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. (Brown 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 Brown’s 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)
Michael Hoffman, August 27, 2025, for Sacred Garden Community Church Reader, Issue 1
To find mushroom imagery in Christian art, instead of looking only for mushrooms, look for the combination of mushroom, branching, handedness, and stability motifs, which together describe the experience of psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control.
The medieval art genre of mushroom-trees depicts the peak religious experience of timeless eternalism (where the future feels pre-existing and set in stone), shown as non-branching of possibilities. Experiencing eternalism is similar to nondual unity oneness with suspension of the self/other boundary, but with the central focus instead on personal control steering in the world.
Art historians have doubted that mushroom-trees depict mushrooms, because they have branching:
Even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if the artist 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.
The branching component of mushroom-trees is successfully explained by identifying the actual message of the mushroom-tree genre. The message of the mushroom-tree artists is neither “tree” nor “mushroom”, but rather, is about the transformation of personal control during advanced psilocybin experiencing:
To have stable, viable control on psilocybin, switch from branching to non-branching. Don’t rely on branching-possibility (open future) thinking with autonomous personal control. Instead, rely on non-branching thinking (with a pre-existing, closed future) and 2-level, dependent control.
This interpretation uses the 2nd-generation, explicit psilocybin paradigm in entheogen scholarship (based on Samorini’s “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art, 1998). That replaces the 1st-generation, secret Amanita paradigm (based on Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, 1970). This interpretation also uses my control- and eternalism-centered theory of ego transcendence (at Principia Cybernetica in 1997), and my theory of myth and art motifs as analogies describing advanced psilocybin experiencing (at Egodeath.com in 2007).
The end result of mental model transformation caused by psilocybin is having two different mental models of spacetime and personal control available: integrated possibilism- and eternalism-thinking.
The initial, egoic, possibilism-thinking is not abandoned or destroyed, but rather, is qualified and not overly relied upon. The mind is reconfigured to rely on transcendent, eternalism-thinking, without possibility branching, when needed for control stability.
Examples of Mushroom-Related Motifs in the Great Canterbury Psalter
The Great Canterbury Psalter is typical of the medieval art genre of mushroom-trees, integrating mushroom, branching, handedness, and stability motifs, showing that European religious history includes the advanced use of psilocybin mushrooms and the peak psychedelic state.
Mushroom motifs: freely combined elements of Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, and Amanita, along with tree elements; mushroom-tree with left and right limbs or fruit; locking storage bin; bright sun disk of fire and light; mushroom roof topper; mushroom-cap roof; phallic lifted garment; mushroom hem; sack of mushrooms; blue trunk and branch; blue fruit; soil behind hooved animals; two sets of eyes, for the two experiential states, mental models, and vantage points of awareness; open or closed scroll or book.
Branching motifs: branch; cut branch; cut right trunk; cut right branch; visually cut right branch; cut left limb; YI branching form; more branching on left than right; thumb vs. fingers; YI hand shape; plain mushroom cap vs. grid of multiple mushroom-trees within the cap.
Handedness motifs: weight on left vs. right foot, or leg; left foot lifted.
Left limb mapped to branching, possibilism-thinking; literalist ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control; unstable control during psilocybin; blade touching left limb; holding branch in left hand.
Right limb mapped to non-branching, eternalism-thinking; analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control; stable control during psilocybin; touching cut branch with right limb; right hand lower than left.
Stability motifs: balance scale weighing mushrooms; balancing on right leg, or on toes; stable column base; stable tower; stable building; corpse in rock ossuary; smooth or furrowed brow; vulnerable to lion; battle; averted threat; tormenting demons; angels harassing and threatening death; fire; blade; flaming sword; pass through threatening, guarded gate or entryway; clean washed cloth giving protection.
Gallery
Image crops by Michael Hoffman, from the Great Canterbury Psalter; Canterbury, England, 1200 A.D.; art director Eadwine. Folio 1r; 50r; 62v; 68r; 84r. See also Egodeaththeory.org, Egodeath.com.
Michael Hoffman, Aug. 7, 2025 – new copy of WordPress page (vs. Egodeath.com page), with correct year in url. This WordPress page has photos, unlike Egodeath.com, and correct citation details.
Published in Fringe Ware Review zine, issue 5, pp. 22-24, July 29, 1994 [accurate per Archive]
[fragmented montage of photographs including hand holding a clear glass coffee/beer glass with black coffee on desk]
The Bubble of Simulation: Subjective Experience as a Virtual Environment
When exploring the realms of fringe experiencing, it is helpful to understand that even ordinary experiencing is similar to a remarkably detailed and consistent hallucination of a world. In the loose cognition state of awareness, which occurs in advanced meditation, schizophrenia, and psychedelics, the veil of perception loosens and becomes a visible patchwork or mosaic, showing clearly that the world is only present to awareness in the form of dynamic mental models made of mental constructs. Loose cognition tangibly switches on the philosophizing mode, because the mind is fully confronted with its isolation. Philosophy of Mind, which comes from the West and includes skepticism, is a recent, vital approach to studying how the mind internally represents various types of objects and entities which constitute the world. Philosophy of Mind is about to collide with Transpersonal Psychology, from the East, which is also building up models of our innermost subjectivity and studying how the mind constructs its experienced world and the sense of being a person separate from that world.
Sitting at my desk reading about the philosophy of perception, I consider its strange implications for my apparent perception of myself in the scene of my study. Because this type of scene feels natural and intimately familiar, it is a typical example of how the mind internally recreates or simulates the external world, from simple material objects such as a cup, to more complex objects such as other people, and highly complex systems, such as the minds’s own thoughts about the mind.
Holding my coffee cup, I have the consistent impression of solidity and weight, but the feeling of roundness is a convincing illusion constructed entirely within my own mind. This fully compelling illusion that I am directly perceiving the cup itself is due to the perfect consistency of the mental impressions. While it is impossible to determine whether the external cup in fact exists, I can handle the cup to test its consistency within the local, subjective fishbowl of experience, but I cannot prove that there is in fact a cup out there.
I can only perceive the (alleged) external world in the indirect form of my mind’s self-created subjective experiencing. As long as the impression of my desk is consistent, the mind draws a shorthand identification of the mental construct of the desk with the alleged desk itself, failing to maintain the subtle distinction between the symbol ‘desk’ and the hidden (alleged) referent desk. But during a schizophrenic break, the mind’s model of the desk loosens and partly disintegrates, warping and rippling. The perfect consistency of the perceptual construct is broken, and like a drastic glitch in a film, the medium of representation becomes exposed and the illusion of direct access to reality is disrupted. The mental construct veil then points to itself as much as it points to the actual desk.
A book is usually experienced as a fixed, rigid object, with sentences arranged into a definite structure. But when the mind studies a book in a loosened state of cognition, the sentences and the meanings swim around noticeably, producing a cut-up effect. It is difficult to read while cognition is loosened, but the thinking occurs at a deep level, where complex meanings and possible connections can be built up, enabling the mind to seek hidden networks of significance in the most mundane books. When normal, tightly bound cognition returns, the book becomes innocent again.
I hold the book and the cup of coffee in my hands, and I move my arms and hands to turn the pages of the book. How do I experience my hand and control it? My hand, arm, and body might be substantial, but I can only experience them in the form of rich mental constructs. The relationship of my arms to my mind is essentially the same as telepresence, the control and monitoring loop between remote robotic equipment and a human operator. The mind includes a cybernetic control loop between the ego and the nerves in the arms. The ego performs the cybernetic role of the controller apparently residing inside the robot-like nervous system of the body, and once the mind gets the cybernetic feel of it, controlling the body feels as natural as driving a car.
Does my body move, or is there just a stream of shifting images and kinetic feelings? Awareness peers out from nowhere, and in information space, inserts itself into the apparent configuration or shape of a body. This convincing body with arms and legs extending out is known to me as a convention of illusion. It is only known to me as a detailed cartoon giving the impression of a 3-dimensional body. The experience of motion through spacial dimensions is a pre-programmed mental scheme to keep track of information, by constructing dynamic information structures, complex spacial models which seem to be real — simply given and non-arbitrary. During the loose cognition state of meditation or schizophrenia, awareness can be perceived as stationary, or non-mobile, the mind merely synthesizing the convincing subjective effect of movement. It is possible to feel, or “see with the third eye”, that the only place where the experiences of motion and the controller actually reside is in information space.
Ontic solipsism is the denial that other minds exist. I cannot tell whether any conscious creatures exist outside my mind. In my experience, dynamic tokens arise and act consistently like self-existent entities. They are like spirits in my head, constructed by auxiliary functions of my own mind, and kept separate from my self-construct by mental categorizing. After the experience of a love-bite from my cat, I swiftly moved my apparent arm toward the appearance of a cat, and although I heard a smacking sound as the cat-image fell to the floor, I cannot tell whether there is in fact a referent ‘cat’ object in the external realm. The cat-image ran away and disappeared, and is missing from the photograph I took of this scene. Maybe I never apprehended a cat at all — but my hand has tooth marks.
I am not sure my friend exists; all I have is a picture of him. Every time I perceive this allegedly existing person, that glob of perceptions in my head acts in a consistent pattern. When I tell my friend-symbol in my mind that as far as I know, he might only be a mental image, a mere complex idea, that friend symbol jokes nervously with me, reliably. Other minds, including cats and people, might not exist at all, except as apparently self-willed images in my mind, separate from the control system that I call my self-control. My center of personal activity has a certain type of interactive control over these “other mind” constructs that arise in my thought.
As I look out into this room during a schizophrenic break, not only is the impression of the desk wavering and disintegrating into component perceptions, not only is my friend looking more and more like a cartoon created by a loose mind, but the perception of myself is splitting into two layers: a distant, hypothesized object on the other side of my wall of senses, and a mental fabrication immediately present to awareness, merely posing as that object. In loose cognition, it is easy to apprehend the self-symbol as such: a convenient cognitive self- deception. All experience is in the form of mental constructs, which serve as a cartoonish reproduction of the world, and I only know this inner dweller in the form of a mental construct, the cartoon demon of “myself”.
Taking a fresh, loose look at my own cognitive functioning, it appears that the activities of my mind are themselves misconstrued, and my thinking and assumptions about my own cognition are only trustworthy when compensated by deeply pervasive skepticism. For example, I definitely perceive the experience of something called “will” or “self-control”, but that perception changes during advanced meditation, when it appears that my will just emanates from within me by itself — from a place within me that I cannot see. My willed actions then appear to emanate from beyond my awareness.
Eastern and Western philosophy have only met very recently. The work to combine them has barely begun. It’s a commonplace idea in Eastern philosophy that faith in external reality is extravagant. This idea combines easily with solipsism, which is one of the core ideas of Western philosophy. In magical, pre-rational awareness, and in modern ego-consciousness, there is confusion between the realms of the mind’s symbols and the objects referred to by those symbols, which leads to the assumption that mental constructs are not symbols but are the represented objects themselves. In transcendence or mastery of perception, the mind learns to be skeptical about its own perceptions and hypotheses. The advanced mind learns to draw conclusions that are always held with reservations about its ability to perceive the world, including the partly hidden, partly hallucinatory inner world and its delusional inhabitant.
Michael Hoffman appeared on The WELL, and posted a half-meg stream of psychoactive prose before we asked him to put a rope around it and rein in a piece for FWR. This piece is said to be the genesis of a book-length project.
1/e2
[the issue editor is Jon Lebkowsky]
Article with Per-Sentence Formatting
When exploring the realms of fringe experiencing, it is helpful to understand that even ordinary experiencing is similar to a remarkably detailed and consistent hallucination of a world.
In the loose cognition state of awareness, which occurs in advanced meditation, schizophrenia, and psychedelics, the veil of perception loosens and becomes a visible patchwork or mosaic, showing clearly that the world is only present to awareness in the form of dynamic mental models made of mental constructs.
Loose cognition tangibly switches on the philosophizing mode, because the mind is fully confronted with its isolation.
Philosophy of Mind, which comes from the West and includes skepticism, is a recent, vital approach to studying how the mind internally represents various types of objects and entities which constitute the world.
Philosophy of Mind is about to collide with Transpersonal Psychology, from the East, which is also building up models of our innermost subjectivity and studying how the mind constructs its experienced world and the sense of being a person separate from that world.
___
Sitting at my desk reading about the philosophy of perception, I consider its strange implications for my apparent perception of myself in the scene of my study.
Because this type of scene feels natural and intimately familiar, it is a typical example of how the mind internally recreates or simulates the external world, from simple material objects such as a cup, to more complex objects such as other people, and highly complex systems, such as the minds’s own thoughts about the mind.
___
Holding my coffee cup, I have the consistent impression of solidity and weight, but the feeling of roundness is a convincing illusion constructed entirely within my own mind.
This fully compelling illusion that I am directly perceiving the cup itself is due to the perfect consistency of the mental impressions.
While it is impossible to determine whether the external cup in fact exists, I can handle the cup to test its consistency within the local, subjective fishbowl of experience, but I cannot prove that there is in fact a cup out there.
___
I can only perceive the (alleged) external world in the indirect form of my mind’s self-created subjective experiencing.
As long as the impression of my desk is consistent, the mind draws a shorthand identification of the mental construct of the desk with the alleged desk itself, failing to maintain the subtle distinction between the symbol ‘desk’ and the hidden (alleged) referent desk.
But during a schizophrenic break, the mind’s model of the desk loosens and partly disintegrates, warping and rippling.
The perfect consistency of the perceptual construct is broken, and like a drastic glitch in a film, the medium of representation becomes exposed and the illusion of direct access to reality is disrupted.
The mental construct veil then points to itself as much as it points to the actual desk.
___
A book is usually experienced as a fixed, rigid object, with sentences arranged into a definite structure.
But when the mind studies a book in a loosened state of cognition, the sentences and the meanings swim around noticeably, producing a cut-up effect.
It is difficult to read while cognition is loosened, but the thinking occurs at a deep level, where complex meanings and possible connections can be built up, enabling the mind to seek hidden networks of significance in the most mundane books.
When normal, tightly bound cognition returns, the book becomes innocent again.
___
I hold the book and the cup of coffee in my hands, and I move my arms and hands to turn the pages of the book.
How do I experience my hand and control it? My hand, arm, and body might be substantial, but I can only experience them in the form of rich mental constructs.
The relationship of my arms to my mind is essentially the same as telepresence, the control and monitoring loop between remote robotic equipment and a human operator.
The mind includes a cybernetic control loop between the ego and the nerves in the arms.
The ego performs the cybernetic role of the controller apparently residing inside the robot-like nervous system of the body, and once the mind gets the cybernetic feel of it, controlling the body feels as natural as driving a car.
___
Does my body move, or is there just a stream of shifting images and kinetic feelings?
Awareness peers out from nowhere, and in information space, inserts itself into the apparent configuration or shape of a body.
This convincing body with arms and legs extending out is known to me as a convention of illusion.
It is only known to me as a detailed cartoon giving the impression of a 3-dimensional body.
The experience of motion through spacial dimensions is a pre-programmed mental scheme to keep track of information, by constructing dynamic information structures, complex spacial models which seem to be real — simply given and non-arbitrary.
During the loose cognition state of meditation or schizophrenia, awareness can be perceived as stationary, or non-mobile, the mind merely synthesizing the convincing subjective effect of movement.
It is possible to feel, or “see with the third eye”, that the only place where the experiences of motion and the controller actually reside is in information space.
___
Ontic solipsism is the denial that other minds exist.
I cannot tell whether any conscious creatures exist outside my mind.
In my experience, dynamic tokens arise and act consistently like self-existent entities.
They are like spirits in my head, constructed by auxiliary functions of my own mind, and kept separate from my self-construct by mental categorizing.
After the experience of a love-bite from my cat, I swiftly moved my apparent arm toward the appearance of a cat, and although I heard a smacking sound as the cat-image fell to the floor, I cannot tell whether there is in fact a referent ‘cat’ object in the external realm.
The cat-image ran away and disappeared, and is missing from the photograph I took of this scene.
Maybe I never apprehended a cat at all — but my hand has tooth marks.
___
I am not sure my friend exists; all I have is a picture of him.
Every time I perceive this allegedly existing person, that glob of perceptions in my head acts in a consistent pattern.
When I tell my friend-symbol in my mind that as far as I know, he might only be a mental image, a mere complex idea, that friend symbol jokes nervously with me, reliably.
Other minds, including cats and people, might not exist at all, except as apparently self-willed images in my mind, separate from the control system that I call my self-control.
My center of personal activity has a certain type of interactive control over these “other mind” constructs that arise in my thought.
___
As I look out into this room during a schizophrenic break, not only is the impression of the desk wavering and disintegrating into component perceptions, not only is my friend looking more and more like a cartoon created by a loose mind, but the perception of myself is splitting into two layers: a distant, hypothesized object on the other side of my wall of senses, and a mental fabrication immediately present to awareness, merely posing as that object.
In loose cognition, it is easy to apprehend the self-symbol as such: a convenient cognitive self- deception.
All experience is in the form of mental constructs, which serve as a cartoonish reproduction of the world, and I only know this inner dweller in the form of a mental construct, the cartoon demon of “myself”.
___
Taking a fresh, loose look at my own cognitive functioning, it appears that the activities of my mind are themselves misconstrued, and my thinking and assumptions about my own cognition are only trustworthy when compensated by deeply pervasive skepticism.
For example, I definitely perceive the experience of something called “will” or “self-control”, but that perception changes during advanced meditation, when it appears that my will just emanates from within me by itself — from a place within me that I cannot see.
My willed actions then appear to emanate from beyond my awareness.
___
Eastern and Western philosophy have only met very recently.
The work to combine them has barely begun.
It’s a commonplace idea in Eastern philosophy that faith in external reality is extravagant.
This idea combines easily with solipsism, which is one of the core ideas of Western philosophy.
In magical, pre-rational awareness, and in modern ego-consciousness, there is confusion between the realms of the mind’s symbols and the objects referred to by those symbols, which leads to the assumption that mental constructs are not symbols but are the represented objects themselves.
In transcendence or mastery of perception, the mind learns to be skeptical about its own perceptions and hypotheses.
The advanced mind learns to draw conclusions that are always held with reservations about its ability to perceive the world, including the partly hidden, partly hallucinatory inner world and its delusional inhabitant.
___
Michael Hoffman appeared on The WELL, and posted a half-meg stream of psychoactive prose before we asked him to put a rope around it and rein in a piece for FWR.
This piece is said to be the genesis of a book-length project.
1/e2
[the issue editor is Jon Lebkowsky]
Photos of Zine
Archive: Fringe Ware Review, “Stay Awake” Issue, with my Bubble of Simulation article
Found it via image search of “Fringe Ware Review”.
Notice almost total lack of websites, though – unlike 1989 – emails have become normalized. Notice Gopher and ftp – bad old days before websites.
This year, 1994, was right when people like me were announcing the Web and only a handful of early adopters had any kind of Web presence.
It was a full 10 years before the Web became normal, around 2004 – making us impatient with ludicrous, thick-headed articles of the late 1990s, “Why your company should maybe have a website”.
Metzinger’s ideas and writings are not the same as the Egodeath theory of 1994 or 2025, but on the surface, titles imply our thinking is similar.
Thomas Metzinger copied my obvious (to us) ideas — that is, these ideas were in the air. Present article is 1994. When did Metzinger publish similar ideas? His books are 2003, 2009. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Metzinger#Bibliography Earlier than 2003: 1985) Neuere Beiträge zur Diskussion des Leib-Seele-Problems. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, ISBN 3-8204-8927-4. = Recent contributions to the discussion of the mind-body problem
(1993) Subjekt und Selbstmodell. Die Perspektivität phänomenalen Bewußtseins vor dem Hintergrund einer naturalistischen Theorie mentaler Repräsentation. mentis, Paderborn = Subject and Self-Model: The Perspectivity of Phenomenal Consciousness Against the Background of a Naturalistic Theory of Mental Representation
Not sure if Travis Kitchens contributed to or is connected with this article.
pdf file name: Mosurinjohn___Ascough__2025__Psychedelics,_Eleusis,_and_the_invention_of_religious_experience.pdf
Her Terms for the Theory in Question
Her terms:
the psychedelic hypothesis [broad? narrow?]
entheogenicist theories
Western psychedelic histories
the entheogenicists
psychedelic religious origins for the West
the Eleusis entheogenicists [narrow]
Notes from My 2nd Full Reading of the Article
I did a 2nd pass of printing the article, making margin notes, and copying the notes to here.
Sufficient notes are are below. Aug 6, 2025.
My first-pass reading notes are in bottom half of this webpage.
p. 1 of Reading 2, Notes
Her core args/ objections:
(1) European drug focus bad b/c not focused on Indigenous.
(2) Drug focus is bad b/c not focus on non-drug practices.
In fact, Road to Eleusis covers Indigenous & SOMA. Only The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 perhaps lacks that coverage. Mosur is wrong that Euro focus “might miss” “well evidenced” SOMA & Indigenous.
(3) The Suppresssion hypoth: no evidence for suppression of ergot kykeon. She asserts herbs, non-ergot wine in Greco-Roman ritual.
She approves Soma as drug.
She approves Indigenous drug use history.
She disapproves some shifting, unstable target: Western ancient origins of religion as drug-based. Yet she asserts cannabis in Jewish altar; and she asserts Greco-Roman herb wine.
Or does she only ojbect to the narrow specific particular hypoth, Suppressed Ergot Eleusis kykeon, as the Origin of Christian Euch? She keeps conflating the two – broad vs narrow, motte vs baily.
Her tone/ noises/ stance/ affectation: There’s no evidence for [suppressed ergot kykeon as the origin for Euch]; (narrow); therefore, there’s no evidence for [Western ancient origins of religion as drug-based] (broad). She asserts moderately broadly: There are some psychedelics in Western religious history. That’s a kind of moderate entheogen theory of religion. She’s against the maximal entheogen theory of religion, in the case of Western religious history.
Yet she is writing an entire book asserting entheogens in history of Western Esotericism.
She allows that, but does not allow the original Euch being psychedelic.
She explains reasons to try to look, and SOMETIMES she says it’s ok to try to look for entheogens in Euro history / origins.
Her position is shifting and indeterminate, it’s a mess.
It is hard to critique a slip-n-slide writer, and that is TYPICAL HALLMARK of Deniers of entheogen W history.
WTF is Wasson’s position (as a Denier)?
WTF is Letcher’s position (as a Denier)? He retreats and grants, “we naysayers were wrong: there WAS, after all, Liberty Cap in ancient England – but no delib religious use of it.”
WTF is Mosurinjohn’s position (as a Denier)?
There was plants in Euro history – but not indigenous tradition origin of major Euro religion.
She says there is no evidence of any use for decrim.
Forte argues in 2008 edition of Road to Eleusis , she quotes, — glad to see her write (p. 6, no history of use for whites per the courts).
p. 2 of Reading 2, Notes
p. 3 of Reading 2, Notes
end of page 3, into p. 4: “bummer trips” (in early modern individual experimentation w/ ergot) – this is the fallacy: “non-pleasant therefore non-mystical”.
argues: ergot gave bummer trip, therefore, not religious experience.
p. 4 of Reading 2, Notes
p. 5 of Reading 2, Notes
no notes, thank God
p. 6 of Reading 2, Notes
She argues: Trying to look for psychedelics in the origin of W religion is “religious fundamentalism”; she argues:
Because there is no evidence for [narrow: suppressed ergot kykeon as origin of Euch?] [broad: psychoactive plants in W religious history?], therefore the motivation of “the Eleusis entheogenicists” must be religious fundamentalism.
the courts in the United States have been “unreasonable” in only allowing Indigenous peoples to use “‘hallucinogens’ as sacraments” because they have a long history of such use, which was not the case “for the white man”
Mosur re: Forte in RtE 2008 edition
Vague terms there are “history”, “tradition”, “long history”. Does intense, fully developed mushroom use in 900-1300 A D, in a Christian Biblical context, “count”??
I reject not the project of finding history of use;
I reject the albatross of “secret/ suppressed” and “mainstream tradition” — too nebulous and tangential.
I only inventory the likely total use throughout origin and history, in entire W region. I avoid employing as explanatory constructs, any considerations of “secret/ suppressed” and “mainstream tradition”.
Because it’s too hard and too unimportant, to attempt to assess that.
We are only able to see THAT there was MUCH use. My project is epxlaingin how the mind works, and identfiying evidence by reading religious myth / motifs.
I excel at explaining how the mind changes from Psilocybin.
I excel at explaining how to recognize myth motifs that describe by analogy how the mind changes from Psilocybin.
I ignore questions of; I don’t care about details of what kind of social groups had The Mushroom and which kind of social groups lacked or suppressed The Mushroom.
I am not here to do social drama narrative. Ruck & Muraresku make that project their foundation, and they lose the plot, and they are readily attacked by Deniers; the Suppression Drama narrative is an attack vector (an unneeded addition/ burden), as demo’d by Mosur.
The Allegro/ Ruck/ Muraresku Suppression Social Drama Narrative is an unneeded addition/ burden. Unhelpful for my two projects.
Mosur speculates why there is decreasing use of the Suppression Social Drama Narrative for the purpose of decrim – IDK that it has decreased.
Much of her arg’n/writing is just UNCLEAR, she uses words in a vague way. What exactly is she asserting and not asserting?? She needs to differentiate what she is asserting and denying, specifically; narrow & broad. Be specific and clear, not vague.
We are NOT able to assess details about “secret/suppressed” and “mainstream tradition”, and that is a tangential, separate, messy proposition to try to theorize and find evidence for that detail.
Mos wrote:
“Road to Eleusis in 2008 … Robert Forte who notes … the courts in the United States have been “unreasonable” in only allowing Indigenous peoples to use “‘hallucinogens’ as sacraments” because they have a long history of such use, which was not the case “for the white man”34
“(Canada has mirrored the United States in making legal exceptions for traditional Indigenous peyote use and Indigenous-related ayahuasca groups while denying them to groups unconnected with Indigenous communities of practice35).”
p. 7 of Reading 2, Notes
p. 8 of Reading 2, Notes
p. 9 of Reading 2, Notes
Book: Entheogenics: Psychedelic Experiences as Revelatory Events in the History of Western Esotericism (Mosurinjohn, in progress per 2022)
Asserting that there are psychedelics in history of Western Esotericism contradicts half of the posturing in her article!
A contradiction-filled article, waffling and shifting constantly, asserts “Greco Roman herbal wine” yet says no evidence for ergot kykeon specifically, and ok’s Soma as historical precedent, and ok’s Indigenous as historical precedent for decrim of Psilocybin, but makes tut-tut vague & shifting objections to trying to look for history psychedelics in European Western history.
Article contradicts itself and is hazy what she’s saying that scholars should do. waht What EXACTLY is your complaint and your direction for what you are directing scholars to do?
Try to be more accurate?
Drop the Suppression hypoth? ???
She is allowed to write an entire fukking BOOK asserting historical psychedelics in Europ (Western Esotericism), but OTHER scholars are bad for even trying to look for — for what? for specifically/ narrowly, [SUPPRESSED ERGOT KYKEON]? or, broadly, for [psychedelics in Western history], which is exactly what this book asserts?
She plays motte/baily fallacy in article: the narrow “suppressed ergot kykeon” has no evidence according to her, so she acts – most of the time (inconsis.) — as if the broad general theory (psychedelics in W history) has no evidence.
She avoids making a clear distinction between mot vs baily , narrow The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 view vs. broad entheogens in W religion view.
the motte (easy to defend, but not desirable): “I merely, reasonably argue that there was psychedelics in W history, but not suppressed ergot kykeon.” “I merely call for more precision in scholarship.”
the baily (desirable, but indefensible): “I aggressively argue that the effort to fabricate psychedelics in W history is bunk. You are only allowed to assert Soma & Indigenous, not European.”
SLIP ‘N’ SLIDE tactic of writing. wtf exactly are you asserting and not asserting? Hazy, so she gets to have it both ways, asserting that cannabis is proved in ancient Jewish temple, yet, we’re not allowed to assert what, “suppressed ergot kykeon”? “any use of entheogens in W history”?? WTF!! What the hell is your position and argument?
She accuses of “the entheogen history claim” of being merely a fake strategy, yet she also says,
cannabis is proved in Jewish history
greco-roman wine = herbs
writes an entire BOOK asserting entheogens in W history of Western Esotericism.
DOUBLE TALK! BUNCH OF WISHY WASHY HOT AIR AND PUFFERY BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF HER POSITION & ARG’T IS NOT THERE. Like my experience reading Letcher in 2007.
Rhethoric, posturing, tut-tut noises, self-promotion, vague & shifting disparagement of others. Inconsistent arg’n and position, both. Smoke & noise, but no fire. HYPOCRITE! She ought to be clarifying to scholars the correct nuances, but she only delivers self-contradiction.
She allows herself to assert history of psychedelics in Europe, but when Muraresku asserts suppression ergot kykeon, she dismisses that as merely a strategy to prop up history for decrim.
I hope I am clear when I list what Ruck school gets right & wrong, specifically.
Ruck contradicts himself, b/c driven by the Suppression premise, so he strives to neutralize all evidence by forcing a framing of the evidence as alien infiltration into Christianity.
Mosur contradicts herself, by not tracking carefully when she’s talking about the broad theory and its evidence – psychedelics in W history — vs when she’s taking aim against the narrow theory [suppression kykeon ergot]. “There’s no evidence for suppression ergot kykeon, therefore, no psychedelics in W history, so can’t use that to bolster decrim.” Article seems to assert that.
I cannot engage clearly w/ her article, b/c littered w/ the topic of Suppression Premise.
I wish the article would bracket-aside the Suppression Premise, and discuss evidence for specific claims, that are not tangled with Suppression Premise.
We cannot have a clear discussion, because she keeps garbling and mixing
The Suppression Premise.
The “suppression kykeon ergot” narrow hypothesis.
Narrow focus/debate about what – “the mystieries”? or narrower, “Eleusis”? aweful vague term “the mysteries” can mean all use of wine throughout Antiquity, or, exclusively, Eleusis, by the sleight of hand vague shell-game term, “the mysteries of Eleusis”, = “mystery religions”, = “herb-laced wine in Greco-Roman culture” = “in the ancient mysteries” – did you mean all mixed wine, or did you mean strictly kykeon in the Eleu. mysteries???
The broad hypoth of the psychedelic origin of & history of W religion.
Are we debating about:
narrow: ergot
broad: entheogens
Are we debating about:
narrow: the Eleusis mystery religion
all mystery religions
broad: all use of mixed wine throughout Antiquity
Are we debating about:
narrow: ancient origins of W religion
broad: psychoactives throughout W relig history
SLIP-N-SLIDE, SHIFTY, MOTTE-AND-BAILY ARG’N
How the F can I critique her artilcle, which constantly shifts between:
kykeon vs. wine;
ergot vs. psychoactive plants;
Eleusis vs. all mystery religions vs. all Greco-Roman use of wine?
Are you saying not to try to find any psychedelics in:
narrow: Eleusis, ergot, kykeon, suppression
broad: mixed wine, all psychoactive plants, throughout W history, open secret
She is good to mention that the typical theory is the “secret Amanita cult” theory.
The “secret Amanita cult” theory is the absurdly narrow view of spread, hated by John Lash; Wasson’s particular theory, the one, lone, single ur-religion that spread from Ural mountains.
That specific theory of “spread” is ridiculed by Letcher.
Letcher & Mosur latch onto this narrow paricular theory of suppressed Amanita spread from a single origin in the Ural mountains, because it’s so easy to ridicule.
Even the #1 fanboi of Wasson — John Lash — hates this ridiculous narrow particular theory.
Andy Letcher rejects the entire proposition of W psychedelics history, with the narrow, most ridiculous model he can find.
The slip-and-slide, move goalposts inward, move.
Mosur needs to clarify her crit’m of each distinct theory:
suppressed ergot Eleusis
history of psychedelics in Europe
She constantly garbles and conflates the two scopes.
p. 6 col 2 mentions Western Esotericism – seems to hazily imply psychedelics in Western Esotericism , while she refuses to allow “indigenous” ie pre-Christian specifially Eleusis…
IS SHE GIVING GREEN LIGHT TO ALLOW PSYCHEDELICS IN Western Esotericism HISTORY BUT REFUSING TO ALLOW in roots of specifically Eleusis before Christianity?
Her REAL objection, perhaps, is a Western Indigenous ancient origin of religion in psychedelics.
She’s ok w/ Greco-Roman herb wine; with cannabis in Jewish altar; with psychedelics in Western Esotericism history.
But God forbid, “Indigenous” origin in ancient Europe.
This would be opposite of Wasson, who allows Amanita 1000 B C but not later. (he even waffles here: author of Rev, eg 70 A D, is “like on mushrooms”.)
She acts like Ruck group is not the ORIGIN of discoveries about Indigenous psychedelics history, when she claims that Ruck then Muraresku, by focusing on W relig, “risks missing Indigenous, which is well-evidenced.”
As if we weren’t BURIED in excessive emphasis already, of Indigenous 24/7.
What the hell is the point of exclusively dwelling on already-known discoveries, when the whole point of scholarship in Euro entheogens history is to make NEW discoveries?
Didn’t Ruck group bring MORE THAN ENOUGH focus already, on Indigenous? This is nothing but empty bitching and self-promotion, fake “critique” for the purpose of obstructionism and self-positioning.
She has no legit criticism of trying to find psychedelics throughout W / Euro history, so she pretends that the most narrow, brittle model – suppressed ergot eleusis as original Euch – is same thing as broad topic.
The article is a pseudo critique, what EXACTLY is she complaining and advising? Empty posturing, empty critique. A call for better scholarship? Be specific.
WHEN YOU PUT ASIDE HER RHETORIC, THERE’S LITTLE SUBSTANCE ARG’N LEFT.
She herself writes a book on psychedelics in history of Western Esotericism – doesn’t she “they miss seriously relating to the many … Indigenous histories” – that MIGHT stick, for Muraresku, but sure not for Ruck group!
Are you saying Ruck misses seriously relating to the many evidence for Indigenous use? You cannot assert that.
So, shift the vauge, hazy goalposts.
Make strong sounding accusations, then retreat:
“Don’t try to find psychedelics in W history; that’s religious fundamentalism. Trying to find psychedelics in W misses a serious engagement with evidence for Indigenous use.” But Ruck group is the one who discovered evidence for Indig, so WTF are you asserting and whining about as an alleged limitation?!
“I was ONLY correcting Muraresku and ergot secret kykeon as orig Euch.” Ok then your corrective caution amounts to nothing of substance. Motte & bailey arg’n.
Stupid, out-of-left-field, weird argumentation, like those from Hatsis and other Deniers.
Maybe she can accuse Muraresku of ignoring Indig, but she sure can’t accuse Ruck group of that – they are the discoverers of Indigenous.
Her arguments are only valid in a narrow way, not in the broad way she pretends.
The broad hypoth which she DISPARAGES half the time in the article: the psychedelic origin of W religion — yet which she asserts in some ways too.
A confusing & confused article.
https://queensu.academia.edu/ShardayMosurinjohn/CurriculumVitae — working on a book, In progress Entheogenics: Psychedelic Experiences as Revelatory Events in the History of Western Esotericism (working title) the most recent date there: 2022, three years ago. New article is mid-2025.
Critique of Article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience”
My notes about Mosurinjohn article.
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience Sharday Mosurinjohn, Richard Ascough 2025
Point #1: Your guys, the IDIOT archaeologists, WASHED AWAY the evidence in all vessels ever discovered, and after doing that, you then say “there is no evidence”. Because you morons THREW AWAY the evidence.
Point #2: We literally have not even STARTED to try to look for evidence.
Mosur sometimes targets ergot evidence; sometimes targets broader enth evidence.
Point #3: esp offensive about this article:
Biased propaganda prejudiced against ANY research into European history of visionary plants.
“We should avoid trying to do any research in Europe history, because that risks failing to bow down to Americas and non-European history.”
“We should avoid trying to research visionary plants, because that risks failing to research non-drug methods of changing consciousness.”
Sheer bias, prejudice, obstructionism, and de-legitimation from the very start. See Hatsis new book against PC in enth scholarship. Psychedelic Injustice.
The nerve! We are not allowed to try to find enth in Eur history, because scholarship has found enth in non-Eur history, and we must attend to that, instead, because…
We are not allowed to explore the superior potential of enths, b/c scholars have found non-drug methods that can/ could/ might/ may produce “an altered consciousness”; “a mystical-type experience”.
Anti-European propaganda pressure, “It is not legit to theorize and look for enths in Euro history – b/c risks not focusing instead on non-European.” Sheer bias, arb’y.
Like idiotic YouTube comments, “The Surfrajettes [an instrumental Surf band, genre] should be a girl singer pop band (genre) instead.”
That’s not even a real critique; like reviewing a book about X as if it were a book about Y.
“Your scholarship about Europe has a huge flaw: it should be scholarship about non-Europe instead. Because…”
“Your scholarship about psychedelic plants has a huge flaw: it should be scholarship about non-drug methods of altering consciousness instead [aka “practices”]. Because…”
Your theorizing and scholarship should elevate non-drug methods to the high level that’s accepted now for psychedelics, because… else you are an extremist fanatic proselytizer, unlike us who call anything at all “an entheogenic practice”, and who restrict enth’s to “Indigenous” ie non-Europe.
Blundering ignoramus mycologists fail to consult the academic authorities, who demonstrate an irritated tone and demonstrate how quickly and fervently they deny and disavow.
Consult them on this matter b/c they are experts on related subjects (ie, not on trees, not on mushrooms, b/c merely incidental & fortuitous [Huggins & Wasson]).
Europe 4x
Indigenous 15x
The two main, bunk args Mosur has, in exact quote:
Mosur wrote:
“But in doing so, they miss seriously relating to the many well-documented historical and living Indigenous histories of psychedelics,
or seeing contemporary psychedelic practice in continuity with other, and maybe even older, nonpharmacological methods of changing consciousness.
“Moreover, this search for ergot foregrounds the drug per se, unhelpfully emphasizing the importance of the substance and its phenomenology over the ritual and metaphysical tools needed to make meaning of it.”
Bunk args repeated throughout article:
* “Do not look for new [Europe] evidence, because you won’t seriously cover existing [non-Europe] evidence.”
* “Do not look for visionary plants evidence, because you won’t seriously cover non-drug methods that can give altered consciousness.”
Sheer academic obstructionism!
Mosur does potentially have some fair points; the Secret Ergot Eleusis theory has problems to identify – done better by Egodeath theory ie 2nd-gen enth schol.
you must commit to a explanatory theory / model and develop and test and refine it, it should be a good theory. All theories have cons & pros; cons do not “disconfirm” a theory in a simplistic total way per a crude model of how Science progresses.
[non-drug] “practice” is good; drug / fx is bad. Mosur is correct that 1st-gen theory stupidly attends to the drug plant itself, and should account for something like “practice” or how the drug is used to cause ultimate transformation of experiential model of personal control levels. Focusing on the plant’s form, and a tiny bit on its effect, is not enough, but Ruck halts there.
Per Irvin’s book Flesh of God, and some other recent critiques and exposes, it is debatable “Americas used enths for religious experience.” Yet Mosur criticizes the entire basic proposition of trying to do scholarly research in Euro history of enths, b/c Affirmers might “miss well-doc’d Indigenous, and non-drug methods of altering consciousness”.
This book about Windows programming is a bad idea, because it might miss Mac programming.
This book about cats is bad, because it misses dogs.
Lame, biased, bunk pseudo-critique – but to Deniers, the only thing that matters is sheer quantity of writing that SEEMS — to biased readers — to constitute argumentation.
It’s empty expression of prejudice; not actual arg’n.
Mosur tries to make it sound like Affirmers theorize and therefore are bad; they commit to a specific theory and therefore are bad, and ought to do certified academic scholarship instead.
Mosur is right to discuss Pop Culture reception of Allegro/Ruck’s crude 1st-gen myth-fantasy, poor theorizing – Secret Ergot Suppression.
But we must do a good job of critique/correction of Pop Culture reception of the superior 2nd-Gen theory/scholarship.
Goals of Mosur’s rhetoric; Deniers’ Rhetorical Pseudo-Arguments
(under the limitations of 1st-gen Denial of entheogen scholarship):
Push non-drug entheogens; elevate avoidance-methods to the high level that enths deliver.
Dissuade and condemn the study of Euro enth history.
Turn the supposed successes in Americas, into a barrier preventing scholarship in Europe.
Push indigenous; use the alleged findings in Americas serve as shutting the door to any scholarship of Euro history.
Demonize Affirmers of Euro enth history.
Self-aggrandize.
2nd-gen entheogen scholarship eg Brown must avoid leveraging the would-be explanatory construct of “secret vs. mainstream”.
Mosur, like Letcher, seizes on ‘secret’; the Suppression premise is nothing but a liability; a potential vector of attack by Deniers.
Deniers = 1st Gen; Deniers of 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.
Live by “Secret”, die by “Secret”.
The (1st-gen) Deniers CANNOT take down 2nd-Gen enth schol by attacking ‘secret’, b/c 2nd-gen theory doesn’t at all employ the Secrecy/Suppression premise, & doesn’t assert in terms of “mainstream tradition” (as Brown does at end of 2019 article/ 2016 book).
I couldn’t care less whether an instance of MICA is assigned to “heretical groups” or “elites” or “mainstream tradition” – Ruck wrongly thinks we are demanding that he explain how The Secret Enth was restricted yet present.
I reject any obligation to explain how enth were restricted or present. Don’t care! Irrelevant & unhelpful. I find more evidence than Ruck b/c I am entirely unconcerned with “restricted yet present”. I only measure presence – not alleged suppression.
Less narrative = more evidence.
Less narrative about “limited” or “restricted” (or, “mainstream”) = more evidence; the greedy mentality.
Good: 2nd-gen Affirmers: Hoffman: Theory of enths/ motifs/ analogies. This is an actual, good-type correction of 1st-gen enth schol.
Non-existent: Denial of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Mosur/ Deniers provide critique of 1st-gen not 2nd-gen; Letcher to critique 1st-Gen actually leverages 2nd-Gen.
ie, Letcher uses the presence of explicit Psil msh tree imagery, to disprove Secret (and also Amanita).
Critical scholarship of goals and flaws of the Suppressed Ergot Eleusis; 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
vs.
Critical scholarship of goal and flaws of the good theory; 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Entheogen scholarship was defeatism-driven; suppression-driven; more interested in crying about suppression by inst’l religion, than caring about ACTUAL enth (ie Psil) and caring about EFFECTIVE, goal-driven repeal of Psil Prohibition.
My finding of Great Canterbury Psalter msh images in late date 2025 is example: we been NOMINALLY “looking” since 2000 or 1910, but with eyes tightly shut.
eg McKenna’s book Food of the Gods is totally closed-minded about msh in Christian art; simply ASSUMES no mushroom imagery in Christian art.
My point is solid even though hyperbolic:
Entheogen scholarship has NOT even STARTED to try to positively look; instead, they tried to look for Secret Amanita & Secret Ergot, and any finding, is taken as proof that Xy lacked enth but only contained HERETICAL enth use.
And proves that entheogen use was LIMITED TO some closed group or other:
“certain Christian communities” (Georgio Samorini)
“heretical groups” (early Carl Ruck)
“1 or 2 elites” (later Ruck)
all elites (Jan Irvin AstroSham 1st Ed.: Conclusion 1st sentence)
Along with Terrible Theory that says, any mushroom imagery in Christian art is evidence of alien heretical infiltration into Xy from outside of Christianity.
2nd-gen entheogen scholarship must set its own goals motivating research
Key: Well-formed Affirmers must set our own goals of what motivates research.
The goal is to understand mental model transformation and myth as analogy describing psil xfmn; not history of actions ie proving who ingested what plant how many times.
Well-Formed Goals of 2nd-gen Entheogen Scholarship
Model the mind; model Psil transformation.
Figure out how to read analogy as description of Psil xfmn.
Construct theory / explanatory model.
Recognize plants & motifs in cultural history.
Understand mental model transformation.
Understand religious mythology as analogy describing mental model transformation. World religious myth especially Greco-Roman-Jewish-Christendom [incl tree of knowledge, the sacrifice of Isaac, Ezekiel, burning bush, bronze snake on pole; Jonah’s prayer]
Full repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition.
Theory-driven research. Do incorporate evidence, but use theory to construct (bring shape to, elicit, flush-out) evidence and drive the search for evidence.
Be driven by good theory (myth = analogy for ingesting then transforming control), not bad theory (Ama = Psil fx; Secret/Suppression, shows how awful the Church is!)
Theory driven, vs. defaulting to Denial/ ignorance, lack of explanatory model.
Glad that Mosur pays attention to the crybaby move, rhetoric against the big bad Institutional Church.
A better such critique is needed, just as the other Deniers are partially very right, but, poor & scorched-earth.
Mosur tries to contrast:
“Drug” & its effect (bad)
“Practices” (ie, code word for: the non-drug methods of the mystics) (good)
Mosur ought to say “here is a good critique: pros & cons of Ruck/Mura. Instead, Mosur sets up poor opposed positions/ options. eg:
End of Abstract:
“Instead of committing to a specific (and erroneous) view of history, psychedelic scholarship must commit to academic discussion and debate.”
That pits as if:
committing to a specific (and erroneous) view of history vs. academic discussion and debate
Actually, we should BOTH, in a good way:
Commit to a specific (and sound) view of history:
* Myth is description by analogy of Psil-driven mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
* Religions come from enth, then they deny that b/c conflict of interest.
* A kind of “perennialism” or “essentialism” is sound: not the all-dominant modern transnational Advaita Vedanta (nondual unity oneness, cessation of mentally constructing the self/other boundary), but per Egodeath theory, mental model of personal control-in-world. The central focus of transformation isn’t unity; it’s personal control.
AND:
Academic discussion and debate:
* High quality, with high explanatory power.
Non-Goals of 2nd-Gen Entheogen Scholarship
Accurate detailed history of who ingested what chemical how many times.
History of actions ie proving who ingested what.
Evidence-*driven* research.
Narrative-driven research (social drama narrative of suppression; boundary-drawing between the good guys vs the bad guys; “Isn’t it terrible how the Institutional Church suppressed visionary plants?” Picked up well by Mosur.).
Narrow focus on Ergot
Narrow focus on Eleusis
Morally grandstand against the big bad Church, institutional.
Inferior methods (which are merely avoidance strategies).
Beginner-level slight experience.
Dividing line defining separate “suppressed users groups” vs “mainstream orthodox tradition”.
Forbidden constructs/words:
cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in
mainstream, normal, tradition
The Article Weighs LSA/Ergot as a Candidate
It would be good to quote the article where it assesses the merit of effects of ergot/ LSA and whether those effects match kykeon and Eucharist.
The article, in effect, debates whether ergot (possibly LSA) is as effective as Psilocybin.
Hofmann claimed LSA gave him a Psilocybin-type experience, but Wasson & Ruck claimed that Hofmann’s LSA batch only caused them lethargy.
Wasson also wrote eg to McKenna that Amanita failed to deliver Psilocybin effects; Wasson practically concluded that the effects in history that he tried to assign to Amanita actually should be assigned to Psilocybin.
The Wasson/ Ruck hypothesis was disconfirmed by Wasson, that Amanita effects are like Psilocybin effects.
In 2025 (Kevin Feeny book – who we spoke with in church book club; the “Effects” chapter), Amanita is now classed as a deliriant, not as a psychedelic.
Like Ruck correctly argued in the 2001 article “Daturas for the Virgin”, Datura (note: not Psilocybin!) is a suitable substitute for Amanita.
That is an ironic failure of Ruck:
Given that Ruck is correct that Amanita and Datura give the same effect, this means — against Ruck — Amanita and Psilocybin do NOT give same effect.
The ironic correctness of Ruck’s argument that “Datura can substitute for Amanita” proves that Amanita fails to give Psilocybin effects. Amanita cannot substitute for Psilocybin, against the Wasson/ Ruck hypothesis from perhaps 1952-1977.
Wasson’s 1977 letter to McKenna, disconfirming Amanita effects as psychedelic and suitable in strength and type of effect and reliability; see section in idea development page 30: The “Secret Amanita” Paradigm Has Collapsed; It Is Now Past-Tense Seen in Retrospect from within 2nd-Generation Entheogen Scholarship (the “Explicit Psilocybin” Paradigm) https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/06/11/idea-development-page-30/#Secret-Amanita-Paradigm-Has-Collapsed
In practical usage based on Wasson and Ruck’s experiments:
Amanita is not as potent as Psilocybin.
Amanita is not as reliable as Psilocybin, in practical usage.
Amanita is not as psychedelic as Psilocybin; it’s a deliriant.
Max/Mod/Min Theory
Maximal entheogen theory of religion – Hoffman, 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
Moderate entheogen theory of religion – Ruck; 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
Minimal entheogen theory of religion – MICA Deniers; Mosurinjohn; Letcher; Huggins; Hatsis re: mushrooms
The Minimalist diminishers of enth in relig history aim against the Moderate Asserters. Likewise Egodeath theory aims against Moderate Asserters – a better critique angle.
Deniers frame debate as, who is right: either:
Asserters of Secret Ergot
Deniers of Secret Ergot
Superior critique of 1st Gen enth scholarship (Pop Myth) focuses on asserting Explicit Psil. The Moderates/ Deniers do not argue against the good, Explicit Psil theory; they ONLY argue against poor, week, Secret Ergot theory put forth by Ruck/ Mura.
Hit Counts:
ergot 24x
Psilocybin 3x
mush 6x
Eleus 63x
paradigm 4x
secre – 10x
suppress – 5x
Mosur mostly conflates:
The critique of specific theory of Elesuis & ergot hypothesis (1st-gen entheogen scholarship Affirmers).
The entire entheogen hypothesis (as put forth by 1st-generation entheogen scholarship, but ought to include 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship).
“the entheogenic paradigm”
“the empiricist paradigm” = many non-drug methods can/could/might/may “change consciousness”.
The flaw with all academic scholars, they all strive to emphasize that many methods can give altered consciousness, without any threshold requirements.
Instead, set the requirement as high as possible, instead of as low as possible!
To Wouter Hanegraaff and all Minimal or Moderate academic scholars who posture and strike an affected stance to try to be perceived as diminishing Psilocybin, any change of consciousness is the same as 12 grams of dried Cubensis for ten sessions.
There is no consideration of degree and ultimate result (other than nebulous “improved character in daily life”). Ergonomic degree is omitted in order to lower (ie diminish & belittle) Psilocybin and raise (elevate) non-drug methods fully up to the level of Psilocybin.
Like saying this toy plastic car is like a real car.
To Michael Hoffman/ 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship, altered consciousness only counts if it produces the ultimate altered-state effect: mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
What counts is not un-qualified “change of consciousness”. What matters is specific ability — strong powerful tendency — to change mental model: mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Does religious myth come from cave meditation? Does myth describe experiences from breath-meditation?
Myth describes sacred meal causing mental model transformation.
Given:
Ruck 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
There are two different positions/critiques, not just one:
* the Egodeath theory
* MICA Deniers who push diminish Psilocybin, ie push “many non-drug methods can produce a change of consciousness”, who push entheogens in Americas but not in Europe history;
Mosur pulls same posturing as Huggins: make many statements, all with a TONE or framing of, “so, no enth entheogens”. “Furthermore, 1+2=3! [so, no entheogens, in Eur history] eg: “MICA Affirmers are motivated to look for evidence that psychedelics should be legalized b/c of historical evidence!”
It is true that Affirmers have a motivation to find entheogens in Euro history to end Psilocybin Prohibition.
This is NOT a mark against the merit of the Affirmers’ historical theorizing.
Might as well accuse Mosur of a conflict of interest:
“WE CANNOT TRUST ANYTHING MOSUR ASSERTS, B/C SHE HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN PERSUADING EDITORS AND AUDIENCE!”
That is a fallacy, which in Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024)
I called it “argument from sheer quantity of arguments”, from sheer making of statements:
“I am making many statements and observations about this topic. … So, no mushrooms.”
Sprinkle decorative words: “Further, another reason Affirmers is wrong is, they are motivated by trying to persuade lawmakers. So, no mushrooms.”
Deniers make many statements that could contribute to enth research – but, we must transform/ reframe those “destructive-intended” statements, to become constructive contributions.
Need better pseudo-history & theory, not make the Suppression Hypothesis the central foundation focus explanatory premise.
My work against Suppression is negative theorizing; mere ground-clearing.
My theory itself does not employ or focus on Suppression (ie per 1st Gen enth schol).
I pay NO attention to constructs/ concepts/ explanatory constructs, “mainstream vs. suppressed”; “Group A lacks The Amanita” & “Group B has The Amanita” & “here is the boundary barrier dividing the two groups”.
Unlike them, 2nd Gen enth schol does NOT take it as a given that “we are expected to explain who suppressed whom re: The Secret Kykeon”.
Ruck feels that everyone expects him to explain “How did Big Bad Church suppress the heretical enth?”
But I do not believe such an explanation is demanded by anyone.
Ruck thinks “You are all demanding from me an explanation of how Suppression; here’s my theory of that.”
I do NOT think anyone is demanding of me an explanation of who suppressed whom, of how The Secret Ergot Kykeon / The Secret Amanita Cult was suppressed.
The latter is the motivating purpose for 1st Gen Enth Scholarship and is the central explnatory construct and concern. Not how the mind works; not Repeal; not real actual psychedelics (Psil); just crybaby moralizing grandstanding to smear and bellyache against Inst’l Religion (eg John Lash refuses to allow Jesus / Moses to have Psil, because they are harmful figures put forth by Inst’l Religion.)
Tail wags dog.
Addendum Not in Email, re: Mosurinjohn/ Deniers
The above sections, from my 1st reading of the article, I emailed to Cyberdisciple. That email didn’t include the following notes.
Mosurinjohn and Deniers are biased / prejudiced and ignorant.
McPriest and company stupidly treat Allegro/ Ruck/ Muraresku as if that = the theory; but, Ruck is merely 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.
You get worthless Denier scholarship (1st-gen entheogen scholarship Deniers) dismissing poor, 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.
1st-gen entheogen scholarship Denier scholarship is unproductive like the MythVision YouTube channel; negative mythicism: it can only reject a poor previous, literal theory.
Bad Theory 1
Debunking of Bad Theory 1.
Good Theory 2
Literalist Christianity.
Negative Mythicism. Debunks Literalist Christianity without replacing it with truth and comprehension.
Positive Mythicism. Here’s the deep meaning and referent of Christianity, or of religion prior to 1687 Newton/modern era.
(hypothetical) Debunkers of the mature, 2025 Egodeath theory. Doesn’t count, b/c Hatsis didn’t know ANYTHING about my position: Hatsis’ reply to me, “You guys [me & Brown] aren’t allowed to switch from Amanita to Psilocybin, because you come from Allegro [false! projection!], and so you’d be a hypocrite. And, the shape of the Liberty Cap is anachronistic.”
No amount of debunking of Bad Theory 1 can ever produce Good Theory 2. — nor constitute a debunking or rebuttal of Good Theory 2.
Bad Deniers’ writings are — at most — debunking/ engaging Bad Theory 1. They are entirely far from debunking/ engaging Good Theory 2.
Mosur = debunker of Bad Theory 1, so Mosur’s scholarship is lame in the same way as poor treatments by the Deniers Panofsky, Letcher, Hatsis, & Huggins.
Eggs alike: similarly lame and clueless and having no prospect of ever getting it right:
Deniers: Panofsky, Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins, Mosurinjohn. Join the club of Dead-End scholarship.
2nd-Gen Affirmers Must Divorce 1st-Gen Deniers
email to Cyberdisciple July 28, 2025
Need an official divorce between Deniers/ committed skeptics (of mushroom imagery in Christian art; of the entheogen theory of religion especially Greco Roman Christian).
Affirmers should not let Deniers direct the research and arg’n.
Affirmers are most productive setting their own direction for arg’n.
However, when someone tells me to ignore idiot naysayers, I continue to rebut and engage naysayers, which is somewhat profitable, and is successful.
Motivation for this Page
This content is copied from my Idea Development page 30, which is too long and is unstable on phone. Need to provide URL to colleagues, for a stable page.
It’s kind of justified to call it the 2006/2007 main article.
Calling it 2006 is defensible, so is calling it 2007.
Were I to submit the article to a publisher, certainly the 2006 article — as presented as 1 webpage — is badly lacking the Intro (summary), and has long nested sentences; the actual proper article is Sep 2007.
Probably confirmable at Egodeath Yahoo Group archive & Internet archive of Egodeath.com.
All parts of the article were written by Sep. 2006, but the layout had two issues:
* The article didn’t include yet the Intro section. There was a Summary written in Egodeath.com home page where I linked to the article, similar to present home page.
* Nested sentences.
By Sep 2007, I fixed the layout.
* Copied or moved the Summary section from homepage inline in the article as the Intro section. See photo (or Archive.org) of page 1, was missing Intro!
* Fixed nested sentences to produce short sentences. To record read-aloud.
image: 2006 draft of main article missing Intro(!)
The article is/was a webpage exported from Microsoft Word; the other version hand-coded in “mobile“, streamlined page – not sure the timing there – streamlined HTML tagging, not Word-generated bloated HTML format equivalent of .doc format: filthy-rich text format.
First mention of ‘eternalism’
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.
The word Determinism is baked into the image provided by the Egodeath community – 4 puzzle pieces.
The 4-puzzle-piece diagram from the Egodeath community shows the THE RELATIONAL NOT UNITIVE VERSION OF perenn/ essen/ univ’m, maybe even “of religionism” but not Eranos religionism given that Eranos – by default – is Unitive, not Relational.
Relational: think f177 row 1 panel 2 of Great Canterbury Psalter: balance right foot, furrowed brow VULNERABLE TO CONTROL-THOUGHT COERCION, held up by right hand by God’s right hand, foot perilously connected – winnowing basket – to the chute to the stand on left foot rams in the hellmouth furnace THAT IS WHAT THE BALANCING GUY IS AFRAID OF.
I have an IQ Boost the past few days (no reason) but need to eat & exercise instead.
Strategy: Fully Decode [Day 3 + Tree of knowledge] comic book panels as a unit – Maximum payoff
Made significant progress grokking yesterday folio f11 Great Canterbury Psalter
The two arms of a mushroom-trees are DEFINITELY FRUIT! Fruit = payoff comprehension; Transcendent Knowledge. Enlightenment about branching = fruit. especially: LEFT fruit AND RIGHT fruit. *two* fruit; L & R, held by Eve & Adam in tree of knowledge panel.
That folio (webpage url f11) is the pictures everyone saw since James Arthur Mushrooms & Mankind cover fro, Paul Lindgren(???) MYSTERY MAN in 2000.
* FAMOUS PIC OF DAY 3 4 MUSHROOM TREES:
Ronald Huggins bets the farm on this particular picture, so Day 3 picture/ comic book panel warrants yesterday’s attention.
NEW STRATEGY focus: Connect [Day 3 + tree of knowledge] panels as a single unit.
Ultra-analyze [Day 3 + tree of knowledge] which are the two mushroom-trees images that everyone has been displaying on front cover of 3 books.
Unitive vs. Relational version of perennialism, 4-puzzle-piece diagram, essentialism, universalism per Myth/Art & Christian mysticism
* The “Unity” version of “perenn. universalism essentialism”. Certainly Wouter Hanegraaff rebuts THIS version.
* The “Relational” version of “perenn. universalism essentialism”. Hanegraaff’s critique of “religionism” etc “Eranos religionism; peren; essentialism” does not apply to this version.
Greek myth, art, Christian mysticism confirms Relational mysticism.
Decoded: f107 = f177: Demon at hellmouth/ossuary = left-foot rams in furnace; Held from falling (control seizure) by God/ right hand
image: balancing guy – found equivalent other foliio image: “lifted from ossuary by Christ directed by God” with demon threatening him at hellmouth.
I have not even written one of those above points yet:
* RAMS IN HELLMOUTH FURNACE = threat = chute connecting = FURROW FEAR BROW.
* DEMON as threat / vulnerability (f107?
IN THE OTHER PICTURE! This gold ore vein will pay out more 9:33 a.m. August 23, 2025
Takeaway: every time I think of Balancing Guy f177, think of f107(?) equivalent. I recently in a page show both together.
which is ordered by date. I added a direct link to it in my side nav bar
So now that page contains TWO articles about McPriest:
Psychedelic Priest Deposed by the Episcopal Church (Welker, Aug. 8, 2025)
Episcopal Church removes priest who founded Christian psychedelic society (K. Post, Aug. 20, 2025)
McCarthy & Priest Refuse to Consider scholarship on the entheogen theory of religion when Proposing to add “for the first time ever” Psiloc into Christianity
I dislike the article by McCarthy & Priest that considers “for the first time EVAR”, adding Psilo. to Christianity – as if the mixed-wine Eucharist wasn’t that, from day 1.
Reviewer Brad Stoddard foolishly calls the psilo|ergot in Christianity theory “Allegro’s” as if Allegro 1970 had any signif. relevance in 2024:
In “Psychedelic Christianity” the authors seek to forge a connection between psychedelics and Christianity. To their credit, they avoid the wildly speculative and inherently sensationalistic theories about allegedly ancient connections between psychedelics and Christianity (see Allegro, 1970; Muraresku, 2020).
Allegro is a bad choice to represent the entheogen theory of Christianity.
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970) is entirely outdated and superseded. It serves as nothing but dead-weight baggage. The less we use Allegro, the better.
The book is a red herring, an albatross, and serves as a distraction to obstruct constructive scholarship.
The All-Dominant Model of “mysticism” is totally outdated and bunk – Covert Neo-Advaita
Erik Davis (Apr. 2020):
Within clinical discourse, healing is tied to the capacity of psychedelics to trigger unitive experiences whose “mystical” character is vouchsafed by scholarship that is over half a century old.
2020-1960 = 60 years out of date.
Yet Studerus (11-Factors questionnaire (which serves as a corruption of not-too-bad OAV 1994) calls Stace “the scientific literature”
(aka warmed-over, bogus neo-Advaita propaganda recycled from 1893): “a state similar to mystical experiences as described in the scientific literature on the psychology of religion”
On the sandy foundation of Stace’s bogus model of “mysticism”,
is built the mighty falling fortress of psychedelic [pseudo] science.
“Mystical experience correlates with healing” — except, PROBLEM:
it ain’t mystical experience that all writers are writing about and debating about; it’s covert neo-Advaita instead.
So the entire debate (within psyched science) is corrupt right from the foundation.
Two Overlapping Distinct Topics Covered at My “Moving Past Mysticism – Debate” page: Model of Mysticism; Misconduct of “Psychedelic Science”
My “Moving Past Mysticism – Debate” page [why is this Kitchens fellow splattered all throughout??
] covers two overlapping debate-topics/ developments in the field:
It’s two overlapping topics because of how Psyched. Science metrics (questionnaires) are based DIRECTLY on the BOGUS model of “mysticism”:
“mysticism” as mis-conceived in psychedelic pseudo science (& in all writings). Exposes of Stace “mysticism” (covert neo-Advaita) by:
Taves (May 2020)
Breau (Nov 2023)
“Psyched. Science” whistleblower exposes:
Joe Welker (Aug ’23, May/Jun/Aug ’25),
Travis Kitchens (Sep ’22, Feb ’23, Jan-Apr ’25),
Brendan Borrell (Mar. 2024).
“Mystical” = Covert Neo-Advaita = Bogus; Should Be Control-Centered, not the Self/Other Boundary “Unity” confabulation everyone parrots
Every time every writer writes “mystical”, they mean not mystical, but rather, they all mis-conceive as “mystical”, the Vivek./James/Stace notion of “lift the self/other boundary” = “unity” = “mystical experience”.
Me & Stang: “No, Grifty Group, you left out the negative, challenging, risk half of mystical experience.“
Grifty group: “its ok, thats on purpose; to compensate for our lie, we fabricated the (positive-balanced) negative-focused Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ).”
This is why everyone is baffled & surprised by the control instability that they hit at high doses, forcing a surprised “surrender”.
This surprising negative ultra-drama is the “gate” and “shadow dragon monster”; the threatening experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control.
The angel messenger’s holy terror threatening control-“death”.
The actual model of “mystical experience” is control-transformation, from monolithic, autonomous control (unstable on psilo.) (egoic) to 2-level, dependent control; the art analogy: {stand on right foot, held up by God by right hand}:
2-Level, Dependent Control: Balancing on Right Foot, Held Up by Mystery-God
I didn’t want {rock ossuary} + {lifted up dead} + {stable tower} in that crop here — but, discovered that the below folio images matches the above set of elements:
Example 2 of Eadwine art (Great Canterbury Psalter) depicting 2-level control
One instance is a fluke; two is a pattern.
Jesus Lifting from Ossuary by God’s Hand
Crop by Michael Hoffman 12:53 a.m. August 21, 2025
In an ossuary, ego-dead (panic attack seizure/ loss of control) guy lifted by Christ by right hand.
+ God’s right hand from cloud, [9:15 p.m. August 20, 2025] directing Christ the king who’s lifting guy from rock grave.
— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com
/ end of Kitchens
Email 1 to Cyb & Max, Aug. 19, 2025
Strategically welding 1st-gen Secret Amanita paradigm w/ Allegro’s 1970 book
It is strikingly cringeworthy (& thus strategic) where I say that 1st-gen entheogen scholarship = Allegro’s book specifically, in 1970.
To have stable, viable control on psilocybin, switch from branching to non-branching. Don’t rely on branching-possibility (open future) thinking with autonomous personal control. Instead, rely on non-branching thinking (with a pre-existing, closed future) and 2-level, dependent control.
This interpretation uses the 2nd-generation, explicit psilocybin paradigm in entheogen scholarship (based on Samorini’s “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art, 1998). That replaces the 1st-generation, secret Amanita paradigm (based on Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, 1970). This interpretation also uses my control- and eternalism-centered theory of ego transcendence (at Principia Cybernetica in 1997), and my theory of myth and art motifs as analogies describing advanced psilocybin experiencing (at Egodeath.com in 2007).
from my POV, it’s a huge insult to say 1st-gen entheogen scholarship = Allegro’s specific book Sacred Mushroom & The Cross – but from Ruck’s POV, he loves Sacred Mushroom & The Cross.
Ruck really does carry forward and build on Allegro. Wasson doesn’t fit well here b/c he abruptly prevents Christianity from having The Mushroom (kiddie Amanita).
It is thought-provoking, it’s horrible to even mention Allegro in my short article, as THE source of bad 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
but true and powerful to say that.
That’s like saying:
“This Pop Sike Cult theory that gets 99% of attention by “scholars” and pop audience/ pop webpage articles, is this POS trash, Sacred Mushroom & The Cross, in 1970, specifically.”
ie: if you don’t embrace 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm), then you are sticking with the bad outmoded/discredited default, being a cheerleader specifically for Allegro’s 1970 book.
Pick a side: pick one: EITHER we defend Sacred Mushroom & The Cross paradigm, OR, move forward by rejecting that and embracing Samorini 1998.
The Ruck group inconsistently carried Samo’s paradigm forward in the two 2001 Entheos articles: “Conjuring Eden”, “Daturas for the Virgin” – both mainly by Ruck (the author in common) – though Ruck drags in first “suppressed heretical groups” and then “only a few elites”.
todo: where exactly does Ruck try to restrict (Irvin’s wording in The Holy Mushroom 2008) The Mushroom to:
* suppressed groups
* a few elites
That’s a key important question, given that the bad McPriest article in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies 2024 oversimplifies Ruck’s position – they CLAIM that Muraresku says that Ruck says that:
* The institutional church elided psychedelics.
If you ask anyone the vague question “Did the institutional church get rid of psychedelics”, everyone will say “Yes, of course, that’s a given, not in dispute.” But the claim is vague, like language is too sloppy and squirrelly.
Ruck does NOT SIMPLY say church got rid of psychedelics. His story is more sketchy and contradtory. HERETICS or ELITES (he waffles w/o acknolweding waffling) continued using The Mushroom.
Contrast the sentence / claim by McPriest:
* The institutional church elided psychedelics.
vs. by Ruck in “Conjuring Eden” which directly contradict that seemingly uncontroverted claim:
* “Returning from the holy land, crusaders REPEATEDLY RE-INTRODUCED The Mushroom into Christianity, AND brazenly displayed it in THEIR places of worship.”
Those two quotes cannot both be true! Depending on what “elided” (removed, omitted) means. Language is too damn vague! Cannot eval the truth claim of McPriest. It’s a truthy-sounding claim, but is WAY too vague to capture Ruck’s inconsistent narrative that heretics DID continue the mushroom, — OR, inconsistently — that 2-3 elite priests DID continue the mushroom.
And Ruck delivers a garbage-truck full of pictures to prove that Christianity DID CONTINUE – in some way – the mushroom. So what the hell is it supposed to mean, when McPriest claims that Muraresku claims that “The institutional church elided psychedelics”?!
Journal of Psychedelic Studies – article & Replies article:
Some work investigating the relation of psychedelic drugs to Christianity specifically is also available. Especially influential in this regard is Brian Muraresku’s defense and development of Carl Ruck’s hypothesis that a psychedelic brew was decisive in the Eleusinian mysteries and spawned, as Muraresku puts it, a psychedelic, “paleo-Christian” “religion with no name” elided by the later institutional Christianity (2021).
What does “later” mean? 325 AD? 1600 AD? Language is too damn vague.
What EXACTLY does “elided” mean, given Ruck’s dump truck full of evidence that heretics “repeatedly re-introduced” — or, contradicting himself, that 2-3 elites secretly had The Mushroom?
or had, when the uber-psychedelic Amanita not available, a closely similar replacement, Datura/scopolamine (in “Daturas for the Virgin”).
That article by Ruck does NOT say, like Heinrich in Strange Fruit, that when the actual, real, good mushroom — Amanita was not avail, unfort. they had to substitute mere Psilo. instead – followed by Hein. arguing: “Psilo is potent, proving it could stand-in for the good, real type of mushroom, Amanita.
The snarky quote “Allegro’s been debunked = the entheogen theory of religion”:
Commentary by Brad Stoddard: Allegro’s Been Debunked
In “Psychedelic Christianity” the authors seek to forge a connection between psychedelics and Christianity. To their credit, they avoid the wildly speculative and inherently sensationalistic theories about allegedly ancient connections between psychedelics and Christianity (see Allegro, 1970; Muraresku, 2020).
Stoddard paints a picture:
1. Allegro’s 1970 book.
2. Ruck (eg 1976-2002) carries Allegro forward. But Ruck is not smeared/listed, here! Why not? BECAUSE PPL ARE TREATING as if DISMISSING OF T.I.K. = DEBUNKING of RUCK.
3. Muraresku 2020 carries Ruck forward.
For lazy, opportunistic Denier/scholars, such as Mosurinjohn, Muraresku has become the “easy-mode debunking” of Ruck; of the entheogen theory of Christianity.
Irvin 2008 retorts: which places of worship, Plaincourault chapel? That was official Catholic!
I retort to Ruck: “the heretics’ places of worship — you mean the Canterbury Chapel”?!! what non-sense.
alas, even Samorini spreads / perpetuates the bad, Secrecy Suppressed framing, when he writes in 1997, “certain Christian groups”. The word ‘groups’ confabulates a barrier wall between “those who have” vs. lack, The Mushroom.
My welding-together 1st-gen entheogen scholarship = the Secret Amanita paradigm = specifally Sacred Mushroom & The Cross 1970 Allegro, lumps much of Ruck group’s work into the Allegro garbage can, deservedly:
Ruck in a YouTube video etc says he was super impressed w/ Sacred Mushroom & The Cross – it figures.
Ruck carries forward Allegro, straight up! Gladly! Ruck really embraces Allegro. Wasson (lying about his belief) pretends to deny mushrooms in Christianity; they are only pre- the writing of Genesis. So Wasson doesn’t quite fit – maybe he pushes “secret suppressed”.
Hatsis, like Letcher, directly hammers SPECIFICALLY on mocking Secret Suppressed – that is the Achilles’ heel (gratuitous Greek ref. for Cyb) — of 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
Scopolamine, cannabis, opium actually can re-trigger peak experience
Someone in church on Sunday strongly advocated the world’s best Amanita guide’s (David), an Amanita opportunity.
Hatsis’ new book strongly proposes it was basically a mix of like:
scopolamine and cannabis and opium, as eg mixed wine,
A mind-blowing psychedelic can set a path in the mind, which — several colleagues report (consensus) — was then triggered by simply cannabis, after those traces/ruts had been set.
Cannabis actually can take mind into the classic ultimate peak headspace, cybernetic panic attack. And, Psilocybin can be flaky and not always deliver the control-transformation.
* Psilocybin isn’t perfectly reliable for the ultimate transformation.
* scopolamine/amanita and/or cannabis are not always a failure, and they sometimes deliver the classic transformation. Matter of degree.
Email 2 to Cyb & Max, Aug. 19, 2025
Samorini writes “certain Christian groups”, to confabulate the imaginary barrier wall that 1st-gen entheogen scholars construct in order to prevent Christendom at large from having their taboo magic Mushroom, to prop up their fabricated narrative of Oppression.
“It is one thing to allege that * in the archaic Hebraic myth of the Garden of Eden the forbidden fruit was doubtless originally understood to be an entheogenic mushroom
(and that is something indeed!), but quite another to state that
* the painter of the twelfth -century [11th] Plaincourault fresco deliberately intended to represent an entheogenic mushroom as the forbidden fruit.
“The first statement in no ways implies the second, while the second entails taking responsibility for initiating a series of new investigations on the relationship certain Christian groups in the Middle Ages may have had with entheogens.
“Most likely Wasson ‘s decision to make no further comment on the Plaincourault fresco was influenced by the criticism directed from many sides to the book published by Allegro in 1970.
“Allegro ‘s sensational thesis, going so far as to deny the historical existence of Jesus and seeing Him as merely a symbol of the fly agaric, dealt a serious blow to the new science of the ethnomycology of entheogenic mushrooms, inasmuch as it was roundly criticized by many academic researchers.”
/ end of Samorini 1997
Plaincourault fresco is 1184, not 1291
I get the Scholarly Detective award:
Error in pdf: endnote 4 is only indicated in Italian left col:
“E’ importante notare che sia la Commenda che la cappella – anch ‘essa del XII secolo4 – furono erette dai Cavalieri dell’Ordine di Malta,”
equiv english:
“It is important to note that both the Commende and the chapel – also from theXII century – were built by the Knights of the Order of Malta coming back from the Crusades. [Ruck 2001: “heretics cults/ groups/ sects crusaders repeatedly reintroduced The Mushroom into THEIR places of worship [eg Canterbury Cathedral?! as well as Catholic official Pl. chapel]
Endnotes in Samorini 1997:
“4) and not of the 1291 A. D. as reported by Wasson; a document demonstrates its existence since at least 1184 A.D., cf. Berry, 1976:63 . The frescoes might have been made immediately after the completion of the chapel, towards the end of the XII century. 5) For a discussion of the myth of Temptation of the biblical Genesis, cf. Samorini , 1996b.” <– todo
Email 3 to Cyb & Max, Aug. 19, 2025
url? for Samorini’s discussion of myth of tree of knowledge aka original sin / fall of man / temptation of Genesis:
SAMORIN”I G., 1996a, “New frontiers of ethnomycology “, paper presented at the Congress Entheobotany , 18-20 October 1996, San Francisco , California.
SAMORINI G., 1996b, Ierobotanica mesopotamica, A/trove, 4: 13-28 . — why would this be the article discussing tree of knowledge / “temptation”? Italian? English?
/ end of Aug 19 2025 emails
Conversation with Alan Houot (Rise of the Psychonaut, 2025)
idea of a possible podcast
2022 article Dr. Brown re-sent me today at Graham Hancock site.
The Transcendent Knowledge Podcast guest Kafei was profoundly confused about the basic 4-D block universe eternalism nature of the Egodeath theory.
I was baffled: how is it even possible for him to totally misunderstand the Egodeath theory as asserting domino-chain causality, when everywhere, I always emphasize rejecting that conception of ‘determinism’ in favor of Minkowski’s 4-D block universe.
I got the psychedelic state + Control Systems course + block-universe “ground of being” idea from my 1988 university Electrical Engineering program, Physics dept. Modern Physics course, where I got the all-time highest grade on the Relativity exam.
Against Pop dominance of Quantum Physics, against everyone’s Pop “Quantum Mysticism” theory (branching manyworlds), in 1988 I showed the historically earlier, road-not-taken branch in the spirit of occult mysticism of 1875-1925: 4D Spacetime Mysticism (= non-branching, as I posted about branching vs. non-branching in Physics (not yet in myth & art) in June 2001).
Kafei’s Initial Total Misunderstanding of the Egodeath theory
On the Transcendent Knowledge podcast, the guest Kafei attempted to merely search Egodeath.com for his expected key word “the Absolute“, which still means nothing to me.
Even Alan’s (under-analyzed, omitted from book) word ‘surrenderism‘ is closer to my conceptual vocabulary than “the Absolute”(??).
Kafei assumed that since I employed term ‘determinism‘, I must – like everyone’s definition of that term — mean domino-chain (aka “clockwork”), cross-time causality with an open future (“open”, in that the future doesn’t exist but will have an inevitable eventual state).
Literally the day after I finalized the main article Sep. 2007, I discovered the term ‘eternalism‘, and I should have replaced ‘determinism’ by that closed-future term.
Eternalism = control, not only time
Issue w/ the term ‘eternalism’: it’s treated as if a theory of time, without considering explicitly the huge ramifications for personal control.
So I have to go out of my way to tack-on an emphasis on control, onto ‘eternalism’, even though one writer, Kyle Bromhall, Gets It:
Wm James’ actual objection to “determinism” is actually an objection to eternalism, as I instantly perceived upon reading the first half-page of Jame’s “The Dilemma of Determinism” article.
Psychedelic eternalism’s “ramifications” for control? Rather, non-ramification, ie., non-branching of control-possibilities.
The opposite of eternalism is possibilism, per the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, not presentism
Issue w/ the term ‘eternalism’: Everyone claims that the opposite of eternalism is presentism.
In the field of Ontology/ Epistemology, perhaps that opposition is valid; but per field of personal control and Phenomenology,
* The ordinary state = possibilism experiencing. The possibilism state of consciousness; experiential state. * The altered state = eternalism | presentism experiencing. The eternalism state of consciousness; experiential state.
— Cybermonk
My Book Review of Psychedelic Injustice: How Identity Politics Poisons the Psychedelic Renaissance (Hatsis, June 2025)
My Religious Upbringing: Brands of Religion: Jewish, Occult, Christian, New Age, Human Potential, Transpersonal Psychology
I had a Jewish childhood upbringing by my mother, as well as (all the way through university) occult; Restorationist Christianity; New Age; & Human Potential.
My religious upbringing included:
Jewish
Occult
Christian
New Age
Human Potential, Transpersonal Psychology
Literalism vs. Analogical
New Testament interpretation:
according to the flesh
according to the spirit
literalist ordinary-state possibilism
analogical psychedelic eternalism
Those on the outside / exoteric
Those on the inside / esoteric
Vid below:
material
metaphorical
How to fit this contrast:
superstitious – kind of like analogical, but done wrong, with literalism built in.
atheist
28:00 “‘Exile’ was originally not a material descriptor in Jewish tradition, but more a metaphorical one.”
32:00 – “Zionists rely heavily on this biblical superstitious talking point, but ignore the fact that many of the pioneers of political Zionism were secular or atheists.”
Video: Destroying EVERY Zionist Talking Point (overzealots, Aug. 16, 2025)
Seems to pack a lot of education on key relevant points into an efficient summary.
Literalist, Magical-Thinking Christianity Is to Blame, and Christians Have the Power to Stop Their Misguided Support
Ultimately, God is to blame for everything that happens, per hyper-Calvinism or psychedelic eternalism.
The good news: The Christians are the problem and the cause of bad events.
It is in the power of Christians to stop pushing magical “rapture” in order to cause 2nd coming of Christ who will then get rid of all who don’t convert – in this magic puerile story.
The bad people pushing current events are Christians, gullible “Boomers” (who uncritically believe media & preachers) who got suckered by Scofield.
Christians caused the problem, and so Christians need to reject literalism and “Bible prophecy” fabrication, magical thinking.
“Bible Prophecy” = Idolatry = Literalism = Literal Death
Literalism Literally Kills
This is NOT to imply that a literal interp. of the sacrifice of Isaac says what liars claim that it says; this is false and unbiblical:
“The Bible commands us to bless Israel.”
The good news: The Christians are the problem and the cause of badness; the bad people pushing Zioism are Christians, gullible “boomers” who got suckered by Scofield. Christians caused the problem, and so Christians need to reject literalism and “Bible propphecy” fabrication, magical thinking.
— Bull sh!t. Citation needed!
The claim fails whether literal or analogy interp; according to the flesh or spirit, it is a lie by any measure.
Blessed are those who bless true Israel, cursed are those who curse true Israel
per my Dec. 2, 2013 lecture:
{Israel} = those who are destined to have mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
{Israel} = those who are destined to have mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism
{Israel} = all who are destined to know psychedelic eternalism
Those who are analogous to the fictional Abraham virtually sacrificing fictional Isaac and fictional ram caught in a thicket.
gen 22 curiously is vague about “because you have done this thing and not withheld your son, I will bless you, Abraham.” Is God saying that Abraham is blessed BECAUSE HE SACRIFICED THE RAM?
Is Abraham (and we who are isomorphic with Abraham’s action) blessed BECAUSE of the ram’s blood?
Gen 22 does NOT say because you sacrificed the ram, you are blessed.
Are we saved and purified by the blood of Abraham’s lamb? Lots of discussion is raised by the Gen 22 story.
How much scholarly exegesis have I read about the sacrifice of Isaac? None.
“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
Blessed are those who curse fake Israel, cursed are those who bless fake Israel, and God is to blame for everything that happens
unwieldy verbose:
Blessed are those who curse fake Israel, cursed are those who bless fake Israel, and God is ultimately to blame for everything that happens, including all of one’s own near-future control-thoughts
Blessed are those who curse fake Israel, cursed are those who bless fake Israel; and God is to blame for everything that happens, including all of one’s own near-future control-thoughts.
Blessed are those who curse fake “Israel”; cursed are those who bless fake “Israel”.
Blessed are those who curse Isntreal, cursed are those who bless Isntreal.
Blessed are those who curse fake Israel, cursed are those who bless fake Israel.
Just b/c I name my dog “Israel” does not mean the Bible commands you to bless my dog and send trillions of dollars to make my dog the evil, violent dictator of the world.
Video: Christian Zionism EXPOSED (part 3: the money behind it) (Melone, Aug. 17, 2025)
Video title: Christian Zionism EXPOSED (part 3: the money behind it) Channel: Kayse Melone Aug 17, 2025 Series: The Kayse Melone Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIo0AdCMMSs —
“Let’s talk about how Christian Zionism is funded to the scale of billions of dollars on behalf of everyday people in the United States.
“Every Sunday, millions of families in this country make their way to their local church – and the majority of those churches stand behind the settler occupation of the state of Israel.
“No matter the cost.
“The money behind the powerful and harmful ideology of Christian Zionism is one of the most corrupt and immoral facets of today’s world.
“As the third part of my series on Christian Zionism, this segment might be the most important.”
Chapters: 00:00 Intro 00:45 The Basics of Christian Zionism 07:12 Billionaires Who Back Christian Zionism 11:38 The Organizational “Middlemen” 16:19 Televangelists Who Fuel the Christian Zionist Movement 20:36 How Christian Zionism Is Political 32:24 Conclusion: The Violence of Christian[ity?]
When Blaming or Advising People, Remember: God Is to Blame for Everything that Happens, per Hyper- Hypercalvinism
re: any critques of anyone/ anything, keep in mind Transcendent Knowledge POV:
The word ‘God’ refers to the creator (thus controller) of the 4-D block universe, including all one’s future control-thoughts.
God (the creator thus controller of the 4-D block universe) is to blame for everything that happens, as experienced in the psychotomimetic state of psychedelic eternalism.
See great dualism book w/ orange & black cover, below: Russell, Satan: Early Christian Trad’n; shorter: Russell: Satan; Russell’s book “Satan”. TOO HARD TO TYPE. MUST HAVE FULL TITLE.
Memorizing title: Satan by Russell. the book Satan, by Russell, 1987. the book Satan, by Russell, 1987.
That new final-draft, submission-ready article is comparable to the draft of Branching-message mushroom trees, but more condensed.
It’s essentially a 2-page or 6-page condensed equivalent — or a test-grader’s solution-key summary — of my over-long, overwhelming article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, on Branching-message mushroom trees.
“Branching-message mushroom trees” article for Journal of Psychedelic Studies
The article’s wrong concept: “Let’s maybe add psychedelics to Christianity for the first time ever.”
It’s actually a matter of re-introducing psilo mixed wine eucharist into Christianity, not innovating – but that thought is outside the author’s tiny thought-world.
Badiner’s ZZZ book is unreadable to me for same reason, in meditation context, everyone shares same fallacy. I can’t stand reading ZZZ, even though my orig printing is worth big $.
Journal of Psychedelic Studies is pretty open-ended in content & style.
Where did I fulminate against the 2024 McPriest article in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies?
I guess my critique is scattered in my Idea Development pages.
Winkelman & Brown wrote to McPriest in the Replies article: Dammit, pay attention to the scholarship on ancient Christian psychedelics!
Reaction from McPriest & co, other than crickets: “<snicker> didn’t you know, Allegro’s been debunked.”
Facepalm. AS IF Allegro 1970 has any relevance for entheogen scholarship 2025; thus, my creation of the framing: 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Allegro = discredited, outmoded, 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm), only useful as “Don’t do this.”
But this does NOT mean “no psychedelics history in Europe/ Christianity”, it only means Allegro’s particular theory is retrograde and bad and
— per the whole purpose of my 60-page Wasson 2006 article: Put to rest Allegro and move past him, for once and for all, finally.
In 2006, when big-brain Robert Price collossally, embarrassingly botched everything about Allegro, I said:
Stop making Allegro into a barrier & obstacle to entheogen scholarship.
Reconciled Acharya & Price, New Edition of Christ Con
My excellent Wasson article written at Price’s request is the reason Acharya S thanked me and so reconciled w/ Price, he now has republished her work post-mortem on her behalf:
The Christ Con Acharya S D. M. Murdock Nov. 2024 amaz url todo: could upload my livestream photos of her
https://www.sacredgarden.life – A big-deal, leading-edge multi-plant, New Religious Movements church w/ scholars from Harvard’s Charles Stang group joining this church, to study them like bugs under a magnifying glass.
Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong”, 2024
Per Ronald Huggins’ challenge that wonderfully plays right into my area of expertise: Huggins’ article proposes to focus the debate about mushroom imagery in Christian art around the Great Canterbury Psalter.
Huggins parrots Panofsky’s censored “but there’s branching; so, Plaincourault fresco is not a mushroom” argument from 1952.
Huggins fails to acknowledge that the Browns, in Journal of Psychedelic Studies 2019, are the first ever to expose the full pair of letters from Panofsky to Wasson.
I finally found a mentality/angle to bring the new mini-article together, today:
“No word-count is available; only 1 PowerPoint slide, plus 5 art pictures from Great Canterbury Psalter.”
Outcome: 2 pages of text (+ about 3 pages for 5 pictures).
Insane neo-Advaita “you don’t exist, nothing exists”, etc.
I like the resulting new article – and it’s a very mature, balanced statement, w/ recent careful adjustments ie do not demonize or destroy egoic thinking like dysfunctional insane neo-Advaita “you don’t exist, nothing exists”, etc.
“Do not do anything to your child” – angel of God to Abraham.
In no way do these two pages, any more, imply: transcendent thinking = Good & egoic thinking = Evil/Bad.
Life Ends at Any Moment, so Figure Out Transcendent Knowledge NOW
Ever since my father died prematurely when I was starting this theorizing in 1987, I doubt I have years more to live – that’s why I’ve been driven to figure out grandest Transcendent Knowledge immediately, since 1986.
That urgency was successful:
Figuring out Transcendent Knowledge/ ego transcendence per the clear-thinking STEM standards in University dept. of Electrical Engineering took from:
Oct. 26, 1985
Jan. 11, 1988
The 2006 Wasson Plaincourault Fresco Article
not the one by Samorini 1997.
I did the article design, writing, conception, drafting.
Late in that well-underway writing project, Irvin contributed research including from Allegro estate.
The excellent 2006 article about Wasson, Allegro, & tree of knowledge as Amanita, for Robert Price’s Journal of Higher Criticism.
I read-aloud the article on Egodeath Mystery Show podcast, it is really great and contains highly valuable quotes and content:
Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita Michael Hoffman, 2006 Journal of Higher Criticism (Robert Price) http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
Notes About My Recent Posts
Post: Psychedelic Injustice: How Identity Politics Poisons the Psychedelic Renaissance (Hatsis, 2025)
A pretty readable book, after I got past a hurdle b/c he rebuts left rhetoric while employing left rhetoric — people don’t leave a former position/worldview as much as they think they did.
World’s worst page re: mushroom imagery in Christian art. Shredded in detail by me.
Hatsis fails to credit Jan Irvin’s recent book God’s Flesh exposing savagery mayhem foisted as “wise spiritual Indigenous use of psychedelics”.
Please tell me about your wise spiritual Psil history of use, after you stop [violent unspeakable shocking practices]
With my draft article today, I’m pretty much casting off entirely any taking-seriously of narrative around allegedly Indigenous better than Europe for psilocybin entheogen history, “Westerners must grovellingly ask permission from self-appointed neo-“shaman”, since I read 3 exposes by Jan Irvin and Thomas Hatsis:
1. Jan Irvin’s 2015 article series The Secret History of Magic Mushrooms. Demonizes Psilo being pushed (silent about his pet Amanita that he in 2008 privileges over Psilo.)
2. Jan Irvin – God’s Flesh: Teonanacátl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom. 2022. Demonizes Psilo being pushed. Silent about his pet Amanita and whether he’s still competing w/ Thomas Hatsis to be the #1 fanboi of Allegro.
3. Thomas Hatsis – Psychedelic Injustice, 2025: debunking narrative of Indigenous wise Psiloc spiritual history of use.
Now my skeptical guard is all the way up and the pushers of Indigenous have lost me; ie their claims do not get an automatic pass and credulity.
I now incline to think the opposite of what ppl are pushing; reactionary. Pushin’ Too Hard.
Post: Esotericism in Western Culture: Counter-Normativity and Rejected Knowledge (Hanegraaff 2025)
Deluxe copy: found my 1994 zine photos at Archive!
My first publishing of the Egodeath theory, in famous zine Fringe Ware Review, so now I can accurately cite it with certainty, in article for Journal of Psychedelic Studies, instead of botching my own citation like Robert Graves did in 1970 re: 1957 What Food the Centaurs Ate – the first article saying psilocybin in Greek religion.
Zine article 3 years before my 1997 core theory summary spec that’s at Principia Cybernetica, legacy site with pseudonym Mark Hofmann.
Post: Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Mosurinjohn & Ascough, 2025)
Good call to have a special interest in this, suddenly is alarmingly topical for current events, blessing of Abram “according to the spirit, not flesh”
Post: f11 Great Canterbury Psalter: 6 Days of Creation, Eden
Fav page, list of articles. Top recomm. Hot topics.
Taves’ expose: Everyone is using a wrong notion of “mystical experience” as if nondual unity oneness, but that’s merely covert neo-Advaita, not the true focus of actual mystical experience. Same as my assessment.
Likewise, Breau re: where did Stace’ 1960 terrible, false, wrong model of “mysticism” come from?
Ans: 1893 modern covert Advaita of one little school among many, pretending to be the nature of all mystical experience.
Every writer is completely wrong about the nature of mysticism, its central topic focus is actually control transformation, not nondual unity oneness w/, suspension of the self/other boundary like every author wrongly writes.
— Michael Hoffman, theorist of ego death Egodeath.com Egodeaththeory.wordpress.com The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence; the theory of psychedelic eternalism. Developed since 1985.
/ end of email Aug. 17, 2025
New Flagship Summary Article: Recognizing Mushroom Imagery in Medieval Art (Hoffman, Aug. 2025)
Status: Moved from rough draft to Final Draft, ready for submitting to the editor of the 1st annual church reader.
In that draft article, today I was inspired to find a mentality to achieve convergence instead of uncontrolled expansive explosion like is still the case with the longer equivalent of that article:
I still have not reached or found the convergence mentality for my draft article for Journal of Psychedelic Studies:
tonight August 17, 2025 I made some progress in decoding {earth mounds} in Great Canterbury Psalter.
Soil dung in which Psilocybin mushrooms grow. Flat in front of f134 oxen, mounds behind them; f177 horses: behind a horse is mounds, and under all 3 trees is mounts.
Noticed {visually cut left arm} in f109
I don’t think I noticed or wrote before. It’s possible I did, though.
I can’t be CERTAIN that I never in any way mentioned this theme or this image instance before: grid in grain.
This contrast instance is likely new: contrasting plain lamb vs. grid-grain, = non-branching vs. branching (IY).
[6:24 p.m. August 17, 2025] f11 row 4 Right: – Cain vs. Abel: the grain offering (rejected) has a grid (= branching), vs. lamb (accepted) with no grid (= non-branching).
Per Hatsis, no sacred mushroom conspiracy, but full-fledged entheogen history including Psilocybin, in Europe
copied section to new page
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
copied section to new page
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)
copied section to new page
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)
copied section to new page
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
copied section to new page
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
copied section to new page
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
copied section to new page
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”
copied section to new page
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
copied section to new page
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
copied section to new page
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.
/ end of first, main, newer group of sections copied to PsyInj page
Perennialism, Primitivism, and European Influence in Psychedelic and Ayahuasca Religions (Green, 2017)
As of this week, Hunt Priest has been removed from ministry by the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, a district in The Episcopal Church.
Priest was a public participant in the Johns Hopkins/NYU psilocybin clergy study, recently profiled in The New Yorker, and founded the non-profit Ligare, “a Christian psychedelic society.”
the offenses are “Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,” and “Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy”
Priest is “deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority of ministry conferred upon him by ordination.”
this [official church] notice is the culmination of concerns that began over three years ago when I was interning for Ligare, when I became concerned that Priest and Ligare’s conduct was jeopardizing the health and safety of members of the public.
an unethical psychedelic study that experimented on human beings for a non-scientific spiritual mission with drugs that make one open to suggestion and undue influence, even well after the drug’s effects have subsided.
The Hopkins/NYU study was found by Johns Hopkins’ Institutional Review Board (IRB) to have multiple counts of “serious non-compliance” with federal regulations.
The IRB concluded that these ethical breaches “significantly compromised the integrity of the Organization’s human research protection program” and “significantly compromised the rights and welfare of the participants.”
As it pertains to this case, an undisclosed donor acting as a researcher then funded Priest with seed money to start Ligare.
[compare foreign lobby bribery that has removed any national sovereignty, producing an occupied government]
Thus, the issues here extend beyond just one case of clergy misconduct.
This is a result of years of enabling behavior from the psychedelic movement, including by Hopkins researchers and other psychedelic leaders prioritizing their spiritual movement over public safety.
For years, members of the public have been put at risk of significant harm with psychedelic drug use by clergy who have no clinical backgrounds to justify promotion of the use of any drug, even if such drugs were legal, much less drugs with poorly understood long-term safety profiles.
Curious laypeople and naive Christian leaders have continued to turn to Ligare with the false impression they could learn about psychedelic drugs from trustworthy religious leaders, who have subsequently sought to monetize their interest.
“accountability that will prevent harm to the vulnerable.”
[vulnerability is a peak psychedelic experience]
Psychedelic Christianity: From evangelical hippies and Roman Catholic intellectuals in the sixties to clergy in a Johns Hopkins clinical trial (McCarthy & Priest, 2024)
Their POS article in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies 2024 is so ignorant, it treats psychedelics as if a new innovation
same as my hatred for Zig Zag Zen book by Allan Badiner – i CAN’T STAND how every writer takes it for granted that we propose introducing Psilocybin for the first time ever in meditation.
The history is the opposite: meditation came from Psilocybin and must bow down in honor of Psilocybin, not “Is fake Psilocybin effective at pretending to hold a candle to the real thing, non-drug meditation?”
That question is the book ZZZ – a lie from cover to cover.
McPriest article is the same.
Now Hunt Priest is fallen, and fails to cover the real risk/ threat/ vulnerability resulting from psychedelics.
A whitewashed, “positive-balanced” model of “mystical experience”; Stace 1960.
A whitewashed, “positive-balanced” Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ).
What’s the common element?
🤔 🤷♂️ 🤑💰💵 🤥👖🔥
Hatsis – Valuable Excerpts from Hatsis’ Psychedelic Injustice
Hatsis – 1650 Knew of Maddening Psilocybin vs. Sleepy Amanita
Hatsis in 2020 announced his forthcoming 2022 book The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy that would disprove mushrooms in Euro history.
But Hatsis’ 2025 book Psychedelic Injusticeasserts (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
This turtle Hatsis, AT THIS RATE, BY 2050, HATSIS WILL CONCEDE HE WAS FULL OF SH!T AND I’M RIGHT.
Hatsis – ALL YOUR ENTHEOGEN ARE BELONG TO US.
— self-appointed SJW/ P.C./ CRT / Critical Social Justice fabricators invading the field of entheogen scholarship, falsely claiming (at the extreme of the spectrum) that Indigenous own all entheogen history and Europe has no entheogen history, and so Westerners must beg and scrape asking permission to use “their” entheogens.
Few dare take their lie that far, but the spectrum points that direction and I’ve been reading and hearing that insinuation; noises in that direction.
Journals increasingly packed with P.C. articles driven not by entheogen scholarship but driven instead by “destroy civilization” projects that abuse the topic of entheogen scholarship toward alien ends.
Because the goal of Hatsis’ new book is to push back against greedy Indigenous narrative and defends rich entheogen Euro Western history, that makes him make good on his former CLAIM “I wish there were mushrooms in Euro history (but there are none, and no evidence).”
No wonder Hatsis killed his set of Denier articles against entheogens in Euro history — a collection of junk arg’n along with a gallery of a hundred mushroom images that contradict his enclosing articles.
Hatsis, who at YouTube announces his cancelled / forthcoming book that PROVES that [ultra-broad:] there was no mushroom use in Europe history, or proves [ultra-narrow:] that 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.
ie, extremely broad theory, conflated with extremely narrow/specific theory.
Hatsis – The motte-and bailey fallacy
[/doctrine] Defined in 2005 by Philosopher Nicholas Shackel. Popularized in 2014.
Slip-n-slide between asserting the two positions, until no one, including the bad writer, has any idea exactly what is being asserted and denied.
I proved that 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..
Therefore I have proved that there was no mushroom use in Europe history.
Letcher’s chain defending against the critical book reviews of Shroom by me & Irvin:
Therefore I have proved that there is no way to prove that in Europe history there was deliberate use of psychoactive mushrooms in order to have a [peak] religious experience.
I added “peak”, to up the challenge from Letcher.
I proved the latter (a 5-part proof, relative to Letcher’s 4-part claim) in Nov. 2020, via Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, image crop uploaded to web in 2008 by John Lash, glanced by me perhaps 2010, re-found by me Nov. 2020 at the end of writing the article for Jerry Brown about compelling evidence & criteria of proof for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art. https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/06/11/idea-development-page-30/#the-4-part-letcher-argument
In practice, the bad arguer does reverse of that:
I wish I could assert [broad, sweeping position].
But I can only defend [narrow, specific position].
I wish I could assert that there was no mushroom use in Europe history.
But I can only defend that there was no secret & suppressed Christian Amanita cult that originated in the Ural mountains and then spread from there around the world, and is the origin of all religions.
What Letcher 2006 pretends to prove:
Shroom proves there was no psychoactive mushroom use in Europe history.
… by proving there was no secret & suppressed Christian Amanita cult that originated in the Ural mountains and then spread from there around the world, and is the origin of all religions.
Wasson asserted the latter, to John Lash’s chagrin, but without the ‘Christian’ part.
Each entheogen scholar (Affirmer) makes different squirrely moves, so I can only generalize their collective movs and the moves of the various would-be debunkers (Deniers) of that 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.
Wasson – Promoted to a Calm, Routine, Established Given: Wasson Was an Academic Fraud and Obstructionist
Wasson the self-contradictory inconsistent fraud makes it hard to tell a clear story about the bunk move by 1st-gen entheogen scholarship, because he strongly asserts Amanita until writing Genesis and then he suddenly jarringly halts and violently denies any later mushroom use within Christendom era.
While granting himself the peace prize, nobel prize, and credit for anything ever, did you know Wasson was the first person ever to think of connecting Amanita & tree of knowledge?
Lash – Lash’s Perverse Framing of All Entheogen Scholarship as “The Wasson Thesis”; “Wasson’s Theory”
Let’s call all Physics discoveries and article titles in the 20th Century as “The Newton thesis.” Quantum computing article? Title it: The Newton thesis of Quantum Computing”.
That nonsense framing is what frothing fanboi Lash does with Wasson.
Per Lash, the title of all entheogen articles should be: “The Wasson Thesis and [2025 topic]“.
John Lash loves to point out that any idea anyone ever has about entheogens, comes from Wasson and is The Wasson Theory.
The entire field of entheogen scholarship, from when Wasson created the field, into any future of the field, was thought of by Wasson and is Wasson’s theory / “the Wasson thesis”.
Yet I posted .mp3 of Lash admitting Wasson is an agent and not to be trusted. But latest edition of Lash book Not In His Image continues Lash’s insane Wasson-centric framing, with errors & false endnotes that are required to support that wrong framing of the field.
Make a false attribution in body of book (“Wasson thought of everything in the field”), cite an endnote, then the endnote fails to support the body’s claim (over-attribution of credit to Wasson). eg Letcher p 35 endnote 31 Stamets/Gartz.
It figures, that Lash’s bogus grotesque over-attribution to Wasson, then Wasson is found to be an academic fraud after Brown 2019 then my analysis of SOMA p. 180 censoring Panofsky’s two letters, duplicitous,
saying entheogen scholarship wrong to not consult art experts,
while deleting and censoring art expert Brinckmann’s shoddy/ thin/ old/ irrelevant book that does not prove what Panofsky strongly claims that it proves.
We have the book in German, entheogen scholars are starting to assess whether the book shows what Panofsky claims it shows – no evidence, so far.
Huggins – Productive Branching Answer vs. Unproductive “Development from pine to mushroom” per Panofsky’s Use of Brinckmann
The better, relevant, productive tactic is to answer Panofsky’s main ultimate objection as a Denier: explain branches in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
Ronald Huggins parrots Panofsky’s branches arg, doesn’t really add anything though. just sheer assertion: mushroom-trees have mushroom elements and tree elements, therefore it must be a tree, not a mushroom.
I say: “therefore it must be a mushroom, not a tree.” By the same bunk token.
the false dilemma fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma Huggins pretends to present the two possible options to pick from: “Here are criteria to decide if it is a tree or it is a mushroom.”
“If the image has any tree elements, it is a tree, and the mushroom elements are to be ignored.”
I retort:
“If the image has any mushroom elements, it is a mushroom, and the tree elements are to be ignored.”
Totally invalid arg’n either way, obviously.
Sheer prejudice; can you reveal your baseless prejudice and bias any more clearly?
The message that’s depicted is neither simply a tree nor simply a mushroom, but rather, two mental world models, branching possibilism vs non-branching eternalism, including the concomitant models of the personal control system in branching or non-branching world.
Huggins – Ronald Huggins’ Awful Arg’n
Huggins ignores Wasson’s academic fraud & censorship, like nothing happened.
Huggins fails to credit Browns or helpfully cite them, only points to stupid drawer at Harvard – smells like a dirty move, typical of Deniers.
Lash – John Lash the Insane Fanboi of Wasson the Academic Fraud & Obstructionist
Thank God Lash is unique in this insanity; no other entheogen scholar does this grotesque framing and over-attribution. When I flush 1st-gen entheogen scholarship down the toilet, so goes Lash’s framing as part of it. Lash tried to frame 3 generations of entheogen scholarship: Wasson, Leary, McKenna?
As if electricity physics discoveries in 2025 = Maxwell’s theory.
Lash – Three Eras of Entheogen Scholarship, per John Lash – Doesn’t Say the Top 3 Writers in Era 2 & 3
Lash – The Dying Web: Joanna Harcourt-Smith, Futureprimitive.org, Doc’y “My Psychedelic Love Story”
“Since 2006, Future Primitive has been hosting intimate conversations with authors, visionaries and innovators who speak about our connection and partnership with the Living Earth.”
and the global rise in awareness about our interconnections with all things and Gaia.”
“Future Primitive was Joanna’s legacy and proud offering to the world of all she was continuously learning throughout her life.
“She loved you all and deeply appreciated your support these many years.
“It was my honor and joy to be a part of it with her and with all of you. The show archives will remain for now as we all find our way after her passing.
Showtime Film: “My Psychedelic Love Story” You can also celebrate Joanna’s life by watching the documentary about her by renowned filmmaker Errol Morris, “My Psychedelic Love Story”. The film was released on November 29th, 2020.”
Podcast 5: February 18th, 2008 The Revolution and Evolution of Love The fifth and final in a series talks on Entheogens and the Planetary Shift. The fifth talk deals with The Revolution and Evolution of Love.
Podcast 4: January 21st, 2008 Entheogens and the Planetary Shift The fourth in a series of five talks with John Lash on Entheogens and the Planetary Shift. The fourth talk deals with the Planetary Shift – Society or the Species. gnosticism, mysticism, shamanism
Podcast 3: missing from this Archive page, requires more digging at Archive
Podcast 2:
January 2nd, 2008 The Psychonautic Adventure – Three Generations of Discovery The second in a series of five talks with John Lash on Entheogens and the Planetary Shift. The second talk deals with the psychonautic adventure. [circular vagueness, thx]
Podcast 1: December 29th, 2007 Rapture and Revolution- first of five talks The first in the series of five talks with John Lash on Entheogens and the Planetary Shift. The first talk deals with the Wasson thesis and the religious view of nature.
Lash – Every Discovery in Electromagnetism Is Maxwell’s 1861 Discovery
Analagous to Lash strenuously going out of his way to frame every aspect of entheogen scholarship as “The Wasson Thesis”.
This intense degree of explicit extra spin effort: Lash acts like someone is PAYING him to grant all credit to Wasson.
No one else does this, because Lash has to exert great effort to actively fabricate this ludicrous, arbitrary and bizarre obsession with over-crediting Wasson and going out of his way to go grab & insert Wasson into every conversation 50 years later.
What you discovered in 2025 about electrical physics = Maxwell’s 1861 discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Good job congrats on discovering Maxwell’s theory! (re: different, later discoveries in the field).
Wasson – Wasson’s Bragging List of Grand Achievements Is Self-Contradictory & Incoherent What He’s Claiming
Wasson disproved French mycologists in 1910 who asserted that Amanita = tree of knowledge in Plaincourault fresco.
In 1952 Wasson was the first one EVAR to think of Amanita = tree of knowledge.
1910 French claimed Amanita = tree of knowledge in Plaincourault fresco.
But Wasson showed they were blundering ignoramuses who failed to consult art historian Albert Brinckmann 1906.
Wasson is such a liar, he can’t even put forth coherent bragging of what he discovered and disproved.
His set of claims doesn’t make sense, is incoherent, like kettle logic.
I’m the first one ever to think of X, in 1952.
I also disproved the 1910 claim that X in Plaincourault fresco.
Both of those bragging claims can’t be true! They contradict each other.
In 2025 I have taken to matter-of-fcc fact calmly referring to Wasson as an academic fraud and obstructionist.
I am no longer upset at Wasson; it’s simply an established, given fact, that Wasson was an agent, fraud, liar, dirty, corrupt, banker for Pope, put-on, play-actor, con artist, paid shill, bad-faith pretender, and PHONY.
web: “The motte and bailey fallacy is a rhetorical tactic where someone presents a controversial claim (the “bailey”) and then, when challenged, retreats to a more defensible, often vague or ambiguous, position (the “motte”). This allows them to appear to have won the argument by defending the simpler position while subtly maintaining the original, more contentious claim”
motte = undesirable cold tower: easy to defend, but not desirable to prove; merely incidental. you reluctantly retreat to defening this position you have no interest in.
bailey = lush, spread-out, relaxing open garden, that you WISH to prove. your motivation is to assert this position.
Hatsis – Slow Hatsis Took 16 Years to Finally Consider Whether Psilocybin in Europe History
2025-2009 = 16 years
When did Hatsis first fight with Irvin? ~2009
Hatsis (eg 2020) screws up his thinking by absolutely equating “the magic mushroom” with Amanita exclusively – with, amazingly, zero awareness or consideration of Psilocybin in Europe – an unthinkable thought, to him, then, until very recently like 2024, it appears, as we trace the slowest-moving scholarly progress in the world.
How many years before Hatsis finally gets a clue and busts out of his tiny Allegro-fanboi mental prison and catches up to 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship (Samorini 1998), instead of remaining perpetually stuck in 1970 listening to an endless 8-track tape loop?
Irvin – I Was Awakened by Jan Irvin in 2015 that Pop Sike Cult = Astroturf Op
August 19, 2025
That eventually developed into my recoiling against Indig propaganda.
Indigenous, Timeline, Irvin – When Did I Recoil Against ‘Indigenous’ Propaganda? 2024? Years Timeline
August 19, 2025
It is hard to check gut feeling “when did I recoil” without some review of timeline.
My gut feeling is like… over 2024-2025, like in 2024, I came to reject the Indig prop-op.
Jan Irvin article series 2015 – doubter mentality, expose of fake psychedelics Pop Cult astroturfed op. How much focus on Indig?
Around Jun 2025 when ordered Hatsis book, I already was starting to push back against Indigenous dogma/narrative.
Quotes, Thought Leader – Being a leader means being right before everybody else
Being a leader means being right before everybody else.
Nick, Aug. 19, 2025
Hatsis – Quotes of the Extreme Position: “No Entheogens in Europe History; Entheogens Were Known Only in Indigenous”
p. 88, Thomas Hatsis, Psychedelic Injustice, opening of ch 5: History of W Trad’n:
“Jealous of their lacking cultural contributions in recreational drugs, whites culturally appropriated one.” — from a webpage article ” Psychedelic privilege”, condensed
Indigenous advocacy sometimes wants to go too far and tell the simple story:
Western = bad, and lacks entheogen history of use.
Indigenous = good, and owns entheogen history of use.
Therefore, allegedly:
Westerners must grovel and crawl on their knees begging permission from any self-proclaimed representative of Indigenous, “May we please use YOUR religious sacrament, because we suck and lack any history of entheogens?
The extreme reaction to that is:
F!ck you, Indigenous can go to Hell, we are DONE paying ANY attention to Indigenous.
Triggering that extreme Western reaction against extreme Indigenous entheogens advocacy, does not help Indigenous.
The logical result is to do scholarship that pointedly (actively) ignores — or, passively is inattentive to — Indigenous, and only focuses exclusively on Western entheogen scholarship into Western history of entheogen use.
Suggests creating Indigenous-free entheogen scholarship websites, books, and articles, a body of research, maybe like Hatsis’ books Witches Ointment & Psychedelic Mystery Traditions, that entirely ignore and do not draw from Indigenous.
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) did not have a hostile divide between scholarship in Western history vs. Indigenous history of entheogen use.
“Entheogen use” has two parts:
The presence/ availabilty of DMT & Psilocybin plants in that region.
The religious use of those plants.
Letcher’s posting against my 2007 book reivew at his site, contributes that distinction.
Letcher there argues that even if we could prove that mushroom imagery in Christian art depicts psychoactive-type mushroom, it is impossible to prove that that depicts deliberate religious intension of using that mushroom.
Unclear, b/c I was on hiatus in 2008 to Sep 2011, same period that Lash uploaded Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter.
Letcher, Irvin – Scope of “Panofsky was Debunked” in 2006 vs. 2019
In Irvin’s review of Letcher’s book Shroom immed after my review: April
Where Irvin wrote that Letcher is “unaware that Panofsky was also debunked”, Irvin only means the portion of one of the two Panofsky letters that the academic fraud/ obstructionist Wasson revealed in SOMA 1968.
In 2007, scholars only had Wasson’s p. 180 SOMA censored single letter from Panofsky, and didn’t even know of Panofsky’s 2nd letter to Wasson, which contains more argumentation points.
After Brown revealed / expose of both letters in 2019, I debunked all of Panofsky’s arguments in both of his letters.
Title of the review: Nice attempt at a juxtaposed position – but already disproved Probably by Jan Irvin Apr 07, 2007 [6 days after my review]
By Whomever
“Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom by Andy Letcher, 2006
“Shroom is an interesting theory against the “mushroom theory of religion.”
Letcher brings together many new insights and material previously overlooked by many researching the field of entheobotany, and especially entheomycology.
This book is a must read and a welcome tome to any good library on this subject.
But there are many problems with Letcher’s thesis.
Firstly, he props up many of his arguments by ignoring most of the newer research, and especially archaeological iconography, that has come to light post Wasson/Allegro.
[Letcher debunks 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm), but ignores 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)]
His argument focuses heavily on Wasson, McKenna and Allegro.
[ie 1st-gen entheogen scholarship]
And in his case against Allegro, all but one of the items he presents as evidence are bogus rumors that have already been debunked by Judith Anne Brown, Michael Hoffman and I since 2005.
[after my 2006 Plaincourault article for Robert Price w/ Irvin’s add’l research input incorp’d -mh]
“He’s completely dismissive of the idea of mushrooms in Christianity but only by attacking the shallowest of evidence, such as the Plaincourault issue
[broad dismissal, after narrow debunking; compare Motte-and-Bailey fallacy -mh]
“(He’s unaware that Panofsky was also debunked),”
“while simultaneously ignoring enormous amounts of evidence contradictory to his theory, i.e. The Canterbury Psalter c.e. 1147, art from Abbey of Montecassino, circa 1072, amongst many others such as those published by Giorgio Samorini in Entheos Magazine.
“In fact, on page 173 in his supposed debunking of Clark Heinrich, instead of attacking Heinrich’s research directly, Letcher bases his dissent on a mushroom experience Heinrich speaks about in his book.
“Weak and lazy tactics like these may fool some, but it’s not going to fool anyone who has any serious amount of study in these areas.
He also misquotes Heinrich and states that Heinrich built his research into Christianity from Allegro.
However, on pg. 25 of Heinrich’s book, it clearly states that he used Wasson‘s research.
Letcher similarly avoids iconographic evidence in the same way toward mushrooms in Hinduism, completely ignoring carvings and statues that clearly depict the mushrooms.
See Hari Hari holding a mushroom, Rama and Hanuman Holding Mushrooms, etc., 700-800 C.E.
Letcher also missed the fact that most of the arguments today [2007] are for an entheogen theory, not just a specific[secret]mushroom cult theory of religion‘ per se.
[Irvin should say secret mushroom cult, spread from a single original specific cult, since Letcher’s argument ultimately rests on that tiny foundation, of attacking the “secret/ hidden/ suppressed” element.
Letcher erroneously focuses his research on debunking a single mushroom cult theory.
However, many of us in this field have long ago moved away from any such argument.
In fact, I don’t really know anyone who proposes such a singularly focused theory except for Allegro, and maybe Wasson – and both of their pioneering arguments are near four decades old.”
[2006-1970 = 36 years. Letcher in 2025 continues same position, so: 2025-1970 = 55 years; now near six decades old. As bad as, Erik Davis quips “vouchsafed”: condensed:
Principles of Writing: Demonstration of “Zero Net Gain” by Adding Filler Words that Detract by the Same Amount that They Clarify
I can make Erik Davis’ writing punch through more than him, by stripping out the low-value filler fluff words:
My superior, condensed version:
Within clinical discourse, healing is tied to the capacity of psychedelics to trigger unitive experiences whose “mystical” character is vouchsafed by scholarship that is over half a century old.
Proof: Every time I *think* of what Davis wrote, I certainly do NOT think of his puffed-up, noisy, passage; i literally THINK of the no-nonsense, above summary– no not a summary; above is his ACTUAL point.
What point Davis is making:
“Within clinical discourse, healing is tied to the capacity of psychedelics to trigger unitive experiences whose “mystical” character is vouchsafed by scholarship that is over half a century old.”
He should have put scare qujotes like Ann Taves does, around “unity”. Does the other good article do that, about neo-advaita = Stace?
What he writes instead, obscuring his meaning — inserting more and words for more clarity, totally backfires and prevents clarity:
“Within the official clinical discourse, at least in America, the key to individual healing is largely tied to the capacity of psychedelics to trigger transcendental unitive and ecstatic experiences whose “mystical” character is vouchsafed, it must be said, by scholarship that is over half a century old.”
Within the official clinical discourse, at least in America, the key to individual healing is largely tied to the capacity of psychedelics to trigger transcendental unitive and ecstatic experiences whose “mystical” character is vouchsafed, it must be said, by scholarship that is over half a century old.
Erik Davis, March 26, 2020, n: Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies (editor April DeConick), article “Gnostic Psychedelia”
John Lash, the #1 fanboi of Wasson, detested Wasson’s speficic narrow theory that all entheogen religion came from 1 cult in the Ural mountains and spread from there.
That’s the narrow, weakest possible theory, that Letcher attacks in his book and then Letcher conflates that with the overall broad maximal entheogen theory of religion.
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
is like this progression of scholarship:
A bad, narrow, initial theory: Amanita effects = Psilocybin effects, & all entheogen religion around the world originated from one specific secret Amanita cult in the Ural mountains.
A broad, later, general theory, eg all religion comes from various visionary plants, such as Psilocybin most typically, or Scopolamine/ Opium/ Cannabis.]
Irvin con’t:
“For those interested in more information on this specific area, read Michael Hoffman’s article on the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion – […]
[todo: find Irvin’s review at Amaz to see if link is there. interesting that Jan Irvin shows awareness of my broader theory, not only my work on Plaincourault fresco.]
“Letcher is certainly guilty of trying to make his evidence fit his argument, and throughout this book he blames other researchers for doing the same.
“I feel that he has likely painted himself into a corner with his words on pg. 78:
“The Western rediscovery of Mexican mushrooming practices began, ironically, with a vigorous scholarly denial that they had ever existed.”
[In Shroom, Letcher had to defend the defeat of deniers; his crowd initially claimed, scorched earth, “Liberty Cap existed in England before 1970.” Keep backpedalling, Letcher.
He wrote like “Ok, we were wrong, there WAS Liberty Cap in England history, but, moving the goalposts, motte & baily retreat:
In England history before 1970, no one used Liberty Cap to try to have religious experience. -mh]
Irvin con’t:
“He then goes into the story of William Safford:
“…American botanist William Safford (1859-1926), oblivious of such shenanigans so close to home, published a paper on the identity of the supposed teonanacatl of the Aztecs in which he stated emphatically that Sahagun and his native informants had been wrong.
They had mistakenly confused dried plant fragments for a fungus, and teonanacatl, revealed Safford, had been none other than the infamous peyote cactus […]. …
Safford reported that three centuries of investigation [had] failed to reveal an endemic fungus used as an intoxicant in Mexico’.
“He bolstered his argument by claiming that peyote `resembles a dried mushroom so remarkably that at first glance it will even deceive a trained mycologist’.
He was wrong on both accounts.”
Being that Letcher omitted so much of the archaeological evidence available to make his case, I couldn’t avoid the obvious comparison that much of Letcher’s theory will soon see a similar fate (if it hasn’t already).
His modern mushroom religion theory mirrors that of Safford.
Lastly, a contradictory and completely dangerous comparison is made in the book to something he admits is non-toxic, psilocybe mushrooms, to something very dangerous as sniffing glue:
“In Mice the LD50, that is the dose at which 50 per cent of the experimental subjects die, is 280 mg/kg of body weight, but a high dose in humans in only 0.5 mg/kg.
With such a low toxicity it has been estimated that you would have to eat your own body weight in mushrooms to take a lethal dose, and indeed the are no reported cases of fatalities from psilocybin mushrooms, though children may be more at risk of physical harm.”
Pg. 20-21
“… magic mushrooms were a convenient, illicit and exciting way of making life under Tory rule more tolerable, no better or worse than sniffing glue…”
Pg. 244
Despite the books obvious problems, overall, I say buy it, read it, study it – but don’t believe it.”
[I agree, Shroom is a must-read, for the nuggets of value that it contributes, same as Hatsis.
The Deniers are wrong, yet they contribute isolated nuggets of value.
Such is scholarship: Your book is wrong overall, but contains nuggets of value, to be reworked and transformed within in a correct framework, like my use of Ruck’s work as a building block for my theory AFTER I transform that scholarship.
I had enormous struggle over whether to keep my 4-star review of Letcher or demote to 3-star. -mh]
“4 out of 5 stars.”
Irvin con’t:
“Update for Feb. 2008:
“When I wrote this review last April, I was not aware of newer evidence that had already surfaced that disproves Letcher’s book.
Found in the Ukraine was a widely dispersed Christian document from Greece in which discusses the mushroom – thereby debunking Letcher’s book.
This leaves the remainder of this book as only valid for tidbits of research [typical of scholarship – mh] on mushrooms that Dr. Letcher has discovered.
The overall thesis of this book had already been debunked before it was written – as the original discovery of the mushroom in these ancient texts was published in the academic journals in 1994.
I therefore must lower my previous rating of 4 stars down to 3 stars.”
Other sentences are valuable too: (worth I webpage if I didn’t create one already):
“the parsimonious explanation is that we’re not looking at a secret, or suppressed Christian mushroom cult.”
SO TELLING! WHO IN THE F EVER SAID “SECRET” & “SUPPRESSED”?!
That’s why my overwhelming feeling during reading his book was puzzlement, WHO IS HE ARGUING AGAINST?!
strawman – or, specifically, Letcher’s book Shroom is a pretty good history and critique of 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) — except that fatally, Letcher utterly lacks any conception of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Shroom is trash because it only treats a SINGLE mushroom imagery in Christian art – happens to be provided by mis-attributed neutral mycologists Stamets & Gartz, who we can almost classify as 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship, yet Letcher falsely attributes to them a strong, definite 1st-gen entheogen scholarship position.
Why Neutral Stamets and Gartz Should Be Placed within 2nd-Gen Entheogen Scholarship Rather than within 1st-Gen Entheogen Scholarship
Letcher’s false endnote 31 on p. 35 at “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”, cites Stamets and Gartz vaguely.
But Stamets and Gartz have absolutely zero to say about secrecy/ suppression.
Given the biased historical scholarship context (the all-dominant Secrecy narrative of 1st-gen entheogen scholarship), Stamets and Gartz deserve to be placed (by their neutrality & silence) within 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship, rather than within 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.
Letcher’s “parsimonious” reasoning reveals the total, 100% extent to which his book is STRICTLY arguing against, specifically and narrowly, 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
Letcher’s entire book and posts & reasoning is entirely ignoring 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
“If any evidence turns up, I will be the first to admit I was wrong.”
OK, Letcher, it is time, since Nov. 2020, to admit that — like your guys’ backpeddaling on your previous denial that Liberty Cap grew in England before 1970 — it’s time to backpedal on your denial here.
My branching-message mushroom trees article needs to prove against Letcher’s train of reasoning, that we CAN prove everything he said impossible, and also, peak religious experiencing & mental model transformation indicated along with mushroom imagery.
p. 88 is an example of the potential extreme on a spectrum of positions, full denial of Western entheogen history and exclusive ownership of entheogens by Indigenous.
Not all advocates of Indigenous in Psychedelics take this potential available extreme position.
Advocacy of Indigenous sometimes over-venerates Indigenous at the expense of Western history.
Picture a European (or other non-Indigenous) phony poser proclaiming themselves to speak for Indigenous, though no Indigenous appointed that outsider to speak and pretend to be offended on their behalf.
I don’t have specific names of such Western posers pretending to speak on behalf of Indigenous, but the field is tending toward that narrative.
Email to Pastor B., Aug. 15, 2025
Need links to the church’s legal-type & religious theory docs, to print the docs to put them on the reading (markup) pile.
Currently reading
* Travis Kitchens, critical of the Psychedelic Renaissance[TM]. Whistleblowers in the field of psychedelic pseudo science.
* Hatsis’ new book on SJW/ PC/ CRT/ Critical Social Justice (CSJ) derailing the field:
Psychedelic Injustice: How Identity Politics Poisons the Psychedelic Renaissance
because I am pushing back against Indigenous (sometimes overemphasized — pushed too hard — as if a zero-sum game) in favor of European entheogen history.
We should not even try to look for entheogens in Europe history b/c we might miss the sound evidence that’s in Indigenous.
Archaeologists were so stupid, they washed out the vessels at Eleusis, so there is no evidence whatsoever for ergot in kykeon, so we should dismiss Muraresku & Ruck’s entheogen scholarship.
Other articles & books on such topics debunk lots of such narrative around Indigenous sacred use of plants – such as Green’s article.
MAPS et al embraced woke stuff, so Psy.’s invasion and attempted takeover & derailing (de-focusing) of the field is chickens coming home to roost.
Self-appointed, lying, would-be police, outsiders, who no one asked for, constructing false accusations, and wrecking the field out of attempted self-promotion.
Psy. were already so pegged as self-serving parasitical troublemakers, that they were on a No Admittance list at a conference.
I spoke with Martin Ball in 2007 and encouraged him to start a podcast.
MAPS et al embraced woke stuff. Hatsis’ book covers that.
In some ways, I barely follow the field. I incline to be isolated, not networked; and keep a disdainful distance from Pop Sike Cult.
I’m illiterate about MAPS goings on and Doblin.
I take credit for MAPS’ website: I have a post-it note from Cynthia at MAPS around 1994 thanking me for telling them about the Web and proposing starting a MAPS website; she said MAPS would look into the Web.
Ott vs. MAPS FDA Application
“Ott opposed the MAPS FDA application on pharmacological grounds. Interesting letter. It’s a complicated matter.”
I have not followed such developments; the For and Against.
My radical position: I advocate full Repeal of Psiloc. Prohibition; roll back all the laws, which are a bad, recent innovation.
We are better off with the harms that occur under the original liberty here, rather than any allegedly “helpful” regulation (which is guaranteed to become evil & more harmful).
The only policy we need is, stop the persecution and leave people alone.
Greco-Roman-Christendom didn’t prohibit Psilo. mixed wine, but honored it.
I don’t think I posted a book review at Amazon, but I could; I am able to to summarize the contributions and drawbacks (Pros/Cons) of Irvin’s book.
Irvin gives essential criticism of Ruck. And is a howler in the dirty moves Irvin makes re: conflating his pet Amanita with the subservient and disrespected (by Irvin) Psilocybin.
In 2015, Irvin outright demonized Psilocybin in articles, & in his God’s Flesh recent book – nary a peep about his pet Amanita though, or whether he still thinks Allegro is right about everything, and whether Irvin’s project is still to bolster and redeem Allegro, as emphatically stated in The Holy Mushroom.
Hatsis’ book criticizes Neşe Devenot (if I understand).
In recent psychedelics journals, I increasingly have to step over a clutter of P.C. advocacy articles. Books too. b/c off-topic.
I try to listen to their arguments a little, but reject the overall mentality – slightly legit, IMO, but I wouldn’t follow their direction.
Hatsis’ book is helpful here, to summarize such developments.
Political activists (of a certain type) try derailing; replacing the focus by their own, different focus, eg joining my good visionary-plants church in order to corrupt the agenda away from plants, to replace by their own, alien agenda that none of our church members agreed to.
Replacing our topic of visionary plant use, by their entirely different topic, a kind of general political-cultural activism.
That happened in my Presbyterian church, which switched from Jesus to Marx, and I left in disgust and anger, and so have a short fuse when anyone might try that in my visionary-plants church.
The pew was enraged by the lies, false accusations, and false statements about current events, by the lead pastor during sermons.
Our black pastor didn’t do that at all – he stayed with normal preaching.
And my university Christian student communities, like house church, didn’t take up that woke activism at all.
Interesting to hear about the paleoconservative “reconquista” movement to take back mainline churches.
I took photos of a bulldozed university church lot from a historical 1912 church, after its last days covered with huge woke banners.
I’m watching one by one, historical churches get demolitioned – and counting the days til my former lead pastor’s church falls to rubble.
My new pastor & legal team, per 501c3 regulations, are highly on guard against off-topic political activism replacing the purpose & focus of our visionary-plants church.
Will we see that discussed in trendy articles about psychedelic churches? ie a critique of the political-takeover risk if the church allows that takeover.
Falling Out between Hatsis & Bennett
Go to Hatsis’ book at Amazon, click the Read sample button, then Find Chris:
pp. 8-9 at end of Preface. Doesn’t say Bennett, but that’s obvious; my colleagues in the field.
Speaking of social drama, I meant to include another good example of a rewarding nugget (for me) in Hatsis’ book:
Hatsis discusses at length, our colleague in entheogen scholarship, Chris Bennett, who took the SJW/ CRT/ PC direction, and this increased the tension between Hatsis & Bennett to the breaking point.
— as you could’ve predicted based on their nasty voice of writing about each other’s entheogen scholarship, and their tension in the livestream.
I’m invested in that drama b/c I’ve met with Chris Bennett; and recently communicated.
A scholar must be completely critical, yet amicable too — too much to ask, evidently. In the stream, or later, Bennett wore an aggressive SJW/ CRT/ PC type of message-shirt, which I was not glad to see; an alarming sign – actively, intentionally divisive.
I attended the livestream where the panel was: Casey McFarlane, Chris Bennett, Dennis McKenna & Tom Hatsis.
Hatsis & Bennett agreed not to attack each other but to attack absent Dr. Jerry Brown instead, where they easily agreed with each other that Brown is dumb, stupid, ignorant, unread, etc. (no arg’n, just namecalling).
I have barely read enough of Hatsis’ book to gauge whether it is worthwhile, but that won’t stop me from pontificating below with a tone of great factuality.
The Beauty of the Primitive: Shamanism and the Western Imagination (Znamenski, 2007)
The Beauty of the Primitive: Shamanism and the Western Imagination
The Znamenski book does look like the best angle, even better than recent good book by Singh, Shamanism (had low expectations, but book has a critical balanced approach).
We are reading many sham. books in my church book club, and often the author joins.
The Beauty of the Primitive: Shamanism and Western Imagination Andrei Znamenski, 2007
“why and how Western intellectual and popular culture became so fascinated with the topic.
changing Western attitudes toward the primitive.
how shamanism entered Western humanities and social sciences,
become a powerful idiom used by nature and pagan communities to situate their spiritual quests and anti-modernity sentiments.
Western scholars, writers, explorers, and spiritual seekers with a variety of views on shamanism.
from Enlightenment and Romantic writers and Russian exile ethnographers to the anthropology of Franz Boas to Mircea Eliade and Carlos Castaneda
how the shamanism idiom was gradually transplanted from Siberia to the Native American scene and beyond.
the circumstances that prompted scholars and writers at first to marginalize shamanism as a mental disorder and then to recast it as high spiritual wisdom in the 1960s and the 1970s.
Linking the growing interest in shamanism to the rise of anti-modernism in Western culture and intellectual life
the role that anthropology, psychology, environmentalism, and Native Americana have played in the emergence of neo-shamanism
the sources that inspire Western neo-shamans and seeks to explain why lately [2007] many of these spiritual seekers have increasingly moved away from non-Western tradition to European folklore.
how scholars, writers, and spiritual seekers shape their writings and experiences to suit contemporary cultural, ideological, and spiritual needs.
interdisciplinary approach and engaging style
definitive account of this neglected strand of intellectual history.”
Hatsis’ Interview with Boghossian
I watched. I was glad to hear Hatsis generally push back against Critical Social Justice angle on psychedelcs, though he knows more about that development than I do.
I knew about the book before it was published and before the interview.
Hatsis is mediocre quality of entheogen scholarship, but OTOH there are so few people doing entheogen scholarship, beggars can’t be choosers and I was afraid he had left the field. 2022/2024,
But then Ronald Huggins hung out w/ Letcher & Hatsis, to keep making progress in mediocre scholarship denying the (maximal) entheogen theory of religion, by ignoring 99% of the evidence and committing every logical fallacy at once.
Our arguments are fallacious, but we’ll compensate by the sheer quantity of arguments, from bizarrely off-the-wall vectors, giving the willing audience of Deniers the feeling that something’s being debunked. “The scene in art has theology … … So, not mushrooms.”
I thought the interview “average, mildly interesting”.
I extracted Hatsis’ contradictory statements about “I have no fear of psychedelcs” and “I have fear of psychedelics”:
Hanegraaff Against the Holes in Our Remembered History of Ideas
Wouter Hanegraaff in 2012 “Entheogenic Esotericism” keynote/article/chapter, calls for more attention to these gaps in the narrative of 20th-C psychedelics history:
* Neo-Shamanism came from psychedelcs, covertly, misleading the historians.
* New Age came from psychedelcs, covertly, misleading the historians (Hanegraaff 1996 book on New Age, he says screwed up here, he regrets).
I point out the gap:
* Classic Rock (1964-1994) is about psychedelics experiencing, describing it by analogies in lyrics. The pop histories reduce this to eg the Dead, 1975-1988; no ears to hear.
There are so many gaps, blind spots, in recent psychedelics history. That remembered-history (memnohistory) gets reduced to nothing but two peaks of pop history:
* Leary/1960s, and
* Raves McKenna in 1990s, and that’s all.
* Now add the Psychedelc Renaissance, completing the elegant number 3, so we know we got it covered.
As if altered-state Classic Rock didn’t exist 1975-1988.
That’s like the over-selective historiography that Hanegraaff rails against so much.
Hanegraaff instead advocates “empirical” and “non-selective” coverage of ALL the history of ideas, not just of the “correct & approved & meriotorious” ideas while relegating the other, “weird” ideas to the wastebasket.
Hatsis Writes Against Psy., Though a Great Kitchens Article Is at that Site
One thing of value to me that Hatsis writes about:
Hatsis’ book rails against the “journalism”/ mud-slinging from Psy. group.
I saw a shockingly ignorant discussion among them, exposed themselves as outsiders w/ ulterior motives of troublemakers self-promoting; parasites on the field risking ruining it, like the Atheism community was destroyed by them eg by Richard Carrier bringing poisonous Atheism+.
The Psy. panel in a YouTube livestream had no idea of the 1950s history of using LSD in psychotherapy legally, which Hatsis appears to have doc’d in his previous book that’s about that.
Ignorant of 101 history, yet they elect themselves policemen to falsely accuse others, to promote themselves.
They ought to debunk and defame the field of psychedelic pseudo science correctly like us, as the good, constructive type of whistleblower / mud-slinger/ muckraker.
Now that I know the inside mess in Hopkins circle, around Matt Johnson — ppl disliked him, and he filed complaints — I don’t know how eager Johnson is to hear my devastating total debunking of garbage Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) – along with the fake yet universally held model of “mystical experience” that the CEQ (& MEQ, & HMS) is based on; covert neo-Advaita.
Consider how good & worthwhile a book is, in terms of % of good paragraphs, & how good the good paragraphs.
What % of Hatsis’ paragraphs are good, and how good are the good paragraphs?
A good para. from Hatsis:
p. 111 – condensed:
“Entering ASCs via substances goes back to Minoan, Greece, pagan Rome, fringe Jud’m, Christian Europe, & later in medieval witches/magicians, alchists, poets, and still w us today.
W Civ has a far richer psychedelc history than many conservatives [Right] & postcolonialists [Left] are ready to admit.”
Hatsis recently continued to deny ANY mushrooms (he is only thinking of Amanita, & tells me Psiloc is unthinkable) in Europe relig history.
But given Hatsis’ trajectory, along with the success of me & Brown finding evidence, I predict Hatsis will admit my 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Given Hatsis’ direction of trajectory: he is increasingly asserting cann/ opium/ scopolamine throughout Europe history, against eg the exaggerated alleged ownership of visionary plants by Indigenous/ Americas.
Around 2013, Hatsis debated (fought) closely w/ Irvin before Irvin converted to Irvin-Christianity, yet Hatsis fails to cite Irvin’s highly relevant debunking book new, God’s Flesh, which debunks “religious” use of psilo in Americas. After that, Hatis debated (fought) closely w/ Brown but tried to force Brown into narrow Allegro-defender like Irvin did.
Is Irvin still the #1 fanboi of Allegro? No one knows, since Irvin won’t write anything at all about his pet Amanita and whether it is bunk, like he says — at length — Psilo & Psilo scholarship is.
God’s Flesh (Irvin, 2022)
Hatsis’ book should not omit Irvin’s book, especially since Hatsis worked (fought) closely w/ Irvin.
Compared to Beauty of the Primitive, Irvin’s book God’s Flesh is a narrower debunking of narratives about mesoamericas religious history of Psilo.
If I understand your interests, I can recommend Irvin’s book that’s skeptical about Indigenous “religious” use of Psilo:
God’s Flesh: Teonanacátl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom
Strange Drugs make for Strange Bedfellows: Ernst Jünger, Albert Hofmann and the Politics of Psychedelics Alan Piper, 2015 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1514806053
Hatsis is good in pointing out, against pop thinking:
The Increasing Backlash Against the Over-Pushing of Indigenous in Psychedelic Science & Culture
This is my current focus / motivating feeling, violently throwing off the shackles of “bow down to Indigenous”, have grown resentful.
I have read just enough of Labate-type critique, to see the extreme of it: Euro has no entheogen history, Indigenous owns entheogen history tradition, Europe must beg permission from Indigenous, and Europe scholars are not allowed to even try to look for their INDEPENDENT, own history of entheogen use.
Radical pushback example, reactionary hyperbole:
Supported by Irvin book & Hatsis book:
Fake scholarly construction: Indigenous use of entheogens for religious experiencing.
Reality: they used Psilocybin/ entheogens in human sacrifice, barbaric slavery, warfare, cannibalism, E.S.P. finding of objects; healing; only the shaman ingests, on behalf of the patient. sorcery, spells, curses against enemy shamans.
This is the Noble Indigenous entheogen religion that Europeans must bow down and worship and beg permission from, because Europe has no entheogen history.
Reality: Europe, unlike Indigenous, had a fully developed Psilocybin use for peak religious experience.
Houot’s Masters’ dissertation, which could be critiqued, was accepted because he glorifies Indigenous and disrespects Euro mystics, who reduce to Surrenderism, unlike shamans who have full control and are all-glorious.
People thought Labate was a clown or amusing, in the recent panel (UC Berkeley, Pollan – 2 videos at YouTube), they humor her schtick. They tolerate her spiel, which is growing tired and annoying and is starting to cause a pushback.
Her views are partly legit – glad to see Hatsis’ book critique her. You aren’t getting rid of her, so in good humor, (disrespectfully) put up with her cliched contribution / voice inserted into every conference.
The unbalanced anti-Western, pro-Indigenous spiel has become PREDICTABLE, and now is routinely discounted by us who are growing tired of that narrative.
Like tired of hearing Chs Stang regurgitating yet again his canned, uninspired pushback against The Immortality Key & Ruck (recycled article & presentation).
I’m brewing a backlash to the over-promotion of Indigenous, eg an article says:
“It is ultimately the positions of Indigenous peoples that need to be given priority with respect to legislation around emergent psychedelic religions.”
Disagree. Actually, the history of Psilo in Europe should be given priority (with other plants subservient, in service of that).
But my assertion is vague – what does “give priority” mean & not mean?
Mosurinjohn argues that we shouldn’t even try to look for visionary plants in Euro history b/c we might miss the strong evidence in Indigenous.
That is potentially outrageous, depending on what she means, but her article is not super clear exactly what she is asserting and not asserting.
The better I get at close reading (extracting arguments accurately), the more language — and how it’s used — seems hopelessly far too vague & evasive.
Mosurinjohn falsely and vaguely declares (as if we have even started to try to look, which we have not): “there is no evidence” – for what?
Does she mean stupid people washed out the vessels and then say “there is no evidence”? For an ergot-only, narrow hypothesis? (narrow plant; narrow era; narrow region; narrow brand of religion)
Spectrum of Positions from Euro-centric to Indigenous-centric entheogen scholarship
At the extreme, suggested by a spectrum of positions, would be the assertion, which you can probably find actual instances of writers asserting:
* Europeans must grovel and apologize and beg permission from Indigenous, to use Psilo., which is owned by Indigenous and has no history in Europe.
* Indigenous own Psilo. and its religious use. Europe lacks that.
* Europe = Amanita only; America = Psilo.
* Europe had no Psilo., and no recreational or religious use of Psilo. eg Andy Letcher’s book Shroom in 2006.
Shroom (Letcher, 2006)
Andy Letcher 2006 grudgingly backtracks and concedes Deniers were wrong on one point: admits Liberty Cap grew in England before 1970.
In reaction to my influential 2007 book review, Letcher posted 4 points that are supposedly impossible to prove, but in 2020 I proved all 4 and 1 even more extreme point, proving peak-religious-experience use of Psilo. in Europe history.
As a representative of Deniers, Letcher will have to continue backpedalling and conceding more points to us Affirmers, of the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
Same w/ Hatsis, who increasingly asserts — against the dominant discourse — presence of entheogens throughout Western history.
Hatsis: Hatsis’ Book Worthwhile? What % of Great Paragraphs in a Book?
A superpower that I advocate is the ability to extract the wheat from the chaff in any book; sorting out the Pros & Cons.
Hatsis’ book Psych. Justice is a mixed bag, like every book. It’s possible to extract many sentences and points that are valuable.
I can’t yet recomm. Hatsis’ book, but certainly it has some good content, much needed.
Sort of like Rise of the Psychonaut by Houot 2025 – the idea for the book is much needed, but the execution of Houot’s book is just Fair.
So far, it seems like Hatsis’ book is “better” than Houot’s, in that way: delivers what it intends to.
Hatsis: Too Many Typos, Needs Professional Editor
* 0.25 typos per page – a typical professionally edited book.
* 2 typos/page – Hatsis’ book. Distractingly high. Needs an editor, or additional editing to fix the many errors.
* 6 typos/page – Chris Bennett’s book (Drugs in the Bible).
Does Hatsis’ book accomplish its stated purpose? How Diluted with Tangential Coverage?
Many pages are not about substances, and not directly on-topic for the book to accomplish its stated goal.
Annoyingly Employing SJW/CRT Thinking, at the Same Time as Rebutting SJW/CRT Thinking
Hatsis writes like an SJW at the same time as writing against SJW thinking; the more you agree with his critiques, the more you therefore recoil at the SJW framework-elements that Hatsis continues to employ.
A functional contradiction.
Hatsis delivers a tiresome politically correct (PC) lecturing / nagging, partly as a defense strategy, in the course of lecturing about the evils of PC.
The “psychedelic historian” parrots some ultra-conventional, gullible reception of “history”, at the same time he corrects other aspects of history.
The more Hatsis lectures against PC, while, however, defending himself by making a show of employing that very same type of PC reasoning (eg the “punching Right” posture/strategy), the more his own writing is annoying and a self-contradiction.
Ruck’s Self-Contradiction: “Thanks for Yet More Evidence of Mushrooms in Heretical Christianity”
Hatsis’ contradiction is like Ruck presenting more and more evidence of psychedelics in European/ Christendom history, while simultaneously neutralizing all of that evidence by arbitrarily (eagerly, to push his social-drama narrative) framing entheogens as suppressed, missing, absent; an alien infiltration into Christianity, proving there were no entheogens within “real, mainstream, non-heretical” Christian history.
Ruck’s driving purpose – a conflict of interest – is to push a social-drama narrative: the big bad Church suppressed The Sacred Mushroom ().
Ruck’s narrative and perverse corrupt motive/ agenda that he inherited from Allegro.
Ruck can’t deliver the positive framing that Brown does, because Ruck is too focused instead on making the Suppression Narrative social drama narrative his foundation and driving purpose.
Ruck abuses entheogen scholarship for the purpose of supporting his actual agenda, ritually recounting his social drama narrative of suppression. Policy reform would require easing his death-grip on his pet narrative – we must keep Amanita illegal* and suppressed and demonized.
Ironies of Ruck picking Amanita (& Ergot) for his Suppression Drama Narrative:
* Amanita isn’t even a psychedelic! It’s a deliriant like Datura! .
* It’s not even illegal!
* Aside from tititallation of Pop Cult, no one has even slight interest in, or suppression of, Amanita.
* Amanita is totally irrelevant to the Psychedelic Renaissance embrace of Psilo, which DOES need repeal of Prohibition.
Wasson wrote to McKenna 1977 that Wasson’s “Amanita the master psychedelic” hypothesis was a total failure; disconfirmed, and blown totally away by incomparably superior Psilo.
Ruck’s tail wags the dog; producing blindness to half the evidence is the result, of 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
No one can post a review of Hatsis’ book, because too hot a topic.
My book review will strongly posture & cloak myself as if pushing SJW/CRT thinking, while praising the book, and yet also condemning the book for being extrme Right with the usual list of smear-word namecalling (uttering the magically charged words that lately have lost all their magic power).
— Michael Hoffman
Email to Travis Kitchens Aug. 14, 2025
Hi Travis,
… our discussion of my ideas & opinions on various books and writers associated with entheogen scholarship and psychedelic research.
I have been wanting to contact you and others who contribute internal critique of Psychedelic (Pseudo) Science.
Charles Stang – pretty strong connections to Lattin & Stang via Sacred Garden Community church, including similarly, Erik Davis.
Stang’s awesome confrontation w/ Grifty who admitted:
“Yes we use a positive-balanced approach, but it’s ok, b/c to catch our distortion, we have the [positive-balanced] Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)”
He was caught admitting that distortion on video! Harvard! YouTube!
I’m a kind of esoteric Christian, saved by esoteric spiritual Christ, and baptised (Restorationist) mid-1990s.
My Type of Approach or Scholarship
My two areas of theory development:
* Modelling how the mind transforms on Psilocybin.
* How religious myth & art depicts that transformation via analogies.
The Universally Dominant Wrong Model of “Mystical Experience”
Recently (eg posted in 2015) discovered that the “postiive nondual unity” model of mystical experience is EVERYWHERE, a false model that is throughout ALL books by EVERYONE; it is “the old theory” like Earth-centered cosmos model, to be replaced by my “the new theory” – control-transformation centered instead, involving a total replacement of the bunk Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) to give more like OAV which is far better but STILL polluted with the “oceanic unity vs. fear of ego dissolution” framing.
That realization totally explained, the other day, why I felt flat about Wm Richards Sacred Knowledge book, which has the all-dominant wrong model of mystical experience.
Can we try framing:
1st-generation model of mystical experience as nondual positive unity; cessation of self/other boundary – held by every writer.
2nd-generation model of mystical experience as control transformation defined by Psilocybin mixed wine.
Happily found recent articles:
Taves uncovers “unity” model in both that Oceanic dim. & Angst dim.
Breau Nov 2023 confirms my late 2022 critIque of the model of “mystical experience” wrongly held by EVERYONE; covert neo-Advaita.
Cheap Debunkers of (the Weak v1 of) the Entheogen Theory of Religion
Mosurinjohn’s pointless grade-school exercise, “make some critical-sounding noises about Muraresku’s narrow ergot-only/ Eleusis-only / Eucharist theory”:
Get in the back of the line, uninspired shallow critics, to conflate the broad entheogen theory of religious origins, with the narrow model of suppression of Amanita/ Ergot Secret Cult.
Cash in on The Immortality Key cheap debunking, publish or perish, spill some ink, pad out your cv.
Whistleblowers/ internal critiques and corrections, building on my work
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) — Allegro then Ruck builds on his model/narrative. Deniers of psychedelic root of religions debunk that, via the Secrecy/Suppression canard; driven by a social-drama narrative.
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) – Samorini 1998, Michael Hoffman, Cyberdisciple, Jerry Brown
You could build on and incorp my findings about the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), and the bunk model of “mystical experience” as if “nondual positive unity”.
The real source of religious myth analogies is actually focused around control transformation, control instability (re-stabilization), & 2-level, dependent control.
Lots going on in the field, and I’m well-connected w/ excess networking opportunities in Sacred Garden Community church, and I’m very senior in and beyond the field.
Tower of Books Falling Over
Reading Hatsis’ new book, including debunking of Indigenous narratives. Hatsis debunks the hell out of “cannabis prohibition came from racism”; there is so much to debunk in the field.
Psychedelic Injustice
Reading Wouter Hanegraaff’s new expanded book. He’s a historian, not a good theorist of mental model transformation from Psilocybin.
Pollan How to Change Your Mind – loved his 5MeO expose of failure of Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ); rewarding for my purpose, confirms my debunking of the “science foundation” of the “validated” Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ).
I’m expert at book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity
I wish to explain to a lawyer in the field (not an entheogen scholar but he knows about Ruck & M. Hoffman) the relation between overlapping controversies you wrote about; not even sure of the list of hot topics to watch:
I wish you to take up my couple years of debunking Stace 1960 covert neo-Advaita model of “mystical experience”, and built upon it, bunk Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) — particularly, my powerful analytical weapon:
Tracing OAV’s Item 54: I was afraid to lose my self-control. How was this effect omitted from the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)? My research answers, and finally, summarizes that – root problem goes back to eg 1893 Advaita.
* “Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science” debate. Stupid version of “naturalism” forever pitted against stupid version of “mysticism”.
* The “religious leaders study” fiasco.
* Interp. of the sacrifice of Isaac, promise to Abram; dispensationalism, Scofield; invention of the rapture; literalism per the flesh vs. analogy per the spirit.
* Interp of crucifixion.
* Accurately modelling the control instability risk.
Not hot? A permanent split?
* The split within Paleoconservatives between “the solution is more intense Prohibition” vs. libertarians.
Things can change though – eg the contribution:
Explosive proof of fully developed Psilocybin use in Europe 900-1300 AD the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}. That discovery contributes to demolishing 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
I’m busy attaching a “merely 1st Gen” framing onto Ruck, just like he attaches a bunk Suppression framing around mushroom imagery in Christian art.
— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com
/ end of Email to Travis Kitchens Aug. 14, 2025
Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff
On the next page, Hanegraaff finally writes in a sane way: p. 109:
“above the sphere of the fixed stars. … beyond the cosmos or high up “above the stars.””
in his new book Wouter Hanegraaff is back to his ways, as Darth Wouter; Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff, OMITTING THE STARS. bottom of page 108.
Wouter Hanegraaff cannot be trusted whenever he writes ‘stars’, ‘cosmos’, or ‘celestial’, or jumbled nonsense like saying in a lecture at YouTube, “the planetary constellations”.
“I’m not sure what you mean by planetary constellation. Do you want to know which constellation each planet was in on that date? The free program Stellarium will show you that.” – jswhitten
Compare his CLAIMS about the 2nd of Agrippa’s 3 books, vs. wiki’s verbiage:
Wouter Hanegraaff:
“In the first volume he described the sublunary world of the four elements; in the second volume he moved on to the intermediary world of planets, numbers, and mathematics; and in the final volume he discussed the spiritual, angelic, and divine entities beyond the material cosmos. … the elementary, celestial, and super-celestial realms …” — p. 108, Esotericism in Western Culture.
Why does Hanegraaff mention “planets” along with “celestial” without mentioning “stars”?
Same reason as the consistently garbled and waffling presentation by everyone in this field.
Everyone (all scholars and all YouTubers) goes insane when parrotting their confused narrative of 7 planets = cosmos, then above planets = above Fate = above the cosmos.
They contradict themselves.
Separated into separate paragraph, they then say “stars = fate”.
Doesn’t add up. Inconsistent.
Hanegraaff accounts for planets, and “beyond the cosmos”, but never mentions stars – and where the book mentions ‘stars’, Hanegraaff cannot be trusted, because previous book perversely redefined the word ‘stars’ to mean ONLY the 5 planets (+ moon & sun).
There are only 5, or 7, “stars” in Hanegraaff’s sky.
But wiki is sane and not confused:
“Book II ascends to the celestial or astral world – the realm of the stars and planets … celestial bodies (the planets, fixed stars, zodiac) emit divine influences that shape the material world. … astrological images and talismans that capture stellar virtues. .. astral correspondences, planetary seals, … the astral magic teachings of Marsilio Ficino’s De vita coelitus comparanda (“On Obtaining Life from the Heavens“), as well as medieval astral magic traditions transmitted via manuscripts from his mentor Trithemius. While rich in practical detail, Agrippa’s celestial magic remains within a pious framework: the stars’ powers are wielded not as demonic sorcery, but as part of God’s design, with the enlightened magus acting as an instrument of divine Providence.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Books_of_Occult_Philosophy#Book_II:_Celestial_(Astrological)_Magic
Why can’t Hanegraaff account for stars, to the extreme point that Hanegraaff CANNOT MENTION STARS IN HIS BOOKS hwer where he talks of “the cosmos”, “celestial”, “outside the cosmos”, etc.
wiki: “Book III reaches the summit of Agrippa’s system[7] – the intellectual or supercelestial world – dealing with divine or ceremonial magic.[4][5] Having surveyed nature and the heavens, Agrippa now turns to the realm of the soul, the angelic hierarchies, and God. He “commits the physical and celestial worlds to the protection of religion,” asserting that only through religion and virtue can magic be kept free of impious or demonic influence.”
Clearly, simply, and unproblematically, wiki says celestial = heavens includes planets AND STARS – Hanegraaff is incapable of writing that.
Hanegraaff writes like it’s the biggest problem in the world, sweat pouring from brow, of whether ‘celestial’ and ‘cosmos’ includes stars or not. [actual stars, dammit, not planets!]
because you are reborn into sphere 8 as well as sphere 9, and the stars reside in sphere 8, and the stars = Fate — so you are reborn into pure Fatedness?! This kills Wouter Hanegraaff’s presuppositions; he wants us to simply be reborn from Fate into transcending Fate. Actually we are first reborn into pure Fate (sphere 8, fixed stars), and then the finish, reborn into beyond-Fate (into sphere 9, = watery = aion? = precession of equinox).
Sane people and wiki, it’s not even slightly a problem at all. Wouter Hanegraaff introduces huge complexity & conundrum, where there is none at all.
“Whether the fixed stars should be included [with Saturn, sphere 7] or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad [sphere 8] remains an open question for me.” – p. 294, footnote 114, Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022
“Following a sold-out 2024 event, Arctic Visions returns by high demand for another groundbreaking gathering in Anchorage, Alaska.
“This two-day psychedelic conference brings together indigenous wisdom, scientific research, and visionary artistry, offering a transformative space for exploration, connection, and dialogue.
“Attendees will engage in thought-provoking panels, immersive workshops, and experiential sessions led by renowned scientists, indigenous knowledge keepers, therapists, and leading voices in the psychedelic field.
“Anchored in the spirit of discovery, Arctic Visions 2025 is a unique platform where ancestral traditions and modern science converge to shape the future of psychedelic medicine in Alaska.”
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 de
Puppetmaster Tree of Knowledge
“It’s terrible what people think!” –> but: God is the ultimate-level creator and actor behind all control-thoughts.
Image from a debunking / critique of Calvinism/ Reformed theology
“The field of psychedelic research offers a plethora of opportunities for scientific inquiry, and addressing the previously mentioned limitations is perhaps the most critical given that right now, safety guidelines are being developed, therapies are commencing, and recreational use is increasing.
“Rucker and Young (2021) also mention that it is unwise for so many clinics to be offering these therapies before psychedelics have been adequately tested and that this rush is undermining the credibility of the field.”
[many things prevent credibility -mh]
Humanity is racing toward psychedelics due to their obvious wow factor, diving headfirst into what seems to be the hope of psychiatry.
“But a repeat of the 60’s isn’t yet an impossibility.
“Extreme diligence is required in the way we carry out research and propose policies.”
“Addressing limitations posed by existing studies involves testing cognition with all classical psychedelic drugs suggested.
…”
Extreme skepticism is needed about scholars’ notion of “mystical experience”, which they claim = positive unity/ nondual cessation of self-other boundary experience.
Even Alan Watts omits ‘determinism’ or ‘eternalism’ — which would have made the Way of Zen by Alan Watts coherent, as I complained in late 1987 — and instead asserts “skin-encapsulated ego”.
Concepts eg “ego dissolution” and “oceanic” and “unitive” and “non-dual” all are based on the reigning FALSE model, “positive unity”.
The entire conceptual vocabulary & lexicon of all related fields & authors is based on a false model asserted by:
William Richards
Thomas Roberts
Alan Watts
Wouter Hanegraaff
Ken Wilber
Ramesh Balsekar
Roland Griffiths
Adolph Dittrich
Studerus
Walter Stace
William James
Swami Vivekananda
EVERYONE.
They are all the same, and they are all wrong about the essence of mystical experience. They all hold the Earth-centered model of the cosmos, but the Egodeath theory is the sun-centered model.
For example, Wouter Hanegraaff – p. 145, Esotericism in Western Culture (2025): “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, like everyone says snake is sacred because sheds skin but no pictures ever depict this false, pseudo explanation.
I surmise that ALL of them in that group, held the dominant, false, Advaita model of “mystical experience”.
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.” 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.
Might Revert from Egodeaththeory.org to Egodeaththeory.wordpress.com
Both domain name aliases are awkward to say and enter, compared to Egodeath.com.
The underlying, original domain name, which I like: egodeaththeory.wordpress.com Accurate description.
The new, custom domain name: I have not warmed up to this: egodeaththeory.org Misrepresentative; there is no organization.
“History” and “News” Is as Fake as Religious Myth
Aug. 7, 2025
Everything on tv is Hollywood fiction. There is no difference between fiction on tv and “the news” on tv. It’s all pretext, phony posturing, it’s all lies.
God is to blame for everything. Everything that happens is God’s will, from the ultimate point of view. Experiencing this is is insane, psychotic, and incommensurable with personal control agency thinking. Is mystical experience “positive unity”?
Mystical experience includes realization that God is the author of evil, that your engine of control-thoughts is fused with evil people’s engine of control-thoughts.
— unless you introduce dualism in the sense of God vs. Devil, both having indep. power, per great book by Russell.
Satan: The Early Christian Tradition (Russell, 1987)
If there is a sovereign creator God, as Christian faith holds, is this God ultimately responsible for evil?
Does God’s sovereignty mean that God causes each instance of sin and suffering?
How do Satan, his demons and hell fit into God’s providential oversight of all creation and history?
How does God interact with human intention and action?
If people act freely, does God know in particular every human decision before the choice is made?
“Boyd mounts a thorough response to these ages-old questions, which remain both crucial and contentious, both practical and complex.
“Boyd defends his scripturally grounded trinitarian warfare theodicy (presented in God at War) with rigorous philosophical reflection and insights from human experience and scientific discovery.
“Critiquing the classical Calvinist solution to the problem of evil, he advocates an alternative understanding of the sovereignty of the trinitarian God and of the reality of Satan that sheds light on our fallen human condition.”
Video: “WATCH: Pastor Calls Out Israel & Christian Zionists In Fiery Sermon” (Aug. 6, 2025) – Pretextual Reason vs. Actual Reason
Woman’s 3-minute segment well-articulated, about Pretextual Reason vs. Actual Reason, & Evangelicalism false doctrine is the problem: but some things that she claims about history is itself lies/pretext, not actual historical events. Yasmin Khan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJxxDSTJdJQ&t=898s (14:58-18:16) —
Video title: WATCH: Pastor Calls Out Israel & Christian Zionists In Fiery Sermon ch: Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey Aug 6, 2025 Desc: “Pastor Adam Fannin criticized Israel and Christain zionists during a sermon. Dr. Rashad Richey and Yasmin Aliya Khan discuss on Indisputable.”
The video has two segments where other people talk other than Richey:
Galaxy Quest: Genre Question: Fiction, or Reportage?
Scene from movie Galaxy Quest: octopus aliens fail to understand that the Star Trek show or Galaxy Quest show was only fiction. They made THE GENRE QUESTION/ category error. Searching for the scene: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=galaxy+quest+fiction
Which genre is “the news”, and “history books”? Ans: Fiction, not historical reportage.
Isn’t it strange that all wars, as reported afterwards, are just wars? According to the victors, who lie and make-up fiction.
What do we know about current events? “The News” is 100% lies.
What do we know about historical events? Professors were bribed to falsify history.
I have posted this scathingly before.
Thomas Hatsis brags about his historical methodology, but I mock historians as FABRICATING history.
A historian does not – in practice – typically – “report” history; the job of the corrupt and misled historian is to FABRICATE pseudo-history.
The job of the corrupt historian is to fabricate history, not to report history.
The foundation of events, and national relations, is false history. As false as taking myth literally, which is idolatry.
Deluxe Copy of “Bubble of Simulation” Article (Michael Hoffman, 1994) – the first print publication of the Egodeath theory
“Michael Hoffman appeared on The WELL, and posted a half-meg stream of psychoactive prose before we asked him to put a rope around it and rein in a piece for FWR.
This piece is said to be the genesis of a book-length project.“
todo: in draft of branching-message mushroom trees article, update the citation.
That was the motivation to find this zine issue: to push the date earlier and fix name of zine. Now I have a suitable citation for my article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, establishing my print publications back to 1994.
Bubble of Simulation is a very solid article, though I will now read the per-sentence formatting that I added today.
So, I can relate to Robert Graves screwing up in early 1970s his attempt to credit himself back in late 1950s but he mixed up the mag name and his own article title.
Finding this article and zine issue was important, to give date of first print publication of the Egodeath theory.
Archive: Fringe Ware Review, “Stay Awake” Issue, with my Bubble of Simulation article
Experiencing the Wrath of God (Curse), and then the Mercy of God (Bless)
todo: reply to wrmspirit email re: why approaching the throne of God = Wrath, bad trip, terror, control instability.
Motifs against that: love, dove, donkey, peace, blessing.
Wrath, the CURSE
Regeneration – God teaches to stand on right foot not stand on left foot; to rely on the new, eternalism mental model, not only try to rely on the old, possibilism mental model.
Mercy; blessing
{Israel} = {the elect} = {the bride of Christ} = {the church (assembly)} = those who are destined (per pre-existing frozen 4D block universe) to have mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
“to eternalism” means, in more detail, integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking; gaining an additional mental model so as to have two “incommensurable”, distinct mental models.
Thanks to someone for helping me re-find this image – I essentially found it by myself, in conversation with him, by my describing a sensible search string, which he used to find the image. Like I found the image from book Power of Myth, “Eve tempted by the serpent”, after 10 tries over the years. And I recently found my Bubble of Simulation article! archive of Fringe Ware Review zine.
The Bible says you must give me money and be my slave
The Bible commands us: “Those who bless the Egodeath theory will be blessed, and those who curse the Egodeath theory will be cursed.”
False fabricated phony scripture:
Blessed are those who bless [literalist/ idolatrous/ magical-thinking fake] “Israel”; cursed are those who curse [literalist/ idolatrous/ magical-thinking fake] “Israel”.
That fabrication implies the corollary:
Blessed are those who curse fake “Israel”; cursed are those who bless fake “Israel”.
More dispensationalist, late-modern, rapture-fiction Christians are pro-Isr (so that Jesus returns and destroys that “Isr.”!) than there are “Jews” who are pro Isr.
The enemy pushing the greater Isr project becomes , in number, more the Christians, than the modern so-called “J”s.
American Christians since late 1800s were misled by the mid-1800s view that was then systematized via Darby by Scofield.
Timeline sketch:
1830: A certain un-Biblical notion of “rapture” and “1000 year reign” and “Bible prophecy” is invented/ fabricated.
Dispensationalism is a fake, fantasy, “rapture”, late-modern reading of New Testament.
The New Testament pushes a spirtual (analogy-only) interp, against an Old Testament literalist view. But the Mytheme theory per the Egodeath theory pushes a PURELY analogy-based view, rejects completely any magical-thinking, literalism. eg ahistoricity of religious founder figures eg:
Abraham
Eve
Serpent at tree of knowledge
tree of knowledge
Abraham/ Abram
Isaac
Jacob
sons of Jacob
Abraham’s ram caught in a thicket, and the death and blood of that ram.
Jesus.
Jesus’ death on the cross.
The Cross.
The tomb.
Jesus’ resurrection from the tomb.
ITS ALL JUST ANALOGY BRO — versus war, killing, blood, death, & genoside
Literalism = war and death and violence, not spiritual blessing or metaphysical enlightenment.
All the above mythemes (the death & resurrection of Jesus; the sacrifice of Isaac & thicket-caught ram) are analogy-only, not literal historical reportage.
It sucks there was no Jesus but along with that, it’s great that the promise to Abram didn’t literally exist as a historical event, and the promise to Abram didn’t depend on killing or virtually killing Isaac, and didn’t depend on killing a ram caught in a thicket.
Give me a time machine because I want to inspect the branching form of the burning bush and and thicket that the ram was caught in.
Error: the burning bush and thicket are not historical actual items; they exist only in the mythic realm resulting from Psilocybin experiencing.
If, in some sense, God gives mercy and blessing, that’s not dependent on killing a ram (caught in thicket), or a man (Jesus), or a son (Isaac); no literal blood, no literal death causes that mercy and blessing from God to the elect; the chosen, the true, spiritual Israel; the bride of Christ.
Committed to Christianity/Theology, Europe Religious Myth
Transcendent perspective: The future is frozen and already exists, set in stone.
Regardless of my personal salvational beliefs such as whether or not I identify as Jewish (or, as a Christian of some type), it’s important to stay strategically engaged with false Bible interpretation and corrective true Bible interpretation, all via the Egodeath theory explanatory framework.
If we consider the cons of Christianity and abandon and ignore it, worse things will happen than if we are fully engaged with interpretation of Christian myth/ weaponized Bible myth.
Ultimate Level: God the Creator of Evil and of One’s Control-Thoughts
Balaam: “All the words that I say are put into my mouth by God.”
Hermetic treatise On the 8th & 9th: “I see you – you give me my power.”
Baffling to egoic thinking:
God is the ultimate controller behind all evil actions and all insane actions and all my actions.
Can you handle experiencing the following?
The same control-engine that gives your control-thoughts, also gives psychotic people and evil people their control-thoughts
The same control-engine that gives your control-thoughts, also gives psychotic people and evil people their control-thoughts.
Pop, modern, neo Advaita (1893, 1902, 1960) is the bunk model of “mystical experience” in the Stace 1960 model and in psychedelic pseudo science: the “positive unity” model of “mysticism”.
vs. the Egodeath theory with its “control transformation” model of mysticism.
Can the Neo-Advaita model of mystical experience handle the experience that “The same control-engine that gives your control-thoughts, also gives psychotic people and evil people their control-thoughts”?
The idea is offensive and shattering.
The experience is destabilizing for the personal control system.
Bad trips can include experiencing this mind-shattering, ethics-shattering experience.
What are we as actors / control agents to do, given that our actions are frozen in rock timelessly?
There are two incommensurable ways of thinking, and we end of of two minds: one’s female mind and one’s male mind.
Thinking in terms of my personal actions in the future and what I should do; vs. thinking in terms of all actions are frozen in rock by God the creator and ultimate-level controller of all evil action in the world and all good action in the world.
The Sacrifice of Isaac – Summary of Gen 22
keyboard shortcut gen22 – Condensed by Michael Hoffman:
“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 offspringall 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
todo: make a KJB version of the keyboard shortcut gen22kjb
Put side by side the false made-up scripture, vs. the actual scripture.
Christian Zioism’s False, Made-up Scripture
The Bible commands us to support Israel; it is written, “Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed.”
CITATION NEEDED!
The above pseudo-scripture is as fake and un-Biblical as writing the inverse fallacy: “Those who bless Israel will be cursed, those who curse Israel will be blessed.”
{Israel} = those who are made to {sacrifice child-thinking} = {the elect} = those who {obey God’s commands} (KJB Rev 22:14) = those who {wash their robe} (NIV Rev 22:14) = those who {trust Jesus as their savior} = those who, in the frozen block universe, have mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Christian Ziom = Supporting a Modern, UN-Biblical Nominally “Jwsh” Project, but Doing So in Order to Destroy the Jws and Isrl and Everyone Except the Elect
Ironic. Self contradictory.
Dispensationalism, invented near 1830, says to bless and support supposed “Jws” and modern “Isr”., in order to cause Jesus’ fantasized literalist return and literally destroy “Jws” and “Isrl” and everyone except the elect.
Video: The Second Coming Of Christ—Part One—The First Resurrection – 8/3/25 Pastor Chuck Baldwin
Video title: The Second Coming Of Christ—Part One—The First Resurrection – 8/3/25 Pastor Chuck Baldwin ch: LibertyFellowshipMT Aug 5, 2025 This is Pastor Baldwin’s 25th Prophecy Message. This message was preached by Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Sunday, August 3, 2025, during the service at Liberty Fellowship. [I caught live stream – Cybermonk]
Video title: The True Israel Of God Pt 25 (Romans 11 Pt 2) ch: Clayville Assembly (Official) Aug 3, 2025 Desc:
“We see here more of the division in Israel.
“That division is based upon belief and unbelief.
“The spiritual promises given to Abraham are the exclusive inheritance of the believing remnant, the true Israel of God.”
Video: “Abraham’s Covenant is Christianity not Judaism” (Law of Liberty; Pastor Adam Fannin & Michael Johnson, June 2025)
Video title: Abraham’s Covenant is Christianity not Judaism channel: Law of Liberty Streamed live on June 27, 2025 Preacher’s Podcast Desc: “Zionist Scriptures Debunked” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w6GB70KiAM —
“Steve Gregg’s lecture focuses on the Servant of Yahweh motif in the book of Isaiah, particularly the four (possibly five) passages known as the servant songs (Isaiah 42:17, 49:19, 50:49, 52:13, 53:12, and potentially 61:13).
“These passages describe a figure called the Servant of Yahweh, whose identity is debated among scholars.
“While some, especially modern Jewish scholars, identify the servant as the nation of Israel, Gregg argues that the servant is primarily the Messiah (Jesus Christ), with Israel serving as a type or foreshadowing of Christ.
“The lecture explores the dual application of the servant’s identity, the servant’s role in redeeming both Israel and the Gentiles, and the servant’s suffering as an atoning sacrifice, culminating in the establishment of a worldwide kingdom characterized by justice and liberty.”
Side notes; vid’s topic is related to:
Messiah as a literal military savior (Old Testament); as a spiritual analogy-based savior.
Check the position in book Caesar’s Messiah. Instead of military savior, pushed a spiritual savior.
— Michael Hoffman
Against the “Bible Prophecy” Mode of Reading the Bible
literalism, idolatry, those on the outside
The New Testament is about events of years 1-150 AD, when the New Testament was written.
New Testament is not about events of 1000 A.D., 1950 A.D., or 2000 A.D.
It’s possible to create the Mark of the Beast like using Bible as a template when we drive current events – that does not mean that the New Testament writers are describing the events of 2025 A.D.
The New Testament is writing about events of 70 A.D. & 130 A.D.
Bible Prophecy is literalism and is NOT how the elect are saved.
“The rapture” pure 20th Century Evangelicalism is fantasy, not reading the Bible according to the spirit, per those on the inside.
Some scholars say the Old Testament was written very late: 320 B C.
No Promise/Blessing to Abraham’s Literal Descendants = No Death and Resurrection of Literal Jesus
{the elect/ the chosen} are not those who have literal DNA of literal Abraham.
{the elect/ the chosen} are those who have been made to have mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism. In a way that ancient mystery religion initiation equivalently delivered.
That’s a statement against particularism of any brand of religion.
We are saved in some way that’s built-into the mind, regardless of brand of superficial religious “skin”.
Jesus is the only way to salvation – therefore what must ‘Jesus’ mean? therefore what must “God’s promise to Abram / blessing descendents” as “Israel” mean?
Particularism = idolatry = literalism, vs. salvation and according to the spirit. According to my model of mental model transformation; Psilocybin transformation; control transformation is the way in which we are saved. \
We are not saved by being literal descendants of a literal Abram – by the same token, we are not saved by the literal death of literal Jesus on literal cross and literal resurr in literal cave.
Too bad no historial Jesus and resurrection. Along w/ that, no historial “blessing/promise to Abraham & descendents”. The ram is as fictional as Jesus, but Genesis thicket-ram isn’t “why” God blessed Abram; God doesn’t say “because you killed the ram, you are blessed”; God says “because you virtually killed your son, you are blessed.” No literal blood of ram or Jesus saves us.
We are saved NOT by the fleshly blood of literal Jesus, but by spiritual blood of spiritual Jesus.
God’s promise/blessing is not to literal Abram descendants, but to spiritual Abram descendants ie all who were made to sacrifice child-thinking.
The Christian Samson Option: Sacrificing the Belief in Literal “Jesus”, to Simultaneously Throw Off the Literalist Reading of “God’s Promise to and Blessing of Abram and His Descendants”
“Samson, a prominent figure in the Book of Judges in the Hebrew Bible, is renowned for his extraordinary strength and his role as a judge of Israel.
“He was a Nazirite, dedicated to God from birth, and his strength was directly linked to his long hair, which symbolized his vow to God.
“Samson’s story is filled with dramatic battles against the Philistines, his tragic love affair with Delilah, and his ultimate act of self-sacrifice to destroy his enemies.”
Bad News for Christians: Ahistoricity of Jesus — but Good News Along with that: Ahistoricity of Abram/ Abraham; Isaac; Thicket-Caught Ram; & God’s Blessing of and Promise to Abram
[9:13 a.m. August 3, 2025] — I’ve been developing these ideas eg for the past 6 months, posting (writing-up) those ideas today and recently.
I hit a home run, good move, by focusing on {the sacrifice of Isaac} for years.
I did not know how important that was, that bridge between “the sacrifice of Isaac” and the “death/resur of king Jesus”, in New Testament theology or its central matter for Paulines.
A Samson dynamic:
By pressing-apart the pillars of the temple, Samson died, but, in that act, he also killed all the bad people.
By repudiating literalist reading of Jesus, by rejecting the historical existence of Jesus, that hurts literalist Christianity; but by same token, we also repudiate historicity of God’s blessing of and promise to Abram and his so-called “descendents”.
Although — bad news — Jesus didn’t exist; by the same token — good news — God did not bless and promise a literal historical Abram.
per New Testament, the elect are to read that blessing and promise according to the spirit, not according to the flesh. Not literalist, not idolatrous.
We are not saved by literal blood of literal Jesus or literal death of thicket-caught ram or literal threatening-to-death of literal Isaac.
We are saved as analogy-sense descendants of Abraham, in so far as our mental dynamics of personal control power in the Psilocybin state are transformed like the fiction of the sacrifice of Isaac, & fiction of death and resurrection on Cross & cave.
Bad: Dispensationalism, Zionism, Darby, Scofield; Bible Prophecy = fantasy magical-thinking superstition literalism of “the rapture”; literalism; idolatry
Roughly:
per New Testament, Jewish = bad = literalism = idolatry. We are saved by our DNA. Leads to literal militancy and warlike violence. Literalist misreading of {Israel}.
Christian (New Testament) superior interp is more a “spiritual interp” ie, analogy-only. Analogy-based correct reading of {Israel}.
The New Testament argues for an analogy-based ie “spiritual reading” of the sacrifice of Isaac.
Here is a deal:
We will reject literalist, historial Jesus. So, Jews didn’t literally kill Mr. Jesus, b/c he didn’t literally exist.
Along with that, we will reject historicity of Abram/Abraham, Isaac, and the ram caught in a thicket by its horns. (The Genesis passage never says that if the ram didn’t die, God would not have given the promise to Abram.) Bible does NOT explicitly say, “Because Abraham killed the ram, God blessed Abraham.” Bible says “Because Abraham did this thing to Isaac and didn’t withhold him, God blessed Abraham.”
The Genesis chapter does not specify “this thing” (action done by Abraham), and does not focus on Abraham’s action regarding the ram; it only focuses on Abraham’s action regarding his son, Isaac.
Ahistoricity of the Ram Caught in a Thicket, and of Non-Focus on Abraham’s Action of Killing That Ram
Taking the New Testament interp of {God’s promise to Abram} in a fully esoteric/ nonliteral/ analogy-based reading, taking it all the way, more than the usual popular handling of the New Testament re: the nature of God’s promise to Abram during the sacrifice of Isaac; the mythical “ram caught in a thicket by its horns”.
I mainly isolate the “the sacrifice of Isaac” mytheme, not load it with later Old Testament accretions/additions (“God promised to bless the people ‘Israel’ on the condition that they follow a bunch of laws, and circumcise”).
Interpreting correctly {the sacrifice of Isaac} does NOT involve affirming — or considering in any way — a later notion of Old Covenant, {God promised to bless the people ‘Israel’ on the condition that they follow a bunch of laws, and circumcise}.
New Testament tries to spiritually reinterpret, in a “spiritual” sense, the mytheme of the sacrifice of Isaac. Along with having to reinterpret the later accretions too, ie, “God promised to bless the people ‘Israel’ on the condition that they follow a bunch of laws, and circumcise”.
But a more purely spiritual reading and consistent, Jesus is mythic-only, and same w/ the promise/blessing, “Israel” as a people, and the thicket-caught ram, and Isaac.
IF — per New Testament — we are to read {the sacrifice of Isaac} in a “spiritual” ie analogy-only mode, then so are we to read {the sacrifice and resurr of Jesus} in a spiritual ie analogy-only mode. It’s all mythemes, consistently, per those on the inside; per Christianity; vs. per those on the outside; literalists, “Jewish reading”.
The “Christian, spiritual, righteous reading” of the sacrifice of Isaac (and Cross) & of the blessing/ promise to Abram. vs. The “Jewish, literalist, idolatrous reading” of the sacrifice of Isaac & of the blessing/ promise to Abram.
ie, if we accept the New Testament call for a spiritual reading of the sacrifice of Isaac & the promise/blessing to Abram, then we must take that consistently all the way and read in ahistoricity way, in a mytheme decoding way, all Old Testament & New Testament mythemes:
death and resurr of king on cross
Abram/ Abraham
Isaac
thicket-caught ram
God’s promise to / blessing of the descendents of Abram/ Isaac/ Jacob.
We do not have a contest between:
Literalist reading of Old Testament
Literalist reading of New Testament
Rather, we have a contest between:
Literalist, idolatrous reading of Bible
Spiritual reading (ie analogy-based reading) of the Bible.
Either we read Old Testament in a literalistic, “flesh” way (God’s blessing of Abram, or later-elaborated and built-up: God’s conditional, covenential promise to the people, ancient Israel), and also read New Testament in a “flesh” way; or, Read Old Testament & New Testament according to the spirit, ie, in an analogy-only, analogy-based reading/interp.
Reading According to the Flesh vs. Spirit = Literalism vs. Analogy
reading religious myth according to the flesh eg DNA descendents of Mr. Abram & Isaac and ram
reading religious myth according to the spirit eg Israel = the elect = those who are made to threaten their childish control-thinking ({sacrifice your child}).
Read Old Testament & New Testament per either mode, consistently:
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control; according to the flesh
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control; according to the spirit
Reading God’s Blessing of Abram, and the Cross (Death & Resurr of King of the Jews), According to the Flesh, vs. According to the Spirit; Literalism-Idolatry vs. Analogy that Saves
Mythemes mainly work in isolation to describe by analogy Psilocybin transformation.
Scofield didn’t invent dispenationalism; he systematized it and innovated in publishing that interpretation on the same pages as King James bible text.
Evangelicals are (were) dispensationalists/ zionists, unlike the mainline denoms.
Southern U.S., late 1800s, neo Christianity recent development in 1900s.
MOSURINJOHN ARTICLE: Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience
Transcribed most of 2nd batch of margin notes from 2nd printout of Mosur article
I did a 2nd pass of printing the article, making margin notes, and copying the notes to here.
Sufficient notes are are below. Aug 6, 2025.
p. 1 of Reading 2, Notes
Her core args/ objections:
(1) European drug focus bad b/c not focused on Indigenous.
(2) Drug focus is bad b/c not focus on non-drug practices.
In fact, Road to Eleusis covers Indigenous & SOMA. Only The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 perhaps lacks that coverage. Mosur is wrong that Euro focus “might miss” “well evidenced” SOMA & Indigenous.
(3) The Suppresssion hypoth: no evidence for suppression of ergot kykeon. She asserts herbs, non-ergot wine in Greco-Roman ritual.
She approves Soma as drug.
She approves Indigenous drug use history.
She disapproves some shifting, unstable target: Western ancient origins of religion as drug-based. Yet she asserts cannabis in Jewish altar; and she asserts Greco-Roman herb wine.
Or does she only ojbect to the narrow specific particular hypoth, Suppressed Ergot Eleusis kykeon, as the Origin of Christian Euch? She keeps conflating the two – broad vs narrow, motte vs baily.
Her tone/ noises/ stance/ affectation: There’s no evidence for [suppressed ergot kykeon as the origin for Euch]; (narrow); therefore, there’s no evidence for [Western ancient origins of religion as drug-based] (broad). She asserts moderately broadly: There are some psychedelics in Western religious history. That’s a kind of moderate entheogen theory of religion. She’s against the maximal entheogen theory of religion, in the case of Western religious history.
Yet she is writing an entire book asserting entheogens in history of Western Esotericism.
She allows that, but does not allow the original Euch being psychedelic.
She explains reasons to try to look, and SOMETIMES she says it’s ok to try to look for entheogens in Euro history / origins.
Her position is shifting and indeterminate, it’s a mess.
It is hard to critique a slip-n-slide writer, and that is TYPICAL HALLMARK of Deniers of entheogen W history.
WTF is Wasson’s position (as a Denier)?
WTF is Letcher’s position (as a Denier)? He retreats and grants, “we naysayers were wrong: there WAS, after all, Liberty Cap in ancient England – but no delib religious use of it.”
WTF is Mosurinjohn’s position (as a Denier)?
There was plants in Euro history – but not indigenous tradition origin of major Euro religion.
She says there is no evidence of any use for decrim.
Forte argues in 2008 edition of Road to Eleusis , she quotes, — glad to see her write (p. 6, no history of use for whites per the courts).
p. 2 of Reading 2, Notes
p. 3 of Reading 2, Notes
end of page 3, into p. 4: “bummer trips” (in early modern individual experimentation w/ ergot) – this is the fallacy: “non-pleasant therefore non-mystical”.
argues: ergot gave bummer trip, therefore, not religious experience.
p. 4 of Reading 2, Notes
p. 5 of Reading 2, Notes
no notes, thank God
p. 6 of Reading 2, Notes
She argues: Trying to look for psychedelics in the origin of W religion is “religious fundamentalism”; she argues:
Because there is no evidence for [narrow: suppressed ergot kykeon as origin of Euch?] [broad: psychoactive plants in W religious history?], therefore the motivation of “the Eleusis entheogenicists” must be religious fundamentalism.
the courts in the United States have been “unreasonable” in only allowing Indigenous peoples to use “‘hallucinogens’ as sacraments” because they have a long history of such use, which was not the case “for the white man”
Mosur re: Forte in RtE 2008 edition
Vague terms there are “history”, “tradition”, “long history”. Does intense, fully developed mushroom use in 900-1300 A D, in a Christian Biblical context, “count”??
I reject not the project of finding history of use;
I reject the albatross of “secret/ suppressed” and “mainstream tradition” — too nebulous and tangential.
I only inventory the likely total use throughout origin and history, in entire W region. I avoid employing as explanatory constructs, any considerations of “secret/ suppressed” and “mainstream tradition”.
Because it’s too hard and too unimportant, to attempt to assess that.
We are only able to see THAT there was MUCH use. My project is epxlaingin how the mind works, and identfiying evidence by reading religious myth / motifs.
I excel at explaining how the mind changes from Psilocybin.
I excel at explaining how to recognize myth motifs that describe by analogy how the mind changes from Psilocybin.
I ignore questions of; I don’t care about details of what kind of social groups had The Mushroom and which kind of social groups lacked or suppressed The Mushroom.
I am not here to do social drama narrative. Ruck & Muraresku make that project their foundation, and they lose the plot, and they are readily attacked by Deniers; the Suppression Drama narrative is an attack vector (an unneeded addition/ burden), as demo’d by Mosur.
The Allegro/ Ruck/ Muraresku Suppression Social Drama Narrative is an unneeded addition/ burden. Unhelpful for my two projects.
Mosur speculates why there is decreasing use of the Suppression Social Drama Narrative for the purpose of decrim – IDK that it has decreased.
Much of her arg’n/writing is just UNCLEAR, she uses words in a vague way. What exactly is she asserting and not asserting?? She needs to differentiate what she is asserting and denying, specifically; narrow & broad. Be specific and clear, not vague.
We are NOT able to assess details about “secret/suppressed” and “mainstream tradition”, and that is a tangential, separate, messy proposition to try to theorize and find evidence for that detail.
Mos wrote:
“Road to Eleusis in 2008 … Robert Forte who notes … the courts in the United States have been “unreasonable” in only allowing Indigenous peoples to use “‘hallucinogens’ as sacraments” because they have a long history of such use, which was not the case “for the white man”34
“(Canada has mirrored the United States in making legal exceptions for traditional Indigenous peyote use and Indigenous-related ayahuasca groups while denying them to groups unconnected with Indigenous communities of practice35).”
p. 7 of Reading 2, Notes
p. 8 of Reading 2, Notes
p. 9 of Reading 2, Notes
Book: Entheogenics: Psychedelic Experiences as Revelatory Events in the History of Western Esotericism (Mosurinjohn, in progress per 2022)
Asserting that there are psychedelics in history of Western Esotericism contradicts half of the posturing in her article!
A contradiction-filled article, waffling and shifting constantly, asserts “Greco Roman herbal wine” yet says no evidence for ergot kykeon specifically, and ok’s Soma as historical precedent, and ok’s Indigenous as historical precedent for decrim of Psilocybin, but makes tut-tut vague & shifting objections to trying to look for history psychedelics in European Western history.
Article contradicts itself and is hazy what she’s saying that scholars should do. waht What EXACTLY is your complaint and your direction for what you are directing scholars to do?
Try to be more accurate?
Drop the Suppression hypoth? ???
She is allowed to write an entire fukking BOOK asserting historical psychedelics in Europ (Western Esotericism), but OTHER scholars are bad for even trying to look for — for what? for specifically/ narrowly, [SUPPRESSED ERGOT KYKEON]? or, broadly, for [psychedelics in Western history], which is exactly what this book asserts?
She plays motte/baily fallacy in article: the narrow “suppressed ergot kykeon” has no evidence according to her, so she acts – most of the time (inconsis.) — as if the broad general theory (psychedelics in W history) has no evidence.
She avoids making a clear distinction between mot vs baily , narrow The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 view vs. broad entheogens in W religion view.
the motte (easy to defend, but not desirable): “I merely, reasonably argue that there was psychedelics in W history, but not suppressed ergot kykeon.” “I merely call for more precision in scholarship.”
the baily (desirable, but indefensible): “I aggressively argue that the effort to fabricate psychedelics in W history is bunk. You are only allowed to assert Soma & Indigenous, not European.”
SLIP ‘N’ SLIDE tactic of writing. wtf exactly are you asserting and not asserting? Hazy, so she gets to have it both ways, asserting that cannabis is proved in ancient Jewish temple, yet, we’re not allowed to assert what, “suppressed ergot kykeon”? “any use of entheogens in W history”?? WTF!! What the hell is your position and argument?
She accuses of “the entheogen history claim” of being merely a fake strategy, yet she also says,
cannabis is proved in Jewish history
greco-roman wine = herbs
writes an entire BOOK asserting entheogens in W history of Western Esotericism.
DOUBLE TALK! BUNCH OF WISHY WASHY HOT AIR AND PUFFERY BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF HER POSITION & ARG’T IS NOT THERE. Like my experience reading Letcher in 2007.
Rhethoric, posturing, tut-tut noises, self-promotion, vague & shifting disparagement of others. Inconsistent arg’n and position, both. Smoke & noise, but no fire. HYPOCRITE! She ought to be clarifying to scholars the correct nuances, but she only delivers self-contradiction.
She allows herself to assert history of psychedelics in Europe, but when Muraresku asserts suppression ergot kykeon, she dismisses that as merely a strategy to prop up history for decrim.
I hope I am clear when I list what Ruck school gets right & wrong, specifically.
Ruck contradicts himself, b/c driven by the Suppression premise, so he strives to neutralize all evidence by forcing a framing of the evidence as alien infiltration into Christianity.
Mosur contradicts herself, by not tracking carefully when she’s talking about the broad theory and its evidence – psychedelics in W history — vs when she’s taking aim against the narrow theory [suppression kykeon ergot]. “There’s no evidence for suppression ergot kykeon, therefore, no psychedelics in W history, so can’t use that to bolster decrim.” Article seems to assert that.
I cannot engage clearly w/ her article, b/c littered w/ the topic of Suppression Premise.
I wish the article would bracket-aside the Suppression Premise, and discuss evidence for specific claims, that are not tangled with Suppression Premise.
We cannot have a clear discussion, because she keeps garbling and mixing
The Suppression Premise.
The “suppression kykeon ergot” narrow hypothesis.
Narrow focus/debate about what – “the mystieries”? or narrower, “Eleusis”? aweful vague term “the mysteries” can mean all use of wine throughout Antiquity, or, exclusively, Eleusis, by the sleight of hand vague shell-game term, “the mysteries of Eleusis”, = “mystery religions”, = “herb-laced wine in Greco-Roman culture” = “in the ancient mysteries” – did you mean all mixed wine, or did you mean strictly kykeon in the Eleu. mysteries???
The broad hypoth of the psychedelic origin of & history of W religion.
Are we debating about:
narrow: ergot
broad: entheogens
Are we debating about:
narrow: the Eleusis mystery religion
all mystery religions
broad: all use of mixed wine throughout Antiquity
Are we debating about:
narrow: ancient origins of W religion
broad: psychoactives throughout W relig history
SLIP-N-SLIDE, SHIFTY, MOTTE-AND-BAILY ARG’N
How the F can I critique her artilcle, which constantly shifts between:
kykeon vs. wine;
ergot vs. psychoactive plants;
Eleusis vs. all mystery religions vs. all Greco-Roman use of wine?
Are you saying not to try to find any psychedelics in:
narrow: Eleusis, ergot, kykeon, suppression
broad: mixed wine, all psychoactive plants, throughout W history, open secret
She is good to mention that the typical theory is the “secret Amanita cult” theory.
The “secret Amanita cult” theory is the absurdly narrow view of spread, hated by John Lash; Wasson’s particular theory, the one, lone, single ur-religion that spread from Ural mountains.
That specific theory of “spread” is ridiculed by Letcher.
Letcher & Mosur latch onto this narrow paricular theory of suppressed Amanita spread from a single origin in the Ural mountains, because it’s so easy to ridicule.
Even the #1 fanboi of Wasson — John Lash — hates this ridiculous narrow particular theory.
Andy Letcher rejects the entire proposition of W psychedelics history, with the narrow, most ridiculous model he can find.
The slip-and-slide, move goalposts inward, move.
Mosur needs to clarify her crit’m of each distinct theory:
suppressed ergot Eleusis
history of psychedelics in Europe
She constantly garbles and conflates the two scopes.
p. 6 col 2 mentions Western Esotericism – seems to hazily imply psychedelics in Western Esotericism , while she refuses to allow “indigenous” ie pre-Christian specifially Eleusis…
IS SHE GIVING GREEN LIGHT TO ALLOW PSYCHEDELICS IN Western Esotericism HISTORY BUT REFUSING TO ALLOW in roots of specifically Eleusis before Christianity?
Her REAL objection, perhaps, is a Western Indigenous ancient origin of religion in psychedelics.
She’s ok w/ Greco-Roman herb wine; with cannabis in Jewish altar; with psychedelics in Western Esotericism history.
But God forbid, “Indigenous” origin in ancient Europe.
This would be opposite of Wasson, who allows Amanita 1000 B C but not later. (he even waffles here: author of Rev, eg 70 A D, is “like on mushrooms”.)
She acts like Ruck group is not the ORIGIN of discoveries about Indigenous psychedelics history, when she claims that Ruck then Muraresku, by focusing on W relig, “risks missing Indigenous, which is well-evidenced.”
As if we weren’t BURIED in excessive emphasis already, of Indigenous 24/7.
What the hell is the point of exclusively dwelling on already-known discoveries, when the whole point of scholarship in Euro entheogens history is to make NEW discoveries?
Didn’t Ruck group bring MORE THAN ENOUGH focus already, on Indigenous? This is nothing but empty bitching and self-promotion, fake “critique” for the purpose of obstructionism and self-positioning.
She has no legit criticism of trying to find psychedelics throughout W / Euro history, so she pretends that the most narrow, brittle model – suppressed ergot eleusis as original Euch – is same thing as broad topic.
The article is a pseudo critique, what EXACTLY is she complaining and advising? Empty posturing, empty critique. A call for better scholarship? Be specific.
WHEN YOU PUT ASIDE HER RHETORIC, THERE’S LITTLE SUBSTANCE ARG’N LEFT.
She herself writes a book on psychedelics in history of Western Esotericism – doesn’t she “they miss seriously relating to the many … Indigenous histories” – that MIGHT stick, for Muraresku, but sure not for Ruck group!
Are you saying Ruck misses seriously relating to the many evidence for Indigenous use? You cannot assert that.
So, shift the vauge, hazy goalposts.
Make strong sounding accusations, then retreat:
“Don’t try to find psychedelics in W history; that’s religious fundamentalism. Trying to find psychedelics in W misses a serious engagement with evidence for Indigenous use.” But Ruck group is the one who discovered evidence for Indig, so WTF are you asserting and whining about as an alleged limitation?!
“I was ONLY correcting Muraresku and ergot secret kykeon as orig Euch.” Ok then your corrective caution amounts to nothing of substance. Motte & bailey arg’n.
Stupid, out-of-left-field, weird argumentation, like those from Hatsis and other Deniers.
Maybe she can accuse Muraresku of ignoring Indig, but she sure can’t accuse Ruck group of that – they are the discoverers of Indigenous.
Her arguments are only valid in a narrow way, not in the broad way she pretends.
The broad hypoth which she DISPARAGES half the time in the article: the psychedelic origin of W religion — yet which she asserts in some ways too.
A confusing & confused article.
https://queensu.academia.edu/ShardayMosurinjohn/CurriculumVitae — working on a book, In progress Entheogenics: Psychedelic Experiences as Revelatory Events in the History of Western Esotericism (working title) the most recent date there: 2022, three years ago. New article is mid-2025.
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Mosurinjohn & Ascough, July 25, 2025)
Travis Kitchens contributed to or is connected with this article.
pdf file name: Mosurinjohn___Ascough__2025__Psychedelics,_Eleusis,_and_the_invention_of_religious_experience.pdf
Critique of Article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience”
My notes about Mosurinjohn article.
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience Sharday Mosurinjohn, Richard Ascough 2025
Point #1: Your guys, the IDIOT archaeologists, WASHED AWAY the evidence in all vessels ever discovered, and after doing that, you then say “there is no evidence”. Because you morons THREW AWAY the evidence.
Point #2: We literally have not even STARTED to try to look for evidence.
Mosur sometimes targets ergot evidence; sometimes targets broader enth evidence.
Point #3: esp offensive about this article:
Biased propaganda prejudiced against ANY research into European history of visionary plants.
“We should avoid trying to do any research in Europe history, because that risks failing to bow down to Americas and non-European history.”
“We should avoid trying to research visionary plants, because that risks failing to research non-drug methods of changing consciousness.”
Sheer bias, prejudice, obstructionism, and de-legitimation from the very start. See Hatsis new book against PC in enth scholarship. Psychedelic Injustice.
The nerve! We are not allowed to try to find enth in Eur history, because scholarship has found enth in non-Eur history, and we must attend to that, instead, because…
We are not allowed to explore the superior potential of enths, b/c scholars have found non-drug methods that can/ could/ might/ may produce “an altered consciousness”; “a mystical-type experience”.
Anti-European propaganda pressure, “It is not legit to theorize and look for enths in Euro history – b/c risks not focusing instead on non-European.” Sheer bias, arb’y.
Like idiotic YouTube comments, “The Surfrajettes [an instrumental Surf band, genre] should be a girl singer pop band (genre) instead.”
That’s not even a real critique; like reviewing a book about X as if it were a book about Y.
“Your scholarship about Europe has a huge flaw: it should be scholarship about non-Europe instead. Because…”
“Your scholarship about psychedelic plants has a huge flaw: it should be scholarship about non-drug methods of altering consciousness instead [aka “practices”]. Because…”
Your theorizing and scholarship should elevate non-drug methods to the high level that’s accepted now for psychedelics, because… else you are an extremist fanatic proselytizer, unlike us who call anything at all “an entheogenic practice”, and who restrict enth’s to “Indigenous” ie non-Europe.
Blundering ignoramus mycologists fail to consult the academic authorities, who demonstrate an irritated tone and demonstrate how quickly and fervently they deny and disavow.
Consult them on this matter b/c they are experts on related subjects (ie, not on trees, not on mushrooms, b/c merely incidental & fortuitous [Huggins & Wasson]).
Europe 4x
Indigenous 15x
The two main, bunk args Mosur has, in exact quote:
Mosur wrote:
“But in doing so, they miss seriously relating to the many well-documented historical and living Indigenous histories of psychedelics,
or seeing contemporary psychedelic practice in continuity with other, and maybe even older, nonpharmacological methods of changing consciousness.
“Moreover, this search for ergot foregrounds the drug per se, unhelpfully emphasizing the importance of the substance and its phenomenology over the ritual and metaphysical tools needed to make meaning of it.”
Bunk args repeated throughout article:
* “Do not look for new [Europe] evidence, because you won’t seriously cover existing [non-Europe] evidence.”
* “Do not look for visionary plants evidence, because you won’t seriously cover non-drug methods that can give altered consciousness.”
Sheer academic obstructionism!
Mosur does potentially have some fair points; the Secret Ergot Eleusis theory has problems to identify – done better by Egodeath theory ie 2nd-gen enth schol.
you must commit to a explanatory theory / model and develop and test and refine it, it should be a good theory. All theories have cons & pros; cons do not “disconfirm” a theory in a simplistic total way per a crude model of how Science progresses.
[non-drug] “practice” is good; drug / fx is bad. Mosur is correct that 1st-gen theory stupidly attends to the drug plant itself, and should account for something like “practice” or how the drug is used to cause ultimate transformation of experiential model of personal control levels. Focusing on the plant’s form, and a tiny bit on its effect, is not enough, but Ruck halts there.
Per Irvin’s book Flesh of God, and some other recent critiques and exposes, it is debatable “Americas used enths for religious experience.” Yet Mosur criticizes the entire basic proposition of trying to do scholarly research in Euro history of enths, b/c Affirmers might “miss well-doc’d Indigenous, and non-drug methods of altering consciousness”.
This book about Windows programming is a bad idea, because it might miss Mac programming.
This book about cats is bad, because it misses dogs.
Lame, biased, bunk pseudo-critique – but to Deniers, the only thing that matters is sheer quantity of writing that SEEMS — to biased readers — to constitute argumentation.
It’s empty expression of prejudice; not actual arg’n.
Mosur tries to make it sound like Affirmers theorize and therefore are bad; they commit to a specific theory and therefore are bad, and ought to do certified academic scholarship instead.
Mosur is right to discuss Pop Culture reception of Allegro/Ruck’s crude 1st-gen myth-fantasy, poor theorizing – Secret Ergot Suppression.
But we must do a good job of critique/correction of Pop Culture reception of the superior 2nd-Gen theory/scholarship.
Goals of Mosur’s rhetoric; Deniers’ Rhetorical Pseudo-Arguments
(under the limitations of 1st-gen Denial of entheogen scholarship):
Push non-drug entheogens; elevate avoidance-methods to the high level that enths deliver.
Dissuade and condemn the study of Euro enth history.
Turn the supposed successes in Americas, into a barrier preventing scholarship in Europe.
Push indigenous; use the alleged findings in Americas serve as shutting the door to any scholarship of Euro history.
Demonize Affirmers of Euro enth history.
Self-aggrandize.
2nd-gen entheogen scholarship eg Brown must avoid leveraging the would-be explanatory construct of “secret vs. mainstream”.
Mosur, like Letcher, seizes on ‘secret’; the Suppression premise is nothing but a liability; a potential vector of attack by Deniers.
Deniers = 1st Gen; Deniers of 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.
Live by “Secret”, die by “Secret”.
The (1st-gen) Deniers CANNOT take down 2nd-Gen enth schol by attacking ‘secret’, b/c 2nd-gen theory doesn’t at all employ the Secrecy/Suppression premise, & doesn’t assert in terms of “mainstream tradition” (as Brown does at end of 2019 article/ 2016 book).
I couldn’t care less whether an instance of MICA is assigned to “heretical groups” or “elites” or “mainstream tradition” – Ruck wrongly thinks we are demanding that he explain how The Secret Enth was restricted yet present.
I reject any obligation to explain how enth were restricted or present. Don’t care! Irrelevant & unhelpful. I find more evidence than Ruck b/c I am entirely unconcerned with “restricted yet present”. I only measure presence – not alleged suppression.
Less narrative = more evidence.
Less narrative about “limited” or “restricted” (or, “mainstream”) = more evidence; the greedy mentality.
Good: 2nd-gen Affirmers: Hoffman: Theory of enths/ motifs/ analogies. This is an actual, good-type correction of 1st-gen enth schol.
Non-existent: Denial of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Mosur/ Deniers provide critique of 1st-gen not 2nd-gen; Letcher to critique 1st-Gen actually leverages 2nd-Gen.
ie, Letcher uses the presence of explicit Psil msh tree imagery, to disprove Secret (and also Amanita).
Critical scholarship of goals and flaws of the Suppressed Ergot Eleusis; 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
vs.
Critical scholarship of goal and flaws of the good theory; 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Entheogen scholarship was defeatism-driven; suppression-driven; more interested in crying about suppression by inst’l religion, than caring about ACTUAL enth (ie Psil) and caring about EFFECTIVE, goal-driven repeal of Psil Prohibition.
My finding of Great Canterbury Psalter msh images in late date 2025 is example: we been NOMINALLY “looking” since 2000 or 1910, but with eyes tightly shut.
eg McKenna’s book Food of the Gods is totally closed-minded about msh in Christian art; simply ASSUMES no mushroom imagery in Christian art.
My point is solid even though hyperbolic:
Entheogen scholarship has NOT even STARTED to try to positively look; instead, they tried to look for Secret Amanita & Secret Ergot, and any finding, is taken as proof that Xy lacked enth but only contained HERETICAL enth use.
And proves that entheogen use was LIMITED TO some closed group or other:
“certain Christian groups” (Georgio Samorini)
“heretical groups” (early Carl Ruck)
“1 or 2 elites” (later Ruck)
all elites (Jan Irvin AstroSham 1st Ed.: Conclusion 1st sentence)
Along with Terrible Theory that says, any mushroom imagery in Christian art is evidence of alien heretical infiltration into Xy from outside of Christianity.
2nd-gen entheogen scholarship must set its own goals motivating research
Key: Well-formed Affirmers must set our own goals of what motivates research.
The goal is to understand mental model transformation and myth as analogy describing psil xfmn; not history of actions ie proving who ingested what plant how many times.
Well-Formed Goals of 2nd-gen Entheogen Scholarship
Model the mind; model Psil transformation.
Figure out how to read analogy as description of Psil xfmn.
Construct theory / explanatory model.
Recognize plants & motifs in cultural history.
Understand mental model transformation.
Understand religious mythology as analogy describing mental model transformation. World religious myth especially Greco-Roman-Jewish-Christendom [incl tree of knowledge, the sacrifice of Isaac, Ezekiel, burning bush, bronze snake on pole; Jonah’s prayer]
Full repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition.
Theory-driven research. Do incorporate evidence, but use theory to construct (bring shape to, elicit, flush-out) evidence and drive the search for evidence.
Be driven by good theory (myth = analogy for ingesting then transforming control), not bad theory (Ama = Psil fx; Secret/Suppression, shows how awful the Church is!)
Theory driven, vs. defaulting to Denial/ ignorance, lack of explanatory model.
Glad that Mosur pays attention to the crybaby move, rhetoric against the big bad Institutional Church.
A better such critique is needed, just as the other Deniers are partially very right, but, poor & scorched-earth.
Mosur tries to contrast:
“Drug” & its effect (bad)
“Practices” (ie, code word for: the non-drug methods of the mystics) (good)
Mosur ought to say “here is a good critique: pros & cons of Ruck/Mura. Instead, Mosur sets up poor opposed positions/ options. eg:
End of Abstract:
“Instead of committing to a specific (and erroneous) view of history, psychedelic scholarship must commit to academic discussion and debate.”
That pits as if:
committing to a specific (and erroneous) view of history vs. academic discussion and debate
Actually, we should BOTH, in a good way:
Commit to a specific (and sound) view of history:
* Myth is description by analogy of Psil-driven mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
* Religions come from enth, then they deny that b/c conflict of interest.
* A kind of “perennialism” or “essentialism” is sound: not the all-dominant modern transnational Advaita Vedanta (nondual unity oneness, cessation of mentally constructing the self/other boundary), but per Egodeath theory, mental model of personal control-in-world. The central focus of transformation isn’t unity; it’s personal control.
AND:
Academic discussion and debate:
* High quality, with high explanatory power.
Non-Goals of 2nd-Gen Entheogen Scholarship
Accurate detailed history of who ingested what chemical how many times.
History of actions ie proving who ingested what.
Evidence-*driven* research.
Narrative-driven research (social drama narrative of suppression; boundary-drawing between the good guys vs the bad guys; “Isn’t it terrible how the Institutional Church suppressed visionary plants?” Picked up well by Mosur.).
Narrow focus on Ergot
Narrow focus on Eleusis
Morally grandstand against the big bad Church, institutional.
Inferior methods (which are merely avoidance strategies).
Beginner-level slight experience.
Dividing line defining separate “suppressed users groups” vs “mainstream orthodox tradition”.
Forbidden constructs/words:
cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in
mainstream, normal, tradition
The Article Weighs LSA/Ergot as a Candidate
It would be good to quote the article where it assesses the merit of effects of ergot/ LSA and whether those effects match kykeon and Eucharist.
The article, in effect, debates whether ergot (possibly LSA) is as effective as Psilocybin.
Hofmann claimed LSA gave him a Psilocybin-type experience, but Wasson & Ruck claimed that Hofmann’s LSA batch only caused them lethargy.
Wasson also wrote eg to McKenna that Amanita failed to deliver Psilocybin effects; Wasson practically concluded that the effects in history that he tried to assign to Amanita actually should be assigned to Psilocybin.
The Wasson/ Ruck hypothesis was disconfirmed by Wasson, that Amanita effects are like Psilocybin effects.
In 2025 (Kevin Feeny book – who we spoke with in church book club; the “Effects” chapter), Amanita is now classed as a deliriant, not as a psychedelic.
Like Ruck correctly argued in the 2001 article “Daturas for the Virgin”, Datura (note: not Psilocybin!) is a suitable substitute for Amanita.
That is an ironic failure of Ruck:
Given that Ruck is correct that Amanita and Datura give the same effect, this means — against Ruck — Amanita and Psilocybin do NOT give same effect.
The ironic correctness of Ruck’s argument that “Datura can substitute for Amanita” proves that Amanita fails to give Psilocybin effects. Amanita cannot substitute for Psilocybin, against the Wasson/ Ruck hypothesis from perhaps 1952-1977.
Wasson’s 1977 letter to McKenna, disconfirming Amanita effects as psychedelic and suitable in strength and type of effect and reliability; see section in present webpage: The “Secret Amanita” Paradigm Has Collapsed; It Is Now Past-Tense Seen in Retrospect from within 2nd-Generation Entheogen Scholarship (the “Explicit Psilocybin” Paradigm)
In practical usage based on Wasson and Ruck’s experiments:
Amanita is not as potent as Psilocybin.
Amanita is not as reliable as Psilocybin, in practical usage.
Amanita is not as psychedelic as Psilocybin; it’s a deliriant.
Max/Mod/Min Theory
Maximal entheogen theory of religion – Hoffman, 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
Moderate entheogen theory of religion – Ruck; 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
Minimal entheogen theory of religion – MICA Deniers; Mosurinjohn; Letcher; Huggins; Hatsis re: mushrooms
The Minimalist diminishers of enth in relig history aim against the Moderate Asserters. Likewise Egodeath theory aims against Moderate Asserters – a better critique angle.
Deniers frame debate as, who is right: either:
Asserters of Secret Ergot
Deniers of Secret Ergot
Superior critique of 1st Gen enth scholarship (Pop Myth) focuses on asserting Explicit Psil. The Moderates/ Deniers do not argue against the good, Explicit Psil theory; they ONLY argue against poor, week, Secret Ergot theory put forth by Ruck/ Mura.
Hit Counts:
ergot 24x
Psilocybin 3x
mush 6x
Eleus 63x
paradigm 4x
secre – 10x
suppress – 5x
Mosur mostly conflates:
The critique of specific theory of Elesuis & ergot hypothesis (1st-gen entheogen scholarship Affirmers).
The entire entheogen hypothesis (as put forth by 1st-generation entheogen scholarship, but ought to include 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship).
“the entheogenic paradigm”
“the empiricist paradigm” = many non-drug methods can/could/might/may “change consciousness”.
The flaw with all academic scholars, they all strive to emphasize that many methods can give altered consciousness, without any threshold requirements.
Instead, set the requirement as high as possible, instead of as low as possible!
To Wouter Hanegraaff and all Minimal or Moderate academic scholars who posture and strike an affected stance to try to be perceived as diminishing Psilocybin, any change of consciousness is the same as 12 grams of dried Cubensis for ten sessions.
There is no consideration of degree and ultimate result (other than nebulous “improved character in daily life”). Ergonomic degree is omitted in order to lower (ie diminish & belittle) Psilocybin and raise (elevate) non-drug methods fully up to the level of Psilocybin.
Like saying this toy plastic car is like a real car.
To Michael Hoffman/ 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship, altered consciousness only counts if it produces the ultimate altered-state effect: mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
What counts is not un-qualified “change of consciousness”. What matters is specific ability — strong powerful tendency — to change mental model: mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Does religious myth come from cave meditation? Does myth describe experiences from breath-meditation?
Myth describes sacred meal causing mental model transformation.
Given:
Ruck 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
There are two different positions/critiques, not just one:
* the Egodeath theory
* MICA Deniers who push diminish Psilocybin, ie push “many non-drug methods can produce a change of consciousness”, who push entheogens in Americas but not in Europe history;
Mosur pulls same posturing as Huggins: make many statements, all with a TONE or framing of, “so, no enth entheogens”. “Furthermore, 1+2=3! [so, no entheogens, in Eur history] eg: “MICA Affirmers are motivated to look for evidence that psychedelics should be legalized b/c of historical evidence!”
It is true that Affirmers have a motivation to find entheogens in Euro history to end Psilocybin Prohibition.
This is NOT a mark against the merit of the Affirmers’ historical theorizing.
Might as well accuse Mosur of a conflict of interest:
“WE CANNOT TRUST ANYTHING MOSUR ASSERTS, B/C SHE HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN PERSUADING EDITORS AND AUDIENCE!”
That is a fallacy, which in Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024)
I called it “argument from sheer quantity of arguments”, from sheer making of statements:
“I am making many statements and observations about this topic. … So, no mushrooms.”
Sprinkle decorative words: “Further, another reason Affirmers is wrong is, they are motivated by trying to persuade lawmakers. So, no mushrooms.”
Deniers make many statements that could contribute to enth research – but, we must transform/ reframe those “destructive-intended” statements, to become constructive contributions.
Need better pseudo-history & theory, not make the Suppression Hypothesis the central foundation focus explanatory premise.
My work against Suppression is negative theorizing; mere ground-clearing.
My theory itself does not employ or focus on Suppression (ie per 1st Gen enth schol).
I pay NO attention to constructs/ concepts/ explanatory constructs, “mainstream vs. suppressed”; “Group A lacks The Amanita” & “Group B has The Amanita” & “here is the boundary barrier dividing the two groups”.
Unlike them, 2nd Gen enth schol does NOT take it as a given that “we are expected to explain who suppressed whom re: The Secret Kykeon”.
Ruck feels that everyone expects him to explain “How did Big Bad Church suppress the heretical enth?”
But I do not believe such an explanation is demanded by anyone.
Ruck thinks “You are all demanding from me an explanation of how Suppression; here’s my theory of that.”
I do NOT think anyone is demanding of me an explanation of who suppressed whom, of how The Secret Ergot Kykeon / The Secret Amanita Cult was suppressed.
The latter is the motivating purpose for 1st Gen Enth Scholarship and is the central explnatory construct and concern. Not how the mind works; not Repeal; not real actual psychedelics (Psil); just crybaby moralizing grandstanding to smear and bellyache against Inst’l Religion (eg John Lash refuses to allow Jesus / Moses to have Psil, because they are harmful figures put forth by Inst’l Religion.)
Tail wags dog.
Addendum Not in Email, re: Mosurinjohn/ Deniers
Mosurinjohn and Deniers are biased / prejudiced and ignorant.
McPriest and company stupidly treat Allegro/ Ruck/ Muraresku as if that = the theory; but, Ruck is merely 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.
You get worthless Denier scholarship (1st-gen entheogen scholarship Deniers) dismissing poor, 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.
1st-gen entheogen scholarship Denier scholarship is unproductive like the MythVision YouTube channel; negative mythicism: it can only reject a poor previous, literal theory.
Bad Theory 1
Debunking of Bad Theory 1.
Good Theory 2
Literalist Christianity.
Negative Mythicism. Debunks Literalist Christianity without replacing it with truth and comprehension.
Positive Mythicism. Here’s the deep meaning and referent of Christianity, or of religion prior to 1687 Newton/modern era.
(hypothetical) Debunkers of the mature, 2025 Egodeath theory. Doesn’t count, b/c Hatsis didn’t know ANYTHING about my position: Hatsis’ reply to me, “You guys [me & Brown] aren’t allowed to switch from Amanita to Psilocybin, because you come from Allegro [false! projection!], and so you’d be a hypocrite. And, the shape of the Liberty Cap is anachronistic.”
No amount of debunking of Bad Theory 1 can ever produce Good Theory 2. — nor constitute a debunking or rebuttal of Good Theory 2.
Bad Deniers’ writings are — at most — debunking/ engaging Bad Theory 1. They are entirely far from debunking/ engaging Good Theory 2.
Mosur = debunker of Bad Theory 1, so Mosur’s scholarship is lame in the same way as poor treatments by the Deniers Panofsky, Letcher, Hatsis, & Huggins.
Eggs alike: similarly lame and clueless and having no prospect of ever getting it right:
Deniers: Panofsky, Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins, Mosurinjohn. Join the club of Dead-End scholarship.
2nd-Gen Affirmers Must Divorce 1st-Gen Deniers
email to Cyberdisciple July 28, 2025
Need an official divorce between Deniers/ committed skeptics (of mushroom imagery in Christian art; of the entheogen theory of religion especially Greco Roman Christian).
Affirmers should not let Deniers direct the research and arg’n.
Affirmers are most productive setting their own direction for arg’n.
However, when someone tells me to ignore idiot naysayers, I continue to rebut and engage naysayers, which is somewhat profitable, and is successful.
STACE MODEL OF MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE = COVERT NEO-ADVAITA
We Reached the Same Conclusions
[August 11, 2025]
Before hearing about this article recently (mentioned “Swami Vivek”) from a Kitchens stream / article, I pinpointed Stace 1960 as the false basis for model of mystical experience = false basis of psychedelic pseudo science / Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) / the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ).
I recently confirmed that EVERY article and book in the field ALL held to the same, wrong model of “mystical experience”, including field of Western Esotericism.
The entire Academia or scholarly world, and “science” world, all adopted the WRONG and FALSE, “positive unity” model of “mystical experience”. Recently, Charles Stang and Erik Davis and I have been directly questioning that model and saying it is a fabrication. Not just saying “we should approach scientifically approach mystical experience differently”, rather, rejecting the conception of “mystical experience”.
Late~2022/10/29 & esp. 2022/12/16: https://egodeaththeory.org/page/6/?s=MEQ https://egodeaththeory.org/page/9/?s=CEQ Last page of hits from site search = oldest. Specifically, track my earliest writings about OAV 1994’s Item 54: I was afraid to lose my self-control, and the question of why that item didn’t make it into the CEQ. Those pages include “advaita”, indicating that as soon as I suspected bad model of mystical experience, I suspected Advaita, like I concluded for Ken Wilber. All I had to do was apply my existing 2015 accusation against Wilber, to psychedelic pseudo science in late 2022.
JUNK MYSTICISM IS ADVAITA; NONDUAL PHILOSOPHY. My competitor since 1986 has always been Advaita. The Given answer, which I always rejected, was Advaita. In 1988 when drafting my announcement article of an alternative explanatory model, I didn’t realize my foe to overthrow is Advaita.
I read Ann Taves great article recently, AFTER reaching same conclusions, so I was glad to see writers like Taves use scare quotes: see my recent first posts of the word “Staceanism” (memorable and Findable, discussed w/ Wrmspirit). I accused – before I read Taves or Breau articles – I advised:
Always strike-through the word “mystic” and instead write “Stacean ‘mysticism'”, “Staceanism”.
Any time any scholar 1950-2025 writes “mystic”, they ALWAYS mean the completely wrong model, entirely mis-focused, as if reading “the cosmos” before 1687 or 1543: every mention of “the cosmos” bad baked-in the false model, of earth-centric.
EVERY writing about “mystical experience”, from 1893 to 2025, in Phil or Science or Cog Sci, every time they write anything about “mystical experience”, they ALWAYS mean a specific, WRONG model.
Both sides of debate shared the same misconception.
The “Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science” debate is wholly unprofitable, digging themselves further in a ditch.
The harder that the Materialism / Matthew Johnson advocates plea for a scienctific approach to mystical experience, they make the problem more entrenched and deluded.
Whistleblowers or debunkers of Hopkins – see my Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science debate articles page — contributed mentions of Swami Vivek, then neo-Advaita.
Seems like I reached same view as Breau & Smith, on the relation between bad psychedelic science and bad model of mysticism.
I traced Item 54: I was afraid to lose my self-control, from OAV 1994 into the the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), and found that every step of the way was bunk.
The entire process of creating Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and then revised Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and then the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), every step of the way was bunk.
Roland Griffiths team at Johns Hopkins Dept. of Psychedelic Science didn’t pull the 21 items from orig OAV 1994 A dim; pointlessly used a middleman badly formed 11-Factors, falsely called “5DASC”.
Studerus made two badly scoped factors and when effects fit both factors, they fixed the problem not by trashcanning their bunk factors, but by removing effects from those factors, putting them in Shadow Factor 13 where they then were ignored by Roland Griffiths team at Johns Hopkins Dept. of Psychedelic Science.
etc, I have written at length. All such articles are junk, surface posturing, but the math is bunk in multiple ways. They took cheap spraypaint can of Math and sprayed it on a heap of junk, and declared the result “validated”. The articles never really explain where they pulled these categories of effects.
psychedelic pseudo science articles (ie clinical Psilocybin therapy trials & “validation” of questionnaires) repeat same perfunctory (superficial, careless, token) narrative about carefully drawing from Stace’s 1960 model, which is junk neo-Advaita.
Stace used the covert neo-Advaita non-dual notion of mysticism; claiming falsely that suspending the experience of the self-other boundary = Transcendent Knowledge & transformation & revelatation & peak ultimate religious experience.
A month ago, that relaization answered mystery:
Why did I preorder Wm Richards book Sacred Knowledge 2015 and was left cold by that book?
Ans: the book is totally — like most all books in the genre eg Hofmann – on the wrong path, equating Transcendent Knowledge = cessation of experiencing the self-other boundary.
Same w/ early Wilber first 6 books and the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 1988 era, so in 1988, I drafted my main article, w/ message “No, here is a truly powerful and sudden and complete ego transcendence: block universe eternalism in the loose cognitive state.”
Precursor to my Expose of Staceanism in psychedelic pseudo science, was my calling out Ken Wilber for pushing mere warmed-over Advaita. Between 1988 and ~2024, I gradually realzed that what’s wrong w/ Wilber’s model is that its engine is just Advaita, — in magazine What Is Enlightenment? (WIE), Andrew Cohen a& & Ken Wilber related uncomfortably w/ another Advaita guy, proponent, Ramesh Balsekar.
agreement & disagreement be6tween, re: nature of mystical revelation/ transformation:
Ken Wilber
Andrew Cohen
Ramesh Balsekar
Michael Hoffman
Kafei (Max Freakout Transcendent Knowledge podcast guest re: the writings of the great mystics)
Wilber’s elaborate model is ok, but at its heart… oh yeah, remem’ing: before I debunked questionnaires, I first pegged Wilber as merely dressed-up Advaita.
Starting around 2015/12/21, I identified Ken Wilber as merely Advaita meditation proponent with a huge framework around that. Psycho-spiritual development theory/ explanatory model with a bad core. https://egodeaththeory.org/page/3/?s=wilber+advaita
Dec. 2022-July 2025, I identified psychedelic science (clinical Psilocybin therapy w/ psychometrics questionnaires) as merely Advaita mysticism as the master lens through which to force all brands of mystical experience. Reduction/ distortion.
Found great article (Abstract) from Nov. 2023 (1 year 9 months ago).
Breau & Gillis-Smith are ahead of my critical research on bunk mystical experience model; found 1893 Swami Viv. / ADVAITA VEDANTA at the core of bad theory.
3-4 Hindu gurus per Breau, representing only 1 of many schools, AS IF that one POV is the master lens for all mystical experience.
Ch: Psychedelics Today Streamed live on Jun 30, 2025, I was there live.
Award-winning science writer Erica Rex, conversation about the recent Hopkins religious study.
Author’s Corrections:
14:56 Date for Marsh Chapel is 1962 not 1963 15:49 Marsh Chapel date again is 1962 not 1963 16:07 We said LSD and the actual drug was [synthetic] psilocybin [one recent article said at Marsh Chapel, they ingested “Psilocybin mushrooms”! that would be harder to dose & control.]
Note to Internet: I am the one who is spreading the knowledge that Good Friday = April 20, 1962. Ppl get the date wrong but are figuring it out. I had to edit the Wiki article (posted my gripe at present website that day; see History on wiki page > my name), and then everyone started to comprehend similarity of date to other dates.
My church actually is considered the leading edge for psyched. religion.
Our pastor is developing materials, slide deck, at church yesterday we started going over it.
Least Dogma; my derived concept “Least Ceremony”. What is our religious ceremony?? He’ll answer and he is interested in my input.
Michael Pollan replied to my question: Yes ppl are already working on replacement for bunk Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) & the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) eg the UC Berk. panel.
I hope to ask Pollan two distinct questions, 2nd built historically on the 1st:
1. Replace bunk model of mystical experience per 1893/1902/1960. Vivekananda/ James/ Stace
2. Replace bunk questionnaires that incrop the bunk model of mystical experience. This was my first question, briefly answered by Pollan. But if we retain same bunk core model of mystical experience, no questionnaire can be worth anything.
Video 2 after the livestream, standing toward the right, doesn’t show Clif at start: [find “Spirituality in Light” below, for the other video angle YouTube URL from the orig UC Berkeley livestream I was in where I asked Michael Pollan if the bunk Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) & Hood Mysticism Scale & Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) will be replaced by valid, balanced, comprehensive questionnaires).
Panel Discussion: Psychedelics and Spirituality in Light of the Religious Leaders Study
Replacing the Mystical Experience Questionnaires (MEQ)
email to Cyberdisciple July 28 B 2025
one such video interview mentions “we created the MEQ4”, fulfilling my joke of this trajectory:
Pahnke 1962: MEQ132
Richards 1975: MEQ43
Roland Griffiths team at Johns Hopkins Dept. of Psychedelic Pseudo Science – 2010 – MEQ30
2024: MEQ4 – 4 questions?
2025: MEQ1 – 1 Q
2026: MEQ0 – no questions
They reduced the set of items (psyched effects q’s) to just 4, now?? I have not yet tried to locate the new MEQ4.
Not to be confused w/ 1975 Ralph Hood: Hood Mysticism Scale (HMS).
Stace’s Covert-Advaita Model of Mysticism Is Presented as the Scientific Basis of Psychedelic Science
email to Cyberdisciple July 28 C 2025
Checking wording in Studerus (11 Factors) article saying Stace’s 1960 model of mystical experience = the foundation of this science: The article’s phrase is:
“mystical experiences as described in the scientific literature on the psychology of religion“
I said always cross-out “mystical” and write “Staceanism” – or, write “Neo Advaita Vedanta”, because in today’s poor field of psychedelic pseudo science, ‘mystical’ NEVER means actual mystical; it ALWAYS means a fake substitute for outsiders & beginners: a forced and artificially invented and imagined, “positive unity” paradigm.
Erik Davis: paraphrase: “Hopkins psychedlic ‘science’ is vouchsafed by research that’s outdated by 50 years”.
Psychometric Evaluation of the Altered States of Consciousness Rating Scale (OAV).pdf
Stud. page 2 has the quote/citation about Stace as if “science”, and also “pleasant [positive unity; Oceanic] = mystical; unpleasant [negative unity; Dread/Angst] therefore non-mystical”:
Ann Taves’ great article explains / reveals that “Angst” is the complement of “Oceanic”, in Dittrich’s misguided thinking and both are centered (wrongly) around “unity”.
When someone experiences unity as positive, label that “Oceanic” (and “mystical”).
When experience unity as negative, label as “Angst/ Dread/ fear of dissolution” (therefore “bad trip” instead of “mystical”).
Either valuation, per Taves, is all about “unity” according to the field, criticized by Taves and me.
Thus “dissolution” is to be understood against (in terms of) the Unity paradigm.
When they say “dissolution”, they are still thinking of “unity”.
Bunk Paradigm: “Mystical = suspension of cognitive construction of the self-other boundary.
“When the self-other boundary shifts or lifts, that’s what mystical revealation is all about.
“If you cease experiencing the self-other boundary, you are enlightened.
“Enlightenment = the revelation that the self-other boundary is merely a mental construction.”
vs. the Egodeath theory, which says the experience that matters is control transformation.
A change in the experience of control; not a change in the experience of the self-other boundary. Vedanta = the latter emphasis.
Studerus p. 2:
“The OBN [Oceanic] scale basically includes items measuring positively experienced depersonalization and derealization, deeply-felt positive mood, and experiences of unity.
High scores on the OBN scale therefore indicate a state similar to mystical experiences as described in the scientific literature on the psychology of religion (eg, see [20]).
“The DED [Angst/Dread, of ego “dissolution”] scale includes items measuring negatively experienced derealization and depersonalization, cognitive disturbances, catatonic symptoms, paranoia, and loss of thought and body control.
High scores on the DED scale therefore indicate a very unpleasant state similar to so called ‘‘bad trips’’ described by drug-users.”
Citation 20 = Stace 1960, here described as “scientific literature”.
The article ought to be titled “The Psychedelic Church Movement in the 1960s & 1990s”, to reflect the narrowness of emphasis/narrative.
Christian Greer’s entry for 2022 dictionary is dullsville, pedestrian, yet another 1960s & 1990s narrow focus on pop history of religious psyched. churches but the dictionary entry is really cut off after 1995 – barely any content for 1996-2022.
Consider how unproductive/limited 1st-gen entheogen scholarship is.
Consider how unproductive/limited 1st-gen Denial articles are, eg Mosurinjohn 2025 or Huggins 2024, or Letcher 2006, or Hatsis’ abortive non-treatment [avoidance] of mushroom-trees in Psych Myst Trads 2018.
Final section of Greer, on “current”:
* Barely discusses 21st C Psil-assisted clinical therapy, and
* Doesn’t mention the 2014-started, Hopkins/NYU, Religious Leaders Study, which just now came to its fruition of fiasco.
The crappy article Psychedlic Christianity & multi-scholar reply https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2054/8/2/article-p143.xml by McPriest, 2024 the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, is lame, “introducing” Psilo into Christianity for the very first time ever, ignoring editor Winkelman & Brown yelling at them to engage history entheogen scholarship.
But even that lame (ancient history-free) treatment of current psych religion is missing from the Greer 2022 dictionary entry.
Loser Failure Approaches to Scholarship Guaranteeing Failure, Unproductive: The Denial Paradigm, Mental Lobotomy: How NOT to Construct Successful Explanatory Theory/Model
You can’t do effective scholarship productive, by ignoring all imperfect scholarsly publications. You MUST engage, to some degree, imperfect publications – the writings of the Deniers, of psychedelics in European religious history.
Affirmers, of psychedelics in European religious history. Deniers, “
When 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) proves to be fantasy/ myth/ misguided, per the Deniers, neither do the Deniers show the way forward by their lazy scorched-earth dismissal and fixating on dead end of “there is no evidence”.
Deniers ignore the basic eveidence, and fail to have any structured theory. 1st-Gen Affirmers have their own dead end and omissions and failures.
Neither 1st-Gen 1st-gen entheogen scholarship (who omit some evidence and have poor theory) nor 1st-Gen Deniers (who omit evidence and theory) can produce a compelling successful explanatory model.
Only 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) can perceive all the evidence and construct an effective theory. This doesn’t mean that 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship can simply ignore and refuse to engage 1st-gen entheogen scholarship & 1st-gen Deniers, such as the article:
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Mosurinjohn & Ascough, July 25, 2025) [section is above]
The Consumption of Psychoactive Plants in Ancient Global and Anatolian Cultures During Religious Rituals: The Roots of the Eruption of Mythological Figures and Common Symbols in Religions and Myths (Sayin, 2014)
Anatolia = Turkey/ near east. Author is in Turkey.
End of Abstract:
[todo: de-dup; same content is below]
“The main purposes of the practice of these plants were:
spiritual healing;
to contact with spirits;
to contact with the souls of ancestors;
to reach enlightenment (Nirvana or Satori);
to become a master shaman, pagan or witch;
to reach so-called-other realities, etc.
“Such “psychedelic-philosophical plant rituals” changed participating persons’ psychology, philosophy and personality to a great degree.
“In these two successive articles, the consumption of psychedelic plants during religious rituals is reviewed.
“The images, figures, illusions and hallucinations experienced during these “plant trips” had a great impact on the formation and creation of many
figures,
characters,
creatures,
archetype images that exist not only in the mythology, but also in many religions, as well, such as
angels,
demons,
Satan,
mythological creatures,
gods,
goddesses etc.
[add: Abram (Abraham), Isaac, thicket-ram; the promise and blessing to Abram; king Jesus on the cross as king of the Jews. -mh]
“In the Middle East and Anatolia, within many hermetic and pagan religions, Greek and Hellenic cultures psychoactive plant use was a serious part of the religious rituals, such as Dionysian rituals or Witch’s’ Sabbaths.
“Although the impact of the “psychedelic experience and imagination” was enormous to the configuration of many religious and mythological characters, and archetypes, this fact has been underestimated and even unnoticed by many historians and anthropologists, because of the quasi-ethical trends of “anti-drug-brain-washed Western Societies”.”
My notes to the author while downloading the article:
Religious myths are analogies describing mental model transformation caused by psychedelics, such as Psilocybin.
A given mytheme describes a particular aspect of experiencing during mental model transformation.
To decode a mytheme is to identify which specific referent experience is described via analogy.
Per final paragraph, the author wrongly says you perceive mythic characters. Actually, the mind thinks of analogies. The article lacks concept of analogies, and is literalistic/ physicalist/ sensory/ concretistic.
Like saying “which visionary plant looks like Moses’ burning bush?” Wrong question. the mushroom-tree artists reached same concept as me: cut the branching of possibiliteis for personal control, in the eternalism state.
The image of burning bush refers to, by analogy, removal of branching possibilities in the altered state.
But this author would say that on drugs you see an image of a burning bush and you see a ram caught in a thicket.
“Psychoactive plants which contain hallucinogenic molecules that induce a form of altered states of consciousness (H-ASC) have been widely used during the religious rituals of many cultures throughout the centuries, while the consumption of these plants for spiritual and religious purposes is as old as human history.
“Some of those cultures were shaman and pagan Tibetan cultures; some of the Nordic subcultures etc.
Some of the psychoactive ingredients of the plants that were used during these religious rituals were;
“The main purposes of the practice of these plants were:
spiritual healing;
to contact with spirits;
to contact with the souls of ancestors;
to reach enlightenment (Nirvana or Satori);
to become a master shaman, pagan or witch;
to reach so-called-other realities,
etc.
Such “psychedelic-philosophical plant rituals” changed participating persons’ psychology, philosophy and personality to a great degree.
In these two successive articles, the consumption of psychedelic plants during religious rituals is reviewed and it is hypothesized that the images, figures, illusions and hallucinations experienced during these “plant trips” had a great impact on the formation and creation of many figures, characters, creatures, archetype images that exist not only in the mythology,
[this is why I coined phrase “religious myth” – mh]
but also in many religions, as well, such as
angels,
demons,
Satan,
mythological creatures,
gods,
goddesses
etc.
In the Middle East and Anatolia, within many hermetic and pagan religions, Greek and Hellenic [ie Hellenistic?] cultures psychoactive plant use was a serious part of the religious rituals, such as Dionysian rituals or Witch’s’ Sabbaths.
Although the impact of the “psychedelic experience and imagination” was enormous to the configuration of many religious and mythological characters, and archetypes, this fact has been underestimated and even unnoticed by many historians and anthropologists, because of the quasi-ethical trends of “anti-drug-brain-washed Western Societies”.
My comment to the author of that article when decided to download it
My comment to author:
A bold vigorous explanatory model in this article, it appears.
Article does not give the oversimplified binary “Amanita = Europe, Psilocybin = Americas”, therefore the article is probably good.
re: Greco/Roman/Christendom/ Medieval, 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) is now (starting 1998 w/ Samorini) being corrected by 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
1st-gen entheogen scholarship was clumsy, eg Wasson’s hypothesis: lump together Amanita & Psilocybin into the construct “sacred mushrooms” but forced Psilocybin into a diminished support role glorifying Amanita the supposed super-psychedelic.
That was a clumsy model, now being corrected.
1st-gen entheogen scholarship is seen by some as discredited myth, which is pretty much true; but, 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship is correcting that, in line with this article.
f47 [11:01 p.m. June 13, 2025] – the lifted axe is cutting L leg of guy above, confiming that they are destruction the building foundations mushroom-topped building, red guy right lg has {lifted garment} spir’l arousal. 3 youths on mushrooms using {blades} while Devil rains {fire} down , blowing billowing cloth, right foot touches [lower right f47] the “billowing earth” 11:05 pm
I other day started saying about billowing earth = loose cognition perceptual distortion and lack of stability. altered-state earth. this building rests on that ground, collapsing.
upper right mushroom-trees the Y touches Devil, the I avoids Devil.
The contrast of {one side vs. other side} is common It might appear as if {one side vs. other side} fits within the {handedness} motif. The {one side vs. other side} motif fits more within the {branching} motif.
Specifically L & R assignment, is rare, inconsistent; that fits in {branching}.
…
doesn’t fit in {handedenss}.
It’s one thing to paint {branching} motifs , easy & common.
{branching} is a primary motif; the message content; pretty direct and not far-analogy.
{stability}: a primary motif. x% direct referent; y% analogical.
Abstraction Analogy Spectrum
Referent: the Possibilism mental model of time, self, and control, when impacted by the revelation of the “eternalism” mental model of time, self, and control.
{blood} = Liberty Cap Grape Wine
{blood} = Liberty Cap grape wine
{blood} = Liberty Cap grape wine, including its necessary, effective, delivered message idea of lightning rod idea sufficing
killed cybernetically when the god brings to banquet
Mithras gives Helios horn full of grape Liberty Cap
front side: blade goes into bull with blood pour out feeding snake and feeding dog
reverse side: blade goes through grape bunch that = horn of mixed wine
Mithras L hand IY form; the Hand Shape – the {YI hand shape} motif
surrender; peace? more directly/ literally, because hate “symbolism”; prefer attend the shape not the alleged “symbolic meaning” externally to the image.
Two cautes & cautopates twins
Helios is not wearing cap & crown, cap & crown is on stem sword blade Liberty Cap stem.
What do scholars say what’s under the cap of this type of phrygian cap image?
f51 – God’s flashlight cuts {cut right trunk} , held R arm, turn look Right, lifted garment spir’l arousal
sage’s scroll message affirms {cut right branch} = non-branching , equates w/ L hand scroll the empty ossuary:
{non-branching (on R)} = {empty ossuary} = {threatened by {blade}}; {arrow & bow threatened}
f51 L: spear in trunk of spliiting Y on L, I on R; YI tree , has {cut right branch}
The bow-man is making the hand shape R hand palm, which is the ideal variant
he is realiing L foot down is powerless, empty, dead.
he has furrowed brow threatened by R YI hand shape displayed by the bowman. while God beats him down with fire flashlight of fire-death transforming the mental model to eternalism w/ 2-level, dependent control. the threat of death by aimed arrow is the fire light assaulting transoformaing his mental model like the youths chopping down (L leg above and) building next to Devil raining down fire on the billowing cloak guy shielding his eyes.
strange lack of {snake} in Great Canterbury Psalter , a little {serpent}:
tree of knowledge, Eden, f11 row 3 R
Moses brass serpent on pole via de-branched tree.
see {ossuary} as control focused, then f51 sage equates: L hand scroll touches empty rock ossuary, he’s outside of the rock ossuary looking at it and being transformed by being threatened to death, furrowed brow R hand scroll touches {cut right branch} of tree that has {cut right trunk} has wrong foot down/ lifted, his L hand closer to ground than R (bad per f134)
God has lifted garment, light aiming, holds a book of transcendent knowledge, no legs;
“shape”, not “sign”! avoid “symbolism” indirection.
pay attention to what forms are shown, directly
[11:59 p.m. June 13, 2025] f55 upper L: {open book} on stable rock column altar table = {YI hand shape}
{open book} = {YI hand shape (w/ L hand)}
f55 L: R hand YI hand shape in doorway of stable temple w/ {lifted garment}, stable control is conditional on rock altar-sacrifice ({rock, knife, blade, cut branches, blood}, else die – that altar = book’s base. the open book sits on equivalane of altar. his head is on altar and his YI hand shape above the altar.
{altar}: {rock, knife, blade, cut branches, blood} – not sure of burnt offering, sin offering, blood …
f55 scene {hold {balance scale}: stnad stand on dead guy, whose L hand no thumb touch stable column base
strict L & R assignments is designed to be broken, violated, by {handedness} motif.
{billowing dirt}, altered-state dirt
f55 L: temple built on foundation soil of altered state billowing dirt mounds,
Cross in place where mushroom topper goes; {cross} = {mushroom} atop stable building on top of altered state dirt.
SONY DSC
, forced to contradict own power; bull dragged off by Mithras who has control of the bull’s shoulder muscle, naked revealed dependent Helios/Sol,
Rarer is the {handedness} motif. It is less the message. Utility connector motif, merely.
mytheme decoding: {garment} vs {no garment}
{naked vs robed Helios/Sol} = __ mental model. glorified officieially made to steer by Mithras / crown + robe {crown, robe, Mithras stand on right foot} =
Panels:
Mithras above branching tree controlling its destiny
Mithras drags bull seeing snake on right of branching tree (YI form/ contrast)
Mithras crowns Helios robed authorized/ made to steer/ control on behalf of emperor Mithras, now that the bull has been killed by showing it eternalism instead of branching branching possibilities with power of steering among them.
Mithras holds bull’s shoulder muscle in control of it, leaving Helios naked exposed helpless powerless in relation, bowing submission dependence surrender
Mystics Bad; Shamans Good
surrenderism – per Houot 2019 dissertation covers surrenderism. Rise of the Psychonaut 2025 omits surrenderism.
Shamans are good, They have successful technology. They don’t fear loss of control or have control instability.
Mystics are bad, failed surrenderism They fail to have control or a technology of control. [like those wonderful shamans have]
Houot’s Advisor Masters Thesis Committee:
GREAT NARRATIVE, PASS!
🎓🎓
Related books that Hatsis ought to cite but doesn’t:
God’s Flesh: Teonanacátl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom (Irvin, 2022)
Strange Drugs make for Strange Bedfellows: Ernst Jünger, Albert Hofmann and the Politics of Psychedelics (Alan Piper, 2015)
I read in 2018:
Strange Drugs make for Strange Bedfellows: Ernst Jünger, Albert Hofmann and the Politics of Psychedelics Alan Piper, 2015 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1514806053 –
Mytheme Decoding: How to {approach the throne of God} Without Being {killed by God}
May 18, 2025, in church group, I was given 50% increased grasp of interpreting Bible myth themes.
The Bible is concerned with how to {approach the throne of God} without being {killed by God}.
What type of bloody violent psychotic sacrifice does God require, what bloody rituals of killing and spreading blood on surfaces, must we do, to approach the throne of God?
Kill our firstborn son?
Kill and burn up a ram?
Kill Mr. Jesus the king?
Who or what creature must we insert blade and fire and use their blood to save us?
All Bible readers are concerned with this entheogenic peak question. According to the Bible.
Proof that the Blue Vessel Contains Psilocybin Mushrooms, such as Psilocybin Mixed Wine Mushroom Wine
f109 crop: blue vessel:
Crop by Michael Hoffman – detail: f109, Great Canterbury Psalter
f22 crop: green vessel:
Crop by Michael Hoffman – detail: f22, Great Canterbury Psalter
f109 full image:
Crop by Michael Hoffman. f109, Great Canterbury Psalter: f109: Hellmouth Furnace Loss of Balance Caught by Net, Summoned to City Gate Entrance Past Ossuary Corpse, Stable Building Protected by Cloth Washed Clean
Features:
not sure if noted before June 11, 2025: balancing-guy’s right foot is on net. When you fall into control instability, you’re caught (avoiding death; avoiding cybernetic death/ loss of control) by right foot = non-branching = eternalism-thinking.
initial interp said “caught IN net”; wrong. Caught BY net. Net doesn’t trap/ kill you; it saves/ rescues you from cybernetic death (experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control).
Net = God provides Abraham the ram caught in thicket = blood of the ram that purifies, redeems, rescues, emancipates from trap prison enslavement.
The latter particular interp. gets into the 3-phase model, beyond the 2-phase model in which the end-state is right foot/ eternalism/ non-branching.
f22 full image:
Crop by Michael Hoffman. f22, Great Canterbury Psalter: Mushroom Mount, incl. red & white Liberty Cap mushroom roof. far right: red and white Liberty Cap grid touching God’s cloud; each Amanita Liberty Cap tree has L & R limbs/ fruits/ hands.
Red & white Liberty Cap mushroom roof.
far right: red and white Liberty Cap grid touching God’s cloud; each Amanita Liberty Cap tree in the grid has L & R limbs/ fruits/ hands like detailed in tree of knowledge f11 row 3 R.
Center tree also has such a grid w/ L/R hands.
Branching-form features (noted previously):
Across the base of mushroom mount in middle:
mushroom-trees 1 & 2 (on left) form an IY pair; mushroom-tree 2 is IY form.
mushroom-trees 4 & 5 (on right) form an IY pair; mushroom-tree 5 is YI form.
mushroom-tree 4 crown (green) has vine-leaf tree & Panaeolus features; Panaeolus per the visual classification scheme established in Day 3 & Day 4 of Creation (f11).
Crop by Michael Hoffman. Grid of Liberty Caps (red & white) in mushroom-tree crown. f109, Great Canterbury PsalterCrop by Michael Hoffman – f109, Liberty Cap {mushroom roof} on left. Great Canterbury Psalter
The “Secret Amanita” Paradigm Has Collapsed; It Is Now Past-Tense Seen in Retrospect from within 2nd-Generation Entheogen Scholarship (the “Explicit Psilocybin” Paradigm)
“Str. cubensis must flourish in India. Did it play a part in the abandonment of Soma? Inebriation from Str. cubensis and the other psilocybin species is clearly, in my opinion, superior to A. muscaria.” – Wasson to McKenna, 1977
“Prepare to journey through time as we unveil a groundbreaking theory that could rewrite the narrative of biblical history as we know it! 📜✨
“In this video, we explore the compelling theory that Abraham, the revered patriarch of the Jewish faith, may not be as disconnected from Greek mythology as tradition would have us believe.
Dive deep with us as we examine the striking parallels between the story of Abraham’s son, Isaac, and Phrixus, a figure of Greek myth.
🐏 The Sacrificial Ram: A Common Thread? 🐏
Central to our exploration are the uncanny similarities between Isaac and Phrixus — two young men poised on the precipice of sacrifice, only to be miraculously spared by a divinely-sent ram.
Could these stories, seemingly worlds apart, actually share a common origin?
Our investigation delves into the scholarly arguments that suggest a significant connection.
“Join us as we discuss the work of leading scholars who have dared to venture into this controversial terrain.
“Through their meticulous research and analysis, they illuminate potential influences that Greek mythological narratives may have had on the formation of seminal biblical stories. Get ready for a paradigm shift!
🔄 Turning the Tables on Biblical Understanding 🔄
“We delve deep into the intricate web of stories, languages, and cultures that have shaped our understanding of Abraham and Isaac.
“As we journey through this uncharted territory, prepare for your perception of the Bible’s development to be completely turned on its head.
Does the evidence stack up?
Is Abraham’s narrative potentially a branch from the rich tree of Greek mythology?
Gnostic Informant helped Co-produce and narrated this documentary.”
Religious Ramifications of the Ahistoricity of Abraham
There is no Abraham according to the flesh; there is only Abraham according to the spirit; ie, analogicity.
The {elect/ saved/ chosen/ redeemed} are those who receive reading the Bible as purely analogy, per {those on the inside}.
{Those on the outside} read the Bible as literalism, and receive not God’s promise to Abraham.
Gen 22:
“The fire and wood are here,” analogy-Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
Analogy-Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the analogy-lamb for the burnt offering.”
Then he reached out his hand and took the analogy-knife to analogy-slay his analogy-son.
But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven,
“Abraham!
Do not lay a hand on the analogy-boy.
Do not do anything to him.
Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your analogy-son, your only son.”
Analogy-Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw an analogy-ram caught by its horns.
He went over and took the analogy-ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his analogy-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 analogy-son, I will surely bless you and make your analogy-descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky.
Through your analogy-offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”
The ram caught in a thicket by its horns didn’t literally exist.
Jesus didn’t literally exist.
The ram’s blood didn’t literally exist.
The blood of Christ didn’t exist literally.
The Bible myths are all analogy, not literal.
Agenda to Replace Christianity by Fake Psychedelic Religion of Political International Unity Based on False, “Positive Unity” Model of Mystical Experience
Evil archons try to abuse and twist psychedelics (Psilocybin) to force abandonment of Christianity and selectively fabricate a phony “psychedelic mysticism” based on Swami Vivekananda’s “positive unity” model of mystical experience.
Chris Letheby — reducer of psychedelics to merely cherrypicked beginner whitewashed neutered fake FALSE RELIGION “positive unity” (irrational Eastern-type inarticulate non-rational Advaita)….
Western religion SUCKS re: Literalism and lack of cybernetic eternalism.
Eastern religion SUCKS re: non-rationalism and lack of cybernetic eternalism.
The agenda is to get rid of Christianity by inventing a psychedelic religion based on false notion of nondual unity oneness as the essence of mystical experience.
The actual true essence of mystical experience is cybernetic eternalism, not nondual unity oneness.
True psychedelic religion is represented by the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) — or better, upstream from that, the Angst dimension of 1994 OAV — not by the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ).
Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is false: based on a trojan horse pretextual fake model of mystical experience by Swami Vivekananda 1893, long before psychedelics knowledge, framing mystical experience as positive unity, for the agenda of international political unity.
Michael Pollan’s Reply to My Question about Replacing the Lopsided, Incomplete “Mysticism” Questionnaires
This means Psychedelic Science is not corrupt, is not just a trojan horse to abuse psychedelics to fabricate a bunk pretextual false religion for the covert purpose of forcing international political unity, by pushing a model of “mystical experience” 1893-1960 folded into psychedelics research 1962 (Pahnke Good Friday Marsh Chapel) & 2014/2025 (the Religious Leaders Study).
Phase 1: Make Bunk Model of Mysticism
1893 = Swami Vivekananda [Find that in the present webpage].
1902 = Wm James
1960 = Walter Stace book on “Mysticism”.
Phase 2: Make Bunk Model of Mysticism-Type Experience from Psilocybin
Create and “validate” “Positive-Balanced” Questionnaires that Wrap and Bake-in the Bunk “Positive Unity” Model of Mystical experience instead of the Authentic, “Cybernetic Dependence” Model.
These bunk scales/ measures have been “validated”, so you know that these bunk, psychedelic pseudoscience questionnaires are not bunk and pseudoscience.
BUNK MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE: the model of “mystical experience” is bunk, lopsided, agenda-fabricated, selective, whitewashed, incomplete, mis-centered.
BUNK QUESTIONNAIRES: the questionnaires are bunk.
BUNK VALIDATION: the validation is as bunk as the questionnaires.
BUNK NEGATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE TO BALANCE THE BUNK, POSITIVE-BALANCED QUESTIONNAIRES. The CEQ is the broken wastebasket to catch the failures of the MEQ.
The entire operation (this entire field of “Science”; Psychedelic Science; the Psychedelic RenaissanceTM) is a whitewash, by people who want to destroy Christianity and hate Muraresku b/c Catholic.
WHAT WILL FORCE THEM TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THEIR BULLSH!T FAKE “SCIENCE”?
A whole series of several whistleblowers including Matt Johnson, those who dislike Johnson; Travis Kitchens; Brennan Borrell, Joe Welker, etc.
A general pushback that’s sure to meet the published article about the Religious Leaders Study, sure to be met with maximum skepticism, in line w/ the final paragraph of the long-awaited 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.
(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.
(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.
(4) The funding sponsorship for this study was not disclosed to the JHM IRB.”
Covert Agenda of Psychedelic Pseudo Science Based on 1960 Stace “Positive Unity” Model of Mystical Experience: Misuse Psychedelics to Push International Political Unity
The Psychedelic RenaissanceTM is Psychedelic Drug Abuse
The Egodeath theory is not particular to Christianity or Bible myth.
We are saved and enlightened by the analogy myth and IDEA of blood sacrifice described in mythemes “the sacrifice of Isaac” and “king fastened helplessly to the tree/ cross”.
The Egodeath theory sustains Christianity but not literalism and therefore not particularism.
A mytheme is “the blood of Christ is the only way to be saved and enlightened.”
The word ‘only way’ has literal and analogy based meanings.
I was preparing to write the above point, when wrmspirit posted a similar comment at Cyberdisciple > Site Map Announcement page.
The Egodeath theory supports Christianity but not literalist Bible interp.
Do not read the sacrifice of Isaac as literally applying to literal descendents of Abraham & Isaac.
ABRAHAM AND ISAAC DO NOT EXIST LITERALLY, so neither does literal Israel exist – any claim to literal Israel based on fleshly descendency (eg in 300 BC when the Old Testament was written) is based on misreading analogy as literalism.
New Testament tries to build on Old Testament — but, literalistic reading of New Testament tries to build on literalistic reading of Old Testament, by selective mix of literal and analogy.
Bad: Mix of literal and analogy when reading Old Testament & New Testament.
Good: Purely analogy when reading Old Testament & New Testament.
The tree of the knowledge of good and bad, re: control stability & re: literal vs. analogical.
Those who eat fruit from tree of knowledge know to read Old Testament & New Testament, Isaac’s ram & Christ’s cross, as pure analogy, no literalism. Including descendents of Abraham’s promise according to the flesh or according to the spirit.
There is no flesh Abraham, there is no flesh Christ other than Psilocybin, there are no literal descendents of Abraham and Isaac.
No ram was harmed in fabricating the analogy tale of the sacrifice of Isaac.
f177 Lines Connecting Items
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman – f177 Left, Great Canterbury Psalter: left-foot rams in hellmouth furnace while gain right-foot stable control.
Left-foot rams in hellmouth furnace while gain right-foot, stable control.
Abraham’s promise, ram, Isaac, & their descendants are as historically real as the rams in this picture from the year we number as 1200 A D.
In Gen 22, there is ONLY Israel according to the spiritual reading.
Those who claim inheritance of the promise to Abraham based on reading according to the flesh get none of God’s promise to Abraham.
Only by reading according to the spirit, does anyone receive God’s promise to the Abraham figure and blood of that ram mytheme.
Ahistoricity of Abraham and Isaac – “It’s All Just Analogy, Bro”
so there isn no great need for New Testament to explain how Christians are grafted onto Israel / the promise to Abraham.
God’s promise of properity to Abraham’s descendents is analogy; Abraham did not exist, and there are no literal descendents of Abraham.
There Are No Literal Descendants of Abraham; the Sacrifice of Isaac Is Purely Analogy, not a Historical Literal Event or Promise to Literal Offspring
A blow to literalistic Christianity: the ahistoricity of Jesus. A blow to literalistic Israel: the ahistoricity of Abraham.
All Descendents of Abraham, Inheritors of the Promise and Blessing, are by Analogy/ “Spiritual Abraham”, None Literal
So it’s misguided to explain via New Testament theology, how the literal gentiles are grafted onto literal Israel who are the literal bodily (flesh) descendents of literal Abraham.
There is no literal Abraham, or Isaac, or bodily descendents of Abraham.
The Bible is exclusively analogy, not literal.
{Israel}; {the inheritors of God’s promise to Abraham} — before or after the Jesus & Paul figures — means, and always meant, ever since the story of Abraham was crafted, purely spiritual, never fleshly reading.
Mytheme Decoding: {Israel}; {the inheritors of God’s promise to Abraham}
Per my Dec 2 2013 chalkboard lecture.
{Israel} means — and always meant, from the start — those who are destined for mental model transformation in the intense mystic altered state, transformation from possibilism to eternalism. This is the “spiritual” reading of the Bible rather than the “fleshly” reading.
The promise according to the flesh vs. according to the spirit. There is no flesh of Abraham, ITS JUST ANALOGY BRO.
Chris Bennett re: Narrowness of Muraresku, Wasson Switched from Proposing Amanita to Psilocybin
“Your question about Str[opharia]cubensis has also bothered me.
When Roger Heim and I went to India in 1967, in the Simlipal Hills of Orissa, I was given an account of a mushroom growing in cow’s dung that tallied perfectly with Str. cubensis even to its psychoactive powers.
My informant said that everyone avoided it.
He seemed not to be withholding anything.
He said he would deliver the mushroom to us, but though we stayed there a couple more days, I saw no more of him.
Our purpose in going to India was altogether different.
It will be necessary to pursue Str. cubensis further not only in India but elsewhere in the world.
Of course Str. cubensis must flourish in India.
Did it play a part in the abandonment of Soma?
Inebriation from Str. cubensis and the other psilocybin species is clearly, in my opinion, superior to A[manita]muscaria.
I may develop this as one of several ideas that I propose to include in my next book after this one, which I am now drawing to a close.”
— Wasson to McKenna in 1977
In 1962 Wasson wrote to Robert Graves
From same Bennett page as above:
“[T]he Aryan composers of the Rig-Veda hymns, especially Book IX, composed them in their original homeland in the mountains, c. 3000 B.C., where soma grew. Later, down in the Indian plains, they did not find soma there and various substitutes were used. In the time of the Zend-Avesta haoma had become a mere cliche, like nectar or ambrosia in our conversation today, its identity being wholly unknown.
The original somaof the highlands remains to be discovered. It may have been the fly-amanita, or perhaps a convolvulus (morning-glory in the USA), or a mint, or something else, whose leaves and stems and seed carried the sacred indole. The Brahmans in India discovered the virtue of Str. cubensis and made use of it instead of the original soma, and called it by the same name.
Str. cubensis grows only in hot countries. [Medieval temp. was higher than later -mh]
I understand that there have been good mycologists studying the fungal life of india. Why have they never reported Str. cubensis? With its restricted habitat, its prevalence all year round, its large size and beauty, this failure to be mentioned in the mycological literature calls for an explanation.
I once asked Professor Heim how the spores found the cowpad,–whether a stage in the alimentary canal of the cow was necessary. He thought the spores traveled on the breezes until they found their home, but he did not know.
If they must pass through the digestive system of the cow, then the supply of soma might become the monopoly of Brahman priests, who could control the cows having access to the spores.
Like the ginko [sic]tree in China and that other tree of the Indians of the upper Amazon, it would be a species owing its survival to cultivation by a priestly caste.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
[illus.: Mithras controls the bull’s shoulder muscle, upon which Helios/Sol (the initiate) is dependent; giving the experience & mental model of 2-level, dependent control, experienced via Liberty Cap/ Psilocybin mixed wine.]
“Surely the Sacred Cow of India has a different inspiration and origin from the sacred Bulls of the Near East and Eagean [sic].
“In the case of the Bull it was the massive brute strength of the creature, I should think, as manifested in the fights depicted on the Cretan pottery. If we are on the right track, we solve in part the question of the sacred cows of India.
They did not come from the highlands, with the Aryans.
The first sacred cows must have been in India.
Whether the Aryans discovered the properties of the mushrooms and thus originated the holy quality of the cow, or whether the native Indians knew the property of Str. cubensis, would remain a question.”
Wasson, 1962, from Bennett.
Bennett re: The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020
Reflections on Previous Idea Development Page, Anticipations for Next Page
[h3 subheading for each point]
Skim the TOC for idea development page 29: Standouts – too many.
Alt approach: list my list of accomplishments for past 6 months – same mindset.
Fear of Approaching God, Vision of Violent Blood, Forced to Transgress
“Leviticus is difficult for adults to find relevant, let alone children.” – https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/sin-ritual-pollution-and-divine-alienation/ – religious myth and images are “difficult to interpret” (as is said of Great Canterbury Psalter at wiki) BECAUSE THEY DEPICT BY ANALOGY, MIND-BLOWING PEAK PSYCHEDELIC EXPERIENCE.
“What’s being shown here?” “Otherworldly peak psychedelic experience freakout & revelation & mental model transformation.”
I got 50% better at recognizing Bible myths as description of PEAK intense mystic altered state. Weird combination of:
“no-harm” happy reassurance: dove not eagle; donkey not warhorse, lamb not ram; etc. Jesus = peace, love, no-harm.
horrific psychotic bloody Mel Gibson Catholic violent: the Jewish High Priest must kill horned livestock and then smear their blood all over the once-per-year inner temple implements (horns of the altar), else God will kill him.
In ancient Jewish sacrificial practices, applying blood from the sacrificed animal to the horns of the altar was a ritual act with profound symbolic meanings.
This action, described in the Bible and specifically the Jewish Theological Seminary [Sin, Ritual Pollution, and Divine Alienationhttps://www.jtsa.edu/torah/sin-ritual-pollution-and-divine-alienation/] in Leviticus, was a way to atone for sin, consecrate the altar, and symbolically represent the sacrifice of the animal as a means of making amends to God. [IF YOU DON’T DO THIS, GOD WILL KILL YOU – MINOR DETAIL]
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Atonement for Sin:
The blood of the sacrifice, especially in the case of sin offerings, was used to atone for sins, either individual or communal.
Consecration of the Altar:
Applying blood to the horns of the altar consecrated the altar, making it holy and fit for further sacrifice.
Symbolic Representation:
The application of blood to the horns symbolized the efficacy of the sacrifice in reaching God and making amends for wrongdoing.
Refuge for the Fearful:
Some interpret the horns of the altar as a symbol of refuge, where individuals seeking pardon could cling to the sacrifice and its power.
Security of the Offering:
The blood on the horns, along with the sacrifice itself, represented the security of the offering, guaranteeing its acceptance by God. [SO GOD DOESN’T KILL YOU!!]
The specific type of sacrifice and the altar it was offered on (e.g., burnt offering, sin offering, incense altar) would determine the precise rituals surrounding the application of blood to the horns, but the overall principle of atonement and consecration remained consistent.”
Spectrum of Determinism Positions
Made a spectrum of determinism positions, from freewill-premised domino-chain causality, to not merely “eternalism” per Armchair Philosophy Dept (“philosophy of time” through lens of Epistemology/ Ontology/ Metaphysics – WEAK! – wrongly contrasts ), but cybernetic eternalism w/ pre-existing future control thoughts.
Comments at Cyberdisciple Site Map Announcement Page – to read
Video: DMT Isn’t Enlightenment… It’s Something Else | Dr. Rick Strassman [YMTP]
Video title: DMT Isn’t Enlightenment… It’s Something Else | Dr. Rick Strassman [YMTP] “YMTP” probably means “Your Mate Tom Podcast” YouTube ch: Your Mate Tom June 2, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AXIl-lsaF4 –
“Dr. Rick Strassman returns to the Your Mate Tom Podcast to talk DMT, Prophecy, and the Nature of Reality.
“Is DMT a shortcut to God, or something far stranger?
“In this rare interview, Dr. Rick Strassman — author of DMT: The Spirit Molecule — joins me to explore what people actually experience during powerful DMT trips.
“From visions of non-human entities to biblical-level encounters, this conversation will shake up everything you think you know about spirituality, science, and consciousness.
“We talk about:
Why DMT experiences aren’t always blissful.
Biblical visions (like Ezekiel’s) and DMT parallels.
Whether these beings are “real” or archetypal.
How Strassman’s views have evolved since his original research.
What this all means for the Psychedelic RenaissanceTM.”
Transcript of Strassman Video Interview
Cleaned up by Michael Hoffman. Ignore spurious “you” (short for “you know”).
If you read the first chapter of Ezekiel it’s it’s completely wild.
He’s standing by a river, the heavens open, he falls down, an angel grabs him by the hair it pulls him through space.
Beings with wings and eyes on their wings , they spin without moving
It’s completely DMT-like.
Many talk about DMT like it’s a shortcut to enlightenment.
[saying “that psychedelics are a shortcut to enlightenment” shows that you are completely wrong about your entire network of presuppositions.
In fact: Psychedelics are the way to enlightenment, enlightenment when done the only possible way is not that short of a way
It is hard work over multiple sessions.
The psychedelic (ie, the only) way to enlightenment is the authentic, only, and original way.
The purpose of non-psychedelic alleged pretended ways, is for the purpose of avoidance of the one way that works. A substitute Atman project. Ken Wilber writes about The Atman Project – actually, non-drug Advaita meditation is specifically the main Atman Project. -mh]
0:24
The mystical unitive state — but what if DMT is something much stranger?
0:29
Pioneering DMT researcher Dr Rick Strassman returns to the Your Mate Tom podcast sharing his decades-long knowledge of DMT.
0:36
What he found was strange ancient and even biblical.
0:49
What do you think DMT is
A number of years ago I thought about the naturally occurring DMT as being the endomatrix
0:57
It’s what regulates our everyday consensus reality.
DMT vs religious/mystical experiences
1:04
Based on your extensive research with DMT, what are the key similarities and differences between these mystical experiences in these religious traditions?
[REALITY CHECK: WE KNOW NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES, SO COMPARING TO DRUGS IS COMPARING THE COMPLETELY UNKNOWN TO THE COMPLETELY UNKNOWN]
1:11
you mean their relationship to the DMT state?
1:18
yeah the similarities but also maybe some differences as well between that peak DMT experience and the mystical experience in religious traditions.
[TRADITION IS EMPTY WORTHLESS MEANINGLESS WORD, WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT TRADITION RE: ESOTERIC EXPERIENTIAL PEAK EXPERIENCE]
Unitive vs. Relational Mystical Experience
1:31
It’s useful to characterize spiritual experiences in two ways:
One would be kind of the classical mystical unitive state where one feels that all is one; there’s no personality, there’s no time or space, there’s no concepts, there’s no words; there’s awe.
That could be referred to as a mystical unitive state.
Its trademark is unitive.
It’s the feeling that all is one.
2:08
At the other end of the spectrum would be the interactive relational state which is full of content.
One maintains their personality; there’s interaction between the content and the experiencer; it’s verbal: oftentimes there’s like telepathic or felt communication between you and the contents of that state, even though time and space are pretty distorted; they still exist as opposed to being obliterated in the unitive state.
2:49
The spiritual platform I went into the DMT research with was the Zen Buddhist model of Kencho, which is much more typical of the unitive mystical state.
In the scripture of great wisdom it’s described as no form feeling consciousness perception or understanding understanding
it’s completely empty of normal everyday mental contents
3:27
So I was expecting that kind of experience; most of my volunteers were as well, because the majority were practicing some kind of eastern meditation.
3:33
But only one of the volunteers had an [unitive] experience like that and he was someone with a long-standing interest in the mystical unitive state
He belonged to a church that emphasized it, taught about it instead my [subjects/ students/ crowd]
Everybody else had experiences that were full of content.
There were beings
there was intelligence
there was an interaction, give and take
lots of verbal information communicated
4:13
When I went back to the drawing board to look for models of how to explain the DMT experience, I continued looking at the Buddhist model as a good spiritual system, but it fell short or it wasn’t consistent with the data, which was: the spiritual experience was quite different [than the unity model].
[The non-drug meditation and weak mystical experience per the false Stace model is “unity”; ie nondual unity oneness boundary-suspension of mentally constructing the self/other boundary.]
4:45
It was around that time that I parted ways with my Zen community specifically over the issue of the relationship between spiritual experiences or the enlightenment experience and psychedelic drugs.
4:55
So that gave me an opportunity to return to my own roots, which are Jewish.
Jewish Mysticism
5:00
I started reading the Hebrew Bible or what Christians call the Old Testament but it’s the Hebrew Bible and the Tanakh.
I was struck by the description of a prophetic state, which was quite typical, especially in its extreme forms.
5:27
Quite phenomenologically similar to the DMT experience
[summary:
The pushed narrative in meditation is “unitive”.
On psychedelics, people have relational (prophet-like), not unitive experiences.]
5:34
There’s visions and there’s voices and there’s out of body experiences
5:40
There’s beings with which or with whom you communicate your time and space
5:54
you continue; There’s a beginning and a middle and an end of the experience is incredibly profound, more meaningful than anything else which has ever happened to the person receiving prophecy.
6:17
Prophecy isn’t only foretelling the future or predicting; it’s any spiritual experience on a whole ladder full of rungs.
Inspiration is one form of prophecy.
6:23
Courage might be another form , you seeing an angel; you’re hearing an angel; so there’s all kinds of stages of the prophetic state but in the full-blown
prophetic state it’s quite like DMT.
[Sounds like it’s time to backtrack, countersignal yourself, and diminish/disparate psychedelics. -mh]
6:42
If you read the first chapter of Ezekiel it’s completely wild: he’s standing by a river, the heavens open, he falls down, an angel grabs him by the hair, pulls him through space.
6:55
There’s what has come to be referred to as Ezekiel’s chariot.
There’s beings with wings and eyes on their wings, they spin without moving.
It’s completely DMT-like phenomenologically.
[Sounds like it’s time to backtrack, countersignal yourself, and diminish/disparate psychedelics. -mh]
7:21
If you’re looking for a religious experience that resembles a DMT one, it would be the Hebrew Bible’s extreme examples of the prophetic experience
[He accidentally says the correct thing: religious myth is like psychedelics – rather than saying, as usual: “psychedelics are somewhat like authentic, normal, non-drug mystical experiences or meditation”.]
[TIME TO COUNTERSIGNAL:]
7:38
The differences [FALSE] though are clear which is that the information which was gleaned in the prophetic state and as laid down in in the Hebrew Bible have they they’ve endured, they’ve influenced western civilization for 3,000 years. [or subtract 700 years, per chronology revisionism — and date the Old Testament back to 300 BC, not 1000 BC -mh]
7:59
Our kids are named after biblical figures our economy our philosophy theology art, aesthetics, poetry, it all can be traced back to the Hebrew Bible, which is a prophetic text; it was written in a prophetic state describing prophetic experiences, speaking with angels, speaking with God, and written down and then interpreted and explicated and transmitted
[B.S. PRESUPPOSITIONS:]
8:33
As opposed to the DMT state which, there’s no DMT Bible out there quite yet which contains any new information of anywhere near the significance of what’s been transmitted in the prophetic state [B.S.; THIS GENRE COMES FROM PSYCHEDELICS -mh]
8:51
From what I’ve read from the Old Testament or the Tanakh it’s very deeply layered in symbology [better: analogy].
9:02
You can read the same text over a hundred times and always get something new like it’s so intimately deep.
9:09
You know one of the stories that I really enjoy is the just Exodus I really like that one especially with Moses and the burning bush.
9:22
What do you think about those theories that say that the burning bush was an acacia tree and that he [Moses] was actually in a DMT state?
Do you think there is any sort of a psychedelic substance involved or do you think that’s a bit of a stretch and these are just like natural meditative experiences?
[GTFO! baloney, scholarly / evil priestly constructions and theft of credit, and dishonoring the holy spirit -mh]
[{burning bush} means any psychedelic, revealing non-branching – per msh tree artists – the bush is not the psychoactive; it’s the br vs non-br revealed by the psychedelic -mh]
9:35
The bush is a is a bush, it’s not a tree.
9:43
In the Hebrew Bible, the acacia tree or the acacia wood is called shitim and the bush isn’t called that in the story of Moses and the burning bush.
Moses and the burning bush
9:54
It is possible that there is a DMT-containing plant in the desert which when it’s burnt gives off fumes of DMT but that is you pretty much the only evidence.
10:10
Well it isn’t even evidence.
[it is sh!tty theorizing -mh]
10:17
But if you were pointing toward it you could say oh okay that’s one example of a burning bush or anything burning which allows communication with an angel.
10:30
That was Moses’s original theophany; it was his first prophetic experience, and it also involved an angel.
10:42
And all the rest of Moses’s interactions with divinity involved communication directly with God.
And there are no visions [you have no idea what you’re talking about -mh], it was just verbal; it was just mouth-to-mouth, or as a friend speaks to his fellow.
10:59
It was his [Moses’] first experience and it was crude, relatively speaking
11:11
If there were a role for exogenous psychedelics, like the manna has been suggested as an ergot kind of fungus
11:16
and the incense some speculate contain cannabis but
11:27
There was no mana in the times of Ezekiel
[how do you know where Cubensis was – in the “wilderness” translated as “livestock grazing pastures” -mh]
11:35
There was no yoli incense for Daniel when he was living in Babylon
and
11:42
the presence of naturally occurring DMT in the mamalian brain dispenses with a need to identify an outside agent
[“any activity at all is the same effect as ingesting DMT”]
11:54
you can instead suggest that elevated levels of DMT in the human brain were mediating the visions and the voices that people encounter in the prophetic state
Jewish view on psychedelics
12:12
What you said earlier with your a bit of a falling out with the Zen Buddhist community because from what I understand the eastern religions are quite against psychedelics, as is Christianity and even and Islam as well
12:40
What about Judaism or just rabbis that maybe you spoken to
what are they what are their view on psychedelics in general
12:45
All Zen Monks Started Because of LSD
Returning to the Eastern issue:
12:52
When I first spent any time at the Zen Temple, I spoke with as many of the young monks, all in their early 20s like myself, and I asked them
13:00
how many of them took LSD before they became monks
13:07
and almost everybody said “Yeah I took LSD as a teenager or young adult.”
13:12
And my followup question was:
How important were those LSD experiences in you becoming a monk?
And they all said I wouldn’t be a monk if it weren’t for LSD.
13:25
That supported my belief at the time that there were similar biological concommitants or determinants of the meditative state and the brain state which occurs after taking a psychedelic.
[confirms for me there is a lot that’s entirely baloney; meditation comes from psil historically -mh]
13:52
The same part of the brain might be turned on with LSD as is turned on with certain [WEAK, ineffectual] meditation practices.
14:01
Be that as it may with respect to my theory of a relationship in private interviews with monks over the decades actually over 20 years we spoke about psychedelics and their relationship to Zen training.
14:29
My studies were encouraged and we brainstormed about how to design them and how to interpret them and what kind of application might flow out of them.
14:40
But publicly once I started doing my studies and writing about them and making the comparison between the first flash of enlightenment which is what spurs people to become Buddhist and the psychedelic state which share many features in common, they just really couldn’t countenance it; it was just a little too controversial.
15:18
With most Buddhist communities, most of the teachers and most of the monks had their first flash of enlightenment on a psychedelic drug.
15:24
The apprehension or the comprehension that things were not quite what they seemed and that there was an underlying strata of reality which felt more real than this everyday reality.
So there are meditation retreats which occur with enhancement by psilocybin or iawaska.
16:07
There was actually a Swiss study came out a number of years ago and it was above-board with a certified zen teacher, where they did a week-long retreat and used psilocybin at least once or twice over the course of that week, and scores on meditation intensity increased, as you might expect.
16:19
Within the Jewish tradition* it’s really — like Hasidism, which is a mystical ecstatic form of Judaism which developed in Eastern Europe was
started by a rabbi called the Besht: he had a pipe and he would smoke things in this pipe and be transported to heaven
[I debate whether to attach the word “tradition” every time I assert psychedelics in religious history – it’s as bad as fabricating “secret” every time. “secret” is made-up rhetoric invented by the modern scholar; same w/ the word “tradition”. -mh]
16:50
Wow that’s fairly suggestive although I haven’t seen an analysis of his smoking mixture.
The more current iteration, Zalman Schecter, who lived in Boulder Colorado for quite a long time grew up in the 1950s, was a student of Kabad the Lubovicher rabbi in Brooklyn, and he learned about LSD from Tim Leary and his friends and he took acid that he said I want to explore this further within a Hasidic Jewish context.”
LSD the source of inspiration for Renewal Judaism
17:35
Out of his experiences, the Renewal movement was formed, Renewal Judaism and quite a few of the rabbis you got their first flash of “I want to be a rabbi” on LSD.
17:49
I sought out Rabbi Schecter and it’s a big movement now.
17:55
There’s a book that just came out Madison Margolan a young woman journalist. It’s called Exile and Ecstasy and it’s all about Jewish psychedelic sensibilities.
Exile & Ecstasy: Growing Up with Ram Dass and Coming of Age in the Jewish Psychedelic Underground (Margoland, 2023)
“Through the perspective of having grown up among “HinJews” in the Ram Dass community and cannabis legalization movement, journalist Madison Margolin takes the reader on
“a journey inside New York’s Jewish counterculture and the Hasidic underground, reconciling her roots, tackling ancestral Jewish trauma, and finding intersectionality between the Jewish and psychedelic experience.
“Exile and Ecstasy sets out to explore the psychedelic path that occupies the crossroads between the Ram Dass movement and Hasidism.
“It’s a path of seeking and escape, rebellion and return, medicine and magic.
“Bridging the polar ends of the Jewish and psychedelic worlds, while buttressing the experience with expert reportage, Madison Margolin prods at Be Here Now to find its relevance and utility in a new generation, facing different issues than those Ram Dass faced as a generally well-to-do boomer.
“In doing so, she looks at solutions to our lack of presence and offers practices that help us integrate our psychedelic experiences in mundane life, as well as in the context of our roots and religious identities.
“This book is for anyone looking to feel spiritually kindled, to make peace with where they come from, and to reconcile seemingly disparate experiences of spirituality and psychedelics, with traditional* religion.”
[* might as well write “secret, suppressed, underground religion” – empty rhetoric narrative, completely arbitrary and debatable. In fact, Jewish history includes some psychedelics use, and some literalism and lack of psychedelics use.
Is a mushroom tree a mushroom, or is it a tree?
Given that Jewish history includes some psychedelics use, and some literalism and lack of psychedelics use, which storytime tale should we learned, learned scholars ritually tell?
* Jewish history has a psychedelics tradition.
* Jewish history has secret, suppressed, heretical, underground use of psychedelics.
-mh]
18:12
The young Hasidic Jews in Israel and in Brooklyn are taking a lot of psychedelics, and who knows what’s going to emerge from that practice.
Exile & Ecstasy — so I was just writing that down.
18:33
It’s a take-off on “agony and ecstasy”.
wow yeah crazy huh
18:40
yeah absolutely i didn’t I wouldn’t have expected that
18:46
in a way it makes sense in a strange way I suppose but because I know from like at least let’s say
18:51
Like Orthodox Christianity or fundamental Christianity, they’re very against psychedelics, to the point where they’ll say that they’re basically demonic tools that open you up for your body to become a vessel for these evil entities to use you as a as a puppet, and in Islam would be the same thing, they have a word for it jinn,
Exploring the spiritual world
19:17
If you believe in good spirits, you have to take into account bad spirits.
19:38
That it makes sense that they would be doing that.
19:44
They’ve been studying Talmud especially the legal tracks of Judaism like laws of kosher food, ritual purity, those kinds of things; legal stuff: property and damages and whatnot
20:13
For a lot of them, there isn’t a feeling which is associated with their study, like intensive concentrating or concentrated study you can induce an altered state [fkking WEAK!], but if it’s not looked for or you’re not aware of it, it just can just pass you by.
20:40
They’re looking for some more emotional connection to the tradition.
20:47
I just was corresponding with a fellow who is Jewish, and he hasn’t read the Bible, but he’s tripping a lot and he’s experiencing certain things during his states which at least bear some resemblance to things within the Hebrew Bible, like:
The high priest in Exodus is described as wearing a breastplate, and this fellow became the breastplate, and God downloaded the Torah into his chest and he says to God “But I’ve not read the Torah”, and God says “It doesn’t matter”.
21:44
Who is speaking to this fellow? Is it his own unconscious, or is it a lying spirit?
21:50
One of the hallmarks of true prophecy versus false prophecy is the source: is it angelic, or is it demonic?
[Both angel messages and demon messages come from psychedelics. -mh]
You need to be alert to distinguishing between the two.
22:19
I just finished reading a book called The Antichrist
22:27
yeah it’s a scholarly tour through the history of the antichrist from the beginning to nowadays.
The hallmark of the antichrist is the lie.
22:40
The antichrist is a liar, but it’s couched in partial truths, or you’re led to it through partial truths; it’s a sophisticated system, or it can be.
22:53
The ultimate essence of the antichrist or the message or his tool is of the lie.
23:06
You don’t want a spirit telling you falsehoods or giving you bad advice — that wouldn’t help.
23:12
At the same time, you’re convinced of the truth of these revelations, because of the meaning-enhancing effect of psychedelics.
23:18
I’ve never been more convinced of the truth of anything that I’ve thought or heard in my life well that’s the function of the drug
23:25
but what’s the content which is being transmitted in that state as a result of the drug
opening you up to things which were at least previously invisible they might not be spiritual or psychological or any number of things
but they were not visible before and with a drug they become visible and
23:45
where do they come from and what’s their content
23:50
That’s why discernment is very important
23:56
I’m sure you’ve met people who have fallen in love with just the wrong woman or vice versa because they’re so enamored emotionally but objectively it’s like “Man you got to you got to leave this chick man she’s like horrible for you.”
24:07
But they’re like “No but she’s my soulmate.”
And then obviously sometimes it can end disastrously
24:16
you do think that one “chasing” the psychedelic experience can chase the psychedelic experience especially with these formless kinds of states that are more common with ketamine or fivethoxy DMT where you’re completely detached from everything, from any conscious content
24:41
if you’re living in this world which is rather stressful
24:46
there’s a a temptation to escape that’s
24:52
one of the things that I was picking up from learning about
24:58
these young ultra-orththodox kids that are tripping so much is they just live from trip to trip
they want to to storm heaven or they’re chasing
25:11
a certain experience over and over so the integration question obviously is one that
25:18
always comes
25:24
so how do you integrate those big experiences with the rest of your life and if you can’t you might just return to that state over and over and ask yourself how do I integrate this
25:37
in the meantime you’re not integrating it because you’re not giving yourself any time to do so
25:43
you need to allow the paint to dry without just going back in to marinate
25:51
and because it can be difficult to ground these abstract experiences into everyday
reality but that’s why you got to just put in the work
26:01
They’re abstract and they can be very exotic as well like let’s say you go down to Latin America and you spend a
26:08
week or two with a Peruvian shaman and your mind is totally blown
26:14
in that setting in the jungle in a palapa with songs
26:21
and other likeminded folks and a whole different worldview
26:26
system of how healing works or how illness comes about yeah and you then you go home to New
26:32
York yeah I think yeah integration’s key like the ideas or the feelings need to be integrated but also in the setting the context in which those
26:46
experiences happened ah for sure and sometimes you can come back a little bit scathed because I had a few terrifying experiences in in the Amazon with
26:57
Rick’s nightmare Acid trip
Ayahuasca which I wanted to talk because on in your upcoming book you talk about
27:02
having this very harrowing LSD trip and you kind of stopped tripping for six years if I remember correctly let’s see when did that happen
27:15
1973 and the next time I tripped was 1985 so oh no no that’s not true
27:22
I used to say 12 years but then I thought about it
i think it was more
27:30
like six years but up until
27:35
then I was taking acid every weekend or two
27:44
and I just stopped because I had a similar trip where I stopped
I didn’t touch a psychedelic for like three years so it took a long time so I kind of kind of
27:50
understand that like that fear I guess of jumping back in from going a little bit too overboard
27:58
but yeah how was it
do you mind elaborating on your experience
28:07
I was 21 and was graduating from college and I wasn’t sure about becoming a doctor and going to medical school i really didn’t want to and I wasn’t quite in any medical school quite yet because nobody really wanted me as a student because I was just so fixated on a messianic view of psychedelic
28:36
Buddhist you Freudian healing
28:41
i developed this manifesto in my last summer at school which combined all of those disciplines
and I decided that’s why I want to be a doctor
28:55
this was 1972 and I’m interviewing at all these medical schools and they just weren’t interested in hearing that
and I couldn’t help myself
29:00
they say why do you want to be a doctor and just launch right into this like crazy stuff yeah your manifesto was it if I
29:08
It is my manifesto
29:15
I was spending the last few months with my old girlfriend or my college girlfriend back then and we had started dating when she was living with a guy and we ended up at a Bach concert by ourselves one night on acid and we fell in love and I moved in with her in her dormitory a few days later
29:48
and she ended the relationship with the other fellow so I was with these friends and we decided to take acid one day and go hiking and the old boyfriend was there in our group and he enjoyed ribbing me about living at a girl’s dorm and stealing his girlfriend from him
30:19
I felt guilty you for having done that but still it was what it was
30:29
and there was another fellow in the group who was new very tacetern like a real poker face you really you couldn’t read him
30:42
so I was in an unstable state or an unstable set back then like I didn’t know what my future was holding i was with a guy whose
30:48
girlfriend I had ripped off there was some other guy who I couldn’t you read at all
30:54
and one friend who was also like a good friend
31:05
so we took the acid walked up a canyon stopped every every so often and I started to feel very disconnected like people didn’t want to look at me or talk to me or that they think I was strange or what was going on
And it just built and built and built until I just snapped
31:24
and decided that the reason that I was being treated that way was because I was crazy and had always been crazy and the
jig was up
31:43
this was the true nature of my relationship to reality which was I was crazy and it was just a matter of time before I discovered it
31:55
in the meantime everybody else knew it but they were just waiting for me to discover it
So it just went on and on I imagined you myself just completely
32:02
giving up i had a vision actually of you being in a seclusion room in a mental
32:07
hospital with nurses kind of vaguely dimly outlined in this room and I was lying on a
32:15
pile of
and I was floating like just over it and I I felt like I I could finally give up
32:23
this is where my life has led I’m just going to give up it’s just way too hard and it was
32:31
kind of scary but the nuns seemed pretty nice and they had my interest at heart
32:37
This was going on for a few hours
at least the nurse was nice
32:43
I couldn’t make out any of them But they you seemed like nuns
32:48
like sisters in a like I’m in a hospital and friendly or well I
32:54
I wouldn’t say friendly but you benign so my
33:00
best friend you from my childhood years was at
33:06
the same college back then he transferred as a sophomore and was living in a compound
33:12
with a number of the fellows that was
33:18
part of our group or were part of our group so instead of being dropped off at my girlfriend’s dorm I asked them to drop me off at my friend’s place
and thankfully he was there and he just
33:34
talked me down like I explained you the situation and he you thought well we first you
33:40
smoked a joint you because one look at
33:46
me and he you realized that something was off so we sat down smoked a joint and I described the
33:52
state I was in like I had you finally discovered I was crazy and explained a lot of things you like oh now I get it
33:59
this is why that and this is why that and you so on you
so he you pondered it a bit and he said that makes no sense
34:15
so I thought what do you mean and he said if you have been you know crazy your whole life you wouldn’t just figure that out now so like that may be
34:23
true it might you not be true you but it just popped a bubble like there’s you there was an
34:30
absess in my brain or in my mind and it just popped it and out came all
34:35
the poison and I looked around and yeah I I came down like I felt way
34:40
better and who knows what might have happened if he weren’t around i
34:46
would you probably have ended up in an emergency room and a stigma of mental
34:51
illness would have followed me the rest of my life
34:57
So that was a scary experience and I was not keen on repeating it
35:03
i knew that it resulted from some certain instability in my sense of self and even though I didn’t articulate it in this way I knew I needed to have my feet firmer on the ground the next time I tried any kind of psychedelic drug
35:23
Those are the most terrifying experiences is when you think you’re going crazy because then there’s like this a point of no return like oh man really this is going to be my life
i’ve had those kind of similar visions it’s it’s the point of no return yeah it’s it’s going to be
35:42
like this forever Yeah yeah like my poor family like what are my friends going to think like I’m just I’m just
35:48
going to be here forever like Yeah i had that on still on a one of those heroic psilocybin doses so yeah
35:57
yeah well it’s an interesting phenomenon clearly and you
36:03
know like it’s one of those things which occur in a lot of people when they trip and it’s just not written
36:09
about it’s common knowledge that those bad trips happened but there’s much less
36:16
written about them or studied about them than the mystical experience yeah but
36:22
I think those kinds of effects are very important because they can
36:27
lead to a lot of harm
36:35
that’s why even on YouTube there’s more reported like trip reports of people explaining their experiences like I’ve shared my difficult
experiences and how to kind of heal from that psychedelic PTSD or
Using psychedelics for Spiritual and psychological bypassing
36:46
Sometimes we just make mistakes and we go into it unprepared or in a poor set & setting
36:57
and so it can be helpful to help integrate these experiences or do the work especially doing the work in everyday reality instead of using these psychedelics as a spiritual bypassing
A lot of people do they think of it as like a magic pill to enlightenment
37:11
spiritual bypassing but also psychotherapeutic bypassing
37:19
lots of the issues that you people contend with on a bad psychedelic experience are not spiritual problems
37:25
but psychological problems like they’re depressed or they’re anxious that
they don’t really know who
37:30
they are
In the mid 80s I was part of psychedelic research group
37:37
we were taking new drugs that chemists would send us and
37:42
we would write up the reports and send the reports it was pretty nuts
37:50
we were trying all kinds of things and after a couple years it was the same, it was the same trip
it could be some phenthylamine some tryptoamine some urgine and
38:02
it was the same trip
38:08
why was I attracted to a certain kind of woman and it was the same trip like I would empathize with them and I wouldn’t feel for myself and like one day I woke up after one of those weekends and I said I need therapy
38:26
so I just dropped out of the group and found myself a psychoanalyst actually
38:31
and worked with him for four years straight
38:37
so sometimes psychedelics can convince you that it’s time to stop taking psychedelics and to do something else
The DMT or I guess just in psychedelics in general but that strange memory phenomenon that I think from the study that I read is:
39:20
About 25% of people who have that overwhelming sense of familiarity like I’ve been here before
What are your theories on this
39:25
maybe neurologically spiritually like what what parallel universe neurological misfire like what’s going on
39:33
It has to do with the meaningfulness the reality sense that psychedelics seem to produce
39:46
there’s obviously brain centers which are mediating that and circuitry in the brain which changes
39:56
I just can’t keep up with all the brain imaging data coming out but if you just introspect and besides all those brain imaging studies do is explain how the experiences occur
40:15
and you can tell that the experiences occur by paying attention if the experiences were different then we would look at the brain imaging data and say that’s the biology behind that kind of experience
40:37
it’s the subjective state which matters and that subjective feeling is the reality feeling the meaningfulness the truthfulness
40:50
41:09
The reference point for that on your kind of your truthfulness is your home it’s your home it’s where you grew up
41:16
if it was you more or less satisfactory your parents are there your siblings are there your stuff is there your friends are around, it’s your world
41:30
That can act as a frame of reference or a touchstone for the feeling which then emerges on psychedelics which is like the feeling of what it was like as a small being in a safe secure happy place the only place; that is your entire universe
41:53
That ties in with the sense of familiarity which is interesting as well
42:06
if there are brain centers responsible for meaningfulness and truthfulness what regulates those brain centers on an every day moment-to- moment basis
42:19
They’re obviously pegged among psychedelics but what maintains them on a daily basis
That is one of the possible roles of indogenous DMT: is it is a psychedelic substance
42:41
it really makes you feel like what you’re experiencing is the most truthful honest intense meaningful thing you’ve ever encountered
42:50
it could be keeping the meaningfulness part of the brain at a certain or within a certain window,
if it increases whatever it is you’re undergoing in your everyday life becomes more meaningful and vice versa
43:14
It feels for some people like deja vu on steroids and even deja vu like we don’t like science doesn’t have like a direct explanation for exactly what it is they’re only hypothesis but even deja vu is very strange
43:30
The temporal lobe’s been implicated in deja vu.
43:36
it’s a micro seizure of some sort
43:41
43:49
psychedelics depending on your model can activate temporal lobefunction
The DMT Endomatrix
43:55
A number of years ago I thought about the naturally occurring DMT as being the endomatrix
44:12
It’s what regulates our everyday consensus reality
44:17
and we just don’t know really what is going on with endogenous DMT the concentrations are quite high comparable to neurotransmitters like
serotonin
so there may be a DMT neurotransmitter system and it
44:29
will be very interesting to see what what that regulates and what
44:36
regulates it so you stay tuned to the ever unfolding naturally
44:44
occurring DMT story yeah absolutely on the next episode
44:49
we’ll see well thank you Dr strasma for joining me today i really appreciate it
44:56
Is there anything you wanted to share about what’s going on, like your new book for example
45:03
my new book is called My Altered States
45:11
it’s an illustrated memoir from the age of of 0 to 22 and it’s got psychedelics and cannabis and alcohol and meditation and the manifestos in there
45:22
my depressed mood that occurred after I went to medical schools there yeah so it’s potirie is narratives and after each of the narratives is like clinical discussion
45:36
how did this occur and why and and what does it mean
45:43
what can you learn from these kinds of experiences
so it’s a bit like Hunter Thompson meets sigmund freud
45:50
That’s a good explanation
45:57
actually some very entertaining stories coupled with a clinical and objective assessment of those narratives that’s coming out in mid December [2024]
46:17
other than that I’ve got a number of other books that are rattling around out there
46:23
nice awesome looking forward to it well thanks again and I’ll yeah keep in touch
okay I’ll you see you next time
/ end of video Strassman transcript cleaned up by Michael Hoffman
Motivation for this Page
His headset mic sounds horrible: no bass at all; only the upper half of spectrum – upper midrange and treble. Unlistenable. Text is better.
Tons of filler junk words too:
so you know like um i think you that [x].
The Bible is analogies describing peak psychedelic experience.
Using the traditional methods of the mystics, an angel firing arrows down and poking me with a spear taught me better to interpret the Bible as analogies describing peak psychedelic experience (loose cognitive association binding).
I partly cleaned up the transcript. It’s full transcript so full dedicated page. Pretty substantive.
I was trying to re-find a video in which people said “Need more coverage of the threat of Psilocybin experience.” Similar is in this video.
Heavy Cleanup of Strassman Stuttering (Self-Prompting) “You” Between Each Word
When Rick Strassman joined our church book club, he mentioned psychedelics helping with his stuttering.
Yesterday’s video with him, transcript shows that he very frequently inserts:
um
uh
you know (deleted over 500! in just a 46-minute discussion)
you [short for “you know” — inserts “you” every few words] – this is most distinctive of Strassman’s verbal junk compared to typical junk utterances.
Example of raw transcript of Rick Strassman (exaggerated):
“you- DMT you- is you- same you- as you- Bible, you- except you- quite you-different.”
trash, Sacred Mushroom & The Cross, in 1970, specifically.”
). 
The Egodeath theory 