees” ie THE BRANCHING IS THE PAYLOAD MESSAGE, NOT WHIMSICAL!” vs Marcia Kupfer marked-up passage Brown emailed me, cutting branches in St. Martin rotund youth.
July 4, 2022: Morphology: branching-message mushroom trees
Huggins asks about Plaincourault fresco w/ trident under crown.
“tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism (2 models of time and personal control power).
“This is the key to religious myth, which I discovered and figured out. I also have a great 2GB video lecture 17 minutes long explaining this chalkboard, that I will upload. I am emailing key professors and theorists. University of Washington, Loew hall, room 220 (Electrical Engineering).”
Post-It Note Summary of Mono-Possibility Tree of Asclepius
Pike Place Market SAC Gym Coffeehouse, End 2013-Early 2014
Electrical Engineering Class Notes
Main Binder: Fall 1987; thru Dec 1987
Binders from Above
5th binder = Summer
based on examin pic & memory:
Spring 86 purple – used blank books
sum 86 black – used blank books
fall 86 blue – used blank books
spring 87 red bright – changed to binder sheets
sum 87 flat red thick – looks like thick Fall 87
fal 87
spr 88
sum 88
fal 88
spr 89
sum 89
fall 89
1988 Art Blank Book
Page 485, Binder Sheet, Oct. 19, 1987
mentions big day Oct. 19, 1987
Michael the Archangel, 1991 Art Blank Book, Ink Brush
Post-It Note, Appearance vs. Reality
Worldline Snake Transcends the Block Universe, Art Blank Book, 1991, Liberte, Le Univ Bloc
1988 Hand Draft 1, Binders, Art Blank Book, Draft 2 Printout
Hand Binder Sheet, Giant Shifting Words
Hand Notes: Branching
Art Blank Book 1994: Cross, Blotter, Ouroboros, The Illuminated Intellect
right-hand handwriting, which was bad: lost Left hand, had to extremely work to recover it in 2008
Hand Binder Sheet Cube Slices
Hand Binder Sheet Diagram
Spiral Notebook Sheets Engineering Class Notes
p 525 Break on Through, Typical Acronym Shorthand Powerful
Hand Binder Sheet: Mind, Drawings
2012 1986-Style Blank Book, Pentel P205
1986-style blank book 2 pages
1986-style blank book front cover
felt, P205
Blank Book, P205
Oct. 13, 1987 Hand Writing Binder Sheet
Hand Binder Sheet
Hand Written with Pentel P205 Mechanical Pencil on Binder Sheets, Daily Idea development, Late 1987
left hand
all caps
Binders Factored ~2011 New Binders, Now Per-Semester: Spring 1986-Summer 1989; 1990 Blank Book; Aug 1988 Draft 1 Handwritten Minn. Draft; Printout of Word Processor 2nd Draft
uploaded Dec 2020 – oldest/ first one uploaded
Fixed-Space Word Processor Files No Paragraphs, Heavy Acronyms, 1987
Sep 2006 Done but Not Done Main Article (Sep. 2007): Intro on Sep Webpage; Nested Sentences Too Long
Lacks intro condensed: excusable: the MORE detailed content is present in article webpage.
Nested sentences in sentences: excusable: I converted (for readble-aloud) to shorter sentences, but content is same/ is all present.
what is totally f’d up: 2006 fail: I developed an Intro ABOUT this article – a summ. of it — on the home page of Egodeath.com, then in 2007 had the good sense to start article w/ that condensed “progressive disclosure” summary. Then Sep 2007 I read-aloud and found too-long, nested sentences. Fixed those. Finalized in Sep 2007. Thus, “2006 / 2007 main article”. Next day, alas, found the word ‘eternalism’, shoulda replaced ‘determinism’
History of Finalizing Article from Sep 2006 to Sep 2007
Wrote 60-page excellent 2006 Allegro article for Journal Higher Crit w/ input Jan Irvin.
Re: Entheogen Theory Egodeath article:
What is totally f’d up: 2006 fail:
sep 2006: I developed an Intro ABOUT this article – a summ. of it — on the home page of Egodeath.com
2007: had the good sense to start article w/ that condensed “progressive disclosure” summary.
Sep 2007 I read-aloud and found too-long, nested sentences. Fixed those, to finalized in Sep 2007. Thus, “2006 / 2007 main article”.
Next day, alas, found the word ‘eternalism’, shoulda replaced ‘determinism’. Kafei ran into that problem after 2007 main article — ETERNALISM IS AS FAR BEYOND DETERMINISM AS DETERMINISM IS PAST FREEWILL. Not possible to redefine determinism; its meaning is tightly fixed: domino-chain determinism w/ open non-existent future; eternalism has fully closed future. Big diff’c.
Verio.com host recently renamed to …. something else. Unreliable host.
todo: search crawl my two WordPress sites.
— Cybermonk
Email 2 to Strangeloop “Can You Upload Pre-1988 Writings from the Way of Zen by Alan Watts to Block-Universe Eternalism, Discovering Watts’ Failure to Mention Determinism (Unlike Balsekar)?”
How I Got from Way of Zen to Block-Universe No-Free-Will in Jan. 1988
Sent Aug. 21, 2025
Hi Strangeloop,Today I read your unread email sent via Contact page, Jan. 10, 2021.
Making a book from My Dense Text Files 1987; Binder Sheets 1987; Way of Zen Copy
Printing Out then Analyzing my Idea development Notes: Oct 1987- Feb 1988, how exactly did I get from the Way of Zen by Alan Watts, to
Strangeloop wrote:
“Any chance you could
download [upload] your typed pre-1988 breakthrough material to this site, where you were figuring out the “no-freewill” solution to the book The Way of Zen?
* (Aug 1988: 1st draft of The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence: P205 Pentel pencil on binder sheets, Minn.)
* Late 1988: Mac floppies of v1 of Egodeath site = first drafts late 1987 of article for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, “the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence”.
* June 1987 – 1989 Word/PC text files
* Copy of The Way of Zen by Alan Watts. See article in This Is It but alas I didn’t find that article summary, until after Jan 1988, but, same thought process. I could tell you how to get from there, to the no-free-will breakthrough, by adding 4 other topics listed below.
I can remember the thought process.
I can read my notes in the book Way of Zen by Alan Watts – I can read that book copy, and tell you which passages were key but best tip is:
forget the Way of Zen by Alan Watts, instead read the article in book This Is It: “Zen and the Problem of Control”.
The question is completely familiar, I think I may have posted this response on a webpage to you. I don’t think we used email for such a question before.
Answer:
Impracticable, but possible. It would be good to know – but hard to do meaningfully. That’s why I kept paper archives 1986-1990, for that purpose you asked.
I couldn’t read the Mac floppies from 1988. No idea why not. The content migrated into Egodeath.com, re: my word processor articles.
The 4-5 Topics Brought together for Jan 1988 Breakthrough
(“Why didn’t Watts just write ‘determinism’ [eternalism]?!”
It is extremely slow going, reading my handwritten idea development prior to Jan. 11, 1988 breakthrough combining:
Pulling those together, was the key, then I exclaimed “Why didn’t Watts ever write anything saying ‘determinism’?!” by which I meant, eternalism.
Determinism is on the bad end of a spectrum of variants; my eternalism (w/ control transformation aspects that Wm James rejected in 1890s, “The Dilemma of Determinism”), is at the good extreme of the spectrum.
Determinism is weak and clueless, opposite of Eternalism. Roughly:
1. freewill
2. Determinism
3. Eternalism
ie, go from freewill to determinism, then go equally far to finally get to eternalism. The Dilemma of Determinism (James, 1897) Is Against Eternalism, Not Causal-Chain Determinism
One form of writing during 1987 is the best: text computer files June 1987 through 1988.
Those text files have no CRLF whitespace/ paragraphs; giant paragraph shorthand – again, pretty tough and slow jungle.
It’s possible to turn such materials into a bound printout PDF produced on demand book cheaply.
Would require work, and a strange book but I kept records for that reason. I have hard drives that have the files.
Amnesia, Project of Reconstructing Timeline Intellectual Autobiography
I had serious amnesia, I discovered, when started hiatus Jan 1, 2008, because since 1985 I had been blasting forward, forward, always looking forward, leading edge, never reviewing:
How did I get here? I could not remember! Scary. I had to re-construct my intellectual autobio; timelines. Which I then had in hand when returned from hiatus Sep 2011 3.75 years later, major threat at Egodeath Yahoo Group called “Intellectual Autobiography“.
During hiatus 2008-2009, I had awesome art pictures diagrammatic in the main article 2007, but, failed to comprehend the YI branching vs. nonbranching. To grasp that finally in 2023,
* During 2008-2010, I speculated walking forest preserve forking paths photo’ing mushrooms every October, I thought:
Didn’t Greeks have Cog Sci and knew 4-D block universe? Along w/ loose cognition?
Then Nov 2011, Nov 2012, Nov 2013, I decoded branching in myth.
2015 xmas: Isn’t “Dancing Man” stand on right foot = eternalism mental model?? Hard to confirm. … Test this scientific hypothesis.
…
2020 Nov: Confirmed, jackpot! Great Canterbury Psalter, Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter. At web May 2008 by John Lash, 2/5 of 1 of 3 rows of 1 image.
Then Cyberdisciple provided 2020 too-dark full res, Great Canterbury Psalter.
I was slow to finally in March 2023 comprehend ALL of the art pieces I had since like 2004, re: YI branching vs nonbranching = possibilism vs. eternalism.
That became the theory of the set of 4: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, summarized in my psych’d Church Reader article yesterday:
Recognizing Mushroom Imagery in Medieval Art — added few more key mythemes in the compact list – well less than 2 pages of text! Trick (attn: Cyberdisciple): I removed tons of words by not listing features for a specific image. 2 pages of text + 1 tall picture page + 2 pages w/ two images each. Pleased w/ the dense article. The keys to everything, there. Church, a newly ordained woman praised it, I am glad.
My 1988 draft article – equiv = 2007 main article.
1st draft was hand written in Minn. I have it. Then about 6 printouts of that via the orig computer center w/ glass wall and ivy covered univ buildings.
“the unity feeling, or the new identification of the mind with stationary consciousness rather than mental constructs in motion, is not the fulcrum driving revelation.
The one-word answer for “What is hidden at first, but then revealed by loose cognition?” is “determinism” or “Fatedness”, not “unity” or “consciousness”.
The word “determinism” lends itself better to having these ideas attached, than the word “unity” or “love” or “consciousness” or “enlightenment”.
Enlightenment amounts to determinism, more than enlightenment is unity or consciousness.
What is revealed is determinism and its concomitants.
All other proposed single answers leave room for confusion. What word most forcefully shuts out possibility of confusion? “Determinism”. Determinism is usually mis-defined as predictionism and domino-chain causality, instead of the non- branching singleness, fixity, and even pre-existence of the future. Still, after correction, “determinism” implies far more principles of High Religion than do the terms “unity”, “love”, “enlightenment”, or “truth”.
“Unity” is not the key to high religion. Neither is “consciousness” or “love”. “Determinism” is the key to the knowledge revealed in high religion.”
/ end of excerpt from my 2001 post
Latest Kitchens emails
hi-lev goal/mission:
i wish to make Christian, relational mysticism victorious over Eastern, nondual type mysticism.
* relational model of mysticism (eg Christian mysticism) 2-level, dependent control.
* unitive model of mysticism <– blecch, i don’t think the actual, psychedl. control-transformation dynamics support this being the central focus, despite ALL writers (other than Christian mystics).
the Unitive model is related to (a product of) egoic, “monolithic, autonomous control” model.
This is the poor type of, or model of, “mystical experience” that is expected, by people who merely have the mundane, untransformed, “monolithic, autonomous control” model.
the old theory: unitive. expected by ppl who have monolithic, autonomous control. presupposition, foundation of sand. Greek myth does not at all support this! neither does art!
the new theory: relational. end up with “2-level, dependent control” model. transformed, redeemed. Greek myth agrees with this. Art depicts this.
“Solid mission.
“Griffiths et all want a global mono-religion that solves all conflicts, sounds horrific.”
Differentiate: Religious Particularism; Perennialism; Essentialism; Unitive; Relational; Universalist – Stop the False Dilemmas and Limited Options/Groupings
I bleieve universal – a kind of perennail – and a kind of essentiallism. BUT NOT Unitive, that’s the massive difference, like between ‘determinism’ vs. very different ‘eternalism’. Their universal peren. essen. model is WRONG.
I do not believe in J or Christian particularism – though/ but I am saved by blood of Christ in a esoteric way. fear of God, check. 2-level, dependent control
relational mysticism not unitive. but, ‘relational” does not mean particularistic.
MY SCIENTIFIC MODEL IS NOT Christianity PARTI’IC. Nor Jewish particularist as Strass advocates – I reject that aspect of Strass pdf. Yet I am saved by the blood of Christ. I sat as child in Jewish temple. No lambs or messiahs – violent or not – were harmed in the making of this theory.
Not their bogus “esotericism”; esotericism per psychedelic eternalism per the Egodeath theory, rather.
distinct: do not conflate:
My #1 complaint after rereading Strassman pdf: he conflates the hell out of these concepts.
I could make a page containing a copy of Strassman’s critical review of 2015 book by Wm Richards “Sacred Knowledge”, then show how Strassman, many times, conflates and wrongly equates & groups these concepts:
universalism/ist
particularism
perennialism which kind
essentialism/ist “
Unitive != universalist
relational mysticism
sometimes mysticism = Unitive
sometimes mysticism = neutral; both Unitive and Relational
eg: he says Relational mysticism = Judaism — and implies wrongly: Christianity != relational mysticism.
Instead, against Strass, seems simple and clear to me:
Jewish & Christian mysticism = Relational mysticism, NOT unitive mysticism.
If Richards equates Christian mysticism = Unitive mysticism, that is misrep./invention.
also Strassman like everyone, wrongly contrasts: DMT vs. traditional traditional methods of the mystics.
false dilemmas, galore; the article is an exercise in false dilemmas & groupings/ conflations. So, Richards fails to handle Relational mysticism (like the Egodeath theory’s 2-level, dependent control from eternalism), and, Strassman fails to group things in a viable way to enable my scientific, universalist, perennial of a sort, essentialist of a sort (non-Unitive; my Relational essentialism).
My Science theory of mental model transformation = Relational, not Unitive. It is Relational AND Universalist. Strassman wrongly shuts out that combination. He wrongly says Relational != Universalist — but Greek myth shows he is wrong.
Greek myth, & religious art (the good kind that matches my theory) is Relational mysticism and is Universalist.
Greek myth is Relational mysticism and is Universalist.
Strass acts like Jewish owns Relational. That’s conflation.
First of all, obv, Christianity mysticism is Relational mysticism. immed destroying his wrong way of dividing / grouping the concepts in play.
Really strange, that Strass doesn’t point out the obvious: that Christian mysticism is Relational mysticism eg per R C Zaehner against Huxley’s brand of universalist perennist essentialism.
UNITIVE universalist perennist essentialism.
RELATIONAL universalist perennist essentialism.
two differeent groupings thus are possible.
The Egodeath theory = the RELATIONAL-mysticism version of universalist perennist essentialism = Scientific, model of mental model transformation from Psilocybin loose cognition.
psychedelic pseudo science = the UNITIVE-mysticism version of universalist perennist essentialism, which is not how Psilocybin transformation actually works. Psilocybin gives a little unitive, then crushes w/ demon/angel teeror-teaching giving producing evanuetually 2-level, dependent control which is relational.
also horrible cliche stupid fallacy:
psychedelics = instant expereincee of mysticism
tradition traditional methods of the mystics = long-term, difficult.
total false dichot. why not combine options?
within a structured Christian framework, do long-term 10 sessions of Psilocybin, do the very hard work to reconfigure mental model about personal control system in relation to the uncontrollable hidden source of control-thoughts.
I have one recent printout of 1 article (the only one) that says to consider this “unthinkable” combination that breaks that baloney false dilemma that everyone parrots unthinkingly – ie,
The method that mystics ACTUALLY used: repeated/ long-term 10 sessions of Psilocybin within Christian framework to do hard work of mental model transformation, giving 2-level, dependent control model of control and world.
… last night’s draft for Kitchens, about your initial thinking the Egodeath theory = domino-chain determinism instead of block-universe eternalism which I think you call The Absolute.Glad to have your contact.
Need you to weigh in on Unity model of mystical experience. vs. potential new foundation in psychedelic pseudo science — a control-centered, Balsekar’s no-free-will centered, model of mystical experience instead.
Balsekar = Advaita, but, Wilber and Andrew Cohen (also Advaita ppl, probably) recoiled b/c only Balsekar put focus on no-free-will.
Ken Wilber never wrote anything on topic of free will vs. determinism (or way better, eternalism). Wilber eventually in 1990s mag What Is Enlightenment? w/ Cohen, eventually they were shocked to find & recoil against the no-free-will pushed by Balsekar.
So, interesting! Same in East religion as West religion:
Pop rediscovery of eternalism in Western religion
* Western religion: 1997, I discover Reformed Theology / Hyper-Calvinism; then my author Dave Hunt and Christians –
amazingly they all had forgotten Reformed Theology / Calvinism! —
they, 2 years after me, re-discovered and were SHOCKED! SHOCKED! to discover history of theology = asserting no-free-will:
God is the author of evil.
God is to blame for all bad things.
Then, Reformed theology exploded. into pop’y & controversial.
Hunt wrote What Love Is This? book, shocked at Hyper-Calvinism/Reformed theology.
How could a Christian author never have heard of Reformed theology?!
It was new to him so late, 1998-ish!
Dave, thanks for failing to teach me in 1995, basic theology, as a “Christian writer”.
Ignorant of no-free-will / Reformed theology – basic, for theology.
Pop rediscovery of eternalism in Eastern religion
* Eastern religion: In late 1990s, Wilber & Cohen were SHOCKED! SHOCKED! to find that Balsekar says the central focus of Transcendent Knowledge (mystical enlightenment) is no-free-will.
That’s my understanding, putting the pieces together.
— Cybermonk
I wouldn’t have resumed using ‘Cybermonk’ except for you; except for Max saying “we are not mystics”, as he had to explain himself later.
i was SHOCKED! SHOCKED! by Max saying “we are not mystics”, so i restored / reclaimed the use of “Cybermonk” for years. First used when, 1995?? 2000?
Lately moved back to “Michael Hoffman”, recently. Must keep “Cybermonk” branding alive, not let it die out again.
email 2 to Kafei
thx for (re-) sending me that Strassman PDF.
I had only read it like twice – now the pieces are coming together tighter.
I wrote against the Unity model in “Sacred Knowledge” poor book by Richards, in 2015 when I pre-ordered it.
Travis Kitchens interviewed Richards and described him to me today as “a dyed-in-the-wool” follower of the Vivek/ James/ Stace/ Hood wrong, Unitive model of mystical experience.
Unitive experience is merely a component of the experience.
The actual central focus of the transformation experience is control transformation, producing personal, relational, 2-level, dependent control.
You have read much more than me, of writings of the mystics. You are the expert there. I suppose I have read just enough.
2015: “Enlightenment is about cybernetics, not unity”
strassman pdf mentions his book i just got, DMT and the Soul of Prophecy. got it after our church book club had him as guest for autobio new book. club had suggested that book like 6 mo ago. jury is out.
I want the scene from the Mars movie where he takes the hallucination journey pills, to experience a fantasy of being a spy, and then says “b.s.” about what’s real. I’m rusty on the scene/ story/ scenario.
i had already read this, and this is one of my sources for — Kafei in July also sent me this link – for name “Swami Vivekananda”.
My church book club had Strassman as a guest, for his new autobio book.
I watched 1-2 YouTube vids of Strassman.
I got his Old Testament = DMT reports book on audiobook, but it seems really choppy, not what I wanted:
I wanted him to present a list of Old Testament mythic/ psychedelic stories/analogies, and how his participants in DMT had same experiences.
Possible Titles for this Article
The Reigning False, “Unity” Model of Mysticism (Covert Neo-Advaita), vs. Control-Transformation
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Aug. 20, 2025: 2-Level, Dependent Control with Vulnerability
two other crops:
f177 — the above + below it, tower, ossuary, corpse, lifted by two guys
equiv: f107 — hand of god controls Jesus lifting guy from ossuary, threatened by demon
This junky draft not even filled in yet = Privileged Early Announcement for Elite Privy Followers
😕 😬 🥺 👀
easiest for me to publish this page first, then fill it in. consider the resulting junk-email to be a priviledge early announcement for high-paying exclusive members club
Breakthrough Announcement
What date, two weeks ago, did I – via Taves & Breau via Kitchens-crowd — suddenly majorly connecting all dots:
every writer, it turns out, makes same FUNDAMENTAL mistake: “mystical experience = nondual Unity oneness; cessation of mind constructing the usual expeirencee of a self/other boundary
explains my dislike of Wm Richards book Sacred Knowledge
explains my 1987 dissat w/ Ken Wilber (around 2023, I wrote his engine of his fwk is worthless – doesn’t fly off the ground — doesn’t deliver the goods – because it is really nothing but conventional Advaita
explains why M E Q and C E Q are trash questionnaires. and whole field of psychedelic pseudo science is aimed straight toward {shadow dragon monster}.
noticed sort of since Jan 1988 – assumes Unity model of mysticism, but – u konw how this goes – by leaps and bounds, a drastic sudden increase of network-connections a couple weeks ago. = breakthrough.
To Touch Upon
Everything, all my critiques of everything, fit exactly into this critique:
My Jan 1988 breakthrough against the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology & Ken Wilber exactly turns out to have been a rejection of their universally held “Unity” false model of mystical experience / enlightenment / Transcendent Knowledge / ego transcendence.
The other day, confirmed Wilber = Unity. (i think i confirmed that – or, I drew the connetions and I should formally prove that)
The other day, found or re-found… recount and write up: i posted that i glimpsed an article by a woman saying to stop saying “ego dissolution” – in field of psychedelic pseudo science — and I couldn’t figure who, ; I SUSPECT i glimpsed Taves article a few months ago, but maybe some other writer. CONFIRMED MY FINDINGS AND EXPANDED THEM/ substantiated.
The other day, i found – thanks to Travis and/or other whistleblowers — Breau article and the name Swami Vivek-ananda; the other day by searching web, for Vivek, or Breau, I found the Breau article. CONFIRMED MY FINDINGS AND EXPANDED by listing 3-4 swamis not just Vivek – those before him and after him.
Taves Article Exposing the Bogus “Unity” Model
Erik Davis Condensed Quote “Vouchsafed”
from email to Kitchens last night – see new, idea development page 31.
Breau Article Exposing Stace = Covert Neo-Advaita
link: Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science Debate Series
Name of the Old Theory and the New Theory, of Mystical Experience/ Transcendent Knowledge/ Ego Transcendence: 1st-Gen = Unity; 2nd-Gen = Control
Unity – everyone else
Control – the Egodeath theory
In 1986, I strategically said: to fix my personal control system, I need to learn ego transcendence from all the poor writers about mystical experience – should take two weeks (accomplished Jan 11 1988).
In 1986, I said: “Learning ego transcendence/ Transcendent Knowledge will not fix my personal control system, but is required, as a piece of knowledge toward that end.” Turns out, their model = merely the Unity model (false model) of ego transcendence.
My point in my early 1988 first drafts of the Egodeath theory — the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence — was, ALL YOU GUYS AT Journal of Transpersonal Psychology ARE WRONG:
THIS ETERNALISM / CYBERNETIC / LOOSE COGNITION MODEL IS THE ACTUAL WAY THAT NUKES ‘EGO’ / EGOIC THINKING.
How then to characterize their wrong model? Since my breakthorugh on this 2 weeks ago, the answer turns out to be: the false, Unity model of Transcendent Knowledge / satori/ enlightenment / etc.
Paul Thagard: Phil o Sci: Conceptual Revolutions book [link my page]:
The old theory = the Unity model of mystical experience
The new theory = the Eternalism/Control model of mystical experience
Did I make pages focusing on the Unity model of mystical experience? instead of the Control-centered Jan 1988 model (eternalism including control, is the ACTUAL nature of mysticism
8 Instances of {balance scale} Motif in Great Canterbury Psalter
Two referents of {balance scale} analogy:
Stable control; control instability; control stability. The problem of control instability. To have Transcendent Knowledge (wisdom) is to be threatened by loss of control; control instability. The better you understand, the more immersed in control instability.
p.m. January 14, 2026: I have not yet SELECTED a key date; this is often difficult and can only happen after studying trajectory of idea devmt.
A trajectory started when elder invited me to present the Egodeath theory or Great Canterbury Psalter to the church.
I envisisioned presenting “possibilism-thinking is false and bad, get rid of it. you gotta believe no-free-will. eternalism-thinking is correct. possibilism-thinking is incorrect.”
Failure. This is wrong. This won’t fly. Will be rejected, rightly;
“SOMETHING IS WRONG W/ HOW I THINK ABOUT RELATION OF POSSIBILISM-THINKING AFTER DISCOVERING ETERNALISM-THINKING.” (mid-2025)
Me in 1995 and repeatedly: OMG I’m still using freewill thinking! I thought I had purified!” But after salvation, I am a sinner; ie, we ALWAYS rely on “childish” possibilism-thinking. When we realize that, from adult eternalism pov, we have then cleansed the ever-used possibilism-thinking. We are then married. You never “get rid of” possibilism-thinking. eaikw kweai
“embrace and include” possibilism-thinking when add eternalism-thinking, to gain or end up with the mature state: 2POV.
“embrace and include” possibilism-thinking when add eternalism-thinking eaipt
“embrace and include” per Ken Wilber eaikw
Often it IS possible to get date & time of a sudden realization or coming together.
Check emails with wrmspirit; during writing those emails, it really came together; good candidate for a representative date of breakthrough.
Oriental Verities on the American Frontier: The 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions and the Thought of Masao Abe (McRae, 1991)
Oriental Verities on the American Frontier: The 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions and the Thought of Masao Abe John McRae, 1991 Journal: Buddhist-Christian Studies Volume v.11, pp. 7 – 36 Publisher University of Hawai’i Press http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/t3-buddhist-christian-studies.aspx – merely an abstract. I have a PDF.
todo: add 2 addl articles from Alexa M, here & Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science page
The positive unitive model of mystical experience came from Vivek., 1893.
The positive unitive model was baked into psychedelic science’s psychedelic psychometric questionnaires, starting with the v1 of Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), by Walter Pahnke, for the Good Friday Experiment at Marsh Chapel on April 20, 1962 by Walter Pahnke under the advisor Tim Leary.
the Good Friday Experiment at Marsh Chapel on April 20, 1962, by Walter Pahnke, under advisor Tim Leary gfe
Drugs and Mysticism: An Analysis of the Relationship between Psychedelic Drug Experience and the Mystical State of Consciousness, Walter Pahnke, June 1963, http://en.psilosophy.info/drugs_and_mysticism.html wp63
Details about creation of modern Indian Hinduism Vedanta Neo Advaita by Swami Vivekananda and popular demand by Popular, Western, modern, rationalist, scientific, progress-driven Protestants.
Fabrication of Modernized Westernized Popular Neo Hinduism, a la “Philosophy of Religion” in the “evolution, progress” era of 1893.
Article on Debates Internal Field Eb Feb 2025 Psychedelic Conference
Not nece. the debates i am most interested in ie
Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science
psychedelic pseudo science
the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) – how the sausage was made, reject 18 of 21 Angst Dread “of ego dissoltion per the positive unitive model”. Ocean vs. Angst dims of OAV 94. how the f has 11 factors and 5D ASC irrel, unneces, in fact the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) drew from OAV 94’s A dim, rejected 18/21 effects. Grief giant dim resulted, same ol model: Grief Therapy, sounds familiar, denature/ exclude the psychedelics specific effects we can’t handle those in our narrative of positive unitive mysticism.
Joe Tafur joined our church book club meeting about his book
Sunday communal church is sort of a sacrament.
It took 177 years to move from geocentric to heliocentric – Copernicus draft 1510; switched Newton 1687.
Officially Copernicus pub’d in his death year 1543 – now to wait til 1687 Newton, for ppl to disrespect Aristotle and also reject Plato and forget entheogen esotericism
I am not overly concerned with proof and historical evidence, i take a more holistic tell-my-narrative approach: i prove through myth art analogy the only way to interp is eternalism-driven control-transformation , per my judgment bases.
Good judgment: Best judgment: Best basis Reference of standard not only psychedelic loose cognition but full devmt : eternalism-driven control-transformation to add eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking.
The best interp, the best type of mysticism, the most legit and Reference and Classic.
Get that non-Classic, Pop Sales, subst 3rd rate “mystical experience” outta here.
Formed by 1893 tension modern religion vs modern science, we need form of spiry that is non-rational, so that we do not clash with rational modern progress science 1893.
Take Prot Neo Protestant, rationalist, anti-super but still literalist, Pop expectations, then add Modern Neo Hinduism Philosophy of Religtion for Modern Protestant Standards in English.
We ended up w/ Westernized Hinduism 1893-1960, taken up into psychedelic pseudo science in 1962 Walter Pankne snaps up that brand new 2 yrs ago Stace theory: non-rational, stop thinking, nothing is real, Positive Unitive [with {shadow dragon monster} control transformation gate]
i judge by the stds of the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} decoded 2023
& ongoing since Ronald Huggins said that we must bet farm on Day 3 – Huggins Huggies already lost b/c i already figured out analogies revealing effects of advanced completed intiation 10 immersions in fire of mushroom-trees hellmouth threat wisdom; boundary line
[anti-reason Neo-Advaita: all boundaries are lifted when thought is stopped]
but fails to add eternalism-thinking so is fail excuse of substitute, eternalism-avoiding, apotropaic, substitute, pseudo-religion of popular sales:
eg the “secret Amanita cult” theory in the Allegro mind/ Ruck mind / Pop mind, &
same is in 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm), somewhat displaced by 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
Transformation from Possibilism to ALSO Eternalism
Simplistically zoom out level: transformation from possibilism to eternalism. As if the end of possibilism-thinking. Doesn’t work like that when done right end up using possibilism-thinking alla time qualified and added distinct oppositive way of thinking : eternalism also. possibilism-thinking dies and continues 24×7 all the time, aware of the oppositeve POV – end up 2POVs not switch from possibilism POV to eternalism POV – oversimplification but true at a rough level of speaking by defining “eternalism-thinking” as “including possibilism-thinking; “embrace and include” Ken Wilber
“embrace and include” – Ken Wilber; Accumulate 2POV
“In Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory, “embrace and include” refers to the principle that:
As consciousness and development evolve to higher, more complex stages, they don’t discard or negate lower stages but rather transcend them by integrating, encompassing, and honoring those previous levels, leading to greater wholeness, depth, and a wider embrace of reality (e.g., moving from ego-centric to world-centric to Kosmic consciousness)
[is this covert neo advaita boundary-cessation model of Transcendent Knowledge, omitting the good dynamics eternalism-driven control-transformation , adding Hindu Philosophy of Religion Dept filtering out to craft a neo modern selective redefinition of “real buddhism”.
1893-1960 inventing Buddhism and Hinduism in academia, damn the folk myth non-modern [Prot put down Catholic magical mysticism & myth & magical ritual; Prot rejected entheogens esotericism ]
modern science rejected dark occult magical thinking – i need to copy words from the articles/books. McRae 1990s article on 1893 Parliament invented Modern Hinduism Vedanta Neo Advaita:
you don’t exist
stop thinking
We are non-rational and do not conflict with rational modern progress science
of 1893-1960: mysticism theory positive unitive, no psychedelics added yet
1962: add psychedelics to Stace Vivek +U model mystical experience, & call it psychedelic pseudo science
History of Psychedelic Pseudo Science
Then add psilocybin in 1962 Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) by Tim Leary the expert on pschometric questionnaires (and by Walter Pahnke btw).
That magic folk mythology folk mysticism is just magical thinking only, we modern rational pro-Science progress Christian demand and purchase and applaud to Neo Westernized Modern School of Neo Advaita Vedanta Hindu religion modern Philosophy.
Embrace, Dionysus Added to Ariadne
“It’s central to his concept of “transcend and include” (or “transcend, embrace, and include”), where each new level of understanding (like postmodernism including modernity) expands consciousness to hold previously separate parts, ultimately aiming for a total, nondual integration of all existence. [1, 2, 3, 4]
“Key Aspects of “Embrace and Include”
“Developmental Growth: Each stage of personal growth (e.g., from child to adult) integrates and transcends earlier stages, building a more complex self that can hold more perspectives.
Spiritual Evolution: Spiritual awakening involves recognizing the fundamental unity (nondual reality) where all distinctions (whole and part) dissolve, allowing for a total embrace of the Kosmos.
Integral Psychology: A mature psychology must “embrace and include” all stages of human development, from pre-conventional to post-conventional, rather than dismissing earlier ones as primitive, notes this article from Integral Life.
Postmodernism: In culture, postmodernity seeks to “embrace and include” the diverse knowledge systems (art, morals, science) differentiated by modernity, bringing them into a larger, unified view, explains this article from Bookey.
Holons: The concept of “holons” (self-creating, self-maintaining systems that are wholes to their parts and parts of larger wholes) inherently involves this principle, where a higher holon must “embrace and include the lower levels” to function, notes this article from Neurosemantics. [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
“In essence, “embrace and include” is the dynamic process of evolution, moving towards greater complexity, consciousness, and unity, where nothing is left behind but is instead woven into a richer, more comprehensive whole, a core idea in Ken Wilber’s integral theory. [1, 2, 7]
1687: Western culture lost (relatively) entheogenic esotericism; it’s a good pivot reference year, 1687: Modern; Newton; reject esotericism and mushroom transformation; mental model transformation from possibilism to also eternalism
There are great new articles critiquing 1893 Vivekananda/ 1960 Stace model of “mystical experience”. Ann Taves 2020, Jeffrey Breau 2023, Sharday Mos. 2023 & 2025, Ascough, Greer
I asked Michael Pollan at UC Berkeley: “Are people creating complete, realistic Mystical Experience Questionnaires to replace bunk MEQ?
Pollan replied “Yes, ppl have already started.”
Rejection of Effects Other than Positive Unitive the 1893-1960 model of mystical experience
Hanegraaff concept of rejected wastebasket.
Prot threw. Esotericism entheogens got thrown. esotericism is entheogenic per my post 8 yrs before Hanegraaff Entheogenic Esotericism
I Own Awareness of Date April 20, 1962 Good Friday Experiment at Marsh Chapel, Walter Pahnke, 1963 PhD Thesis Book
In 1962: STart with Stace 1960 +U Postiive Unitive … keyboard shortcut
The Positive Unitive model of “mystical experience” & “mysticism”; Modern Westernized Hinduism Vendana Neo-Advaita, boundary stop, thinking stop, non-rational, ineffable, Neoplatonism Mysticism of the worst stort, sort, apophatic mysticism same deal pretty equivalent to Neo-Advaita
Specifically, i don’t mean every abstruse Neo Advaita verion, but Pop Neo-Advaita is my concern or reference point for critique.
Pop Neo Advaita, the Positive Unitive, non-
omg i thought they were pop’ly writing non-rational = intense mystic altered state
dont’t equate non-rational = alt state / lcoc
Loose Cognitive Science is better; the Egodeath theory + the Mytheme theory incl the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} , {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs; 2POV
2POV: Gain 2 Points of View; Have Two Different Mental Models
TWO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW, TWO DIFFERENT MENTAL MODELS TPOV
two different points of view, two different mental models tpov
Acads Write “The Non-Rational State” When I expect “The Altered State” – Take Them at Their Word: “Our Philosophy of Religion: We Side with Science Modern Rational, Against Supernaturalism Esotericism Magic Folk Mythology, Reject Etn Exoteric esotericism entheogens
entheogenic esotericism enes
The “loose cognition is non-rational” move that / wording acads use, they mean not rational and not in conflict w/ Science; we do not claim to be rational; we are ineffable apophatic The One non-boundary unity via not thinking; trans rational OH NO ANOTHER GOES, yet another whif cooonations of the whole wor Neo Ad paradigm
The Neo Ad Paradigm: Non-Rational; Trans-Rational; Stop Thinking; Cease Self/Other Boundary = Transcendent Knowledge for the Modern 1893 Rational Progress Era Triumph of Science Reason not entheogenic esotericism magical supernatural folk noise of mess on trellis —
Compelling the most compelling defn of Transcendent Knowledge
tis’t It’s the only game they know
Houot konws in article __ … takes up the only model available, by every writer: Neo Advaita = Mytical b/c Stace book 1960. Vivek 1893.
1962 add psilocybin , add questionnaire tech by Tim Leary to create Stace Based v1 of Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) firmly based on – they openly routinely re-explain – PROUDLY based as Science, frozen forever, now out of print, Stace 1960, snapshot frzoen in time of 1893 Modern Western Neo Advaita Hinduism Vendanta with some Neoplatonism Mysticism thrown in – the worst of W Mysticism entheogenic esotericism.
Only Interested in maximal entheogen theory of religion; myth analogy psychedelic eternalism-driven control-transformation; transformation from possibilism to eternalism
Any scholarship theorizing that I do will centrally use them:
the maximal entheogen theory of religion
the Mytheme theory
myth as analogy for psychedelic eternalism-driven control-transformation
transformation from possibilism to eternalism
end up mature having two different points of view, two different mental models: possibilism-thinking, add eternalism-thinking.
gain 2nd mental model, adding eternalism to possibilism.
2025 Accomp: “The mind gains a 2nd mental model, adding eternalism to possibilism
Check archives did I write that in 2023 era? Seems now a new POV.
I more used to say:
mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism
tot true at a summary zoom out level mode of expression roughly speaking 1st order name of an idea, not exactly the idea. the name the Egodeath theory vs. its content precisely char’d / desc’d. lexicon chall is concise cogent spot-on conceptual lexicon: object oriented design programming : well divided/related set of objects; divis of respys, separation of concerns, conceptual vocab, 2 main pages here: mysticism mental construct monolithic control-agentt m catalog mytheme catalog
core concepts
key mytheme catalog
the Key Mythemes catalog kmc
The Egodeath Core Concepts catalog; lexicon, conceptual vocabulary custom optimized for the Egodeath theory incl the Mytheme theory : eternalism-driven control-transformation; block-universe eternalism; 4D Spacetime Mysticism; new religion [Philosophy of Religion, 1893-1960 acad dept of cleansing away rejecting non-rational, supernatural, superstion, ]: Eternalismism
To construct, by popular demand, modern, Prot’m Modern-Prot’m amenable, WEstern Progress amenable, Modern Constructied, Selected, Torwn into Two: Phil of Rel ie the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” –
Reject:
myth
supernatural
noise
baby (myth analogy for psychedelic eternalism-driven control-transformation)
bathwater (folk noise; academic noise; low-quality substitute model (Unitive Postivie)
superstition, magical thinking, esem entheogenic esotericism, Western Esotericism
the Positive Unitive model; Neo-Advaita, Non-Boundary, Apophatic Neoplatonism Mysticism)
positive unitive model pum
the positive unitive model
the Egodeath Core Concepts catalog ccc
is my concrete lex todo add entry: 2POV; two different points of view, two different mental models
Guitar Realm: Only Interested in power tubes & guitar speakers; anything I do will centrally use them
The Sense in Which I Fully Commit to Power Tubes & Guitar Speakers
The Sense in Which I Fully Commit to the maximal entheogen theory of religion
as long as include , not just The Mushroom (kiddie amanita, = Transcendent Knowledge = Amanita Gnosis, theory on the mythic plane – I DONT WANT TO BE THAT MYTHIC-BASED.
Core theory is non-myth based; direct referent, anti-ineffable; anti-apophatic; pro-STEM presentatin and devmt of ideas and engineering utility UX useful relevant helpful psilocybin-based
threated by Transcendent Knowledge = wisdom
todo: crops from Great Canterbury Psalter depicting being threatened, open scroll, arrows, lion, monster, hellmouth threat fire enlighening about the threat open scroll lifted out passive tense; relation of personal is passive in relation to higher level revealed perceivbed control from beyond outside persoanl domain of control power boundary.
Neo Adv abstruse additions of philosophies useless – talking about Pop Neo Advaita is a redency, … Are there sophisticated, less-sucky nondualism school than Pop Neo Advaita; is there Sophisticated, Real, Elite, Proper, Sanitaized
Sanitized Pop Neo Advaita Non-Rational Positive Unitive, Boundary Lift, No Multiplicity, Oneness, The One, Neoplato Mysticism, Apophatic 1893-1960-1925
The positive unitive model born 1893, init’d 1962, died 2025.
Until 2025, ending with the Hopkins Relig Leaders Study blow-up.
/h
2026 Mysticism = 4D Spacetime Mysticism = Transcendent Knowledge = Field Internal Critique, Egodeath theory, the Mytheme theory; eternalism-driven control-transformation
Egodeath theory, the Mytheme theory; eternalism-driven control-transformation
the positive unitive model scientific articles all say PROUDLY they are scienticially based on the foundation specifically of the book Stace 1960
Stace 1960 is covertly from Hinduism India Vendanta Swami Vivekananda, four Indian Hindu Vendanta modern scholars/ Philosophers of Constructing Modern Philosophy of Pop Neo Advaita.
The world wanted Popular Neo-Advaita and upcoming modern new Swami fed them and constructed that for a Western, Neoplaton One The, Apophatic, Modern Protestant placing itself in relation to victorious Science Progress Reason Rationality Anti-Mystical Anti-Magical Anti-Supernaturalism; form Acad Phil of Relig Dept, positive unitive model, for a pop audience, what we all wish Transcendent Knowledge to be: boudnary-cease, transnat’l unity, Westernized Vedanda Advaita non-dual
All else into the rejected wastebasket at worthless failure and dross; you failed to have Transcendent Knowledge ie cease self other boundary; positive unitive model. You remained in Separation = Multiplicity = non-mystical; resisted ego dissolution = negative unitive
Not wrong, not helpful / useful / relevant / ergonomic.
Off base. Wrong center focus, wrong outer boundar of concern. Poo theory. Trace history of wrong way from Neopl to now. the Egodeath theory traces history of a different thread; commit to thread tracing throughout history, as a model/ hypoth good bet.
The new theory is like stock market bet on likely to succeed; Ascough , no , MOsu Mosur, asks to separate hypoth from proved. Her stance amounts to little , a msla small point, actually might be worthless: OF COURSE WE SHOULD SEP HYPOTH FROM PROVED but she misunderstands whats been proved, failed to read required literature evidence , “Conjuring Eden” she’s ignorant and mis-judges what we have evidence of, in the actual published body of evidnece. Same as Letcher: entire book, mushroom imagery in Christian art gets 1 instance, with massive botched citation false. misattribution of assertions of secret to StamGart.
Popular Neo-Advaita pna
Pop Neo Adviat, non-rational, ineffable, Western, Apophatic, Neoplatonist, anti mystery religion cults; against the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis (Ascough, Richard article).
The Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis, in entheogen scholarship (Ascough 2025)
eternalism-driven control-transformation
mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism
two different points of view, two different mental models
I am #1 maximal radical extreme maximal entheogen theory of religion. Browns cite Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com as first in the list of extreme seeing mushrooms everywhere, extreme end of the spectrum so that Browns make a show of reasonable Middle Fallacy.
some say no psychedelics W religious history
some see mushroom everywhere : Browns list: Irvin, section: The Ardent Advocates [Enthusiasts], Brown 2019 article in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies.
STep 3: We Browns = the perfect balanced middle ground, throw away Walburga b/c has serrated base unlike Amanita [which has often serrated base]
Make a show of PROUD STANDERS IN THE REASONABLEST PERFECT MIDDLE point OF ANY SPECTRUM
THE PERFECT CENTRISTS, AS BROWNS PROVED / DEMO’D BY TOSSING TAPESTRY
Use blurry internet photos printed in book actually brown brown brown used same photo taken by Walburga and sent to both Irvin and J Brown – that’s why there’s no caption “photo credit j brown”.
This is Hatsis methodology: My arg is based on my superior, sound methodology – rather than arg based on actual doing sound methodology. ie Browns relied on 2nd hand media, yet bragged about physical travelling to see w/ own eyes rather than Irvin Rush internet hacks.
The posturing is nonsense kettle logic incoherent self-contradictory inconsistent mess.
They made important decision – wrong decision – to avoid Walburga, that major decision was based not on first-hand seeing, but on Irvin’s / Walburga’s photo.
Thanks to the adequacy of theirACTUAL method – Brown is same as Hatsis: breag about methodology [we are better bec we travel not depend on media] [holds irvin book Gnostic Media up to the light oops meant she held a photo dan brown styule
Browns = Brown, Brown, & Brown, all 3 of them.
Any error Browns make gets a 3x penalty error.
Poor Definition of Transcendent Knowledge: Mystical = Positive Unitive
Good Definition of Transcendent Knowledge: Mystical = Psychedelic eternalism-driven control-transformation Positive Unitive
poor judgement criteria basis justification of that as the reference point star to sail by, center focus, boundary limit of thinking
Neo Philosophy of Hinduism Neo Advaita Vedanta Swami Vivekananda Popular Parliament Modern Celebration of Modern Science Rational Progress
The best of the possible trellishs or Reference thread woven through traced throughout history: two treads, one false one true
the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”
the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” pumme
Add psilocybin. Good Friday Experiment at Marsh Chapel by Walter Stace Tim Leary Harvard. 1963: I have read his PhD thesis book 1963.
Add v1 of the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ)
Rejection of Effects Other than / Selecting for the 1893-1960 model of mystical experience
”If an experience is not Positive Unitive, then it fails to be mystical and we should entirely ignore it”
i think i follow (partial listening): academics quibble about theory of phil of “mystical experience”, but remem driving Q is, does that exper. help healing therapy?
Tafur presented in our “new religious movement” church service Sunday, & book club
Lots to debate.
“Europeans must ask Indigenous Shams for permission to use Their sacrament” – “oh yeah? heck off” – “cult’l appropriation!”
Thomas Hatsis’ 2025 book Psychedelic Injustice: How Identity Politics Poisons the Psychedelic Renaissance
Cit. about I. Shams above: I partly read: Hatsis 2025 book, Psychedelic Injustice, chapter about Indigenous Sham, critiquing how that notion is (mis) used.
PsychedelicsToday / Joe Moore posted: ”Can you expand on that?”
Thomas Hatsis chapter title: Decolonizing Psychedelia: A Brief History of First Nations’ Medicine Work. Hatsis debates, disputes, pushes back.
PsychedelicsToday / Joe Moore posted: “Thanks.”
A companion, earlier book: Jan Irvin 2022, God’s Flesh. disputes the dominant narrative within entheogen scholarship.
re: Psychedelics Today livestream today, a.m. January 13, 2026:
Pastor wrote:
“gotta love critiques of mystical experiences. Their perennial message? “Your religious experience is wrong!”
Hopkins research narrowly asked the hypothesis:
Perhaps a mystical experience is helpful for therapy — where “mystical experience” is defined exclusively, narrowly, as:
nothing other than Positive Unity as defined specifically by Stace 1960 book, used by Pahnke 1962 questionnaire (was good to read, totally influential) —
the narrow model incorpd wholesale, as-is , for better or worse, baked into psychedelc [pseudo]? science
“if your experience is not Positive Unitive, you failed to have a Complete Mystical experience, so, you are not as healed”
ie, under that restrictive narrow model, they are not able to ask, then, the medical hypothesis:
Do religious experiences other than Positive Unitive, help therapy? (!)
Since the recent hopkins conflict of interest article in 2025 re: 2015(!) sessions, the Relig Leaders Study:
Now is the era of productive internal correction within the field(s), eg to broaden the models beyond 1893 Swami Vivekananda at chicago, World’s Parliament of Religions
3 helpful detailed articles, from Alexa M, eg by McRae, detailing what happened in 1893; the roots of the Leary/ Pahnke 1963 first version of Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ))
i will add those to my fav page, on debates around “Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science”
pastor wrote:
“Many of us won’t be ‘moving past’ mysticism or rejecting our own experiences… although personally thrilled to expand, broaden, contextualize, etc.
“‘Moving past’ in this frame could be epistemicidal, another example of (yet again, turn of the wheel) denigrating and colonizing personal experience.”
“I’d reframe as contextualizing, refining, expanding.”
the baffling thing about those Moving Past articles: what the heck do everyone mean by “mystical experience”?? 🤷♂️
ans: they mean the Stace 1960 Positive Unitive model
pastor wrote: re: album At War with the Mystics:
“Love it ‘War of the Mystics (and constructivists, particularists, atheists, et al)””
Posts to Psychedelic Religion Lawyer: Joe Tafur Controversy about(?) Psychedelic Sham’ism
a.m. January 13, 2026
Interactive livestream now: Joe Tafur talking about Legal re: Church of the Eagle and the Condor.
Disclaimer: I Have Insufficient Grasp of Tafur, Mosur., etc; Just Gathering Info/ Doing Research
PhD Thesis: Drugs and Mysticism: An Analysis of the Relationship between Psychedelic Drug Experience and the Mystical State of Consciousness (Pahnke 1963)
Drugs and Mysticism: An Analysis of the Relationship between Psychedelic Drug Experience and the Mystical State of Consciousness Walter Pahnke, June 1963 http://en.psilosophy.info/drugs_and_mysticism.html
Posts to Psychedelic Religion Lawyer, con’t:
It’s time for housecleaning within (pop & scholarly) entheogen scholarship.
Retire the SECRET, Amanita overemphasis that is at the expense of psilocybin:
“Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory”
“the Secret Amanita paradigm”
“the secret/suppressed, psych mushroom theory”
Correct the imbalance from the Allegro/ Ruck/ Pop reception, as the Christian Greer/ Richard Ascough/ Sharday Mosurinjohn (Canada university) group calls for.
Pahnke 1962 = Harvard, under Leary.
Richard Ascough~~ 2025 article seems basically good, cites my 2006 Plaincourault fresco Allegro article: calls for middle ground between:
ABD Apologists: the butthead academic total denial of entheogen history: “Anything But Drgs is reasonable explanation” in historicism study, they say;
vs.
the maximal entheogen theory of religion (me, the leader, proclaimed in 2003): “no valid relig comes from nondrug alleged “traditional methods of the mystics”
scholars need a middle way in the dispute
/ end of chat message thread
todo: upload 4 Hatsis book photos from mobile to here?
i was glad to share this book. todo: finish reading Psychedelic Injustice.
I don’t know if I want to employ the construct “psychedelic studies”. I cannot seriously say “psychedelic science”.
I insulate my own brand of Transcendent Knowledge, coming from STEM, including its own internal custom conceptual lexicon vocab.
I would NOT point to “psychedelic pseudo science” at Hopkins and identify with THAT “science” – I hate Ken Wilber’s (the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology’s) choice of 1893 Indian Hindu Swami Baloney modern scientific anti-mythical neo-Vendana, and anti-mind, neo-Advaita.
The main Con of Ken Wilber is his engine, Neo Adv, Positive Unitive model; “phillsophy” of religion.
the Egodeath theory is a kind of “phil” of relig, different than that Neoplatonism “philosophy”. I have a (hard name author) book here, he’s better, in Phil.
Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory takes aspects of Neoplatonism Mysticism / Neo Advaita that I really hate, that are the problem to end-run-around in 1986, not the solution.
Love “embrace and include” from Ken Wilber. Eye to Eye essay is good.
2025 Accomplishments
headway translating Kafei’s use of “the absolute”, learned from articles about neo hinduism and the bunk, eternalism-avoiding Positive Unitive model of “mystical experience”.
Neoplatonism Mysticism Is the Opposite of Psychedelic Mythic Analogy Which Reports eternalism-driven control-transformation
I am working out that view, pitting hyper academic Neoplatonism “Philosophy” (barren metaphysics, epist, ontol that preserves possibilism-thinking, avoids eternalism-driven control-transformation), vs. intense mystic altered state per myth & sacred meals.
hypoth: Neoplatonism Mysticism is fake and mostly lacks the engine, sacred meals. otoh, per my recent nuance like Ascough, it is NOT as if the myth tradition contains a pure, clear version of eternalism-driven control-transformation. rather we have two poor opposites:
Neoplatonism Mysticism that poorly incorps eternalism-driven control-transformation
Magic supernatural superstitious religious mythology & analogy that poorly incorps eternalism-driven control-transformation
That’s a sophisticated up to date statement of the angle I’m recently taking, as theorist of maximal entheogen theory of religion. What do I mean by “maximal”? Am I saying historically there was prisca theologia, a dominant tradition of psychedelics producing clearly understood “completion of initiation” ie eternalism-driven control-transformation? Sort of, but was too messy, and warrants heavy criticism.
IF MYTH WERE’S OVERGROWN BY TRASH, WE’D SEE IT IS REALLY, ETERNALISM-DRIVEN CONTROL-TRANSFORMATION, analogy describing that.
Take Neoplatonism Mysticism, drastically rework it (filter, eliminate, transform, add, re-index, sculpt creatively), and it turns out to mean the Egodeath theory; the maximal entheogen theory of religion. (Compare fabrication of world Hinduism & Buddhism by upstrart young revolutionary innovators in 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions; Theosophy)
Compare the messy mix in Theosophy: Blav rightly said, early, the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis (latter phrase: Ascough 2025). But, she dumped in, tons of Pop, titillating, magical supernaturalism, along with some legit esotericism / eternalism-driven control-transformation.
Take eternalism-driven control-transformation, add a ton of junk and noise (Neopla DRY complicated “PHILOSOPHY”; supernatural magical mythic thinking & superstition & anti-rationality) = jumbled version of the Egodeath theory, of Transcendent Knowledge. Transcendent Knowledge + tons of noise = ‘Transcendent Knowledge.
Jumbling Transcendent Knowledge w/ tons of junk, eliminates Transcendent Knowledge. Does the reult have useful, practical, consistent, direct, explicit, comprehensible, AN ENGINEERING UX EFFECTIVE PRODUCT, OR NOT?
Take a good technology – Transcendent Knowledge; eternalism-driven control-transformation per the Egodeath theory — then add tons of junk noise, now you no longer have an effective product that’s a usable technology. That’s the history of Western Esotericism.
Yes it does contain psychedelics in a key role, yes it does eternalism-driven control-transformation, it is not just stuck with possibilism-thinking by default.
But, still, the result is bad technology, not useful, not effective, not helpful in a psychedelic jam.
Thus i am immune to the critique from the Greer/ Ascough / Mosur school: I provide the 3rd option that they are calling for. Not Establishment naysayer (the ABD apologist, Mosur), nor am I the Pop Secret Christian Amanita Cult scholar like Allegro/Ruck school is charged with;
When I say psychedelics are the be-all end-all key tradition, I also say it has a TON of junk & noise mixed in, hopelessly obscuring like wiki says Great Canterbury Psalter is “hard to interpret” (b/c Eadwine’s diagrammatic art is depiction, by analogies, of eternalism-driven control-transformation).
Hopelessly obscuring, except, in 1997 i had my core theory outline, joined field of entheogen scholarship 1998, declared breakaway from Ruck’s moderate-minimal-flipflop school, announced 2002/2003 maximal entheogen theory of religion, which APPEARS to be subject to the crit’m which Ascough levels against Allegro/Ruck Pop entheogen scholarship, but I actually ESCAPE critique by showing the correct divide of STEM model of mental model transformation to eternalism-thinking, vs. literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control. The ABD, Deniers school is destroyed by the Egodeath theory , and the Pop Allegro/ Ruck Secret Christian Amanita Cult school is destroyed by the Egodeath theory.
The thing that
The view rejected by Ascough is Establishment Butthead Denialism, and also an Allegro/Ruck style maximal entheogen theory of religion — which I deny is consistently maximal!
Ascough says too much assertion of psychedelics by Allegro-then-Ruck-then-Pop; but I say Ruck too much neutralizes and waffles about the evidence: Ruck school is moderate, then minimal, then moderate – inconsistent.
I was pretty happy w/ Entheos 1-3 in 2001-2002, Ruck school – but really disappointed with the following Ruck books pushing the “secret Amanita cult” theory instead of broadly pushing the Samorini 1998 new paradigm, 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
After “Conjuring Eden” 2001, injected by Samorini 1997 & 1998, & Great Canterbury Psalter via Paul Lindren & Mushroom Mankind 2000, Ruck then reverted to 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm — and I declared a breakaway into maximal entheogen theory of religion, rather than Ruck school of Waffling; minimal/moderate flip-flop entheogen theory of religion.
Ruck’s “restriction” social drama narrative, the assumption of suppression of psychedelics in ant’y (Cyberdisciple), prevents Ruck from being granted “extreme radical asserter of maximal entheogen theory of religion”, by Ascough/ Mosur/ Greer; that prize goes to the Egodeath theory b/c I am pro-Christianity, no axe to grind, no social drama narrative as tail-wagging-the-dog like Ruck labors under, and Lash, and Rush, etc. Even Brown gets sidetracked inventing “secret” (granted, ancients DID market as “secret” – we are Ever Pop).
Ancient History of Pop Sike
our ancestors knew Amanita was psychedelic or deliriant, low-desire psychedelic, and they always used Amanita attributes/pictures/motifs to represent same as head shop art, Amanita means psychedelics especially Psilocybin.
The origin of religions is psychedelics partic psilocybin as the main desired gold standard reference, and same w/ ongoing wellspring of religions. Thus I am way more radical and maximal than Ruck school, who says only heretical Christianity brought-in the Amanita Gnosis Secret.
However I do NOT say “mainstream, normal, predominant” – lot s of nuance. I am extreme maximal maximal entheogen theory of religion but yet, imple’n was a major MESS always. To recover history thread of eternalism-driven control-transformation you must really know what look for eg my great successful tuning in reception of signal from Eadwine England 1200 AD.
That episode is the center of my Phil o Sci: HOW I RECEIVED EADWINE’S TRANSIMISSION OF TONS OF MUSHROOMS; HOW THE ETERNALISM-DRIVEN CONTROL-TRANSFORMATION MESSAGE WAS DECODED. Tons of detail about that at this site.
2006/2007: main article, Sep 2007. Next day: post about Eternalism & Superdeterminism (forms a spectrum; “determinism” is really weak position on that spectrum! many forms are more extreme than “determinism”! eg w/ superdet, you’re just getting started. then Emily Adlam’s All At Once universe …. finally, my “future exists” block-universe eternalism; 4D Spacetime Mysticism going against Quantum Mysticism.)
2010-2013: “isn’t branching vs. nonbranching key, in myth??”
Nov 2013: OMG confirmation that {tree vs snake} is & must be super old, oldest of all: nov 2013 confirmed “branching” motif/ myth/ analogy.
xmas 2015: hi res Hatsis Dancing Man, hypoth: r foot = eternalism-thinking , l foot = possibilism-thinking.
2016-2018 various work
2020 Nov: confirm {handedness} hypoth ie by taking the hypoth, i was able to make sense of Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, to receive transmission.
2020-2023, revisited my art pieces studies, and discovered massive confirmation of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs combination, fully developed by Eadwine in Great Canterbury Psalter.
2025 jan 13 i was STILL discovering key basic motifs in Great Canterbury Psalter.
2025 later, research in history of fabricating the eternalism-avoiding, Positive Unity model of “mystical experience”, and finally connected my dislike for Neoplatonism (picture Hanegraaff’s botched cosmos that only fits 5 stars / white dots, strips heimarmene from sphere 8 fixed stars somehow, and all other scholars follow suit talking about “the 7 spheres of the physical, visible cosmos” – making sphere 8 fixed stars vanish replaced by denatured “the OgdoadAndEnnead” nonsensically, writing-out eternalism to reject and omit it from fixed stars sphere. Bunk as hell. Hanegraaff manages to imagine, corrupted by the hyper mythmakers of phase 2 Late Ant’y, mental model transformation from etm to possibilism (which is backwards from scientific actual mental model transformation – blame gnostic mythmakers?)
The Egodeath theory is the most radical extreme proponent of maximal entheogen theory of religion –
but also:
The Egodeath theory most emphasizes how much obscuring junk is dumped on top of eternalism-driven control-transformation, throughout history.
Analogy, out of control.
Everything is consubstantial with everything; everything is analogous to everything; insanity resulted; possibilism-thinking was preseverd w/o succe’ly adding eternalism-thinking.
History of Psychedelic Myth: “everything is analogous to everything”, losing Eternalism-thinking
Take religious myth, drastically rework it, and it turns out to mean the Egodeath theory; the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
2POV, by looking at “two pairs of eyes” eg Dion victory mosiac; (from the Egodeath community 2005 at Egodeath Yahoo Group), in 2025 we re found Y -holding rebis; then found more “pairs of eyes” than expected in f134 Great Canterbury Psalter. Finally grasp that egoic possibilism-thinking is not going away, ever, but add eternalism-thinking to the repertoire of mental models.
Combined Day 1, 3, 4, eat-from-tree.
Read articles about fabrication of “mystical experience” per modern Neo-Advaita, positive unitive model (as Wrong Focus; as failing to deliver the Most Important thing, eternalism-driven control-transformation, thus leaving you with possibilism-thinking corrupted by anti-rational veneration of “eliminate thinking”, just like everything I loathe & rejected in 1986 about the motivating character of Neoplatonism & Mysticism; the failed “Advaita non-drug meditation” core of Ken Wilber model that can’t deliver on the Big Talk. Ken Wilber, the greatest Meditation Huckster.
Worked on fav page, Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science debate article series. Must add Pahnke PhD dissert, more articles, McRae re: details on 1893 World’s Parliament of Religion. Modern fabrication of selective denatured world Buddhism (vs. my correct way of doing equivalent).
Wrong way Neo Adv slice divides: Phil o Rel, vs. folk supernatural magic myth.
The correct way to divide Buddhism: or around Neoplatonism Mysticism a la the Egodeath theory:
Reject Lit’m, supernaturalism, & magic.
correct: affirm & identify: Relig ASC Myth is analogy metaphors describing the BEST aspects of mystical experience ie psychedelic eternalism-driven control-transformation; pass through the monster threat gate to gain fear-soaked Transcendent Knowledge wisdom.
“best” is key, above, fitting with Ascough’s call for nuanced middle way between Establishment Butthead Biased Naysayers (who don’t even read entheogen scholarship articles from 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)), [they 1-way transmit fall. args., not to get any pushback, as dogma, insulting] vs. Pop Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory.
simply list my 2025 articles/pages/posts here
Jan 13, 2025: decoded Day 1 + Day 4 + Day 3 + eat from tree, in f11 Great Canterbury Psalter
Id’d Day 3 progressive branching morphology: III IYI YI IY/YI Pan Lib Cub Ama
Read Pahnke, Taves 2020 article, Breau 2023 article; then read McRae article & two other good articles, about details of 1893 modern invention of Hindu & Buddm global, fakely stripped of supernatural. I do that sort of thing the right way; I reject lit’m & magic & supernatural while correctly retaining Analogy describing psychedelic eternalism; eternalism-driven control-transformation.
todo: add McRae, Pahnke to Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science page.
todo: add more articles to that page, by Christian Greer/ Sharday Mosurinjohn /
Sharday “entheogen scholarship W psychedelics history = colonialist violence” Mosurinjohn (but same in Jewish history is ok, and same in Indig Sham is where we need to restrict our scholarship and center it and bound it, like Positive Unitive.
The Bunk Narrative the Establishment Wishes to Tell
The Establishment naysayers re: psychedelics in W relig history wish to tell the narrative: “Only Indigenous Shams have high, spiritual religion, which is Positive Unitive mystical experience.”
optimistic thought: with my critical work, along w/ exposers of Vivek 1893, like Mosur/ McRae/ Ascough/ Greer, the field of entheogen scholarship is about to … starting to finally have the needed, internal correction — not that Ronald Huggins or Mosur are legit internal scholars within entheogen scholarship ; they are DRIVE-BY HACKS, but then, Ruck and Irvin and Rush and Lash have similar half-baked mixture
just
pros & cons of Mosur, of Irvin, etc. of Wasson the academic obstructionist fraud, who Ruck audacity credits Wass w/ all mushroom-trees – or tries to write in Ruckian squishy fashion, “elastic” per Huggins’ char’zn, PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY:
i [Ruck] didn’t directly write “Wasson knew all mushroom-trees mean mushrooms”, i just merely wrote: Wass said Amanita pre-Bible, which is proved later by Panofsky’s “hundreds of mushroom-trees”; so, “Wasson’s theory” [OF WHAT?! OF ALL MUSHROOM-TREES? WHICH HE ALWAYS INSULTED AND DENIED RUDELY? or merely, of the 1000 B.C. pre-Bible age having snake, which = Amanita?
Ruck writes in vague, inconsistent, self-contradictory, elastic way; we can’t PROVE that Ruck asserts “Wasson said hundreds of mushroom-trees but mean scholars ignored him.”
Wasson in fact denied & viciously insulted such hypoth, for decades, til death, never recanted. cit: The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity (Jan Irvin, 2008) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439215170
Who Wrote “Hundreds of Mushroom-trees”: Not Wasson; Not Allegro; Panofsky 1952, Samorini 1997, Ruck/ Hoffman/ Staples 2001, Michael Hoffman 2003, Browns 2016
otoh we know Allegro — disproving Irvin — never asserted “hundreds of mushroom-trees”. Proof: Irvin never quotes Allegro asserting “hundreds of mushroom-trees”. Yet Irvin in The Holy Mushroom, bogus, tries to grant credit to Allegro instead of Wasson, for “hundreds of mushroom-trees”. Fact: born out by avail cits: NEITHER WASSON (AGAINST RUCK) NOR ALLEGRO (AGAINST IRVIN) EVER ASSERTED “hundreds of mushroom-trees”. In inverse way, credit for “hundreds of mushroom-trees” goes to naysayer Panofsky 1952, especially Samorini 1997 & 1998, then Ruck ’01:
web search: Is Sharday Mosurinjohn Jewish? https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+Sharday+Mosurinjohn+Jewish%3F no ans, but might be interesting links, since she — ever since 5 minutes ago — is writing, with full [of Sh!t] authority, as a typical ABD Apologist; denier of psychedelics in W relig history.
new for Jan 2026: I don’t say psychedelics were dominant, mainstream, foreground; more subtle and complicated: psychedelics inspired the origin and ongoing wellspring of religion, always tangled with lots of noise, such that to find the BEST, signal (eternalism-driven control-transformation), you have to know, selectively, what you’re looking for, and pull THAT forth, rather than pulling an inferior failed hyupoth forth: neoplatonism’s faillure & fool’s gold; Neo Advaita’s anti-thinking; the fake, subst, eternalism-avoiding, Positive Unitive model, ever popular bunk subst in East & West & Indig Shams can have that slop too.
Mystical Substitute Slop: The Eternalism-Averting, Positive Unitive Made-Up, Wishful thinking model of mystical experience contradicts both folk magic supernaturalism (& myth) AND contradicts eternalism control transformation
avoiding negative – apotropaic
by filtering/ selecting/ sculpting to fabricate Transcendent Knowledge as “Positive Unitive”, the academics had to reject folk magic supernatural practice, and also, be ignorant of psychedelic eternalism; eternalism-driven control-transformation.
Academics, in construcing a “phil o rel” model, preserve confusion and possibilism-thinking, not able to divide lit’m & supernaturalism, vs. correct analogy depicting eternalism-driven control-transformation.
But, the Egodeath theory also is, similarly, a “philosophy of religion” scheme, just different than the Neo-Advaita competing, inferior brand.
Academia is not bad for creating “phil o rel” version of “mystical experience” (Neoplat / Neo-Adv), focused on “Positive Unitive”; it’s bad for not creating the eternalism-driven control-transformation model like the Egodeath theory & the Mytheme theory.
The ABD Apologists: Any Wack Method of Producing Psychedelic Effects Is Reasonable and Evidenced, Except for Drugs
Deniers of Psychedelics in Western Religious History Don’t Realize They’ve Been Embarrassingly Disproven – Quick Move those Goalposts
As ever, the deniers are characterized by moving the goal, motte bailey, every form of and combo of logical fallacies.
Just like Letcher, keep flipping position:
“There is NO evidence for psychedelics in Western religious history. Why are ppl so stupid, Pop Scholarship such as Alllegro-Ruck, that they keep asserting? How can scholars be so stupid?” Ans: look in mirror.
As Ascough says, and maybe Mosurinjohn sometimes, we need a nuanced middle ground – expect him to botch this like Browns “proving” no Amanita in the tapestry Walburga b/c Amanita has a smooth[sic] base not serrated.
Both Browns wrongly asserted that in two publications, thus scoring a 4x penalty.
Anything But Drugs Makes Sense (ABD Apologists), vs. Pop Allegro/Ruck “Secret Christian Amanita Cult”, the “secret Amanita cult” theory — vs. Michael Hoffman’s Correct, Maximal Eternalism Entheogen Theory of Religion
Does Maximal mean what MOsur dismisses & Ascough?
(eternalism-driven control-transformation) Maximal Eternalism Entheogen Theory of Religion
Call the Egodeath theory “the psychedelics thread is the Best Thread, traceable, withoutwhich there’s only fake, inferior, low-quality religion]
Establishment Shills
Fallacious Arg’n Never in Dialog, Purely Transmitting Cocky Overconfident Naysaying against Psychedelics in Western Religious History
p.m. January 12, 2026
Hugs: I joined this scholarly topic 5 minutes ago, and now I’m gonna lecture you about “no evidence”, by failing to read the articles by 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) , Samorini, “Conjuring Eden”, while loudly proclaiming my bias with total assurance, without valid argn, without reading the scholarship:
if it has mushroom & tree motifs, it must be tree, not mushroom, so cannot mean mushroom”. — “Conclusion” of Foraging Wrong, along w/ “Day 3 mushroom-trees have branches [exactly matching cubensis], so can’t mean mushrooms.”
Present shallow, establshment-appeasing, total junk reasoning, then proclaim “no evidence”, and look at 1 picture, ignoring all the rest, and like Letcher massively botching that 1 citation. p. 35 endnote 31. [from memory]
Are Mosur’s 100 articles, that are not about psychedelics, of any help for writing decent articles or book about entheogens or “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis”? control vortex scr
Her cv screams “ignorant newcomer talking bullshit to ingratiate with the Establishment”, just like Ronald Huggins ’24. It’s so CHEAP & flimsy, the Establishment scholars’ disrespect for Western psychedelics history.
The naysayers’ assertions don’t get pushback, b/c no communication (as Sharday points out) between field of entheogen scholarship vs other scholarly fields. The asserters of pop Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory, including Allegro & Ruck, write their assertions (“dancing man has red cap”) (it’s plainly blue, except in Irvin’s corrupted attempt to force skew palette), then in return,
it’s like the non-debate between Wasson/Allegro, re: 1 isolated, Amanita mushroom-tree in Plaincourault.
Ruck Entheos issue 2: “Give all credit for all mushroom-trees to Wasson.” “Daturas for the Virgin”
Irvin, The Holy Mushroom 2008: “No, give all credit for all mushroom-trees to Allegro.” (equally outragiously false)
Ruck, inconsistently: mushroom Amanita gnosis restricted to only monks. to only elites. to only heretic groups.
Irvin 2006 AstroSham 1, Concl: restrict Amanita+Psilocybin gnosis to only kings & elites.
Irvin 08: “Ruck, stop trying to restrict Amanita Gnosis to heretics/monks, it was ubiq.”
Irvin then hurries to remove Irvin’s own attempt to restrict, forming AstroSham 2, 2009.
Pahnke Thesis Central to Bad, psychedelic pseudo science
p.m. January 12, 2026
It was an extremely good call, on my part, to study 1962/1963 PhD thesis by Pahnke re: Good Friday.
I’m the One Who Figured Out Good Friday 1962 = April 20, 1962 = 4/20 Holiday Confluence
p.m. January 12, 2026
per wiki page history showing my edit to add the damn date.
I take 100% credit for ppl to figure out Good Friday 1962 = April 20 = 4/20. Provably the word spread immediately after I added the actual goddam DATE ffs to the wiki article.
I am the first scholar ever, to state that Good Friday 1962 was April 20, 1962. All I ask, too much to ask, is STATE THE DAY, MONTH, & YEAR – vs. annoying scholarly obscurantism & vagueness, like “late 18th C” or “Good Friday in 1962”.
Exposing Staceanism (or Vivekanandaism) Pretending to Be “Mystical Experience”
p.m. January 12, 2026
Now I have read a set of 3 articles including McRae – to add to Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science page – about the totally fake and fabricated neo-Hinduism, and the invention of global Buddhism. Not that those are necessarily 100% illegit. I myself do cherrypicking, formally.:
Myth and religion that doesn’t focus on eternalism-driven control-transformation per the Egodeath theory, is inferior, substitute, 3rd-rate, exoteric esotericism, mis-focused, missing out on the Classic. My great insult is: those models and brands of Transcendent Knowledge are non-Classic.
Garbage Inferior Religion and Myth and Mysticism Are “Non-Classic”
p.m. January 12, 2026
Fails the Acid Test; Fool’s Gold: They Fail to Focus on eternalism-driven control-transformation, but Substitute Possibilism-Preserving Anything-Else eg “Positive Unity” and Dismiss the Monster-Threat Gate as “Non-mystical, b/c not Positive Unitive”
I continue to bring attention to the mushy muddy foundation of the Staceanism or Vivekanandaism
Mosur: Entheogen Scholarship in Western, European History is Bad; Colonialist Violence; Scholars Must Ignore Western, European History, and Focus Only on Indigenous Shams
see Hatsis: Psychedelic Injustice
Haven’t gotten a reading on how Jewish or anti-white Mosurinjohn is.
Why is her 10-min 2025 talk on Hebrew Law utoob ch?
todo: why are the vids from 2025 conf on the Hebrew Law youtoob ch? The conf is not described as Jewish, at Harvard.
How can religious studies and spiritual care inform the Psychedelic “Renaissance”?
What are the best practices for psychedelic chaplaincy? [ans: conflicts of interest, covert funding, bogus article, SCIENCE “CONCLUSIONS” FOR PAY in the course of fabricating a new, Hindu-based, Neoplatonist/NeoAdvaita, modern, rational (“trans-rational; ie, the point is, NOT CONFLICTING WITH SCIENCE AS OF 1893 WESTERNIZED OMDERN MODERNIST PROTESTANTISZED ENGLISH-LANG “HINDUISM”), scientificy flavored/ marketed.
My the Egodeath theory is the RIGHT way to fabricate and filter selectively, world religion, to correctly reject supernaturalism literalism, and correctly identify the common core perenneial preiniple NOT as “positive unitive”, but rather, as psychedelic eternalism-driven control-transformation. ie, the BEST Western Esotericism and mystical experience — ie the Classic peak content — is eternalism-driven control-transformation. The history (this fits with Ascough 2025) of Western Esotericism is a messy, poor S/N, noisy, obscured-signal, overlay of junk entangled with valid, eternalism-thinking. Among all that noise, Vivek / Stace wrongly picked “positive unitive”, but the Egodeath theory correctly picks (1988, 1997, 2007, 2020, 2026) eternalism-driven control-transformation. psychedelic per psilocybin; producing 2POV. Keep always using egoic thinking/ possibilism, even while add transcendent thinking / eternalism.
The Egodeath theory not positive unitive Neo-Advaita anti-rationality, is the correct version of common-core perennialism
Here’s the scummy “perennialism” motte/baily bait/switch def’n:
You surely must agree there’s something (unspecified, here) in common in world mysticism.
So, you agree to my political trojan horse to make me world dictator, the Savior Messiah brining the fake world religion of Positive Unitive Neo-Adv/ Neopla.
I Hate Neoplatonism Mysticism (The One, Apophatic), Same as Hating Neo-Advaita Anti-Rationality (Unitive; Boundary Cess, Ineffable, Thought-Stopping)
conf blurb con’t:
“How can spiritual care be best integrated into psychedelic use in recreational and religious settings?
How can psychedelic studies build interdisciplinary and collaborative community across traditions, cultures, and modalities?
In what ways do the histories and the presents of Indigenous traditions present new relationships with the more-than-human world?
Is aesthetics uniquely suited to understand and convey the activity of a psychedelic body?
How can art foster and induce transcendent experiences?
How can art be used in psychedelic settings as a means of integration?”
ans: the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} eg Eadwine images in Great Canterbury Psalter:
Call for Papers April 2026 – “Tensions Around Science, Spir’y, Comm’zn”
https://cswr.hds.harvard.edu/research-programming/transcendence-transformation/psychedelics-spirituality/conferences – 2026: Bridging Humanities, Religion, and Law Call for Papers The Harvard Study of Psychedelics in Society and Culture is excited to announce that the fourth annual Psychedelic Intersections conference will be held at Harvard Divinity School on April 10-11, 2026. Building on the Center for the Study of World Religions’ (CSWR’s) popular conference series, the 2026 conference is a collaborative initiative of the CSWR at Harvard Divinity School, the Mahindra Center at Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School.”
todo: paste blurb here
About Psychedelic Intersections 2026
“Psychedelic Intersections: Bridging Humanities, Religion, and Law” brings together interdisciplinary scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to discuss the intersection of psychedelics and culture. The conference features three research tracks: Psychedelics and Religion, Psychedelics and Humanities, and Psychedelics and Law.
“Abstract submissions to the call for papers can be focused within a single research track or represent interdisciplinary research spanning multiple tracks. To support our mission of intersectional dialogue, we welcome abstracts from scholars of diverse fields, backgrounds, and career stages.
“Scholars and practitioners working with or representing underrepresented peoples and traditions are encouraged to submit.
Psychedelics and Religion Track:
“We welcome research exploring the diverse ways that psychedelic substances have influenced, shaped, and informed religious practice throughout time.
“Did psychedelics shape ancient religious traditions, and what does this mean for contemporary religion?
“How have Indigenous traditions [Indigenous Shams] engaged with psychedelics and how is this evolving over time?
[ie have they graduated from savage human sacrifice, petty finding objects, cursing enemy sorcerors, and other model, lofty, spiritual high wisdom religion?]
How can spiritual psychedelic experiences be supported in medical settings? [tackle and bind Matthew Johnson]
How are psychedelic churches navigating and challenging the law?
We particularly welcome papers on:
psychedelic chaplaincy;
African and African diaspora traditions;
[NOT W, European psychedelics history, except Jewish is best eg. self-baked psilocybin bread in Merkavah mysticism]
Indigenous and plant medicine traditions;
contemporary psychedelic churches;
visionary and psychedelic art and transcendence; [Classic Rock lyrics]
research on spirits, entities [Alan Houot’s “science explorers discoverers”], and the more-than-human world; and
psychedelics and the history of religions.“
Psychedelics and Humanities Track:
“We encourage proposals that will enrich our understanding of psychedelics in relation to the arts and humanities across their multiple histories and cultural contexts.
[“except for psychedelics in W relig history, because WE KNOW THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, HOW can pop scholars like Ruck be so foolish?! See Huggins ’24 for proof. Ruck school is so terrible, never paying any attention to shamans in the Americas; doing colonialist violence by having the audacity to study psychedelics in W history, for which there is no evidence.”]
[contra that denial, see Hatsis 2025, Psychedelic Injustice, except Hatsis f’s up and vaguely, in anti-scholar totally unscholarly manner, asserts “no mushrooms in W history” – see my book review.]
[Thomas Hatsis 2025 carves out an exception: he rebuts: “W history DOES have psychoactives, EXCEPT NO EVIDENCE FOR THE MUSHROOM, WHICH IS SECRET Amanita”]
“How have psychedelics shaped histories and contemporary practices of art, music, literature, film, and other cultural forms?
Shallow, Gappy Histories of Psychedelics
[BUNK ANSWER FROM PARTRIDGE AND EVERYONE: “1) In late 1960s, the psychedelic movement; 2) also 1990s, rave MDMA. That’s the pop history of psychedelics.”
Never mind Classic Rock lyrics/culture 1965-1995, which is touched on in Hanegraaff’s new book replacing his Perplexed book, Short History of Esotericism chapter.
As Hanegraaff complains about, such PAT, myopic, conventional, overly Pop histories as Partridge, are blind to psychedelic Newage, and psychedelic neo-shamanism.]
“How can the study of psychedelics point to new directions in the humanistic and adjacent disciplines:
literature,
history,
philosophy,
art history, [the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}]
history of science and medicine, [Michael Hoffman 1988/2026: the Egodeath theory = STEM model of mental model transformation, transformation from possibilism to eternalism; eternalism-driven control-transformation expressed via STEM thought-style]
anthropology,
etc.?
“How are the public humanities engaging with psychedelics? [by ignoring]
Against That “Ethics” Framing
How are artists and humanists grappling with the ethical implications of the “psychedelics renaissance” given concerns about cultural appropriation [don’t care, in your way], reciprocity [don’t care], and commodification [don’t care]? [first read Hatsis 2025, Psychedelic Injustice]
Spare Us! “Obligatory” de rigeur, Political Correctness, Supposed to Ingratiate, Is Just Annoying, Cliche, Stereotypical, Self-Parody, and Drives People Away from that Angle
trojan horse, bait and switch:
Introduce “ethics”, get buy-in, and then pozz it, corrupt it: “psychedelics dictate wealth redistribution, global takeover with Us in charge, and mass exterm’n to repair the world, with wonderful, psychedelically enlightened Us ruling over the little people.”
like “common core” buy-in, add “perennialism”, add agenda of “save the world from modernism, via Traditionalism” – wait, what are we being asked to buy into?
It’s a package deal, like the Egodeath theory, which includes “world dictator Michael Hoffman” poison pill along with spiritual enlightenment as eternalism-driven control-transformation. Turn theory into Agenda Cult, b/c everything is pretext.
News Media, Pop Sike, and the Egodeath Theory: Everything Is Pretext
a joke when applied to the Egodeath theory
Everything on tv and history books and Jesus history books, is pretext, nothing is what it claims to be, all History is bunk, distorted, and weaponized.
As much as Jesus didn’t exist (except as analogy), so are all history books fantasy – or, hard to trace the thread of truth, among all the noise and distortion and false signal, eg:
Positive Unitive model of mystical experience;
fantasy about Indig Shams;
fantasy about Meditation Hucksters and their “enlightenment” product that never materializes;
fantasy about “the rapture” and dispensationalism, Scofield, Darby, Left Behind Hollywood pabulum, Christian Zionism.
Psychedelics and Law Track:
“We welcome research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of psychedelics research, commerce, and therapeutics, with a special focus on promoting safety, innovation, and equity. [Hatsis ’25: Psychedelic Injustice]
“Though not an exhaustive list, potential topics include the following:
“Psychedelics and the FDA,
the Controlled Substances Act and DEA regulation of psychedelics,
patents on psychedelics,
state and local psychedelic decriminalization or regulation,
law and the traditional ceremonial use of psychedelics,
[beware the narrative lexicon of “suppressed vs. mainstream”, ends up focusing on social drama narrative fantasy & neutralizing the evidence base to prop up that wrong goal, to make the Main Message:
“Christianity is so terrible, it got rid of psychedelics, and here’s a gallery of 1000 evidence to prove that” –
per cover of Rush book 2nd edition; Ruck, etc. — and fail to do Repeal of Prohib, which would be helped more by positively framing presence of that evidence, instead of keeping the evidence enslaved in service of the self-defeating story,
“Sh!tty Christianity has no trad’n of psychedelics, here’s 1000 images proving the great extent of HERETICAL INFILTRATION of psychedelics [ie, Secret Amanita, = Gnosis/ Transcendent Knowledge] into proper, drug-free Christianity history”
That’s the Ruck school’s crybaby, self-defeating narrative that serves to perpetuate the Prohibitionist Status Quo]
“biopiracy of traditional* knowledge [eg savage human sacrifice, magic prayer, incantations, magic ritual, petty object recovery; superstition, literalist mythology; anything but eternalism-driven control-transformation, which is the BEST use of Psilocybin – Jan Irvin ’22 God’s Flesh] and proposals for reciprocity or benefits sharing,
equitable access to psychedelic medicine for certain populations such as veterans and people with substance use conditions,
informed consent for psychedelic research or therapeutic administration,
the challenges of public and private insurance coverage for psychedelics,
the ethics and regulation of “supportive touch” as an element of psychedelic medicine,
lessons from state marijuana regulation,
the potential role of psychedelics in addressing the drug overdose crisis,
the emerging law of religious psychedelics use, and
the integration of psychedelic spiritual care into clinical medicine and end-of-life care.”
More Articles Related to the “Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science” Debate and History Exposed
p.m. January 12, 2026
I’m looking into recent writings by scholars:
Sharday Mosurinjohn. 2023 article, June 2025 article. Begs for a Parody Article inverting her bad logic especially her super-bad logic in her summary of her 10-min talk at Jewish Harvard Law. Haven’t figured out where the Jewish comes in, why the conference (not advertised as Jewish) has the video talks (including Christian) at the Jewish YouTube channel.
She args:
Good: Focusing on history of Indigenous Shams.
citation: Alan Houot 2019 masters thesis: shamans good, have full control on psilocybin; mystics bad; pursue loss of control & surrenderism. He strangely omitted this topic/argument from the 2025 book Rise of the Psychonaut.
Good: Focusing on history of entheogens in Jewish history (not directly asserted, but implied on some adjacent talks at the conf).
Bad: Focusing on Western, Christian history of entheogens, = colonialist violence, because fails to put the central focus on Indig Shams.
“IT’S AN EVIDENCED FACT THAT SHAMS HAVE LONG HISTORY OF LOFTY WISE SPIRITUAL RELIGIOUS USE OF PSILOCYBIN”
As if Huggins’ article has substance and finality and has been peer reviewed properly.
It’s academic magic:
Sharday the Magical Witch merely has to write “Huggins 2024”, and presto, it is now an established, uncontroverted fact that there’s no mushroom imagery in Christian art – after the intense 1-way, unchallenged broadcast – or 2-way, challenged.
Was this article peer-reviewed? It seems NO ADVERSARY REVIEWED Huggins ARTICLE; the article hasn’t been attempted to be challenged. Except 100% by me here at this site.
Sharday bases her magic, “We know there is no evidence” on Huggins article. “Evidence” for what, though? Motte, or Bailey? Some narrow claim, or some broad claim?
Huggins’ article boils to 1 fallacious argument from arbitrary bias: “Mushroom-trees have mushroom motifs and tree motifs, therefore cannot mean mushroom, and must mean tree.”
Ruck flip-flops between the Minimal & Moderate entheogen theory of religion; move the goalposts; Motte & Bailey arg’n.
In Praise of Approximate, Rough Writing at the Summary/ Zoom-Out Level
Sharday summarizes wrongly and OUTRAGEIOUSLY attacks Western civ, in her summary of her talk:
per summary, YOU ARE GUILTY OF COLLONIALIST VIOLENCE IF YOU LOOK FOR PSYCHEDELICS IN WESTERN, EUROPEAN HISTORY; you must instead make Indigenous Shams the center and focus and boundary of your scholarship. [She doesn’t object to adjacent talks about non-drug psychedelic mystical experience in JEWISH history).
“Reunites the study of religion, magic, and science in the psychedelic turn.”
Sharday Mosurinjohn joined the field of entheogen scholarship 5 minutes ago – fresh newbie w/ umbilical cord, how thoroughly has she read….
She might be best thinker ever, having just entered the field of entheogen scholarship — as i was in 1998-2003 when I entered that field. The problem is not that she’s brand new; the problem is she writes like a pushy, cocky, bully, overconfident, she insults everyone in entheogen scholarship, and reveals her unread ignorance.
Rude attitude, way overconfident, CARELESSLY CITES Ronald Huggins 2024 AS IF fact, when his article is the typical naysayer combination of valuable trivia combined with fallacious random many arguments (throw spag at wall/stick, but nothing sticks).
The 1-Way Argumentation Style of Naysayers
I rightly state: We have not even STARTED to look for psychedelics in W history, yet all the time from 1968 to 2026, careless naysayers (shoddy pompous establishment-aligned flimsy biased 1-way scholars) fail and neglect to read the body of findings in entheogen scholarship, and reveal their ignorance and failed non-scholarship by declaring “we always knew there was no evidence”, giving a token smattering of citations instead.
Ascough cites my Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita (Hoffman, 2006), http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm but doesn’t cite Cyberdisciple pages on Allegro not being a scholar in the path of forward-moving entheogen scholarship.
Michael Hoffman 2006, and Cyberdisciple ~2020, and R Ascough 2025, all conclude: Allegro (with Ruck continuing same spirit)
todo: i failed: I pressure ppl to read Jan Irvin, but, for decades drag my feet resisting getting Sacred Mushroom & The Cross 2009 by Irvin / Ruck. Fungus Revividus article by Ruck in that book. So I fall into my pit, I said “if you don’t have Irvin books, you are not in the field of entheogen scholarship”. But I lack Irvin/ Ruck book Sacred Mushroom & The Cross 2009 40th Anniv Edition.
Question for Mark Hoffman: What all do you know about Paul Lindren discovering Great Canterbury Psalter mushroom imagery around 2000?
The endnotes for “Conjuring Eden” says that Paul Lindgren, James Arthur, and Carl Ruck conversed. Front page credits Lindgren, end notes also.
MS lat. 8846, fol., Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. [21] … Notice in particular the ninth episode of the Temptation in Eden, with the serpent offering the fruit of the mushhroom-tree [sic] to Eve: each segment of the tree is a know-topped tassel-tree like the Bernward column, and eve is plucking the fruit both from the Tree and from the mouth of the serpent. [21a] The “third day” detail appears on the cover of James Arthur’s book, Mushrooms and Mankind, Escondido, CA, Book Tree, 2000; we thank him and his source for the image.
image: day 3
image: folio f11 in online gallery for “Conjuring Eden” https://entheomedia.net/eden1.htm https://entheomedia.net/eden3.htm shows Day 4 (fails to show Day 1 above, w/ mushroom 3 & 4 in Day 4 pointing up to Day 1 {balance scale} pans, proving pans contain panaeolus & Amanita), shows entire blurry f11 3×4 panels.
2001 Blurry Entheos Version of Entire f11 Folio, Great Canterbury Psalter
body of article shows Day 3 panel, Day 1 panel, Eat from Tree panel
online gallery shows Day 4 panel, and entire f11 comic page 3 cols 4 rows = 12 panels.
Great Canterbury Psalter First Online Archived: December 19, 2017
That’s 3 years before I re-saw John Lash’s ~2008 upload of leg-hanging mushroom tree. So I was not that late, to this online resource; I was fairly on top of it, though I am kicking myself if, on hiatus, I did an image search for “Christian mushroom” around 2008 and saw lgmt Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter briefly in passing but failred to archive it (b/c on hiatus, which I KNEW would be costly withdrawal from scholarly progress, preventing me from followthrough after my 2007 main article finished formatting in Sep 2007.
The price of forcing myself to stop the Egodeath theory devmt in 2008, was, in 2020 i found the 2017 Great Canterbury Psalter online, and the Lash crop of 2008 of his trip to Paris, uploading inkjet fraction of image. in his Discovery of a Lifetime article at his site. Which got prop’d to other two sites, which i found mid Nov 2020, and built/confirmed my Hatsis hi-res Dancing Man “stand on right foot” conjecture xmas 2015 along the lines of:
weight on left foot = possibilism-thinking weight on right foot = eternalism-thinking
Nov 2020, fully confirmed that. Because i had that hypoth in hand, I was able to apply that hypoth to decode the no-context leg-hanging mushroom tree, with massive expansive success, especially after Cyberdisciple gave me the (2017?) hi-res site image url.
confirmation of the Egodeath theory
by the way, evidence of mushroom imagery in Christian art — RESTRICTION: YOU DO NOT GET TO HAVE MY GREAT EVIDENCE OF mushroom imagery in Christian art UNLESS, AS A PACKAGE DEAL, YOU FIRST GO THROUGH MY the Mytheme theory & FULL Egodeath theory.
NO Egodeath theory? THEN NO mushroom imagery in Christian art EVIDENCE.
I will tell people that. Here’s the deal: I’ll give you ton of evidence (sep. from the Egodeath theory), only if you study understand my the Egodeath theory.
I will give you mushroom evidence, if you pay full attention to eternalism-driven control-transformation per the Egodeath theory. The threat-monster-wisdom gate.
The threat-monster-wisdom gate; Transcendent Knowledge = Understanding Inherently Being Threatened with control instability
p.m. January 12, 2026
The nature of the alt state is, a state of being under threat of control instability. The more you und, the more u r threatened. To understand is to be under threat.
todo: gallery of crops from Great Canterbury Psalter, depicting “To understand is to be under threat.” Open scroll = being threatened.
todo: When did Great Canterbury Psalter become avail on Web? Did Paul Lindgren use it ~2000? Does Entheos print or online site link to it?
Did my Amazon book review of Arthur help join Ruck & Arthur? Arthur didn’t tell me (in his phone calls) about Lindgren or conversing w/ Ruck.
In “Conjuring Eden”, I discovered the endnote reference to Paul Lindgren on Jan. 11, 2026, captured in voice recording (3 hours): VOX_TK_6603.wav
Question for Mark Hoffman: Are scholars able to get 2001 article “Conjuring Eden”?
body
end notes
online gallery
I forgive authors for being unread and IGNORANT of THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE ARTICLE, b/c:
not avail
long
long body, long endnotes, long online gallery, numbered images in article body
complicated references to endnotes, unclear references to online images, and differently numbered references to images in the article body.
blurry, in 2001, vs. my dark-palette late 2020, and their library improved palette by 2023.
There are 3 articles that the ABD Apologist academic crowd fails to read, like Letcher only treats 1 image, and totally massively f’s up and misattributes the Allegro/ Ruck/ Pop fixation on “secret suppressed” social drama narrative, to Stamets 96 & Gartz 96, who wrote 0 words related to “secret suppressed” social drama narrative.
Roll up sleeves to analyze their narrative, none: only a caption: “Liberty cap mushroom trees on Bernward door”.
Letcher correctly disparages and char’izes Secret Christian Amanita Cult (actually he neglects to show the Amanita fixation overemphasis). But he massively f’s up in attributing “secret” to Stam/Gart. Letcher takes the pop story, which is in fact fixated on Amanita and thus Plaincourault fresco (the almost-only Amanita-based mushroom-tree), and Letcher fails to state that the Pop theory is specifically limited to Amanita. So, Letcher does not provided the needed Pop critique, and Letcher accidentally uses my Samorini/ Hoffman/ Browns 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) to disprove the Allegro/Ruck 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
s g e s 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
looks like i read the good parts of her book already, 1x, in 2016. will i gain anything by re-surveying the book? The Creation of Scientific Concepts. Models & Analogies.
The creation of concepts is not all aat once inspiration
omits conceptual lexicon, which is important for the Egodeath theory – she doesn’t word in terms of; Index lacks:
lexicon
vocabulary
The Creation of Scientific Concepts (a woman, 2008)
read parts of it 2016, metallic gel pens
read parts of it p.m. January 7, 2026, Pentel P205, metallic cases: purple blue green red
to manage them, vs definite content in sections 1 & 2, list + steps.
If Accomplish Nothing Else in this 10 Minute Talk
At least, accomplish:
List (summarize) the reasons why “The Importance of Ceremony”.
Define Least Ceremony.
Motivation for this Article
Been gathering notes for 10-minute church closer. To finalize here.
Intro
Reason #1, to have least ceremony as opposed to having no ceremony: To satisfy the lawyers.
A psychedelic religion (to be legally protected) is required by Them to have ritual ceremony, holy days, dogma faith beliefs, etc.
This article is for a 10-minute church talk Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026. The first two sections were used.
These are notes from discussion with members of psychedelic churches over several months of gathering input.
Principles of Neurotheology (Newberg 2010): “Group Ceremonial Rituals”
After re-reading Alan Houot’s article on psychedelics researchers & Phenomenology, i found a book by that crowd on my shelf, by Newberg 2010, has a 5-page section on “Group Ceremonial Rituals”, in _Principles of Neurotheology_
a la Ken Wilber:
Have group ceremony, to:
integrate & differentiate the personal, communal, & transpersonal
Least Ceremony instead of No Ceremony, Makes the Group/Community a Degree More Sync’d/ Cohesive
Group ceremony recurring ritual makes group a degree more sync’d
Jeffrey Breau (a member of psychedelic churches), his Harvard conference abstract for May 2025:
“Most important: study how constraints of religion, law, & care shape community.”
Entire Ceremony, vs. Ceremony Aspects/Acts
eg the Redwood ceremony: has a required Prep meeting (online) before the date.
and that ceremony on that date, includes a Prep, and includes an Integration, as a group, gathered together, that day.
Then later date, a group Integration meeting (online).
Micro Phases within the Journey Ceremony
Phase 1: prep, as a group/ community.
Phase 2: journey, as a group/ community. A journey includes micro Prep and micro Integration.
Phase 3: integrate, as a group / community.
My Ask: Do a Reading from a Church Document
my ask: help define least ceremony, ie, we need structure, i want to have every time a reading of church docs.
ceremony = structure
prayer magical apotropaic
ceremony to banish monsters, to enforce +Unity only
ceremony = good order, provide structure, avoid chaos;
= sustainable group
what happens when you eliminate ceremony/ structure? chaos, not community spirituality journeying.
people would possibly arrive late and then leave and then come back having taken unknown additional redosing of unknown substance by themselves, without letting the group know
yet the group is held responsible for giving such a person support, to the point of that person becoming the center of attention, effectively commandeering the whole group event – group disorder, how did mystery cult integrate?
don’t burden church officials, who were prepped for leading official, organized ceremonies
Liturgy definition: Least Ceremony with Welch’s grape juice & bread
see church docs:
Definition of each extant ceremony / liturgy.
How to define/propose a new ceremony / liturgy, such as: Least Ceremony with Welch’s grape juice & bread
a spell ceremony for rain
group exorcism ceremony
magic benefit of ritual
generic intentionality prayer
In the church’s several plant ceremonies, what are the ceremony aspects?
being organized = ceremony.
a Liturgy, Least Liturgy; each week’s church service defines a Liturgy; time slots.
discuss dosage/ sacrament eg Welch’s grape juice & cracker
food
timing
give an altar item, eg Pentel P205 pencil (other church member favors P209)
state ending-time
names
contact info
donation
where from? web, wiki?
“Religious ceremonies provide structured practices and rituals performed for spiritual purposes.
“These include formal acts of worship, offerings, and observances that honor deities, beliefs, and traditions.
“Ceremonies can range from community gatherings to individual devotions, often involving specific guidelines, prescribed actions, and the use of sacred objects.
“They may be linked to cultural practices, marriage, education, or monastic life, emphasizing purity, devotion, and the pursuit of spiritual fulfillment.”
“The purpose of ceremony in religious practice is multifaceted.
“Ceremonies serve as a bridge between the divine and the earthly, marking significant life events, seasonal changes, and spiritual milestones.
“They provide a sense of continuity with past generations, offer structure to spiritual life, and foster community bonds.
“Ceremonies are also a way for individuals to express their personal struggles or joys, such as weddings, which mark significant life transitions with spiritual significance.
“They contribute to psychological stability, identity, and the personal sense of self-worth.
“Ceremonies are constructed from the visual and performing arts, leaving lifelong lasting memories and permanent good effects.”
/ end passage
psyched. gives unconstrained cognitive control; “[ICC] Impaired Control and Cognition” & “[ANX] Anxiety”, per Studerus 11-Factors questionnaire : group presence — represented by group ceremony — supports and fills in for that lack of constraint.
Constraint can elevate.
To guide, direct, & structure, to asdr address issue problem: puddle of unprofitable.
Psychedelics must be DIRECTED else random, unstructured, — must COMBINE the church’s official ceremonies + member disorganized events/ activities. combine pros of both, against cons
Official Church Events vs. Member-Organized Events
Official Church Events (OCE)
Member-Organized Events (MOE)
Member-Disorganized Non-Events (MDNE)
Individual member non-event
Pros and Cons of Official & Member Events
OCE official events: pros
OCE official events: cons
member-unorganized activities: pros
member-unorganized activities: cons
‘Event’ vague, definition is assumed to be like official events/ ceremonies/ liturgies, though actually lacking structure
“event” implies pre announced & structured
MOE vs SOE
MOE bring structure, like SOE?
the word “events” is misrep or undefined
OCE are projecting their level of organization onto MOE, which are actually char’d by lack of org’n. — can work on that; room for improvement, tho can be epic — even more than official events! but w chaos & problems
to constrain and steer experience?
symbols important
joint (smoke; repeated/ recurring) plant ritual or ceremony
least dogma : complex doctrinal theology
::
least ceremony : complex elaborate ceremony
importance of dogma? no
importance of ceremony? no
ceremony = journey collective
my kajabi app posted photo of __
differentiate and integrate the personal, communal, & transpersonal
read aloud some church passages
Satsang is ceremony in some ways
Joint Smoking Group Ritual
Moderate Cannabis strains 5% THC, 10% CBD
Harlequin
Aliens on Moonshine
Cosmic Charlie
Passing a joint (which direction) is a sacred plant ceremony, & wondering the direction/ rotation
1/2 joint
2/3 of joint
3 hits each * # ppl in the rotation
technique
Academics’ Superstitions and Taboos: Why Assume that Any Plant Use = “Ritual”?
When arch finds plant evidence, asks “How did they use the plant in their rituals/ceremonies?”
I don’t like framing-words such as “experiment” (ingest plant) or “ritual” (ingest plant together)
Why do academics never let any current or past person simply use a plant?
Why must we always leap to framing, “ritual cult group” context?
“their” (a group) and “ritual” appear out of thin air, fabrications projected by academics — as fake as academic Buddhism filtered & constructed by the Religious Philosophy dept., vs. historical, actual, popular, practiced Buddhism.
How do writers so certainly judge that there is a so-called “ritual”?
Why do academics not discuss in terms of individual usage? or neutral “some people used”, as a modern individualist would say.
Say “use” and “person”, not “ritual” or “experiment” or “group”.
Why do you always begin by framing as “ritual”?
Explain what one person uses it is a one person ritual
claims about ritual
claims about ceremony
Everything academics since 1893 Swami Vivekananda say about “this religion versus that” is suspect (3 articles on sordid fabrication of “Buddhism as a religion” per Protestant Christian Western demands in 1893 (climate of modern progress & civilizational evolution) – advocates who created the modern Religious Philosophy department crafted static, imagined versions of religion, shaped by academics’ selection/sculpting.
Everything the official scholars (motivated by global political unity) say about mystical experiencing is suspect, mis-focused; too narrow; too “positive unity” ONLY, omits the MORE IMPORTANT transformative dynamics, of
selectively tuning in to eternalism-driven control-transformation
selectively tuning in to Positive Unitive mystical experience
4D Spacetime Mysticism; block-universe eternalism, that transforms the mental model of control-in-world.
eternalism-driven control-transformation
fuller phrase:
analogies of psychedelic eternalism-driven control transformation
mental model transformation
from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
that “embraces & includes” possibilism-thinking like Abraham sacrifices and preserves Isaac and receives viable god-conformant life (the Promise to Abram, as analogy not lit’m )
the way the academics name or characterize the altered state is suspect – the phrase “the positive unitive state” entirely omits & delegitimizes powerful dynamics of transformation as “not positive unity, therefore irrelevant & anti-mystical”
instead, call/ characterize the state accurately:
the control-transformation state of consciousness
academics say: the positive unitive state of consciousness central focus & boundary of concern
presumed, assumed.
more profound a characterization: the control-transformation state of consciousness the Classic central focus & boundary of concern – superior model and guide-sisng, sign, pointing the way to the control vortex {chariot fire whirlwind up to higher level} that adds eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking to have 2 POVs, 2 ways of thinking.
Importance of Ceremony in Mystery Culture eg Mithraism, Isis, Demeter, Christianity
Church fathers describe the Eucharist bringing community across spacetime together, per psilocybin Liberty Cap mixed wine 500 B C – 500 A D in Antiquity, Mixed Wine Psilocybin Wine
Mature as a group of completed intiates.
vs the eternalism-driven control-transformation SOC.
the Control Transformation altered state
intense “mystic” altered state?
intense control-transformation altered state
common old theory wording & conceptual vocabulary paradigm
map
Egodeath theory lexicon & conceptual vocabulary paradigm ie eternalism-driven control-transformation
control-transformation altered state
the control-transformation state of consciousness ctsoc
the unitive state of consciousness usoc
the positive unitive state of consciousness pusoc
purging in community
group support for challenging experience (requires mental presence by others; by the group– must know their state of consciousness)
A community liturgy / ceremony / ritual is able to constrain dosage – eg ordained minister serve sacrament.
Alan Houot in his masters dissertation mistakes surrender as failure & not recognize it as a developed technology
Houot 2019 glorifies Indigenous Shams in a static caricature, (they “have control” on psilo)
& dismisses mystics as “pursuing loss of control & surrender (a failure of control)”, in a static caricature.
Indigenous Shams are superior b/c they have full control on psilocybin, b/c they have advanced technology eg journeying in the dark, whereas mystics lack such spiritual technology, evidenced by failure (ie surrender).
Charles Stang, like Andy Letcher 2006 Shroom, Is Ignorant of Evidence
Ruck & Rush Work Against Christian psychedelics history too
John Rush 2nd edition back cover highlighted here, keeps shifting Christianity does and doesn’t have mushroom history – Christianity sucks, b/c it prohibited secret Amanita, and we know secret the “secret Amanita cult” existed b/c
Voice Recording 1234 notes
Letcher and Stang and MICA Deniers have not read “Conjuring Eden” including end notes and online image gallery.
Discussion with Ruck Committee, Paul Lindgren, & James Arthur cited in end notes.
2025 Accomplishments
2007 main article fell short re: core theory & re: myth analogy, both fixed in 2025:
Fixed core theory by adding concept of 2POV: you don’t get rid of using possibilism-thinking; use it all the time. you gain add’l POV/ way of thinking. Rebis w/ male head & female head. Victory Dionysus parade chariot, explained now the image for 2007 article.
Threat comprehension is greater part of wisdom – to be enlightened is to understand vulnerability and being under threat, in the control-transformation state of consciousness
1988
1997 outline = 1510 Copernicus’ draft circulated; vs 1543 Copernicus’ published version circulated; vs. 1687
It Took 177 Years for the Revolutionary Change from Ptolemy’s/ Aristotle’s Geocentric Old Model to Copernicus’ Heliocentric New Model
During 1510-1687, it took 177 years to switch from the Old Theory to the New Theory, which marked start of modern science.
Charles Stang denies and insults and cheaply dismisses and motbailey shifts “there’s no evidence of ergot eucharist” thus “there’s no evidence of history psychedelics Christian. Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art (MICA)
January 5, 2026 – 3-hour voice recording
0:00-15:00 tech, voice, skip
topics:
I’m furious about the continuous stream of Establishment academics, and even Ruck Committee all eager to deny psychedelics in Christian history.
Ruck: “Thanks for yet more evidence that psychedelics were absent from Christianity, though they were secretly used by hereticalgroups, and by 1-2 individual officials, and by the monks and nuns” (ie, Christianity eliminated psychedelics, though “returning crusaders repeatedly re-introduced the Amanita secret gnosis”.
The Holy Mushroom p. __ – “heretical”, “monks”. Ruck tries to restrict.
Elsewhere, Ruck restricts to a couple, exceptional officials.
Irvin’s AstroSham 1 Conclusion tries to restrict Amanita Gnosis to “kings and elites”.
0 a.m. January 6, 2026
What’s There to Be Afraid Of? Psychotic Universal Puppethood
Why Literalism Kills, through Politics – Video: “How the Church Used Israel to Control Christians – The Hidden Agenda EXPOSED!”
{Israel} = the set of people who undergo transformation from possibilism to eternalism. That’s the esoteric meaning or “decoding”.
Start by analyzing the myth of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac in isolation without any later accretions (additions, modifications) such as the idea of literal circumcision.
Read the Bible from Genesis to that point, Genesis 22 (the sacrifice of Isaac), as if the story ends there – that’s the best foundation for myth decoding. Keep that separate from later Old Testament accretions and New Testament accretions.
Video title: How the Church Used Israel to Control Christians – The Hidden Agenda EXPOSED! Channel: VerseFire Uploaded Oct. 21, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJwkQlempnk
Cites My Work: “It Is Christian Zionists Who Will Be Left Behind – 10/19/25 By Pastor Chuck Baldwin” [Joke]
Oct. 20, 2025
Christian Z’ism is a kind of literalism and substitution (magical thinking) to prevent actual psychedelic control transformation, transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
“Christian Zionists have always been the glue that holds Zionist in power in Washington DC.
“It’s the Zionists, it’s the Christian Zionist that are keeping this charade afloat.
“Oh, sure, the [A.] lobby has its part toplay, no doubt.
“But as Scott said, without the Christian Zionist evangelicals, they would not be able to hold it together.
“So that means it’s Christian evangelicals.
“It it is the first century Judaizers reincarnated in the United States ofAmerica preaching the same perverted gospel that the Judaizers preached in the days of the Apostle Paul.
“And look at the result that is taking place on a national and international level because of the apostasy of these evangelical pastors.
“But the anti-Zionist train is leaving the station.
“People all over the world are already on the train, and now even a majority of the United States citizenry is on the is on board.
“Hallelujah.
“The only ones who are still playing games in the train station trying to convince themselves that Scofield told them the truth and that the rapture is really going to pull them out of the fire that they themselves set with their phony first century Judaizer bewitchment doctrines of the Christian Zionists.
“Amen.
“The entire world is seeing the light about the pseudo-“Israel” state.
“Libertarians are on the train.
Democrats are on the train.
Independents are on the train.
Middle-aged people are on the train.
Young people are on the train.
Progressives are on the train.
A large segment of conservatives are now on the train.
Candace Owen’s followers are on the train.
Tucker Carlson’s followers are on the train.
Jimmy Dore’s followers are on the train.
Joe Rogan’s followers are on the train.
Dave Chappelle’s followers are on the train.
“Ditto for Colonel Douglas McGregor, Professor John Mirsheimer, Ron Paul, Lou Rockwell, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Phil Turney, Max Blumenthal, Tim Brown, and on and on.
[57:15]
“Christian pastors and podcasters such as pastor Tommy McMurtry, Steven Bon, David Knight, Michael Hoffman, Scipio Iodites, Jerry Barrett and hundreds more are on the train.
“Billions of people worldwide are leaving the train on the train leaving the Zionist cult.
What kind of music is Desert Dwellers? https://www.google.com/search?q=What+kind+of+music+is+Desert+Dwellers%3F “Desert Dwellers’ music is best described as psychedelic bass, downtempo, and tribal electronic music, blending deep bass with world music, ethno-electronic sounds, and trance influences to create “sonic incense for the mind and body”. The duo of Amani Friend and Treavor Moontribe creates both meditative chill-out tracks and powerful dancefloor experiences, making them a cornerstone of global electronic and transformational festival culture.”
psychedelic bass
downtempo dub
tribal electronic
deep bass
world music
ethno-electronic
psytrance
meditative chill-out
powerful dancefloor
global electronic
transformational festival culture
The “Author Disclosure Statement” section of long-awaited Hopkins “Religious Leaders Study”
Top-Down Elite Psychedelic Science (the Psychedelic RenaissanceTM) Gets Egg on Face, Embarrasses the Field
[inspired by Max Freakout, with Cyberdisciple, in Transcendent Knowledge Podcast episode 21: Max made a point like:
“The false narrative that popular festival partying with psychedelics are the cause of Prohibition, so let us top-down elites do serious, credible, sound scholarship.”]
End of the “Author Disclosure Statement” section of the long-awaited Hopkins “Religious Leaders Study”:
“The Johns Hopkins Medicine Institutional Review Board (JHM IRB) conducted an audit of the JHU site (IRB00036973—“Effects of Psilocybin-facilitated Experience on the Psychology and Effectiveness of Professional Leaders in Religion”) and concluded that
the following must be reported to all journals and disclosed in all publications where data related to this study may be published:
(1) There were two unapproved study team members, one who was also a study funding sponsor, directly engaged in the research. [FIELD-EMBARRASING FAIL!]
(2) There was an additional approved study team member whose role as a funding sponsor of the study was not disclosed to the IRB and who directly led the qualitative analysis. [FIELD-EMBARRASING FAIL!]
(3) Conflicts of interest related to the two individuals who were engaged in the research and also served as funding sponsors were not appropriately disclosed nor managed. [FIELD-EMBARRASING FAIL!]
(4) The funding sponsorship for this study was not disclosed to the JHM IRB.” [FIELD-EMBARRASING FAIL!]
Facebook Msgs to Mark Hoffman by Sep 3 2025
Fbk Friended Ruck/ Mark Hoffman
Extremely delighted to see “Ruck accepted”. I check facebook regularly, every 10 years. But w/ you here, and Max F., gives me a reason to check facebook more often, like once every 5 years.
This article draft ready to submit to E- (SG Community church. Our new regional “church Plant” group! vs. Oakland/Berkeley (Pastor B).
2 POVs
Although article is a success, i might add “two POVs” to this 2-page article’s list of {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, b/c there’s lots of “looking” and “two faces”/ “two heads” motifs in Great Canterbury Psalter. Rebis with two heads/genders = Hermes/Aphrodite = male/female = child/adult POVs. Not a zero sum game; end up w/ two POVs, in both states. https://egodeaththeory.org/…/recognizing-mushroom…/ In the ecstatic state, the first POV remains, but awareness moves outside that, and sees that mental model from outside of it, and eventually the mind secures the add’l POV, even in both states.
Father Lineage: Transpersonal Psychology
My father gave me a huge head start in Transpersonal Psychology in high school til mid-university.
Legal Phil of Psychedelic Churches
You and I should really converse. Interesting big-brain debates discussing gray areas for a mutli-plant church: official church celebrations seeming to conflict with non-official group gatherings.
Topics to Discuss with Carl Ruck
To Restore Its Credibility, Entheogen Scholarship Must Come Clean and Own Up to Wasson’s Deceitful Academic Obstructionism
Wasson was a Misleading (lying), Lifetime Actor, Maximum Conflict of Interest as Banker for Pope, Lied about Mushroom-Trees, thus:
“Yes, Wasson Certainly Screwed Over the Catholic Entheogenic Reformation” [Wink.]
I will envision what you and I could talk about. Fun times:
The elite chide, “don’t screw it up like “recreational” peasants did in 60s and caused – your fault – Prohibition.
But then, the Hopkins Grifty team, creme of the creme, TOTALLY messed up the Hopkins “Religious Leaders Study”, see its “Conflict of Interest” section: “Do not cite this article, it is a massive failure of Science.”
The “wise and cautious elites” did exactly what they lectured the peasants not to do: throw caution to the wind, and embarrass psych research and mess up the Psych Renaissance[TM]. FIASCO
<– dancing man Talking w/ TK soon – we half agree, but might have opposite views, re: certainly entheogen origin of religion (“Evidence?”
I generate evidence as-needed; there is no shortage of evidence, its a myth.) We’re having much fun poking fun at psych snake oil & psych pseudo science.
Extreme Affirmer of mushroom imagery in Christian art
Clarification in case you don’t know I’m an extreme advocate of the maximal entheogen theory of religion:
It’s a myth that there’s a shortage of evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art.
With the right interpretive theory, there is far more than sufficient, amazingly ideal evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art.
That has been proved, and there are only logical fallacies, used by deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
The Egodeath Theory Core Theory Is a Product of California [Mostly Central; also Entire State]; the Mytheme Theory Is a Product of Seattle
bay area
Sacramento 1974
Stockton 1975-1990
Palo Alto 1991-1996
Santa Cruz 1997
Seattle 1998-2025
I met Sunil Aggarwal in Hempfest lecture tent (Seattle, ~2004), and Jack Herer, who I introduced to Sally.
Sunil invited me to church.
Sacred Garden Community church had big Church Plant of SGC in Seattle on May 18, 2025, authenticated by God molecule and Terrence-grown vine.
Sunil and two women were ordained that day.
Pastor Bob’s multi-plant, Least Dogma church is leading-edge, based in Oakland/Berkeley, now with a Seattle church plant by God.
Topics I’d Discuss with Ruck at Spring Mysteries Festival in April 2026 – Dr. Secret and the Evil M. Hoffman
I should forward u emails
My email yesterday to John R listing topics I’d discuss with Ruck at Seattle’s 2026 fest: Subject: Spring Mysteries Festival | Rituals | ATChttps://www.springmysteries.com
Spring Mysteries Festival, April 2-5, 2026
I wish I went to David Samas’ expert Amanita ceremony with my church. Limited time & $.
“Amanita Is Your Heritage” (ie Psilocybin Is Not Your Heritage)
I was not happy with David Samas twice, during church service & book club, telling people “Amanita is your heritage” — as if Europe lacks a fully developed history of psilocybin use.
The medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} says otherwise – a MORE developed use of psilocybin than Indigenous Shams underutilizing psilocybin.
I picture the Liberty Cap cap-on-sword above the bull-dining scene on back of the reversible tauroctony.
Liberty Cap is widely distributed, so is a strong candidate for main engine of the Mysteries, even north of the 30th Parallel/ Italy.
Your article starts w/ huge Amanita section, ends with a miniscule psilocybin section (“someone oughtta look into this” [me handing him mirror]).
Consider the reverse emphasis; Amanita imagery has always been the billboard for psilocybin use, even to today in headshop art, same as ever.
Against Winkelman’s misunderstanding in email, the only time I used pseudonym like “Mark Hoffman” was 1 post, in 1997 Feb, at Principia Cybernetica site, my core theory spec’n alias “Mark Hofmann” – which is how a certain YouTube thumbnail conflates your name w/ Albert Hofmann; as “Mark Hofmann”.
I Started Entheogen Scholarship in 1998
I entered the field of entheogen scholarship in 1998, with a pretty fully formed core theory of psychedelic mental model transformation.
My 1997 Core Theory:
lacked concept “end up w/ marriage of 2 POVs across 2 states”; expected crude entire wholesale switch – a mistaken expectation and crude model; I was surprised to see in peak meditation, that I still – shocker [eye roll] – continued to employ egoic freewill thinking.
lacked the terms, concepts, or concept-labels:
possibilism vs. eternalism.
branching vs. non-branching.
I had only a hazy idea that myth and art depicts by analogies, the core theory. My 1997 Core Theory spec deliberately avoided analogies/ metaphors, rather than leveraging and reading mythic analogies adeptly like in my 2006/2007 main article. eg by 1997 Feb, I was reading Gnosis magazine.
/ end of msgs to “Carl Ruck”/ Mark Hoffman
I Plan to Soon Add Transcription of Crazy Third Episode of Transcendent Knowledge Podcast with Guest Kafei
My page for Kafei’s 4th appearance on Transcendent Knowledge Podcast https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/ already has the full transcript. todo: review/ re-read that page, since I now emailed the Egodeath community some updated points re: the 3rd appearance of Kafei.
todo: copy to here, the past week of emails to Cyb/ Max [/Loop] – including thread to Erik Davis / James Kent, “Freakout in the Psychedelic Science Lab”.
My red pill phase 1 2015 by Jan Irvin, as advised by Daniel Boon, PhDTK.
My red pill phase 2 2018 by Murdock and YouTube, I deleted a span of posts to Egodeath Yahoo Group during this awakening, including thread (according to email to James Kent), “Freakout in the Psychedelic Science Lab”.
todo: forward some to Mark Hoffman.
Email to wrmspirit Sep 3, 2025
Follow Advancements in the Egodeath Theory on a 6-Month Basis
The best approach is probably to check the Egodeath theory site every 6 months.
I always traditionally re-took stock of my progress of theory development every 6 months, since like 1988.
If you follow too closely, it can look like repetition.
But each spiral pass, makes an increment of essential improvement, like recent development of a quite different framing of the relation between possibilism-thinking vs eternalism-thinking as the mind develops
Marry the Two POVs
Recent development of a quite different framing of the relation between possibilism-thinking vs eternalism-thinking as the mind develops – so to speak, crudely, “from possibilism to eternalism”.
That’s a misleading, broad phrasing, given that daily life, and even the peak state, always is shaped as possibilism-experiencing.
In the altered state, gain (per ecstasy; standing outside of egoic thinking), a POV outside of possibilism-thinking, while possibilism-thinking always remains present.
There was a big step in theory development recently, in how to conceptualize and describe “mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism”.
Caution: The initiated mind never “gets rid of” possibilism-thinking, despite the shorthand “from possibilism to eternalism” seems to imply a wholesale switch.
control transformation / psilocybin transformation of the mind is a marriage of POVs, not a wholesale switch of POVs that does away with the first POV.
My discussion with you of “marry two opposite points of view” paid off, or was made good and confirmed.
The Egodeath theory is on much firmer ground, after I recently got rid of any trace of disparaging the initial mental model (possibilism-thinking), as if we get rid of possibilism-thinking and entirely switch to the 2nd mental model (eternalism-thinking).
Ever since 1996 visit with God’s power over me again, I puzzled: “Why am I still using WRONG THINKING, I thought I GOT RID OF that freewill-based thinking.”
With discussions with you, to positively present the Egodeath theory to Sacred Garden Community church, I finally GOT IT:
You *keep* and always use the initial thinking, but, slightly and profoundly modified – after adding the other, 2nd, alternative mental model.
We do not annihilate and “get rid of the immature error of” possibilism-thinking; rather, we marry it to its opposite, eternalism-thinking, like {rider on horse/donkey). 2 POVs.
The outcome for the Egodeath theory: added the key concept, “2 POVs, across 2 states”, that was counterintuitive to my crude / brittle thinking since like 1996, where my experience contradicted my (false, a zero-sum game expectation).
You do not “do away with” the initial POV/ mental model; you always continue to heavily use possibilism-thinking — but now add a 2nd, different POV on that mental model/ mental functioning.
Egodeath Community = Ardent Advocates
The Egodeath Community is a joke concept, so maybe you are a true member.
Like Jerry Brown is now a member of the group he disparaged as the Ardent Advocates (extreme Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art).
Else the other option is for the Browns to say – absurdly – that the Walburga tapestry is not Amanita.
Browns’ terrible, credibility-cancelling reasoning for that was “serrated base in tapestry rules out Amanita” — an embarrassingly novice/ elementary, mistaken botanical assessment.
Actually, the tapestry’s serrated base confirms that the image matches Amanita, as a glance at the cover of Schultes’ 1976 book makes instantly clear.
Phenomenology vs. Metaphysics
the answer to those questions seemingly resolved by understanding and respecting the difference between Phenomenology and the Metaphysical. There becomes a more realistic balance in life when remembering and re-realizing the difference between both.
That sounds like:
altered-state based Philosophy vs.
ordinary-state based aka “armchair Philosophy”.
“Stop critiquing other scholars”
I am advised to “stop critiquing other scholars/theories” and “just focus on delivering my scholarship/ theory”. Half truth, unrealistic.
It is beneficial to analyze the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, as well as state what actually is the case, for my two topics:
* How the mind transforms in the altered state.
* How that was depicted via analogies throughout history, in myth & art.
/ end of email to wrmspirit
Email to Michael W, Aug 28, 2025
Gordon Wasson’s publicly stated conclusion/position about mushroom-trees, vs. his privately held conclusion/ view/ position about mushroom-trees:
Important point about the semi-false claim at end of a Wasson article submission I reviewed for the [publication], the claim that lacked any citation:
The author was largely correct in saying Wasson surely must have concluded that all mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, BUT, we must differentiate between Wasson’s publicly stated position/conclusion, vs. Wasson’s privately held position/ conclusion.
And, must discuss Wasson’s active attacking of people who asserted that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.
Irvin owns that point, in 2008 book The Holy Mushroom.
Against Ruck 2001’s creative retelling of Wasson’s history, inventively inverting how Wasson publicly acted on this topic.
Ruck 2001 (“Daturas for the Virgin”) slips and says “Wasson’s conclusion” = mushroom-trees mean mushrooms – which Wasson never PUBLICLY asserted.
Wasson had maximum conflict of interest, as a banker for the Pope. (Browns 2019, Journal of Psychedelic Studies.)
Jan Irvin’s book The Holy Mushroom catches Carl Ruck for saying “Wasson’s conclusion” immediately after Ruck asserts all mushroom-trees mean mushrooms – which Wasson never publicly asserted, and rather the opposite: Wasson insulted, berated, and pressured mycologists who asserted that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.
I agree with the author of the draft article that surely Wasson must have [PRIVATELY] concluded mushroom-trees mean mushrooms – but Wasson [PUBLICLY] ACTED as if he believed the opposite. eg p. 180, SOMA, 1968, the censored Panofsky passage paragraph.
The article’s author should have made that sharp distinction, not just write “concluded” without specifying Wasson’s private vs public stance (affectation).
You wrote “always lost in this threading UI at Gmail” – thank you for saying that!
I was just experimenting with the Gmail UI when forwarding your 2023 email to my colleagues, about a possible mushroom-trees or “mushroom imagery in Christian art” article.
My variant expansion of MICA: mushroom imagery in Christian art, not Browns’ expansion of MICA as “mushrooms in Christian art” — to shut out Ronald Huggins’ nonsense move, where Huggins argues: “The overall item doesn’t match A MUSHROOM” – which is beside the point; it is mushroom elements, freely combined.
Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter [particularly the Day 3 panel – YOUR TERMS ARE ACCEPTABLE.] as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024)
Got Much More Confirmation than Expected, in f134, of at least Pairing of Figures, as well as “2 POVs” motif eg guy has two opposite faces
Is that the ancient “two faces” forward & backward motif? Likely.
Two Faces, One Looking Forward, One Looking Backward – Drunk Looking into Reflection Vessel SEEING HIMSELF from an Outside Vantage Point – Villa of the Mysteries
I was able to slip-in “2 POVs” motif yesterday in article sent to editor of Church Reader – and today, I sufficiently confirmed… I well-confirmed that motif is present, I suppose MORE THAN EXPECTED, in f134 (Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter).
A pretty big success today, finding lots of “2 POVs” eg 2-headed people, and, {beard guy + no-beard guy} is CERTAINLY a theme in f134 folio image, including:
Row 3 middle: one guy has no L leg; other guy has no R leg; THEY ARE PAIRED MORE STRONGLY than I realized.
Decoded {two pairs of eyes} = the two experiential states, mental models, and vantage points of awareness, eventually present across both states of consciousness
grokked in email last night to Max / Cyb / Loop, Aug. 26/27, 2025
in ecstatic loose cognition state peak window, awareness is outside of the personal control system rather than embedded in the personal control system and not able to observe the personal control system from outside of it. “beside” the egoic mind = behind
New Academic Derby Team: The Indigenous Shams, Joining in Combat the Salvation Salesmen, the Meditation Hucksters, the Witches, and Dr. Secret, against the Monks
Sent Article to the Editor of the Church Reader: Recognizing Mushroom Imagery in Medieval Art, Last-Minute Addition: 2 POVs
7:12 p.m. August 27, 2025
changed author/date note to:
Michael Hoffman, August 27, 2025, for Sacred Garden Community Church Reader, Issue 1
Last minute changes or additions:
Mushroom motifs list:
two sets of eyes, for the two experiential states, mental models, and vantage points of awareness
open or closed scroll or book
Changes in the intro to the Examples section:
Appended: showing that European religious history includes the advanced use of psilocybin mushrooms and the peak psychedelic state.
from: bright sun disk of fire & light to: bright sun disk of fire and light
Why is claiming the peak psychedelic state strategic?
To add the word “psychedelic”, as in, medieval art is psychedelic art.
To not leave anything on the table.
To fully claim maximum psychedelic experiencing for Europe history.
To not permit other cultures to make a stronger claim, and to raise the bar higher than they can reach.
Also put the attention on the fully developed maximum experience, not only on dosage.
Like me having to make the most extreme statements, to prevent evil future-me from outdoing present-me.
To set the bar as high as possible and reach the highest possible bar of achievement.
To set the objective/goal as high as possible.
To make the greatest possible claim.
Not merely “advanced”, but specifically, the most fully advanced use of psychedelics. previously wrote: coined: Europe history has fully developed use of psilocybin.
To emphasize contrast with low-dose or medium-dose.
To maximize the contrast between tight cognition and loose cognition, per “two POVs”.
Changed date to today’s date, August 27, 2025, since I added significant item, 2 POVs, developed or realized in emails to Max/ Cyb/ Loop last night.
Stability list changes
Added:
balancing on right leg, or on toes
In the Stability motifs list, this combination is not present:
stable entryway
God’s Flesh: Teonanácatl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom (Irvin, 2022)
Combat Teams in Psychedelic Culture: Shams vs. Mysts
Pushy militant dogma:
European Mystics Need to Grovel & Beg Permission from Indigenous Shamans, who Own Psilocybin as the Crown Jewel of High Civilization including Surrenderism, which is the Highest Technology
Retort:
Indigenous Shamans Need to Grovel & Beg Permission from European Mystics, who Own Psilocybin as the Crown Jewel of High Civilization including Surrenderism, which is the Highest Technology
Crop & annotations by Cybermonk, March 27, 2023
Culture Combat Teams in Psychedelic Science: Shams vs. Mysts
what about Scientists vs. Mystics (ie, Johnson vs. Griffiths).
they mean by “mystics“, Unitive model of mystical experience. not the Relational model of mysticism.
psychedelic pseudo science conflates mysticism w/ Unitive. If we reject mysticism, we reject Unitive? No.
We should embrace mysticism and Relational ie 2-level, dependent control per eternalism. per myth, art, Christianity, Jewish rel, etc.
Not mysticism[Unitive], rather, mysticism[Relational].
Units vs. Rats [unitive, relational]
per Houot 2019 master’s thesis.
Psilocybin is the crown jewel of European religious history. Not merely present. Not merely as good as Indigenous. Towering. Real mystical experience is hard to deal w/, so by 1687, forgot-plot reached 0.
Unitive != Universalist/ Peren/ Essen; There’s Relational Universalist/ Peren/ Essen (the Egodeath theory , myth, art, Science)
Unitive = psychedelic pseudo science
Relational = real Science = the Egodeath theory model of mental model transformation in loose cognition. includes surrenderism, against Houot.
inferior Psilocybin usage by Indig to find missing keys or bury-alive their own children. per Irvin & Hatsis new books. Against Houot , who says Sham’s have full control, mystics suck because surrender.
per Houot 2019 master’s diss:
Sham = have full control via dance, sing, drum.
Mystics = surrenderism = failure, no control.
the reverse is the case.
Mystics, w/ their summ psychedelic surrenderism, are superior to Shams.
Indig. Shams need to beg grovel ask permission from euro mystics.
Mystics Suck and Have no Control and are Low Tech; Shamans Rock and Have Full Control and are High Tech (Houot 2019 master’s thesis)
Shamans Suck and Have no Control and are Low Tech; Mystics Rock and Have Full Control and are High Tech
can’t say that, b/c …
in a sense it is valid, to say “mystics have full control”.
you would not say that, in light of 2-level, dependent control.
Against Houot, I don’t think any real Sham or Myst claims full control per his thesis. Naive thesis, for both Shams and Mysts.
per Houot master’s thesis 2019.
If you put down Euro mystics, and glorify Indig shamans,
Put Down Euro Mystics & Glorify Indig Shamans
Put Down Indig Shamans & Glorify Euro Mystics
If you put down Indig shamans, and glorify euro mystics,
Master’s Thesis 2019: Mystics Suck and Have no Control and are Low Tech; Shamans Rock and Have Full Control and are High Tech
That is the P C propaganda – militant Indigenous narrative as in Houot 2019 master’s diss, and switched the words “shamans” and “mystics”.
Houot 2019 says: Mystics Suck and are losers, have no control; do Surrenderism. Shamans have high tech, full control. High tech = drum, sing, dance.
thesis committee throws a party, he gets degree.
Flip valuations:
Shamans Suck and are losers, and Mystics have high tech, full control.
Thesis committeed freaks out.
Mystics are superior to Shams b/c mystics surrender ie have Relational fully dev’d.
“doesn’t relational mean literalist”? no
do not conflate Unitive model of mysticism with [universalism & perennialism & essentialism]
Just because I say the Egodeath theory / Transcendent Knowledge is [universalism & perennialism & essentialism] does NOT imply (against everyone’s confused assumption) its core engine is the Unitive model of mystical experience.
actually,
the Egodeath theory = the Relational (not my term, but equiv.) model of [universalism & perennialism & essentialism]
Rejecting Unitive in favor of Relational – as the model of mysticism – does not imply getting rid of [universalism & perennialism & essentialism]. as everyone wrongly assumes
Greek myth = Relational mysticism, and is [universalism & perennialism & essentialism].
position 3 (theory 3) = the Egodeath theory = psychedelic eternalism. rejects particularism – but do not assume that means asserts Unitive. Strass conflates Relational = particularism Unitive = universalist
Notation:
~= “is associated with”
monolithic, autonomous control ~= Unitive model of mysticism 2-level, dependent control = Relational model of mysticism
You can be universalist (peren., essen.), while rejecting Unitive and asserting Relational.
As do the Egodeath theory (= Science); religious myth; good esotericism; & religious/ esoteric art.
exoteric esotericism agrees with Strassman.
Strass assumes: [draft:]
exoteric = Relational
esoteric = Unitive
New Page: All Writers Assume the False, “Unitive” Model of Mysticism (Covert Neo-Advaita) vs. Control-Transformation
Strassman re: William Richards’ book Sacred Knowledge (Email from Kafei, July 12, 2025)
section added 7:48 a.m. August 21, 2025
todo:
inspect list of podcasts, 4 Transcendent Knowledge ep’s?
Find my first post about Wilber = Advaita. date? vs., on what date did i a few weeks ago, figure out that psychedelic pseudo science uses Unity model that’s bunk and then I made the connections, when did i first ask: HEY, IS MY OBJECTION TO UNITY, DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO EVERY WRITER I DISRESPECTED? WILBER [CONFIRMED!]; … a few weeks ago, I ran a scientific prediction test: on what day did I recently ask: “Try detecting the Unity model in every article & book in the entire field of Transcendent Knowledge”: date: ____ — 91 hits on “unit” in 2015
create webpage post against the Unity model of mysticism, link to Taves article and Breau article.
Is there any difference of scope or focus of Taves article vs. Breau article? Are they both focused on debunking and spotlighting the dubious Unity model of mystical experience?
tell Kaf the Moving Past Mysticism article is added to sidebar nav.
ask Kaf to read that page, what does he think, as the expert on the writings of the Great Mystics?
done:
send Kafei my draft email composed for Kitchens last night, discussing misunderstanding by Kafei.
email this section to Kafei
send the email draft to Kitchens
ask Kitchens if we’re talking today – in thread about that (which see). next week.
read Strassman’s review pdf of Wm Richards’ book Sacred Knowledge.
ask Kafei opinion on bunk Unity model of mysticism vs. control transformation model. state that I disliked Richards – i figured out the other day when i discoverted that my criticism of the Unity model of mystical experience (“enlightenment = temp experience of cessation of mental construction of the self/other boundary”) turned out to apply to all writers.
When reading this impressive book, I’m at the very leading edge of 1970 entheogen scholarship.
p. 259, Psychedelic Injustice, Thomas Hatsis, June 2025, notes by Michael Hoffman, for scholarly studyp. 260, Psychedelic Injustice, Thomas Hatsis, June 2025, notes by Michael Hoffman, for scholarly study
When Did Abram Become Abraham? Is God’s Promise to Only One, Chosen Nation?
Rules of Analogicity & Ahistoricity Interpretation/ Reading/ Decoding
Ahistoricity of Abraham and Promise
Genesis:
no literal nations
no literal Abram
no literal Abraham
no literal Sarah
no literal Isaac
no literal Jacob
no literal promise from God
no literal promise of literal land
no literal descendants
no literal thicket
no literal ram
no literal knife and branches and rock altar
no literal blood of the lamb
no literal burnt ram offering
no literal circumcision
Ahistoricity of Jesus
New Testament:
no literal Jesus
no literal Cross
no literal cave
no literal resurrection
no literal son of God
no literal death of Jesus
no literal blood of Christ
Mytheme Decoding: {promise to Abraham} = to all who are destined for transformation from Possibilism- to Eternalism-Thinking
Even in Gen 17 before Gen 22, the promise is not only to a “nation” called “Israel”, but to “many nations”.
Transforming the meaning via New Testament (Paul) isn’t required, to broaden God’s promise to Abraham and his “descendents” beyond any one “nation” called “Israel”.
{Those on the inside} read according to the spirit, not flesh;
analogical psychedelic eternalism not literalist ordinary-state possibilism
“Abraham is considered the father of many nations, not just one, because God’s covenant with him promised descendants who would form numerous nations, not just the nation of Israel (which is also descended from him). This includes not only the Israelites through Isaac and Jacob, but also other groups like the Ishmaelites, Edomites, and others through his other sons and descendants. Furthermore, the New Testament, particularly Paul’s writings, expands this concept to include all believers as spiritual descendants of Abraham, regardless of their ethnicity, thus making him the father of a multitude of nations through faith.”
“Biological Descendants: God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations (Genesis 17:4-5). This promise was fulfilled in part through his sons Ishmael (father of the Ishmaelites) and Isaac (father of the Israelites, specifically through Jacob). Abraham also had other sons with Keturah, whose descendants also formed nations.
Spiritual Descendants: The Apostle Paul, in his letters, interprets the Abrahamic covenant as extending beyond biological lineage to include all who have faith in Jesus Christ. This means that those who believe in Jesus, regardless of their ethnic background, are considered spiritual descendants of Abraham and heirs to the blessings promised to him.
Multiple Nations: The “many nations” include not only the Israelites, but also various other peoples who trace their lineage back to Abraham through different sons and descendants. The Bible mentions the Ishmaelites, Edomites, and others as examples.”
The Covenant of Circumcision [heading added by editor]
17 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty[a]; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”
3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram [exalted father][b] ; your name will be Abraham [father of many],[c] for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
15 God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”
17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”
19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac.[d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.” 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.
23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that very day. 27 And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering.” Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.” “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky. Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” Gen 22:7-18 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2022%3A7-18&version=NIV
keyboard shortcut expansion, by Michael Hoffman, sentence-per-paragraph:
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering.”
Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven,
“Abraham!
Do not lay a hand on the boy.
Do not do anything to him.
Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns.
He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.
And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.”
“I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky.
Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”
Don’t deliver same level of comprehension as accomplished in our 1-hour discussion with church members (= 80 pages of text).
List the summary points, only.
Abandon “Features” list for each of 5 images.
List condensed points — powerpoint style – 1 page of text, only; separated. Not alternating text & images. These bullet points merely list the key tech-term points, not “explain” anything.
THIS IS THE TEST-GRADER’S SOLUTION-KEY GRADING SHEET: DOES THE STUDENT LIST THE KEY WORDS OR NOT?
Link to my site for “explanation”.
Non-goal: Explanation.
Goal: List the key summary condensed technical points, as 1 PowerPoint slide.
The Article Draft
Western, European religious history includes fully developed, advanced use of Psilocybin mushrooms, depicted in the genre of branching-message mushroom trees, including a combination of {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Myth: Indigenous = Psilocybin, Europe = Amanita. 1st-gen entheogen scholarship
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) – Samorini 1998, Michael Hoffman, Dr. Jerry Brown.
You cannot look only for mushroom imagery, because that’s not the central message of the the mushroom-tree artists, and mushroom imagery is presented along with {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
“But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification [branching]; if the artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.”
If nothing else, the article accomplishes 1 specific thing: a skill.
In a 1-hour meeting with S. & N., I successfully taught them to read my favorite 5 images from Great Canterbury Psalter, and they proved their ability to contribute to such interpretation:
☀️ f11
🚌 f109
🙃 f134
👑 f145
🐴 f177
☀️ f11
Features:
mushrooms point to scale balance pans.
branching form in 4 mushrooms.
stand on right foot in “forbid” panel.
details in tree of knowledge crown, relate to Day 3 branching forms.
🚌 f109
Features:
no L limbs in ossuary corpse
net catches when fall, right foot kneel stance.
display the hand shape.
Row 1 L: terror hellmouth bad trip
Row 2 R: = asp, trying not to hear the ego death threatening.
diagonal trajectory from lower L to upper R
🙃 f134
Features:
row 1 L: teaching scene
row 1 M: white fire light
row 2 R: mushroom dispensary display case
throughout: left limb touch blade
row 2 R: stand on left foot; stand on right foot; float on no feet
row 2 M: height of L finger vs R finger causes wrath or mercy.
row 3 M: gathering Cubensis behind oxen.
row 2 M, row 3 L: ego death self-blading, cybercide.
👑 f145
Features:
row 1 L: instructing traders to stand on right foot
row 1 R: branching message tree
row 2 R: lockbox for blue produce
🐴 f177
Features:
horse looking-lines connect the cut-branch crown w/ God holding up via R hand.
winnowing basket = chute connecting balance guy w/ rams in furnace.
wrist corpse cross-over vs. two trees cross-under.
stand on left foot + crutch + balance
balancing guy w/ balance scale weighing Cubensis.
lockbox for brown produce
Branching Motif: How Branching and Non-Branching = the two complementary mental worldmodels
Handedness Motif: The Function of Handedness, Arbitrary Mapping of Left Limb = possibilism, Right limb = eternalism
Mushroom Motif
NOT the main payload message. Copy from my “two position statements” page, maybe that is the Fallacies page: summarizes the payload message (simple, the medium, then detailed).
Not “a mushroom”. rather, elements of mushroom imagery.
Stability Motif
Strategy: Focus on Great Canterbury Psalter
because recent Denier article proposes to battle in this arena.
I accept your terms of battle, since I’ve been expert on branching branching-message mushroom trees in the Great Canterbury Psalter since Nov. 2020.
The main objection by both Panofsky 1952 & Huggins 2024 is: Affirmers must explain the branching, in mushroom-trees.
My email to Dr. Jerry Brown around 2023 announced my realization that the branching was not whimsical or arbitrary, but is the main message (metaphysical non-branching as a mental worldmodel in the altered state).
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”
Motivation for this Page
To draft the short, focused article for the church reader.
Thomas Hatsis’ book Psychedelic Injustice: How Identity Politics Poisons the Psychedelic Renaissance is highly readable. This topic is timely, difficult, and important. I appreciate this helpful collection of research and corrective pushback.
Much needed; others aren’t providing this research and corrective pushback (except Irvin’s book God’s Flesh regarding the “lofty Indigenous spiritual tradition of psychedelics” claim).
Debunks the “Indigenous own psychedelics” propaganda, and establishes that Europe has a fully developed psychedelics history, including psilocybin.
Uses footnotes, not endnotes that are designed to be impossible to find.
Some Cons:
Hatsis continues to use center-left language, at the same time as rebutting far-left language (despite claiming to be moderate). Instead of using the word ‘racism’ (along with ‘bigotry’ and ‘prejudiced’), he should say who invented that term, when, and why; and analyze related concepts such as ‘in-group preference’.
Hatsis claims that European history includes the fully developed use of psychedelics, such as psilocybin, yet claims that there’s no mushroom imagery in Christian art (and conflates the latter with his outdated, 1970 idea that he calls “the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory”).
Until Hatsis catches up to the entheogen scholarship field that he writes is “my turf” (p. 259), the pushers of the “Indigenous own psychedelics” propaganda win, and Europeans must grovellingly beg for permission from Indigenous to use psychedelics, which the Indigenous fully own, because Hatsis claims there’s no mushroom imagery in Christian art, and thus forfeits that growing base of evidence, such as Eadwine’s images in the Great Canterbury Psalter.
Hatsis conflates John Allegro’s obsolete, 1970 “secret Amanita” paradigm — unfortunately, that is indeed Hatsis’ turf — with the up-to-date, non-secret, psilocybin-dominant topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art; catch up with Giorgio Samorini’s seminal 1998 article, “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art. Hatsis should help popular readers move from Allegro’s inferior, narrow, 55 years out-of-date model, to Samorini’s superior, broad model.
Hatsis doesn’t cite Jan Irvin’s book God’s Flesh, 2022, which already exposed the “Indigenous own psychedelics” propaganda, even though Hatsis and Irvin worked together around 2010.
Hatsis makes strong, aggressive claims about being expert regarding mushroom imagery in Christian art (pp. 259-260), yet provides no scholarly content there: no citations, no writer names, no quotes. Hatsis’ chronic bad habit, including in his 2018 book Psychedelic Mystery Traditions, is to only provide amateurish statements bragging about how great his historiographical methodology is, in place of actually delivering scholarship; that is, sound arguments that stand up to critique; citations; quotes; and writer names.
Without providing any Bibliography entry, footnote citation, or quote, Hatsis fulminates against Osiris Romero, editor at Chacruna Institute, for allegedly endorsing a theory of mushroom imagery in Christian art. But Hatsis neglects to specify whether Romero endorsed the up-to-date, broad, general theory of mushroom imagery in Christian art, or just Allegro’s 1970, narrow, superseded theory of a secret Christian Amanita cult, which Hatsis is fixated on and forcefully projects onto everyone else, per his September 2, 2015 blog post, “Reading Allegro Again”:
“I am again struck by the brilliance, clever writing, and sheer magnitude of the subject, which Allegro so eloquently displays. I believed every word, every aspect of the theory. The Sacred Mushroom is one of my favorite books. Top 10, easily.”
Allegro’s book has been completely superseded and has become irrelevant for the current field of entheogen scholarship, since Samorini’s seminal 1998 article that made good on Erwin Panofsky’s 1952 announcement to Gordon Wasson that:
“The Plaincourault fresco is only one example of a conventionalized tree type, prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art, which art historians actually refer to as “mushroom tree” in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development.”
For Hatsis to claim that Europe’s history has a fully developed use of psychedelics including psilocybin, he needs to include, not omit (as part of his outdated Allegro fixation), the medieval art genre of mushroom-trees and the related body of mushroom imagery.
No Index.
I recommend Hatsis’ Psychedelic Injustice book for entheogen scholars and followers of psychedelic science and the Psychedelic Renaissance[TM]. This book is timely, as the field is undergoing needed internal correction. Due to the difficult nature of this area, a strong 5 of 5 stars; commendable scholarly and analytical work; a major contribution to the field.
— Michael Hoffman, the theorist of ego death, and myth & art as analogies describing transformative psychedelic experience
Book Review Draft
[9:30 p.m. August 19, 2025]
goal/design:
5 stars
extremely short as possible
form: Pros & Cons.
Says “so-called the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory”, doesn’t say who calls the theory that: answer: Hatsis is literally the only one calling the theory of mushroom imagery in Christian art, far too narrowly and outdated way back in 1970, by that name: it’s the title of Hatsis’ own over-narrow book draft, but the world certainly doesn’t need a book scoped to Hatsis’ outdated rebuttal of a 1970 Allegro-specific theory; his book needs to instead be far broader and up-to-date with Samorini 1998: 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm); ie, the general entire broad theory of mushroom imagery in Christian art – nothing “secret” or “suppressed” about it, as Letcher already proved in 2006 book Shroom by considering Bernward Door. Stop reducing the overall theory to a narrow straw man of Hatsis’ own construction based on very outdated Allegro 1970.
Claims that the narrow Allegro Secret Christian Amanita Cult is same thing as the general entheogen theory of religion/ mushroom imagery in Christian art – proving that this is not, as he claims, “my turf”. Very outmoded 1970-era 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm); needs to catch up to Samorini 1998 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Fails to deliver any scholarship. what a scholoar ). Hatsis is badly behind the state of the field, and needs to reset and broaden to consider the entire broad topic of general, mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Current vs. the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory
Secret/superessed Christian Amanita Cult / the Secret Amanita paradigm , his term
, while claiming this is “my turf” (and giving no evidence that it’s his turf: no citations, quotes, or writer names — delivers no scholarship.
Hatsis’ expose of the “Indigenous own psychedelics” propaganda partly repeats Irvin’s expose 3 years earlier. Hatsis worked closely with Jan Irvin around 2010 and is presumably aware of Jan Irvin’s work.
Claims to be “my turf” and a good historian, yet fails to give any writer names, quotes, or citations to back up his strong claims re:
He writes: p. 260: “the so-called the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory” but gives no writer names, citations, or quotes, which a proper scholar would do.
-1 star for bullshit about Secret Christian Amanita Cult – not the focus of the book but relevant, contradiction: EUROPE HAS RICH PSYCHEDELIC HISTORY INCLUDING Psilocybin YET “NO mushroom imagery in Christian art” = “DEBUNKED Secret Christian Amanita Cult” (conflates like a mo-fo).
-1.5 stars for leftist way of writing and arguing; contradition: “I am rejecting far left narrative/writing” — “so here is center-left Progressive narrative/writing instead.”
I am not criticizing that he is left; I am criticizing that he’s contradicting himself.
If he convinces the reader to dislike the far left narrative and way of talking, then the reader will dislike Hatsis’ own moderate left way of writing too – his use of ‘racism’ without (from what I have read so far) –> todo: what Hatsis shoulld do in hypothetical 2nd ed. HATSIS SHOULD DROP THE LEFT LANG , SHOULD
ANALYZE WHO INVENTED TERM ‘RACISM’ WHEN/ WHY AND
ANALYZE IN-GROUP PREF
ANALYSE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
STOP USING LEFT LANG THAT CLASHES WITH RIGHT THINKING – HE THINKS HE IS MODERATE, HE’S ACTUALLY MODERATE-LEFT IN WRITING/THINKING STYLE.
total: 5 stars
Chacruna Is Correct and Hatsis Is Wrong, re: mushroom imagery in Christian art
We do not know wheteher Romero at Chacruna p. 260 “endorsed” which theory:
Secret Christian Amanita Cult
existing keyboard shortcut :
Secret Christian Amanita Cult scac
need keyboard shortcut for hats’ stram man term:
the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory smct
Whic theory
Which theory does Romero (in “stunning naivete”) “endorse”?
[narrow:] the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory
[broad:] mushroom imagery in Christian art
Christian = Christendom; almost need keyboard shortcut:
mushroom imagery in Christendom art, to include bestiary (OTOH, that besti. opens w/ religious art, disproving Hats’ claim that a bestiary is “secular. So, no mushroom.”
Issue in a review: How much to discuss Hatsis work outside this book?
his deleted 5-6 articles (“my turf”, he claims, w/ no citation or clarif.)
his other books – 2018 book & Oint, & 1950s L)
his planned book The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy
his livestream interviews, panels, videos,
his article against Brown at Hancock site
pers. comm.
Per Hatsis, no sacred mushroom conspiracy, but full-fledged entheogen history including Psilocybin, in Europe
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) fits and fulfills both of Hatsis’ assertions.
There was no secret Christian Amanita cult that originated in the Ural mountains and then spread from there around the world, and is the origin of all religions.
There was a fully developed entheogen history including Psilocybin, in Europe.
Now Hatsis is trying to insist, in order to push back against extreme Indigenous dogma, that there was a fully developed entheogen history including Psilocybin, in Europe – except for in Christian art, and you have “stunning naïveté” if you think there’s mushroom imagery in Christian art.
But there was a fully developed entheogen history including Psilocybin, in Europe — against pushers of dogmatic Indigenous narrative.
But certainly not in Christian art! OMG how could you be so ignorant of the authorities!
“If you say there are mushroom imagery in Christian art, you are asserting the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory, which has been debunked by countless authorities.”
Errors in the above paragraph’s argumentation:
They are two different theories: mushroom imagery in Christian art (per Samorini, Michael Hoffman, or Brown); vs. the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory (whether defined or fabricated by Wasson, Allegro, Ruck, Letcher, Hatsis, or Pop Cult reception).
Neither theory was addressed by any authorities; there are no citations available, and those authorities don’t even think about trees and mushrooms.
Per Gordon Wasson (SOMA p. 180), art historians don’t think about mushrooms.
Per Ronald Huggins (Foraging Wrong, 2024), art historians don’t think about tree images. Yet we are to bow in submission to “No legitimate, reputable authority buys it”, per Hatsis, else we have “stunning naïveté”.
Hatsis carries himself with the pride of one who has published a sound, scholarly book debunking mushrooms in Christian history. But he hasn’t; no one has.
And, Hatsis’ new book is concerned to emphasize, against Indigenous dogma, that Europe has a fully developed entheogen history including Psilocybin, Amanita, scopolamine, opium, and cannabis.
But you’re ignorant if you think there is mushroom imagery in Christian art — which is the same thing as the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory.
WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST, AND WHO; AND WHAT ARE YOU NOW ASSERTING WAS the presence of Psilocybin in Europe?
Slip-n-slide, motte-and-bailey, he wants it both ways.
Disentangling 3 Different Positions in Dispute
Narrow: Whether there was a sacred mushroom conspiracy. Allegro, Ruck, & Irvin 2006 say Yes. I, Irvin 2008, & Hatsis say No.
Broad: Whether there is mushroom imagery in Christian art. Hatsis says No. I say Yes.
Broad: Whether there was fully developed entheogen use in Europe, including Psilocybin, Amanita, scopalamine, opium, & cannabis. Hatsis 2018 says No. I & Hatsis 2025 say Yes. (Hatsis: “Except, no mushrooms in Christian art”.)
Available attack vector against Hatsis’ book: GIVEN no mushroom imagery in Christian art, THIS DISPROVES HATSIS’ BOOK WHICH CLAIMS fully developed entheogen use in Europe. Therefore, against Hatsis, INDIGENOUS OWN Psilocybin, AND EUROPE LACKS Psilocybin.
Hatsis, if you want to push back against Indigenous dogma and say Europe has fully developed Psilocybin use, then you strategically must affirm mushroom imagery in Christian art, even though no Secret Christian Amanita Cult.
YOU MUST DETACH & DIFFERENTIATE “sacred mushroom conspiracy” vs. mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Stop conflating the two different theories – narrow & broad.
Leave your 1970 endless 8-track tape loop behind, and switch to 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Hatsis explicitly conflates on p 260:
Whether there was a sacred mushroom conspiracy; Secret Christian Amanita Cult.
Whether there is mushroom imagery in Christian art.
He says No to both.
As if the only possible way for there to be mushroom imagery in Christian art is if there was a sacred mushroom conspiracy; Secret Christian Amanita Cult.
Yet his book emphasizes vehemently that there was fully developed entheogen use in Europe, including Psilocybin, Amanita, scopalamine, opium, & cannabis.
Non-secret Psilocybin – or Amanita – is a way for there to be mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art all sound the same, pushing bogus propaganda and logical fallacies.
Hatsis sounds just like Wasson’s propaganda and jarring inconsistency.
Most people are literally unable to believe Wasson’s contradiction, and they say he changed his view – because he can’t be so wildly inconsistent.
In the propaganda communications of Agent Wasson with “the public”, Wasson did pretend to be wildly contradictory and incoherent that way.
Wasson’s propaganda was kettle-logic and contradictory – even if, as people want, his actually held views were consistent.
OBVIOUSLY mushroom-trees mean mushroom; Plaincourault fresco means Amanita.
It would be idiotic to deny the close resemblance, on the features/ elements level (not on the scale of the entire mushroom-tree image, as the pretend-dolt Ronald Huggins argues).
The obvious contradiction that we are expected to accept is an insult to intelligence, like the president saying “Elect me because we must release the crucial documents” and then saying “The documents never existed; and you are stupid if you thought they did; and the documents are unimportant and completely low-priority.”
With Hatsis’ planned book The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy in mind, in Psychedelic Injustice, he dirty-nukes, scorched-earth, the ultra-specific theory that he calls “the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory” (sounding as if he removed psychoactive mushrooms from Europe history).
Yet in Psychedelic Injustice, he strongly asserts that Europe has a full-fledged entheogen history including Psilocybin, Amanita, opium, scopolamine, and cannabis.
re: Broad theory:
Turtle Hatsis in 2020 announced his forthcoming 2022 book The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy that would disprove mushrooms in Euro history.
But Hatsis’ 2025 book Psychedelic Injustice asserts (against over-pushing of Indigenous), mushrooms in Euro history:
“French doctor Jean de Nynauld (c. 1550-c. 1650) demonstrates that by the Renaissance era, magicians and witches were well-acquainted with psychedelic mushrooms. He even differentiates between the famous, red-topped white spotted Amanita muscaria (or “sleepy mushroom”) and the psilocybe (or “maddening mushroom”).” — p. 99, Thomas Hatsis, Psychedelic Injustice
Trusty ol’ Hatsis, provides blustery assertions, instead of any scholarly substantiation of specificity.
I guess we can look forward to his thorough book after all, The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy.
With quotes, and citations, and names of writers who assert specific variant theories, and names of writers who rebut specific theories. Because none of that is in this page (259-260).
Better title: The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy Straw Man
Hatsis thinks that since he self-identifies as a model psychedelic historian with impressive, sound historiographical methodology, and presents this specific theory as “my turf”, he can just bluster and name-call and argue from authority, without backing anything up with any names, citations, or quotes.
The False Use of “So-Called” to Present One’s Own Assertion While Pretending It’s from Someone Else (straw man cover tactic)
When Ruck and Hatsis do this, they never specify who is calling the thing – that’s a giveaway that the author himself is covertly the one putting forth the assertion.
We are to believe that the thing put forth is a so-called thing, yet without any person doing the calling (except the person rebutting the position).
That’s a sign of a straw man argument, and is poor, vague scholarship lacking citations, author names, and quotes.
It’s all hazy assertion, thus the opposite of scholarship.
WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU REBUTTING?
Alas that question hovers over the field; all too typical – of Ruck, Letcher, & Hatsis.
Citations, where it’s not specified who is being rebutted:
Ruck 2001 & 2002: In Entheos 1, 2, & 3, Ruck’s article (or Notes) contains the “so-called” construction used without saying who has called the thing that.
Letcher 2006:p. 35, giving endnote 31: “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”. (Falsely citing Stamets & Gartz, who wrote nothing about secret or not.)
Hatsis 2025 p. 260: “so-called sacred mushroom conspiracy theory”. Who calls it that? Answer: Literally only HATSIS HIMSELF, in the title of his non-existent, planned book, The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy Theory.
No one but Hatsis ever said “the sacred mushroom conspiracy theory”.
That theory-specifier is Hatsis’ construction, his straw man, and he should own it, not disown & distance it from himself by the preface “so-called”.
Ruck & Hatsis use that deceptive turn of phrase and thereby fail to produce sound scholarship, instead painting a hazy, impressionistic story without names, citations, or quotes.
My “Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy Theory” Straw Man (Hatsis, Forthcoming)
Both Ruck (in Entheos 1, 2, & 3) and Hatsis employ and mis-use the phrase “so-called”, in order to present THEIR OWN assertion, and pretend that someone else (unnamed) made the assertion.
Pope Ruck, you write “so-called heretical mushroom”, but the only one I see calling mushrooms “heretical” is YOU!
Hatsis, you write “so-called sacred mushroom conspiracy theory”, but the only one I see presenting this specific theory is YOU!
Hatsis Tilting at His Own “Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy” Windmill
p. 259 & 260, Psychedelic Injustice, Thomas Hatsis, 2025:
Commentary by Michael Hoffman, for scholarly useCommentary by Michael Hoffman, for scholarly use
Hand notes p. 259:
As psychedelic scholar — if so, why totally vague; no citations; no quotes?
my turf –> if so, why totally vague; no citations; no quotes?
my turf –> Yet: puffy prose; only fulmination
Hand notes p. 260:
Romero endorsing –> Where? Citation?!
clandestine cabal of elites –> No! Vague
suppressed heretics? or, clergy?
so-called –> by who?
so-called sacred mushroom conspiracy theory –> 1st-gen enth. scholarship
Scholarly content gap
Citation needed!
Quotes needed!
Hazy claims
No footnotes?!
“No legitimate, reputable scholar” = arg. from authority
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) = sh!tty vague scholarship; met by:
Debunkers of 1st-gen entheogen scholarship = sh!tty job of debunking. Clear that all away, both of those Affirmers & Deniers, for:
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
Deniers (of mushroom imagery in Christian art) all write in a similar mode, pulling the same moves and style of arg’n. With a grand crescendo of, argument from authority.
Don’t just give me a list of names of authorities; give me a list of substantive arguments. He gives neither.
Hatsis can’t be bothered even with that, though.
No citations given.
No names given.
No scholarly content is given, as far as clarifying or substantiating Hatsis’ blustery claims.
I am not criticizing attempted summarization; rather, vagueness, and lack of backing up anything to enable scholarly checking of his claims.
A scholar must summarize, which Hatsis does; but a scholar must also specify and cite the theory in dispute, and the writings which critique that theory.
Otherwise, shut up about “my turf” as a “psychedelic scholar/ psychedelic historian”, and stop fulminating:
“OMG that person is SO DUMB, what stunning naïveté! This theory that I attribute to them and that I present has been so debunked, not one authority buys it!”
Hatsis thus leaves it wide open for a straw man presentation, by providing no specifics, no way to check anything, EVERYTHING is to be taken on trust, including what position Romero “endorsed”.
Hatsis must be credible, because he lectures about “no credible scholar”, and this is his turf (we know because he says so) as a psychedelic historian (we know because he self-identifies as that orientation).
Hatsis makes one good distinction to acknowledge that there are actually multiple variant theories to be presented and critiqued with quotes and citations:
Jesus = metaphor for mushroom
Jesus = user of mushroom
which Heinrich in Strange Fruit horribly botched, saying that Allegro said that Jesus was leader of a mushroom cult.
Hey Hatsis, when you write that “the” theory is EITHER Jesus = metaphor for mushroom OR Jesus = user of mushroom —
which writers assert which theory?
which writers rebut those two different theories?
Are there other variant theories, as well, such as not secret/suppressed?
Do you mean Psilocybin, or Amanita?
Who asserts Psilocybin, who asserts Amanita?
No Index; Misused Words on Every Page; Gap in Clarity and Citations while Fulminating about Stunning Naivete – by the Model Psychedelic Historian/ Scholar
Remember, now: there is no Index in this excellent model work of psychedelic scholarship, which has two typos, ie misused words and garbled grammar (or stop-in-your-tracks, strange wording flow), on every page.
Specifically because of those type of typos (ie wrong word-choice; misused words), his book reads like a somewhat amateur production, by someone who mistakenly THINKS they don’t need a professional editor.
What His Book Will Be But Ought to Be
Hatsis’ The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy Theory book is going to be an exercise in motte-and-bailey fallacy; making broad claims, and yet treating only narrow elements.
That book ought to be a neutral, broad treatment of all variants of the broad theory, and all evidence, and steel-man the Affirmers; a two-way, interactive engagement with all the arguments and theories, not just a one-way firehose of off-the-wall, bizarre vectors of arg’n.
He should not only narrowly consider his imagined, specific, stupidest-version-he-can-think-of theory, designed to be easy to debunk, and then claim he has given a critical presentation of 2025 entheogen scholarship re: Psilocybin & Amanita in Christian / European history.
Blustering About “His” Scholarly “Turf”, while Providing No Scholarly Content, Just an Alleged Summary of the Wrong Position, and Vaguely Claiming that Unidentified Authorities Don’t “Buy It”
If it is “his turf”, why does he provide ZERO citations of his writings on this topic? He can’t cite his 2018 book, because that only contains a page that CLAIMS he has treated the topic, and hazily says to look at his website (not a citation), and that site is gone. We can fairly say: Bullshit, this is NOT your turf. In what way is this your turf?
I can (strategically) charge Hatsis:
“You have never written anything on this topic, so how do you claim that it is ‘my turf’ as a psychedelic scholar/historian?”
Which writers make the claim, asserting Secret Christian Amanita Cult in the way you describe? Bluster, not scholarship.
Which writers have rebutted that specific claim? Bluster, not scholarship. Yet “this is my turf, as a great-methodology, psychedelic scholar and psychedelic historian.”
Yet no specifics, no writers on either side are named, Romero’s “endorsement” is totally hazy.
Hatsis’ strong claims are only matched by the weakness of his presentation. Excited bluster has completely replaced scholarship, here.
I have no idea what Romero actually “endorsed”. We have to take it on Hatsis’ word:
Trust Hatsis that Romero “endorsed” the specific theory Hatsis specifies.
Trust Hatsis that writers assert the specific theory Hatsis specifies.
Trust Hatsis that there are no variant theories to consider; that every writer is unanimously asserting this specific theory, “secret cabal of elites”.
Trust Hatsis that writers have rebutted that theory.
Trust Hatsis that this is his turf as a psychedelic scholar & psychedelic historian.
“my turf”? Hatsis thinks he knows entheogen scholarship about mushrooms in Euro history, b/c he wrote a set of articles on it, and wrote a tiny bit about it in his overpriced book Psychedelic Mystery Traditions 2018 which says “I debunked this, b/c I have a professional method; see my articles somewhere on the web.”
Hatsis ought to have covered this centrally relevant topic in detail in that 2018 book, not punted and bragged while not even providing real citations.
“my turf”? You mean the articles you rightly deleted full of junk args mixed with art that contradicts them?
Hatsis resorts to name-calling, and fails to mention any other variants theories that are a non-secret narrative.
As if the broad theory (mushrooms in Christian history) is identical to the particular specific theory that he himself presents, while never saying which writers put forth that specific, narrow, specifically “secrecy” theory.
There is some defense for Hatsis: he is depicting the gist of general 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
A spectacularly poor presentation, for a supposed psychedelic historian who claims that – as a scholar – this is “his turf”.
Suddenly the footnotes go missing, and I have no idea what he means by “Romero endorsed.” How? Where? Citation needed!
Don’t fulminate, and claim it as your turf, while proving ZERO scholarly substantation that writers put forth that theory, and that that theory has been rebutted.
You provide NO evidence, or details, about either what the claim is, or how it was refuted, or why you say this is “my turf” – what does that mean?
This book badly needs an editor, especially here.
“My turf” = throw all quality control out the window, abandon all scholarship, it is not needed.
Chacruna 1, Hatsis 0
Hatsis conflates the dominant Allegro/Ruck pop narrative – 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) — with the general idea that there’s lots of mushroom use in Euro history as supported by the 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
p. 259 bottom, especially top of p. 260. “Chacruna … Institute stepped on my turf in December 2021 when … Romero … stunning naivete about Christian history and psychedelia. amateur mistake of endorsing the so-called [by who?!] sacred mushroom conspiracy theory. … that a clandestine
Who writes “clandestine”, “cabal”, “group/ cult/ sect” of Christian elites?
Such a view is found in later Ruck and in AstroSham 1 start of Conclusion section.
“total bunk” he writes; is all he writes, w/ no proof or clarity at all.
Hatsis forfeits all credibility on this page, re: topic of mushrooms in Christian history.
Sheer bluster, NO content, only assertions, NOTHING to back it up but his CLAIM that “no competent authority agrees” – literal explict arg from authority.
“throughout history” – really? which 1st-gen entheogen scholars say this happened “thorughout history”? Your fav author Allegro said not elites, only the first-gen Christians, not elites, not thorughout history. WHO ARE YOU ARGUMEING AGAINST, AND DO THEY ACTUALLY ASSERT WHAT YOU CLAIM THAT THEY ASSERT?
1ST-GEN ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP 1st-gen entheogen scholars — to generliaze their paradigm – 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
Each writer might put forth a variant, even Ruck puts forth multiple incoherent contradictory variants of restriction and secrecy, without Ruck acknowledging and trying to reconcile his standing contradiction about which types of people had or lacked The Mushroom (kiddie Amanita).
Hatsis fails to give any clarity re: Romero “endorsing” – where and when and in what form?
VAGUE AS F. CITATION FKKING NEEDED, HATSIS!
HATSIS PRESENTS A TRAVESTY OF SCHOLARLY WRITING, WHILE BRAGGING ABOUT HIS SUPERIOR SCHOLARSHIP AND how going on fervently about how stupid and sloppy other writers are. How about a quote to prove that Romero said that specific version of the suppression Christian mushroom theory by “cabal of elites”.
Which entheogen scholar asserted “cabal of elites”? Hatsis is totally vague, totally unscholarly here.
If you are going to say “my turf” and write a page, you need to properly give actual scholarship!
“I’m a psychedelic historian, and this topic is my turf. And, I don’t clarify where Romero “endorsed”, and what exactly – with quote or citation so I can check — Romero specifically endorsed. “cabal of elites?” Hatsis says IN CASE YOU DON’T KONW THE THEORY, HERE IS SUMMARY: CABAL OF ELITES.
Bullshit. You need to PROVE that that is the theory, that has spread around.
If pop cult and many entheogens writers put forth what you say is:
“so-called sacred mushroom conspiracy theory”
Who calls it “sacred mushroom conspiracy theory”? THE ONLY ONE CALLING IT THAT IS YOU, HATSIS. Citation needed! Quotes needed!
If you are going to treat the topic, as a “psychedelic historian”, than damn it, step up to the plate and give proper treatment! Not vauge venting and bad writing, sub-scholarly.
His quality of scholarship is so erratic! Giant gaps/ lapses. Un-steady, inconsistent.
Hatsis is untrustworthy here, even while he points out Chacruna’s untrustworthiness.
His 2018 book is nothing but bragging along with vague arm-waving, re: the history of Psilocybin & Amanita mushrooms in Christianity.
His 2025 book is nothing but bragging along with vague arm-waving, re: the history of Psilocybin & Amanita mushrooms in Christianity.
Every time we need Hatsis to carefully provide quotations, citations, and treatment of the topic, instead, we get nothing but braggadocio and lecturing about his great methodology – instead of great methodology. This time, he doesn’t even bother backing up w/ perfectuperfunctory pseduo-citation “see the Web for my proof”. He only gives arg from authority:
“I self-identify as psychedelic historian, and this topic of mushrooms in Christian history is my turf.”
Where’s the actual citations, quotes, scholarship, arg’n? His site is dead, he killed his aritcles, abandoned them, not available, so how the hell can Hatsis claim that the topic of mushroom in Christian history is “my turf”?
What do you mean, this topic is “my turf” – that claim is not a citation, or quote, or scholarship!
MINUS TWO STARS OF FIVE – TRAVESTY OF SCHOLARSHIP!
He gives arg from authority: “No scholar endorses this sacred mushroom conspiracy theory.” Empty claim.
Where did Hatsis get the phrase “sacred mushroom conspiracy theory”? He says:
so-called sacred mushroom conspiracy theory.
Which entheogen scholars “call” the theory by that descriptor? Which writers is he arguing against – my same cry as against Letcher: WHO ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST, SPECIFICALLY?
WHICH THEORY ARE YOU REBUTTING, SPECIFICALLY, PUT FORTH BY EXACTLY WHO??!
100% TOTALLY ABSTRACT, OPPOSITE OF SCHOLARSIHIP.
Bragging about your superior scholarship (while providing no scholarship at all) is the exact opposite of having superior scholarship; it is the essence of INFERIOR scholarship, or total lack — anti-scholarship.
todo: see Romero article, what does he ACTUALLY claim AND WHY DOESN’T BIG-TALKING HATSIS PROVIDE QUOTE?
but there are TWO contradictory narratives from Ruck or from 1st-gen entheogen scholarship: suppressed groups; or elites.
The mushroom (picture kiddie amanita) was restricted to suppressed heretical groups/ sects/ cults/ mystics in monasteries. [= “group” = closed barrier wall] Ruck #1.
The mushroom (picture kiddie amanita) was restricted to a few elites: clergy. Ruck #2.
The mushroom (picture kiddie amanita) was restricted to kings and priests, who kept the secret from the masses. Rutajit/Irvin AstroSham 1.
Hatsis doesn’t even do a good job of summarizing the bad, wrong theory that should have died by 1998 Samorini article when 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship started.
He only says “elites”, but should also say “contradictorily, or, suppressed heretical sects/ groups/ communities”.
1st-gen entheogen scholarship is so garbled, debunkers of it can’t even correctly summarize it.
Is its focus and foundation “secrecy/ suppression”? or “elites”?
Only the oppressor elites used The Mushroom?
Only the suppressed heretical groups/ cults/ sects used The Mushroom?
MAPS employs Bia Labate of Chacruna. Someone claimed that Chacruna is a woke scam org that says “Invite us to “hold space” at your conferences and pay us a lot of money or we’ll call you ‘racist’.”
Hatsis’ book has a longer passage about Rittenhouse – you might be able to read sample at Amazon by Find: Rittenhouse.
… the syllabus by Roger Green, which I already printed out yesterday, and Green’s earlier article looks good, so I’m about to put aside Hatsis book.
I’m not disappointed by Hatsis book, I’m not impressed either. It’s ok, and half-baked.
Alas we must engage with this important (dominant) topic.
Hatsis’ Annoying Perpetuation/ Reification of the ‘Racism’ Framing
I initially recoiled at Hatsis’ continued living within the “racist” frame at the same time as critiquing it.
Like a Christian podcast host Pastor Joel Webbon said yesterday, we are PAST “The dems are the real racists” but Hatsis is retrograde that way, stuck back in the frame that ppl are lately leaving:
https://rightresponseministries.com – “Pastor Joel Webbon is the President and Founder of Right Response Ministries and the Senior Pastor of Covenant Bible Church, located on the North Side of Austin, Texas. “
I don’t think Hatsis wrote or thought at all about the following 3 counter-topics, so that’s a blow against his book. If Hatsis he wants to treat the weaponization of ‘racism’, he HAS to analyze:
* in-group preference
* the origin of the fake and bunk, word ‘racism’, that was weaponized from day 1! Not “been weaponized lately”! Who invented the fake term and why? The answer should prevent Hatsis from employing the word.
* freedom of association
You cannot critique the ‘racism’ concept without analyzing those topics.
I haven’t read every page of his book, but, a shallow critique, thus the book is too limited, it’s just a start.
Motivation for this Page
Not because I want more visibility of this book or my critique.
Page is needed for selfish practical reason: I might post a book review and need better place to gather thoughts than bloated scattered distracted idea development page.
I wrote a ton on the book in idea development page 30, have read 50% of the pages, and now that I developed strong stomach for the performatic contradiction
he rails against extreme left rhet by employing moderate-left rhet and fails to give proper background on the terms he perpetuates, advocates, & shoves at us ‘racis’, ‘neo-Nz’, etc – where did these terms that he employs for his purpose, come from? when? who? why? what about analyzing related terms ‘racis’, ‘neo-naz’, in-group pref; freedom of assoc?)
THE MORE THAT YOU LIKE HIS REBUTTAL OF EXTREME LEFT RHET, THE MORE YOU MUST DISLIKE (FEEL DISGUSTED BY) HIS EMPLOYING OF MODERATE-LEFT RHET.
He whips-up the reader to feel disgusted by extreme-left rhet, while at same time, he pushes on the reader that same, moderate-left rhet. Visceral expereicen of cog dissonance / self-contradiction.
“I say, extreme left rhet is terrible & disgusting because xyz. And, I say a lot of loaded, dirty, left-type assertion of that same type of wording/ rhet.” Once I got past that
same problem as Houot Rise of the Psychonaut — you cannot read Houot’s book, because of massive barrier hurdle that you get stuck at: p. 10 says if you use psychedelics for any of a thousand reasons, do not read this book, you’re too stupid.
You cannot read Hatsis book, b/c if you find extreme left rhet disgusting, then you also find Hatsis’ use of moderate-left rhet disgusting. That is the hurdle to get over.
I got over that hurdle (the fact that the book is filled with advocating leftist rhet.)
Am enjoying the rest of book for what it is, it is readable – tho it needs professional. editor. And has no Index.
Thankful for this work – but, CANNOT BE CALLED MODEL SCHOLARSHIP, B/C HAS NO INDEX, AND HAS TONS OF MIS-USED WORD-CHOICE (aka typos; grammar errors).
Middling Popular work. Much of the structure and content is good — but, no way this is a Pro-level book; it’s a – hate to say – hackneyed pop-level book. No, I am not demanding higher page count; or double the work.
+1 star for using footnotes, not endnotes that are crafted to be impossilbe to find as is standard – this book is better than crappy Professional schoalr books that use endnotes. Endnotes are a giveaway that the book tries to be for Pop audience. Scholarly books use footnotes, not endnotes.
Subheadings in Each Chapter
Nice to do: extract the subheadings from each chapter.
The Two Main Contradictions in the Book
A main contradiction: Claims Europe has independent Psilocybin history, yet denies mushroom imagery in Christian art.
A main contradiction: Rebuts extreme left rhetoric, by employing moderate left rhetoric.
Both contradictions are a cluster of contradictions needing analytical expansion.
more detailed than above:
conflates broad neutral [mushroom imagery in Christian* art] w/ narrow Alllegro outdated Secret Christian Amanita Cult
Read “Christian” here as Christendom; European incl England, so as to include bestiary images. And jewish elements. eg scope = Hatsis wants to claim that Europe has full Psilocybin history, indep of Indigenous.
Europe has better use of Psilocybin than Indig: Europe history has actual spiritual / religious/ mystical use of Psilocybin, while Ind merely has lesser uses, per expose by Irvin & Hatsis.
keyboard shortcuts:
Thomas Hatsis t-h
Hatsis hats
Calls himself “moderate” – actually he is center-left. A center-left-rhetoric correction of extreme-left rhetoric, so, that type of contradiction:
If extreme left rhet is bad and digusting, then so is center-left rhet bad & disgusting and un-lovable.
If the reader is convinced by the author to find extreme-left rhet unpleasant, then by the same token, the author makes the reader find the author’s own moderate-left rhet unpleasant.
Gathers in one spot, “my turf” as exemplary field-leading psychedelic historian, “stunning naivete”, and “so-called sacred mushroom cuult theory” — yet, in this spot, provides no scholarship except for a characterizing summary of the field according to him, with no names of writers; no citations; no quotes; so, no way to check his claims. A problem because he brings togetehr two incompat things:
Say this topic (mushroom imagery in Christian art) is “my turf” as self-proclaimed exemplary psychedelic historian, stunning naivety (strong name-calling), “so-called” (projection tactic), “sacred mushroom conspiracy thoeory”.
Only provides a characterizing summary, with no way to check any of his claims. 2018 book does same: bragging, in place of checkable actual scholarship.
Cons:
Fails to credit his close collegeue Jan Irvin recent relevant (tho narrower) book, God’s Flesh.
Are we to believe that Hatsis is unaware of this highly relevant book by his battle-girlfriend, Jan Irvin?
Seems like plagiarism (at worst) (withholding credit to forebears in the field), failure to know the most relevant work in the field (at best, to be generous).
Before I read Hatsis’ claim that Indigenous psychedelic spiririuality is actually a fabbrication overlay hiding savagery cannibalism, murder, human sacrifice, tribal endless warfare from Hatsis, I first read the same claim, in detail, from Jan Irvin’s recent book God’s Flesh, which is specifically focused on Psilocybin. Psilocybin in Europe is a KEY, crown jewel, that we must fight about.
If Europe has little Psilocybin history, then the extreme leftists are correct: Westerners must bow and scrape and beg permission from any self-styled “shaman” to use Psilocybin, which is owned exclusively by Indigenous.
If Europe has strong, fully developed, independent history of Psilocybin religious / spirritual / mystical use, then Westerners can ignore Indigenous and are fully independent in traditional use of Psilocybin.
Tangential/ irrelevant: “Secret Christian Amanita Cult”
Pros:
+1 star for covering this difficult topic.
-1.5 stars for botched non-scholarly (yet bragging of scholarly) treatment of mushroom imagery in Christian art, wrongly framed & outdated, & Allegro-fixated, Secret Christian Amanita Cult. But these two theories are very different/ distcint and must be critiqued separately:
Critique the Allegro Secret Christian Amanita Cult.
Critique mushroom imagery in Christian art.
whether [mushroom imagery in Christendom art] != whether [Secret Christian Amanita Cult].
“Christian” means actually Christendom, eg Hatsis says bestiary is not religious, yet the bestiary opens w/ picture of Christ, and is made by same artists that produce ill. ms. / religious miniattures.
See Also
Jan Irvin – God’s Flesh (where did i post about this? some podcast episode pages). search this site: “God’s Flesh”.
Replaces 2013 book Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed. 2nd, expanded & revised version.
Blurb:
“This accessible introduction by the world’s leading expert explains why the study of esotericism is not a marginal pursuit but belongs at the center of modern research in the humanities.
“Reflecting updates in the field since the foundational publication Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed (2013), Wouter J. Hanegraaff demonstrates that the exclusion of “rejected knowledge” from normative accounts of Western civilization is the reflection of a narrow Eurocentric ideology that became the template for discrediting and ultimately destroying so-called “primitive” cultures associated with “superstition” and “pagan idolatry” during the global colonial age.
“Rejecting this “rejection of rejected knowledge” means restoring the suppressed to its legitimate place in history and cultural analysis.
“Through this approach, Wouter J. Hanegraaff depicts a radically inclusive vision of the Greater West and its forgotten histories, from pagan antiquity through Jewish, Christian, and Islamic cultures up to secular modernity and beyond.”
Detailed Table of Contents
Michael Hoffman – August 11, 2025, outline extracted July 2025.
Esotericism in Western Culture: Counter-Normativity and Rejected Knowledge
Contents – iv
Missing 2 levels; only chapter-level entries.
Introduction – 1
1 – What Do We Mean by Esotericism? – 7
From Definitions to Prototypes – 8
Prototype 1: Enchantment Before Modernity – 10
Prototype 2: The Modern Occult – 12
Prototype 3: Inner Traditions – 15
The Discursive Turn – 17
This Book’s Perspective: Rejected Knowledge – 21
Esotericism and Western Culture – 23
2 – A Short History of Rejected Knowledge – 31
Gnosis and Spiritual Practice in Late Hellenistic Culture – 31
The Occult Sciences – 35
h3: Magic, Astrology, and Alchemy in the Latin West – 35
Jewish Esotericism – 39
Islamic Esotericism – 43
The European Renaissance – 49
Naturphilosophie and Christian Theosophy – 56
Initiatic Societies – 59
The Modernist Occult – 63
Esotericism after the Second World War – 71
3 – Internal Eurocentrism – 79
Early Christianity and the Church of Rome – 82
h3: The Apologetic Fathers – 82
h3: Prisca Theologia and Philosophia Perennis – 84
h3: The Anti-Heretical Position – 86
Protestantism – 87
h3: Anti-Apologeticism – 88
h3: The Pietist Reaction – 90
Modernity – 92
h3: The History of Philosophy – 93
h3: The Romantic Reaction – 96
Conclusion – 98
4 – Worldviews – 101
Metaphysical Radicalism – 102
Platonic Mediation – 105
Alchemical Mediation – 110
A Cautious Reminder – 114
5 – Knowledge – 117
Reason, Faith, Experience, Gnosis – 118
Propositional Knowledge in Esoteric Contexts – 121
Altered States of Knowledge – 124
Knowing How – 129
6 – Practice – 133
Control – 136
Knowledge – 137
Amplification – 138
Healing – 140
Progress – 141
Contact – 142
Unity – 143
Pleasure – 145
7 – Modernization – 147
The Resistance against History – 148
Instrumental Causality – 151
Globalization – 155
Evolution – 159
Psychology – 162
The Spiritual Supermarket – 165
8 – Esoteric Transdisciplinarity – 171
Religion, Philosophy, Science – 171
The Visual Arts – 173
Literature – 177
Music – 180
The Social Sciences – 182
Politics – 185
9 – The Global Importance of Esotericism – 191
The Externalization of Internal Eurocentrism – 192
Endnotes – the way they are implemented – is for the purpose of trying to make it AS DIFFICULT AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY MAKE IT, literally trying to make it as hard as possible.
The formatting of books to implement endnotes OMITs CHAPTER INDICATORS, THEN RELY ON CHAPTER NUMBERS: FKKING PERVERSE!
The Unity section (and the book, and every writer except me – and Ann Taves and Breau) buys into the “positive unity nondual” model of mystical experience.
The Egodeath theory must reject all external conceptual lexicon eg “perennialism” or “sacred mushrooms”, or “the divine”, or “surrender”.
Moshe Idel (video at YouTube) says the word ‘perennialism’ is unusable, because everyone uses it with a different meaning.
Terms from outside the Egodeath theory do not apply to the Egodeath theory.
Terms from outside the Egodeath theory (eg “determinism” & “free will”) do not apply to the Egodeath theory, and they fail to represent the Egodeath theory.
Corollary:
Critiques of theories other than the Egodeath theory do not apply to the Egodeath theory.
the Egodeath theory is not historical scholarship; it is theory.
I’m not a historical scholar; I am a theorist, working in mind science, including analogies per Douglas Hofstadter.
I am not a religionist and I do not assert the position that religionists assert.
In the “Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science” debate:
I reject ‘naturalism’ as they define it (Matthew Johnson; Chris Letheby).
I reject ‘mysticism’ as they define it (Wm Richards; Roland Griffiths; Thomas Roberts).
eg Hanegraaff’s critiques of “religionism”, “the spirit realm”, “the divine”, have something to do w/ the Egodeath theory, but apply in an extremely roundabout, distant way, that is of little use.
The focus and framework is too different to apply.
Religionism (or “perennialism” or “essentialism”) is too different from the Egodeath theory, for Hanegraaff’s critiques of religionism to be useful to the Egodeath theory.
Hanegraaff rejects claim X, but the Egodeath theory does not make claim X.
Hanegraaff p. 15 section “Prototype 3: Inner Traditions [Religionism]” rejects the claim that a historian – to do an adequate job – must be an initiate.
I (the Egodeath theory) do not assert that a historian (to do an adeq treatmt) must be an initiate.
One of my driving goals is to free and separate understanding Transcendent Knowledge, vs. experiencing the altered state.
Transcendent Knowledge must be expressed per STEM, and modeled and clearly explained just like any other technical topic.
I assert that a historian, to do adeq job, must have an adequate explanatory model of Psilocybin transformation, including how myth (esotericism) describes Psilocybin transformation via analogies.
p. 16 is not a critique of the Egodeath theory, as an explanatory model of:
1) how mental model transformation happens in the loose cognition altered state, and of
2) how analogy (myth, esotericism) describes that Psilocybin transformation re: the mental model of control.
p. 16 bottom is about something else: (quoted terms Hanegraaff uses):
scholarship
study
school
studies
the academy
scholarly methods
adademic research
scholarly investigation
scholarly methods
/ end quoted terms
The persepective from within STEM dept rather than Humanites dept. is different: in STEM, the job is to construct an explanatory model (of mental model transformation), including analogies.
Not “scholarship”. Scholarship helps confirm that model.
That Cognitive model from the STEM dept is required, to inform historical scholarship in the Humanities dept.
Historical scholarship lacking the explanatory model (of mental model transformation in loose cognition) cannot possibly be adequate for understanding and recognizing the themes.
I disagree with the ppl who Hanegraaff argues against.
Religionists say that words cannot “convey” Transcendent Knowledge. I disagree.
Also I approach “secret” differently than religionists.
The underlying, veiled workings of personal control, are made perceptible in the altered state, ie the loose cognition / the eternalism state of consciousness.
The position that Hanegraaff is against re: Prototype 3, marries terms like “secret”, “initiate” — but instead, I emphasize the can-do ability of STEM type communication, per Models in Science.
p. 18: religionism = secretive.
The Egodeath theory is the OPPOSITE of secretive, and destroys and brings to an end, the secrecy mentality/ premise/ foundation.
The Egodeath theory is the opposite of religionism, and rejects common-core mysticism and perennialism.
common-core mysticism and perennialism bakes-in the dominant, wrong theory – the old theory.
The old theory: Transcendent Knowledge = positive unity nondual.
The new theory: Transcendent Knowledge = Psilocybin transformation / control transformation / psychedelic eternalism.
The Egodeath theory (the theory of psychedelic eternalism ) explains Transcendent Knowledge.
Hanegraaff’s argument against Religionism is not an argument against the Egodeath theory.
Religionism, as a position and set of assertions, is not the Egodeath theory.
The Egodeath theory does not assert that understanding Transcendent Knowledge requires being an initiate and having the experiences.
the Egodeath theory asserts that understanding Psilocybin transformation, as an explanatory model, is required, for historians to discuss and comprehend esotericism.
Esotericism is a garbled, poor, failed expression of Psilocybin transformation
Esotericism is a dim reflection of Transcendent Knowledge / Psilocybin transformation.
Esotericism & myth indirectly indicates Psilocybin transformation / Transcendent Knowledge. the Egodeath theory is based in STEM-type views: that we can communicate technical knowledge via direct explanatory model, in the ordinary state.
Nondual Advaita Vedanta Monistic
p. 102.
quantum mysticism of Capra & Bohm
What’s wrong with “unity”/ nondual:
The unity experience / cessation of self-other boundary is indeed a Psilocybin experience (eg Psilocybin beginner experience), but the true focus of Psilocybin transformation (advanced Psilocybin experience) is about personal control system , control transformation, not positive unity / nonduality.
Video: Top Secret Psychedelic Study: Why Priests are Being Drugged by Scientists | Matthew Johnson (Danny Jones, Aug. 11, 2025)
“Matthew Johnson, PhD, is one of the world’s most accomplished scientists on the human effects of psychedelics and has conducted seminal research in the behavioral economics of drug use, addiction, and risk behavior.
“Dr. Johnson, an expert in behavioral pharmacology research, has decades of experience.
“In his most recent role, he served as a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine.”
/ end of desc
1:04:40 — Moshe Idel (in a different video) says the word ‘perennialism’ is not usable, b/c everyone redefines it constantly.
The explicit definition of ‘perennialism’ is innocuous: religious experience has something (unspecified) in common.
The pernicious, bait-and-switch, covert definition of common-core mysticism and perennialism is that mystical experience is specifically nondual positive unity (covert modern Advaita Vedanta), and a ton of dubious political philosophy is also snuck in.
I could only accept the word ‘perennialism’ if I strictly define it, every time; so, it’s not a usable word; it’s a shell game; a trojan horse.
“Psychedelics Cause Neuroplasticity” = Meaningless per Matt Johnson
around 1:10:00, Johnson explains that many types of drugs cause neuroplasticity and the concept is overblown in psychedelic science.
The lexicon of the Egodeath theory is happily missing pseudo-explanatory constructs:
neuroplasticity
default-mode network
ego dissolution
nondual unity –
surrender
The terms that I don’t employ are borderline direct terms, semi-usable.
The shared, public terms are subject to re-definition by other people from outside the Egodeath theory.
The Egodeath theory explains and critiques, but does not leverage such terms.
My own lexicon is rooted in the Egodeath theory framework of meanings.
1:11:58 “They have big egos not just despite having used psychedelics but they have big egos because of the psychedelics, the whole ego inflation, the messiah complex.”
Shallow Refusal of Transcendent Knowledge Content in Favor of Surface Historical Developments
Hanegraaff rejects essentialism, in a certain network of meaning.
the Egodeath theory can be called essentialism, ie, the mind in the altered state that matters, the eternalism state of consciousness, undergoes a particular mental model transformation. I would assign “essentialism” to that particular model of how the mind works/transforms, and to the referent of analogies.
Esotericism analogies describe, above all, Psilocybin transformation.
Hanegraaff does a complicated move where he starts by caring about historical development of surface style details, saying that the work at hand is to trance that surface development, and he rejects “perennialism” and “essentialism” in a zero-sum game.
Hanegraaff says either we trace surface history details, OR we assert a common core.
I have different objections to ‘perennialism’ and common-core mysticism and perennialism.
They (every scholar) wrongly say the core of mystical experience (or esotericism) is positive unity nondual/ suspension of experiencing & mentally constructing the self-other boundary.
That is NOT what Transcendent Knowledge or gnosis is focused on.
The essence of Transcendent Knowledge or gnosis is control transformation; Psilocybin transformation. Not nondual positive unity, like everyone says.
Hanegraaff Bad Definition of Transcendent Knowledge = Fact of Rejection
As posted at this site before: bad idea:
Hanegraaff doesn’t write about Transcendent Knowledge; he writes about “the rejection of knowledge”.
Hanegraaff defines Transcendent Knowledge in terms of “rejected knowledge”. Gives no insight, no direct insight.
That’s too indirect of an attribute: anything in garbage can, = the definition of Transcendent Knowledge.
Partridge’s Bad Definition of Transcendent Knowledge = Fact of Counter-Culture
Christopher Partridge doesn’t write about Transcendent Knowledge; he writes about “the counterculture”.
Christopher Partridge does same move, re: occulture.
When Christopher Partridge goes to describe Transcendent Knowledge, he doesn’t at all do that, but gives us reductionism to social dynamics.
He doesn’t say anything about Transcendent Knowledge; he only talks about social dynamics.
Christopher Partridge REDUCES Transcendent Knowledge to merely social dynamics, where any sawdust placeholder content can serve just as well.
Hanegraaff Shares the Same, Entirely Wrong Model of Mystical experience as if Positive Unity instead of Dependent Control
Hanegraaff is interested in history, but I am interested in how the mind works, on Psilocybin. His dismissal of “perennialism” and “essentialism” applies to academic conduct of historical scholarship – not to the theory of how the mental model transforms; Psilocybin transformation; control transformation.
Ultimately, no matter how excellently scholars do the Hanegraaff type scholarship, they are severely limited by lacking my model of mental model transformation; my explanatory model of how the mind works, on Psilocybin. Hanegraaff’s criticisms of how common-core mysticism and perennialism harm historiography, cannot even touch at all, my scientific explanatory model of how the mind works, a model that is REQUIRED for scholarship on history of Western Esotericism to at all be successful.
The academic history of Western Esotericism is SUPERFICIAL GARBAGE, as long as it lacks my explanatory model of how the mind works on Psilocybin — despite all of Hanegraaff’s learned, sophisticated explanations of how “perennialism” and “religionism” and “common-core mysticism and perennialism” and “essentialism” prevent valid historiography.
The critiques of essentialism APPEAR to rebut the Egodeath theory, but that’s an illusion.
Hanegraaff critiques essentialism as it is done in academic historiography – which has nothing to do with the Egodeath theory.
The Egodeath theory is like essentialism and is comparable to essentialism, but the Egodeath theory is not perennialism, is not historiography, and is not essentialism.
I’m against the shared, wrong model held by ALL scholars, and against their notions of perennialism, historiography, and essentialism.
You can’t say the Egodeath theory is any existing defined position. Not even “eternalism”, given that the existing wrong theory of or conception of ‘eternalism’:
Fails to consider the control aspects of eternalism.
Wrongly pits eternalism vs presentism (as if an Ontology/ Epistemology field of Philosophy), when instead, people ought to pit eternalism vs. possibilism (b/c this is actually an Experiential Phenomenology field of Philosophy).
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
The Egodeath theory is not essentialism, b/c the Egodeath theory is not historiography – the Egodeath theory is a scientific theory of how the mind transforms on Psilocybin.
The Egodeath theory, even where it is comparable to essentialism, is exempt from Hanegraaff’s critiques.
The Egodeath theory is a theory (explanatory model) of mental development, supported by analogies in religious myth.
The Egodeath theory is not concerned with historiography of the development of brands and flavors of esotericism.
When I advocate a kind of essentialism for the Egodeath theory, and the Mytheme theory, I am NOT doing what Hanegraaff is arguing against.
We are not in the same arena or field of endeavor or angle of attack.
Our work is complementary. After Hanegraaff integrates the Egodeath theory & the Mytheme theory, THEN Hanegraaff can write a successful history of Western Esotericism, instead of his cosmic disaster of a star-free “cosmos” in Hermetic Spirituality, which fabricates a tale of mental model transformation as if from eternalism to possibilism.
Mental model development is actually from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking, eventuating in holding two complementary ways of thinking: integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
A critique of “essentialism”, to be valid for and relevant to the Egodeath theory, would have to be framed within this concern — modelling mental model transformation on Psilocybin — not framed within the concern of clueless academics doing sound historiography of Western Esotericism.
The concepts ‘essentialism’ and ‘perennialism’ are external to the Egodeath theory, not part of its internal custom lexicon, conceptual vocabulary, eg as defined and cataloged at the Egodeath theory Core Concepts catalog: https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/17/glossary-for-the-egodeath-theory/
copied from idea development page 30, then expanded:
Wouter Hanegraaff – Esotericism in Western Culture (2025): the Unity section is pages 143-145.
p. 145, : “unification with divinity or the universe”,
“pleasurable … experiences of cosmic unity”.
p 144: “panentheist”,
“the cosmos or universe as a whole”
“our habitual condition of separation is overcome”
“an experience of “cosmic” unity with all that is”
“unity with the One”
“an awareness of our inseparable connection with the whole of reality”
“Hermetic spirituality [is] radical NONDUALITY”
“no distinction between … human … and … the divine”
“experienced perfect unity … with God’s “cosmic” consciousness of everything that exists in the world of space and time.”
etc.
I could go on quoting all the authors along these lines indefinitely, because all scholars share this wrong model.
I am glad that starting in mid-2025, eg after reading Ann Taves article, I am now able to crack open any spirituality book by any writer, and immediately find this false, “positive unity” model of what Transcendent Knowledge allegedly is about.
Taves wrote same constructions as I had developed in the past couple years:
puts quote marks around “mystical”.
writes “Stace’s conception of mystical experience”.
— just like I had started to do.
After reading Taves` article, I then could readily spot the problem (the Positive Unity model of mystical experience) in the book Sacred Knowledge by William Richards.
A few years earlier, 2015, I identified Ken Wilber as nothing but merely warmed-over Advaita.
Now I know, from my recent reading of the Nov. 2023 article by Breau, that that brand of Advaita (held by Ken Wilber and everyone) is Positive Unity; the wrong notion (a bunk hypothesis cancerously grown into an illegit, elaborated, wrong theory) that: gnosis = temporary cessation of mentally constructing the experience of the self/other boundary.
Every writer about myth and symbols claims “the snake is sacred because it sheds skin, like rebirth”, yet no historical mythic art pictures ever depict shedding skin, which is a false, pseudo explanation.
The dominant, false explanation of mystical experience is positive unity (vs. control transformation).
I could even interpret, that my formal cursing of academic books in 1994, was a declaration that for all their detailed labor, they are all on a wrong foundation;
All books in mid-1990s held the wrong, “positive unity” model of Transcendent Knowledge, but my Jan 1988 breakthrough provided a real alternative to their shared, reigning error: the “control transformation” model of Transcendent Knowledge; Psilocybin transformation.
I surmise that ALL of the scholars in that Eranos religionism group, held the dominant, false, Advaita model of “mystical experience”.
Hanegraaff should realize:
Religionism = Staceanism = the “positive unity” theory.
I cynically call it a ‘theory’, rather than a bunk and failed ‘hypothesis’.
The “positive unity” theory can be called a ‘theory’ in that it is a developed, sky-castle, elaborated, WRONG hypothesis; a pseudo, false explanatory model like the Ptolemaic model (Earth-centered) cosmos model.
I only grant the Positive Unity model of mystical experience or gnosis as “the old theory” (Kuhn and Thagard).
The theory of psychedelic eternalism (control transformation) is “the new theory”.
The old theory is a false theory, and the new theory has potential to give greater explanatory power.
Advaita = non-dual; temp suspension of mentally constructed experience of self-other boundary.
The latter is meant when say “ego dissolution” per OAV 1994 questionnaire by Dittrich.
By the O (Oceanic) dimension name, Dittrich means that wrong model: “Transcendent Knowledge = suspension of the self-other boundary.”
Adolph Dittrich thinks this group of Psilocybin effects is positive unity experiencing.
Likewise, as Ann Taves explains:
By the A (Angst; Dread – of what? of “ego dissolution”) dimension name, Dittrich means that wrong model: “Transcendent Knowledge = suspension of self-other boundary.”
Dittrich thinks this group of Psilocybin effects is negative unity experiencing.
The dominant, wrong model is: bad trip is caused by your fault because you resisted unity experiencing; ego dissolution; cessation of mentally constructing the experience of the self/other boundary.
All the authors — all mistaken — assume ego dissolution is the opposite of mystical experience, since they equate mystical experience with positive unity experience, and they think that a bad trip is a negative unity experience, which they label as “ego dissolution”, taken to be negative and non-mystical or anti-mystical experience.
All of the writers/ scholars think that the opposite of mystical, pleasant unity experience, is non-mystical, unpleasant, “ego dissolution” experience.
All of that, they frame in an assumed, wrong framing, the “positive unity” model of mystical experience.
But all of that is false, pseudo-explanation – an entire analysis and explanation that all writers assert, all based on a false notion of mystical experience, as if centered on cessation of experiencing the self-other boundary, when in fact mystical experience is centered on experiencing the two levels of control.
1st Ed.: Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed (2013)
The Egodeath theory 
