Post-Analysis Reflection on the Message of {branching-message hand shape pairs}
I’m sure this technique will solve various awkward problems like “why is he holding scroll with bad, closed hand? Sln: maybe closed hand shows all 3 segments of a finger, which means the hand is to be read as Y’I, not simply Y’.
The {hand mushroom-tree} has 4 cut trunks, so are we to assess his lower hand as 4 cut fingers, or as 3 cut fingers + 3-segment pinkie?? His hand can read as …. Some hands show no finger having all 3 segments; other hands show a pinkie all 3 seg, wrapped around (curled).
3 cut fingers + 1 curled finger. maps still to 4 cut trunks??
What is the trunk-based expression equiv to the finger that has all 3 segments shown (though curled)? middle of trunk, centerline.
Goal of genre: Rebut Y and assert I, with a hand.
This revision of the tentative rules for medieval YI hand-shape theory is a blow against the importance of hand-shape pairs.
There is less sequence activity/ messaging from one hand to the other hand, than I thought.
Each isolated hand is MORE capable than I said a week ago.
The game is to represent via a hand, via which finger segments are shown, the many ways to rebut Y and affirm I.
Not to show a progression of mental models although von Trimberg does that.
My statements here apply to Great Canterbury Psalter (Eadwine), and many other artists.
Not necessarily all artists follow this same rule-set as we extract from Eadwine with his clues and indicators.
I sure have more interp’n options now that I inventory all finger-segments, and list out possible debatable readings to pick from.
A big leap forward in fluency of hand-shape language, in past two days and in the past day, past 12 hours.
I’m better at debating YI form-assignments.
I take more factors into consideration.
The Demon Difference: No Finger Shows All 3 Segments (Curled)
Jesus’ R hand lifting the {rock ossuary} guy is bereft. 3 1-seg fingers + 1 0-seg. finger.
Moving Away from Hand-Shape Pairs; Each Hand Is More Articulate than Realized, via Finger-Segments Inventory
Summary of hand-shape pairs
Each hand is norm’d to start w/ Y then I.
It’s become more arbitrary now which hand to list first, since I seem to be getting rid of notion of progression from one hand to other.
Normize to list Y’ or Y first??
intermediate person thinks “get rid of Y” ie Y’. advanced person comes back to affirming Y, but qualified possibilism-thinking: Y’.
Hard to decide. suppose list Y’ first.
Rule: arbitrary: list the Y’ hand before the Y hand.
[Y’III, Y’III] – Mushroom King
[Y’II, Y’II] – Psalter Viewer
[Y’I, YI] – {balance scale} Woman
[Y’I, Y’II’] – Break Bowman
Rare denial of I.
Denies non-branching Eternalism, to avoid control instability.
The threat recedes, non-branching is cancelled.
[Y’I, Y’II] – Swordsman
Y’II – Close Bowman
[Y’I, YI] – Guy Above Asp-Dog
Motivation for this Page
This is a problem solver because I was I WAS STRUGGLING to interp {balance scale} woman’s lower hand as simply Y’. That’s not a complete message. “I got rid of my old way of thinking.” Better is: Y’ AND I, especially if paired with “both Y and I”. eg: [Y’I, YI] I have said a week ago, this is really nice.
I am trashcanning my notion that the lower hand focuses on your initial state and the upper hand focuses on resulting dual mental model.
A week ago I said of pair of hands, the two hands can either represent:
one hand = old mental model, other hand = new mental model combo.
both hands can describe the final dual mental model. compound mental model; integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
I now reject the first option (re: reference shapes), and favor ALWAYS the second relation of the two hands.
This represents previous ERRORS, which sucks, but, an advancement in sophistication, which is good.
The first pass never nails the interp’n; always needs fine-tuning.
I looked closer and applied a more detail-driven, scientific, empirical inventory of listing every particular segment of every finger, factoring-in splay and black cut lines.
Goal is greatest detail and flexibility of hand-shape language.
Don’t lose detail; eg be able to contrast two hands that are the same except for 1 difference.
Rule/Technique: If two hands that have different form are getting assessed as having same form, the assessment is impoverished and is dropping detail/data.
All My [Y’, YI] or [Y’, Y’I] hand-shape pairs are Error? Actually [Y’I, YI] Shown?
I actually was not thrilled with lower hand showing Y’; would be nice if there is a subtle I shape that i didn’t see.
I seem to be heading away from [Y’, YI] hand-shape pair as the common Reference, to instead (looking ahead), [Y’I, YI], which expresses that:
Metaphysically, Y (branching Possibilism) is NOT the case.
Phenomenologically, especially in the ordinary-state, Y (branching Possibilism) IS the case.
Index/Middle/Ring: Y’ They show base and mid, not tips.
Pinkie I (! big change of assessment!) All 3 segments are visible. FWIW, the attachment to palm is visible.
No thumb.
Therefore THIS particular hand is Y’I. If you give some OTHER different hand that does NOT show all 3 segments of a finger, but is otherwise the same as this, we should NOT say it has same YI form as THIS hand.
L Hand (on R): IIY’
Close Bowman’s R Hand: IY’I, normed: Y’II
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026
Index: 3 seg
MIddle: 3 seg
Index & Middle are held together: I; not splayed apart Y.
Index & Middle splay apart from Ring/Pinkie.
Splaying is usually used to form an I; non-branching.
Two fingers pull threatening bowstring. That would be I. Branching is not a threat; non-branching is the threat.
I am posting this draft template page now, before the structure is complete, because a high pri f109 (Great Canterbury Psalter) decoding of the two groups of pointless guys on right, finally gave way last night, jackpot and completion into this morning 7:30 a.m. Feb. 23, 2026. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom
I started that writeup in this draft page, but am continuing f109 coverage in the Prostitute Shardogged-gang, scholar-for-sale page.
general theory of medieval YI hand-shape theory is good for a page, but need to see a page only containing YI hand shapes as a gallery.
I need to see instances of each Reference hand-shape, in a dedicated gallery page.
Y
4 fingers extended; all segments displayed
no thumb segments
Y’
only 1 segment of fingers shown
no thumb segments
I
both thumb segments displayed
no finger segments displayed
I need like a zero superscript for Y when no finger segments are shown, for accounting.
Need a more elaborate notation that literally inventories what segments are shown.
I’
YI
Y’I
YI’
Y’I’
IIY
IIY’
Mushroom King, Great Canterbury Psalter f145 row 2 right
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Inventory of Finger Segments
Fractal Analysis of Branching to the Extreme
Thumb segment 1
Thumb segment 2
Index finger segment 1
Index finger segment 2
Index finger segment 3
Middle finger segment 1
Middle finger segment 2
Middle finger segment 3
Ring finger segment 1
Ring finger segment 2
Ring finger segment 3
Pinkie finger segment 1
Pinkie finger segment 2
Pinkie finger segment 3
Duplicate the list for other hand.
Todo
todo: copy sections listing von Lindren hand examles not filled in barely filled in so far, that should be the only tihikng in this page, mabye more than pairs.
if all 3 segments of finger are displayed
if 2 segments of finger displayed
if 1 segment of finger displayed, cut; notation: ‘ ie, I’ or Y’
if a hand has
index 3
middle 2
ring 1
relate to tree, show a tree
Translate Between Hand and Tree
Hand Is Articulate/ Precise/ Notation-Translatable/ Ergonomic
Feet are Not Articulate/Precise.
YI hand-shape pairs
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 15, 2026. fullscreen
The Break Bowman Hand-Shape PAIR includes YI’, f134 row 2 break bowman
Yes we found an “instance of a hand”, but artist constraint: figure has an extra hand, what to do with it?
{cut finger} f134 Psalter reader L hand Middle cut by Index
{cut thumb} f134 break bowman
YI
Y
I
the list is in hand-shape theory page, make ….
to
, draw LOOKING LINES OVERLAY VS HAND
Apply Both the Looking Lines Overlay – eg today f134 blessing lines go through 2 bins Cubensis and pointing, don’t only think in terms of hands
Don’t Overemphasize Hands to the Exclusion of Pointing; Pointing Is Key
Hands Are Key, Pointing Is Key:
Routinely Analyze All Hand-Pairs
Routinely Analyze All Tree Branching Form
Routinely Analyze All Pointing
Routinely Analyze All Looking Lines
List of Aspects to Routinely Analyze
Looking Lines
Hand pairs
tree branching form tbf tree branching form
hand branching form hbf
tree branching form [TBF]
hand branching form [HBF]
looking lines [LL]
looking lines instantly give the answer.
takeaway rule: trace all looking lines
THE LOOKING-LINES OVERLAY.
The which foot down overlay.
The sleep/awake touch head special case convention.
phallic garment vs
{phallic garment}
{lifted garment}
{lifted garment}
{john rush’s celestial erection}
{phallic garment} is more specific than lifted {lifted garment}
Many {lifted garment} are not phallic; phallic is the minor case, not the normal case. eg:
This instance of a {lifted garment} is a {phallic garment}:
f134 row 1 L, Ideal Student has a {lifted garment} that is a {phallic garment}.
{mushroom hem}
phallic garment motif… isn’t that better than Rush celestial erection? the Egodeath theory lexicon is superior.
Answer to week ago q: YES, exists in Great Canterbury Psalter: YI’, f134 row 2 break bowman.
I started headings for similar to this page idea, hidden within a long theory hand-shape theory page.
now tho i want to bound the focus to isolated hands or more mileage out of hand-shape pairs
easy fast useful relevant: simpleton notion: analyze isolated single hand.
objection/problem: you have both hands, [devo praying hands] whats the artist spoded to do with the EXTRA HAND to depict, still remains to be painted
A Given/ Constraint for the Artist: A Figure Has a Left Hand and a Right Hand (Feet, Limbs, Fingers, Toes Direction of Analysis of Hand or Tree
Start analyzing from least branching move out toward more branching, listing YI branchouts along the way bough = major branch. trig = most minor branch.
the real situn artist faced with is: GIVEN: A FIGURE HAS TWO HANDS, (not just 1 isolated hand!) and, one hand is L, one hand is R.
the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia … colonial violence
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Public Test of Moral Fiber, Integrity, and Credibility: Do You Say This Looks Like a Tree Branch, or a Mushroom?
Crop by Michael Hoffman
If You Answered “Tree Branch”
You are on Team Popebanker, with 100% conflict of interest, and zero credibility.
Thank you for clearly letting the world know that you are on the side of censorship (Wasson p. 180), anything-but-drugs propaganda, and have made a career out of being paid to lie.
Public Test of Moral Fiber, Integrity, and Credibility: Do You Say This Looks Like a Tree, or a Mushroom?
Crop by Michael Hoffman
If You Answered “Tree”
You are on Team Popebanker, with 100% conflict of interest, and zero credibility.
Thank you for clearly letting the world know that you are on the side of censorship (Wasson p. 180), anything-but-drugs propaganda, and have made a career out of being paid to lie.
If You Answered “Mushroom”
You are sane and honest and have integrity.
Public Test of Moral Fiber, Integrity, and Credibility: Do You Say This Looks Like Wheat Harvesting and Grain Distribution, or a Cubensis Grow Op and Dispensary?
If You Answered “Wheat Harvesting and Grain Distribution”
You are on Team Popebanker, with 100% conflict of interest, and zero credibility.
Thank you for clearly letting the world know that you are on the side of censorship (Wasson p. 180), anything-but-drugs propaganda, and have made a career out of being paid to lie.
If You Answered “Cubensis Grow Op and Dispensary”
You are sane and honest and have integrity.
The Anything-But-Drugs Religions Journal, Now Hiring Prostitute-Scholars in the Post-Immortality Key, Pop Scholarship Era
I guarantee that the fake Sharday Mosurinjohn gang will advocate whatever position on mushroom-trees is approved by their slavemasters in the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia.
F U, fake phony scholars for sale. Huggins Mosurinjohn & Ascough Greer: congrats for swindling control of a special issue of the Anything-But-Drugs Religions journal.
An Aztec Narcotic (Safford 1915) – Sharday Mosurinjohn is the next Safford: We looked real hard, under our real hard biased prejudiced lens, and successfully avoided seeing mushroom, because our slavemasters tell us that is the correct thing to not see.
Sharday Mosurinjohn (the religious fundamentalist, dogged denier of mushrooms in mystery religions and Christianity, and perpetrator of colonialist violence) is writing a book seeing psychedelics in Western Esotericism, because Wouter Hanegraaff paved the way and took the heat, for her.
Shardogged Mosurinjohn
the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia … colonial violence
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Shardogged Has No Position of Her Own, but Sells Whatever Position of the Day to Whatever Audience of the Day
Jesus f*cking Christ Shardogged, how about following truth and sense, instead of the trendy, shifting winds of Pop allowable shoclarship and anything-but-drugs academia scholarship.
Given her walkback but not walkback, “Don’t mis-hear me”, Shardogged proves that she HAS NO POSITION and will shift arguments on the spot, as needed, JUST LIKE A POLITICIAN will say whatever sells at the moment, no bother with integrity and consistency.
Is her position that Western entheogen scholarship is colonial violence and relig fund?
Yet she turns around and writes a book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism.
That verse is from what can be considered the peak of the ultimate Classic Rock song, Stairway to Heaven, by Led Zeppelin. The full lyric and analysis:
Here is a partial analysis of the song:
And you know sometimes words have two meanings [key terms of agency meaning-flip]
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven [entire mental model transforms systematically]
And it’s whispered that soon, if we all call the tune
Then the piper will lead us to reason [entheogenic drunkenness is sober reason]
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forest will echo with laughter [Zen laughter at vanishing of delusion through meaning-flipping]
If there’s a bustle in your hedgerow
Don’t be alarmed now [self-control seizure panic reaction]
It’s just a spring clean for the May Queen [Isis, the uncontrollable transcendent controller, who rules over the cosmos even including Fate, is exorcising your freewill demon]
The line is precisely drawable with no guessing, per the artist. Align:
God’s blessing finger-pair.
The {balance scale} pivot.
Oxen guy’s hand grabbing invisible line, and pointing to the invisible line above his clutching fist.
todo: crop focusing on those 3 points ruler-alignment points.
Precedent for precise lines (a ruler was used by artist & by me) in this image: guy with blue vase looks at bins; see the image with looking-lines or pointing-lines.
this is a true not false dilemma
Yes there are two paths you can go by [egoic vs. transcendent thinking]
but in the long run
There’s still time to change the road you’re on [switch to the transcendent interpretive framework or mental worldmodel regarding self, world, change, time, will, and control]
And as we wind on down the road [a person’s labyrinthine worldline frozen in spacetime, contrastible with a “moving through time” perspective]
Our shadows taller than our souls [egoic mental contruct of ego as control agent looms large in perception, but there is no substance to it (soul is delusion, only spirit is our real being, per Valentinian/Pauline body/soul/spirit model]
There walks a lady we all know [Queen of Heaven, or fallen Sophia]
Who shines white light and wants to show [white-light pure-awareness perceptual feedback]
How everything still turns to gold
And if you listen very hard [profound mental relaxation, true meditation, relax knot of accustomed thinking, perceive, and let the alternate, transcendent worldmodel/perspective on thinking and controllership leap into view]
The tune will come to you at last [the meaning of this song and the transcendent meaning-network remapping key terms about personal control agency]
When all are one and one is all [nondual unity consciousness]
To be a rock and not to roll [become aware of the Platonic, frozen timeless block-universe perspective rather than the Aristotelian, moving-through time perspective]
/ end copypaste from Egodeath.com, date of composition TBD, check Egodeath Yahoo Group Max Freakout Archives where no one ever returns
Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck violated law and schol decorum and used Amanita.
Christian Greer, newbie to the field, making his entrance by throwing fists randomly, hitting himself
There went all your credibility, Newbie Greer. Read a book, before presuming to enter a field.
Amanita Isn’t a Scheduled Substance, DUMBASS IGNORAMUS CHRISTIAN GREER
Greer continues making a laughingstock of himself:
“Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck ([1978] 2008: 34) repudiated “armchair” scholarship and instead defied legal prohibitions and scholarly decorum by experimenting with Amanita muscaria themselves as a means of testing their hypotheses.
“They even went so far as demanding their detractors do the same before passing judgment on their arguments.”
— Ignoramus Christian Greer, toxic parasite dumbass: Amanita isn’t a scheduled substance.
How about you learn a little about the field you presume to invade, dumbass? GTFO of the way, there’s serious scholarship to continue being done here.
Christian Greer and Charles Stang conceded that we must PLAN on finding SOME Christians used psychedelics; they are ready to debate “mainstream”, I won that already, along with the Browns.
Mainstream is what I declare it to mean: high-quality Christian practice, say 1%, is what counts as influential therefore main, in best churches and manuscripts best paintings and best art.
If 99% not psychedelics, they define “low quality” Christianity, not “mainstream” but in a stupid headcount way, with no significance here.
A redemption arc for Huggins Mosurinjohn & Ascough exists: The Egodeath Apology Form for Deniers of Mushrooms in Christian History. They have to explain the replacement of writing/publishing/citation, replaced by just ellipses: . . . .
Popebanker Gordon “Perfect Conflict of Interest” Wasson, Soma, 1968, p. 180, ellipses covertly replacing Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann’s book and Panofsky’s two attached “emphatic” mushroom-shaped trees – while in the very same paragraph, chastising and insulting mycologists for having failed to “consult”(?) art authorities who never wrote, published, or cited anything (except the “noted”, ie. censored, exception of Brinckmann’s “little” book) on this “special”, taboo topic. https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/img_5225.jpg
The prostitute Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, perfect conflict of interest.
The long awaited Hopkins 2015-2025 faceplant at finish line MASSIVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST p. 17-18.
Who’s next?
Who’s Next? Hopkins Religious Leaders Study: Massive Conflicts of Interest by Prostitution Science
Throw Grifty’s CEQ-POS in Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff’s REJECTED wastebasket.
Go back to Adolph Dittrich’s OAV1994 > Angst Dread DED dimension, ALL 21 Dread -DED questions.
OAV 1994 (Oceanic Boundlessness, Angst of/ Dread of Ego Dissolution, Visionary Restructuralization) psychedelic psychometrics effects questionnaire by Adolph Dittrich
Who’s Next? Shardogged
Shardogged Mosurinjohn
the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia … colonial violence
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Crop and annotations by Cybermonk Mar. 14, 2023 fullscreen
God controls the {balance scale} per the blessing line giving {stable column base} pointed to; even the {stand on left foot} fool sowing Cubensis agrees.
Finger-Branching Theory in Development
todo: post my txt msgs that were sent to AM on Sunday a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
Corrections of theory are not a failure; they are a success. Correcting errors from … not errors; it is FIRST-PASS ANALYSIS, which exposes special-case errors, = sophistication increase.
Check out the two corrections on the annotated image:
psalter viewer L hand
swordsman’s L hand
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, “f134 row 2 finger classification theory in development.jpg” 9:43 a.m. Feb. 22, 2026, fullscreen
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman. Mobile photo of screen. 283 KB: todo: replace & delete
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, 946 KB: todo: replace & delete
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman. Mobile photo of screen. 1 MB: todo: replace & delete
Solve by Finger Segment Inventory, Hand Hold Sword Sheath: Analysis Process Concluding (Show Your Work) IIY’, forming hand-shape pair: [Y’, IIY’]
mushroom king double pointing in f134, his hand is IIY’ via different segments.
move from non-branching to branching; tree: trunk to leaf hand: forearm to fingertip
1 means displayed 0 means not displayed
v1: first pass: mixed up Index vs. Pinkie, ERROR:
1 – Thumb segment 1 (base)
1 – Thumb segment 2 (tip)
1 – Index finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Index finger segment 2
1 – Index finger segment 3 (tip)
0 – Middle finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Middle finger segment 2
1 – Middle finger segment 3 (tip)
0 – Ring finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Ring finger segment 2
1 – Ring finger segment 3 (tip)
0 – Pinkie finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Pinkie finger segment 2
1 – Pinkie finger segment 3 (tip)
Analysis:
Entire thumb displayed all segments EVEN THOUGH NOT ATTACHED; where the base seg of thumb attach palm is not shown, but,
DECISION MADE:
Displaying the attachment of a finger to palm is not important
Whether all segments of finger are shown is what’s important what counts, for “cut finger” or “not cut finger”.
Thumb = I (not I’), because both segments are shown: base & tip. Attachment of base to palm: not shown, not important.
Index = I [sic; Pinkie] (not part of Y’), all 3 segs are displayed. Attachment of base to palm: not shown, not important.
Middle/Ring/Pinkie = Y’ [sic; Ring, Middle, Index] Each finger lacks base. The 3 are together grouped as branching; and, modified to Y’ together by omitting base segment from each of the 3 fingers.
Therefore the hold-sheath hand-shape is IIY’.
v2 corrected Index vs. Pinkie: Improved spacing format:
New! Condensed Finger Inventory Format
A complete hand, all finger segments displayed:
Thumb: 11
Index finger: 111
Middle finger: 111
Ring finger: 111
Pinkie finger: 111
Thumb: 11
Index finger: 111
Middle finger: 111
Ring finger: 111
Pinkie finger: 111
Try other order, because fingers come before thumb, ie, possibilism-thinking (4 fingers) before altered-state discover eternalism-thinking (thumb).
Index finger: 111
Middle finger: 111
Ring finger: 111
Pinkie finger: 111
Thumb: 11
Shorthand:
111
111
111
111
11
Streamlined:
111
111
111
111
11
Order: Index through Pinkie, then Thumb.
Reference Y’ hand-shape (no thumb, no tips, no mid-segments; base of 4 fingers only:
100
100
100
100
00
Example of Y’ via [100, 100, 100, 100, 00] (= base segment of each finger shown, no other segments)
This was a less efficient momentary notation] prior to the GREAT, breakthrough notation [111, 111, 111, 111, 11]
Index: Base: 0, Mid: 1; Tip: 1 Thumb Tip 1
this is the Key but not the efficient condensed, [matrix flag bit set] to use in practice eg to print on top of art as overlay.
d/k how this “segment displayed” inventory notation works w/ the {splayed finger} motif. Usu the Index or Pinkie has a {splay {sf sf
keyboard shortcut
{splayed finger} {sf
{grouped fingers} {gf
Hypothesis: To fully describe, in shorthand, a hand’s shape, need two kinds of info:
if Index or Pinkie: splayed?
if thumb, 2 segments; finger: 3 segments:
1) is base segment shown?
2) is mid segment shown? (n/a for thumb)
3) is tip segment shown?
How to add “is splayed” to this spelled-out verbose list? to the matrix notation?
Verbose Inventory of All Finger Segments, sans Splayed
1 – Thumb segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Thumb segment 2 (tip)
instead, list Thumb last. add “shown?” suffix separate the fingers
0 – Index finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Index finger segment 2
1 – Index finger segment 3 (tip)
0 – Middle finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Middle finger segment 2
1 – Middle finger segment 3 (tip)
0 – Ring finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Ring finger segment 2
1 – Ring finger segment 3 (tip)
1 – Pinkie finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Pinkie finger segment 2
1 – Pinkie finger segment 3 (tip)
see the more developed, “splay” version below.
Shorthand Matrix Notation of All Finger Segments, sans Splayed: [111, 111, 111, 111, 11]
Verbose Inventory of All Finger Segments, Incl. whether Splayed
The hold-sheath hand, of swordsman, in GCP f134 row 2 group 2 (threateners/ relenters);
Skip for now his easy hand: Y’
To develop this inventory notation, analyze his difficult hand: hold sheath.
Verbose Inventory Notation for Hold-Sheath Hand, Emits Analysis Form Identifier IIY’
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026 The hold-sheath hand, of swordsman, in GCP f134 row 2 group 2 (threateners/ relenters)
0 – Index finger segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Index finger segment 2 (mid) shown?
1 – Index finger segment 3 (tip) shown?
0 – Index finger splayed?
0 – Middle finger segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Middle finger segment 2 shown?
1 – Middle finger segment 3 (tip) shown?
0 – Ring finger segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Ring finger segment 2 shown?
1 – Ring finger segment 3 (tip) shown?
1 – Pinkie finger segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Pinkie finger segment 2 shown?
1 – Pinkie finger segment 3 (tip) shown?
0 – Pinkie finger splayed?
1 – Thumb segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Thumb segment 2 (tip) shown?
Assess based on the above inventory: goal: ID this hand-shape as IIY’.
Index, Middle, & Ring grouped, base segments missing = Y’
Pinkie shows all segments = I
Thumb shows all segments = I
from wrist to tip: IY orientation.
Therefore, this hand is: IIY’
ie, list Pinkie (close to wrist) first, 3 fingers 2nd. NOT Y’II; that would be wrong direction analysis from leaf to trunk; from fingertips to wrist (wrong).
Hand-shape pair for hold sheath: [Y’, IIY’]
/i
Shorthand Matrix Notation of All Finger Segments, incl. whether Splayed: [1111, 111, 111, 1111, 11] bitmask
Format/syntax of the Hand Segments & Splay bitmask:
Index finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
Middle finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
Ring finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
Pinkie finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
Thumb: Base shown? Tip shown?
That is INADEQUATE to describe swordsman’s hold sheath’s {cut thumb} = important, rare I’ form. con’t w/ improvements after analyze Psalter Viewer hand-shape pairs.
Psalter Viewer’s hand-shape pair, Analyzed via Bitmask Matrix Notation (verbose then condensed)
What order to list the assessment? Wrist-to-tip: L to R: IY; Index, thumb, 3 fingers… error. cram more detail; sep the Middle finger.
Index assess: I
Thumb assess: I
3 fingers assess: Y’
take 2:
Conclusion: hand-shape pair of Mushroom King: [IIY’, IIIY’]
If Ignore (Why?) Black Line at Index Base: [IIIY’, IIIY’]
Try the more precise, detailed assessment char’zn; respect the black line …. but, we determined that “missing segment” is definitive, while “seeing finger attachment to palm” is not definitive, eg swordsman (due to limits of art, when grab rod w/ fingertips shown to viewer).
If we are too eager to declare “that is a cut!” fine tune
Fine-Tuning What Constitutes “Cut”
Present hunch: if all 3 segments of a finger are visible, the finger is considered “not cut”, regardless of whether attachment of base of finger to palm has black line.
To confirm, assess various hands and hand-shape pairs. Generates too many I’s, too few Y’ assessments?
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026
Index: I
Thumb: I
Middle: I
2 fingers grouped: Ring&Pinkie. Y’
Result: IIIY’ is TRIPLE AFFIRMATION OF NON-BRANCHING (VIA I 3X) + AFFIRMATION OF NON-BRANCHING (VIA Y’ [RING&PINKIE])
That’s a hypothetical reading of motif {finger with all segments shown, wrapped around other digit}
L hand’s base of Index is not 100% shown, there is black line cutting base. R hand more powerful.
There’s an arg that the two Index fingers are different. L hand Index has cut base. So a totally viable assessment of L hand is:
I, I, Y’; II
Alt Char’zn of L Hand of Mushroom King = IIY’ (vs. IIIY’); weakens the king but preserves more detail, for the hand-shape pair
Decoded {entire Index finger wraps around Thumb} = I Form! Enables 3x Assertion of I!
ANNOUNCEMENT: MAJOR REVISION OF HAND-SHAPE THEORY: DECODED {entire Index finger wraps around Thumb}, ALLOWING 3X ASSERTION OF I
R Hand (on L) of Mushroom King
Same as L hand, but flipped. There IS a difference: L hand base of Index finger has black line; R hand lacks that. Even R hand has a minor splotch of black ink.
Inconclusive: Black line at base of finger = “cut”??
Cybermonk’s Abstracted Rules for Medieval YI Hand-Shape Theory
Rule: Normalize with Y first, I 2nd.
Rule: the abstracted YI form can swap 1st & 2nd eg YI ~= IY.
Y’II ~= IY’I ~= IIY’
notation: read ~= as “is equivalent to”
Major Re-Assessment of 4 Cut(?) Fingers, No Thumb: f134 {balance scale} Woman’s Lower Hand
w notation!! 11:27 Feb. 23, 2026
1:34 Feb. 23, 2026
Hypothesis Proposal: IY’ not Y’
Web Search: bitmask
https://www.google.com/search?q=bitmask – “A bitmask is a programming technique that uses bitwise operations (AND, OR, XOR) on binary numbers to isolate, set, or toggle specific bits within a data structure.
“It efficiently stores multiple boolean flags in a single integer, reducing memory usage and improving speed.
Common uses include game development, device driver control, and handling file permissions, and medieval YI hand-shape theory.”
I’ = Qualified Eternalism-Thinking Is Depicted(!): Breaking the Bow of the {shadow dragon monster} threat
God retreats the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control
By pushing on the pivot of the {balance scale} that the woman holds, God reveals his threat of loss of control, and reveals his ability to retract that threat.
Bowman breaking bow to not threaten loss of control: God retracts his threat; the bowman’s upper thumb is visually cut, as if to say non-branching snake is false. Not “false”, but, qualified.
Prime doesn’t mean simply “get rid of” or simply “false”. Prime means “qualified”.
notice there IS such a thing as I’; saying a falsehood; or, QUALIFYING the assertion of non-branching; like my year-ago principle “qualified eternalism-thinking”
txt msg 1 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
todo: images:
feb 21 9:30 am: f134 row 3 R: guy clutches God’s pointing-line white line
feb 22 8:51 am mobile photo of Great Canterbury Psalter local image work in progress on f134 row 2 attackers, but, didn’t strikethrough option 1 & 3 yet
feb 22 8:51 am sent Mushroom King f145
feb 22 8:51 am mobile photo of Great Canterbury Psalter local image work in progress on f134 row 2 attackers, strikethrough on option 1 & 3
when figure holds an item with fingertips aimed at viewer, naturally this cuts some fingers to some extent
BUT not nece. all visual cuts are equal?
it preserves more details/data, by asking “is the finger to be CONSIDERED as entirely cut (relatively cut), or not?”
general principle for interp. what counts as a “cut” finger or thumb
on what principle should we choose between descriptions of his Left hand holding sword blade sheath?
IY’
IIY’ <– want to justify picking
I’Y’
if I pick the description IIY’
that means I & I & Y’
which is a very strong assertion of non-branching I & negation of Y branching
that shares the same values/ message as the mushroom-tree artists have
strongly relevant Reference point: in folio f145,
the mushroom king points with I I Y’ with each hand;
twice affirming the I shape (non-branching {snake}) and repudiating the Y shape (branching {tree})
so, lean toward finding / seeing the IIY’ hand-shape
proposal: pick the option which affirms “I” and “I” (double assertion of I) and negates branching; depicts Y’)
i have leniency of how to describe L fingers holding blade of sword
i have to choose between several options
i choose the option that the mushroom-tree artists favor
what counts as “limb visually cut” (finger cut, thumb cut (perish the thought! I (non-branching snake worldline in block-universe) is altered-state Revealed Truth))
or “not all finger segments shown)
when the figure is holding a handle with figertips aimed at viewer?
txt msg 2 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
how to rule out option 1 & 3, for f134 row 2 Middle, for assigning a YI hand shape to swordsman’s L hand holding blade sheath:
option 1: IY’
thats a favored message but if we say these 4 fingers that {touch blade} are cut, we would – to be consistent – have to say this thumb is cut as well by same token — the cut thumb idea hurts; why say not-I?! perish the thought.
the whole message of the mushroom-tree genre is to affirm I / & qualify/restrict Y (we only affirm Y when we also emphasize I)
option 3: I’Y’
again unacceptable, to claim I’.
The message is I, not ever I’.
altered-state Revealed Truth is I (not I’!)
that leaves my preferred option 2: I I Y’
and more sweepingly, this gives us an important, key interp. principle:
favor interp which asserts I and qualifies Y (asserts Y’)
txt msg 3 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
pivotal result, crucial decision for setting the interpn rules in medieval YI hand-shape theory
txt msg 4 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
prior to that puzzle, this am i solved & made interesting correction, or improved more sound interpn of:
L hand shape of psalter viewer
saying just YI loses data
we can be more precise and powerful by char’ize as Y’II
iow, i officially commit to:
the Mushroom King principle:
there is such a thing as
I *AND* I (AND Y’)
double-hand double I’s
“I is the case. I said, I is the case. and Y is not the case. this is what the blue fruit teach”
txt msg 5 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
todo: images:
feb 22 8:51 am mobile photo of Great Canterbury Psalter local image work in progress on f134 row strikethrough correction on Psalter Viewer/artist
! thats what’s signalled by L hand Middle finger tip showing
the middle finger is NOT = Index
relatively, entire Index is shown; Middle finger is strongly visually cut:
the Middle fnger’s base & tip are separated by the Index finger. u cant lump Index finger in w the 3 definitely cut “branching” fingers
that hand shape definitely shows the detail Y’II
not simply YI
this shows how strongly the Index finger often is used as I in contrast w Pinkie+Ring+Middle grouped as “branching”
while Index means “non-branching”
txt msg 6 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
todo: images
zoom detail on his L hand touching the Pssalter: the strikethrough and especially Middle cut by Index
an interpn pun:
I means Index finger
I stands for Index finger (so to speak, as a sophisticated joke)
Index finger CAN be grouped with branching Y fingers in some hand-shapes
or alt’ly, index finger, fully shown, is contrasted with cut grouped 3 fingers (Y’)
txt msg 7 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
Index finger when fully shown (not cut) is read as I ; non-branching {snake}
rather than lumped in w the 3 fingers that represent branching (and qualified-branching ie Y’)
txt msg 8 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
todo: images
Real progress! 🏆🎉
in extracting the mushroom-tree artists’ rules in the hand-shape language
txt msg 9 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
images:
break bow. detail of entire bow and both hands.
Crop by Michael Hoffman. 204 KB
photo of manakin hand doing break-bow hand-shapes
Photo: Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com
Photo: Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com. 500 KB
upper hand on bow – thumb cut(!), = I’ = negation of non-branching = {the threat of non-branching} retreats (experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control)
Reassessment of What I’ve Been Classing as Y’ Might Be IY’ Instead! Because His PINKIE SHOWS ALL 3 SEGMENTS, AND EVEN THE ATTACHMENT TO PALM, = I – NOT Cut!
I hate mistakes – but, they are a sign of improvement.
My mistake was, insuff detail:
Rough analysis first at overall hand shape.
Then I “fixed” that crudeness by vaguely assessing each finger.
Now I am fixing THAT crudeness, by inventorying all segments of all fingers.
Shall I not find, report, and fix bugs in the Egodeath theory’s Mytheme Analogy theory? This gives me flexy options.
I never get it right the first pass. My first pass of writing YI assessments indicators overlay on image crops, is BOUND to be crude and unrefined and wrong, like failing to perceive the {hand mushroom-tree} f107 row 2 R.
Puzzle: Why Left hand so artificially contorted to break bow?
(notes: breaking the bow} here represents receding threat of experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control)
Solution: to depict cut thumb.
That is counter to usual; usu u would NEVER show cut thumb; bc thumb = snake shape = altered-state Revealed Truth of non-branching of possibilities (cut the branches)
txt msg 11 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
there are no accidental items on God’s blessing-hand pointing line
therefore not coincidence a fist holding nothing as if a handle IS significant; artist certainly knowingly put fist clutching on that line
txt msg 12 to AM .m. Feb. 22, 2026
to confirm that the line also intentionally goes thru BOTH mushroom dipensary bins, the artist assures us the pointingline goes thru both bins deliberately. god is signalled as DEFINITELY point at mushrooms and {stable column base} at bottom
the fist is to align your ruler over mushrms and {stable column base}
to help the goal, of maximum communication & the best teaching aid
txt msg to AM/RL/ES 8:16 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026
God’s Blessing-Line Is Anchored by Oxen Guy’s Clutching Hand
Oxen Guy’s Hand Clutching Air (and Pointing with IY Fingers)
As I was positioning the line to make a crop from blessing fingers to clutching fist, I discovered that it’s easy to make the line precisely intersect the pivot point, which the artist has drawn in detail. Sent the announcement text message at [8:16 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026], had to make a special crop showing the editing-mode line with blue endpoint circles and green midpoint circle.
another discovery re: God’s blessing pointing-line in Great Canterbury Psalter folio f134:
the pivot point of the {balance scale} is precisely at the midpoint of the invisible line held by oxen guy
the artist (Eadwine) provided evidence/ indicators that God’s blessing pointing-line intersects both of the Cubensis bins, via these anchors to align your ruler: (God’s blessing fingers & oxen guy’s fist clutching air)
artist confirms my hypoth that the line intersects {balance scale} pivot, which mechanism the artist draws in high detail
we know that the pivot motif is important bc it is precisely halfway between the blessing fingers & hand clutching air
________
a similar, follow-on line:
guy in tree with fist clutching air holds a line intersecting {cut right trunk} and a Y’ hand on row 2 and another on row 3
group of 7 guys mostly hiding hands, looking in directions, one hand shows a thumb (non-branching Eternalism) only, holding lifted (phallic) garment (altered-state indicator).
Solution:
splayed Index finger (non-branching Eternalism) touch Right arm
3 fingers grouped together (branching Possibilism) touch Left arm
= von Trimberg:
fingers fully displayed (branching ordinary-state Possibilism) touch Left arm
thumb (non-branching Eternalism) touch R arm
By convention in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees},
Left is mapped to branching possibilities, like Everett manyworlds
Right is mapped to non-branching Eternalism, like Minkowski absolute four-dimensional spacetime; block-universe eternalism with preexisting future
many worlds (Left) vs. single block universe (Right)
just because it’s the first non-f11 image I saw, and I put it at wasson article gallery at Egodeath.com http://egodeath.com/christianmushroomtrees.htm#_Toc134497563 in 2006. It never clicked w/ me. Has good mushroom cluster. 2 vine-leaf trees , 2 mushroom-trees.
Why Does Huggins Call the Botanically-Matching Panaeous a “Tree”?
Because Prostitute Huggins Is Paid to Lie and Cover-Up, by Anything-But-Drugs Academia, Allied with Crooked Popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson
Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita — March 2006 article for the Journal of Higher Criticism – external link to Egodeath.com. Extremely good article. Tons of valuable quotations & commentary, research contributions from Jan Irvin.
Christian Mushroom Trees — May 2006 gallery for the Wasson/Allegro article – external link to Egodeath.com
Shardogged Mosurinjohn
these writers’ dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia is rooted in colonial violence … the multi-year history of the rejection of the manuscript … is emblematic of the way … scholars fail to communicate around psychedelic history … The persistence of the belief that ancient Western religions were fundamentally psychedelic [is] … a myth … so intent on hanging on to this narrative
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Crop by Michael Hoffman – Shardogged, fullscreenCrop by Michael Hoffman
Mosurinjohn’s Dogged Avoidance of Perceiving Psychedelic Evidence, of Non-Branching in the Eternalism Experiential State
Sharday Mosurinjohn (the religious fundamentalist denier of mushrooms in mystery religions and Christianity, and perpetrator of colonialist violence who is overlooking Indigenous Shams by erroneously trying to write a book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism, instead) wrote and spoke on:
“We then explore how the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages contributes to the [pathetic, invalid, illegitimate, in-vain] project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify the use of stigmatized drugs and revitalize experiential religion.
“Although the desire for [fake] legitimacy and meaning is understandable [though foolish, erroneous, hopeless, and futile], the strategies used by the writers [not scholars or researchers] of this pseudo-history constitute a kind of religious fundamentalism [“and colonialist violence“].” PROJECTION MUCH?!
“The Asp, or “aspido,” is a mythical creature in medieval bestiaries described as a snake that stops up its ears to avoid being enchanted by the music of snake charmers. It presses one ear against the ground and covers the other with its tail to ignore the charming, symbolizing a refusal to hear wisdom or divine truth.”
Popebanker Gordon “Perfect Conflict of Interest” Wasson, Soma, 1968, p. 180, ellipses covertly replacing Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann’s book and Panofsky’s two attached “emphatic” mushroom-shaped trees – while in the very same paragraph, chastising and insulting mycologists for having failed to “consult”(?) art authorities who never wrote, published, or cited anything (except the “noted”, ie. censored, exception of Brinckmann’s “little” book) on this “special”, taboo topic. https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/img_5225.jpg p180
Acknowledge Wasson’s Fraud and Censorship and Avoidance of Standard Academic Practice: Write, Publish, Cite
The below sound like pompous, insincere, con-artist horse sh!t, because that’s exactly what it is:
Sharday Mosurinjohn Projecting Her Own Religious Fundamentalism onto Legit Entheogen Scholars, Committing Violence Against Her Betters
to Score Worthless Points in the Closed Eyes of Anything-But-Drugs Academia, to Profit from Their Academically Corrupt Cover-Up Operation
the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia … colonial violence
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Asp-Dog, Indicated as Female, Great Canterbury Psalter Folio f109
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Psychological Origin and Ups and Downs of this Draft Post
p.m. Feb. 20, 2026
last night when i thought of this apology form idea, what struck me most was how effective a mental frame to articulate the situation and what i want
sleep deprivation makes it hard to implement
How long did my Nov 2020 jackpot last? 2 years later,
todo: get back in the mindset to write up the apology form – after i’m done finding yet more proof, per Ruck, of “yet more evidence of mushrooms in heretical Christianity”.
Adding L & R (= Branching vs. Non-Branching) Indicators on Annotated Plaincourault Fresco
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen
todo:
blue L on L beam & “Possibilism branching”
blue L on middle beam.
red R on R beam & “Eternalism non-branching”
red R on serpent head
red R on her R heel
blue L on L two branches
red R L on R two branches
blue L on L forearms
red R on R forearms
blue L on L legs
red R on R legs
Umbrella Lion: Developed New Notation for Medieval YI Hand-Shape Theory
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, “Umbrella Lion YI hand pairs.jpg”, 757 KB, 12:07 a.m. Feb. 20, 2026, fullscreen
Errata:
In bottom panel, annotated figure 2, hand on back of R arm/shoulder of guy is I, because thumb is fully shown, no fingers:
The [IIY’, I] correctly says I.
On wrist it says I’, it should say I; delete that apostrophe.
Motivation of this Page
to guide constructively the goal outcome
Important Exercise of Focused Articulation
to artuculate what I want the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art to do; the newbie anything-but-drugs academics.
How things ideally ought to move forward; what constitutes progress and correction of entheogen scholarship.
to mess around
to articulate the baloney fakeness affectation of the deniers
to develop ideas
demonstration of effective framework
i was blown away by how well the idea worked, of an apology form for Sharday Mosurinjohn & john & Ascough & Huggins & Greer to fill out
Smart Christian Greer and Stang conceded we must PLAN on finding SOME Christians used psychedelics; they are ready to debate “mainstream”, I won that already, along w/ Browns.
Mainstream is what I declare it to mean: high-quality Christian practice, say 1%, is what counts as influential therefore main, in best churches and manuscripts best paintings and best art.
If 99% not psychedelics, they define “low quality” Christianity, not “mainstream” but in a stupid headcount way, with no significance here.
A redemption arc for Huggins Mosurinjohn & Ascough exists. It’s this apology form; the Egodeath Apology Form for Deniers of Mushrooms in Christian History.
List of the Demon-Possessed Deniers Blind to Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia … colonial violence
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Erwin Panofsky 1952
Gordon Wasson 1968
Andy Letcher 2006
Thomas Hatsis 2013
Ronald Huggins 2022
Christian Greer 2024
Sharday Mosurinjohn 2025
Richard Ascough 2025
List of the Angelic and Inspired Affirmers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
Rouge 1906?
French Myco soci (RH25 indiv names)
Rolfes 1925
Allegro 1969 – Plainc. only
Giorgio Samorini 1993?
Carl Ruck 1978?, 2001
John Ramsbottom 1954?
Clark Heinrich 1995
Michael Hoffman 1999
Cyberdisciple 2004?
Irvin 2005
John Rush 2011
Browns 2016, 2019
Blaise Staples 1980, 1981
Mark Hoffman 1980?
Chris Bennett dan man 1993?
i’m more intruiged by the (cybernetic) communication aspect than the content; my motive is only to demonstrate comm effective format given by “apology form” framework / voice/ mode/ POV.
Sorry if I omitted any insults against the Deniers.
Citation & Link: The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East (Allegro 1970, Irvin 2009)
The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East November 12, 2009 Amazon author errors corrected by Michael Hoffman: John M. Allegro (Author), Jan Irvin (Introduction, Publisher), Judith Brown/Allegro (Foreward), Carl A. P. Ruck (Appendix: Fungus Revivivus) https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity-fertility/dp/0982556292/ —
I need the Fung Rev apx. DanMan cap silences Deniers: has red [sic; blue] cap.” The biggest f-up & faceplant by Ruck. “So, no mushrooms in Christian art.“
Diagram
Crop & handedness correction by Michael Hoffman “Sacred Mushroom and the Cross Diagram.jpg”, 58 KB, 8:21 Feb. 19, 2026
OH SH!T ITS BACKWARDS on the cover of some editions or printings of Allegro’s book.
I am too lazy to find crop in WordPress gallery, so, here’s a fresh crop.
Corrected/REVERSED by Michael Hoffman.
The Central, Middle Beam Is Assigned to “Left Branch”, via YI Form, Sweeping from Bottom Up
Fails to preserve YI branches, a key motif defining the genre/ visual language. Corrupt. Falsifies color palette of DanMan, and here FALSIFIES BRANCHING FORM TO FORCE TO BE PLAIN MUSHROOM at top. So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art. (j/k)
Fails to preserve orientation handedness – has what would be a valid {cut right branch}, shown as generally less valid (it is against the Reference norm grain) {cut left branch}.
Omits {stand on right foot}, a key motif defining the genre/ visual language.
yes there are {cut left trunk} or {cut left branch}, IY tree instances – that were understood to go against the Ref norm, of YI. eg Day 3 plant 4 Amanita tree: IY/YI (which is not a simple, pure IY form).
todo: find instances of simple IY tree, against the Ref std norm of YI handedness orientation.
Diagram fails to preserve offset trident YI form under crown.
No One Knows What Irvin’s Private View on Allegro and Entheogen Scholarship Is Anymore, After His 2015 Switch from Gnostic Media to Logos Media
Irvin’s income is from this popular smear-and-titillate book; he’s not going to announce the fact that he mostly flipped his values since 2009.
These are NOT the views of Irvin 2015+, but Irvin 2009:
2009 blurb:
“Where did God come from?
“What do the bible stories really tell us?
“Who or what was Jesus Christ?
“This book challenges everything we think we know about the nature of religion.
The ancient fertility cult at the heart of Christianity.
The living power of cultic rites and symbols.
The sacred mushroom as the emblem and embodiment of divinity.
The secret meaning of biblical myths.
The language of religion that links us to our ancestors.
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross sets out John Allegro’s quest through a family tree of languages to find the truth about where Christianity came from.”
/ end of 09 blurb
See Also
Search Cyberdisciple site for “allegro”: https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/?s=allegro Classics scholar, PhD in Transcendent Knowledge, member of the evil class “academics”; so, everything he says is false
How Posting a New Page, Because of Trimming the Title, Was Instrumental in Improving Terminology Lexicon Phrasing
happened same way yesterday Sunday when working on the names of my two sub-theories:
I worked hard on the phrases within body of page, but at final hour, it was in the TITLE of the page, that the BEST variants / wording were formed.
Related Idea: Was the Egodeath theory “mainstream”? YES: define ‘mainstream’ as, the Superior, Best 1% of People, the Esoteric Leaders
History shows that people had UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT WITH the Egodeath theory – ie, the people who matter – ie, both Joe & Fred in 1200 AD agree with the Egodeath theory, and everyone else disagreed with them, but they were the true inspirational figures.
Power Recent Idea: the BEST QUALITY of Myth 100% Agrees with the Egodeath theory and Proves that the Egodeath theory is Correct
Most people in history were fools, and spouted rubbish like Popular Neo-Advaita aka Neoplatonism.
Most historical “esotericism” was junk, the Noise in the Signal vs. Noise war.
All GOOD, RIGHT-THINKING History of Mystical Esotericism / Esoteric Mystics Unanimously Agrees with, Corroborates, and Proves the Egodeath Theory
That’s one of the best ideas in this page. Ideas like diamond hammer of interpretation.
Been dev’ing that idea recently… perhaps the past month or two weeks.
You Have to Philosophize with a Hammer: the Diamond Hammer of Interpretation
You have to MAKE the art confirm the Egodeath theory, and validate the Egodeath theory.
You have to MAKE the evidence prove there were psychedelics in mystery religions; that religion comes from none other than psychedelics.
YOu have to MAKE Cubensis appear and have-been-used northwards of further N than Italy, at least during heyday … explanation i made up:
Heyday of the mushroom-tree religion was 900-1300 bc Warm Climate Grew Cowpie Mushrooms Only During that Period
to do/done: crop of crop harvesting; row 2 R and row 3 R, and add line connecting the blue harvesting vase to the Cubensis dispensary display case, like the above crop.
When the climate became colder in 1400, ppl forgot psilocybin mushrooms and forgot the Egodeath theory, ie, the Psychedelic Eternalism theory & the Mytheme Analogy theory.
Titles of this Article
If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct, and the historical esotericists are wrong
Page in which I Developed This Idea
The Plaincourault Fresco Has {branching-message mushroom tree} Features, Depicting Psychedelic Eternalism
todo now: move all that junk to here
The diamond hammer of interpretation: Per the Egodeath theory, you have to FORCE the evidence to prove that there were psychedelics in mystery religions.
Per the Egodeath theory, you have to FORCE the evidence to prove that there were psychedelics in mystery religions.
short:
You have to FORCE the evidence to prove that there were psychedelics in mystery religions.
Michael Hoffman re: the Egodeath theory
If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct, and the historical esotericists are wrong
If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct, and the historical esotericists are wrong.
Michael Hoffman
The General Problem of My Possibly Re-Discovering and Re-Announcing an Art-Decoding Breakthrough that I Forgot Solving
Suppose I post:
2025/10/32 – Decoded {foo} = bar
“I just now figured out for the first time ever, that {foo} = bar!”
2026/02/30 – Decoded {foo} = bar
“I just now figured out for the first time ever, that {foo} = bar!”
and suppose i make entry in Log of Breakthroughs that — a half truth:
“On [2026/02/30], I decoded {foo} = bar.”
That’s bad. But could be worse.
History of Errors in the Egodeath theory
1986-2025 – had strong idea of Michael the Archangel guiding me: he = revealer of all; all will be revealed by Michael the Archangel. Could not confirm in Revelation book.
(Jan. 1988-Mar. 2025): You Move from Possibilism-Thinking to Eternalism-Thinking (Repudiate Possibilism-Thinking; No Longer Use It; Get Rid of It)
(depends on whether u def. ‘eternalism’ in an EXCLUSIVE or INCLUSIVE (integrative way).
Define ‘eternalism’ as including qualified possibilism-thinking. first you have possibilism-thinking, then you SWITCH to “eternalism-thinking”, ie, switch to eternalism-thinking which includes possibilism-thinking.
OR:
Define ‘eternalism’ narrowly, as mutually exclusive with possibilism-thinking.
Serious tip: If u r in the mystic altered state, and you are SURPRISED to be observing possibilism-thinking, you misunderstood.
Takeaway thanks to Ariadne/Nike:
Do Not Be SURPRISED to Observe that You Are “Still” Using “False” & “Immature”, Possibilism-Thinking
The mind ALWAYS retains and uses possibilism-thinking.
You don’t kill Isaac; you qualify him.
Embrace and include possibilism-thinking, per Ken Wilber.
or, as we see debated via YI hand shapes, some say it opposite:
Embrace and include possibilism-thinking. Eternalism-thinking needs to embrace and include possibilism-thinking.
Embrace and include eternalism-thinking. Possibilism-thinking needs to embrace and include eternalism-thinking.
As we seen articulated via the YI hand-shape language, you MUST say it both ways.
That’s why one hand-shape pair is: two hands, both representing the end-state: One hand reps it as YI, other hand as Y’I.
[YI & Y’I] – use this notation if both hands are presented as alt equivs.
or:
[YI, Y’I] – use this notation if the hand-shape pair conveys idea of SEQUENCE, from one hand to the other.
eg von Trimberg: 1) lower fingers, then 2) lower thumb, then 3) upper fingers & thumb. use notation: [Y, I, YI]
Notation: If Both Hands Equivalent Expressions Descriptions of the Final compound mental model, End State, Use AMPERSAND
or maybe OR; |
Cannot predict best notation ahead of time.
Know these options for notation of YI hand-shape pairs:
,
&
|
I like the idea of the description “compound mental model”.
compound mental model cmm
keyboard shortcut ks
keyboard shortcut/ acronym/ concept-label/ concept/ lexicon term ksl
Notation: If Hands Depict a Sequence of mental models, use COMMA
First, In April 2025 I had big breakthoruhgh correction / revision of even core the Egodeath theory thansk to ARIADNE interp, the wedding marriage of Dio & Ariadne in procession.
But AFTER that profitable victory inspiration, around Feb. 16, 2026, found it’s supposed to be Nike not Ariadne.
8th-Grade “The Scientific Method” Just-So Story Is Bunk, per the Actual History of Science (vs. … HAHA What Got Disconfirmed was the Logical Positivist Made-Up B.S. Hypothesis
The Philosophers of Science Were DESTROYED by the Historians of Science, and Had to Entirely Trashcan their Total Bunk, Disconfirmed Theory of “The Scientific Method”.
Per “the scientific method” (theory un-corrected by actual History of Science), I’m supposed to trashcan my mis-interp of the Dionysus mosaic and discard my inspired, revision of my theory that I made based on that wonderful art-message.
But I treasure my gains, even if ill-gotten.
I AM KEEPING THE TROPHY.
joke based on quote “
If the art data (Nike) don’t match the theory (Ariadne wed by Dion), then TOO BAD FOR THE DATA; THE THEORY IS CORRECT.
Fact-Check: Did Einstein Say “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”?
my orig formulation:
Fact-Check: Did Einstein Say “If Data Don’t Match the Theory, Too Bad for the Data, the Theory Is Correct”?
The bunk quote is: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”
If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.
Not Einstein
AI’s Answer Summary
AI stole/wrote:
Einstein did not say “If the data don’t match the theory, then too bad.”
Einstein did not say “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”
These are frequently misattributed, as the Einstein estate has confirmed he never said it.
However, he expressed extreme confidence in his theories, famously stating in 1919 that if observations did not match General Relativity, he would feel sorry for the “good Lord” because the theory was correct.
Einstein’s View of Data vs. Theory
The Actual Quote:
When asked what he would do if Sir Arthur Eddington’s 1919 eclipse observations failed to confirm his theory of General Relativity, Einstein replied,
/ end AI; break. Michael Hoffman rewrite:
What will you do, Einstein, if the eclipse observations fail to confirm your theory (of General Relativity)?
Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
Einstein (exact quote)
“Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct”.
Michael Hoffman’s condensed Q & A:
Accurate Virtual Quote of Einstein:
If the eclipse observations fail to confirm my theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
Condensed by Michael Hoffman:
Einstein virtually said:
“If the eclipse observations fail to confirm my theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.”
If the eclipse observations fail to confirm my theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
Einstein (accurate virtual quote, assembled by Michael Hoffman)
The Egodeath Theory’s Equivalent of Einstein’s Accurate Virtual Quote:
list of 3 theories:
If the history of religious myth & mythic art fails to confirm the Egodeath theory, the Psychedelic Eternalism theory, and the Mytheme Analogy theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
Coinsider my project in 1998: GOAL: GET JESUS-PAUL TO CORROB the Egodeath theory.
Sharday Mosurinjohn would NOT be barking up wrong tree if she claimed “Cybermonk is so pathetic, invalid, and hallucinating, he fantasizes psychedelics in mystery religions, to give his New Religious Movement (NRM) the false impression of legitimacy.” in this sense:
I ended up looking to History, Myth, entheogen scholarship, Mythic art, and alaogies, IN ORDER TO MAKE-UP AND CONFABULATE A LEGIT LINEAAGE TO VALIDATE MY BRAND NEW INVALID AND HISTORICALLY BASELESS the Egodeath theory. Sharday Mosurinjohn would be “warm” instead of “way off base”.
She argues: New Religious Movement (NRM) do not have legit actual psychedelics history lineage. They pretend to have, but invent one. We know there was in fact, no psychedelics in mystery religions. They need to STOP doing entheogen scholarship in mystery religion, and instead, servile worship Indigenous Shams, who have all of the legitimacy for themselves, only; many thousands of years of psychedelic Wisdom [Sharday Mosurinjohn voiced that, THROUGH the crappy post by Henry Winslow
Sharday Mosurinjohn ALSO said that.
Sometimes, inconsistently (DON’T MIS-HEAR ME” – who the F&CK says that?! fake, fake, fake! Right there, we see LOUD AND CLEAR that Sharday Mosurinjohn has no integrity, no consistency, fake as a 3$ bill – everything she puts out is DRAMA PERFORMANCE, her position shifts like the wind constantly. But she denies she shifts her position WORSE than Ruck slippping from “maybe psychedelics” to “definitely psychedelics”.
Sharday 1:
You are not allowed to study psychedelics in Western religious history.
Sharday 2:
(vigorously backpedalling but denying doing so)
Don’t mis-hear me, I’m saying, you ARE allowed to study, that’s good, psychedelics in Western religious history.”
“DON’T MIS-HEAR ME” Is What a Poser Fraud Would Say
How to Expose You Have No Integrity, Coherence, Consistency: Say “Don’t Mis-Hear Me”, to Cover Your Ever-Shifting (thus Poser, Fake, Insincere) Strategy
(in this “Hot”, Controverted or Suppressed, “Special” Academic, Taboo, Non-Topic)
What sort of sleazy con artist would ever say such a thing, “Don’t mis-hear me”?!
]
Sharday Mosurinjohn published that written statement in:
her Abstract of her 10-min Harvard 2025 talk, and in
the Mosurinjohn & Ascough published that in their Abstract of their article:
In 1997, I punted (put-off, via a stopgap) my 1988 article for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology; it kept exploding in wordcount.
I instead uploaded to Principia Cybernetica Web, https://pespmc1.vub.ac.be, a short condensed 12-principle summary spec outline.
the Principia Cybernetica website (url)
THE POINT The point is, in 1997, I published my Core theory summary.
In 1998, I needed Jesus & Paul to confirm and validate my Core …. there was ONLY the core theory, so – GOOD POINT! — FROM 1997 POV, “CORE” THEORY MAKES NO SENSE.
I had the idea of “Jesus and Paul must corrob MY THEORY” but lacked concept of “an add-on theory, accounting for history, and myth, and lyrics, and mythic art, and analogies, and mythemes”.
That’s an arg in favor of NOT calling 1997 “the Core theory”, but more direct descript:
Which of the 4 Constructions Did I Orig Mean? Ans: the Mytheme theory
If the history of religious myth & mythic art fails to confirm the Egodeath theory, the Psychedelic Eternalism theory, and the Mytheme Analogy theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
the Egodeath theory only:
If the history of religious myth & mythic art fails to confirm the Egodeath theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
The Core theory only, ie, the Psychedelic Eternalism theory only:
If the history of religious myth & mythic art fails to confirm the Psychedelic Eternalism theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
The Mytheme theory only; ie, the Mytheme Analogy theory only:
This is the version I orig had in mind: ie,
I worry that the actual history of Western Esotericism and peak religious mystic ideas, fails to match my maximal entheogen theory of religion.
According to maximal entheogen theory of religion, the BEST mystics, in Classical Antiquity and in Late Antiquity and in Midddle Ages, always used psilocybin, and they all concluded same as the Egodeath theory: the Psychedelic Eternalism theory, expressed like in the Mytheme Analogy theory.
Suppose that the historical fact is:
Tthe best mystics did NOT agree with the Egodeath theory; the theory of psychedelic eternalism; the Mytheme Analogy theory. eg, they liked Neopl’m, apophatic, ie Western version of Popular Neo-Advaita; the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”.
I would then reply: what, the Egodeath theory ? Core theory? the Mytheme theory? —
“If the actual history of mystic Transcendent Knowledge, religious myth, & mythic art fails to confirm the Mytheme Analogy theory (within the Egodeath theory), then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the [Etm Mytheme] theory is correct.”
Compound Theory-Name: The Mytheme Eternalism Theory
What would “The Mytheme Eternalism Theory” be??
combine both pairs:
the Psychedelic Eternalism theory
the Mytheme Analogy theory
thus the Egodeath theory = the Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy theory
The “Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy” Theory
Would that phrase be of any use??
The Egodeath theory = the Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy Theory
That phrase combines recent theory-names of the two theories that are within the Egodeath theory:
the Psychedelic Eternalism theory
the Mytheme Analogy theory
t p e t – t m a t :
the Egodeath theory = the PsychedelicEternalismMythemeAnalogy theory
vs. my other laundry list of descriptor terms (eval the diff):
Why the Egodeath theory has a fake & phony use of ‘eternalism’ and covertly redefines ‘eternalism’ to change its meaning
The Egodeath theory fakely adds “control” concerns to the previously pure, untainted, Phil Dept Phil o Time term ‘eternalism’, covertly changing its meaning.
This is how the Egodeath theory title avoids having to include the word “control” in its title: by COVERTLY REDEFINING THE WORD ‘ETERNALISM’ to force it to mean a huge thing (personal control considerations) in add’n to what it really means in the common Armchair Phil Dept Shared Lexicon.
Fused for Eternity Trapped in the Stone Armchair in the Academic Phil Dept
The armchair they have in the Academic Phil Dept is as strong as the rock bench w/ snakes in Hades:
Even when Chris Letheby in the Phil Dept dorm room took psychedelics, he still continued to do mere Armchair Phil Dept Philosophy.
Letheby is stuck in his ordinary-state armchair for eternity; even psychedelics can’t help them; beyond hope.
If the history of religious myth & mythic art fails to confirm the Mytheme Analogy theory (within the Egodeath theory), then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct. [THIS DOESN’T WORK! NEED TO TRY THE 4-TERM COMBO]
If the actual history of __fails to confirm the __, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
If the actual history of mystical experience, Western esotericism, & mystery religion fails to confirm the Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
that’s sound, re: content. it’s saying the idea i had in mind by “if the data.. too bad, the theoyr is correct”.
Compare again the accurate Einstein quote to use as a template:
If the eclipse observations fail to confirm my theory of Relativity, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
Einstein
If historical mystery religion, mystical experience, & Western esotericism fails to confirm the Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.
If historical mystic altered-state views fails to confirm the Egodeath theory’s Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy model, then I would feel sorry for the historical mystics; the theory is correct.
Michael Hoffman
getting really close to the idea quip ide a that i have in mind:
If historical mystics fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, including the Mytheme Analogy theory & the Psychedelic Eternalism theory, then I would feel sorry for the historical mystics; the theory is correct.
good but too verbose, idea gets lost
If historical mystics fail to agree with the Egodeath theory, then I would feel sorry for the historical mystics; the theory is correct.
IT IS GOOD.
“If historical esotericists fail to agree with the Egodeath theory, then I would feel sorry for the historical esotericists; the theory is correct.” – Michael Hoffman
If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then I would feel sorry for historical esotericism; the theory is correct.
Michael Hoffman
better:
If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then I would feel sorry for historical esotericism; the theory is correct.
snappier: punchier:
If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct.
If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct.
Michael Hoffman
*I* am not wrong; it’s the historical esotericists who are wrong!
I am not wrong; it’s the historical esotericists who are wrong!
History of folly. my “trellis” analogy: real Transcendent Knowledge is like an overgrown trellis obscured by weeds. Everything that historical mystics talk about, is weeds hideing what they mean to be thinking: what they really mean, without realizing it, is the Egodeath theory; the hidden obscured trellis underneath.
True, historical mystics all agree on the noise/weeds on the trellis; but the Egodeath theory agrees with the obscured trellis, NOT with the Apophatic Neoplatonism weeds/noise/ false surface theory that obscured the trellis.
That’s what I had in mind: “If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct. [add: and the historical esotericismterics esotericists are wrong.”
If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct, and the historical esotericists are wrong.
If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct, and the historical esotericists are wrong.
Michael Hoffman
IT IS GOOD.
the diamond hammer of interpretation
You have to FORCE…
That sounds like something Mosurinjohn & Ascough say to each other privately among the Newbie anything-but-drugs academics.
Heard in the Meeting Room at the Religions Journal Special Issue Planning Meeting, for the Special Issue on How to Cover-Up Psychedelics in Mystery Religions
“You Have to FORCE the Evidence to Prove That There Were No Psychedelics in Mystery Religions”
That’s fallacious and incorrect arg’n, because their theory sucks.
Truth is:
Per the Egodeath theory’s diamond hammer of interpretation, You Have to FORCE the Evidence to Prove That There Were Psychedelics in Mystery Religions
Per the Egodeath Theory, You Have to FORCE the Evidence to Prove That There Were Psychedelics in Mystery Religions
Per the Egodeath theory, you have to FORCE the evidence to prove that there were psychedelics in mystery religions.
Per the Egodeath theory, you have to FORCE the evidence to prove that there were psychedelics in mystery religions.
Michael Hoffman
NOW we’re talking.
That is correct, non-fallacious argumentation, because it reaches the correct conclusion, by any means necessary.
AI con’t:
Context: This was not a dismissal of empirical evidence, but rather a reflection of his immense confidence in his theory’s accuracy, having been developed from foundational principles rather than just fitting data.
Debunked Misquotations: The phrase “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts” is not found in his writings and was not said by him.
Scientific Approach: While he believed in the power of theoretical elegance, Einstein did not believe in ignoring contrary data, but often felt that if data challenged his work, the experiment was likely wrong.
In short, Einstein believed in the ultimate truth of his mathematical predictions, but the “change the facts” line is an urban legend.
Their forearms angles are isomorphic w/ L & R beams, and only slightly lower.
Adam’s forearms are offset same as the beams; his R arm (on the Left) is higher than his L arm (on the Right).
Elbows Are Out in Order to Match Tree
Tree has 4 branch limbs, Eve has 4 limbs.
Compare the black-box dual-rectangle human form, it is similar to the mushroom-tree’s form, because their elbows are out.
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, “Plaincourault_web-eternalism-annotations.jpg”, 59 KB, 2:14 Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen
Each of the 4 Amanita branches points to a pair of limbs (arms, hands, fingers; legs, feet, toes), because that’s a concern within the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}: the concept of “pair of limbs, L & R”. So it makes sense to read:
Question: What does the branch point at?
Answer: A pair of limbs; left and right.
That answer fits with the concerns of the mushroom-tree artists: {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
The Egodeath Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism & Mytheme Analogy
Per caption on top of crop of Plaincourault fresco.
the Egodeath Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism & Mytheme Analogy epm
Compare the leaning-to-point mushrooms in f11 Day 4:
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
The Central, Middle Beam Is Assigned to “Left Branch”, via YI Form, Sweeping from Bottom Up
todo maybe: crop with box around Y on L incl. center beam; box around I beam on Right.
How the Artist Evolved and Developed the Standard Y-Under-Cap Form to Develop this Clever Offset-Beam YI Form
Figured out this POV / visualization of transformation on Feb. 19, 2026 (yesterday), wrote up now a.m. Feb. 19, 2026
Diagram by Michael Hoffman, July 4, 2022
Start with standard extant form, two beams hold up cap crown.
Insert YI form by: Split the Left beam into 2 beams on the Left.
Pull the resulting right-hand beam from Left to Middle.
Offset the L beam upward, to form a YI shape, as assessed by standard sweep from bottom to top.
On a tree, sweep from trunk to leaves (toward greater branching).
On a person’s arm, sweep from forearm to fingertips (toward greater branching).
Reference Dates
Mar. 21, 2022 – Announced {branching-message mushroom trees}.
Jul. 4, 2022 – YI morph’y of tree type: two branches hold up cap/crown.
Feb. 9, 2023 – Decoded Jesus’ finger shapes, sticks, & feathers in Martin: Entry into Jerusalem.
Annotations: YI, {stand on right foot}, Cultural Politics
Annotation: Cultural Politics
Motivation for this Page
Celebrate bringing together recent develop discoveries:
Series of Key Discoveries about the Fresco Image
2022/04/28 – Eve {stand on right foot}
April 28, 2022 – Eve stands on right foot. This involved me standing on my feet to confirm weight distribution.
2026/02/15 – YI Form of Offset Trident Beams
Feb. 15, 2026: recognized and figured out the trident offset problem: YI branching form under the main crown-cap – that solves the Huggins problem of 3 why 3 beams in that config? todo: find when i posted here, 2 days ago like Feb. 16, 2026, my discovery of the YI form of the —
I HAD BEEN PUZZLING, SINCE READING Huggins’ ARTICLE, OVER THE TRIDENT FORM, DIDN’T FIT the Egodeath theory / the Mytheme theory — IT IS NOT A TRIDENT – IT IS A YI FORM! <sarcasm>: I’m sure Huggins discusses the offset, which forms a YI form.
2026/02/18 – The Four Branches Point at the Four Pairs of Limbs of Adam & Eve
today: p.m. Feb. 18, 2026: The 4 branches point to the 4 sets of limbs, of Adam & Eve: the branching of his legs, his arms, her arms, her legs.
My previous speculations since 4/2022 of “why 4 branches?” for this image, did NOT map that way: I wrongly thought “a person has 2 arms and 2 legs” or more recently: “4 fingers”. No. Four PAIRS OF ARMS OR LEGS; a branch even touches Adam’s pair of legs.
The lower R branch is identified with the {stand on right foot} motif.
2026/02/18 – Wasson Presents a Fake Copy of the Fresco, Censoring the YI Form and {stand on right foot} Detail that Indicate Psychedelic Eternalism
p.m. Feb. 18, 2026: Realized that Wasson’s fake copy of fresco omits YI form and {stand on right foot}, the elements that prove this image depicts psychedelic eternalism and therefore certainly means Amanita.
I am grasping why Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson hired Bory to paint a copy of Plaincourault fresco: to omit indicators (at least that’s the resulting effect, THE RAMIFICATIONS OF BORY OMITTING THE OFFSET OF THE RAMIFICATIONS).
The censorship is built into her painting.
Wasson presents a FAKE painting of Plaincourault fresco in SOMA p. 181, with a DELIBERATELY CONFUSING CAPTION.
todo: transcribe the caption, check my 2006 article; see the 2-page photo in the present webpage.
Michelle Bory screws up, paints trident instead, & omits {stand on right foot} – she is an outsider, illiterate & blind to eternalism motifs in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
1:00 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026: across from p 180, Wasson does not show Plaincourault fresco; shows degraded copy-painting that lacks YI & {stand on right foot}.
If Wasson shows the degraded, inferior Bory copy, her corrupted version of the painting lacks the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} motifs THAT PROVE IT IS IN GENRE OF {branching-message mushroom trees} and therefore is mushroom (psychedelic eternalism).
Feb. 18, 2026 – Bory Moved Adam Away, so Mushroom Branch Doesn’t Touch Left Leg
Also at this time, articulated that the LEFT branch touches Adam’s LEFT leg, like the RIGHT branch touches Eve’s RIGHT leg.
AND ALSO WHILE UR AT IT MOVE ADAM AWAY [6:38 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026] SO the LOWER Left MUSHROOM — UH, I MEAN, PINE TREE BRANCH OR RATHER , A.N.E. SPECIES OF TREE (yeah, that’s the ticket!) — DOESN’T TOUCH HIS LEFT LEG
Wasson Con Theory
Pope taught Wasson the secret forbidden art-only knowledge of the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism.
1998-2026, I am merely re-figuring out what Pope & Wasson knew: the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism including the Mytheme theory.
Why the Church Allowed Mushrooms in Art But Not in Writings
[VOX_TK_6613,wav] – I made a voice recording with Zep 4 (levee breaks) background
I vocally mocked Deniers “it’s TOO HARD”
My Chris Bennett joke: he argues:
“Finding Cannabis is relatively easy; finding mushrooms is TOO HARD! 😭
“So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art.“
“You can’t explain why there would be mushrooms in art but not in text.” saarcasm: SO NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE TO FORM HYPOTH!
The church to an extent forbade writing theology assertions of no-free-will; the allowed art depictions of no-free-will (possibilism vs. eternalism) but not text published on this topic in writing explicitly.
wow that was so hard to answer the Deniers’ objection that:
“If there’s hundreds mushrooms in Christian art, but no mushrooms [debatable] in Christian text, then art doesn’t count, and you can’t explain why in art but not in text.”
[here comes their come-to-org’m payout:]
“So, not a mushroom. 😑”
Professional Propagandist Wasson Substitutes a Degraded, Copied Painting that Deletes the YI Branching Form and the {stand on right foot} Motif, Withholding the Actual Fresco Image
Photo and annotations by Michael Hoffman. Corrupt degraded painting copy that OMITS THE YI BRANCHING AND {STAND ON RIGHT FOOT} that proves this is a mushroom-tree meaning psychedelic eternalism. 1:03 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026
Photo and annotations by Michael Hoffman.
Corrupt degraded painting copy that OMITS THE YI BRANCHING AND {STAND ON RIGHT FOOT} that proves this is a mushroom-tree meaning psychedelic eternalism.
1:03 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026
I Realized Plaincourault Fresco Has YI Form at 6:45 p.m. Sunday, February 15, 2026
Michael Hoffman, discovered at [6:45 p.m. Feb. 15, 2026]. That was near closing time at my in-house coffeehouse, last Sunday, 3 days ago. Now[when wrote that note] 8:55 p.m. Feb. 15, 2026.
Now = Feb. 18, 2026
There is a possibility I wrote about the YI form previously – but I don’t recall that, and I am now experiencing this as a new realization I didn’t perceive before.
The Serpent Goes First Through the Y, and then Through the I, Matching Mind’s Sequence
“One of the key enigmas of cultural history has been the identity of a sacred plant called Soma in the ancient Rig Veda of India.
“Mr. Wasson has aroused considerable attention in learned circles and beyond by advancing and documenting the thesis that Soma was a hallucinogenic mushroom – none other than the Amanita muscaria, the fly-agaric that until recent times was the center of shamanic rites among the Siberian and Uralic tribesmen.
“In his presentation he throws fascinating light on the role of mushrooms in religious ritual.
“A section on the post-Vedic history of Soma is contributed by the Sanskrit scholar Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty.”
Plaincourault Fresco Breakthrough
The Plaincourault fresco has the {branching-message mushroom trees} motifs I identified in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, proving that the Plaincourault fresco means mushrooms.
… Panofsky, JUST LIKE ALL OF YOUR HUNDREDS OF pilzbaum “instances of this development of images of the Italian pine, due to sh*tty inept idiot artists [on this special taboo topic, only] f’ing up & deteriorating the interp of the “developed for no reason” prototypes that they copy from as inept craftsmen.”
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-7 – “Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens: a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.”
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-2-5 – “The only possibility I should be prepared to admit is that, once the transformation had taken place and was generally accepted in art, some especially ignorant craftsman may have misu[n]derstood the finished product [Panofsky’s confabulated “prototype”] , viz., the “Pilzbaum,” as a real mushroom.”
Professional Propagandist Wasson Substitutes a Degraded, Copied Painting that Deletes the YI Branching Form and the {stand on right foot} Motif, Withholding the Actual Fresco Image
Photo and annotations by Michael Hoffman. Corrupt degraded painting copy that OMITS THE YI BRANCHING AND {STAND ON RIGHT FOOT} that proves this is a mushroom-tree meaning psychedelic eternalism. 1:03 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026
Photo and annotations by Michael Hoffman.
Corrupt degraded painting copy that OMITS THE YI BRANCHING AND {STAND ON RIGHT FOOT} that proves this is a mushroom-tree meaning psychedelic eternalism.
1:03 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026
Fallacy: False Dilemma: “A mushroom-tree either means a tree or a mushroom”
Mushroom-trees do not mean “a mushroom”.
Ruck’s Incorrect Identification of Mushroom-Trees as “mushrooms and nothing else, not stylized trees”
False dilemma. mushroom-trees mean adding non-branching eternalism thinking to possibilism-thinking.
*Unrecognizable AS PINE, but fully recognizable AS MUSHROOM FEATURES.
Panofsky’s extremely biased argument about the alleged data in the “little” 1906 Brinc book:
The consistent shift by artists from pine to mushroom proves that the mushroom end-result is accidental and meaningless.
The consistent shift by artists from pine to mushroom proves that the mushroom end-result is accidental and meaningless.
Panofsky, 1952
My retort, speaking Truth to ABD-Academia Power:
The consistent shift from pine to mushroom proves that the mushroom end-result is deliberate and meaningful.
ABD: anything-but-drugs
Huggins eagerly weds this sh!tty arg’n.
Huggins accuses entheogen scholars of being careless about the surrounding text that artists are subservient to.
In retaliation, I accuse Deniers of shameless carelessness about their crap argumentation that they should be ashamed of.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are SHAMELESS WED’ERS OF THE WORST ARGUMENTATION.
Deniers like Huggins characteristically have NO SHAME in their CRAP ARGS.
What’s the character of Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art?
The Deniers’ Main Hallmark Character Is Their Utter Lack of Shame in Associating Themselves with Utterly Atrocious, Awful Argumentation Fallacies
No Argument Is Too Sh!tty & Obviously Fallacious for Deniers to Put Forth, as Corrupt, Committed Skeptics
Panofsky: “Plaincourault fresco can’t mean mushroom, because there are hundreds of mushroom-trees like it.”
To distract from that shiite arg, he mixes it together with this other fallacy or dirty, invalid strategy:
“Your ignorance of this fact is the only reason you foolishly said Plaincourault fresco is mushroom.
“If you had known that there are hundreds of other mushroom-trees, you would not and could not have put forth your ignorant, blundering, foolish, embarrassing notion that Plaincourault fresco means mushrooms.”
The Motherload of Fallacies: the “Special”, Taboo, Exceptional Topic of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
Therefore Regular, Standard Scholarly Methods (Writing, Publishing, & Citation) & Argumentation Are Not Applicable, for This One, Special-Case Topic
Correct method for this special topic: “consult” the art authorities in submission, to be educated about the Correct view, since on this special topic, the “competent art authorities” are trained like dogs to blurt within 1 second, the correct disavowal of your Allegro Violation (asserting mushrooms in Christian history & ahistoricity of Jesus).
What are the top 3 main fallacies in operation here?
Fallacy name: Argument from distracting insults.
Fallacy name: Argument from silent presupposition that’s imagined to be shared by the audience.
Big-Brain Chief Editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism, Dr. Robert M. Price 😯 Went INSANE on the “Special”, Taboo Topic of Allegro, Reduced to a Fumbling, Inept, 4th-Grade Writing Level
As I saw in 2006 in big-brain Chief Editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism, Dr. Robert M. Price 😯 reacting in anti-scholarly clumsy manner against Acharya S’ favorable mention of Allegro.
CHIEF EDITOR Robert M. Price went INSANE (because this is a “special”, taboo topic) and clumsily botched every aspect of what he wrote against Allegro.
I emailed big-brain Chief Editor Robert M. Price correcting his many clumsy, gradeschooler errors, so he invited me to write the article Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita (Hoffman, 2006), http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
Then Acharya thanked me for reconciling her with Price.
We see the generation of new fallacy types right in front of our eyes in realtime coming from the motherload of fallacies: the special, taboo topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
The Deniers’ main hallmark and character is their utter shamelessness in putting forth atrocious, awful argumentation fallacies.
NO argumentation FALLACY IS TOO ATROCIOUS FOR DENIERS TO ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH.
That shameless putting forth of atrocious argumentation fallacies is TYPICAL and CHARACTERISTIC of Deniers.
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, a.m. Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen todo: boxes connecting 4 branches = his legs, his arms, her arms, her legs.
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, a.m. Feb. 18, 2026
Fraudulent, Corrupt, Deceptive, Lying by Omission, Academic Obstructionism by Popebanker “Conflict of Interest” Wasson re: mushroom imagery in Christian art
My 2006 Article’s Accurate Accusation that Wasson Must Have Censored and Withheld (Thin, Weak) Citations that Panofsky MUST Have Provided, Confirmed by Brown 2019, which Huggins Repeatedly Omits to Cite
SOMA p. 180 (More Cussing, Fewer Annotations, Dec. 2, 2024)
Hey Wasson, you phony; SELLOUT!: Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906) as Panofsky extremely strongly urged mycologists to read – no thanks to your duplicitous censorship and going OUT OF YOUR WAY to fraudulently attack affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, while you fakely chide them for failing to consult the IGNORAMUS art “authorities”.
The below sound like pompous, insincere, con-artist horse sh!t, because that’s exactly what it is:
SOMA, p. 180 (Less Cussing, More Annotations, Jan. 8, 2025)
How Prohibition, Cultural Politics, and the Anything-But-Drugs Academic Agenda Corrupts and Distorts Entheogen Scholarship
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, “Plaincourault-cultural-politics-annot.jpg” 62 KB, 8:18 a.m. Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen ALSO Adam & Eve’s YI hand shapes (8:40 am)
todo: crop w/o “cultural politics”, add YI hand shapes. signif of 4 branches like
4 limbs
4 fingers vs. 1 thumb
lower pair of mushroom branches = legs/feet, upper pair = hand shapes
4 branches is common in the mushroom-tree genre.
4 branches: a branch means, branching, of the hands, and of their feet/legs.
branching of his feet/legs
branching of his arms/hands
branching of her feet/legs
branching of her arms/hands
Proper Definition of “Psychedelic Wisdom”, Against Winslow’s Throwing Around that Term to Invalidate and Delegitimize Entheogen Scholarship, Following Mosurinjohn & Ascough
Indigenous Shams do NOT have “psychedelic wisdom”, which is comprehension of psychedelic eternalism, per Classic Western entheogen culture
Indigenous Shams do NOT have “psychedelic wisdom”, which is comprehension of psychedelic eternalism, per Classic Western entheogen culture.
I criticize the individual Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art but they did not invent; they PARTICIPATE in Prohibition & anything-but-drugs academia corrupting influence.
Weaponization of Indigenous Shams by Anything-But-Drugs Academics
Sharday Mosurinjohn has literally declared she’s an anything-but-drugs academic in a sense; she has published calls for everyone else other than her own book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism, she’s here to tell everyone in entheogen scholarship that they need to double down on non-drug psychedelics.
REPEAT THE INCANTATION:
PSYCHEDELICS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY LIKE EXTREMIST Michael Hoffman OF EGODEATH SITE SAYS; THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS THAT CAN/ COULD/ MIGHT/ MAY/ PRODUCE “AN ALTERED STATE” SAME AS 10 GRAMS OF CUBENSIS. FOR EXAMPLE SPINNING IN A CIRCLE, BREATHWORK, CAVE MEDITATION, HIT HEAD W/ HAMMER, SUPER ERGONOMIC AND EFFECTIVE.
This repetition is propaganda and dogma. Sharday Mosurinjohn joins in, telling us one thing we entheogen scholars must do is pay more attention to non-drug psychedelics than psychedelics.
The Performative Magic Utterance “There Are Many Other Ways than Psychedelics” Dogma Ritual Repetition
It’s not an argument; it’s a ritual performance under the “special, taboo topic” conditions of Prohibition, politics, & repression in the post-Allegro era.
The “many other ways can same as psychedelics” dogma ritual repetition, religiously ritually repeated by all academics, is a way of falsely elevating poor methods (meditation) to the high level of respect of the one good method (psychedelics) that produces control transformation.
How to Properly Use Indigenous Shams to Attack Your Opponents
The purpose of Indigenous Shams is to serve as a blunt club to beat Western entheogen scholars, to discredit.
Like the fake “journalists” blocked from conf bc they are parasites trying to destroy the entire field.
How Injecting Politics Killed Atheism Culture and Attacks Entheogen Scholarship Likewise
Comparable:
Richard Carrier’s New Atheism, the ahistoricity writer overnight killed Atheism conferences by CO-OPTING ATHEISM, INJECTING CULTURAL POLITICS and killing Atheism culture/community.
Why did Atheism die? How did Carrier’s imported politics kill it?
Atheism stock went up and down after 2001.
I examined a 4 New Atheists book: the book had zilch sense of mysticism in religion; no concept of esotericism in author’s mind.
Where Atheism (a brand, a worldview, a paradigm): Start w/ run of the mill modern Christian then negate. A poor-quality Christian in drag as a poor-quality Atheist, nothing changed.
Low-grade Christianity converts to low-grade Atheism: does God exist, yes or no? Worthless.
The Atheists shuffled the Outsider exoteric deck chairs, nothing changed.
Mosurinjohn Pusher of Non-Drug Psychedelics
I have no thoughts about Indigenous Shams
though – so persuasive –
Mosurinjohn & Ascough put on a show for anything-but-drugs academia
Mosurinjohn & Ascough wheel out the artifice, beating on entheogen scholars with Indigenous Shams, for the purp – Mosurinjohn & Ascough are not actually valuing Indigenous Shams execpt as a momentary affectation, — CIPHER / BLUNT CLUB, the purpose is not to elevate Indigenous Shams; or help them; the purpose is to harm W entheogen scholarship.
adbaa /
The Mission of Anything-But-Drugs academics: Discredit, Disrespect, Invalidate, Suppress, to Self Elevate; Abuse Indigenous Shams Strategically, Weoponized to Inflict Harm on Entheogen scholarship in order to Self-Promote: the Parasite Strategy
Some of my best friends are Indigenous Shams.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough don’t care about the topic of Indigenous Shams. Sharday Mosurinjohn is not writing a book …
Sharday Mosurinjohn Needs to STOP Writing a Book Fantasizing in Vain about Psychedelics in Western Esotericism, and Needs to Write a Book on Indigenous Shams Instead
She’ll tell YOU what YOU have to study, or submit to rather.
But SHE has free reighn to write an entire book
She is not serious about Indigenous Shams, it’s striking a pose, momentarily taking up this useful cipher. Let’s see you write a series of
If Indigenous Shams Are So Damn Awesome, Why Is Sharday “Don’t Mis-Hear Me” Mosurinjohn Ignoring Indigenous Shams, and Writing a Book About Psychedelics in Western Esotericism Instead?
I do not intend to make any point about Indigenous Shams at all. I don’t think about them, I don’t care about them, they are not part of my mental world, Indigenous Shams have nothing to do with this page.
I am purely counter-attacking the Newbie anything-but-drugs academics.
I do not care about Indigenous Shams.
I have actually voiced respect for Indigenous Shams, it’s hard work requiring creativity.
I have huge respect for Indigenous Shams.
I’m sad for Indigenous Shams because Sharday Mosurinjohn abuses them as nothing but a momentary weapon blunt club to harm entheogen scholarship, then she casts away and writes her own book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism, NOT on Indigenous Shams – she
Sharday Mosurinjohn never actually loved the Indigenous Shams at all. 😢
Sharday Mosurinjohn was just USING the Indigenous Shams for her own momentary strategic gain, the strategy of the moment – DON’T MIS-HEAR ME,
I’m saying the opposite of what I said, and the explanation for that is, you are mis-hearing me, you are in error.
fake — fake — fake and Why, again, were Mosurinjohn & Ascough kicked out of every journal such that they were forced to produce their own special issue of Religions journal because no one would publish their fake articles.
Ascough didn’t read my article but he’ll tell you what’s in it: his view. He’s just using my article just as he used the poor Indigenous Shams but doesn’t GAF about them.
Hey Ass Cough, why aren’t YOU doing entheogen scholarship on Indigenous Shams, big talker, eager to lecture the whole field of entheogen scholarship that it needs to shut down and re-center on Indigenous Shams
Ascough cares nothing and knows nothing about Indigenous Shams.
Fake and empty arg’n from Mosurinjohn & Ascough, it’s all put-downs and posturing
Gauge How Poor the Scholarship from Ascough on this “Special, Taboo” Topic: He Poorly Represents My 2006 Plaincourault Fresco Article
Academic Corruption and Fradulent Censorship
Conflicts of Interest
This “Special, Taboo” Topic of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Justifies Abandoning Standard Scholarly Practices
This “Special, Taboo” Topic of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Justifies Wasson, Letcher, & Huggins Abandoning Standard Scholarly Practices (Publishing and Citing Articles) and Instead, Abnormal: Personally “Consult” the Art Authorities in Submission
“One of the key enigmas of cultural history has been the identity of a sacred plant called Soma in the ancient Rig Veda of India.
“Mr. Wasson has aroused considerable attention in learned circles and beyond by advancing and documenting the thesis that Soma was a hallucinogenic mushroom – none other than the Amanita muscaria, the fly-agaric that until recent times was the center of shamanic rites among the Siberian and Uralic tribesmen.
“In his presentation he throws fascinating light on the role of mushrooms in religious ritual.
“A section on the post-Vedic history of Soma is contributed by the Sanskrit scholar Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty.”
Cultural Politics of Religion vs. Psychedelics
Reading how Ascough misuses my 2006 Plaincourault fresco article, you learn about Ascough’s view & arg, but nothing about my article’s view & arg.
I can tell how poor quality the articles: Ascough just makes up sh*t about my article and ignores what I say, and it is.
I wish Ascough had written “I agree with Michael Hoffman’s conclusion: sideline and retire Allegro.”
That was certainly not Irvin’s message in 2006.
Had Irvin written my 2006 Plaincourault fresco article, had he driven and designed the article, the article would have been like The Holy Mushroom, pro-Allegro propaganda for the purpose (explicitly, on the book cover) of elevating Allegro.
Jan Irvin falsely credits Allegro with Affirming the CLASS of mushroom-trees means mushrooms, not just the Plaincourault fresco
Allegro’s Abuse of Nascent Entheogen Scholarship to Smear and Defame Christianity with a Disgusting Sex-Cult Fungus
Allegro’s purpose was not entheogen scholarship, it was to WEAPONIZE DISGUSTING Amanita SEX CULT & ACADEMIC ANTHROPOLOGY THEORY TO DEFAME AND RIDICULE Christianity.
In The Holy Mushroom, Jan Irvin falsely tries to credit Allegro with the CLASS of mushroom-trees.
Here’s PROOF that Allegro NEVER WROTE ONE WORD ABOUT MUSHROOM-TREES as a class:
The Holy Mushroom doesn’t cite Allegro making statements about mushroom-trees as a class.
Why then take the “mushroom-trees entire class” medal from Wasson and give the medal falsely to Allegro?
The “mushroom-trees entire class” medal, Ruck falsely granted to Wasson in “Daturas for the Virgin” at quote: “Wasson’s conclusion”(!) as if Wasson asserted mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.
Ruck wrote “mushroom-trees look like mushrooms and that’s exactly what they are” – “Daturas for the Virgin”.
Poor, poor Wasson, per Ruck’s lie and history revision, Wasson kept telling all the world, ALL MUSHROOM-TREES MEAN MUSHROOMS”.
Jan Irvin’S false rebuttal: “Wasson did the exact oppositite of that. It is ALLEGRO who went around telling all the world “ALL MUSHROOM-TREES MEAN MUSHROOMS” – and I have no quotes of Allegro to back up my claim.
A Mushroom-Tree Is NOT a Mushroom, Ruck, It’s the Transformative Experience of Eternalism, giving Y’ on One Hand and & YI or Y’I on the Other Hand
[Y’, YI] = One Hand: Modified Possibilism-Thinking; Other Hand: Integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism Thinking
10:59 p.m. Feb. 17, 2026 I’m in ordinary-state, = closed scroll, and I have possibilism-thinking , branching possibilism-thinking, though I know there’s the eternalism state and the Eternalism mental model. Y’ means all that. qualified possibilism-thinking, in ordinary-state.
the two states correspond with two mental models: possibilism & eternalism BUT the mental model that’s in ordinary-state changes.
ordinary-state , basic possibilism-thinking
alt-state, basic possibilism-thinking and eternalism feeling
alt-sta
simpl’d:
O P = ordinary-state, possibilism-thinking
O P
A P
A E
O E + P’
The mental model that’s in ordinary-state is inistially possibilism ; basic possibilism-thinking
later in ordinary-state the model is: qualified possibilism-thinking + eternalism-thinking
by virt of fingers attached to thumb, these fingers are NOT same as fingers on other hand; these fingers are integreated in relation with thumb, they work toegeher to hold and control.
I am saying the opposite of what I was saying but that’s because you are mis-hearing me. fake. no integrity.
NO INTEGRITY, NO CONSISTENCY,
WILL TRY ANY (ever-changing) TACTIC TO SELF-ELEVATE, ESPECIALLY DESTROYING THE FIELD OF ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP TO BE ITS CORRECTOR-TO-DEATH
Why All Journals Rejected Mosurinjohn & Ascough: Self-Appointed Correctors-to-Death of the Field:
We Are Here to Smugly Condescend, Accuse, Namecall, Invalidate, Discredit, Critique Parasitically, and Posture to Win Favor with the Academic Cabal, Anything-But-Drugs Academia
I SEE AN OPPORTUNITY IN THIS WEAK TRENDY FIELD TO SELF-PROMOTE AS THE ACCUSER, THE CORRECTOR, THE SELF-APPOINTED JUDGE AND DIRECTOR OF EVERYONE ELSE’S RESEARCH
What You Are Studying Is Wholly Invalid, Illegit, Pathetic, in Vain, a Myth
You (but not I) Need to Make Indigenous Shams the Center of Your Adulation, while i write my book on NOT Indigenous Shams, but on psychedelics in Western Esotericism
it’s my strategy of the moment, my feigned random interest so i don’t have OVERLOAD BOREDOM
That’s why I invaded the field of entheogen scholarship, to be its corrector and director.
DON’T MIS-HEAR ME BEING FAKE, PHONY, Rude, Wrong, Self-Contradictory, Inconsistent
Why Won’t Anyone Publish Our Toxic Parasitic Smear Article to Sweepingly Discredit, Invalidate and Dismiss the Entire Field of Entheogen Scholarship for Personal Gain?
If you want to know Sharday Mosurinjohn’s view, among her backtracking, tactic-shifts, read Winslow who interviewed her.
Winslow leaks the real voice of Sharday Mosurinjohn. Which matches some of what she wrote in article abstract and lecture abstract. Her theory is that New Religious Movements (NRMs) are looking for a legacy and legitimation, but they are not legitimate.
She’s here to discredit, to delegitimate the entire field, but she – in her hundredth strategy pivot (DON’T MIS-HEAR ME), now gets to write a book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism.
Even though she said that sort of thing is COLONIALIST VIOLENCE and RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM. but DON’T MIS-HEAR ME.
I hear a broken robot, an empty, shifting persona. One moment, ingratiate with anything-but-drugs academics, the next, ingratiate with entheogen scholarship?
I can’t imagine her ingratiating w/ entheogen scholarship, she is SO scorched-earth – has she ever given entheogen scholarship any credit, or always totally illegit and it’s her job and profit to point that out to shut down the field.
I’M HERE TO SHUT DOWN THE FIELD BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING BUT RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM & COLONIST VIOLENCE / I’M HERE TO WRITE MY BOOK ON PSYCHEDELICS IN Western Esotericism, DON’T MIS-HEAR ME
I care about toxic parasite invaders of the field of entheogen scholarship, who are here to steer the field into a ditch, for personal gain, by abusing a cipher, “Indigenous Shams” purely to beat on and destroy entheogen scholarship.
bc she’s inconsistent, an empty tactic applyer, she has no actual views, so she can dance her position now over here, now over there, contradiction? “Don’t mis-hear me.”
Who the F says that?! No one is ever “mishearing”
Sharday Mosurinjohn, she communicated her tear-down-the-other bile perfectly well.
An empty cipher, “I NAMECALL THEREFORE I AM” — When YOU write entheogen scholarship about psychedelics in Western religious history, you are pathetic and in vain, and ought to be all-focused on Indigenous Shams instead.
When Sharday Mosurinjohn writes entheogen scholarship about psychedelics in Western religious history, she is magically exempt from religious fundmaentalism and colonialist oppression SHE COMES ACROSS AS FAKE, POSING, POSTURING, EMPTY MARKETING, all just an affectation, trying incohernnetly one self-promotional stratetgy one moment, the next on video walks back, “DON’T MIS-HEAR ME, it’s GOOD that you try pathetically in vain”
What is her position? It depends what self-presentation she’s experimenting with at the moment.
Whoa that tack didn’t work, better PIVOT strategies!
REJECTED AGAIN BY 18TH TYPE OF JOURNAL.
All Those Journal Editors Can’t Be Wrong, Rejecting Mosurinjohn & Ascough for YEARS
Conference Entry Table: No-Entry list: Parasite Fake Journalists and Mosurinjohn & Ascough not Allowed In
psychedelics in Western Esotericism pwe
The Deniers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Have a Serious Academic Corruption Problem that They Must Answer For
Exemplified by Huggins covering for Wasson’s censorship of Panofsky and Brinckmann, which Huggins describes Brinckmann as “noted exception”, when in fact Wasson went far out of his way to actively lie by omission.
It was definitely, CERTAINLY Wasson’s academic and moral DUTY to pass-on to use the Brinckmann 1906 citation from Panofsky, as I exclaimed and explained in my 2006 article.
I could tell that Panofsky had provided weak citations to Wasson, and Wasson withheld them.
My 2006 proof of that:
I very much desire to read everything the art historians wrote on mushroom-trees.
Panofsky aggressively claims and emphasizes that art historians are 100% EMPHATICALLY THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR with mushroom-trees.
Normal standard academic practice (for non-taboo topics): publish writings about the topics that are familiar, in this case mushroom-trees.
IF art historians are SO familiar with mushroom-trees, then CERTAINLY they would’ve published SOMETHING I can read.
Panofsky MUST HAVE provided citations, as standard practice for a topic “we’re totally thoroughly familiar with”, a topic in the art field.
But Wasson doesn’t show any citations with Panofsky’s letter, p. 180 SOMA 1968.
2006: I am mad at Wasson because he withholds the (probably thin & weak) citations that Panofsky MUST HAVE provided – while at the same time, Wasson chides, insults, name-calls, berates, lectures, prances, fulminates, blusters…. THIS IS PROPAGANDA.
THIS IS ACADEMIC CORRUPTION.
Huggins, who sleeps with Wasson and hangs out and is buddies with Wasson, is responsible for the sins of Wasson.
You can’t use Wasson for your (Deniers) side of the argument, without being held accountable for Popebanker Wasson’s fraudulent cover-up and MASSIVE, MAXIMAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Wasson’s conflict of interest utterly ruins Wasson’s credibility (believability) re: his (rude-toned, snide, pushy, insulting, high-pressure) total denial of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
To this day, 2026, we STILL do not have the 2 mushroom-tree art works that were attached to the first Panofsky letter: WHY NOT, HUGGINS?
WHY DID WASSON WITHHOLD THE MUSHROOM-TREE ART FROM ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS?
The Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art have academic CORRUPTION, FRAUD, and CONFLICT OF INTEREST, to answer for.
Huggins and the other Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are in a poor position to morally lecture and chastise entheogen scholars on their errors.
If we’re going to lecture and morally chastise, then let’s discuss Popebanker Wasson’s dishonest, manipulative, deceptive censorship of:
Letter 1
Letter 2
Art work 1
Art work 2
Brinc cit 1
Brinc cit 2
… for DECADES, energetically and actively, as a professional propagandist (exposed by Jan Irvin).
This is the worst-case, lack of any credibility of Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Let us see the degree of Huggins’ credibility:
Huggins argues that these Day 3 trees cannot mean mushrooms, because they have branches.
Huggins in strawman, not steelman fashion, avoids the crushingly OBVIOUS point and no-brainer objection: these branches look EXACTLY, LITERALLY like mushrooms, and don’t themselves have branches:
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
Huggins calls the below, Day 4 plants “trees”, in passing, without giving any justification, and without drawing any attention to them.
Huggins pulls a stage-magician trick on the audience: indirection:
LOOK AT the smaller plants among the trees: These smaller plants also appear on the Mushroom Mount folio image (in that scene, interspersed with mushroom-trees).
Huggins avoids the screamingly OBVIOUS point and objection:
These plants have no branches, and are not mushroom-trees, nor trees, but only match mushrooms:
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025 Day 1 panel above; Day 4 panel below
Crop by Michael Hoffman Plants in Day 4 panel
That shows you the degree to which Huggins can be trusted: ZERO.
Huggins provides a slanted, biased, skewed, agenda-driven cover-up, thinly disguised as neutral, investigative scholarship that’s seeking the accurate interpretation and description.
Huggins cannot describe these plain-as-can-be mushrooms except in an extremely biased, prejudiced way, as “trees”, for NO REASON.
Huggins is not a sincere scholar, but is being manipulative and DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING and MIS-DESCRIBING the Great Canterbury Psalter.
Huggins is compromised, by being in bed with corrupt, anything-but-drugs academia, trying to appease their censorious demands and make them happy, even if that requires Huggins to deliberately mis-describe and misrepresent plain-as-can-be mushrooms, misleadingly, as just “branches” (in Day 3 panel: branches “rather than” mushrooms), and as “trees” (in Day 4 panel: trees that somehow have no tree features; no branches).
todo: mark up hardcopy and analyze same-page proximity of discussing Day 3 “branch” and Day 4 “tree”.
what page does Hug show Day 3? 1, 8, 11 (entire f11), 12, 22, 24
what page does Hug show Day 4? 11 (entire f11), 22, 26
what page does Hug discuss Day 4?
Hypothesis (need to check page layout of the article): Huggins cannot allow the Day 3 & Day 4 pictures to be on the same page as his false and misleading, mis-description that misrepresents the pictures.
Huggins is in bed with corrupt, anything-but-drugs academia.
Like Popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, Huggins has a conflict of interest, and is a propagandist for hire by corrupt, anything-but-drugs academia.
Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita — March 2006 article for the Journal of Higher Criticism – external link to Egodeath.com. Accuses Wasson of withholding (thin & weak) citations that Panofsky MUST have provided – confirmed by Brown & Brown 2019, expose of the two Panofsky letters, which Huggins REPEATEDLY OMITS TO CITE.
Every Type of Journal Rejected Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s Toxic Parasitical, Self-Serving, Smear-Piece Article for YEARS, so Now Mosurinjohn, Greer, Ascough, and Huggins Created their Own, Special Issue of Religions Journal
Why did the anything-but-drugs academic journal Religions permit Mosurinjohn & Ascough to publish articles, and run a special issue, when every type of journal for YEARS rejected the 2025 Mosurinjohn & Ascough article?
Indigenous Shams Do NOT Have “Psychedelic Wisdom”, against Winslow, Houot, Mosurinjohn & Ascough, etc.
The term ‘wisdom’ means specifically, integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
Indigenous Shams do NOT have integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
Europeans have vastly more developed technology than Indigenous Shams — against the anti-Western propaganda.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough: “You Entheogen Scholars Are Pathetic and Illegitimate, Wishing in Vain for Psychedelics in Mystery Religions; We Know for a Fact There’s No Psychedelics in Mystery Religions, since We Denier-Academics Made Sure to Wash Away the Only Evidence That Counts”
Winslow’s Bottom-of-Barrel, Poppest of Posts
Winslow reveals what Mosurinjohn & Ascough are going around telling uncritical thinkers:
There’s no evidence, of an ultra-particular kind, after we washed away the dirt, in vessels, at Eleusis.
That’s the only evidence that counts, because – post-dishwasher – this particular type of evidence is lacking, and thus suits our cause.
Thus we proved that there were definitely no psychedelics in mystery religions.
We uttered the sounds, “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”, therefore, it’s ok that we argue on that premise, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. [Julie Brown: “I swear I will only state what I see. I see the mushroom caps have been painted over or somehow made not visible.”] The voicing of the name of a fallacy, is abused as a COVER to legitimize committing that fallacy.
Look critically at Ruck, who shifts his writing-tense from “Maybe there were psychedelics in mystery religions” to writing as if “There were psychedelics in mystery religions.” This grammar shift is a major problem, not merely a practical way of communication. Pay attention to this big problem, that’s documented in our formal article.
(Don’t pay attention to US doing the exact same shift: fudge & shift from “Maybe there were not psychedelics” to aggressively writing as if, “There were not psychedelics; ROGAN’S BEEN DEBUNKED!!“)
Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s legs are worn out from sprinting repeatedly between:
Projection of their Own Fallacious Argumentation onto Ruck
Mosurinjohn & Ascough covertly shift from writing “possible”: Dr. Jekyll mode: Their defensible (but worthless) Motte position: Maybe there weren’t psychedelics; d/k; need measured, reasonable, research, look how credible and careful we are, model scholars, unlike the sloppy Affirmers.
… to writing as-if fact: Mr. Hyde mode: Their aggressive, indefensible Bailey position: THERE CERTAINLY WERE NO PSYCHEDELICS, YOU PATHETIC, ILLEGITIMATE MORONS, PUSHING A MYTH!! YOU MUST ONLY STUDY INDIGENOUS SHAMS, WHO ARE SUPERIOR TO YOU!🤜💥
Please publish our smear-article; we’ve been rejected by all types of journals for YEARS!
We are on your crooked side, Anything-But-Drugs propagandists!
Academic corruption, on this “special”, taboo topic, causes garbled, nonsensical, self-contradictory argumentation, bluffing, and rhetoric.
The purpose of academic research on entheogen scholarship, as per the ABD Newbies gang, is to PREVENT scholarly investigation, while PRETENDING to pursue investigation – it’s a cover-up operation.
Winslow’s Pop Post Voices, Reveals, and Exposes Mosurinjohn’s Incoherent Narrative
“What do Joe Rogan, a freshly minted neoshaman, and half the speakers at psychedelic conferences have in common? They all love telling people that the ancient Greeks’ rites of passage were psychedelic ceremonies. According to this popular theory, the secret sauce behind the legendary Eleusinian Mysteries was ergot-laced barley that sent initiates on revelatory, near-death-like psychedelic journeys. But is it even true?
“Researchers from Queen’s University think not. So they just dropped a thorough takedown of the whole theory in the journal Psychedelic Medicine. Drs. Sharday Mosurinjohn (whom I interviewed in April) and Richard Ascoughsystematically dismantle what they call “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis,” pointing out there’s zero archaeological evidence for psychedelics at Eleusis. They say proponents are presenting speculation as fact, and the entire narrative is built on shaky foundations and circular reasoning.
“So why does the myth persist? The authors argue it’s about legitimacy. People want to believe there’s a ‘respectable’ Western pedigree for psychedelics with our European ancestors. Never mind that there are plenty of Indigenous lineages around the world that have preserved psychedelic wisdomfor millennia. If we need history’s stamp of approval to justify research and policy reform today (we don’t), surely that’s enough.”
/ end of Winslow’s Pop Slop post
/ end of copypast from Corrob page
My commentary on that is below.
Winslow’s Pop Slop, with Commentary
section copied from Idea Development page 33:
Who wrote the stupid wrong vague anti-Western phrase, “psychedelic wisdom”? Henry Winslow’s awful post:
The Pop writer, anti-scholarly, poor thinker Winslow wrote:
“Researchers from Queen’s University think not.
[not “no evidence”; they think DEFINITELY NOT psychedelics in mystery religions – why? they slip from “possibly not” to “= definitely not”, exactly as they make a stink about Ruck doing, in the positive direction. -mh]
“So they just dropped a thorough takedown of the whole theory
“Drs. Sharday Mosurinjohn (whom I interviewed in April) and Richard Ascough systematically dismantle
[ultra vague, non-scholarly, untestable, undefined assertion -mh] what they call “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis[sic, PARADIGM],”
pointing out there’s zero archaeological [RESTRICTIVE QUALIFIER] evidence for psychedelics at Eleusis [RESTRICTIVE QUALIFIER].
[dirty rhet arg’n strategy: only accept 1 type of evidence: whatever type of evidence your side (Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art) has destroyed (washed out these particular cups), and is minimal.]
“They say proponents are presenting speculation as fact, and the entire narrative is built on shaky foundations and circular reasoning.”
[Hypocrites Mosurinjohn & Ascough present their speculation …
Maybe there were no psychedelics in mystery religions. The only type of evidence that that counts is the dirt that we Deniers washed away, and by that arb. definition, “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. “
… as if fact (We showed that there’s definitely no psychedelics in mystery religions; DEBUNKED ROGAN. & Muraresku. & ruck) -mh]
Winslow con’t:
“So why does the myth persist?”
[the above presenting of negative speculation as negative fact by Mosurinjohn & Ascough has now MAGICALLY become factual, so that we can say confidently with a con-artist’s tone of finality, “the myth of psychedelics in mystery religions”.]
“The authors [Mosurinjohn & Ascough] argue it’s about legitimacy.
[ie, YOU ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS ARE ILLEGIT & PATHETIC & discredited and invalidated – like Wasson p. 180 SOMA smearing blundering “mycologists” ie Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art eg John Ramsbottom.
Ramsb. more than effectively retaliated, by re-printing his new book just to add:
“We are committed skeptics, not interested in truth re: mushroom imagery in Christian art.”
– signed, Popebanker Wasson, privately to the top mycologist (Affirmer), John Ramsbottom
As Jan Irvin figured out during research with me in 2006, it took Wasson decades to figure out that he’d been, for years, DESTROYED & EXPOSED as a committed liar, by the top myc’ist, Ramsbottom.]
Winslow con’t:
“People want to believe there’s a ‘respectable’ Western pedigree for psychedelics with our European ancestors.
[ie YOU ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS LACK A RESPECTABLE PEDIGREE]
[now wheel-out the weaponized Indigenous Shams:]
“Never mind that there are plenty of Indigenous lineages around the world that have preserved psychedelic wisdom[sic] for millennia.
“If we need history’s stamp of approval to justify research and policy reform today (we don’t), surely that’s enough.”
/ end of Winslow’s Pop Junk post
Motivation for this Page
A reactionary page reacting against fools attacking the field by abusing Indigenous Shams as a blunt club for the purpose of delegitimizing and discrediting and insulting entheogen scholars, to fakely try to elevate themselves and make a name for themselves.
These RUDE & WRONG, hostile newbies have read only a single book: The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020, and Pollan 2018, and fantasize that they are equipped to appoint themselves as a new, Easy-Mode career role, as Entheogen Scholarship Critic.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough bring Rogan-level Pop shallow substitute for scholarly research that moves the field forward constructively to reach its potential. Proof that Mosurinjohn & Ascough are nothing but mere Pop Junk writers POSING as serious academics, like Huggins POSES and play-acts at writing a scholarly article and yet:
Huggins says Day 3 is “ruled out” from meaning mushrooms, because the plants “have branches”.
What the hell is WRONG with Huggins that he FAILS to point out that these “branches” are identical to mushrooms?
Answer: Huggins is PROPAGANDA to appease, ingratiate himself with, and cater to ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS ACADEMIA.
The “scholarship” presented by the anything-but-drugs academics are not sincere investigative scholarship trying to find the truth regardless of academia’s corrupt demands.
Huggins is required to reach the desired, negative conclusions. Revealed in his garbled, bizarre, arbitrary “Conclusion” section so he can next utter: “Every instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art FAILED THE TEST.”
What test? The utterly, to the core, nonsensical test:
Art historians defined a class, mushroom-trees.
Criteria for a tree to be included in the class, “mushroom-trees”: The tree must have some tree features and must also have some mushroom features.
Huggins’ ploy: Consider any particular isolated instance of a mushroom-tree, by that class-definition.
Ask “whether” that isolated tree instance has any tree features. This is a ploy and deception. It’s already plainly known, that by definition, every instance has tree features; otherwise, that instance would not be included in the class.
“IF” the instance has tree features (by definition, that’s guaranteed), then in that particular case, you should just ignore the mushroom elements and exclusively pay attention and honor and respect the tree elements. (Arbitrary bias.)
Voila, now you can utter the phony “conclusion” of this SENSELESS CHARADE, this phony put-on: “So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art. We discovered, surprise: every single mushroom-tree instance was discovered to have branching. HELL WE EVEN INCLUDED DAY 4’S 4 PLANTS, WHICH HAVE NO BRANCHING AT ALL and are not eligible for inclusion in the class “mushroom-trees”.
In your next article, shift from possibility to fact. Huggins 2025 tries to soften his basically aggressive “rules” (ie, the arbitrary decree: Always ignore any mushroom features) by treating them simultaneously as mere “suggestions” and yet also, at the same time, as objective, binding “rules”.
This “Conclusion” section strategem is an affectation, a phony put-on, dissimulation, a way of pretending to “conclude” “Always ignore all mushroom features“, without admitting you are doing that sweeping, blanket, arbitrary dismissal.
Why such garbled arg’n? Because of academic corruption and denial; committed skeptics.
If anything-but-drugs academics were authentic, Huggins would STEELMAN INSTEAD OF STRAWMAN:
An HONEST HUGS (an alternate reality) would:
Discuss that the Day 3 panel’s “branches” match mushrooms.
Discuss that the Day 4 panel has not mushroom-trees or trees, but purely, mushrooms, with no branching.
In the “Conclusion” section, not concoct the pointless, redundant, fake “testing” of members of a class to “discover” whether they have tree features – a nonsensical charade, since you already know ahead of time this is guaranteed to always be the case in every instance.
The fake & nonsensical charade of “testing” each tree within the class mushroom-trees, in the “Conclusion” section of Huggins 2024, is a BLUFF by an insincere, pseudo-scholar trying to ingratiate himself with CORRUPT, ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS ACADEMICS; COMMITTED SKEPTICS who are trying to OBSCURE and COVER-UP the truth, not find the truth.
What is WRONG with Huggins, that he declined his duty to STOP and discuss these mushroom images that have no branches?
Ans: Huggins — like Mosurinjohn & Ascough — is playacting, putting on a show to impress the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia.
Articles by the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are propaganda disguised as scholarship.
Huggins’ Conclusion Ruse: Sweep ALL Mushroom-Trees Away, while Pretending to Individually Analyze Each Instance
Huggins concocts a nonsensical test that’s totally redundant with any given tree’s inclusion in the class of mushroom-trees, in his Foraging Wrong article’s “Conclusion” (rather, his Irrational Decree section).
Then in his Next, 2025 Article: “Each Mushroom Image FAILS THE TEST” and Is “Ruled Out”, by His Fraudulent & Nonsensical “Test”.
Huggins Conclusion section pretends to examine individual members of class ‘mushroom-trees’ to ask “whether” that instance, that member of the class, has any tree features at all.
What insanity! a put-on! a ruse!
It is a GIVEN that by definition, all members of mushroom-tree class have tree elements; otherwise that tree instance wouldn’t be in the class.
FOR EXAMPLE: Day 4’s four simple, literal mushrooms are NOT in the class “mushroom-trees”, because they don’t have ANY branches AT ALL.
Huggins pulls a CHEAP cheap, sleazy STAGE-MAGICIAN sleight-of-hand, misdirection of attention:
“OH HEY LOOK OVER THERE AT THOSE SMALLER PLANTS AMONG THE FOUR TREES, THEY APPEAR IN OTHER FOLIO IMAGE!!”
Biased propagandist Huggins abusively manipulates the reader and sneakily avoids discussing these no-branch mushrooms – they are not “trees”, by anyone’s assessment, yet he bluffs the reader (hope no one notices) by calling these plain, no-branch mushrooms, “trees”.
Corruption in Academia Around Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art: the Anything-But-Drugs Agenda, Instead of Investigative Scholarship
Ronald Huggins is dishonest propaganda, to impress and cowtow to the anything-but-drugs academic cabal; not sincere, authentic scholarship.
Yet, Mosurinjohn & Ascough cite Huggins AS IF he’s a credit to their position, their side.
Huggins reasons in a sweeping, blanket way, while PRETENDING to be nuanced per each mushroom-tree instance. It’s a ruse; a put-on, an affectation to deceive.
Huggins’ actual argumentation or assertion is:
Branch features ALWAYS should be ignored for ALL mushroom-trees.
Huggins’ PRETENDED argument is, “if a specific, isolated, individual mushroom-tree has any tree elements of any kind, ignore its mushroom elements”.
OBVIOUSLY this is the case, by definition, for EVERY member of the class.
THIS IS ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS ACADEMIA PROPAGANDA, not sincere scholarship.
The Panofsky/ Wasson/ Huggins Sleazy and Dishonest Cover-up Operation
Why doesn’t Huggins cite the article that published the two censored Panofsky letters on the World-Wide Web for ALL scholars to access? Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019
Why does Huggins make-believe entheogen scholars have been aware of both of the Panofsky letters, and their Brinckmann citation, since 1952 or 1968?
What’s Huggins’ motive for pulling the two Panofsky letters and the Brinckmann citation out of nowhere, out of thin air?
It’s a dirty, scholar-warfare tactic to block other scholars from accessing and leveraging the Panofsky letters.
Huggins tries to cozy up to Popebanker Wasson, pretending like Wasson is on the up-and-up.
Huggins helps the liar, Popebanker Wasson in a cover-up operation, by refusing to cite and credit and help other scholars (Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art) utilize the Panofsky letters that Popebanker Wasson egregiously and fraudulently and maliciously censored.
Instead of standard scholarship, for this “special”, taboo, charged topic, Huggins directs us to the goddamned DRAWER at Harvard, which the Affirmer of mushroom imagery in Christian art Jan Irvin is forbidden from accessing.
Wasson p. 180 SOMA 1968, similarly deletes actual scholarly practice (citations of published writings), and sneakily tries to get us, on this special magic taboo topic, only, to use wildly abnormal, non-scholarly methods, of “consult” art authorities.
The expert art authorities must be obeyed by Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art why?
These art historian frauds, cover-up operators for hire in the wake of the Allegro violation (combining Jesus’ ahistoricity + entheogen origins of Christianity) have never written ANYTHING about the existence of hundred of mushroom-trees, with the “NOTABLE” (Huggins’ cover-up for censored-by-Wasson) single, weak, lone exception:
Indigenous Shams Do NOT Have “Psychedelic Wisdom”, against Winslow, Houot, Mosurinjohn & Ascough, etc.
This page is to RETURN IN KIND a big F U to rude, anti-scholar, self-promoters, toxic parasites invading the field only to fall on their faces, Mosurinjohn & Ascough.
Expecting to score cheap & easy points in the anything-but-drugs academic cabal, Mosurinjohn & Ascough are hell-bent on discrediting their betters who CREATED the field – INCLUDING those selfsame entheogen scholars who created the field of Indigenous Sham Studies, that Mosurinjohn & Ascough (with Greer & Huggins) — the ABD Newbie Fools — think they can weaponize against Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Greco/ Roman/ Jewish/ Christian art.
The Anything-but-Drugs Newbies
Looking to Make a Cheap and Easy Name for Themselves in the Trendy Entheogen Scholarship Field by Appeasing & Selling Themselves to CORRUPT Anything-but-Drugs Academia, Instead of Authentic Scholarly Investigation
Mosurinjohn
Ascough
Greer
Huggins
The ABD Newbies think they can invade this field that entheogen scholars created, invading the field in lazy, SLOPPY, Easy-Mode.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough cite Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest (Huggins, 2024) AS IF the article is sound, beyond Huggins’ correcting of trivia.
I agree with ABD Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art on some points:
Entheogen scholars are correct about what matters: The best, most authentic, Classic, authoritative religion and myth comes from none other than psychedelics.
Creating a page is sometimes a guess and a speculative investment.
Not always sure how much potential, or how much such a page/title is needed.
Todo
todo: copypaste today’s txt msgs Feb. 18, 2026
See Also
todo: link to new page: Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality, Gordon Wasson, 1968
I articulated branching vs. non-branching in Physics, in 1997 & 2001.
I then started applying “branching vs. non-branching” to myth and mythic art:
1988 – bring together Block-Universe Mysticism.
1997 – core theory spec. a 2-level, not 3-phase, model. Discusses branching vs. non-branching as in Physics (not Myth).
2000 – Coraxo corrects expression of core the Egodeath theory; use David Ulansey to add equiv, 3-phase model.
2001 – got David Ulansey book.
2002 – non-branching shape of snake is why snake is the #1 mytheme? branching shape of tree is what’s relevant?
2010 – Greeks knew Loose Cognitive Science? Knew many worlds vs. single block universe? While walking the branching forest paths, observing mushrooms.
2013 – Discovered that in Greek & Christian art, branching is a master theme. Cranach: Eve Tempted by the Serpent (in The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell) + Douris’ kylix of Jason, Ladon dragon, Athena, golden sacrificed ram fleece, tree in garden of the Hesperides.
2015 – hi-res Dancing Man from Thomas Hatsis article for UK zine. HYPOTHESIS: {stand on right foot} = eternalism-thinking; {stand on left foot} = possibilism-thinking.
2020 – Mid-Nov.: re-found f134 row 1 left 2/5: Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, low-res, John Lash’s 2007/2008 research produced article The Discovery of a Lifetime. ~1999, Paul Lindgren discovered mushroom imagery in Christian art in Great Canterbury Psalter; credited by Jame Arthur Mushrooms and Mankind, and twice in Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise (Hoffman, Ruck & Staples, Entheos 1, 2001), https://entheomedia.net/Issue%20one.htm, https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/24/entheos-issues-1-4-mark-hoffman/#Entheos-Issue-1.
2022 – applied above to art pieces I been working with for years. Mar. 21, 2022: email Brown phrase {branching-message mushroom trees}.
2023 – – applied above to art pieces I been working with for years. Feb. 9, 2023: emailed Brown decoding of finger shapes of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem in Martin church, and sticks and feathers held out to Jesus’ finger shapes, guy in tree.
2025 – April-Aug: stopped thinking “change from the Possibilism mental model to the Eternalism mental model; get rid of possibilism-thinking.” Instead, add eternalism-thinking to modified possibilism-thinking.
2026 – medieval YI hand-shape theory; Jan/Feb 2026 major breakthrough.
ego inflation = Quantum Mysticism: every thought or act of will, you are Creator of infinite universes. Maximum possible ego inflation.
ego cancellation = Block-Universe Mysticism: your future already exists, you have no power to alter it. You have no power of that type – a shattering realization experience.
All the hype in Transpersonal Psychology about ego transcendence was NOT delivered on via their house religion core, Popular Neo-Advaita — but 1988 Jan, that WAS delivered instead by Block-Universe Mysticism.
During Sunday Service, Church Members Have Been Supportive: “Share Your Theory with Us”
Heads and Above, the Best Church
Bigger Brains – The Leaders of Psilocybin Decriminalization in Oakland (the First City in the Country); in Pacific Northwest, Broadening Decrim. from City to County
The Best Church for Big-Brain Scholarly Activist Networking
Church Founder Gave Sermon on Alan Moore’s Block-Universe Eternalism
Supposedly shows Nike, not Ariadne, yet, interpreting the image as Ariadne paid off immensely.
It’s been highly productive discussing with the #1 best psychedelic church, members. They were brought along into my latest breakthrough, YI hand-shape analysis; YI hand-shape theory.
I was invited by a church elder to present the Egodeath theory or some part of it eg how to recognize mushrooms in art via {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
That was INTENSE pressure forcing me to fix a huge problem in the Egodeath theory Core theory 1988/1997: partly fixed by Coraxo’s correction of me in 2000 where I got in 2001 David Ulansey book and added a 3-phase not just 2-phase model of mental model transformation “from possibilism to eternalism” (misleading simplified wording).
todo: Make Slide Deck, Give Presentation, Record Talk, Upload Video
Article for Church Reader, Issue 1
Submitted. Not out yet.
todo: add the word “block” in the article.
Recognizing Mushroom Imagery in Medieval Art – 2025 5-page church summary article; 2 pages of text; 1 page for f11 (top & bottom), 1 page for f109 & f134; 1 page for f145 & f177.
The Book Club where Book Authors Always Join the Meeting
The Alembic Building in Berkeley Is Associated with Erik Davis
Connected with U.C. Berkeley, Harvard, Charles Stang, Jeffrey Breau, etc.
Rick Strassman Was at Our Book Club, but No-Show as Presenter at Sunday Service
We had to settle for the other Rick ⚗️🍄👨🔬 instead. : ( : )
these particular cups), and is minimal.]
“ 
