von Trimberg’s lower _fingers_ touch other guy’s _Left_ arm (as previously noted); now, I comprehend the full symmetry here:
I previously noted that his lower _thumb_ is over/ against von T’s “other arm” –
How I grasp, that “other arm” is von T’s _Right_ arm!
That is consistent & balanced.
As I am consistently dull & slow.
But give me 6 years – or days; I found this wonderful perfect Jewish Hat / von Trimberg picture 6 days ago, Jan 30, 2026.
This was the main sub-problem I was puzzling over ever since I first set eyes on this image 6 days ago.
This discovery is an example of how a major breakthrough is a series of jackpots lasting 1-2 weeks – not a single day all at once.
This particular puzzle was at the right advanced level to challenge me for 6 days, then solved.
Symmetry achieved; sub-puzzle solved.
🏆🖼️🎉
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Searching web for “jewish hat” 6 days ago Jan 30 2026 was best move ever. Huge payoff.
txt msg to JW [5:21 p.m. Feb. 5, 2026]
Our church is blessed and charmed:
1) The church logo has more branching on L than R, per classic wisdom.
2) A church founder in August 2025 presented 3 slides on block-universe eternalism(!), unbelievably.
Surely it was just a dream – hell freeze over when someone presents my countervailing view in church.
That encouraged me to finish my article for the church Reader issue 1, and solved the problem where church leader said the quiet part out loud, “no-free-will” — but I labored hard to solve that framing April – Aug 2025.
In our experience, we do have it both ways: both opposite models are the case: integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
Psychedelics requires a Pure Cognitive Phenomenology approach, reject Neurobaloney Reductionism. Reject armchair academic “Epistemology, Ontology, Metaphysics”.
It doesn’t matter how the world out there really is.
What matters is the shape of our experience in the two states;
the possibilism experiential mode. {fingers}. {king steering in a tree}.
{mixed wine at banquet}
the eternalism experiential mode. {thumb}. {snake frozen in rock} = worldline in block-universe eternalism.
txt msg to R L [11:21 p.m. Feb. 5, 2026]
Hand-shapes are one out of ten common ways to depict branching vs. non-branching – list is below; Y vs. I basic contrasting shapes.
Uninspired articles list many less basic & profound themes, the classic artist initiation guild w mushroom lockbox, was more interested in Y I contrast than diluted articles on lesser themes.
The best artists focused on contrasting via hand finger shapes, Y vs. I
In the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}
The best, most important thing about hands is their conveyance of Y & I shapes, or Y’&I’ visual cuts or negations of branching fingers.
Scholars pay too little attention to basic elementary branching morphology basic shapes contrasts:
List of Branching Contrasts
tree vs. snake in rock
Y vs. I
branching vs. non-branching
branching manyworlds vs. block-universe eternalism & worldlines
Quantum Mysticism vs. Block-Universe Mysticism
fingers vs. thumb
pinkie, ring, & middle finger vs. index finger
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism
a Y mushroom on L, & a I mushroom on R, while Eustace displays “fingers vs thumb”
St. Eustace Crossing the River (Chartres Cathedral)
🍄🍄✋😊🤚🍄
Mâle, p. 3, The sky, water and trees. From the Legend of St. Eustace. Window at Chartres. Image processing by Michael Hoffman circa 2005.
Mâle, p. 3, The sky, water and trees. From the Legend of St. Eustace. Window at Chartres. Image processing by Michael Hoffman circa 2005.
Harmonize 2POV
Wisdom: harmonize the 2pov; the two different points of view, two different mental models.
Reconcile experiencing both ways.
First, king Pentheus _abandons_ his wife Ariadne. Attitude: “Branching is childish delusion; get rid of possibilism-thinking.
Then, the god Dionysus _weds_ Ariadne. Attitude: Reconcile branching-experiencing & non-branching experiencing.
2-way “embrace and include” the Y & I models, both.
A useful hand 🫲 🤚👋✋ has an opposable thumb, together with fingers.
The mushroom-tree religion, in a broad sense: mushroom-influenced motifs depicting moving from ordinary-state, branching thinking, to altered-state, non-branching thinking.
Triumph of Dionysus (Roman Mosaic)
Mushroom branching imagery depicts moving from ordinary-state, branching thinking, to altered-state, non-branching thinking.
The mind ends up with integrated possibilism/ eternalism thinking.
That’s a beautiful vision, that acknowledges the experience of possibilism, & the altered-state, revealed experience of eternalism.
Dionysus (eternalism-thinking) and Ariadne (possibilism-thinking)
In the victory wedding procession mosaic.
Triumph of Dionysus on a Roman mosaic (3rd century, Sousse Archaeological Museum).
The Y I-focused medieval artists are the most important:
This art genre uses finger shapes intricately and elegantly, especially focusing on depicting branching vs. non-branching.
Look for details of branching, at the level of portions of fingers.
Look for Y and I forms at the level of, details of each finger.
Not looking only for fixed patterns; more typically, be flexible on your toes looking for unique expressions of Y and I forms.
That’s the central focus for the best artists from the mushroom-stocked artists initiation guild, that teach each other the mushroom-tree religion: {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Finger shapes easily, efficiently depict:
the ordinary- vs. altered-state sense of
[a kind of control agent in a kind of world]
✋ = vs.🐍
It’s efficient to use finger shapes to contrast Y & I, and to integrate or harmonize possibilism/eternalism thinking, on the level of experiencing; cognitive phenomenology (not about epistemology, ontology, or metaphysics).
Psychonauts Signal Group Post, p.m. Feb. 5, 2026
At house church 👼🏡⛪️ Aug 24, 2025, our church founder gave a sermon on Alan Moore’s comics novels about psychedelic block-universe eternalism (non-branching snake worldline embedded in rock block universe).
That’s even more extreme of a model than Emily Adlam’s “all-at-once universe”.
There’s a spectrum of positions way beyond “free will vs. determinism”.
A Pure Cognitive Phenomenology Approach; Reject Cognitive Neurobaloney
The Egodeath theory, since April 1987, uses a Pure Cognitive Phenomenology approach.
I’m anti-Neurowoo, such as orange areas in pop scan pictures, to impress the rubes.
Neurobaloney that uses “cognitive” as a sales term only, is like conversing with Sharday Mosurinjohn impressed the pop podcaster such that Sharday bragged about the many disproofs by academics of entheogen scholarship — and the pop podcaster failed to blurt automatically “Citation needed!”, as a scholar would.
Neuro woo is a sidetrack distraction from Cognitive Phenomenology.
txt msg to AM [10:17 Feb. 6, 2026]
the 1893 fabrication of the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” was totally fake driven entirely Pop sociopolitical agenda; selectively hype 1% of Vedanta, discard and ignore 99%, crafted by popular demand
what model of Transcendent Knowledge sells? optimize & select for that, eliminative sculpting/ filtering driven by popular demand
same way the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) & the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) were crafted by the Marketing dept
based on what sells to the pop audience
txt msg to AM [10:25 Feb. 6, 2026]
i believe ZZZ allan badiner zig zag zen never even ONCE considers the question of psychedelics in asian religious history
thats why i cant stand to crack open the book: i have a SEVERE dispute with its basic driving premise shared by all these “enlightened, progressive” contributors, probably same in the updated edition too
totally closed minds in asian studies, asleep in their foundational presuppositions, making the ehole a whole affair — book & field — futile confusion about the relatiknship of psychedelics & meditation
u only had 1 job, & totally failed
zzz ab95
zzz book concept:
explore the relation of psychedelics & meditation.
Yet,
Step 1: GIVEN, as a SILENT axiomatic presupposition: everyone knows that buddhism history lacks psychedelics.
Given: the relation of psychedelics & buddhism is, buddhism history has no psychedelics.
Given that, let us discuss and investigate:
What’s the relation between buddhism (which was historically, non-drug) & this brand new technology, psychedelics?
This futile exercise can only produce confusion.
Zig Zag Zen: Buddhism and Psychedelics (Badiner, 2002)
Published April 1, 2002. I purchased on June 16, 2002.
Zig Zag Zen: Buddhism and Psychedelics April 1, 2002 (newer edition is available) by Allan Hunt Badiner (Editor), Alex Grey (Editor), Huston Smith (Preface), Stephen Batchelor (Foreword)
“Buddhism and psychedelic experimentation share a common concern: the liberation of the mind.
Zig Zag Zen launches the first serious inquiry into the moral, ethical, doctrinal, and transcendental considerations created by the intersection of Buddhism and psychedelics.
With a foreword by renowned Buddhist scholar Stephen Batchelor and a preface by historian of religion Huston Smith, along with numerous essays and interviews, Zig Zag Zen is a provocative and thoughtful exploration of altered states of consciousness and the potential for transformation.
[EXCEPT FOR THE QUESTION OF HISTORY OF PSYCHEDELICS IN BUDDHISM, NEVER CONSIDERED EVEN ONCE BY ANY PARTICIPANT. -mh]
“Accompanying each essay is a work of visionary art selected by artist Alex Grey, such as a vividly graphic work by Robert Venosa, a contemporary thangka painting by Robert Beer, and an exercise in emptiness in the form of an enso by a 17th-century Zen abbot.
“Packed with enlightening entries and art that lie outside the scope of mainstream anthologies, Zig Zag Zen offers eye-opening insights into alternate methods of inner exploration.”
[define “alternate” – a loaded/ freighted term. -mh]
“More than ever, people are in pursuit of greater fulfillment in their lives, seeking a deeper spiritual truth and strategies for liberation from suffering.
Both Buddhism and psychedelics are subjects that one encounters in such spiritual pursuit.
Edited by Tricycle contributing editor Allan Badiner and art edited by renowned visionary artist Alex Grey, Zig Zag Zen features a foreword by Buddhist scholar Stephen Batchelor, a preface by historian of religion Huston Smith and numerous essays, interviews, and art that lie outside the scope of mainstream anthologies.”
[Beware at “mainstream”.
Hidden is that this book ZZZ is mainstream, in that it is based on the silent mainstream presupposition/ prejudice, “no psychedelics in Buddhism history”.
This MAINSTREAM, PHONY-ALTERNATIVE book fails to undermine and transform Buddhism at the foundation, revealing the psychedelic origin of Buddhism. -mh]
“This new edition of the classic work on Buddhism and psychedelics includes
a recent interview with Rick Doblin, founder of MAPS,
contributions from Ralph Metzner,
James Fadiman and
Kokyo Henkel, and a discussion of
ayahuasca’s unique influence on Zen Buddhism.
Packed with enlightening entries offering eye-opening insights into alternate methods of inner exploration.”
Dr. David Nichols collaborated with Alexander Shulgin.
Our church pastor had conversations with Nichols.
Nichols is the main supplier of medical synthetic psilocybin, eg. for Hopkins research.
txt msg to RL [10:06 Feb. 6, 2026]
Web research shows:
Absolute four-dimensional spacetime or block-universe eternalism is relatively entrenched as a given, used in Physics.
Everett branching manyworlds is considered mere conjecture. (But that’s the shape of our experience, so do not “get rid of” that way of thinking.)
In the ordinary state, many ppl favor no-free-will. And some of those ppl (Sam Harris) SEPARATELY advocate psychedelics.
What no one realizes is that combining belief in no-free-will with psychedelics gives an EXPERIENCE, of block-universe eternalism.
This sort of “I’m an atheist & I believe no-free-will”, counterintiuitively, leads to religious experience.
Believing in no-free-will and then using psychedelics (discovering the experience of no-free-will/ block-universe eternalism) is not the opposite of religious experience, but is the path to rediscover actual religious experience, but re-conceived.
The religious experience of block-universe eternalism (“block-universe determinism”).
Surprise: Sam Harris, your “atheism”/ no-free-will, by adding psychedelics, discovered the classic mystical religious experience, which is different than presumed.
No-free-will (ie, block-universe eternalism) is not armchair ordinary state Philosophy; it is a shattering, personal control- transformative experience.
txt msg to RL [10:43 Feb. 6, 2026]
Medieval hand shape interpretations other than simple Y vs. I theme are complicated & arbitrary.
Y vs. I means: ordinary-state branching possibilism vs. altered state non-branching eternalism
What is the most extremely basic & profound interpretation?
My Y/I model is based firmly in the two states of consciousness, unlike the uninspired, fake, invented, pseudo-explanations.
I go down to the root of meanings:
WHY is a certain hand-shape “a blessing”?
Because it is the shape of ordinary state ‘Y’ branching thinking/ experiencing, contrasted with altered state ‘I’ non-branching thinking/ experiencing
tree vs. snake (in rock)
Y vs. I
branching vs. non-branching
possibilism vs. eternalism
fingers vs. thumb
3 fingers vs. 1 finger
{stand on left foot} vs. {stand on right foot}
The Argument from Simplicity
The YI contrast is simple, profound, clean, and non-arbitrary, thus compelling.
/ end of: txt msg to RL [10:43 Feb. 6, 2026]
The Egodeath theory’s Mytheme theory operates at the root, rather than layered-on, ordinary state speculations, where writers in the ordinary state read the interpretations and speculations of other ordinary-state writers.
Outsider, ordinary state based writers (scholars, academics, researchers) spin-out outsiders’ readings, unprofitably, and miss the ultra basic, 2-state, states of consciousness.
Daily Vocabulary “States of Consciousness” ~= Custom Lexicon “Experiential Modes”
The Most Interesting & Relevant Thing in Religion: Y-Shaped Experience vs. I-Shaped Experience
I dislike any alien lexicon terms, such as “states of consciousness”.
Instead, per the Egodeath theory custom purpose-built optimized lexicon:
There are two experiential modes: tight cognition vs. loose cognition; ordinary state vs. altered state.
When interpreting medieval art: first of all, above all, look for contrasts of world model depending on ordinary state vs. altered state.
Look for motifs carrying the message/signal:
The ordinary state is like __.
The altered state is like __.
The SIMPLEST Solution:
The ordinary state is like a Y shape.
The altered state is like an I shape.
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control
psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
ordinary-state possibilism
psychedelic eternalism
tight cognition possibilism (Y)
loose cognition eternalism (I)
The Egodeath theory leverages binaries, usually. Trinary, asserted by the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}:
keyboard shortcuts – problem: “thinking” is daily language but incorrect, we mean experiencing, driving thinking. Firstly an experiential mode, later, a thinking/model.
naive possibilism-experiencing doesn’t make sense, how can experiencing be naive?
possibilism experiencing
eternalism experiencing
integrated possibilism/eternalism experiencing
An experiential mental model is both “thinking” and “of experiencing”. An experiential mental model.
the possibilism experiential mental model pemm
the eternalism experiential mental model eemm
the integrated possibilism/ eternalism experiential mental model ipeemm
the possibilism experiential mental model
the eternalism experiential mental model
the integrated possibilism/ eternalism experiential mental model
the possibilism experiential mental model (lower fingers)
the eternalism experiential mental model (lower thumb)
the integrated possibilism/ eternalism experiential mental model (upper fingers & thumb)
I judge and favor this progression to be the main basic model in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}:
lower fingers
lower thumb
upper fingers & thumb
That’s based on 2-3 sweeps over past 6 months, of hand shapes in Great Canterbury Psalter.
I have set up prediction:
I predict that the predominant, NORMAL imagery pattern – we know artists will play and bend it — the starting point for their permutation variants — is
{lower fingers; lower thumb; upper thumb and fingers}
The first, initial variant form: index not thumb:
{lower fingers; lower thumb (or index finger: this is the first variant); upper thumb and fingers}
The interpreter must identify which form is the starting, basic form; vs. which form is a deviant clever signature innovative spinoff variant.
von Trimberg threw me b/c he does NOT do the pattern in guy 2 & 3 & Great Canterbury Psalter.
He simply displays whole hand but 12:38 Feb. 6, 2026] in Great Canterbury Psalter try to interp “hold out {hold out both hands showing fingers & thumbs} as 3 phase seq: lower fingers, lower thumb, upper fingers + thumb.
Hypothesis: {displaying both complete hands} in Great Canterbury Psalter Means 3-phase sequence: lower fingers = possibilism experiential mode; lower thumb = eternalism experiential mode; upper fingers + thumb = the integrated possibilism/ eternalism experiential mode
Features, Guy 1, sweep from bottom to top of hands:
lower fingers, cut – there are 4 cuts on 4 cut mushroom stems.
upper thumb, cut – there is a cut on the 1 non-cut mushroom stem.
Index finger inherently carries a vibe / implication of “index finger splayed apart from 3 fingers”, even when not splayed.
Special Inherent Loading of the Index Finger as Either Y or I
Index finger is loaded to be like first born finger. Index finger is special: it is wildcard either participating in Y fingers, or, serve as a thumb-like, I shape.
Features, Guy 2, sweep from bottom to top of hands:
lower fingers touch {closed book} pages.
lower thumb
coordinated upper fingers + upper thumb, both are cut visually to assert non-branching, by combining fingers + thumb, able to grasp {open scroll}.
(skip guy 3 & 4 of 5)
Features, Guy 3, sweep from bottom to top of hands:
He is the normal, standard, to deviate creatively/ expressively from, just as {stand on right foot} is the normal departure Ref point, to then draw upside down guy.
lower fingers = possibilism experiential mode/ model
lower thumb = eternalism experiential mode/ model
upper fingers & thumb = integrated possibilism/ eternalism experiential mode/ model
Left Thumb Touches Right Limb
Motif: {L thumb touch R arm/palm/wrist/limb/forearm/hand}
Although L thumb belongs to L hand/arm/limb, per fractal scope (local scope) analysis the thumb is non-branching and therefore belongs to, or identifies with, R limb/hand/palm/forearm.
There Is Little Hope of the Anything-But-Drugs Academics Producing Anything Worth Taking Seriously by Entheogen Scholars
From the end of Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong”:
“[In addition to declaring above that we should simply ignore the mushroom elements of mushroom-trees and only respect the tree elements,] We also identified key issues that generally discredit the PMTs [Psychedelic Mushroom Theorists’] arguments.
“All these issues contribute to the PMT’s [Psychedelic Mushroom Theorists’] lack of accuracy which in turn undermines the credibility of their work.
“Until we see significant improvements in these areas there is little hope of their producing anything worth taking seriously by artist historians, religious scholars, or other academics interested in the history and use of entheogens.
The anything-but-drugs academics Have Nothing but Bluster and Propaganda.
Wasson Is Honorary and the Leader in Chicanery Here.
Academic Deniers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art are Shady, Have Bad Character, Condone Lying by Omission, and Are Suspect of Academic Foul Play
The Day 3 plants have branches, so cannot mean mushrooms, but must mean trees.
Never mind that these “branches” look identical to mushrooms. BRAIN = DEAD. A worthless argument.
The Day 4 plants are trees.
Never mind that these “trees” have no branches and look identical to mushrooms. BRAIN = DEAD. A worthless argument.
Huggins’ Conclusion section: As a class, “mushroom-trees” have tree elements and mushroom elements. We can invent a rule (without providing justification) that says “IF a mushroom-tree has mushroom elements, ignore the mushroom elements, and only pay attention to the tree elements.”
BRAIN = DEAD. A worthless argument.
“If the tree has mushroom elements” – but this is always the case, for all instances of the class, “trees that have mushroom elements and tree elements”.
This arbitrary rule, with no justification provided for the pro-tree, anti-mushroom bias, is a blanket statement that for all mushroom-trees, ignore the mushroom elements.
Copypaste from Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024):
“8. Conclusion
“The PMT’s [Psychedelic Mushroom Theorists’] fanciful interpretations have provided us with an opportunity in this article to reflect in a positive way, using as our entry point one of the most exquisite 13th century examples [ie. the Great Canterbury Psalter], upon the range of artistic solutions to the problem of illustrating the hexameron [6 days of creation] in the 11th–13th centuries, and especially the third day of creation (Genesis 1:9–13).
“The imagery of the third-day scene specifically features the creation of trees, making way for us to explore how stylized trees were commonly approached by the artists of the period.
[Ans: trees were depicted via {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs. -mh]
“Trees, being peripheral to the more central features of medieval iconography, are not often discussed by art historians.
“A noted [ie, censored by Wasson] exception is Albert Erich Brinckmann’s Baumstilisierungen in der mittelalterlichen Malerei (1906), a work [censored by Wasson 1968 p. 180, top, at “. . . .”] recommended by Panofsky in his letters [multiple Panofsky letters?! censored by Wasson!] to Wasson back in 1952 [but not revealed to scholars until the Browns’ 2019 article.-mh].”
/ end of Conclusion excerpt from Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong”
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong” fails to credit and cite Browns’ 2019 article (the first publication of the two Panofsky letters) and helpfully link to the article; Huggins only cites the Browns’ 2016 book.
Huggins says nothing about the delayed-by-67-years, 2019 initial publication of the two Panofsky letters. Huggins only cites the goddamn DRAWER(!) at Harvard, unhelpfully.
Since 2006, I NEEDED to see Panofsky’s censored argument about branches, which Huggins nonchalantly repeats, as if egregious censorship and academic obstruction by Wasson had not taken place.
Had I read Panofsky’s ultimate argument, about branches, in 2006 (in the 1968 book SOMA), I would have developed sooner than 2020, my interpretation and recognition of integrated {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Huggins’ gives apologetics claiming that Wasson’s denial of mushroom imagery in Christian art is excusable, because it didn’t prevent Irvin from publishing.
Wasson’s deceitful academic obstructionism set me back by 2020-2006 = 14 years.
We should have been allowed to read Panofsky’s “branching” argument in 2006 or 1968 – not delayed to 2019 and then nonchalantly referenced by Huggins in 2024, suddenly materializing the Panofsky letter out of thin air, as if scholars have had & known about the letter since 1952.
Huggins’ out-of-nowhere citing of Brinckmann, and Huggins’ citing the branching argument in the 2nd(!) Panofsky letter, stinks of foul play by the deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
How can Huggins 2024 not be aware of the 2019 article publishing the citation and both letters?
It is an omission and flaw of the Foraging Wrong article, to fail to cite and credit Browns 2019. Suspect of deliberate omission, to impede scholars from leveraging the Panofsky letters and to hide the egregious censorship by Wasson, on the Deniers side.
I hold Ronald Huggins personally responsible for the academic sins of Wasson, here, because Huggins should acknowledge & condemn that censorship, rather than condoning and covering-up such foul play, on his side of the debate.
Brinckmann’s book is SO “noted”, that Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson entirely censored this strongly urged citation from Panofsky, but Huggins doesn’t mention that situation.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are SHADY and SUSPECT of academic FOUL PLAY.
See the drawer at Harvard containing the two Panofsky letters censored by Wasson.
But don’t cite and link to Browns 2019 article which first published the letters.
And don’t mention Wasson’s chicanery, conflict of interest as banker for the pope, and Wasson censoring key, relevant academic content: Brinckmann’s 1906 book, the two Panofsky letters, and Panofsky’s two attached art pieces showing “emphatic mushroom shapes”.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are SHADY and SUSPECT of academic FOUL PLAY.
The “little” book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906) only mentions pilzbaum 5 times, and does not make the case that Panofsky claims the book makes.
Against Panofsky, Brinckmann 1906 does not 1) lay out mushroom-trees by century, 2) trace the development over time from umbrella pine to “emphatic mushroom shape”, and then 3) argue that the gradualness of development from pine to mushroom proves that the end result, “emphatic mushroom shape”, is unintentional.
Panofsky’s argument is brain-dead and totally arbitrary; DOES NOT FOLLOW. The alleged steady morphing from pine to mushroom over time, in no way is evidence that the mushroom shape was unintentional and doesn’t mean mushrooms. I argue the reverse: The consistent shifting from (alleged) umbrella pine shape to mushroom shape, is evidence that the mushroom shape is intentional.
Browns’ article in 2019, by publishing both Panofsky letters (sans 2 attached art pieces), proved and confirmed my 2006 accusation in Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita, that Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson must have censored citations from Panofsky, citations that Panofsky would certainly have had to provide to back up his claim that art historians have “considered” mushroom-trees, and that the publications cited by Panofsky are weak treatments of mushroom imagery in Christian art, and don’t really support the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Rely on and repeat Panofsky’s ultimate objection, that branches on mushroom-trees need to be explained.
But don’t mention that Wasson censored this argumentation from Panofsky in SOMA 1968.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are SHADY and SUSPECT of academic FOUL PLAY.
1997 Core Theory & Egodeath Yahoo Group Post #1 (2001) Contrasts “Branching vs. Non-Branching” Universe Models in Physics, Connected to Myth and Mythic Art in 2011-2022
In 2001 at start of Egodeath Yahoo Group (Message #1, June 10, 2001, composed at Principia Cybernetica website in Feb. 1997), I posted about branching manyworlds quantum physics vs. non-branching block-universe (Minkowski, Relativity) containing frozen worldlines, in the context of Physics, not in myth or mythic art motifs.
Find “branching” in that archive page of the first 50 posts: 8 hits; 5 passages:
“Even if the time axis is warped, relative, or branching, and there are more than 3 dimensions of space, one can coherently and usefully frame the experienced world as an ultimately unchanging, 4-dimensional spacetime block.
“Time, change, flexibility, variability, and movement are all fixed at all points along the time axis or branching axes.
“Forking futures and multiple branching universes is unnecessarily complicated.
“Multiple universes considers the future open in the sense of forever branching. Perhaps each branch preexists – the book The End of Time seems to take this position.
“I endorse simplicity as a principle for choosing between metaphysical systems, and I maintain that the single-future, non-branching block universe is simpler than the branching-future multiverse.”
Around 2010, while on hiatus from public Egodeath theory development, I walked the mushroom forest paths daily, and wondered if {branching vs. non-branching} is prominent in myth.
Every November, I made deeper breakthroughs confirming that {branching vs. non-branching} is prominent in myth, for several years around 2011-2013.
It took me 2022-1997 = 25 years to hook up from branching vs. non-branching in Physics, to branching vs. non-branching in the art pieces in my 2007 main article.
A key discovery or confirmation was in Nov. 2013, confirming the emphasis on {branching vs. non-branching} motifs in Greek & Christian art.
Yet it took from 2013 to 2022 (9 years) to recognize the {branching vs. non-branching} motif in the art pieces in my 2007 main article:
The Forced, Mandatory Profession of Faith and Doctrinal Commitment Allegiance by Anything-But-Drugs Academics
“Chanting, breath techniques, dancing, rhythmic driving, cave contemplation, mortifying the flesh, and anything you can think of, can/ could/ might/ may produce the same effect as 10g of psilocybin mushrooms.”
(So, No Psychedelics in Western Religious History.)
The above statement must be ritually repeated.
The power of that statement or argument is so weak, the statement must be ritually repeated in EVERY video interview; in EVERY article (all 3 of them in the past 100 years, by academia).
Are we supposed to give academics a medal, for parrotting this obligatory line, that couldn’t be more tired?
The academic/naysayer tries to falsely elevate methods that don’t work sufficiently to cause transformation of the mental model from possibilism to eternalism, by the false-equivalence fallacy:
10g of psilocybin mushrooms “can” cause transformation of the mental model from possibilism to eternalism.
hyperventilating “can” cause transformation of the mental model from possibilism to eternalism.
Compare:
You “can” withdraw $20 from the bank.
You “can” win a million dollars at the casino.
The word “can” is used in both statements, which seems to make them EQUALLY likely. But “can” in one instance is ~0% likely, and other, ~100% likely.
It’s a cheap illusion, abusing the word “can” to falsely elevate non-drug entheogens to the same efficacy as psychedelics.
“non-drug entheogenic practices” term is from Wouter Hanegraaff, cheered on by Erik Davis, who would NEVER ruin and wreck Davis’ pet word ‘psychedelics” that way.
Erik, I noticed that you applaud Wouter Hanegraaff claiming — based on fallacious argument-from-etymology — that “entheogen” means anything, everything, nothing – and that you do NOT condone ruining and cheapening your word ‘psychedelics’ this way.
Erik Davis would laugh and mock the proposal of “non-drug psychedelics”, yet he applauds Wouter Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens, or “entheogenic practices”.
Who is Hanegraaff trying to appease by this tired, worn-out declamation, “There are many non-psychedelic ways that can/ could/ might/ may produce the same effect as a 10-strip of blotter”.
Please demonstrate, Hanegraaff.
“can” is a misleading, deceptive euphemism for “doesn’t”.
Everything such academics say re: psychedelics, is anything-but-drugs academic propaganda.
Academia Can’t Even Accept Non-Drug Ecstatic States, Much Less Psychedelics as the Source of Religion
Every academic is required to put that statement in every (rare) statement they make in rebuttal of the too-popular book The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020.
The character of committed-skeptic anything-but-drugs agenda after The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020, has changed a little.
The Psychedelic Mysteries Paradigm, Against “the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis” (an Alien, Hostile, Biased-Lexicon Term)
Academia can no longer simply ignore “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis” (Professor Richard Ascough’s phrase). In retort against him, I say nay,
the psychedelic mysteries paradigm pmp
Dirty-arguing, biased academics (Deniers), try to make affirmers operate in a bad, non-paradigm framework, biased, where they are guaranteed to lose.
“There is no chemical evidence at Eleusis in the cups we washed out; and no other evidence counts, because we arb’ly say so, b/c shutting out and washing away the evidence benefits our false position. You affirmers are required to operate in our bunk frame, where you automatically lose. Using our criteria; our goals; our agenda.”
Ritually Repeat for the Zillionth Time: “Against the Enthusiasts, We Must Remember that Psychedelics Are Not the Only Way to Produce an Altered State; the Traditional, Non-Drug Methods of the Mystics
the traditional, non-drug methods of the mystics tndmm
Per the Hoffman Uncertainty Principle, we cannot know what an academic believes; we can only know what they publicly claim to believe when their position is pressed and probed.
Normally, academics cannot say anything about the topic of psychedelics in Western religious history.
If an academic affirms psychedelics in Western religious history, the academic is attacking their own gang, and they lose opportunities.
If an academic denies psychedelics in Western religious history, the academic shows that they have no credibility; they lose credibility and cannot be taken seriously.
Naming the Parties & Positions: Deniers vs. Affirmers; Academics vs. Entheogen Scholars; Art Historians vs. Mycologists
The position-names or parties per Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson’s 1968 book SOMA:
“Mycologists” = affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art & psychedelics in Western religious history.
“The art world” = “art historians” = deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art & psychedelics in Western religious history. Naysayers. Debunkers.
Not All Academics. The anything-but-drugs academia agenda.
Wasson was not an academic, yet on the topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art, Wasson sets the pace for fraud, lying, censorship, and world’s record conflict of interest as banker for the pope, trust me when I pressure and harangue and bullsh!t you:
“No psychedelics in Western religious history. Those hundreds of mushroom trees mean trees, not mushrooms; we know, because the art authorities say so, in their non-writings avoiding the topic.”
See SOMA p. 180, below, in which Wasson berates affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art for not “consulting the art world” (whatever the hell non-scholarly action that’s supposed to mean), while in the same paragraph, duplicitously censoring the extremely strongly urged by Panofsky, citation of Brinckmann’s “little” book.
Fittingly, Huggins treats Wasson as if he’s on the up-and-up, while Huggins whips out of nowhere – not crediting Browns 2019 – the Brinckmann citation and both of the censored, secret letters from Panofsky to Wasson in 1952.
I accuse Huggins of condoning academic fraud by Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, on his side of the arguers.
What’s wrong with Huggins that he fails to credit Browns 2019, but instead cites a damned DRAWER at Harvard, uselessly?
Thanks for not helping entheogen scholars check references.
Anything-But-Drugs Academics re: Psychedelics in Western Religious History Have No Credibility, only Bluff, Bluster, Bias, Prejudice, Fallacious Arguments, and Errors, Deserving Ignoring and Ridicule, as Entheogen Scholarship Continues to Make Progress
cut words:
Academics re: Psychedelics in Religion Have No Credibility, only Bluster, Bias, and Fallacious Arguments, to Be Ignored and Ridiculed by Entheogen Scholars
Names of Bible Scholars Who Non-Credibly “Debunked” Psychedelics in Western Religious History
Hatsis: Psychoactives are throughout Western religious history. Except for mushrooms (which is identical with Secret Christian Amanita Cult). See his articles online somewhere at his defunct site that’s not at Archive.
Panofsky 1952 based on his interpretation of Brinckmann 1906 who shows that over time, trees in medieval art develop into emphatic mushroom shapes, proving that the development must have been unintentional.
Panofsky 1952 pointed out that there are too many mushroom-trees for them to mean mushrooms.
Ronald Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article, which concludes: mushroom-trees have mushroom elements and tree elements, therefore must be trees and cannot mean mushrooms. Day 3 plants have branches, therefore cannot mean mushrooms.
Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest (Huggins, 2024)
Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024)
Scholars are tired of having to repeatedly debunk psychedelics as the engine of religions, with this level of compelling thoroughness.
Credibility Check of Anything-But-Drugs Academics: Huggins Calls this Explicit, Botanically Accurate Mushroom a “Tree”
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 2025. Plant 3 in Day 4 Panel, Great Canterbury Psalter
Showing Academia’s Extreme Degree of Denial, Bias, and Prejudice: Brazen Cover-Up Operatives for Hire
Huggins ends his Foraging Wrong
Huggins Designates the 4 Branch-Free Mushrooms in Day 4 Panel as “Trees”, without Providing any Justification
from “Foraging Wrong”:
“The GCP artist does not however depict seed-bearing herbs in the [Day 3] scene, but waits to include them in the fourth-day scene, which is otherwise dedicated to the creation of the sun and moon (Fig 22 [shows Day 3 & 4]).74 Having details left out of third-day scenes but included on the fourth day also occurs elsewhere, as for example in the Acre Bible”
— no mention of the four branch-free mushrooms in Day 4
“The GCP artist does not however depict seed-bearing herbs in the scene, but waits to include them in the fourth-day scene, which is otherwise dedicated to the creation of the sun and moon (Fig 22).74 Having details left out of third-day scenes but included on the fourth day also occurs elsewhere, as for example in the Acre Bible”
— no mention of the four branch-free mushrooms in Day 4
Huggins Nonsensically Writes “Trees in the Fourth-Day Scene” (Has Four Non-Branching Mushrooms and Five Wispy YI Plants)
p. 22:
“74 The artist also shows little interest in depicting the same trees in both the third- and fourth day scenes.”
“Since Genesis 1:11 focuses on trees and plants containing seeds,75 a third-day image might represent all trees, as in the GCP,76 or a mix of trees and plants, or even something as simple as stand of grain (Fig. 24).77“
“76 This seems to be the case because we find them[sic – trees? but – no branches!] mixed with smaller plants in the subsequent scene, which represents the fourth creation day, as well as in another scene later (fol. 6v [https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f22.item.zoom = mushroom mountain]).”
p. 26 shows Day 4 isolated, w/ caption: “Fig. 31: Great Canterbury Psalter, fol. 1r (detail); The Creation of the Sun and Moon.”
— no mention of the four branch-free mushrooms in Day 4
Huggins Says Mushroom Trees Have Branches, but then Calls Day 4’s 4 Branch-Free Mushrooms “Trees”
See quotes from Foraging Wrong above.
f11 row 2 left: Day 4 of Creation: four pilzbaum without branches, & plants (Bible: Sun, moon, & stars)
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 4, 2025
Features:
thumb against open book = eternalism-thinking – mentioned this decoding a few days before today; today is Feb. 5, 2026.
R hand pinkie & ring visually cut the middle & index fingers. figured out a few days ago, not sure I logged this decoding, b/c overwhelmed with jackpot of too many discoveries too quickly, with this week’s jackpot week: hand-shape theory. today is Feb. 5, 2026.
Hand-Shape Theory. I declared Tue., Feb. 3, 2026 the official representative day for peak breakthrough of hand-shape theory.
Fourth Day of Creation, Branchless Mushrooms Called “Trees” by Huggins
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 4, 2025
This is the garbled analysis from Huggins:
Day 3 must mean trees not mushrooms, because they have branches. [But the branches look identical to mushrooms. -mh]
Day 4 shows trees. [But they have no branches, and look identical to mushrooms. -mh]
This is garbled argumentation from a biased writer.
Huggins has no justification for labelling Day 4 as trees instead of mushrooms, given that they have – against his strong statement in the article – no traces of ramification.
Huggins can’t define a coherent set or scope, “trees that have mushroom elements and tree elements”.
Huggins provides no jusification for ignoring the mushroom elements and exclusively paying attention to the tree elements.
By definition, the trees in question are the mushroom-trees, ie, trees that have both mushroom elements and tree elements.
The presence of tree elements does not cause the mushroom elements to go away, and vice versa.
Not limited to an entire plant having to match the shape of 1 whole mushroom.
Mushroom elements, not “does the whole plant match a photo of 1 whole mushroom?”
Academia Has No Credibility, Been Exposed as Committed Skeptics Shifting from Possibility (“no evidence of the type we washed away”) to Fact “No Psychedelics in Mystery Religion; Debunked Ruck, Multiple Times” (No Citations Given)
The anything-but-drugs academics’ un-desired but easy-to-defend Motte position: oh we just merely mean that we debunked the pop story that Ruck has evidence (of the particular kind we carefully washed away the dirt) (there’s no chemical evidence, you fools making stuff up)
The anything-but-drugs academics’ desired, aggressive, but indefensible Bailey position: “debunked Muraresku & Rogan & Ruck!”. “There were no psychedelics in mystery religions/ Western religious history.” “We academics have considered the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis many times [and wrote about it zero times; no citations available].”
motte: “we merely caught them shifting possibility to as if fact”
There were no psychedelics in mystery religion. – Mosurinjohn & Ascough as if fact.
Also Mosurinjohn & Ascough:
We don’t know if there were psychedelics in mystery religion.
(Mosurinjohn & Ascough do not relish the above line of thinking with passion; making this point is a token gesture only.)
Sharday Mosurinjohn Has Fully Discredited the Academia Borg, which is All Dance Moves Bad Faith Fallacies Committed Skeptic Wedded to the the anything-but-drugs agenda propaganda pre-set commitment to psychedelics-diminishing framing/ paradigm
THE ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS AGENDA FIRM COMMITMENT TO BATTLING AGAINST THE POWER OF PSYCHEDELICS.
Sharday Mosurinjohn Reveals the sordid truth – she reveals:
the agenda-driven anti-psychedelics bias.
the anything-but-drugs agenda.
anything-but-drugs academics.
the anything-but-drugs academia agenda.
anything-but-drugs academic propaganda. abdap
anything-but-drugs apologists. abdapl
Academics sold out their credibility on the topic of psychedelics in mystery religions.
Yet the anything-but-drugs academics have the nerve to dismiss wholesale, entheogen scholars.
The ones short on credibility are anything-but-drugs academics, not entheogen scholars.
Anything-But-Drugs Phrases
keyboard shortcuts = key concepts
anything-but-drugs abd
anything-but-drugs academics abda
anything-but-drugs academia abdaa
anything-but-drugs academia agenda abdaag
anything-but-drugs academic dogma abdad
anything-but-drugs agenda abdag
anything-but-drugs academic propaganda abdap
anything-but-drugs apologist abdapl
anything-but-drugs apologetics abdapl
anything-but-drugs apologetics abdaps
anything-but-drugs propagandists for hire abdph
anything-but-drugs propaganda abdp
the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia abdfoo whittle down per context each use
Psychedelic Religion Is the Gold Standard Reference for Authentic Religion
Official Egodeath Theory Main Mission: Assert that.
Scholars talk about entheogen scholars who are extreme.
I am more extreme than anyone else; my only competitor is Evil Future Me slipping a toe or giant foot in the gap I leave.
“You gotta admit: the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics.” The only method of the mystics is psychedelics.
“Be reasonable: not all religion is psychedelic.” The only real religion is psychedelic. Religion comes from none other than psychedelics.
Psychedelic Religion Is the Standard for any Brand of Mystic Religion and Transcendent Knowledge
Religion Comes from None Other than Psychedelics
The Engine of the Mystery Religions Is Psychedelics
They Preferred Psilocybin as the Gold Reference Standard.
my 2004 Egodeath Yahoo Group post (8 years before Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff’s keynote/article) titled “entheogenic esotericism”: hardcore statement that only psychedelics, none other than psychedelics, are THE engine of mystery religion.
Not the made-up B S cowtow toe-the-line fervent proclamation by every idiot academic:
“Other ways, traditional methods of the mystics, CAN/ COULD/ MIGHT/ MAY produce same control transformation effect as 10 sessions of 10g of Psilocybin mushrooms eg Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Panaeolus.”
Day 3: Creation of Plants (Great Canterbury Psalter), Showing Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, and Amanita Mushroom-Trees
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 29, 2026 fullscreen
Hanegraaff’s Non-Drug Entheogens from Hell, Preserving Possibilism-Thinking without Adding Eternalism-Thinking
From a scholar who presents in a thick expensive book, a purported model of the cosmos for astral ascent mysticism, that cannot even figure out which sphere # (ans: 8, it’s a trivial elementary given) the fixed stars go in.
If Erik Davis & Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff and even Carl Ruck want to redefine the word ‘entheogens’ to mean not entheogens, f*ck them; then I am saying ‘psychedelics’ instead of their ruined, tainted, weakened, SOLD-OUT term ‘entheogens’.
Thanks for one more reason not to say entheogens but convenient: psychedelics in religious pov;
A tilt away from ‘entheogen’ to ‘psychedelic’
Anything you can think of meets the criteria for being entheogenic – watered down to mean anything thus nothing. Live podcast: light bulb, oven, gas engine – all of them readily meet the stringent criteria for entheogenic practices.
Erik Davis tosses away ‘entheogen’ valueless word to Hanegraaff.
Erik Davis does not advocate non-drug psychedelics, Davis advocates non-drug entheogens.
The religious dimension of psychedelics = entheogens, religion-psychedelics
psychedelic religion is the only real religion
non-psychedelic religion is false and retains only possibilism-thinking not adult eternalism-thinking. stunted.
Psychedelic Eternalism Is the Highest Form of Religion: The Medieval Art Genre of {mushroom-trees}
Your theory brand of Transcendent Knowledge is not valid unless:
The only correct brand of Transcendent Knowledge must have:
psychedelics
eternalism
the psychedelic eternalism theory
the theory of psychedelic eternalism
transcendent possibilism
joke was?
Only Psychedelic Eternalism Is Real Religion
Cybermonk’s Extreme Egodeath Theory Position Beyond the Pale
Psychedelics Are the Only Way to Be Saved
From Freewill, to Determinism, to Existing-Future Eternalism
Atheists Believe in Weak Determinism as if Opposite of freewill thinking
The opposite of freewill thinking is not domino-chain determinism that will eventually create the future. Opposite of freewill is not about separation & unity, that kind of Unitive paradigm (of purposes, measures, standard of ref’c)
The opposite of freewill thinking is
4-D block universe
block-universe eternalism
absolute four-dimensional spacetime – IM GOIN W PETKOV HERE against wimpy misnamed, haze-headed “relativity”. i always felt something off w/ Ein’s descriptions / framing. I want Petkov-Minkowski framing;
Minkowski absolute spacetime emphasis framing per Petkov against Einstein spacetime relativity emphasis framing
presentism, possibilism, eternalism non-branching {snake frozen in rock} future already exists, u can’t change it, cast in stone before born, king turned to stone frozen saw snake carved in rock
lift the lid to see from vantage point outside the system personal control system
see and see from the eternalism level
perceive from pov of eternalism
see via the eternalism POV
retain & use the possibilism POV
Psilocybin Is the Reference Standard for Testing Brands of Transcendent Knowledge
Can’t claim guar; god willing. I got my handle hat on, reminding, control thoughts always remember are consciously occur embed frozen spacetime block control-thought anytenna, i tune in to will of god puppetmaster little doll is you
Michael Hoffman
branching possible manyworldsbranching possible manyworlds
RGood Brand of Transcendent Knowledge, the Egodeath Theory Psychedelic Leveraging
add the mature psychedelic eternalism, psychedelic-certified psychotomimetic divine madness mania fury pulled up by the god to the banquet and made to take x cups rounds of mixed wine at banquet brought by the god
Personal Cosmopolitan Hellenistic Savior Religions Salvation
savior religions personal salvation supposedly = mystery religions,
hellenistic era scattering of individuals need cosmopol mystery religion intiation like the
the mushroom tree guild of artists initiation lockbox cubensis communal table of {stand on right foot} training, the two world models, tree, snake, … no snake 1 serp snake on pole.
the Mytheme theory
from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake frozen in rock} k w s – king, wine, snake
anything-but-drugs abd
anything-but-drugs academics abda
anything-but-drugs academia abdaa
the anything-but-drugs agenda abdag
txt msg to AM [8:39 pm Feb. 3, 2026]
The rebis is holding the Y in his branching fingers & non-branching thumb.
Knowing & employing both models of time & control (possibilism & eternalism) enables the rebis to hold the Y, which has a non-branching stem below, + a branching V on top.
theory of art: complete. elegant. part 3 (achieve harmony between possibilism “vs” eternalism) was the hardest work, April-Aug 2025,
Church elder invited/ challenged me to stop trashing “freewill / possibilism delusion”, to tell a harmonious framing to the sgc church.
It was a fundamental deep rethink.
Now hand-shape theory reveals that the artist initiation guild reached same philosophy:
The goal is YI hand, affirming BOTH branching fingrrs AND non-branching thumb.
Elegant; complete; mature; Wm James pragmatism-approved though he hated block-universe eternalism alone.
true, as James says: our experience is mainly branching, “revealed metaphysics” be damned.
Max Freakout and I reached the same conclusion & making the same push:
need a PURE COGNITIVE PHENOMENOLOGY approach, not armchair academic epist, metaph, or ontology.
No neurobaloney reductionism-away of the “cognitive”.
I did a form of harmonizing possibilism branching (FALSE!! trashcan!) with eternalism non-branching
I advocate against branching manyworlds physics.
I advocate Minkowski (“/Einstein”) absolute four-dimensional spacetime (since 1988).
In terms of pure cognitive phenomenology, the mind harmonizes possibilism & eternalism.
I’m right, so I am spoiled by confirmation:
Physics accepts non-branching eternalism as routinely standard (established), while branching manyworlds possibilism is mere conjecture/ speculation.
What saved me in 2025, to be able to harmonize “deluded” branching possibilism with the “truth” of non-branching eternalism, was two art images:
(prior to this week’s hand-shapes ✋ strong affirmation of glorious, elegant whole-hand YI , instead of “Y sucks, I is truth”🤚 ):
1) rebis w male head & female head; Rick helped re-find that image of rebis holding a Y
2) Roman antiquity (3rd Century) mosaic of Dionysus & Ariadne, wedding, she holds branch in Left hand; he holds straight spear in Right hand. 5 mushroom hem tigers + Amanita leopard watering bowl & mushroom grape clusters in vines.
txt msg to AM [7:45 pm Feb. 3, 2026]
The alleged “other methods”, the purported “non-drug methods of the mystics”, are not sufficient ways to produce the alt-state, but as activities to do within & direct the plant-produced alt-state.
A big false dichotomy, false dilemma: rare articles point this out:
Which one? “instant effortless pill, or recurring, sustained effort?”
A rare article points out:
“What about effortful use of pill, recurring, eventually producing transformation?”
AM replied:
“False dichotomy seems to be the starting point for a ton of dubious scholarship.”
Where is the “thorough takedown” and “systematically dismantle”??
Does Winslow (the Pop pot calling the Pop kettle “black”) merely mean that Mosurinjohn & Ascough show “there’s no evidence”?
How does “no evidence” (even were it true) flip and become “thorough takedown”?
Answer: “No evidence for X” does not become “Disproved X.”
This is a Motte-and-Bailey flip-flop.
The undesired, though defensible (no one disputes) Motte position:
“I’m merely pointing out that there is no chemical evidence in the Eleusis vessels” (because we foolishly washed the “dirt” away, and now have the audacity to omit that fact while crowing “No evidence!”)
The desired but indefensible Bailey aggressive position:
“There’s definitely no psychedelics in mystery religions.”
i remember my other good hypocrite/ projection example:
Mosurinjohn & Ascough sneer and snicker at the popular-audience spreading of the maximal entheogen theory of religion:
“Why don’t scholarly academic journals communicate their debunking of maximal entheogen theory of religion that they’ve published many times and have never published?”
They can’t write “published”, so they employ weasel words: “considered”, “consult”.
Yet Mosurinjohn & Ascough are going around on non-scholarly podcasts – who don’t know to say “wheres the goddamn citations?!, u r empty bluster!” where the pop audience laps up their swill, “Ruck’s been debunked, many times! Definitely no psychedelics in Western religious history!” [no citations provided]
so the pop non scholars now instead of parrotting “psychedelics are THE source of religions”, now Mosurinjohn & Ascough re-steer the pop audience to parrot:
“the maximal entheogen theory of religion’s been debunked, many times!” 🦜
txt msg to AM [12:27 Feb. 3, 2026]
for UI good luck at library etc: turn phone between landscape & portrait orientation
Responsive Web Design is based on width of viewport (window)
text msg to AM [12:12 Feb. 3, 2026]
combination from hell: naysayer anything-but-drugs academics:
* wrong/incorrect
* smug, insulting, snickering, disrespectful attitude (a bluff)
* vague: “been considered” ? citations needed; “we dont need to keep repeating it how many times”: what is “IT”; citation fkking needed!
Mosurinjohn & Ascough do lots of projection:
THEY shift possibility into fact;
THEY refuse to publish any mention of the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis, then crow about their many rebuttals and disproofs (ie, none; but, they cursory cite
Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024)
which contains zero valid arg’n
i get it: anything-but-drugs academia has no arguments, just bluster
text msg to AM [8:26 pm Feb. 2, 2026]
psychedelics in Buddhism has been considered by academic scholars, and it’s so wrong that we dont need to keep repeating it, how many times?!
[ie: Wasson-level bluff and bluster, using vague language, insults, psy op, banker for the pope – above all, no citations provided]
Weasel Words by Deniers: ‘Considered’ or ‘Consult’, Instead of Proper Scholarly and Specific ‘Wrote’, ‘Published’, or ‘Citation’
“I was impressed by the celerity with which trained-dog academics parrotted their paid line: No mushroom imagery in Christian art; no psychedelics in mystery religions.” – Wasson, Letcher, etc, arguing in a non-scholarly mode.
Shut up your pope-paid anti-scholarly propaganda, Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, and give us the goddamn Brinckmann citation and two art pieces, “emphatic mushroom shape” from Panofsky, you fraud and con artist.
Why pay any attention to biased, proven-fraudulent academics, who are masters of junk, fallacious arg’n? Reverse Huggins’ declaration at the end of Foraging Wrong:
[In addition to the entirely unjustified ignoring of mushroom elements, favoring only the tree elements, above,]
“We also identified key issues that generally discredit the PMTs [Psychedelic Mushroom Theorists’] arguments, most notably
(1) their lack of supportive evidence from texts, [text is b.s. – the mushroom-tree artists don’t care about texts; they care about artist initiation guild -mh]
(2) their tendency to press similarities and ignore differences, (3) their multiple errors stemming from a lack of familiarity with the iconography and the texts underpinning the images they seek to interpret, and
(4) their dismissive attitude toward art historians like Panofsky.
[Panofsky deserves attention and ignoring.
But Huggins, how do we avoid dismissing Panofsky, when Wasson deceptively withheld most of the arg’n from Panofsky?
Wasson disrespected Panofsky, in censoring him.
Panofsky’s two letters and two art pieces attached, were heavily censored by Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson.
Huggins FAILED to credit Browns for exposing liar Wasson.
Huggins fails to point out Wasson’s deceptive censorship re: mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Huggins is an arm/ operative of the cabal-of-liars.
Academics have no credibility, and need to be ignored, mocked, and ridiculed.
-mh]
“All these issues contribute to the PMT’s [Psychedelic Mushroom Theorists’] lack of accuracy which in turn undermines the credibility of their work.”
[Academics, more than entheogen scholars, have a severe lack of credibility. -mh]
“Until we see significant improvements in these areas there is little hope of their producing anything worth taking seriously by artist historians, religious scholars, or other academics interested in the history and use of entheogens.”
There Is Little Hope of Academics Producing Anything Worth Taking Seriously by Entheogen Scholars
This is a DIVORCE.
Anything-but-drugs academics have NO CREDIBILITY.
Anything-but-drugs academics are COMMITTED SKEPTICS who go SO FAR as to:
arb’ly label a mushroom as a “tree”. Day 4 plant 3, Great Canterbury Psalter.
say “This tree can’t mean mushroom, because it has branches. [That are identical to mushrooms. -mh]
arb’ly say: “Mushroom-trees by definition have tree and mushroom elements, and the mushroom elements are to be ignored in favor of the tree elements.”
My conclusion:
Until we see significant improvements in these areas, there is little hope of the anything-but-drugs academics producing anything worth taking seriously by entheogen scholars or others interested in the history and use of entheogens.
SOMA p. 180 (More Cussing, Fewer Annotations, Dec. 2, 2024): Weasel Wasson Writes ‘refrained from consulting the art world’, Instead of Scholarly Citation of Published Writings
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): Weasel Wasson Writes ‘refrained from consulting the art world’, Instead of Scholarly Citation of Published Writings
Motivation for this Page
A Counter-Blow Against the Academic Blowhards Who Try to Bluster Their Way to Denial of Psychedelics in Western Religious History
Academic liars sneer at entheogen scholars eg the end of Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong”. I want to send an official message to the anything-but-drugs agenda: We entheogen scholars see what you’re doing.
Entheogen scholars have TEN TIMES the disrespect for anything-but-drugs academics, as that sort of academic professes to disrespect entheogen scholarship.
Smug, Dismissive, Condescending Bluster from Academics, Instead of Compelling Argumentation
This article is to directly counter the smug, dismissive, condescending, sneering, rude, cocksure, self-proud, insulting, belittling Mosurinjohn & Ascough & Ronald Huggins type of throwing insults at entheogen scholars.
Entheogen scholars make mistakes – Cyberdisciple distinguishes between small vs. large mistakes, in a post/page, maybe about Hatsis and Allegro.
“Scholar” as Brand and Style
This critique applies to Mosurinjohn & Ascough & Huggins & Letcher; deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Cyberdisciple wrote the following paragraphs (several pages, here; broken up per sentence here):
In the context of mushrooms in Christian art, Bennett writes that “I prefer things, like actual textual references, etymological research and most of all archeological evidence.”
With this statement, Bennett suggests that he relies on “superior,” empirical evidence and method when it comes to the topic of mushrooms in Christian art.
Thomas Hatsis relies on similar kinds of statements, championing the superiority of his method.
These statements are not themselves proof of superiority, but are instead a kind of stylistic statement.
They allude to the kind of scholar Hatsis and Bennett want to be known as.
This “kind of scholar” is set in opposition to the kind of scholar they do not want to be known as, specifically (their conception of) scholars who recognize mushrooms in Christian art.
There is an aspect of “branding” to Hatsis’ and Bennett’s articles on mushrooms in Christian art.
They want to convince you, the reader, that they are scholars superior to those unserious scholars who recognize mushrooms in Christian art.
They tell you repeatedly that they are superior scholars with superior methdology, while the targets of their criticism are amateur dilettantes with no understanding of proper methodology and history.
Most importantly, these awful, bad “scholars” are hindering the field by drawing attention away from the good scholars to whom everyone should be listening (guess who the good scholars are in this story).
Hatsis and Bennett employ aggressive rhetoric about their own superiority, but do they deliver the goods in their criticism?
As I point out above,
a) their treatment of pre-modern art, far from being some advanced historical methodology, is simplistic and reductionist, and
b) they use Allegro’s book uncritically to cast doubt on the targets of their criticism.
On the positive side, Hatsis and Bennett advocate for more rigor in scholarship in this field and for more attention to be paid to the historical context of evidence.
There is some good in this, and they have provided corrections to errors in citation and basic historical information published by some authors.
There is a limit to such correction, however, and in their criticism they have elevated what is essentially an editorial problem to the level of conceptual error, and in some cases to intellectual deficiency on the part of the target.
This last tactic confuses criticism, turning scholarly criticism into personal attack.
What amounts to citational errors and imprecision about historical context serves as part of Hatsis’ and Bennett’s rationale for radically dismissing their targets.
This is a dangerous tactic, because using such an all-or-nothing attack requires that the attackers’ own writing be error-free.
Employing such tactics in public criticism is tricky and should be reserved for special circumstances.
Indiscriminate use of such tactics can result in a kind of arms race, with scholars breaking out into hostile camps.”
Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., explaining, bottom up: possibilism-thinking; then psychedelic eternalism-thinking; then integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
Ditch Allegro, a ball-and-chain, boat anchor: academic anthropology abusing mushrooms to smear and defame the big bad Church.
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
Problem/ Obstacle: Ruck Loves Allegro
Intro
Titles of this article:
Official Declaration by Entheogen Scholarship: John Allegro Is Not an Entheogen Scholar; Entheogen Scholarship Is Permitted to Assert Mythicism and Centralize Psychedelics
Ascough’s article parrots my 2006 Plaincourault article’s conclusion: we must sideline and retire Allegro, to do 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Bad guys try to hobble harm and shackle entheogen scholarship by forcibly assigning Allegro to be the poster boy spokesman identical with entheogen scholarship.
This is total bullsh!t and a false, aggressive move.
We see what the Deniers are doing: striving to conflate Allegro with entheogen scholarship.
You can’t assert psychedelics in Western religious history, because that’s the Allegro move.
You can’t assert the ahistoricity of religious founder figures, because that’s the Allegro move.
You can’t combine asserting “psychedelics in Western religious history” and “the ahistoricity of religious founder figures”, because that’s the Allegro move.
F*ck all those imposed constraints and restrictions on entheogen scholarship.
Entheogen scholarship OFFICIALLY rejects any and all such Allegro-leveraged restrictions.
You can’t assert psychedelics in Western religious history, because that’s the Allegro move.
Ppl like Browns have a problem with mythicism – too damn bad for them.
They routinely do a move of disavowing mythicism and associating it with Allegro.
“In “Psychedelic Christianity” the authors seek to forge a connection between psychedelics and Christianity.
“To their credit, they avoid the wildly speculative and inherently sensationalistic theories about allegedly ancient connections between psychedelics and Christianity (see Allegro, 1970; Muraresku, 2020).”
Stoddard tries to discredit Ruck & Muraresku by smearing them (shackling them) with association with Allegro – AS IF Allegro is an entheogen scholar.
The planets revolving around the sun instead of earth was so wildly speculative, it took 177 years from Copernicus circulating 1510 writing to colleagues, vs. Newton 1687 everyone finally switched over to the new paradigm.
Entheogen scholarship began in lets say 1915 with “def no psilocybin in Mexico”, mocked by Wassons 1957 book-pair. 2026-1915 = 111 years so far, the new paradigm has been in development.
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., explaining, bottom up: possibilism-thinking; then psychedelic eternalism-thinking; then integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
The Highest Technology: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
Focus on the Peak 500-year Period Where All 4 Motifs Fully Came Together, Despite the Trail-Off to 1687
My gut estimate: 900 – 1400 AD = heyday of peak mushroom-tree religion, where all 4 motifs are typically present together, integrated.
The explicit Cubensis paradigm era.
Not all instances of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, or {stability} motifs include all 4 of these motifs.
eg von Trimberg image shows handedness and branching motifs, but not mushroom or explicit stability motifs.
Does this mean leave the mushroom-tree religion and dilute/broaden focus, to combinations of motifs that lack mushrooms? No.
Focus on and Leverage Peak Mushroom-Tree Religion, Including Great Canterbury Psalter
Strategic is to deliberately focus on the point in time of peak mushroom-tree religion.
As pictures show, psilocybin mushrooms are hard to work with, in multiple ways.
Psychedelic eternalism is hard to deal with and integrate and accommodate.
It’s understandable why the popular masses didn’t spread and build and retain the mushroom-tree religion.
Suppressing witchcraft and suppressing Western Esotericism suppressed the mushroom-tree religion.
The mushroom-tree religion was not suppressed during its heyday.
The Integrated Analysis of {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} Motifs Constitutes Mushroom-Trees as a Systemic Religion
Basic Binary Contrasts that Give N-Way Mutual Confirmation of the Egodeath Theory and Mytheme Theory, Including the Mushroom-Tree Religion
ordinary-state religion vs. psychedelic religion
fingers vs. thumb
3 fingers vs. index finger
possibilism vs. eternalism
branching vs. non-branching
ordinary state vs. psychedelic state
the ordinary-state possibilism experiential mode vs. the psychedelic-eternalism experiential mode
the possibilism experiential mode vs. the eternalism experiential mode
tight cognition vs. loose cognition
tight cognitive binding vs. loose cognitive binding
Y vs. I
Y vs. IY
1POV vs. 2POV
one point of view vs. two points of view
Psychedelic religion is valid; eternalism-driven control-transformation.
Non-psychedelic religion is fake religion, that depends on inspiration from real religion.
Real religion is psychedelic eternalism.
Throughout Western religious history (eg Western Esotericism), there is tons of noise, and a traceable signal thread, of psychedelic eternalism.
We must sit in judgment to spot the valid, worthy, best, top-quality elements from among all the noise of religious history.
Committing to the new theory / paradigm is a matter of betting on an upstart’s projected likelihood to succeed.
The new theory is not based on the explanatory power of the new theory the moment it is formed, and thus killed in the cradle by a history-contradicted theory of how science works.
Entheogen scholarship is a theory paradigm COMMITMENT, a bet, an investment.
Good practice is slip from possibility to fact, against Mosurinjohn & Ascough trying to treat “new paradigm” as if inherently error.
The hypocrites Mosurinjohn & Ascough themselves slip from possibility (“maybe no psychedelics in mystery religions”) to fact (“definitely no psychedelics in mystery religions”), to then pronounce to their (another hypocrisy) gullible Popular audience: “Ruck’s BEEN DEBUNKED!!”
We debunked that the root of all religion is psychedelic, and that the mysteries of Eleusis were psychedelic, 30 years ago, and we debunked that 60 years before that, many times.
Unspecified Bible Studies scholars per Sharday on a Pop podcast
Scholarly reply: “Citations needed.”
Pop podcast host’s reply: “HA HA HA HA!” laughing loudly, so that I can’t hear what Sharborg says next.
Sharday Mosurinjohn sold out and reduced herself to an instrument arm of the anything-but-drugs agenda, a mere propagandist for the anything-but-drugs academic agenda and fixed commitment/ paradigm.
Anything-But-Drugs Academia’s Agenda: Wedded to the Anything-But-Drugs Paradigmatic Commitment
A marriage wedded academia with the anything-but-drugs paradigm commitment.
Ditch that boat-anchor Asscough, Sharborg.
The Egodeath theory paradigm accomplishes this “spot the psychedelic eternalism” game.
The positive unitive model of “mystical experience” is a false thread that’s traced, since 1893, following a poor, ancient folly such as armchair Neoplatonism (apophatic inarticulate).
Algis Uzdavinys’ writings are beyond Yulia Ustanova and fellow travelers in anything-but-drugs academia.
Uzdavinys bridges dry Neoplatonism with the vibe of psychedelic shamanism throughout antiquity.
Intro
The mushroom-tree religion, discovered by the Egodeath theory, in mainstream Christianity.
The mainstream mushroom-tree religion was discovered by Michael Hoffman of the Egodeath theory, building on Panofsky 1952, Samorini 1997, Samorini 1998, & Ruck 2001, adding the integrated analysis of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Panofsky 1952 – “There are hundreds of mushroom-trees prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art.”
Panofsky 1952 “there are hundreds of mushroom-trees prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art”, in SOMA 1968 p. 180: https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-5 – “The Plaincourault fresco is only one example of a conventionalized tree type, prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art, which art historians actually refer to as “mushroom tree” in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development.”
hand-shape theory doesn’t require any mushroom imagery.
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}
From my book review of Psychedelic Injustice: How Identity Politics Poisons the Psychedelic Renaissance (Hatsis, 2025):
“Allegro’s book has been completely superseded and has become irrelevant for the current field of entheogen scholarship, since Samorini’s seminal 1998 article that made good on Erwin Panofsky’s 1952 announcement to Gordon Wasson that:
“The Plaincourault fresco is only one example of a conventionalized tree type, prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art, which art historians actually refer to as “mushroom tree” in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development.”
Psychedelics Are as “Mainstream”, “Normal”, and “Commonplace” in Christian History as Mushroom Trees in Medieval Art
Stang: “Why didn’t the Institutional Church officials denounce psychedelics?”
Because the entire culture knew that psychedelics are religion.
Mind your paradigmatic prejudices and presuppositions, Stang!
Stang & Greer: OK, We Deniers Were Full of Sh!t; a Few Members of Infiltrating Heretical Groups Did Use Psychedelics in Christendom, “but Were Psychedelics MAINSTREAM in Christian History?” YES.
The Entry into Jerusalem Fresco in the Church of Saint Martin, Publicly and Explicitly Displaying Psilocybin Mushrooms along with Branching & Non-Branching Motifs
The “Entry into Jerusalem” Fresco in the Church of Saint Martin Displays Explicit {mushroom}, {branching}, & {handedness} Motifs
Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown, used with permission
In the Church of Saint Martin de Vicq, France, that are presented and analyzed in Browns’ 2016 book & 2019 article.
With this week’s major breakthrough bringing to systematization hand-shape theory, that completes a list of simple binaries packing a punch for the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis paradigm.
I was angling to respond to the Christian Greer argument:
“We now must assume that of course some # of indiv’s used psychedelics within Christendom; the real question is not Secret Christian Amanita Cult, but rather, to what extent [he copypastes my concl of Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita (Hoffman, 2006), http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm ]
To what extent psychedelics in Christian history?
To what extent psychedelics in Greco-Roman & Judeo-Christian history?
To what extent psychedelics in Western religious history?
Were psychedelics mainstream and normal in Western religious history?
The answer is a firm YES, such as the mushroom-tree religion.
I found an angle on the “is mainstream?” question. I re-articulated Browns’ end of 2016 & 2019 book/article.
Browns emphasize that mushroom imagery in Christian art was mainstream to the extreme: commonplace in the best & most promient psalters; the best cathedrals; the best chapels, etc. have mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Panofsky args, mushroom imagery in Christian art was SO MAINSTREAM, that the mushroom imagery in Christian art cannot possibly mean mushrooms, because it is a given (per the Denier paradigm’s presuppositions and prejudices) that Xy lacks heavy mushrooms.
Flipping Panofsky’s Argument from “Too Many Mushrooms”
Panofsky 1952 argues:
Silently given: Everyone knows that Christianity does not include mushrooms.
Explicitly given: There are hundreds of mushroom-elements images prevalent in Christian art.
Therefore: The mushroom imagery in Christian art cannot mean mushrooms.
That’s a fallacious argument.
The prejudiced presupposition is false, “Silently given: Everyone knows that Christianity does not include mushrooms.”
Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., explaining, bottom up: possibilism-thinking; then psychedelic eternalism-thinking; then integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
Claim 1. “The Plaincourault fresco depicting a hallucinogenic mushroom has been debunked, repeatedly, by scholars in the best position to interpret it”
If the idea of the Plaincourault fresco depicting a hallucinogenic mushroom has been debunked, repeatedly, by scholars in the best position to interpret it, why does it persist?
Claim 2: “Bible scholars debunked that the root of all religion is psychedelic, and that the mysteries of Eleusis were psychedelic, 30 years ago, and 60 years before that, many times”
We debunked that the root of all religion is psychedelic, and that the mysteries of Eleusis were psychedelic, 30 years ago, and we debunked that 60 years before that, many times.
Anonymous Bible Studies scholars, citations available upon consulting the authorities
Video: Can Psychedelics Replace Religion? – Sharday Mosurinjohn, “debunked repeatedly”
The video says May 30, 2025, but there’s a 2021 copy of same vid, apparently.
“he has as a lawyer helped establish over 30 other such churches. So there’s a big entheogenic church movement.
“But then there’s also just stuff like,
“You would not believe the number of psychedelic scientists who say to me,
[ridiculing, mocking tone:]
“Did you know that the root of all religion is psychedelic?
“And did you know that the mysteries of Eleusis were psychedelic?
Interviewer: Laughs.
“[inaud. under laughing; sounds like: The ones who were] actually psychedelic?”
“And then I go to my biblical studies friends and colleagues and I say, you know, they’re saying this still.
“And they go,
“We debunked that 30 years ago, and we debunked that 60 years before that. Like how many times?”
“Um, so there’s that.“
There’s what citations? Where is this repeated debunking?
30 years ago = 1995 – citations needed.
90 years ago = 1935 – citations needed.
Claim 3. “The Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis Has Been Considered; It Is so Wrong, that We Don’t Need to Keep Repeating it” AND “Psychedelics NEVER Show Up in the Academic Literature about Mystery Religions”
Claim 3. Richard Ascough: The Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis Has Been “Considered”; It Is so Wrong, that We Don’t Need to Keep Repeating “it”; and yet also, “Psychedelics NEVER Show Up in the Academic Literature about Mystery Religions” (kettle logic; inconsistent multiple arguments).
Video title: Psychedelics, and the Birth of Christianity – Dr. Richard Ascough YouTube channel: Ayush Prakash Dec. 25, 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8GcCjja74M&t=2730s (45:30) He definitely says there was no usage of psychedelics in mystery religions. Hypocrite: He says Ruck slips from possibility to fact — here, hypocrite/ projecting, Ascough slips from possibility of not psychedelics in Mystery Religions, to the as-if fact of no psychedelics in mystery religions.
A CHEAP TRICK by Anything-but-Drugs academics/prostitutes/ propagandists.
copypaste from Hu, emphasis added, sentence-per-para:
“You’ve already given us some sense of this, but what do scholars make of these claims?
Do they take them seriously?
Richard Ascough:
“Well, one of the critiques is that perhaps classists don’t take it seriously because we’re afraid of it.
The narrative is we’re afraid of it because it’s so radical.
And my response is, no, it has been considered, and it’s so wrong that we don’t need to keep repeating it!
[weasel word: “considered”. citation needed. -mh]
I work on the Mystery religions, but psychedelics never show up in the academic literature about them.
[Reporter’s note: Mystery religions are secret religious groups or cults from Greco-Roman times.]
It’s very rare and if it comes up at all, it’s something like,
“There is this fringe element that talks about psychedelics but they have no evidence.”
And yet, at these psychedelics conferences, it keeps coming up again and again.
There’s a disconnect between what has been said [CITATION NEEDED!] by biblical scholars and classists, and what’s being promoted within the psychedelics community.
That forced us, then, to dig deeper:
Where does this disconnect come from?
Why is there this disjuncture?”
/ end of Hu excerpt
It’s an asymmetry:
Affirmers publish/ write/ think/ talk about psychedelics in Western religious history.
Deniers don’t publish/ write/ think/ talk about psychedelics in Western religious history.
In what sense is this situation a “disjuncture” or “disconnect”?
Section of the Hu Blogpost, With Commentary
Citations needed. WHERE HAVE SCHOLARS WRITTEN skeptically about the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis? (or other variant point of dispute)
Which specific scholars? Name names. What decade?
WHICH SPECIFIC ARTICLES?
WHICH SPECIFIC BOOKS?
WHICH SPECIFIC TREATMENTS OR PHONE CALLS OR TELEGRAPH MESSAGES, CARRIER PIGEONS, SMOKE SIGNALS? ON WHAT DATE?
Same hazy bluff as academic fraud Wasson telling us to “consult” the art historians – (in 2006,) I’d love to, but you censored the single lone thing they ever wrote: (revealed in 2019:)
“You’ve already given us some sense of this, but what do scholars make of these claims? Do they take them seriously?
“Richard Ascough: Well, one of the critiques is that perhaps classicists don’t take it seriously because we’re afraid of it.”
[We’re only asking you to take psychedelics in mystery religions seriously enough to write something, anything, on the topic – but you chicken sh*ts cannot publish anything on your taboo topic, because:
if you publish “no psychedelics in mystery religions”, you know you are a liar and making a bad bet, and
if you publish “psychedelics in mystery religions”, you’ll be effectively shut out and your “competent scholar” status revoked by the anything-but-drugs agenda.]
“The narrative is we’re afraid of it because it’s so radical.
[His word “repeated” implies repeating publications – but doesn’t say “publications”, b/c that would be a lie.]
Against the Wasson/ Panofsky/ Ascough BLUFF, classicists have given NO thought to psychedelics in Western religious history. No discussions, no “considered”, no telegrams, no phone conversations, nothing.
Against the Wasson/ Panofsky/ Ascough BLUFF, classicists have published NO articles or works on psychedelics in Western religious history.]
Ascough:
“Psychedelics in Mystery Religion Has Been Considered by Classicists, We Don’t Need to Keep Repeating That”
“considered” is a euph. for “not considered, and certainly not published”. Ascough tries to spin academics sticking head in sand, with a rebuttal and “need for communication” but Affirmer journal eg the Journal of Psychedelic Studies rejects Denier article, the specific article “and the Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis”
Even the title screams “look how obnoxious we are; king of the Deniers, it’s our brand”:
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience
For years the article was rejected by eg the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, and religious studies journals.
Also Ascough, in the next sentence:
“Psychedelics Are NEVER Mentioned in Academic Literature about Mystery Religions”
So what is there to repeat? Re-publish your (non-existent) articles.
It took zero effort to not write the article the first time.
What does “considered” mean? It means: We considered what happened to Allegro.
If an Academic Writes Truth (“Psychedelics Are the Source of Religion”), They Lose Their Job & Opportunities
If an Academic Writes Falsehood (“Psychedelics Have No Role in Religion”), They Are Manifestly a Fool, and Lose Credibility
If an Academic Writes the Truth (“Psychedelics Are the Source of Religion”), They Lose Their Job & Opportunities.
If an Academic Writes a Falsehood (“Psychedelics Have at Most a Minor Role in Religions”), They Are Manifestly a Fool, and Lose Credibility, contradicted by evidence.
That’s why Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian or Hellenistic art never discuss or publish about entheogens.
That’s why the result is a confused, inconsistent, contradictory bluff and bluster, vague, no citations, non-scholarly.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art must avoid proper scholarly engagement and keep the conversation in the Pop gutter.
Bibliography
References
Footnotes
Citations
Endnotes
Evidence
Substantiation
Proof
Quotes
Citations Backing up Emma Betuel’s Claim
Citations Backing up Professor Sharborg’s Claim
Citations Backing up Professor Asscough’s Claim
Names of Bible Scholars Who Credibly Debunked Psychedelics in Western Religious History
Sciencing the mystical: the trickery of the psychedelic trip report (Noorani, 2019)
Sciencing the mystical: the trickery of the psychedelic trip report Tehseen Noorani, Apr 9, 2019
“Science has caught wind of mysticism once again.
Operationalising metrics from the writings of perennial philosophers, psychopharmacologists are using psychedelics in a laboratory context to reliably induce ‘mystical experiences’.
These experiences are scored along such dimensions as unity, noesis, transcendence of space–time and ineffability.
“How are we to read this moment?
“I draw on data from an ethnography of psychedelic science and take cue from Walter Benjamin’s treatment of the threshold in Convolute O of The Arcades Project, to identify apophatic narratives of trickery that contrast with the positive knowledge prominent in the sciencing of the mystical experience.
“Read as apophatic labour, psychedelic trip reports reveal how the significance of the mystical encounter lies not in its point-like efficacy in transforming the subject, but in precisely the doubts, contradictions and aporias involved in the writing out of their experiences.”
how Sharday Mosurinjohn went from directionless, to piggybacking on easy-mode Psychedelic Studies pre-packaged value system: https://www.tricycleday.com/p/sharday-mosurinjohn – fallacious argmentation she gives, her arg’n is full of holes and easy to rebut. It’s clearly biased arg’n. Sharday Mosurinjohn falsely tries to make Wouter Hanegraaff say “ancient mystical experience was definitely not from entheogenic plants” – but that misreps Wouter Hanegraaff and why he exagerrates efficacy of non-drug entheogens. Wouter Hanegraaff ‘s real message relative to the field of Western Esotericism is YES WE SHOULD consider entheogens.
Hane’s message is NOT what Sharday Mosurinjohn tries to make it, “The anceints used ways other than entheogenic plants.” She plays fast and loose with arg’n, tyupica typical of … more than typical of MICA Deniers.
The HALLMARK of MICA Deniers is that they ALWAYS use severely fallacious arg’n, brazenly, shamelessly.
NO ARGUMENT TOO FALLACIOUS for MICA Deniers.
Trycycle article links to an online version of MEQ
Sloppy arg’n is a GIVEN from MICA Deniers. It’s their hallmark.
“Sharday Mosurinjohn escaped what she calls “the nihilistic void” of academia when psychedelics gave her a direct taste of what most religious scholars only theorize about. Now, she’s pressure-testing the field’s cherished frameworks and developing new theories of her own.
We asked Sharday what researchers get wrong about “mystical” experiences, why claims about psychedelics in ancient Greek rituals deserve scrutiny [which she hypocritically twists into “RUCK DEBUNKED!!, like she (falsely overblown) claims that Ruck slips from maybe to definitely”], and how her “psychedelic theodicy” can help people handle terrifying encounters in altered states.”
Ruck does not seriously slip from maybe to definitely, which Sharday Mosurinjohn formally accuses him of (in her article w/ Ascough) and they try to make big stink, mountain molehill about Ruck’s manner of writing.
Sharday Mosurinjohn seriously slips from maybe not to definitely not. Not merely as a manner of writing, but as her arg’n stance message to her Pop Slop audience.
Sharday Mosurinjohn Article Critiquing the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ)
I’m looking for what Sharday said to see, in Harvard talk yesterday, livestream, run by Chs Stang, Psychedelic Intersections 2026 conference, Sat, Apr 11, 2026. with Richard Saville-Smith.
Preprint of paper: The Mystic Trip. A critique of Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ).
This paper is hard to get published, because the field is invested in this bunk questionnaire based on:
Dealing with Lost Cause Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art
The immediate goal is not to get Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art to change their mind.
They are committed skeptics, only interested in broadcasting poor-quality fallacious args to deny ad hoc, mushroom imagery in Christian art.
The immediate goal is to make a clear positive case, and rebut negative claims, and give a solid positive case to the Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Don’t start from confusions perpetuated by Deniers. Start from clear thinking from Affirmers.
I was at a Thomas Hatsis presentation recently.
Entheogen scholarship books by Jan Irvin and Thomas Hatsis are must-have.
Hatis stated his usual narrative that he’s been consistently stating since his interactions with Jan Irvin ~2011.
Just like his new book, totally vague:
Vague narrative: Hatsis told witches, “You may have heard there are mushrooms in Xn art. There are not.” What exactly are you denying? I just found proof that Plaincourault fresco adheres to patterns of the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}:
Eve {stand on right foot},
YI offset trident branches under crown, and
4 mushroom branches point to Adam’s pair of arms, legs, Eve’s.
Hatsis is probably thinking of the mushroom imagery in Christian art that’s covered by his 5 missing articles.
I later told witches that some of Hatsis’ positions are disputed by other entheogen scholars.
Hatsis is ONLY thinking about Amanita (entrenched in static Allegro framing), not even thinking about Psilocybin at all: I observed this definitely in a YouTube video, and then his email reply (shown at this site) confirmed that.
Hatsis is not capable of considering psilocybin or anything that’s outside his Allegro mental prison.
He’s committed to that ossified position, so much that he avoids any detail, to perpetuate his hazy position forever.
Hatsis has no interest in evidence against that position; committed skeptic which explains why he is friends with Ronald Huggins, who is also a committed skeptic re: mushroom imagery in Christian art.
I told him I wanted to read his entire 2025 book before reviewing, but couldn’t resist recomm’ing it after I read 30% of the pages.
What about his 5 articles? My #1 Q I wanted to ask Hatsis when smoking with him, was are your articles online? But the Eleusinian Mysteries Spring festival was just too busy. My priority was to listen to his conversation with D, and to move forward on points of agreement eg he and I hope that I point him to the Psym panel livestream where member demonstrated total shocking ignorance and doubted that LSD was legally used in 1950s psychiatry.
No historian citations or specificity or checkable claims.
Ghosts of the Machine Age: What Was Psychedelic About William James?
“In the final decades of the nineteenth century, technologies like the telegraph and early electrical therapies encouraged scientists to reimagine the human mind as a mechanical system.
“For the first time, it seemed possible to reduce the mystery of consciousness to a mass of actionable data.
“But not everyone was convinced.
“The psychologist William James spent his career at the borderlands where mechanistic explanations broke down:
investigating spirit mediums,
conducting a census of hallucinations, and
experimenting with peyote (a headache-inducing bust) and
nitrous oxide (revelatory).
“By centering not only William James but also his disabled sister Alice, who spent much of her adult life reflecting on her own altered states of consciousness, this talk traces how altered states of mind became tools for probing the limits of mechanical models of the self in the late nineteenth century.
“It argues that the tensions which the James siblings exposed — between
quantification and inner experience,
patient and physician,
science and religion,
imperialism and resistance to empire —
Remain deeply relevant to contemporary debates about
psychedelics,
religion,
law, and
what counts as a valid way of knowing.
“Benjamin Breen is an associate professor of history at UC Santa Cruz, where he teaches classes on
early modern Europe,
environmental history, and
the history of science, technology, and medicine.
“From July 2015 to January 2017 he was a postdoctoral fellow at the Society of Fellows in the Humanities at Columbia University, and a lecturer in Columbia’s history department.
“He received his PhD in history from the University of Texas at Austin in 2015.
He lives in Santa Cruz, California with his partner Roya Pakzad and their two daughters.”
Conf 12:45 pm
12:45 p.m. Sat., Apr. 11, 2026 – panel including Sharday Mosurinjohn: continued historical critique of Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ).
1:01 pm audience Q about Unitive model of mystical experience to account for broad experiences that are excluded by that model. Expand the model of mystical experience. Monistic like neoplatonism and monotheism”. Reclaim and widen the model of mysticism .
“this is why i don’t like unitive mysticism” (who? Breau? likely)
Richard s-s: “moving away from Stace is realy dificult” “Peak experirnece allows broader than ‘mystical'”. “[the term] Mysticism cannot be cleansed.” the history of mysticism is even murkier world of heresy etc.
sm Sharday Mosurinjohn says she has some disagree with Richard s-s – we need to write something on Stace. “He [stace? Pahnke?] is at pains to dismiss almost all experiences of his 18 / A Team”. “How limitiing is our concept of ‘psychedelic’ and ‘mysticism’ … try “trans rational” per Ken Wilber “
See also below, my section: Toward a Psychedelic Theodicy: Psychedelic Biomedicine and the Concept of “Risk” (Mosurinjohn 2024/2025)
11:20 a.m. Sat., Apr. 11, 2026 – recorded Sharday Mosurinjohn talk at harvard livestream:
My first post, Friday, to church friends:
Damn, I missed Jeffrey Breau & Charles Stang opener keynotes. missed Jeffrey Breau & Charles Stang opening
My lame scheduling error, didn’t set alarm time well enough. I would’ve had to set a loud 5:45 am alarm.
The current lecture (my Electrical Engineering area; Claude Shannon: Information Theory) is only 1% relevant, barely even mentions relevant words. 2nd half of lecture finally was relevant.
Topic of Law will be on Sat. tomorrow.
I’m in the Zoom of the Harvard conference.
Sharday Mosurinjohn on Sat.
Greer fills in the huge, totally ignored Psychedelic 1980s, eg 1986 Burning Man, etc
Christian Greer is crushing it, see his book(?) – not sure if he stated the title of which book to see.
The War on Drugs warped history comprehension, “the drug war fog” paved over psychedelics. The War on Drugs warped history comprehension, per Christian Greer: “the Fog of Drug War paved over psychedelics.”
Friday yesterday Apr 10 2026, i enjoyed the criticism of Wasson; it is time for internal critique within the field of entheogen scholarship.
A field and its scholars must identify BOTH the contributions AND limitations/ drawbacks of each scholar:
Not lazy scorched-earth total dismissal of a given scholar.
Nor lazy total worship of a given scholar.
The Mystical Detour in Psychedelic Science (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Saville-Smith)
Sharday Mosurinjohn talk, Harvard time: 2:15 pm Sat.: The Mystical Detour in psychedelic science.
Article Preprint: the Mystic Trip (Critique of Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ)) (Sharday Mosurinjohn)
Preprint of paper: The Mystic Trip. A critique of Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ).
This paper is hard to get published, because the field is invested in this bunk questionnaire based on:
1893 Swami Vivekananda
Wm James ~1902
Starbuck ~1930?
Walter Stace 1960 (Sharday Mosurinjohn mentioned it’s out of print)
the Good Friday Experiment at Marsh Chapel on April 20, 1962 by Walter Pahnke under the advisor Tim Leary.
Recording the audio.
Wasson’s dubious Indigenous Shams usage of psychedelics – that model was jammed together with Vivek/Stace carved-out, eliminative model of “mystical experience” that deletes and disrespects and discards out of hand, any peak experiences other than unitive nondual in the narrow, particular model of Swami 1893 through Walter Stace 1960.
Pronunciation of ‘Entheogen’
a.m. Sat., Apr. 11, 2026
An elder “corrected” my “mispronouncing” the word ‘entheogen’.
The elder did internet research to “prove” that the “correct” pronunciation is ENtheogen, and show me that my pronunciation is “wrong”, enTHEOgen.
I recently did internet research proving that the internet is often full of false, bad info: Did Eddie Van Halen downtune on the album Van Halen? Contradictory answers seem to be caused by failure to define ‘downtune’.
Microsoft’s AI disclaimer says like “Copilot is for entertainment only, not for business.”
AI answers are WRONG / FALSE, often. Not uncommon. AI search told me falsely, “No, EVH did not downtune on the first album.” B.S.
I tuned my guitar to play the songs on the first album, tuned down a half step. The internet agrees with me, other than AI’s wrong answers.
re: ‘entheogen’, instead of consulting the internet, I consulted a respected church friend, who agreed with me:
The superior, intelligent, comprehension-driven pronunciation is enTHEOgen.
The inferior, unintelligent, incomprehension pronunciation is ENtheogen.
Every person is allowed to use the pronunciation that they feel is most transparent and effective for communication.
My own decision is that I am committed to advocating as the superior pronunciation, enTHEOgen.
Which emphasis makes most sense?
emphasize EN
emphasize THEO
A related debate that I wrote about and spoke about:
Serpent is not shown much in Great Canterbury Psalter.
re: the table, I can’t mention tree without mentioning snake. I’m lately giving the terms together: snake-shaped worldline frozen in block universe, which is your subjective life from birth to death (future cast in stone).
List of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism [LCPE]:
Possibilism vs. Eternalism =
Y vs. I
{branching} vs. {non-branching}
{tree} vs. {snake}
{fingers vs. thumb, index, or pinkie}
many worlds vs. single block-universe
Eternalism is an added, higher, outside perspective, looking at the egoic branching Possibilism mental model from outside of it, simultaneously, as a distinct POV/ vantage point of awareness.
____________
In hand-shape theory, the Index finger is so often mapped to non-branching eternalism, the Index finger is almost equivalent to Thumb (non-branching Eternalism).
If we say there are 4 fingers, qualify that: usually, Index finger, splayed aside from the usually grouped 3 minor fingers, which represent, often, branching: Middle, Ring, & Pinkie.
It’s possible to sometimes splay the Pinkie, in which case the Index finger usually participates in representing Branching Possibilism, together with Middle & Ring fingers.
In that less-common case, Pinkie is equivalent to Thumb.
Even when all 4 fingers represent, together, Branching Possibilism, even then it is common to have a slight splay of the Index finger.
We can see mushroom-tree artists — ie, Medieval hand-shape artists — carefully adding just the right width of extra black in between the Index finger vs. the Middle/Ring/Pinkie.
“Is the Index finger splayed?” means measuring the width of the black lines between fingers.
/ end of my Comment at Cyberdisciple page
Heading History of Naysayers from Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins, Mosurinjohn
todo: list the history of articles by naysayers, Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art – HAVE TO start with Letcher-Hatsis himself, cannot start late at Sharday Mosurinjohn nor start with Huggins
Huggins is like Hatsis but more of an academic player
arguing Hatgsis Hatsis is self contradictory counterproductive by claiming Euro history psychoactives – EXCEPT FOR XY. and he narrowmindedly uninformedly conflates 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) w/ the entire topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art (or a broader scoped topic: psilocybin or Amanita in Christiandom history )
Way back in nov 2020 article for brown c e c o p compelling evidence & criteria of proof for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art i wrote about scope question-scope variants:
the _ theory of __ in __ cultural history
Constructing the question(s): fill in narrow or broad, variants many variants.
Alternative to Long or Short Idea Development Pages
What I have done instead, is type new ideas in whatever page I happen to have open for editing. I need to put a date in every section.
Tue., Mar. 10, 2026
My Book Review of Spacetime: Minkowski’s Papers on Spacetime Physics (Petkov, 2021)
Photo: Michael Hoffman
No Amazon url yet for my review. ETA 2 days; Thu Mar 12, 2026.
Composed & submitted to Amazon Tue., Mar. 10, 2026
5 of 5 stars by Michael Hoffman Title of review: 4D spacetime block-universe eternalism, inspired the Egodeath theory
Spacetime: Minkowski’s Papers on Spacetime Physics, edited by Vesselin Petkov, 2021, Preface & Introduction chapter by Petkov
“Wow, it’s been about 6 months since I promised you ideas to get article un-stuck.
“Total failure to follow through.
“I’ve been particularly busy.
“I will be entering a less busy period in a few months.
“But don’t believe me! Evil Future Me is a slacker.”
Michael Hoffman replied:
Your idea to shift focus from {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs to the theory of psychedelic eternalism
You are an inspiring cheerleader for the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism.
The new article draft page with new title is the outcome of your idea to shift attention in the title from: laundry list: {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs to: the theory of psychedelic eternalism:
Branching-message mushroom trees: The theory of psychedelic eternalism represented in medieval art
buys expectation: going to hit u w Theory; STEM theory, fasten seatbelt
Branching-message mushroom trees: Psychedelic eternalism depicted in medieval art as mushrooms, branching, handedness, and stability
Email to Cyberdisciple 12:28 a.m. Feb. 17, 2026
i don’t see why should pay any attention to fulfilling ppl’s expectations
this is a BIG article
BIG! big in size like ego when fuzed with God. Transcendent Knowledge = go from skin-encap. you, to UNIVERSE YOU!
Why do I care what ppl expect? Science facts are Loose Cognitive Science Facts. it’s irrelevant what the Univ. Engineering student expects to be taught.
It’s not up to the student to define the degree program.
I’m not taking a vote and poll, “Who expects SPOT THE MUSHROOM game?”
I’m here to TEACH and EXPLAIN, not to APPEASE and MEET PREFAB EXPECTATIONS
Let the Theory, as-is, market itself, by sheer interestingness inherent.
eg YI hand-shape theory, really remarkable to me, and to every GOOD person, who counts.
all the BEST readers (1%) appreciate the force of pure undiluted STEM revelation, of psychedelic eternalism.
analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
Its a theory. Not a spot-the-mushroom kiddie game. The game is much funner, by being about {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, integrated.
Email to Cyberdisciple & Brown 2:27 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026
I need more time than 4 years to read your emails.
List of unread emails: …
Thank you for handling reviewing The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020, and creating the Brown anti-Hatsis article, so I focused on other fronts.
Email to Cyberdisciple & Max 3:04 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.I read this Cyberdisciple email today Feb. 16, 2026
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art:
* Erwin Panofsky 1952
* Gordon . . . . Wasson 1968
* Andy Letcher 2006
* Thomas Hatsis 2013
* Chris Bennett 2020
* Ronald Huggins 2022
* Sharday Mosurinjohn 2025
* Richard Ascough 2025
* Christian Greer 2025 maybe
Hatsis Insists Psychoactives in Europe History – EXCEPT for “Secret Christian Amanita Cult”, which Is the Identical Same Topic as Psychedelic Mushrooms in Western Religious History
Thomas Hatsis denies mushroom imagery in Christian art, despite his pushing for psychedelics in Western religious history.
Bennett:
“Finding mushroom imagery is TOO HARD You should be weak like me and only look for Easy-Mode, Cannabis evidence.”
Mosurinjohn & Ascough: You entheogen scholars are pathetic and illeigitmate, deseving of fullest disrespect.
“Finding mushroom imagery is impossible, because in fact there is none. You should ignore Western history and only look for Easy-Mode, Indigenous Shams; they have had mushroom wisdom[sic] for millennia.”
Who wrote the stupid wrong vague anti-Western phrase “mushroom wisdom”? Henry Winslow’s awful post:
“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 no psychedelics in mystery religions, since 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)
“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 myc’ist, J Rams.
As Jan Irvin figured in conversation w/ 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:]
Indigenous Shams Do NOT Have “Psychedelic Wisdom”, against Winslow, Houot, Mosurinjohn & Ascough, etc.
“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.”
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 like
Alan Houot’s masters dissertation.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s attacks on entheogen scholarship: uncouth, churlish, ignorant, tasteless, rude, smug, condescending, erroneous, discrediting (of themselves instead of others), and foolish.
Rude & Wrong: A classic combo; a Marriage Made in Hell.
The dust-up over psychedelic “lineage”
There’s a huge stink & controversy(s) now about “LINEAGE”.
The concern, making “lineage” your (weak) foundation, is funny to me, because I myself am an (ahistorical?) religious founder figure.
Not actual-me is the founding figure, but rather, the Mythic Michael Hoffman, never existed, he was nothing but a s3x-cult, disgusting Fly Agaric fungus.
“Therefore Christianity sucks” – that’s the John Allegro/ Carl Ruck/ Terence McKenna/ John Rush, driving-mission, achieved, by abusing entheogen scholarship to accomplish.
Tail wag dog: abuse of the field of entheogen scholarship, for the purpose of smearing the big bad church and permanently reify Prohibition.
The evil Church is so bad, don’t even THINK of trying to repeal Psilo Prohibition.
Huggins’ Articles on entheogen scholarship
Huggins 2022: Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art
Cyberdisciple sent: capture of Gosso book mixing M. Hoffman vs M Hoffman.
I replied a few decades later:
Forgot about this. i have one of the Gosso/Camilla books… I have that book; p. 90, thx.
– M. Hoffman
No one cites the Egodeath theory, except 10 publications I know of, or 20…
I am looking for Nov 2020 email from you giving the wrong type of url for Great Canterbury Psalter i guess, lacking .zoom suffix??
Omit .zoom suffix, get ugly, dark, dingy color palette. per my first batch of crops Nov. 2020.
* What year Great Canterbury Psalter online?
I found some history recently toward an answer.
Helping my discovery, my timing is good, except I had to take hiatus, for engineering univ. courses, Jan 2008 – Sep 2011.
John Lash uploaded Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter around 2008;
after his 2006 book 1st Edition, he did vigorous research travelling like Browns to the Great Canterbury Psalter, uploaded in 2008 the article THE DISCOVERY OF A LIFETIME
Paul Lindgren is the ACTUAL discoverer of mushroom imagery in Christian art in Great Canterbury Psalter around 1999;
check w/ Ruck & M. Hoffman who talked w/ him.
Lindgren is credited twice in Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise
to my surprise, Ronald Huggins oct 2025 article about Plaincourault fresco DOES cite “Conjuring Eden”. The Deniers’ ignorance is now slightly less than zero.
Huggins again fails to cite Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019
He throws about the Panofsky & Brinc citations like they are his private weapon that only Huggins gets to use.
Jan Irvin is not allowed to access the (damn) DRAWER (cited by Huggies) at Harvard instead of arming ALL scholars by citing Browns 2019.
On Nov. 17, 2020, Cyberdisciple emailed Michael Hoffman & Max Freakout a URL for Great Canterbury Psalter – but, omitted the .zoom prefix, so, ugly dingy color palette.
Therefore, I don’t know when or why the library fixed the bad palette. Maybe they always had a dull & a colorful set of images at the lib site.
I accidently a couple years after, when I resumed Great Canterbury Psalter, I used — on mobile — urls that have the .zoom suffix, = bright color palette.
eg: the guy behind Christ making IY hand-shape, his thumb now looks normal length, not double-length.
Bad Resolution Can Throw Off Interp
In Nov 2020 I learned a huge lesson that Browns assert: importance of clear images.
John Rush f134 row 1 left 2/5 (Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter), fist appears to point.
Fist does NOT point.
Compression artifacts make him appear to point.
I had to redo my interp w/ higher res (though too-dark palette initially, because the Great Canterbury Psalter URL lacked .zoom suffix).
John Rush’s Crazy Identification of the Four plants in Day 3
Ronald Huggins 2025 Oct hammers this too, re: the easy whipping boy who we all criticized:
John Rush, record-holder for blurriest images and most dubious claims about them — if you can even follow what Rush is asserting. Self parody. I recently found on my drive, precious PDF backup from late Rush’s Website: Rush says about Day 3’s 4 plants, some nonsense – Rue, Poppy, WAY off.
ie, my sensible Dec 2020 ID’n for 4 mushroom types in Day 3, follows at least 3 previous, pretty far off or vague attempts to ID the 4 mushroom-plants.
Rush “listed” the 4 plant idea-development session in garbled order as always, like all entheogen scholars write.
We’re not in STEM Dept. anymore.
After proper sort, the 4 plants are ID’d by Rush as:
Opium poppy.
Amanita.
A psilocybin species.
Amanita.
They are ID’d consistently by me Dec. 2020 as:
Panaeolus
Liberty Cap
Cubensis
Amanita
That matches my experience mushroom-spotting; these are practical, useful categories for the person in the field of mushrooms.
The Art Image Has Bands on Cap; So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art
Huggins’ new, Oct. 2025 article argues:
The art images have bands; so, no mushrooms in Christian art.
In fact, the bands confirm – not disconfirm – Panaeolus ID’n.
Huggins reasons as if:
“Bands on cap, or dots, are how artists randomly arb’ly for no reason, depicted trees. Meaningless. Whimsical. So, not mushroom.“
Conclusion: Huggins HAS NEVER SEEN MUSHROOMS.
His arg is like saying “image has serrated base, so is not Amanita”, when popular drawings show serrated base. Golden Guide: Richard Schultes.
Serrated base confirms (supports) that the image is Amanita – not disconfirms.
todo: does Plants of the Gods preserve those Amanita illustrations that were in Golden Guide to Hall’c Plants?
– M. Hoffman
email to Cyberdisciple 8:41 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026
ooking for recomm article outline u sent
seeing random emails from u, all interesting
ramdom email mobile ui
u asked who i credited for emailing the Journal of Psychedelic Studies link
scary to try to figure that out on mobile
Why i write in random unrelated files?
Bc i was so displeased when high-hot once i thought “before i write out the idea, i better create proper page or go right page
— TOO LATE, idea gone.
f that. dump idea wherever; living room floor;
later move writeup to right spot
the point hidden in present spot:
todo make page:
“Cyberdisciples outline of my 25-poicant-converge-
{branching-message mushroom trees} article
vs my outline – dk i f i have one now
I envision a purpose-built outline to serve my own theory’s needs per its shape
Not shaped by Deniers paradigm outline.
Ideally:
* Cyberdisciple writes article using Cyberdisciple outline
* Cybermonk writes a unique article, w whatever outline is best to exemply Loose Cognitive Science STEM Communications-Cybernetics Explanatory Framework
funny: i told Wink the Egodeath theory is mature
then had a profound brkthr re researching decoding hand shapes since Mar. 21, 2022 jesus finger sgapes shapes, confirmed by GOD HIMSELF in a mini of god same finger shapes in treebush.
“Cyberdisciple, the Egodeath theory is fully mature.”
next day:
“Cyberdisciple, had huge brkthru last night;
therefore, yesterday, the Egodeath theory was immature, barely half-baked, worthless low-value junk, missing 90% of the message of the mushroom-tree artists.”
How STEMonaut Michael Hoffman conjoined 5 ideas in 1988,
In no way does the mind “get rid of” possibilism-thinking
the mind swaps
one version of possibilism-thinking
for another that is aware of altered-state eternalism
what is tge tge true, natural outline of the Egodeath theory
that is driven by the Egodeath theory
not driven by academic structured Cyberdisciple outline?
2 Complementary Articles outlines:
* the perfect person to fill Cyberdisciple outline is Cyberdisciple
* i channeled Eadwine or the mushroom-tree artists in 2020, now in 2026 really bc i can READ AND WRITE YI hand shapes langyage about the relation of the two mental models of 2 experiential states/ modes:
To Win the Game of Mushroom-Tree Art
Use YI hand shapes to communicate how
the Possibilism mental model
is related to
the Eternalism mental model
NOT replace possibilism by eternalism —
unless u define Eternalism as including Possibilism
the mushroom-tree artists SAY THIS by their patterns of hand-shape pairs
the Reference
The Reference Hand-Shape Pair: [Y’, YI]
Why so great of a hand-shape pair?
A dangerous misleading repr’n would be the oversimplified representation via hand-shape pairs:
[Y, I]
wrongly implies: first, the mind has branching thinking; the mind ends up w instead, non-branching thinking
It’s actually cumulative, not zero sum mutually exclusive.
The first mental model gets MODIFIED, NOT DESTROYED OR ELIMINATED.
Some aspects of the Possibilism mental model, per Paul Thagard, get deleted;
other aspects get transformed, via 7 kinds of modifs listed by Thagard.
Y’ means radical ego death & rebirth, but also means lowkey modifs.
Y’ does not mean get rid of Y.
Exercise for the Mushroom-Tree Game
Make sophisticated statements about
the relationship between possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking
then convert to math notation
the purpose of the yhsl
the relationship between possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking [RBPE]
the YI hand-shape language [YHSL]
a notation tga that i designed to use hand-shape pairs to depict and critique ways of
depicting
the relationship between possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking
the purpose of the the mushroom-tree artists’ hand-shape language
is to depict the pros & cons of various ways of characterizing the
the relationship between possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking
there is a profound debate represented by hand-shape language
in art
hand-shape language [HSL]
hand shape pairs
like my article follows its own true outline
WAY BETTER THAN Cyberdisciple outline
Specifically, [fog]
My article unlike Cyberdisciple article,
only explains what the Explanatory Model is, of NOT mushroom imagery in Christian art
but instead,
Explain the integrated set of {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
Explain the mushroom-tree religion
my Journal of Psychedelic Studies {branching-message mushroom trees} article
Hey Michael Hoffman 2007: why is there a Y-shaped Cubensis tree to the left of the I-shaped Cubensis tree? Why does Nike (Ariadne) hold branch in L hand, while Dio hold spear in R hand?
email to Cyberdisciple 10:06 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026: Found Outline guidance from Cyberdisciple & Brown re: publishing my work
Found Outline guidance from Cyberdisciple & Brown re: publishing my work
Error at Cyberdisciple: “I promise you some more detailed ideas soon on getting the Branching-message mushroom tree article un-stuck”
[separate idea next; the joke above is finished]
Step 1 to get article un-stuck:
* Don’t be illiterate at medieval YI hand-shape theory.1. Email from Cyberdisciple to Cybermonk re: Recommended Outline for {branching-message mushroom trees} article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies:
* Dec 4, 2024, title: Fw: Cubensis-driven overflow. “You are in a tough position to fit everything needed into one article”
Msg 1: 2:02 pm
also exists msg 2 4:24 pm: “An argument against my suggested ordering … your distinctive style of putting your summaries at the forefront.”
2. Mystery message (printout from text editor) ~2025, “private note to you that I promise you some more detailed ideas soon on getting the Branching-message mushroom tree article un-stuck.”
3. Brown to M. Hoffman & Cyberdisciple – email: title: Publishing your work, Feb 2, 2023
BUT, on Feb. 9, 2023, I solved Jesus’ finger shapes & items held out by guy in tree, Entry into Jerusalem, Martin Church.
Publish my INCOMPLETE, hand-shape language illiterate, work; my half-baked reading of the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
email to Cyberdisciple 10:39 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026
joke & ping to highlight your email that starts “Michael, private note to you that I promise you some more detailed ideas soon on getting the Branching-message mushroom tree article un-stuck.”
due to internet error, your outline ideas to me got lost
and I was too busy making-up “breakthroughs” by force (addict) to receive ur ideas
PLS RE-SEND THE IDEAS NOW
(j/k)
Actual information:
I want to create a WordPress page post, containing your outline recomm, and the other emails i listed from u & Brown.
The page will list the email headers that I need to reference, containing publishing advice from Brown & Cyberdisciple.
One of my pages supporting my {branching-message mushroom trees} draft article page for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies
might have your outline.
Or that’s in my private Markdown file,
That file or that WordPress page might have my effort to work with your outline; i mean a critical analysis or formatting of your outline.
I need a dedicated page, that’s findable for me, giving your outline, reasons why IT’LL NEVER WORK, etc.
ITS BENEATH THE GRAND THEORY OF EGODEATH TO HAVE A NORMAL-LOOKING OUTLINE
The breakthrough article on {branching-message mushroom trees} has to look weird & messed up.
That’s the STEM textbook way?
email to Cyberdisciple 11:39 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026
Cyberdisciple,
Thank you for volunteering all of your time, writing a 2nd (& 3rd), conventionally outlined article along w/ mine, by simply filling-in your outline w/ content, at:
“You are in a tough position to fit everything needed into one article (even two articles).”
re: my mini-article for Sacred Garden Community Church Reader Issue 1, I was blocked, but then pastor’s 3 slides on block-universe eternalism set me free:
I said “You only get 1 powerpoint slide of text”; success: condensed to just 2 pages of text, + gallery pages.
Similarly, I THINK I’M IN HEADSPACE TO AVOID MOST TOPICS AND STAY FAR MORE FOCUSED, using my church article as a guide.
I can imagine flipping from 25 “nice to cover” topics, to only 3 MUST COVER topics that will SHAKE THE WORLD, REVOLUTION etc as usual.
Copernicus’ REVOLUTIONARY NEW PARADIGM first circulated to colleagues in 1510,
was finally accepted in 1687 (Newton Princ.), just 177 YEARS LATER, to have the overnight revolution.
Cyberdisciple con’t:
“You are showing more mushroom trees than most readers have considered AND
arguing that the deliberate portrayal of mushrooms with branches is the way to solve the pilzbaum dilemma (e.g. why do the trees look like mushrooms with branches and debranched stubs) AND
pointing out motifs of branching, handedness, and stability in images that aren’t mushroom-trees AND
arguing for cubensis over amanita AND
that Christian mushrooms were not “secret” and “suppressed” AND
that the true highest most important meaning of cubensis experiencing is about branching AND
how bad the deniers are AND…
25 other topics.”
My feeling of the moment re: Huggins
Huggins’ new Oct 2025 article written for Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s(?) special issue of Religions journal [fact-check?] extends Huggins’ 1) Dancing Man & 2) Great Canterbury Psalter articles, to encompass also, 3) Plaincourault fresco.
btw Huggins inspired me to see last night: Plaincourault fresco has YI branches under the cap –
except in Michelle Bory’s fumbling “copy”, which shows trident branches!
MOTIF PERCEPTION FAIL
Michelle Bory also loses Eve’s {stand on right foot}. MOTIF PERCEPTION FAIL
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
re Huggins’ Plaincourault fresco article, conclusion: IGNORE;
FOCUS ON JUST Huggins Great Canterbury Psalter ARTICLE IS BEST LEVERAGE POINT.
Huggins tends to diffuse the focus:
* here’s a random error by Allegro 1970. So, no mushrooms.
* here’s a random error by Samorini 1993. So, no mushrooms.
* here’s a random error by Ruck 2002. So, no mushrooms.
* here’s a random error by Brown 2016. So, no mushrooms.
Scatterbrain, on-the-spot, ad hoc,
make up a unique arg for each, isolated instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
The more bizarre a vector of arg’n, the better to keep opponents dancing in futility. It sounds (to agreeers w/ Deniers) as if “WOW GEE LOOKIT ALL THESE MANY, MANY ARGUMENTS! THEY JUST KEEP COMING! Huggins IS SO WINNING!
DENIERS ARE SO WINNING, LOOK HOW MANY WORDCOUNT & ARG COUNT!
1000 INSTANCES OF mushroom imagery in Christian art = 1000 DIFFERENT REBUTTAL NOISES FROM THE DENIERS
I AGREE! GO, DENIERS!
The Hatsis/Huggins way.
The Way of the Denier
Factcheck: BEEN DEBUNKED. The special issue is by Sharday Mosurinjohn & Christian Greer. Contains 3 articles: by Huggins; by Richard Ascough, and …….. Greer?
Special Issue of Religions Journal, by Sharday Mosurinjohn & Christian Greer, Oct. 2025
On John M. Allegro’s Suggestion That the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the 12th Century Plaincourault Chapel Depicts an Amanita muscaria Mushroom (Huggins)
In his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970), John Marco Allegro claimed that an obscure, 12th century CE fresco of the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Plaincourault Chapel in Mérigny, France, provided evidence of the persistence in Christian Europe […] Read more.
John Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross posits that early Christianity derived from fertility cults involving psychedelic mushroom use. Though widely discredited by scholars when it was first published, the theory persists in popular culture and entheogenic discourse. This article evaluates the […] Read more.
This article examines the scholarship of John Allegro on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the role his status as a scholar has played in the reception of his The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. While the Dead Sea Scrolls play no prominent […] Read more.
Greer’s Strategy: There Were Psychedelics in Western Religious History, but, Not Mainstream; Doesn’t Count
; Doesn’t Count; So, no mushrooms, in the only kind of culture that counts: MAINSTREAM Christianity
I leverage INTENSE VALUES; I have weaponized my values:
Define ‘mainstream’ as “that which counts”.
Problem: only 1% used psilo.
Solution: the 1% that COUNTS as MAINSTREAM; the 99% are sawdust and don’t count.
the BEST chapels. the BEST mystics. the BEST myth. the BEST manuscripts. the BEST religion.
eg: Indigenous Shams used psychedel’s for many years, but, that DOESN’T COUNT, because they lack wisdom of mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Some texts / churches/ manuscripts lack any mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Solution: Those are failures, low-grade, not properly mainstream in the right way. DOESN’T COUNT.
We Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, can play the “SO, DOESN’T COUNT “, evidence-filtering game too, that the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art play.
Greer says “CERTAINLY SOME X’NS USED PSYCHEDELICS; LIKE STANG, THE QUESTION IS, WAS IT MAINSTREAM.”
Answer: As mainstream as mushroom-trees in the BEST cathedrals, by the BEST artists, in the BEST type of Xy. [ie, asserting judgment is all-important]
Panofsky — forget Huggins, ALL I NEED IS Panofsky’S LETTERS:
“Plaincourault fresco cannot mean mushroom, bc TOO MANY MUSHROOM-TREES ie mushroom-trees are TOO MAINSTREAM to mean mushrooms”.
fact: all mushroom-trees mean mushrooms. Thus, it follows, mushroom-trees, meaning mushrooms, ARE AS MAINSTREAM AS Panofsky EMPHASIZES.
FLIP PAN ARG AGAINST ITSELF
I reject your guys WEAK, POOR arg’n, your weak poor “mainstream” religion brands, your weak, poor academic approach (Huggins is extremely outclassed by the Egodeath theory).
I am going to waste 0 words DIRECTLY countering dimwit outsider Huggins.
But I will sideswipe Huggins, in an insultingly roundabout way, by focusing for 1 moment on Panofsky “branching” arg,
BUT SAY NOTHING ABOUT HUGGINS because I accuse Huggins of covering up Gordon . . . . Wasson’s coverup.
Huggins adds NOTHING to Panofsky’s censored, 1-sentence ultimate arg:
“mushroom-trees can’t mean mushroom, because have branching.”
Huggins presents himself as simply broadcasting the Panofsky “branch” arg that all scholars have had since 1952 (Huggins acts as if). Simply look in the drawer 123 at Harvard.
Unless you are Jan Irvin, in which case, NOT ALLOWED.
The Drawer-Letters of Panofsky are reserved FOR WEAPONIZED USE BY HUGGINS & THE DENIERS, EXCLUSIVELY.
Because Huggins is SUCH a cheerleader / mouthpiece / amplifier of Panofsky’s two letters that he got “from the drawer”, his vulnerability comes w/ that strategy:
* Ignore Huggins’ args, which are nothing but Panofsky’s args w/ more wordcount.
* Commit fully to only Panofsky’s args. Huggins says Panofsky is the foundation, basis, provider of rules to eliminate each mushroom-tree instance in isolation 1-by-1.
Ok, Huggins, Panofsky is SO important, we can ignore Huggins and go STRAIGHT TO THE SOURCE: THE TWO Panofsky LETTERS, ONLY.
Focus on that TINY footprint of args, especially the Branch arg.
It gives Huggins too much credit, to call the Branch objection “the Panofsky-Huggins Branch objection”.
Huggins adds nothing important. He pokes little holes, doesn’t kill the beast, at all.
After all of Huggins’ trivia corrections
(much smoke, fog, & noise; no fire; no light),
the psychedelic mysteries Paradigm (not “hypothesis”) stands tall.
Cyberdisciple con’t: “It seems to me that what is specifically tricky for you is that your method of
solving the pilzbaum dilemma
also requires accepting your theory about branching, handedness, stability – in short,
the theory of psychedelic eternalism –
and its representation in art.
“You could easily write a long article about
* what the problems are with enth scholarship and the deniers
without even advancing
analogy for psychedelic eternalism
as a better approach.
“But we need to get psychedelic eternalism into the discussion.
“It’s not the habit in entheogen scholarship to talk about psychedelic eternalism in conjunction with entheogens.
“Because it’s not the habit, you have a rhetorical problem with just starting to use branching, handness, stability motifs without first justifying why you are using those motifs.
“People are going to say,
“What’s with this branching stuff?
I thought I was reading an article about mushrooms in Christian art.
What’s branching got to do with it?”
They have to be walked through the arguments to get there.”
I handle that well in the setup / title / framing of the church condensed article: good title:
key arg: to find spot-the-mushroom, do not do in isolation.
Play “spot the mush” within bigger “spot the {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs” game.
LOOK MUMMY, ITS A integrate {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
That’s what the the mushroom-tree artists care about, SO THAT IS THE STAR WE SAIL BY
don’t like? don’t read. I have the force of conviction. I DO NOT MANIPULATE READERS; I AM STEM TEXTBOOK: I STATE WHAT IS THE CASE, GIVE THE PROOF ARGS.
The goal and strategy is not to meet audience expectations of outsiders.
The goal and strategy is to clearly explain the theory, via interwoven:* everyday lang* analogy* tech lang term’y* notation
Huge advantage of “branching vs. non-branching” over “possibilism vs. eternalism”:
* branching vs. non-branching is everyday lang. AND
* branching vs. non-branching is analogy.
* branching vs. non-branching is tech lang term’y.
* branching vs. non-branching is notation.
That’s why the mushroom-tree artists so loved centering the theme and idea of branching vs. non-branching.
I’m sad (happy) my single-drg fallacy I’m married to is mere psilo. I’m sad (happy) my central theme is branching vs. non-branching – which is analogy and everyday lang and tech term’y/lexicon, and notation.
Notation: [Y’, YI] is the main, Reference hand-shape pair in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
I am able to explain the details of the mushroom-tree religion which was most-mainstream, within Christianity.
What’s a good example of “mainstream”?
Ans: mushroom-trees, per Panofsky — far too mainstream for them to mean mushrooms, according to Panofsky.
– M. Hoffman
email to Cyberdisciple 11:54 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026
Since you are a connoisseur of bad arguments and propagandistic framing:
per Huggins 2025:
if you assert that Plaincourault fresco means mushrooms, then you are forced into the category, “follower of Allegro”.
False Dilemma Fallacy:
A simple binary: either you:
* reject Allegro ie say Plaincourault fresco is NOT Amanita;
OR, * you are “a follower of Allegro”.
John Lash writes like:
Every idea that you have in entheogen scholarship, is by definition, emphatically, WASSON’S THEORY. You are a follower of Wasson’s theory:
“Variations of the Wasson theory, including considerable departures from it” – loaded lang. If you take opposite view as Wasson, you have departed by starting FROM Wasson; so, u can never escape black hold orbit of planet Wasson.
Hatsis tried the same argument on me & Brown:
“You are not allowed to be unfaithful to your guy, Allegro, who you came from, by switching your position from your orig position — Secret Christian Amanita Cult — to Explicit Cubensis paradigm.”
(the actual quote, instead, is at my site)
I was not influenced by Allegro re: entheogen scholarship;
I was influenced more, in 1998, by discovering the ahistoricity of religious founder figures, which Allegro barely figures in.
NOTICE how little the newbie ABD Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art (Greer, Mosurinjohn & Ascough, Huggins) pay any attention to the ahistoricity of religious founder figures per Allegro.
– M. Hoffman
heading
There are some good ideas in my “hot-written” draft at 1pm today p.m. Feb. 15, 2026 draft page on mobile device copied to below for sorting out.
todo: go through the below looking for valuable points
Draft Page: Message to Deniers of mushrooms in western or Christian religious History, from Entheogen Scholarship: Declaration of Continued Independence
{branching vs. non-branching} Is Every Type of Language – A Huge Advantage of Centralizing this Motif
Branching vs. non-branching is Analogy
Branching vs. non-branching Is Technical Language
Branching vs. non-branching is Everyday Language
Branching vs. non-branching Is Notation, Like [Y’, YI]
notation: [Y’, YI] well connotes pair of hand sgapes
hsp hsp
YI hand shapes
y h s
keyboard shortcut/ acronym/ concept-label/ concept/ lexicon term [KS]
keyboard shortcut/ acronym/ concept-label/ concept/ lexicon term T
ERM add
entheogen scholarship
keyboard shortcut/ acronym/ concept-label/ concept/ lexicon term
yhsp
YI hand-shape pairs
YI hand shapes [YHS]
new notation! in a heading: term [ACRO]
what about long keyboard shortcut/ acronym/ concept-label/ concept/ lexicon term:
“Whether the fixed stars should be included [with Saturn, sphere 7] or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad [sphere 8] remains an open question for me.” – p. 294, footnote 114, Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022
perfect, need
4/87 style []
YI hand-shape pairs [YHSP]
the mushroom-tree religion is #1. the mushroom-tree religion ROCKS, Huggins anda anything-but-drugs academics SUCKS! garbage quality religion, argn, sense, rubbish like gan Hanegraaff s cosmos model
Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff
when rise above saturn, u r now BEYOND THE STARS
no one will notice footnote:
“Whether the fixed stars should be included [with Saturn, sphere 7] or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad [sphere 8] remains an open question for me.” – p. 294, footnote 114, Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022
SO I OMIT ALL STARS BUT 5+2
POS the extreme failed cosmos model ever , unbelievable!
f n 114
dk whrre put heimarmene fixed stars so i omitted them from ogdoad
7 stars in Hanegraaff sky Amsterdam lights so bad light pollution
poor Hanegraaff doesnt know that theres more than 7 stars in the sky
whose gonna tell Hanegraaff theres 4000 vis stars, not 5+2?
the most mainstream religion within Christianity is the mushroom-tree religion
I am the modern apostle for the mushroom-tree religion.
is the above a metaphor or an analogy? “apostle”
mid soectrum gray overlap:
Advantage: branching vs. non-branching fits every categ: analogy; everyday; tech; notation – significance!!?
mobile 3:29 p.m. Feb. 15, 2026
too slow edit on mobile
examples of branching vs. non-branching
list of contrasts between possibilism vs. eternalism [LCPE]:
Possibilism vs. Eternalism
{branching} vs. {non-branching}
; {tree} vs. {snake}
; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger};
Y vs. I;
many worlds vs. single block-universe
Cant Answer if should braces around {branching vs. non-branching}
branching vs. non-branching fits every category of lang typees
tech
analogy
everyday
notation
lol its is categ:
branching vs. non-branching is everyday technical analogy
huge advantage, correct?
wHAT’s the ADVANTage OF branching vs. non-branching FITTING EVERY CATEGory OF LANGuage/ descriptor types?
{branching vs. non-branching} is an analogy … and AND A REFERENT technical
b v n b
{branching vs. non-branching}
b v n
branching vs. non-branching
technical and daily and analogy
is branching vs. non-branching
branching is that a
metaphor
everyday lang or
tech lang
analogy
The best Christian art is the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} which is in best chapels best cathedrals b
the best illuminated manuscripts
the best mysticism is the mushroom-tree religion
the greatest art is Great Canterbury Psalter
systematized {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
in genre the mushroom-tree religion
The superior type of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) is proceeding,
entheogen scholarship is
against your anything-but-drugs propaganda by the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ academia.
Committed skeptics
bad faith argn
keep publishing articles instead of your previous strategy of dead silence coverup
the harder u argue, u got no args except one:
branching — and u fail to see non-branching message
PROOF Huggins IS A PROPAGANDA OPERATIVE PRETENDING TO DO SCHOLARY INVESTIG
“day 3 has branches so cant b mushroom”
PURE BULL!
the “branches” exactly match a mush; U R FULL OF SH*T – Fallacious argn yet again
“Day 4’s trees oh look over therel smaller plants” – LIAR THEY ARE SKMPLE mushroom NOT TREES THEY HAVE NO BRANCHES
(smart ppl know of
Liberty Cap grid-cap = branching
not depicted via branches)
Mosurinjohn & Ascough usual smug condesccding know it all posture of total self confidence while spouting folly
Ruck been debunked by Mosurinjohn & Ascough no psychedelics in Western religious history u r pathetic we shall sit on academic tgrone and disrespect and jeer at pathetic New Religious Movements (NRMs) trying in cain vain
There are no psychedelics in Western religious history.
There might be no psychedelics in Western religious history.
NO EVIDENCE.
of the kind we disposed of
bad attitude
anti scholarly
what Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art must concede and retract
most academics, ALLEGRO-PHOBIA cowereing they dont dare assert psychedelics psychedelics in Western religious history that is ALEGROISM not allowed
fi
entheogen scholarship needs critique CONSTRUCTIVE not toxic parasite mocking W entheogen scholarship
how dare Mosurinjohn & Ascough employ that reasoning: she retracted and countered herself DONT MISHEAR ME iow i contradict but do not admit bunk trash non argn subst for scholarship
travesty
mean & WRONG ther IS evidence like Greer grants. he does insult entheogen scholarship blanket sweeping insult dismissal and DISCREDITING the EFFORT to academic study entheogen scholarship Western
Go to abs hell Mosurinjohn & Ascough should RETRACT their trash non argn insults to insult entheogen scholarship to fakely self promote. BAD TASTE non scholarly junk argn SHAEMELESS DENIERS love fallacious argn
Hatsis ignotrant of psilocybin mushroom-trees can only rebut Secret Christian Amanita Cult, not mushrooms in western religious history
Secret Christian Amanita Cult is most relevant alas i in Pop reception of entheogen scholarship
end 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
i agrees w Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art : letcher L Al Letcher
Andy Letcher’s book Shroom, 2006 UK is right: end ridiculous Secret Christian Amanita Cult; 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
Greer Christian
dynamics of allegro ruck pop entheogen scholarship field
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia
mycologists = Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art
vs
art historians under boot heel of MUST NOT MYTH + mushroom IN Christianity + the Allegro Violation, dont go there not allowed to assert THE ALLEGRO POSITION
/ end of draft page
Decoded {earth swirls} = Perceptual Distortion
[11:09 p.m. Feb. 9, 2026] Eadwine’s {earth swirls} are walls melting, visual distortion. i am amp’ing what i wrote before, 6 mo ago.
I wrote before, unstable ground.
More tangible: perceptual distortion.
In the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} artists have different emphasis of signature motifs.
Like Winkowski skateboard deck designs have his signature sketchbook motifs:
Crossed Threshold of Simplicity, Mutual Reinforcement
Deliver a powerful paradigm that packs a punch through these simple binaries.
Did some religions have signif psychedelics to some extent? F THAT. weak-ass framing, way to set up for failure and flopped impact that gets absorbed. STAND TALL AND FORCEFUL BINARY ATTACK AGGRESSION MODE
The Egodeath Theory Enters Extreme Aggression Attack Mode, Under the Aegis of the God of Potent Binaries
The Medieval Mushroom-Tree Religion Discovered by the Egodeath Theory
Look to simple binaries.
Throughout Western religious history, the dominant 1% mainstream tradition common type of religion is psychedelic eternalism, eg the heyday of the mushroom-tree religion.
keyboard shortcut
mushroom-tree m-t
the Mytheme theory mt
the mushroom-tree religion mtr
the purported “traditional non-drug methods of the mystics” confabulated by anything-but-drugs academia tmml
anything-but-drugs academia abdaa
The purported “traditional non-drug methods of the mystics” = Fail to produce control transformation; I+Y models; integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
With yesterday’s cinching of hand-shape theory, closed the circle of paradigmatic hard sphere. Now [8:54 Feb. 4, 2026].
Basic Binary Contrasts that Give N-Way Confirmation
ordinary-state religion vs. psychedelic religion
fingers vs. thumb
3 fingers vs. index finger
possibilism vs. eternalism
branching vs. non-branching
ordinary state vs. psychedelic state
the ordinary-state possibilism experiential mode vs. the psychedelic-eternalism experiential mode
the possibilism experiential mode vs. the eternalism experiential mode
tight cognition vs. loose cognition
tight cognitive binding vs. loose cognitive binding
Y vs. I
Y vs. IY
1POV vs. 2POV
one point of view vs. two points of view
keyboard shortcuts (e*, binaries)
the possibilism experiential mode vs. the eternalism experiential mode pmem
the ordinary-state possibilism experiential mode vs. the psychedelic-eternalism experiential mode oppeem
todo: change all lexicon from “altered state” to “psychedelic state”, more direct, more locked-down the intended meaning. But from 2 to 4 syllables.
ordinary-state religion vs. psychedelic religion orpr osrpr
the ordinary-state possibilism experiential mode ospem opem
the altered state experiential mode asem
tight cognitive binding tcb
ordinary-state possibilism osp
psychedelic eternalism pe
ordinary-state possibilism vs. psychedelic eternalism osppe oppe
experiential mode e-m
explanatory model exm
Early Antiquity e-a
entheogenic esotericism e-e
ego transcendence e-t
egoic e’c
elevated awareness ea
“embrace and include” per Ken Wilber eaikw
“embrace and include” possibilism-thinking when add eternalism-thinking eaipt
The Mushroom Tree Religion for the Simplest Possible Theory of Transcendent Knowledge
religion comes from none other than psychedelics
given: it’s a given: discussing rleigion means discussing psychedelic eternalism.
heyday of the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} – {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, where found together, indicates Peak Mushroom-Tree Religion. 1st C less interesting. not dev’pd; was initially affirming possibilism into eternalism but not yet until 150ad added t’ding eternalism.
30-150 AD: 2-level Xy: from possibilism to eternalism.
150AD+: 3-level Xy: from possibilism to eternalism to integrated possibilism/ eternalism.
Simplest theory, max explanatory power.
hand-shape theory corrobs 2-state religion: from ord-state possibilism to psychedelic eternalism, end up with integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking, YI hand shape, what is the standard mushroom-tree? 1 tree indicates branching and non-branching.
standard way for a mushroom-tree to depict branching and non-branching:
{cut right trunk} , {cut right branch} , visual cut
non grid cap vs grid cap
von Trimberg Figure 3’s Hands-Pair: Lower Hand and Upper Hand Are Inverse: YI’ vs. Y’I
the von Trimberg sections were copied to the Hand-Shape Theory page; that’s the master to expand, not the below sections
Hands-Pair of von Trimberg Figure 1
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-1-hands-pair.jpg” 15 KB, 3:23 Feb. 3, 2026
Hands-Pair of von Trimberg Figure 2
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-2-hands-pair.jpg” 16 KB, 3:24 Feb. 3, 2026
Hands-Pair of von Trimberg Figure 3
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-3-hands-pair.jpg” 24 KB, 3:26 Feb. 3, 2026
Hands-Pair of von Trimberg Figure 4
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-4-hands-pair.jpg” 15 KB, 3:26 Feb. 3, 2026
Snapshot of Discovery Halfway Point Problem Encountering & Solving: Thumb displayed on L hand of Guy 1, yet on R hand of Guy 2
Is Left good, or bad??
Formed the Hypothesis (a week later):
The important thing here is not handedness (L = bad, branching; R = good, non-branching), but rather, which arm is lower and thus is the starting point, phase 1 mental model.
In the past week (leading up to locking down and formalizing the idea today): had to:
Consider the PAIR of hands of a figure, as a progression of mental models, starting from the lower hand (whether L or R), progressing to the upper hand.
Using the fractal zoom concept, move from the bottom of a hand to the top of a hand, eg from branching fingers lower, to non-branching thumb higher.
Assume consistency of important main idea/ artists’ initiation-guild conventions, but expect an artistic variety of implementations of the main idea.
Expect SUBTLE impl’s of standard motif: eg, {left foot lifted} BARELY; 3+1 fingers of upper hand touch head, and the 1 finger BARELY separates / branches off from the other 2 or 3 fingers.
At the extreme, the very subtlety signals a strong proof.
The informed viewer has to be actively looking for the feature.
IS he touching head with 4 fingers, meaning Y branching?
OR, is 1 finger lone, meaning I, meaning, whole hand shape is YI (completed initiate), not Y (uninitiated).
pre/trans illusion: at a glance, appears to signal Y; closer inspection indicates a YI shape NOT a Y shape.
The Use of a Hand to Depict Possibilism & Eternalism Encourages Integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism Thinking; YI = the Whole Hand, not Only the Thumb [I] or Only the Fingers [Y]
Using hand to depict possibilism & eternalism is nice because a whole hand is useful – integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking – want fingers and want thumb.
Don’t get rid of fingers to affirm thumb.
The fingers operating along with the thumb, is power.
Start with branching thinking; possibilism-thinking; Y; fingers of lower hand.
Add naive basic eternalism-thinking; I; “get rid of branching thinking/ possibilism-thinking, it’s wrong and bad!” Not wisdom. thumb of lower hand.
Use YI Notation, Hand-Shapes, or Trees to Represent: {branching} = Ordinary-State Possibilism-Thinking vs. {non-branching} = Psychedelic Eternalism-Thinking
Use Vine-Leaf Trees to Represent: {branching} = Possibilism vs. {non-branching} = Eternalism
/ end of sections copied to Hand-Shape Theory page
I learned about this Sharday Mosurinjohn early 2023 article from Breau’s article published late 2023; Breau says she misfires, she claims Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) has Christian bias – actually, the questionnaire has Popular Neo-Advaita bias.
Aside from her vague claims of Christian bias, her negativity is needed here: she correctly undermines the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”.
Toward a Psychedelic Theodicy: Psychedelic Biomedicine and the Concept of “Risk” (Mosurinjohn 2024/2025) – todo: read
Mosurinjohn, Sharday Toward a Psychedelic Theodicy: Psychedelic Biomedicine and the Concept of ‘Risk.’ Sharday Mosurinjohn In Psychedelic Intersections: 2024 Conference Anthology, edited by Jeffrey Breau and Paul Gillis-Smith Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School, 2025. https://doi.org/10.70423/0001.14
article: Toward a Psychedelic Theodicy: Psychedelic Biomedicine and the Concept of “Risk” https://cswr.hds.harvard.edu/publications/psychedelic-intersections/psychedelic-theodicy-mosurinjohn “Construed broadly, as I do here, a theodicy is an attempt to square the experience of malevolence and suffering with metaphysical conditions that are assumed to be fundamentally, well, loving. In Islam or Christianity, for example, theodicy is usually rendered in terms of reconciling the existence of a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God with the existence of evil. While I do not have space here to make the case for the fundamental lovingness of existence, I take this as a premise for my argument.1 Doing psychedelic theodicy is a practice of theorizing how and why a fundamentally loving, intelligent cosmos gives rise to experiences that are not that in the context of a psychedelic trip. Psychedelic theodicy allows one to explore a wide variety of questions and experiences that surface during a trip: death, desecration, meaninglessness [McKenna], disconnection, encounters with apparently sinister, etc.”
Sharday Mosurinjohn + 2 Others: 2023 Article cited and Rebutted by Breau: Mos’s Critique of the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” (Good) and Critique of Christian Bias (Bad)
I found Sharday Mosurinjohn via Breau 2023, who says, against Sharday Mosurinjohn, the Bias that’s in Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is not Christian, but rather, Popular Neo-Advaita.
keyboard shortcut for 2023 article by Sharday Mosurinjohn:
Why is this wonderful list of possibilism vs. eternalism contrasts placed (or developed) in this page about medieval YI hand-shape theory?
I think soemwhere elese I had in another page made first draft of this list, but redid from scratch in this page. I
I AM LOOKING OUT FOR PAIRS TO ADDL CONSTRASTS of the correct type, closely match possibilism vs. eternalism.
It feels likely there’s more contrasts to add to the list / keyboard shortcut.
List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism (Concise)
possibilism vs. eternalism =
branching vs. non-branching
{tree} vs. {snake}
{fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}
Y vs. I
many worlds vs. single block universe
many worlds vs. single block universe mwvsbu removed hyphen
List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism (Verbose)
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism =
possibilism vs. eternalism (technical)
branching vs. non-branching (everyday)
{tree} vs. {snake} (analogy)
{fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy)
Y vs. I (notation)
many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism (Concise, as a Keyboard Shortcut Expansion)
possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
that’s: lcpe
alt: lcpve
List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism (Verbose, as a Keyboard Shortcut Expansion)
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
that’s: lcpel
alt: opvaelistw
Decoded {pair of hands} = Sequence of Mental Models from Possibilism to Eternalism to Integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism Thinking
Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., explaining possibilism (lower fingers), psychedelic eternalism (lower thumb); then integrated possibilism/ eternalism (upper fingers & thumb)
I found that wonderful Jewish Hat / von Trimberg picture 8:38 pm Jan 30, 2026; 6 days ago.
[3:44 Feb. 5, 2026] figured it out! been wondering! sub-PUZZLE SOLVED!
I previously noted that von T’s lower fingers touch other guy’s Left elbow.
And I previously noted that von T’s lower thumb is over von T’s “other arm”.
NOW i realized the “other arm” is von T’s specifically RIGHT arm.
This is satisfyingly consistent with {fingers touch L arm}. That’s my announcement now. I had 2 of 3 pieces, or I had 1.5 of 2 pieces of this pattern-decoding/ pattern-recognizing.
This solution is applying the {handedness} motif with now FULL SYMMETRY ACHIEVED.
von T’s: lower fingers = Left arm = possibilism-thinking. lower thumb = Right arm = eternalism-thinking.
[4:13 Feb. 3, 2026] – Generalized; try to read ANY figure’s pair of hands (in medieval art), from lower to upper, as possibilism -> eternalism -> integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
lower hand first: Y’ (no thumb; all 4 fingers visually cut)
upper hand: IY, or I’Y’. I via index finger splayed apart from other 3 fingers. Y via 3 fingers together: middle, ring, pinkie. ‘ because visually cut.
Prior to that, around [5:15 p.m. Feb. 3, 2026]: f134: God’s pair of hands (along with observing other pairs in that image):
Y’ – R hand (left of pic): pinkie & ring fingers visually cut (folded). Y’
I – R hand (left of pic): middle & index fingers held together = non-branching. Y’, similar to asserting I.
YI – L hand (right of pic): IY.
The pattern sequence that I’m seeking: 1) Y; 2) I; 3) YI.
Y – possibilism-thinking
I – eternalism-thinking
YI – integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
The existing crop doesn’t highlight God’s pair of hands, but OTOH, includes four pairs of hands:
Crop by Cybermonk
Now using that crop, what’s the YI sequence per hand-pair of the 4 figures?
Hanging Hand-Pair Sequence: Y’->IY
Lower hand: Y’.
Upper hand: IY.
God Hand-Pair Sequence: Y’->I->IY
Lower hand: lower fingers: Y’.
Lower hand: upper fingers: Y’, or I.
Upper hand: IY.
Angel Hand-Pair Sequence: Y’->YI
Lower hand: Y’.
Upper hand: YI. Via: No thumb. Index finger splays alone. Other 3 fingers together.
Banqueter Hand-Pair Sequence: Y’->IY
Lower hand: Y’.
Upper hand: IY.
Conclusion: All 4 Upper Middle Figures in f134 Form the Sequence {from Y’ to IY}
Finished the above summary analysis at [5:55 p.m. Feb. 3, 2026]:
All 4 figures move from branching negated, to integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking. Other figures too, eg row 2 right: red guy & sage. Y’->IY.
That row 2 red guy, my initial error, wrote annotation Y’ – but actually his index splays apart from other 3 fingers, forming YI.
YI Hand-Pair Assessment: Top Middle Row of f134, All 4 Figures Form Y’->IY (or YI, Angel)
For those YI hand assignments, see top middle row of recent new full image w/ YI’s annotations, below. However, a fresh analysis might be in order, since I already found two “errors” in my overlay that I’d change (that development is inherent, not “error”).
todo: entire f134: boxes on hand-pairs. See if can characterize a sequence like Y to I to YI, in each pair of hands. holding {balance scale} woman, has classic:
lower hand: Y’; fingertips visually cut, holding a closed scroll.
upper hand: YI. {balance scale} hangs from the I thumb.
Point at Capability Produced by Integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism Thinking
The Middle Figures Point at the Principle: Integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism Thinking Holds and Keeps the King’s Skepter from Falling Over, and Keeps the Handle-Hat On with Stable Control
von Trimberg: Upper Body of von Trimberg, Rounded
Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., explaining, bottom up: possibilism-thinking (fingers); then psychedelic eternalism-thinking (thumb); then integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking (fingers & thumb)
cut off v1:
Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., explaining, bottom up: possibilism-thinking; then psychedelic eternalism-thinking; then integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
von Trimberg: von Trimberg Figure
[10:15 p.m. Feb. 3, 2026] figured out why analyze bottom to top is standard:
Because hand (4 variant orientations) always thumb up, thus when show hand, fingers branch is always below the thumb branch
so in terms of sequence,
the natural progression is from branching fingers up to non-branching thumb,
thus estab the direction of analysis of whole person all limbs is bottom up.
The seq pov order of analysis is from bottom up, as phases of mental model devmt / control transformation
the cybernetic theory
component-theory
Zooming in more:
If forget thumb / not shown: the remaining options for forming IY shapes, is the 4 fingers.
You can visually cut finger tips or thumb tip.
You can visually cross fingers, cutting one branch/limb visually.
CAN USE INDEX FINGER SPLAYED AS IF THUMB = NON-BRANCHING = I.
THE INDEX FINGER IS AT TOP OF HAND.
PINKIE MORE UNNATURAL.
THUMB NATURALLY PLACED ABOVE FINGERS INDEX NATURALLY PLACED ABOVE OTHER FINGERS
11:32 p.m. Feb. 3, 2026 it is breathtakingly SPECIFIC the finger-level seq!
pinkie
ring
middle
index
thumb
there is no question; it’s a given, b/c dev seq is mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism, and the thumb is above the fingers.
EVERY FINGER DETAIL SEQ FOLLOWS FROM THOSE THAT PAIR OF FACTS:
Thumb is above fingers.
Transformation is from possibilism (shaped like fingers, below) to eternalism (shaped like thumb, above).
Therefore, the direction of transformation is from pinkie to thumb.
The direction of transformation is from pinkie to thumb; starting from lowered foot to lower pinkie to upper thumb.
Sequence of Limb Branching Analysis Is Bottom Up
because
the 2nd state = eternalism = thumb
thumb is above, fingers are below
fingers below = state 1, thumb above = state 2
analyze sequence…
express the sequence from bottom up
from branching fingers below, up to non-branching thumb (or index finger)
estabs the DIRECTION OF MENTAL MODEL DEVMT IS DEPICTED FROM BOTTOM UP DIRECTION, B/C THE HAND’S THUMB UP ORIENTATION. SO START W/ FOOT, END AT HIGHEST THUMB/INDEX FINGER.
POSSIBILISM-THINKING
The directly described sequence of mental model transformation:
This added index+3 rule is examp of fleshing more after main jackpot today. Organizing incl feet, and index vs. 3 fingers, & why bottom up.
The great bottom up rule, to always apply, gives proof/ frame to analyze every finger per fractal scope analysis. [11:19 p.m. Feb. 3, 2026]. A productive rule. Estabs DIRECTIONALITY of bottom to top devmt seq. since fingers naturally below thumb, hands inherly express a devmt direction from fingers (pinkie to index) then thumb, w/ feet prior to pinkie.
Order of Body Parts to Map to the Transformation Sequence
[11:25 p.m. Feb. 3, 2026]
Natural Order of Limb Body Parts to Map to the Psychedelic Eternalism Mental Model Transformation Sequence
lowered foot
raised foot
lower hand pinkie
lower hand ring
lower hand middle
lower hand index
lower hand thumb
upper hand pinkie
upper hand ring
upper hand middle
upper hand index
upper hand thumb
hazy “the fingers” does NOT cut it!
You MUST assess EVERY FINGER INDIVIDUALLY, per fractal scope analysis.
v1: more details, less of a summary
{stand on right foot/ left foot lifted} = use non-branching, eternalism-thinking instead of branching, possibilism-thinking.
Fingers of upper hand (Y) & thumb of upper hand (I): YI. [index + 3 fingers]
Mature, integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking. 2POV; two different points of view; two different, opposite, complementary mental models. Branching possibilities & non-branching possibilities (YI).
{stand on right foot}/ {left foot lifted} {stand on right foot/ left foot lifted} – a single compound like {snake fro s {snake frozen in rock} from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake frozen in rock}
Omit any alien lexicon, keep purity of lexicon for the Egodeath theory.
coal from angel touch unclean lips clean them
todo: crop of hat & hands and {left foot lifted} BARELY, need magnif glass. crop only the R guy. isolate him.
Features:
brief abbrv:
Analyze branching & non-branching motifs from bottom upwards. Analyze in sequence:
RIGHT FOOT / LEFT FOOT
LEFT FINGERS
LEFT THUMB
RIGHT FINGERS / RIGHT THUMB
RIGHT FOOT – {stand on right foot} / LEFT FOOT: {left foot lifted}
LEFT FINGERS – L hand fingers together touching L elbow
LEFT THUMB – L hand thumb aimed at upper hand along mid forearm –
RIGHT FINGERS / RIGHT THUMB – R hand displaying possibilism-thinking and eternalism-thinking integrated so as to hold the non-branching staff of state, animals skins match.
State THE motif, then = the referent decoded.
{stand on right foot} = rely on eternalism-thinking (as well as on possibilism-thinking, which is ever-present).
{L hand fingers} = branching thinking = rely on possibilism-thinking, unstable when … the ongoing instability fire cooking shaped by demons and angels is a transformation-driving shaping mechanism: washed clean and cleaner each time. fire = loose cognition driving eternalism-driven control-transformation, shoving birth pains through the monster-guarded gate pulled up by God.
add psychedelic eternalism experiential mode & POV = {L hand thumb}) then integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking (R hand fingers + thumb).
psilocybin eternalism
Psychedelic Eternalism is the Measure of Goodness of Myth and Art – Not from Separation to Unity, but from Possibilism to Eternalism, is the transformative measure that matters – The Mushroom Tree Religion
about branching vs. non-branching, adding non-branching to the distinct branching mental model
Ruler’s lower hand in isolation has branching fingers below, non-branching thumb above.
bad to good as go up.
For each of the 4 pairs of hands, how is the upper hand favored, moving from lower hand to superior upper hand; how is possibilism-to-eternalism direction reflected in lower-to-higher hand’s shape? as you move from lower (less good) to upper hand (more good).
upper hand is added to the lower hand.
end up having eternalism-thinking in addition to possibilism-thinking
“Our Custom photo puzzles are now manufactured in the US, offering quicker shipping and reduced shipping costs.
“The puzzle boxes feature a glossy finish and a more compact design—making them even nicer for gifting and display.
“The die-cut pieces differ slightly from previous versions produced in our factory in Germany.
“Why Choose Custom Puzzles?
“Personalized and Unique:
“Design a puzzle with your favorite photos or artwork.
“Whether it’s a family portrait, a vacation memory, or a beloved pet, each puzzle is as unique as the person you’re gifting it to.
“A Gift to Treasure:
“Custom puzzles don’t just entertain—they turn cherished memories into a lasting keepsake that can be framed and displayed for years to come.
“Perfect for All Ages:
“Our puzzles come in a variety of piece counts and difficulty levels, making them great for both kids and adults.
“From challenging 1000-piece puzzles to fun options for beginners, there’s something for everyone.
“Create Your Own Experience:
“Our easy-to-use customization tool allows you to upload your own image, add personalized text, and even choose the perfect box design. It’s never been easier to create a custom gift that’s truly unforgettable.
“The Perfect Custom Gift for Any Occasion
Birthdays: Celebrate a special day with a custom puzzle featuring a meaningful photo or message.
Weddings & Anniversaries: Commemorate the big day with a puzzle that captures the love and joy of the event.
Holidays: Spread holiday cheer with personalized puzzles that capture festive memories or family traditions.
Just Because: Sometimes the best gifts are the ones given for no reason at all—show someone you care with a puzzle that speaks to your shared experiences.
“Start Creating Your Custom Puzzle Today!
“Give a gift that’s as special as the recipient. Explore our wide range of custom puzzles and start designing your perfect personalized gift today!
Custom Photo Puzzle Terms and Conditions — You must either own all rights, title and interest in and to the copyrights in the Photo or have express permission from the copyright owner to copy and use the Photo for all purposes related to the Photo Puzzle order you place with Ravensburger.”
In the Images Upload page, today p.m. Jan. 30, 2026 , for the first time, (probably) ? i noted that his hat handle-hate jewish hat funnel hat touch God cloud.
Rules of Hand Shape Mapping to Branching & Non-Branching
Assess each and every finger.
Apply fractal scope analysis.
Analyze in the local scope indep’ly from analyzing in the broad scope.
Tree, dev seq is mapped trunk to leaf.
Analyze each and every leaf, stem, cap, trunk, cut, cross-behind, visual cut.
Start from wrist, to fingertips. If fingers point down, mentally spin image clockwise 180 deg so fingers point up; then L to R, assign Y & I
Apply ‘ if visually cut.
Do not rigidly assign “thumb = I”, because an index finger (or pinkie, in theory) can also be separated (sometimes in a subtle but provable way) to serve as the non-branching I.
Seek pattern: lower hand Y or Y’, upper hand YI.
Move upward from lower part of hand (Y) to upper part of hand (I). From pinkie, to index, to thumb.
Text Message to Church Member Jan. 30, 2026
where do i get a medieval jewish hat
that firmly straps on
so as to stay aware that
the transcendent control level steers my thoughts
and go around teaching ppl the initial, branching possibilities model (branching fingers, down)
then add during psych state, the additional, mature, non-branching model (thumb, 1 finger)
psychonaut gnosis 101
txt msg con’t:
The Eternal Psilocybin Artists Guild, the Standard Set of Motifs: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
All the good artists knew this set of psych motifs all antiquity to 1687. This system of motifs is a constant, in W art.
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs is
standard artists’ guild teaching/ art students give mushie training in standard ways of depicting eternalism-driven control-transformation producing:
add a 2nd, higher-level model: add eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking
esoteric mythic art motifs are explicitly taught as a set of motifs to the painters guild member msh ART INITIATE
all during 800 bc to 1687 ad
all guild artists psychedly knew these motifs, as a teaching instructional fwk
Guild = Liberty Cap collective
The eternal timeless good-artist guild always has a lockbox supply of blue inspiration and
do the pattern
we got photo proof, eg f145 & f177 Great Canterbury Psalter
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, are widespread, pre-modern (to 1687 Newton)
traces after 1687, eg ~1875 Flammarion shows some motifs: YI tree
more branching on the left than on the right (relative, not rigid; thus artly flexible)
the artists knew
/ end of txt msg
Puzzle: How Does Each Pair of Hands Move from the Lower Hand’s Shape (non-mature, foolish) to adding the Upper Hand’s Shape (mature, wise)
L hand: hold non-branching scepter; IY, 3 fingers = Y, index finger = I. “to rule, balance & integrate I & Y”
Upper hand is favored, it rules: lower hand expresses I is more mature than Y; upper hand expresses that to rule wisely/justly, balance I & Y.
Favors upper hand over lower hand, in that the lower hand indicates “I is more mature than Y”, but upper hand indicates “to rule wisely/justly, balance I & Y”.
Pair of Hands 2: Left Student
lower hand = Y upper hand = Y’I
Y’I is more complete/developed than Y
points to scepter
Favors upper hand over lower hand, in that the lower hand “__~~”, but upper hand “__~~”.
Pair of Hands 3: Right Student
lower hand = Y upper hand = Y’I
Y’I is more complete/developed than Y
points to Y of YI: 24×7 mind uses possibilism-thinking (poet’s fingers), though also knows eternalism-thinking (poet’s thumb).
favors upper hand over lower hand, in that the lower hand __, but upper hand __.
Pair of Hands 4: Poet
lower hand = YI, emph on Y, Y is touching L arm of Student 2, to emph Y (branching thinking). angle of hand emph’s the simple Y branching of fingers-and-thumb (pocket of thumb/palm). upper hand = YI; end up with Y with I added to it.
favors upper hand over lower hand, in that the lower hand emph Y, but upper hand shows adding I to Y.
mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism
branching & non-branching mental model transformation
adding the Eternalism mental model to the Possibilism mental model
mental model of time, self, control, and possibilities branching
mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism that includes possibilism DOUBT THAT “SWITCH” OLD WORDING DITCH POSSIBILISM-THINKING? NO.
“Add Eternalism to Possibilism” Is Better Than “Move from Possibilism to Eternalism”
The Word ‘Add’ Is Better than ‘from’ Possibilism ‘to’ Eternalism
‘add’ Is Better than Transform from x to y Binary; It is adding not switching; add 2nd mental model, end up with two different points of view, two different mental models
Hand-Shape Theory, branching & non-branching mental model transformation, adding the Eternalism mental model to the Possibilism mental model
Motivation for this Page
tons of confirmation and learning how to read hand shapes in art eg the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
Looked up “jewish medieval hat”, shows stand on right foot, moving
from the branching-only mental model having only the branching mental model
to the non-branching mental model also having the non-branching mental model
the branching mental model bmm
the non-branching mental model nbmm
up to the psychedelic adding mental model non-branching (eternalism-thinking).
Day 3: Creation of Plants, with Lines and Annotations (f11)
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 29, 2026 fullscreen
Analysis of God’s Left Hand (on Right of Panel): Add-to; Additive Framing: add non-branching to branching; end up with branching thinking + non-branching thinking
L hand on R
IY
THE ADD-TO FRAMING; THE ADDITIVE FRAMING
A more-detailed model of mental model transformation.
Add non-branching to branching.
Add non-branching thinking to branching thinking.
add non-branching thinking to branching thinking antbt
add non-branching to branching anb
end up with branching thinking + non-branching thinking
Analysis of God’s Right Hand (on Left of Panel): To-from; Binary-Replacement Framing; move from branching to non-branching; end up with qualified possibilism-thinking + eternalism-thinking
end up with qualified possibilism-thinking + eternalism-thinking
more nuanced
end up with qualified … move from basic possibilism-thinking to qualified possibilism-thinking + eternalism-thinking
Y’I
The from-to framing; the binary replacement framing.
A less-detailed model of mental model transformation.
Move from branching to non-branching.
Move from branching thinking to non-branching thinking.
move from branching thinking to non-branching thinking mbtnt
move from branching to non-branching mbn
end up with qualified possibilism-thinking + eternalism-thinking
Row 1 Panel 2: Balance Right Foot Held up by Right Hand by God
YI Branching-Shape Indicators on Each Hand or Foot
A given hand shape typically matches one of these branching shapes:
In a given hand, the dominant message about branching & non-branching can be any of:
Y – I
Y’ – I’
YI – IY
Y’I – IY’
YI’ – I’Y
Y’I’ – I’Y’
todo: show isolated crops of each shape.
branching & non-branching bnb
rare? YI hand with I lower than Y.
Generally in a YI or IY hand, I is higher than Y.
von Trimberg guy 3’s lower hand = YI’.
Y’I’, I’Y’ – hand covered with cloth.
von Trimberg: Pairs of Hands
von Trimberg: Pair of Hands of Figure 1
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-1-hands-pair.jpg” 15 KB, 3:23 Feb. 3, 2026
Features:
The ruler holds the scepter from falling over, by using branching fingers along with non-branching thumb; combination of possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking; integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
Index finger = I vs. 3 fingers; index finger is splayed apart from 3 fingers.
The rebis is holding the Y in his branching fingers & non-branching thumb:
Crop by Michael Hoffman
von Trimberg: Pair of Hands of Figure 2
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-2-hands-pair.jpg” 16 KB, 3:24 Feb. 3, 2026
von Trimberg: Pair of Hands of Figure 3
von Trimberg Figure 3’s Hands-Pair: Lower Hand and Upper Hand Are Inverse: YI’ vs. Y’I
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-3-hands-pair.jpg” 24 KB, 3:26 Feb. 3, 2026
von Trimberg: Pair of Hands of Figure 4
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-4-hands-pair.jpg” 15 KB, 3:26 Feb. 3, 2026
von Trimberg: Each Hand Isolated
Person 1, Upper Hand: IY
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-1-upper-hand.jpg” 8 KB, 10:32 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Person 1, Lower Hand: IY
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-1-lower-hand.jpg” 7 KB, 10:31 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Person 2, Upper Hand: Y’I
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-2-upper-hand.jpg” 9 KB, 10:50 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Person 2, Lower Hand: Y
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-2-lower-hand.jpg” 5 KB, 10:57 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Person 3, Upper Hand: IY’
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-3-upper-hand.jpg” 9 KB, 10:38 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Person 3, Lower Hand: YI’
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-3-lower-hand.jpg” 7 KB, 10:57 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Person 4, Upper Hand: YI
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-4-upper-hand.jpg” 8 KB, 10:41 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Person 4, Lower Hand: YI
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-4-lower-hand.jpg” 7 KB, 10:40 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Examples of the Permutations of Hand Shapes
Upper hand is YI even though may be subtle and initially appear as Y.
f134: row 2 R: Hand-Pairs of Red Guy and Sage Are Both Y’ then Y & I, Indicating Replace Branching Thinking by Integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism Thinking
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 3, 2026
f107: Sleeping Guy’s Pair of Hands: Lower Y’I’, Upper: IY (via Splayed Index Finger)
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 3, 2026
Dancing Man (Salamander in Bestiary): Pair of Hands: Y’; IY (I via Separate Splayed Index Finger; Y via Splayed Middle/ Ring/ Pinkie Fingers)
Result: Standard Progression “Y’–>IY”
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 3, 2026
Decoded {Y or Y’ lower hand, IY upper hand} = standard pair of hand shapes = progression of mental models from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking to integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
[4:40 p.m. Feb. 3, 2026] – been mulling for a day or a week; I am now ready to Announce: this is the standard Ref pattern to look for in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, which spans out including art w/o mushroom-trees.
Artists are expected to create variant permutations of same idea, to prove they comprehend the meaning of Y and I mapped to Possibilism and Eternalism, and are not just parrotting wholesale and literalistically.
Y Hand Shape
Person 2, Lower Hand: Y
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-2-lower-hand.jpg” 5 KB, 10:57 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
I Hand Shape
Y’ Hand Shape
I’ Hand Shape
YI Hand Shape
Person 4, Upper Hand: YI
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-4-upper-hand.jpg” 8 KB, 10:41 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Person 4, Lower Hand: YI
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-4-lower-hand.jpg” 7 KB, 10:40 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
IY Hand Shape
Person 1, Upper Hand: IY
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-1-upper-hand.jpg” 8 KB, 10:32 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Person 1, Lower Hand: IY
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-1-lower-hand.jpg” 7 KB, 10:31 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
Y’I Hand Shape
Person 2, Upper Hand: Y’I
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-2-upper-hand.jpg” 9 KB, 10:50 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
IY’ Hand Shape
Person 3, Upper Hand: IY’
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-3-upper-hand.jpg” 9 KB, 10:38 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
YI’ Hand Shape
Person 3, Lower Hand: YI’
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-figure-3-lower-hand.jpg” 7 KB, 10:57 a.m. Jan. 31, 2026
I’Y Hand Shape
Y’I’ Hand Shape
I’Y’ Hand Shape
Todo
todo: add hand-shape annotations to each row of f11:
Y – I
Y’ – I’
YI – IY
Y’I – IY’
YI’ – I’Y
Y’I’ – I’Y’
f11 Row 1: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3
Crop by Michael Hoffman
f11 Row 2: Day 4, Day 5, Day 6
Crop by Michael Hoffman
f11 Row 3: Eve from Adam, Don’t Eat, Eat
Crop by Michael Hoffman
f11 Row 4: Flaming Sword Guarding Eden Gate; Spinning & Tilling; Sacrifice Lamb vs. Grain
Snapshot of Discovery Halfway Point Problem Encountering & Solving: Thumb displayed on L hand of Guy 1, yet on R hand of Guy 2
Is Left good, or bad??
Formed the Hypothesis (a week later):
The important thing here is not handedness (L = bad, branching; R = good, non-branching), but rather, which arm is lower and thus is the starting point, phase 1 mental model.
In the past week (leading up to locking down and formalizing the idea today): had to:
Consider the PAIR of hands of a figure, as a progression of mental models, starting from the lower hand (whether L or R), progressing to the upper hand.
Using the fractal zoom concept, move from the bottom of a hand to the top of a hand, eg from branching fingers lower, to non-branching thumb higher.
Assume consistency of important main idea/ artists’ initiation-guild conventions, but expect an artistic variety of implementations of the main idea.
Expect SUBTLE impl’s of standard motif: eg, {left foot lifted} BARELY; 3+1 fingers of upper hand touch head, and the 1 finger BARELY separates / branches off from the other 2 or 3 fingers.
At the extreme, the very subtlety signals a strong proof.
The informed viewer has to be actively looking for the feature.
IS he touching head with 4 fingers, meaning Y branching?
OR, is 1 finger lone, meaning I, meaning, whole hand shape is YI (completed initiate), not Y (uninitiated).
pre/trans illusion: at a glance, appears to signal Y; closer inspection indicates a YI shape NOT a Y shape.
The Use of a Hand to Depict Possibilism & Eternalism Encourages Integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism Thinking; YI = the Whole Hand, not Only the Thumb [I] or Only the Fingers [Y]
Using hand to depict possibilism & eternalism is nice because a whole hand is useful – integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking – want fingers and want thumb.
Don’t get rid of fingers to affirm thumb.
The fingers operating along with the thumb, is power.
Start with branching thinking; possibilism-thinking; Y; fingers of lower hand.
Add naive basic eternalism-thinking; I; “get rid of branching thinking/ possibilism-thinking, it’s wrong and bad!” Not wisdom. thumb of lower hand.
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 1, 2026, fullscreen Jewish Poet Süßkind von Trimberg Wearing a Jewish Hat
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 1, 2026, fullscreen Jewish Poet Süßkind von Trimberg Wearing a Jewish Hat
Use YI Notation, Hand-Shapes, or Trees to Represent: {branching} = Ordinary-State Possibilism-Thinking vs. {non-branching} = Psychedelic Eternalism-Thinking
Use Vine-Leaf Trees to Represent: {branching} = Possibilism vs. {non-branching} = Eternalism
non-branching possibilities nbp
Read a Figure’s Hand-Shapes Sequence from Bottom Up
Poet von Trimberg with Handle Hat & {stand on right foot} Teaching via YI Hand Shapes Depicting Possibilism & Eternalism
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-upper-body.jpg” 97 KB, 7:21 p.m. Feb. 2, 2026
[10:13 Feb. 3, 2026] – read such images (a figure’s pair of hand-shapes) from bottom up:
Left fingers = possibilism-thinking.
Left thumb = psychedelic eternalism-thinking.
Right fingers & thumb = integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
Crop by Michael Hoffman, April 17, 2022, fullscreen
[10:24 Feb. 3, 2026] Features:
Lower, Left hand: Y’; shows 4 branching fingers but visually cut fingertips.
Upper, Right hand: IY; index finger is separate and different than the 3 splayed fingers (middle, ring, pinkie).
[10:30 Feb. 3, 2026] The Dancing Man figure’s pair of hand-shapes states the sequence:
Y: Branching thinking (L hand 4 branching fingers, no thumb)
Y’: … that’s then negated (L hand fingers are visually cut) by mushroom experiential state (psychedelic eternalism).
IY: … resulting in integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking (R hand shows non-branching, separate Index finger, contrasted with the trio of branching splayed fingers: middle, ring, pinkie).
todo: crop pairs of hands, of a given figure: a set of such crops. incl dancing man’s pair of hand-shapes.
[10:42 Feb. 3, 2026] index crook is odd but is explained: index finger is emphatically different than other 3 fingers, to make a contrast: 1 finger vs. 3 fingers
Decoded {index or pinkie finger separate & different from the other 3 fingers} = I (non-branching thinking) in contrast with Y (branching thinking)
[10:43 Feb. 3, 2026], systematized/ generalized, by building on fragmented realizations from past couple/few days.
takeaway: implications for further research: microscopically examine hand shapes such as von Trimberg figures 2 vs 3:
lower hand has 4 parallel fingers (fully shown); no thumb; = Y. vs.
lower hand has 4 parallel fingers (3 are fully shown), no thumb, 4th finger is visually cut. = YI’. Y = 3 parallel finger. 4th finger, visually cut, = I’.
takeaway: artists prided on unique ways to depict Y, Y’, I, and I’ via fingers and thumbs: whether finger entire shown; base of finger only; tip of finger only; whether 4 fingers are consistently shown (splayed or together).
todo: crop of von Trim showing only figs 2 & 3 hand-pairs.
[11:00 Feb. 3, 2026] Contrast the lower hands of figure 2 vs. figure 3:
lower hand of figure 2: Y
lower hand of figure 3: YI’ – index finger visually cut; equivalent to {cut right trunk} or {cut right branch}.
[11:02 Feb. 3, 2026]:
Figure 2’s hand-shapes sequence (bottom upwards):
Y
Y’
I
Figure 3’s hand-shapes sequence (bottom upwards):
Y – lower hand’s 3 fully shown paralle. fingers
I’ – lower hand’s equiv of {cut right trunk} or {cut right branch}: index finger base is shown, tip is visually cut. doesn’t know eternalism-thinking yet.
Y’ – upper hand’s 3 visually cut fingers.
I – upper hand’s fully shown, index finger, pointing…
points to the Y (fingers) of the YI pair of von Trimberg’s upper hand
Communicates the message: branching thinking possibilism is false; non-branching eternalism is true, but for purpose of PURE COGNITIVE PHENOMENOLOGY, our experience is always shaped mainly as possibilism-thinking.
Per Wm James’ PRAGMATISM.
See his article and the article crit’g it and my similar critque, I immed exclaimed:
James doesn’t have a problem with causal-chain determinism; he has a problem specifically with the anti-pragmatistic implications of block-universe eternalism! [11:15 Feb. 3, 2026]
That was immediately clear to me when reading the top half of the first page of The Dillema of Determinism.
The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897) wj97
[10:50 Feb. 3, 2026] Consider analyze as a sequence of mental models, starting/moving from bottom up, figure 3’s hands-pair in von Trimberg Teaching Poetic Wisdom image:
Lower hand’s 1 finger (index) visually cut = I’ = eternalism-thinking but not integrated. glimpse of psychedelic eternalism state.
Upper hand’s 3 branching fingers look alike (no thumb shown) = Y’; non-branching.
Upper hand’s index finger, fully shown, separate = I = non-branching.
Doesn’t depict favoring both I and Y.
Leaves us saying “use eternalism-thinking, get rid of possibilism-thinking” – not integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
But, that I/Index finger is pointing to the Y branching of Trimberg’s upper hand, completing the idea/assertion:
The proper end-state is integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking; YI-thinking; the YI compound mental model of time, self, and control.
mental model of time, self, and control mmtsc
The (YI, Mature) Compound Mental Model of Time, Self, Possibilities, and Control
YI integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
Compound: 2-heads, two different points of view, two different mental models.
[11:19 Feb. 3, 2026]
The Most Absolutely Extreme Asserter of Psychedelics in Western Religious History Including Mystery Religion and Nascent Christianity Is Michael Hoffman’s Egodeath Theory’s Mytheme Theory
the maximal mushroom theory of Christianity = the Egodeath theory = Michael Hoffman, more extreme than Ruck, Muraresku, or anyone else.
Jonah and the Gourd Plant (Golden Psalter): Upper hand: YI Fingers Touch Face; Lower hand: Y branching; lower right of image: Y splayed fingers
Figure 1. Jonah and the gourd plant. Jonah and the Gourd Plant. Image 230, Golden Psalter
Features:
Upper hand: YI Fingers Touch Face
Lower hand: Y branching
lower right of image: Y splayed fingers
Distinctive (b/c genre likes unique impl’s):
forms YI message using only 3 of 10 fingers:
pinkie finger + ring finger express branching Y = possibilism-thinking
the separate index finger expresses, above that / higher than that, I = non-branching = eternalism-thinking.
end of discovery/confirmation announcement, at [12:42 Feb. 3, 2026], ie, intensive analysis of finger shapes in terms of YI branching, using seq. from lower hand to upper, is greatly paying off.
todo: on my 6 Great Canterbury Psalter images, white box around pair of hands, characterize the YI shape from lower hand to upper hand.
txt msg to AM: [12:35 Feb. 3, 2026]
fingers against head 2x: Golden psalter: Johan and “whale” ackshually ketos, vine gourd plant, analyze the F out of finger shapes, for Y & I forms (Y = possibilism-thinking [eg tree], I = eternalism-thinking [eg snake in rock; {cut right trunk}])
txt msg to AM [12:19 Feb. 3, 2026]
i didn’t grasp (studying folio image f134 since Nov. 2020),
the psalter reader’s jewish hat (a shortened handle-hat) touches God’s cloud
(as well as under bright sun light white light per John Lash) –
also, God’s R hand shape matches bowman’s hand.
ie, God controls the psalter reader’s control-thoughts, and, when rely on possibilism-thinking (when L finger closer to ground than R finger), bad; unstable; God/the bowman pulls the bow to kil the reader, 6” arrow blade away from reader’s head.
donning foil hat w antenna to help spot {handle-hat} imagery
text msg to AM [12:04 Feb. 3, 2026]
i saw zillion “turban holding a stick in the air” art images, persian/sufi, but evil demon made them disappear from internet
do u have art images of mystics wearing a stick hat turban antenna?
text msg to AM [12:00 Feb. 3, 2026]
medieval facepalm instances: if index finger is sep. from other 3 fingers, forms an IY shape, depicting integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
i found at least 1 other such image [i think in Great Canterbury Psalter and in Golden: Jonah/gourd]
text msg to AM [9:49 pm Friday Jan. 30, 2026]
where do i get a medieval jewish hat
that firmly straps on
so as to stay aware that
the transcendent control level steers my thoughts
and go around teaching ppl the initial, branching possibilities model (branching fingers, down)
then add during psych state, the additional, mature, non-branching model (thumb, 1 finger)
psychonaut gnosis 101
______________
All the good artists knew this set of psych motifs all antiquity to 1687. This system of motifs is a constant, in W art.
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs is
standard artists’ guild teaching/ art students give mushie training in standard ways of depicting eternalism-driven control-transformation producing:
add a 2nd, higher-level model: add eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking
esoteric mythic art motifs are explicitly taught as a set of motifs to the painters guild member msh ART INITIATE
all during 800 bc to 1687 ad
all guild artists psychedly knew these motifs, as a teaching instructional fwk
Guild = Liberty Cap collective
The eternal timeless good-artist guild always has a lockbox supply of blue inspiration and
do the pattern
we got photo proof, eg f145 & f177 Great Canterbury Psalter
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, are widespread, pre-modern (to 1687 Newton)
traces after 1687, eg ~1875 Flammarion shows some motifs: YI tree
more branching on the left than on the right (relative, not rigid; thus artly flexible)
the artists knew
txt msg to AM [8:39 pm, Feb. 4, 2026]
The rebis is holding the Y in his branching fingers & non-branching thumb;
Knowing & employing both models of time & control (possibilism & eternalism) enables the rebis to hold the Y, which has a non-branching stem below, + a branching V on top.
In the von Trimberg image, using fingers as well as thumb enables the king to hold the scepter.
text msg to RL [11:00 & AM/YW at 11:11 Thu. Feb. 5, 2026]
You momentarily misunderstood me as asserting branching manyworlds.
We tend to assume we need to “get rid of” branching thinking.
That’s a common, unwise mistake or overshoot; I had to fix that error in my theory Apr-Aug 2025, per the 2POV solution.
I wrote about {branching & non-branching} in 1997 & 2001, only in the domain of physics,
but failed to fully connect {branching & non-branching} to myth & mythic art until 2022
1997/2001, I posted:
• “Even if the time axis is warped, relative, or branching, and there are more than 3 dimensions of space, one can coherently and usefully frame the experienced world as an ultimately unchanging, 4-dimensional spacetime block.
• “Time, change, flexibility, variability, and movement are all fixed at all points along the time axis or branching axes.
• “Forking futures and multiple branchinguniverses is unnecessarily complicated.
• “Multiple universes considers the future open in the sense of forever branching. Perhaps each branch preexists – the book The End of Time seems to take this position.
• “I endorse simplicity as a principle for choosing between metaphysical systems, and I maintain that the single-future, non-branching block universe is simpler than the branching-future multiverse.”
The wise men in the mushroom-tree religion do not “get rid of” branching, like king Theseus abandoning his wife Ariadne; rather, they display branching fingers AND non-branching thumb.
They teach us that like the utility of whole hand, we need and use BOTH models, in the shape of our cognitive phenomenology experience:
Y & I; fingers & thumb; integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
like branching manyworlds (the shape of our William James-type pragmatic daily experience) AND Minkowski absolute four-dimensional spacetime (revealed by psilo)
not just thumb
not just fingers
we hold & control the scepter or the Y by using fingers along with thumb; Y & I, the whole hand affirmed
2. discover non-branching thinking; thumb of lower hand (hidden often, as here). Where Rick & I go overboard, “must get rid of branching thinking!”
3. mature wisdom: upper hand: affirm branching thinking (the Y fingers) & also affirm non-branching thinking (the I thumb)
glad u were on board for this, one of my big breakthrough weeks.
i chose Tue Feb 3 2026 to represent the “day” of peak breakthrough jackpot
text msg to RL [1:21 Thu. Feb. 5, 2026]
1) i LOVED Minkowski absolute four-dimensional spacetime at start of Physics course. No “Einstein” yet; was def. attributed to Minkowski.
2) after that, i was then NEUTRAL/ meh, toward learning “Relativity”, thought Ein used weird framing/ reasoning.
3) at 2nd half of course, i HATED the way Quantum Physics was discussed. I was glad to find a determinism-based interp from Bohm, per 2 books by Cushing, who says we prematurely adopted the Copenhag interp wo justif’n
text msg to RL [1:34 Thu. Feb. 5, 2026]
like the direction of my Physics course from Great to Hate,
I felt similarly disappointed in 2001 after Carl Ruck’s excellent article Conjuring Eden, a major article assuming both psilocybin and Amanita.
mushroom imagery in Christian art (the article presented a good, greedy lens, incorp’g Samorini 97 & 98, milestone articles.
Then I was disappointed after that (when Apples of Apollo book came out), and I broke / parted ways with Ruck gang, because Ruck went all in on exclusively “secret Amanita”, which is self-defeating because it makes entheogen scholars blind to the other, psilocybin mushroom evidence in art.
That’s when I dubbed Ruck to be merely the “moderate/minimal” entheogen theory of religion (Ruck waffles between moderate & minimal).
Whereas I in 2002/2003 firmly defined and set a course to continue Ruck’s great 2001 work, that I called the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
I redid the image crop, to not cut off the mystic handle-hat:
Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., explaining, bottom up: possibilism-thinking (fingers); then psychedelic eternalism-thinking (thumb); then integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking (fingers & thumb)
possibilism = fingers |= {branching tree} = ordinary-state possibilism experiential mode; the possibilism POV (sometimes excluding the Index finger, when the splayed Index finger is used to represent I/ non-branching) ~= branching manyworlds Physics
red guy’s hand shape pair seq (bottom up): Y’ then YI via 3+1 fingers.
wise guy’s hand shape pair seq (bottom up): Y’ then YI via fingers + thumb. [1:49 Feb. 3, 2026]
Michael Hoffman “codex_manesse_suskind_von_trimberg-upper-body.jpg” todo: redo with space on top & left, for oval overlay
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Codex_Manesse_Süßkind_von_Trimberg-upper-body-oval.jpg” 116 KB, 2:57 Feb. 5, 2026
Grand Summaries
moved up to here, the 2 Grand Summary sections
then moved all that’s below Kitchens (podcast prep page), to other (present) page (medieval YI hand shapes) (hand-shape theory); Medieval Hand-Shape Theory. Medieval YI Hand-Shape Theory
medieval YI hand-shape theory myhst
keyboard shortcut spits out list of gem of list of contrasts: everyday, analogy, technical
i know, create a keyboard shortcut that spits out list of gem of list of contrasts: constrasts expressed via lang that’s: everyday, analogy, & technical.
many worlds vs. single block universe mwvsbu
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: … lcpe
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism:
bold the must-have: start w/ technical, b/c specific; that’s the real referent, specified by tech lang:
My Top 6 Favorite Contrasts, for possibilism vs. eternalism
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism:
possibilism vs. eternalism
branching vs. non-branching
{tree} vs. {snake}
{fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}
Y vs. I
many worlds vs. single block universe
Convert that lead-in & list to a single string for a keyboard shortcut:
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism; branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe lcpe
possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe pvelist lcpes – short; no lead-in
All those “vs.” phrases have an AvB keyboard shortcut.
{fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} fvti fvtif
notes
expect todo define set of 4 same-patt keyboard shortcuts
lcl – list of contrasts with lead-in
lc – list of contrasts (without lead-in, without wording-type)
lclw – list of contrasts with lead-in & wording-type
lcw – list of contrasts with wording-type
permuts:
00 – no lead-in, no wording-type – locs – list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism = lcpve [taken: l o c = loss of control] [taken: l o c s = loss-of-control seizure]
01 – no lead-in, has wording-type – lcw
10 – lead-in, no wording-type – lcl
11 – lead-in & wording-type – lclw
next, copypaste to here, and define add’l keyboard shortcuts (acros) that are a matched set (red hilite above). done.
next, test the keyboard shortcuts… todo
List of Contrasts without Lead-in, without Wording-Type (00) – lcpve
possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe pvelist lcpes – short; no lead-in lcpve 3 keyboard shortcuts ok.
List of Contrasts without Lead-in, with Wording-Type (01) – lcw
possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); technical: many worlds vs. single block universe (technical) pvelistt – list showing types lcw tested ok
List of Contrasts with Lead-in, without Wording-Type (10) – lcl
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism; branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe lcpe lcl tested ok
List of Contrasts with Lead-in, with Wording-Type (11) – lclw
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism (technical); branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical) lcpel – long or lead-in lclw tested ok
DONE defining keyboard shortcuts for 4 variants of list; now, use them/ memorize them
00:
possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
= lcpve
01:
possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); technical: many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
= lcw
10:
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism; branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
= lcl
11:
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism (technical); branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
= lclw
Other keyboard shortcuts unrelated:
loose cognition lc
loss of control loc
loss-of-control seizure locs
finally, try the shortest & longest keyboard shortcut expansions: 00 & 11; no lead-in, no wording-types; lead-in & wording-type
possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism (technical); branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism opvae
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
that’s the result from two keyboard shortcuts: opvae = lcpve [00]
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe opvaelist
That makes a nice keyboard shortcut.
verbose longest equiv:
opvae = lclw [11]
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism (technical); branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
That would NOT make a nice keyboard shortcut. use non lead in version:
opvae = lcw [01]
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); technical: many worlds vs. single block universe (technical) opvaelistw
That makes a nice keyboard shortcut.
the wording type of the first part, ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism, is (technical, verbose), which if spec’d would be:
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism (technical, verbose) = possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); technical: many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
Low pri for keyboard shortcut.
opvae = lcl [10]
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism; branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
That would NOT make a nice keyboard shortcut.
Final Result: Two REALLY Nice keyboard shortcuts, starting with verbose technical; no lead-in; one with wording-type indicated: [o p v a e list] & [o p v a e listw]
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
that’s opvaelist
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); technical: many worlds vs. single block universe (technical) todo ERROR DELETE “TECHNICAL: ” ~~ FROM OPVAELISTW & FROM LCW
that’s opvaelistw
possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical) lcw
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical) opvaelistw
re-test the 4 that lack the opvae lead-in, and the 2 that have that:
My Top 6 Favorite Contrasts, for possibilism vs. eternalism, with wording-type indicated
the type is quite interesting & valuable, maybe create a verbose keyboard shortcut
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism:
technical: possibilism vs. eternalism
everyday: branching vs. non-branching
analogy: {tree} vs. {snake}
analogy: {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}
notation: Y vs. I
technical: many worlds vs. single block universe
didn’t make the cut:
visual analogy: grid-cap vs. plain cap
grid-cap vs. plain cap gcvpc
Convert that lead-in & list to a single string for a keyboard shortcut:
v1:
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: technical: possibilism vs. eternalism; everyday: branching vs. non-branching; analogy: {tree} vs. {snake}; analogy: {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; notation: Y vs. I; technical: many worlds vs. single block universe lcpel – long or lead-in
v2:
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism (technical); branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical) lcpel – long or lead-in
v1:
technical: possibilism vs. eternalism = everyday: branching vs. non-branching; analogy: {tree} vs. {snake}; analogy: {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; notation: Y vs. I; technical: many worlds vs. single block universe pvelistt – list showing types
v2:
possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); technical: many worlds vs. single block universe (technical) pvelistt – list showing types
For both the above list keyboard shortcuts, try put type in paren after:
Didn’t make the branch-cut:
technical: manyworlds vs. block universe
grid-cap vs. plain cap (of a mushroom-tree)
relative: more branching vs. less branching
technical: multiple vs. single
technical: many vs. one
analogy: {fingers} vs. {index finger} [2nd pri. major, but less so than thumb]
strangely i’m receving the possibility of ente extended index & pinkie, folded (not all finger segments visible)
in this case of I M R P — I M’ R’ P = 🤘 = which one is obv correct mapping?
the wrong mapping = Crowley
thumb = non-branching
the simple generla pattern of pair of hands:
Y –> YI
simplified. complicated/ arbitrary: more granular detail:
from Y to Y’+I
A lot is packed into that prime ‘ !
Y’ can mean “no Y at all – got rid of Y” – minor problem: THE MIND DOESN’T WORK THIS SIMPLE WAY, “First i was Y, then i got rid of Y and switched to I instead, now I use I; I previously used Y, but no more. BS!
or: Y, but qualified righteously
Thus we see an artist telling us via hand & tree shapes:
“The simple model is Y to I. The accurate model is Y to Y’I. Not “I without Y”; it is “I with Y that thas a qualifier or negater.
having Y with negater is tot diff than not having a Y
tot diff:
Consider these to be different, in the case of hand-shape theory:
lacking a Y
having a Y that’s “negated”
do NOT “mathematically collapse” and conflate the two formulas or inventoryies avoe above.
Principle: Having a “Negated” Y > Lacking a Y; ie, Y does NOT mean “same as not having”
or “gotten rid of”
prime’ means “negated” in a certain special sense
“special-negate”
Transcendent Knowledge =
put simply: from Y, to I & Y
put accurately: from Y, to I & Y’
from Y, to I and Y
the mushroom-tree artists say: that’s good as a simple model they draw eg simple Reference basic hand pair sequence: upper hand: YI lower hand: Y
had Y, now have Y & I
from Y, to I and Y’
the mushroom-tree artists say: that’s good as an accurate model they draw eg simple Reference basic hand pair sequence: upper hand: Y’I lower hand: Y
had Y, now have Y’ & I
the the mushroom-tree artists draw 1 paint 1 scene that has two pairs of hands.
one pair of hands is:
upper hand: YI lower hand: Y
“had Y, now have Y & I”
one pair of hands is:
upper hand: Y’I lower hand: Y
“had Y, now have Y’ & I”
3:45 a.m. Feb. 12, 2026 – that’s shown in von Trimberg right two of 4 figures. the pointing means “Y & I, but, that Y is not the same as orig Y; it’s like IY’ like my upper hand of fig. 3 pointing at. the pointing is the making the point, that you CAN call the end state YI BUT the end steate , more accurately, is IY’. ie, Y’ & I.
student’s upper hand says: accurately put, go from Y, to Y’I (Y’ & I).
von Trimberg’s upper hand says: simply put, go from Y, to YI (Y & I).
von Trimberg, Upper Part of Figures 3 & 4; from YI’ to IY’ points to upper hand (YI) of from Y to I, to Y & I
figure 3’s pointing to figure 4’s YI hand links together: IY’ ~= YI
A contrastive equating: shape A is like shape B but different
IY’ is like YI, but different.
The mind ends up still having Y, but that Y is Y’; modified Y.
The mind ends up still having Y, but that Y is modified.
The mind ends up still having Y, but that Y is a modified Y.
The Mind Ends Up with Y (a modified Y; Y’)
The Mind Ends Up with the Possibilism Mental Model (a Modified Possibilism Mental Model)
The Mind Ends Up with the Possibilism Mental Model (the Qualified Possibilism Mental Model)
The Mind Ends Up with Possibilism (Qualified Possibilism)
The Mind Ends Up with Y (Qualified Y; Y’)
The Mind Begins with Y, and Ends Up with Y (Specifically, Y’)
More specifically, “modified” means qualified.
the qualified possibilism mental model qpmm the qualified possibilism mental worldmodel qpmw
the integrated “eternalism” mental model iemm
qualified possibilism-thinking qpt
qualified possibilism qp
basic eternalism-thinking be-t
The Mind Ends Up with the Possibilism Mental Model (a Modified Possibilism Mental Model)
The Mind Ends Up with the Possibilism Mental Model (the Qualified Possibilism Mental Model)
qualified possibilism-thinking
qualified possibilism
The mind ends up still having the “possibilism” mental model, but that “possibilism” mental model is modified.
The mind ends up still having the “possibilism” mental model, but that “possibilism” mental model is a modified “possibilism” mental model.
The hand-pattern artist is saying:
The mind starts with Y, and ends up with YI, or more precisely, Y’I.
The mind starts with Y, and ends up with I as well as Y, but the Y has been changed by adding I.
The mind starts with Y, and ends up with {thumb} as well as {fingers}, but the {fingers} has been changed by adding {thumb}.
The mind starts with the “possibilism” mental model, and ends up with the “possibilism” mental model as well as the “eternalism” mental model, but the the “possibilism” mental model has been changed by adding the “eternalism” mental model.
the Possibilism mental model of time, self, and control pmmtsc
the Eternalism mental model of time, self, and control emmtsc
the “possibilism” mental model pmm
the “eternalism” mental model emm
test as two lists of pairs:
the “possibilism” mental model
the “eternalism” mental model
the Possibilism mental model of time, self, and control
the Eternalism mental model of time, self, and control
Medieval Equation: End-State IY’ ~= YI having eternalism & modified possibilism ~= having possibilism & eternalism
[4:39 a.m. Feb. 12, 2026]
having eternalism & modified possibilism ~= having possibilism & eternalism
accurate ~= basic
index finger I agrees with thumb I
but
the cut-fingers Y != the extended-fingers Y
I say Y-that’s-cut; you say simply, Y.
Y’ Means Modified Possibilism-Thinking
we can be more sepf
not wrong, but not helpful – not AS helpful as saying ‘qualified’.
Y’ Means Qualified Possibilism-Thinking
beware, Y’ does NOT mean “get rid of Y” or “absense of Y”.
Y’ means, PRESENCE of Y, “negated”, ie, qualified by ego death and rebirth; modified (a neutral term).
Y’ Means Y That’s Been Qualified by Ego Death and Rebirth
Y’ Means Possibilism-Thinking That’s Been Qualified by Ego Death and Rebirth
The Resulting Possibilism-Thinking Is Possibilism-Thinking That’s Been Qualified by Ego Death and Rebirth
Y’ = Ego Death and Rebirth; Y’ means Y reborn. Y trnas transfigured. Y’ means Y redeemed, washed pure, reconciled, declared righteous, sacrificed,
Y’ means Y sacrificed and transformed; negated and revived in new form; transformed Y.
from Y, to transformed-Y & I
from Y, to Y[t] & I
from Y, to Yt & I
‘ doesn’t mean get rid, it just means kill by ego death and then resurrect miraculously in a new spirit-body shining, ascended carried by gods to the higher level of immortals, soul fastened for eterminty to the sphere of the fixed stars, spirit journeys further.
What’s in an Apostrophe? Ego death & rebirth; crash & reboot; transfiguration; control transformation; spiritual death and rebirth; purification; transmigration; new life; set free; ransomed; justified; reconciled, harmonized, integrated
The ‘ means everything profound, except “get rid of” or “destroy” previous developmental structures
“embrace and include” per Ken Wilber. Y alone. then Y embraced and included and qualified.
The Meaning of “Prime” (‘) Is Complex & Profound, in “from Y, to Y’ & I”
From Possibilism, to Possibilism’ & Eternalism
The Apostrophe of Profundity
Thus, upper (final) hand shape can be EITHER:
YI – more basic, simple: Dio weds Ariadne standard: Dionysus raptures Ariadne; the result is: Dionysus & Modified Ariadne; I & Y’; Y’I.
Y’I – more accurate, when you define the Apostrophe of Profundity
inverse corrolary
when initially lonly only have ordinary-state , you only have Y, you do not have an I. it’s not that you HAVE an I-shape model, but it’s “negated” or “struck” or “revived” or “modified” or “qaualified”.
at first you do NOT have a qualified, transfomed verssion of the I-shape model
the Y-shaped, branching world model ybwm
the I-shaped, non-branching world model inwm
the Y-shaped, branching world model
the I-shaped, non-branching world model
First you have only the Y-shaped, branching world model.
You end up having the Y’-shaped, branching world model, & the I-shaped, non-branching world model.
the mind always uses possibilism-thinking, even in peak window of a 3-really journey. trip
, of the possibilism-shaped self, vs. the eternalism-shaped self
ego death means transformed same model, plus a new model
rule: lower / first hand disincludes I
from Y, to I & Y’, could be read as:
from Y, to I and Y[negated]
Prime or “negated” means:
“Negated in a way, yet still used all the time, and good, when qualified and added to its complementary/ opposite model”
from Y, to I and Y[special-negated]
having a negated Y != lacking a Y
assume a single hand; not analyzing a pair/sequence of two hands.
assume a single, static, Reference, hand shape
ignore thumb
ignore back of hand vs palm
ignore point up down
ignore all complexities: the most basic setup/ situation
bog-standard
ignore other hand
hold the blessing hand shape stationary, constant, static, don’t move around
Mapping A
the two extended fingers = branching
the two folded fingers = non-branching
Mapping B
the two extended fingers = non-branching
the two folded fingers = branching
Hand-shape theory
not all finger segments visible = ‘ [move to hand-shape theory]
if index & pink extened, and some segments of mid & ring not visible:
visually cut = non-branching
not visually cut; fully all finger segments visible = branching (for that finger)
a finger is fully visible… too many forms/exceptions to quickly permute.
Give
Plus, principle: FIRST ANALYZE PAIR OF HANDS AS A WHOLE, UNDER LENS:
FROM POSSIBILISM-ONLY, TO INTEGRATED POSSIBILISM/ETERNALISM.
FROM
from possibilism to integrated possibilism/eternalism
from Y to YI, or to Y’I. The artist finds a cheat , to have it both ways by both reasonings. re: how represent
TO QUALIFIED POSSIBILISM-THINKING + INTEGRATED PSYCHEDELIC ETERNALISM P
INTEGRATED POSSIBILISM/ETERNALISM
3 Types of Term’y: Everyday, Technical, Analogy; & Notation
possibilism vs. eternalism – technical
tree vs snake
y vs i – relatively technical medieval stds
fingers vs. thumb – analogy & technical & everyday – why it’s so fkking great of a breakthrough by me / why I was so blind and stupid embarassingly failed from 1998-2006 to grasp
fingers vs thumb
possibilism vs. eternalism
branching vs. non-branching
Y vs. I
Everyday: branching vs. non-branching
autonomous control vs. dependent control – correlates with these type of contrasts
multiple vs. single – grid caps in Great Canterbury Psalter
Technical: possibilism vs. eternalism; manyworlds vs. block universe
Analogical: {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb}; {fingers} vs. {index finger}
all finger segments vs. partial finger segments
list of contrasts of branching vs. non-branching lcbn
multiple vs. single mvs
many vs. one mvo
{tree} vs. {snake}
Y vs. I
possibilism vs. eternalism
{fingers} vs. {thumb}
{fingers} vs. {index finger} fvif
manyworlds vs. block universe
autonomous control vs. dependent control; branching vs. non-branching
2+2 finger blessing is a different mechanism of analogy than MANY-TO-ONE analogy-type
Y vs. I many vs. one {fingers} vs. {thumb} manyworlds vs. block universe (many worlds vs. single block universe)
one open book page vs. many page edges (5)
multiple pages vs. one open page
a closed book emph many pages (5)
an open book emphasize a single page (page in the sense of pair of pages; turn the page).
closed book showing many pages vs. open book showing one page
Good one:
manyworlds vs. block universe mvbu
{tree} vs. {snake}
manyworlds vs. block universe
Y vs. I
autonomous control vs. dependent control acvdc
literalism vs. analogy lva
closed book vs. open book
closed scroll vs. open scroll
moon vs. sun
ordinary-state vs. altered-state osvas
{fingers} vs. {thumb}
{tree} vs. {snake} tvs
Y vs. I yvi
{fingers} vs. {thumb} fvt
manyworlds vs. block universe mvbu
monolithic, autonomous control
2-level, dependent control
Notation: Y vs. I; {analogy} = referent
2 Permutations of List of Contrasts, with “ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism” lead-in
With “ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism =” Lead-in, No Wording-Types Indicated (an expanded version of the 00 case below)
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
that’s: opvaelist
With “ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism =” Lead-in, Wording-Types Indicated (an expanded version of the 01 case below)
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
that’s: opvaelistw
4 Permutations of List of Contrasts
No “list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism:” Lead-in, No Word-Types Indicated (00)
possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
that’s: lcpve
No “list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism:” Lead-in, Word-Types Indicated (01)
possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
that’s: lcw
Stupid (low-value) lead-in: “list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism:” Lead-in, No Word-Types Indicated (10)
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism; branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
that’s: lcl
Stupid (low-value) lead-in: “list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism:” Lead-in, Word-Types Indicated (11)
list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism (technical); branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
that’s: lclw
List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism
Defined four variants. A gem of a keyboard shortcut set.
What’s my fav short version? easy ans: the shortest version. 00
What’s my fav long version? easy ans: the longest version. 11
ie, this is the Final Finals contest.r at
At this point (w/ down to 4 variants), I could again define a set of acronyms that’s memorable.
Variant 00: no OPVAE lead-in, no wording-types – shortest version, so top utility
possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
that’s: lcpve
Variant 11: OPVAE lead-in, wording-types – longest version, so top utility
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
Variant 01: no OPVAE lead-in, with wording-types – medium length = medium utility
possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
that’s: lcw
Variant 10: OPVAE lead-in, no wording-types – medium length = medium utility
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block universe
that’s opvaelist
List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism (txt msg 1 to RL Feb. 12, 2026)
the 💎 for u on a silver platter
jeez making these two lists took a LOT of work 💪😓
but i knew that this type of list would be killer
______________
prelude notes:
we end up knowing both:
* the “possibilism” mental model (“branching”, learned in the ordinary state) &
* the additional, “eternalism” mental model (“non-branching”, learned in the altered state)
this is not about how the external objective world really is; this is only in terms of the shape of our experience;
not Epistemology; Ontology; or Metaphysics;
rather, in terms of a pure cognitive *Phenomenology* approach, across the two states of consciousness
__________________
List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism (Concise)
possibilism vs. eternalism =
• branching vs. non-branching
• {tree} vs. {snake}
• {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}
• Y vs. I
• many worlds vs. single block universe
__________________
List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism (Verbose)
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism =
• possibilism vs. eternalism (technical)
• branching vs. non-branching (everyday)
• {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy)
• {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy)
• Y vs. I (notation)
• many worlds vs. single block universe (technical)
* Hi-res photos of Jesus’ hand shapes & held-out items.
* New article by Ronald Huggins.
* A stronger defense: better expansion of “MICA”.
Do you have a photograph that has maximum possible close-up detail of Jesus’ pair of hand-shapes, and the sticks & feathers held out to Jesus by the guy in the tree?
Like:
I’m comparing the standard, 1-hand Blessing hand shape, vs. this 2-hand set of hand-shapes. In terms of branching vs. non-branching (ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism).
This “age-of-stock” photo is pretty good.
Wish I were with you at the fresco to get full-res photos of just that portion of the scene.
If you send my photos, I would credit you – had to scrape around for a good view of the right-hand corner, right of Entry into Jerusalem – the tower on the Right wall, and the sacred meal Last Supper to the right of that.
Like you wrote: I really need to be there in person, to analyze and interp. Not JUST the mushroom imagery in Christian art; {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
per 2-page + 3 pages version of my the Journal of Psychedelic Studies draft article, for my church Reader issue 1: “Recognizing”, is the challenge:
Oct. 2025, Ronald Huggins, a Denier of mushroom imagery in Christian art, wrote another article, kind of an expansion of his Foraging Wrong article that I rebutted in full detail. It’s the same objection he focuses on in this new article: MUSHROOM-TREES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS MEANING MUSHROOMS UNLESS SOMEONE EXPLAINS THE BRANCHING – which I did, to Jerry Brown, on Mar. 21, 2022: coined the phrase of comprehension,
{branching-message mushroom trees} – THE ADDED BRANCHING IS THE MESSAGE!
That answers the Panofsky/Huggins objection.
My article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies will not waste words on worthless Huggins in detail, but I will state:
The Panofsky/Huggins objection is that mushroom-trees cannot mean mushrooms, because (by definition of the class, given to us by art historians),
mushroom-trees are (properly) defined as: trees that have mushroom elements/ features/ fragments; items that have some tree elements (note: cut branch! cut trunk! visually cut!) and have some mushroom elements.
NOT on the scale of the entire item, like Ronald Huggins fallaciously tries to focus on exclusively. “The whole tree doesn’t match a whole mushroom. So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art.”
_____________________________________________
Fixed Your Vulnerable Expansion of “MICA”
Your MICA acronym expansion is fatally bad. It leaves an opening for the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Bad: (taken advantage of by Ronald Huggins): mushrooms in Christian art
Good: mushroom imageryin Christian art
ie, fragment element attribute portions, NOT whole-mushroom.
The old article, that I disproved-to-death (a fallacy-fest, terminating in “because I say so, while invoking magic name Panofsky” arg in the “Conclusion/Decree” section):
Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case
I’m really mad & flummoxed over why the hell Huggins refuses to cite Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019
Very suspicious of skulduggery along lines of Popebanker Wasson, World’s Record conflict of interest.
“As the banker for the Pope, TRUST ME BRO: mushroom imagery in Christian art doesn’t mean mushrooms. Let me censor Panofskys letters, bury his 2 attached emphatic mushroom-trees art, and replace Brinc. cit. by . . . . at top of p. 180, SOMA“
Next, read Oct 2025 Ronald Huggins article printout + word-search eg I searched “branch” and marked up my printout.
On John M. Allegro’s Suggestion That the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the 12th Century Plaincourault Chapel Depicts an Amanita muscaria Mushroom Ronald V Huggins, Oct. 29, 2025 Journal: Religions, Issue: 11, Volume: 16, Page numbers: 1-30 https://doi.org/10.3390/REL16111374
… thanks to academic obstructionism by Popebanker Gordon . . . . Wasson’s energetic efforts to block and steer away and shut down research into Brinckmann, mushroom-trees, & mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Wasson ACTIVELY attacked and harangued “the mycologists” (Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art) from 1968 to end of life in 1986.
Aasson never retracted his attacks on Affirmers, NEVER helped follow Panofsky’s leads to find out more, but worded SOMA p. 180 to prevent and shut down and dissuade any following of leads.
FINALLY in 1997, Giorgio Samorini followed the 1952/1968 lead that Wasson let leak through (to my surprise) in 1968.
Thus was born 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm),
instead of 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
somehow SHE is not “religious fund’m” or “colonialist violence” when SHE looks for psychedelics in Western religious history
and she had to vigorously (desperately) walk back that bile, namecalling, bad subst. for arg’n, during her 10-minute video at Harvard:
(you can tell she caught a LOT of flak for her parasitical bad attitude, “I forbid you from doing entheogen scholarship: You are illegitimate.”
All entheogen scholars: “Go to absolute hell, Mosurinjohn & Ascough, phonies. Why are you even here in this field of Psychedelic Studies??”
Article: REJECTED, AGAIN)
Sharday Mosurinjohn says in the video:
“Don’t mis-hear me; it’s GOOD for you delusional, foolish hallucinators, who are illegit as a New Religious Movement (NRM), but are pathetically scraping for dregs in vain hope of validation…
It’s GOOD for you to wish in vain, to find evidence which is DEFINITELY NOT in the cups that we washed out …
Blanket, sweeping, she acts like:
RUCK HAS BEEN DEBUNKED; the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis (of Ruck & entheogen scholarship) has been debunked.
You are fools, pathetic, there are definitely no psychedelics in Western religious history or ancient Greece of early Christianity.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough commit the very fallacy that they make a stink about re: Ruck: that he slips from “maybe” to as-if “fact”.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough do exact same (projection), just in the negative, “no psychedelics in mystery religions” direction.
(Sharday Mosurinjohn:) Excuse me now while I write MY book on psychedelics in Western religious history, in Western Esotericism.
Why should entheogen scholars assist these butthead, Anything-But-Drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia?
Newbies looking for an Easy-Mode win to fluff out their cv, who are attacking the field for self-serving self elevation, as opportunistic, toxic parasites.
I know Sharday Mosurinjohn put herself in an IMPOSSIBLE balancing act, but she meanly attacks, smug, condescending, disrespectful to Ruck – so, all types of journals rejected the Mosurinjohn & Ascough article for YEARS, they crybaby
On Jan. 13, 2025, I did not fully perceive isomorphism of branching between hands and mushroom-trees.
Figured out a couple days ago, and today a.m. Jan. 29, 2026, while adding lines, I fully specified and developed the mapping between hands and mushroom-trees.
11:21 a.m. Jan. 30, 2026 – why red mushroom-tree has more branching than blue mushroom-tree? b/c God depicts more branching w/ L hand (Right side of panel) than w/ R hand (Left side of panel) per principle: More branching on L than R. L shows purely branching, no non-branching; R shows branching and non-branching w/ emph on non-branching.
Left Generally Emphasizes Branching; Right Generally Emphasizes Non-Branching
Principle: More branching on L than R.
L shows purely branching, no non-branching; R shows branching and non-branching w/ emph on non-branching.
eg if left hand displays thumb as well as fingers, R hand shows both but w/ fingers visually cut.
Eadwine does the math’l permuts of the genre.
Images
Previous, limited analysis of Day 3 branching/non-branching morphology:
“Creation of Plants” Branching Form Develops from III, IYI, YI, IY/YI
announce major advancement over Day 3 analysis of branching/non-branching morphology that was a breakthrough on Jan 13 2025
add upper (God’s hands) -to-lower part mapping
to represent proof-purpose of cap of tree 1 vs. 2.
better explanation of bones in cubensis, can map to knuckles ie map to fingers.
placed plant names by each plant, not separated. id’d back in Dec. 2020; no one else comes very close.
Timeline of Scholars Analyzing the Mushroom-Trees in Day 3 Panel
Arthur 2000 is way off, because he’s trying to construct a SOMA recipe, wild poor hypoth: “poppy capsule” (fails basic sim’y match); “rue” (fails basic sim’y match)
John Rush 2011/202x – “Opium poppy; Amanita; Cubensis; Amanita”.
Brown 2016/2019 uses strange non-parallel: one is Cubensis, the other is Psilocybin? Not proper analysis; he gets no further than right ballpark, and bizarrely calls tree 1 Liberty Cap but obviously tree 2 is lib cap not “psilocybin” or “some kind of psilocybin mushroom”. I posted accurate critique of Brown probably Dec. 2020.
Michael Hoffman Dec. 2020: first accurate, specific id of each mushroom tree.
Michael Hoffman Jan 13, 2025: discovered sequence progression of branching/non-branching morphology: III IYI YI IY/YI.
Michael Hoffman: ~Jan 27, 2026 [date: check chat msgs and idea development] – Recognized mapping of blue tree to R hand & red tree to L hand.
Michael Hoffman Jan 29, 2026: figured out details to represent mappings throughout image.
Huggins Lost Before He Started
By the time Ronald Huggins published his POS article, a fallacy-fest, that glosses over the academic criminality of Wasson’s censorship, and withholds credit from Browns, in 2024, I had already two years earlier, in March 2022, figured out {branching-message mushroom trees}, and {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, proving that the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} means and describes by analogies, the peak high dose psilocybin experience of mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Date of Ronald Huggins article: 2024, todo: day & month.
MICA Denier Ronald Huggins bets everything on Great Canterbury Psalter, especially Day 3, and catastrophically loses everything; total victory for entheogen scholars.
Why Ronald Huggins’ Article Was Great for the Egodeath Theory
I am committing the rest of my life to focusing on decoding images of Great Canterbury Psalter because Ronald Huggins helped me by specifically focusing on that book rather than the full set of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
His declaration of proxy war specifically using Great Canterbury Psalter, fatal misstep b/c two years earlier, I had already figured out the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} and that Great Canterbury Psalter was best leverage but — like my theory of myth is Western myth (psychedelic religious mythology, including mythic art) supported byWorld myth,
My special central focus on interp of Great Canterbury Psalter (in particular) is supported by my interp of the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} (overall).
Found 5HT2a receptor ideal drug to cancel a trip, when did I post the importance of that before?
Ronald Huggins Bets All His Credibility as a Denier of mushroom imagery in Christian art, on all images in Great Canterbury Psalter, with special focus on Day 3 panel
Quotes from Hugginsborg, Mouthpiece and Puppet-Arm of Anything-But-Drugs Academia Propagandizing Agenda
Where Huggies says “I bet all on Great Canterbury Psalter”:
q1
p. n, Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest (Huggins, 2024)
Where Huggies says “I bet all on Day 3”:
and
q2
p. n, Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest (Huggins, 2024)
Where Huggins says “I will admit defeat if someone can explain the branches”:
q3
p. n, Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest (Huggins, 2024)
Where Huggins says analyze the entire the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}:
q4
p. n, Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest (Huggins, 2024)
After The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku 2020, anything-but-drugs academia Declared War on The Real Deal, Their Righteous Competitor, Entheogen Scholarship.
Quote from Ronald Huggins “I bet my life on branches prove must be tree, cannot be branches, unless someone explains branches” and “I bet my life on Great Canterbury Psalter, especially Day 3”
todo: fact-check how much Huggins emphasized the Day 3 panel of f11, vs. all images in Great Canterbury Psalter, vs. the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
John Rush – Day 3 Interpretation
Captured from downloaded CH1-ALLPLATES-pdf by Michael Hoffman “Rush-John-CH1-ALLPLATES-pdf-day-3.jpg” 947 KB 8:12 p.m. Jan. 29, 2026
John Rush’s Identification of the 4 Plants in Day 3
“different species of mushrooms.
“There is probably a Psilocybin sp. in the center (blue),
“while those flanking it are different species of Amanita.
“The plant on the far left appears to belong to an opium poppy bulb.”
Opium poppy
Amanita
a Psilocybin species
Amanita
God, you can tell these humanities scholars aren’t STEM: Why on earth do none of them simply LIST:
Plant 1 is X.
Plant 2 is X.
Plant 3 is X.
Plant 4 is X.
No, it’s always “starting from the right with the king of all psychedelics, Amanita!!” Yuck: unstructured prose, free-form chaos.
1st Edition: Entheogens and the Development of Culture: The Anthropology and Neurobiology of Ecstatic Experience (John Rush, Jul. 30, 2013)
Hide branching fingers under cloth, to be reverent) – to be hyperreligious; or in some way visually cut the fingers to cancel their branching.
Missed IY hand indicating … [!!] [12:24 noon Jan. 29, 2026] – Figured out why God’s thumb is shown and fingers are cut. see recent hand fingers thumb analysis.
Not ENTIRELY a surprise; one aspect of this partic. discovery/solution, is that, since I fully figured out hand shapes the past couple days, on my todo list is to do another pass of decoding hand shapes throughout Great Canterbury Psalter, to apply the new decoding.
THIS IS AWESOME!!!
Found Some John Rush Gallery Backup PDFs
CH1-ALLPLATES.pdf – moved from /Users/michaelhoffman/Downloads (!) to /Volumes/One Touch/Pictures/Rush John Gallery
CH3- ALLPLATES.pdf – “
Eadwine is like me: my 2001 post on 2 models in physics: branching Quantum Physics vs. non-branching Minkowski spacetime.
Eadwine is like my Watts, in the realm of art. The message he is sending is the same as the message that I am wanting to receive, wanting the artists to send.
Watts is like me: the Way of Zen by Alan Watts resonates w/ how I think: satori as mental model transformation re: personal control system.
Book: Psychedelic Mystery Traditions: Spirit Plants, Magical Practices, and Ecstatic States Tom Hatsis, September 2018 PsychedelicWitch.com, http://amzn.com/1620558009 Park Street Press
Article 2 (later HTML page title, missing appendixes): Roasting Jan Irvin: Critical Historical Inquiry vs. Pseudointellectualism Displayed date: November 2017 https://psychedelichistorian.com/roasting-jan-irvin Good images of mushrooms in art demonstrating that there aren’t mushrooms in art.
Article 3: The Dogmatist’s Debacle: Questioning Holy Mushroom History as Found in the Writings of Jan Irvin Tom Hatsis, September 2017 https://psychedelichistorian.com/the-dogmatists-debacle With images of mushrooms in Christian art that demonstrate the lack of images of mushrooms in Christian art. Not analyzed in the present article.
Video: THE GREAT HOLY MUSHROOM DEBATE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIUmR7o6RGg Tom Hatsis & Jerry Brown Opening slide: “There Are no Mushrooms in Christian Art“ Does Christianity have a psychedelic history? Hosted by Breaking Convention & The University of Greenwich Psychedelic Society, August 14, 2019.
“Thomas Hatsis is an historian of witchcraft, magic, Western religions, contemporary psychedelia, entheogens, and medieval pharmacopeia.
“He has worked in historical research at Queens College and taught history at Pioneer Pacific College.
“A derbygypsy, juggler, musician, and potion-mixer, Hatsis also skates throughout the global derby underworld, dodging police, visiting rare archives, slinging elixirs, and coaching roller derby.”
Webpage of a discussion group thread: Minimal Entheogen Theory per Psychedelics Advocates Michael Hoffman Section in webpage “Competing Views about Entheogens in Religious History“ http://egodeath.com/ViewsOnEntheogensInReligiousHistory.htm#_Toc164518582 Cyberdisciple writes “Letcher’s debunking was poorly theorized and limited; see this page and compare Hatsis by the same measure.”
Webpage: Shroom Book by Letcher – Private Page Michael Hoffman Webpage for private notes about Letcher’s book http://www.egodeath.com/ShroomLetcher.htm Cyberdisciple writes “Andy Letcher’s debunking was poorly theorized and limited; see this page critiquing Letcher, and then compare Hatsis by the same measure.”
Made this content a separate page on Jan. 26, 2026, because Brown asked to adjust the entries, and I have long wondered why this info is at the specific book page: it is largely a distinct concern, even if scoped by Hatsis’ specific book.
A high-value distinct body of content. I have often needed to use these references without any concern for the particular book: links to Hatsis’ defunct articles and sites.
I need Hatsis to restore his articles, for the benefit of entheogen scholarship.
Mosurinjohn’s gullible, Pop audience, eagerly misled by her yellow-journalism, crude, unscholarly, inflammatory rhetoric, gleefully laps up the cheap swill she serves.
Debunking the Psychedelic Theory of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Winslow, Aug. 2025)
“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.”
“This article corrects an idea in psychedelic science and culture that the ancient Eleusynian Mysteries used psychedelics, as claimed by Carl Ruck and co-authors in The Road to Eleusis: Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries (1978), revitalized by Brian Muraresku’s The Immortality Key: The Secret History of the Religion with No Name (2020), and popularized by social media heavyweights such as Joe Rogan.
Methods
“It begins by exposing critical methodological flaws in the arguments, namely, a pattern of presenting claims, followed by mild circumstantial evidence, rhetorically solidifying the interpretation of this evidence into a “fact,” on which is built each subsequent round of conjecture.
Analysis
“We then explore how the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages contributes to the project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify the use of stigmatized drugs and revitalize experiential religion.
Discussion
“Although the desire for legitimacy and meaning is understandable, the strategies used by the writers of this pseudo-history constitute a kind of religious fundamentalism.
“Their writing attempts to show that a relatively new practice is the old, true religion, in this case, the “religion with no name” that underlies every religious tradition.
“In doing so, they miss seriously relating to the many well-documented historical and living Indigenous histories of psychedelics, or seeing contemporary psychedelic practice in continuity with other, and maybe even older, nonpharmacological methods of changing consciousness.
“Overall, the “psychedelic Eleusis” discourse focuses on the purported Eleusynian drug and its phenomenology rather than focusing on practices for taking up the spiritual injunctions of those psychedelic experiences.
Conclusions
“We conclude that, given how the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed in its study of antiquity, it is a shaky foundation on which to build an argument for modern psychedelic use for therapeutic and spiritual practice.
“Since scholarly research is key to moving forward decriminalization, legalization, medical regulation, and other roles for psychedelics in society, it is crucial that scholars and popular audiences communicate effectively around psychedelic history and culture.
“Instead of committing to a specific (and erroneous) view of history, psychedelic scholarship must commit to academic discussion and debate.”
My analysis and commentary is in a copy of this Abstract, or of the similar, Conference Schedule’s summary of the talk, below.
Conference Schedule’s Description of the Talk (Mar. 5, 2025)
“This talk responds to the idea that the ancient Eleusynian Mysteries were psychedelic, as claimed by Carl Ruck and co-authors in The Road to Eleusis (1978), revitalized by Brian Muraresku’s The Immortality Key (2020), and popularized by the Overton window-widening Joe Rogan.
“It begins by exposing critical methodological flaws in the arguments, namely, a pattern of presenting claims, followed by mild circumstantial evidence, and then rhetorically solidifying the interpretation of this evidence into a “fact,” on which is built each subsequent round of conjecture.
“In The Road To Eleusis, a speculation like “It seems obvious that an hallucinogen must have induced it” (2008: 47) immediately furnishes the next premise “To identify the Eleusynian drug…” (2008: 47) that begins the following paragraph.
“I argue that these writers’ dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages has to do with wanting a western civilizational pedigree to dignify the use of stigmatized drugs.
“This myopia is rooted in colonial violence that precludes seriously relating to the many well-documented Indigenous histories of psychedelics, as well as a sort of functional fixedness that prevents seeing contemporary psychedelic practice in continuity with other, and maybe even older, non-pharmacological methods of changing consciousness.
“I conclude that, given how the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed in its study of antiquity, it is a shaky foundation on which to build an argument for modern psychedelic use for therapeutic and spiritual practice.
“I also report on the multi-year history of the rejection of the manuscript on which this talk is based as it is emblematic of the way popular audiences and scholars fail to communicate around psychedelic history and culture, even as psychedelic bioscience scholarship is at the centre of today’s social mainstreaming.”
Entheogenics: Psychedelic Experiences as Revelatory Events in the History of Western Esotericism (Mosurinjohn, Forthcoming)
Her book title doesn’t sound very “DESTROYED RUCK’S MYTH”.
She’s like Hatsis the narrow selective denier; so many parallels:
Psychedelics in mystery religions? You are stupid and insane and not allowed to study Western psychedelics.
… but me, I am allowed to assert psychedelics in Western Esotericism, no problem.
YOU are pathetically motivated, illegitimate, a chump chasing fantasy evidence that is not there (looking for psychedelics in mystery religions).
*I* have proper, noble motivations (to look for psychedelics in Western Esotericism).
It’s perfectly fine to have psychedelics in Western Esotericism. It’s beyond the pale and impossible, to have psychedelics in mystery religions. Totally different!
psychedelics in Western Esotericism
Title translation: Psychedelics in Western Esotericism.
She reveals that she is allowed to do colonialist violence, and is exempt from her own dictate, that you’re not allowed to try to look for psychedelics in Western religious history, but are exclusively commanded to study Indigenous Shams instead.
(Oh, that was me in the past sentence. Doesn’t count; forget about it. In this subsequent sentence, I’m taking an entirely different arg’n tact/ ploy/ angle/ strategy, to see what sticks and what blows up in my face.)
Pompous title. Me: Psychedelics in Western Esotericism.
Her two incompatible positions she waffles between: Talking out of both sides of her mouth, balanced and subtle Dr. Jekyll, and frothing potion Mr. Hyde:
DEFINITELY no psychedelics in mystery religions; Ruck BEEN DESTROYED, its a ITS A MYTH!!! I AM SUPERIOR SKEPTIC, PUBLISH MY ARTICLE PLEEEEEEEEESE! Grovel pander ingratiate to “anything but drugs” academics.
We just don’t know anything at all, boo hoo, no evidence exists, who knows?, can’t draw any conclusion about anything ever 😭 – MAN UP, SHARDAY! Use the Power of Paradigm commitment and development, instead of commitment to anything-but-drugs academic dogma.
anything-but-drugs academic dogma
Lindgren
Paul Lindgren, Authentic Pioneer (Not a Professional Critic, Propagandist, Toxic Parasite on the Field)
Paul Lindgren in 1999 discovered massive quantities of mushroom imagery in Great Canterbury Psalter and thus began with my collegeu shortly after, James Arthur cover of book Mushrooms and Mankind 2000. Lindgren is credited TWICE in the MUST-HAVE, “your entheogen scholarship is NOTHIGN if you don’t have” article:
Mushrooms and Mankind Crediting Paul Lindgren (2000)
“Conjuring Eden” First Page, Crediting Paul Lindgren (2001)
“We are also indebted … to Paul Lingren[sic; Lindgren] for the Genesis illustrations of the Paris Psalter[sic; Great Canterbury Psalter]
“Conjuring Eden” Endnote 134 Crediting Paul Lindgren (2001)
Mosurinjohn Badly Needs Guidance into the New Paradigm (Unless Corrupt), Particularly into 2nd-Generation Entheogen Scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin Paradigm)
Sharday Mosurinjohn needs guidance into the new paradigm (especially 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)) — NOT a “mere hypothesis, with no evidence” — that Mosurinjohn is PRESUMING to join and positively add to and build up.
Declaration Against the “Anything but Drugs” Academics
My text messages, sent Sunday afternoon from house church sacred magical garden after church, Jan. 25, 2026:
AM texted me re: Mosurinjohn & Ascough:
“I struggle to take such blatant bandwagoning with no helpful contribution to the field seriously”
I texted:
🏆🏆
Who will contribute the most, of SUBSTANCE, to the field of entheogen scholarship? 🤔
The Easy-Mode, post-Muraresku crowd, incoming:
Sharday Mosurinjohn
Richard Ascough
Christian Greer
Mosurinjohn & Ascough Do What They Accuse Ruck of: Shifting from Possibility (“Maybe Mystery Religions Weren’t Psychedelic”) to Fact (“It’s a Myth that Mystery Religions Used Psychedelics”)
Gee I am so surprised to discover:
Richard Ascough is a hypocrite, doing precisely what he accuses Ruck of doing:
Ascough magically shifts from possibility to fact.
A motte-and-bailey fallacy, mixed w/ self promotion.
He shifts in his posturing self-promotion, from:
“Remember, we don’t know if plants were used in mystery religion.”
Then he magically shifts to saying:
“Sharday & I have proved that plants were not used in mystery religions, and these pop writers are fools, not wise like us (so buy my product).”
One moment Ascough trumpets:
WE REAL ACADEMICSDESTROYED RUCK’S HYPOTHESIS!!
The next moment he genteelly states:
“We must be modest, cautious, balanced, and nuanced; I’m on board(-ish) with delicately researching this question that has potential.”
Deniers of psychedelics in mystery religions are typically this way, shamelessly shifting their position back & forth as needed, to self-promote, instead of contributing anything of substance to build up and add to the new paradigm and field.
Only Studying Indigenous Shams Is Legitimate and Acceptable, or Else You Are Committing Colonialist Violence
I wonder how many entheogen scholars are 😤 [pissed off] at field-invaders Mosurinjohn & Ascough.
It motivated me, FURY at Sharday Mosurinjohn for signalling loudly, by word-choice, and tone (multiple times, in multiple mediums):
You are not allowed, YOU ARE NOT LEGITIMATE, looking for plants in Western religious history.
From what she has said in various interviews, I get the impression that she really infuriated everyone in the field, by saying things like:
You are obliged to study only ayahuasca history (Indigenous Shams);
you’re not allowed to study western history
probably made everyone feel permanently enemies against her
she intensely walks that back, pleading “its great to study Western religious history !!!” , defensively
ie she was caught loudly bullying and attacking the field of entheogen scholarship, who replied,
— who said, “Go to absolute hell, you phony.
Internal critique within the paradigm and field, and constructive critique, is one thing.
But trying to blunt-club, sweepingly dismiss and blanket demonize the elders who f*cking CREATED the field that you, a newly coined (not-yet) “professional” entered five minutes ago, disrespecting everyone in the field that she presumes to enter as a johnny-come-lately, is absolutely unacceptable, you… opportunist! 😡👆
“Go to Absolute Hell, You Phony, Bully, Parasite, Mosurinjohn” – Every Entheogen Scholar and Actual Pioneer, a Million Times Her Better
“Go to Absolute Hell, You Phony, Bully, Parasite, Mosurinjohn“
Every type of journal, for years; and every entheogen scholar and actual pioneer, a million times her better
Mosurinjohn is writing a book, what should be a very interesting book on plants within western esotericism.
She is very clumsy, hamfisted, self-sabotaging, disrespectful, and immature – trying to send two contradictory signals to ingratiate herself with both “anything but drugs” academics AND entheogen scholars who carved out the new paradigm she presumes to both delegitimize AND enter, angling for an angle in the most clumsy and offensive way.
Ascough Reiterates My Plaincourault Article’s Takeaway about “Sideline Allegro”
Timid Ascough copies the takeaway, concluding message of my 2006 article Plaincourault: that way he can avoid making any assertions, except the safe, negative, establishment-pandering “sideline Allegro”, pandering to the “anything but drugs” academics like himself.
Despite Jan Irvin’s many, substantive contributions to my Plaincourault article, it was not Irvin’s idea in 2006 to dismiss and retire Allegro. Irvin 2005-2009 wrote books explicitly for the purpose of building on Allegro as if a foundation.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience” (mapei, ma25s)
Richard Ascough misrepresents my argument and concerns, to force me to support his, different, angle of criticism of Allegro.
Robert Price went insane re: Allegro and lost the ability to basically write, before I told Price of his wall of basic elementary errors.
That’s how Robert Price invited me to write the epic article (and epic-er with Jan Irvin’s input) about Plaincourault fresco.
Ascough assigned to me Ascough’s criticism of Allegro based on argument from linguistics. I don’t recall my arguments (leading up to “retire and sideline Allegro”) being based on linguistics.
Ascough can’t even be trusted to get basic, elementary aspects of scholarship right, regarding this field that Ascough has invaded parasitically in order to disrespect, DE-LEGITIMIZE, and dabble in, dragged along as Sharday’s dead-weight ball-and chain holding her back.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Ronald Huggins’ article “Foraging Wrong” is cited as credible and factual in Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience”.
“Foraging Wrong” argues:
“In the Day 3 of Creation panel in Great Canterbury Psalter, the mushroom-trees have branches, so therefore they must mean trees, not mushrooms.”
Ascough didn’t commit to the field of psychedelic studies; he’s a full-on outsider, throwing rocks from outside the field; Mosurinjohn very much did commit to the field, which she’s tearing down in order to try to appear to lift her reputation up.
Ascough copypastes my Plaincourault article’s takeaway message to the field: retire and sideline Allegro.
More articles on Allegro’s irrelevance to the field, as I wrote in 2006, and Ascough trails behind, echoing in 2025, 20 years afterwards:
My Plaincourault article, by its nature, contributes nothing substantive to the field.
My Plaincourault article, with lots of input from Irvin, is the world’s most informative article on the topic; excellent (within the limits of the topic) – I even accused Wasson of withholding (albeit surely feeble) citations that Panofsky absolutely MUST have provided to him – proved and confirmed by Browns’ 2019 article.
(The fact that images gradually came to look like more and more like mushrooms, proves that they don’t mean mushrooms. It’s right there, proved in Brinckmann’s “little book”.)
I was reluctantly forced to write the Plaincourault article, with extreme, exaggerated, exhaustive (and exhausting), hyper-scholarly apparatus, just to clear the OBSTACLE of Allegro out of the damn way so that we can do, after that, substantive positive contribution to field of entheogen scholarship.
“We have DESTROYED Rogan (& Ruck’s) myth that psychedelics had a key role in Western religious history.”
yet:
“There might possibly have been psychedelics in Western Esotericism, but we just can’t know, for certain, anything at all; that is, everything is just a mere hypothesis with no evidence.”
PICK A F*CKING SIDE, SHARDAY FLIP-FLOP – like Christian Greer does. IT’S NOT THAT HARD, Mosurinjohn.
Every Type of Journal for Years (for Good Reason) Rejected Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s Article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience”
Mosurinjohn & Ascough shopped their article for YEARS; every type of journal rejected this 2-faced opportunistic garbage.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough finally resorted to this new magazine, titled in lowercase, psychedelic medicine –> 🗑
BUT! – Mosurinjohn committed to the field of entheogen studies; unlike dead-weight posturer and barely dabbler Ascough, Mosurinjohn, she is committed to working in the field of psychedelic studies.
Sharday Mosurinjohn badly needs guidance; knock that sh!t off. We see what you’re doing, self-aggrandizing parasite contributing nothing but worthless finger-wagging and nagging, contributing nothing of any substance to bolster, actually add to, and grow the new paradigm.
No one needs a chapter from Mosurinjohn on “Be sure to remember that this mere conjectured hypothesis is not a fact, and there’s no evidence.”
Translation: I failed to do my required reading as a scholar, to learn the basics, to be a basically competent beginner in this new paradigm.
Elementary Reading Assignment for Mosurinjohn Prior to Entering the Field with Fists Swinging: Step 1: Begin, by Reading 2nd-Generation Entheogen Scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin Paradigm)
Here is what ACTUAL leadership and pioneering looks like, rather than self-promotional grandstanding and posturing that’s parasitical on what others, elders and actual authorities in the paradigm/field, LONG before Mosurinjohn, have built from scratch with their bare hands.
Mosurinjohn (sloppily, carelessly, in thoroughly unprofessional manner, crude, unsophisticated, blunt-club, sweepingly) blanket-dismisses the psychedelic mysteries paradigm as “a mere hypothesis, with no evidence” that’s held by “Rogan, and Muraresku (also Ruck, too)”.
because shoved down our throats by a bully parasite
because of the clumsy AF way Sharday Mosurinjohn weaponized Indig Shams against senior reseachers who (in addition to DISCOVERING the indig use of plants, ffs) do research in Western religious history
good job sharday:
now thx to u,
i hate Indig Shams
txt msgs p.m. Jan. 25, 2026 – AM replied:
“The idea of non-overlapping categories of “western religion” and “indigenous shamanism” is a faulty invention of scholarship.”
“I don’t think there is any shaman on planet Earth today who has not been influenced by Western religion (or one of the so-called mainstream religions). Perhaps the people of Sentinel Island are an exception, or any still as yet uncontacted tribes in the remote jungles of the world.”
“Amazonian “shamans” in particular exhibit a combination of indigenous practices and practices introduced by the Spanish and Portuguese (and even “New Age” ideas imported from N. America and Europe)”
/ end of txt msg replies from AM
Mosurinjohn Is Irresponsible and a Bad Model of Scholarship, for Trying to Appear to Hold Two Different Positions, Covertly Flip-Flopping and Pandering to Both Entheogen Scholars and “Anything but Drugs” Academics
Christian Greer doesn’t do that. He holds ONE, consistent, position; nuanced, developed, coherent.
Greer doesn’t play the game of posturing to two opposed audiences, motte-and-bailey covert flipping between two contradictory positions.
Regardless of what Sharday Mosurinjohn told you in April 2025.
No “demolishing of the whole psychedelic mysteries hypothesis” has taken place.
Mosur has merely cautioned scholars, which is no substantive contribution to the field.
We can well do without her worthless finger-wagging at her betters.
The Covert TWO Different Positions Alternatingly Asserted by Mosurinjohn
You can’t have it both ways. Pick ONE position and stick to it.
You can’t say “We’re looking into it, there may be psychedelics in mystery religions, little evidence yet” and ALSO say “It’s a myth[?define] that psychedelics were in Mystery Religions.”
Maybe she’ll claim, in weasel fashion,
“I mean, it’s a myth that we have enough evidence to say one way or another w/ certainty. Don’t misread me.”
I agree with entheogen scholars. Psychedelics may have been used in mystery religions. AND:
I agree with “anything but drugs” academics. Psychedelics were not used in mystery religions.
– Mosurinjohn’s COVERT INCONSISTENT PAIR OF POSITIONS. Pander to both crowds, hedge your bets.
Christian Greer doesn’t do this con-artist shell game; Greer has ONE, nuanced position: Psychedelics were present in mystery-religion culture, to some extent; the only thing left to debate is the extent.
Text Messages Sunday p.m. Jan. 25, 2026
8:25 p.m. Jan. 25, 2026 – txt messages just sent:
first, AM texted us:
Scythians, Medes, and Babylonians destroying Nineveh they seem pretty motivated for habitual Cannabis users
I replied:
i been dangerously manic, overmotivated, time for smoke break
AM txted:
be careful you don’t launch an invasion of western Asia
I’m about to launch an invasion of Wasson West, where the Evil M. Hoffman hangs out; a nuanced, measured, scorched-earth debunking of the entire Wasson theory, in my next post… BEEN DEBUNKED!!
because flippant blanket sweeping dismissal of Rogan/Ruck (same guy, right?) is a sure sign of professional up-and-coming scholarship, as wise newcomer to the field, Mosurinjohn & Ascough taught me – pls show me how to proceed, o wise ones
Convert Everyone’s Rage Against Mosurinjohn into Productive, Positive, Substantive Scholarship that BUILDS UP and ADDS TO the Paradigm, not Parasitically Tears It Down for Cheap Self-Aggrandizement as a “Mere Hypothesis” with “No Evidence”
I am a machine converting rage into positive, productive, substantive scholarship.
I have done proper, pros-and-cons critique of Ruck (and others, eg Dr. Jerry Brown).
I have never messaged or signalled a crude, blunt-club, wholesale-dismissive, “Western entheogen scholarship is false; psychedelics in mystery religions is a myth!”
– by someone who PRESUMES to lead, and caution, and finger-wag, and NAG, and even goes so far as to accuse the entire field of entheogen scholarship in Western religious history of “COLONIALIST VIOLENCE“(!) unless they submit to worshipping Indigenous Shams (who these same, genuine pioneers discovered, btw!) – WTFF!!
Read Hatsis’ book Psychedelic Injustice re: “colonialist violence” bullying bullsh!t posturing that’s in place of actual argumentation.
The “anything but drugs” academics lap that shiite up, showing what empty garbage of an argument is that 7th-grade girl name-calling, unbefitting of an actual scholar, but trendy to earn worthless points from parasitical academics, who only are able to contribute destruction, to do empty virtue signalling.
When I say GORDON . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 WASSON IS AN ACADEMIC FRAUD OBSTRUCTIONIST SLEAZEBAG TOTALLY COMPROMISED POPE’S-BANKER VILLAIN AND ENEMY OF ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP . . . .
. . . . I am being delicate and nuanced, and am only am referring to Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson on the specific, taboo topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Ruck needs to acknowledge Wasson’s cover-up of Panofsky’s two letters and the Brinckmann citation, Wasson’s conflicts of interest, and Wasson’s insincere duplicity and obstructionism to cover-up mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Wasson was paid to lie and harass and bully mycologists into avoiding mushroom imagery in Christian art.
In my 2006 Plaincourault article with Jan Irvin’s input, I accused Wasson of censoring Panofsky’s citations, and I wrote that the citations that Wasson withheld are slim and poor.
Browns 2019 confirmed my 2006 accusations.
Now I double down:
I proved Wasson is a fraud regarding mushroom imagery in Christian art, paid to be a cover-up operator.
Now, we can use Wasson as a lesson-learned example.
We now see how the corruption works.
We see right through you, corrupt and compromised, anything-but-drugs academics.
/ joke con’t from above:
Other than that, Wasson is “the father of entheogen studies” and OWNS all entheogen scholarship, like #1 Wasson fanboi John Lash says:
Any Idea That You Have in Entheogen Scholarship, Ever, Is “Wasson’s Theory“
In contrast, Mosurinjohn & Ascough don’t make modest, qualified statements like me, but go scorched-earth, making massively sweeping blanket statements:
“Joe Rogan (& Ruck) BEEN DEBUNKED! a MYTH!”
Thus there’s a fundamental difference between my disrespecting of Ruck, and Mosurinjohn’s disrespecting of Rogan – I mean, Muraresku – I mean, Ruck.
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)
Key Phrases from Mosurinjohn & Ascough that Sweepingly Discredit and Delegitimize Psychedelics in Western Religious History, or Psychedelics in Mystery Religions
Key Phrases from Mosurinjohn & Ascough Proving that One of their Two Contradictory Marketing Ploys / Business Plans Is to Wholesale Discredit Psychedelics in Western religious history, or psychedelics in mystery religions, for Parasitical Self-Aggrandizement
“Ruck is definitely wrong. There were definitely no psychedelics in mystery religions.”
The field desperately needs our finger-wagging, holier-than-thou, and holocost of Ruck, scorched-earth wholesale discrediting of the entire psychedelic mysteries hypothesis.
No need for nuance in this case; simply DISMISS RUCK ENTIRELY, EXACTLY AS IF HE’S JOE ROGAN OR (SUSPECT) Muraresku.
You are DEFINITELY WRONG to try to look for psychedelics in Western religious history; we’re going to HURL SWEEPING, BLANKET DISCREDITING INSULTS at you, Joe-Rogan-like Ruck, and call you RUCK = ROGAN = Muraresku = COLONIALIST VIOLENCE, you ought to learn a little about Indig Shams, Ruck ignoramus!
Why did 100 journals for YEARS reject our smear-job hit-piece, parasitical, field-poisoning, amateur-toned, yellow journalism? 🤷♂️
Yellow Journalism: Sensational, Exagerrated: A Myth; No Evidence; Destroyed Ruck, Colonialist Violence
AI’s answer:
“Yellow journalism is a style of late-19th-century newspaper reporting that prioritized sensationalism, exaggeration, and scandal over verified facts to boost circulation.
“Characterized by bold, screaming headlines and emotional, often unethical, stories, it was famously utilized by Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst to sway public opinion and drive political agendas.”
/ end AI
Prioritize sensationalism, exaggeration, and scandal over facts, to boost circulation; Bold, screaming headlines; Emotional, unethical stories, to Sway Public Opinion and drive political agendas
perfect citation, perfect!: Henry Winslow LAPS UP THE SWILL she serves:
So they just dropped a thorough takedown of the whole theory in the journal Psychedelic Medicine. “
Drs. Sharday Mosurinjohn (whom I interviewed in April) and Richard Ascough systematically dismantle what they call “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis,” pointing out there’s zero archaeological evidence for psychedelics at Eleusis.”
AI-generated title of Winslow’s post, that he approved and accepted: Debunking the psychedelic theory of the Eleusinian Mysteries
Joe Rogan or Muraresku is trying to appeal to pop audience?
Mosurinjohn is trumpeting “myth! destroyed Rogan-Ruck!” to appeal to cheap, pop audience, and pander to / ingratiate with, “anything but drugs” academics.
Tone of Voice, Word Choice, Is Everything
The problem isn’t just “What is Sharday explicitly officially asserting?”; the problem is THE IMPRESSION THAT SHE TRIES TO GIVE WHEN ATTEMPTING TO DISCREDIT RUCK & ROGAN (same guy, right?)
One moment, she tries to SIGNAL the INSINUATION, “We DEFINITELY know for a fact, there CERTAINLY were no psychedelics in mystery religions”.
Of course, part of the ploy / business model, is to then flip flop and say, you can’t PROVE that’s what I asserted.” b/c language is abused in an elastic, evasive way, like Winslow says “crushed Ruck” – you can’t prove exactly what Winslow is asserting by that hazy, non-scholarly mode of writing.
Sharday Mosurinjohn uses an immature, improper, non-scholarly mode of writing (tone, word-choice, impression, signal-sending), while also trying to give the impresssion of superiorscholarship —
actually, similar to how Hatsis notoriously & infamously — his BRAND — spills bottles of ink bragging about his superior, scientific historiographical methodology — while failing to give even elementary-school level of proper citation and writing.
In 2005, I caught big-brain Robert Price, doing this re: Allegro:
Price is editor of “Journal of Higher Criticism”, yet on the “hot” topic of Allegro, Price became a totally bumbling 4th grader, botching all aspects of discussing Allegro, failing every aspect of elementary scholarship.
I corrected Price, he invited me to write my epic 64-page article [later involved Irvin’s huge input of info],
Also: I reconciled Acharya S who thanked me, to the extreme that Price the other day massively re-published expanded improved edition of her book Christ Myth.
Great example, this (Price). of inconstancy of professionalism in scholarly writing, alternating with junk yellow journalism.
Hatsis & Mosurinjohn provide talk about superior scientific historiographical methodology INSTEAD of providing actual scientific historiographical methodology. This is not how mature, professional scholars write.
When I did microscopic analysis of Browns 2016 & 2019 side by side, it was hard to PROVE what their arg/ position was, re: Walburga.
Can I ABSOLUTELY PROVE WITH 100%, UNAVOIDABLE CERTAINTY, that Browns said & argued “serrated base, therefore not Amanita”?
Notice that as I viciously attack and DESTROY Browns, I am NOT doing like Mosurinjohn & Ascough: I am not trying to give the signal or impression that, blanket sweeping wholesale dismissal of Ruck’s theory. I am not trying to (give the impression of ) insult and discredit Ruck in a blunt-club, scorched-earth way.
A real scholar assesses the pros and cons of each writer/scholar.
Every other sentence from Mosurinjohn & Ascough alternates:
Mr. Hyde: crude scorched earth insult and discrediting of entire field of entheogen scholarship – Rogan-Ruck is Pop junk, ITS A MYTH!!
Dr. Jekyll: subtle, reasonable, balanced, nuance, professional, credible, a model scholar.
then back to frothing at mouth, unprofessional, yellow journalism writing, in the next sentence/breath.
That INCONSISTENCY is a giveaway: bad faith actors; opprotunists, parasitical on the field.
Not contributing positive substance to strengthen the field and ADDING to the field.
…
There is ALWAYS plausible deniability
I like Huggins’ term: “Ruck uses ELASTIC LANGUAGE.”
Browns use “elastic language”. I resorted to side-by-side 2016 & 2019 analysis to PIECE TOGETHER my proof that you have to read their arg as, “Walburga image has serrations; real Amanita lacks serrations; therefore, [here is the naysayers’ trademark, wet dream, preset conclusion they love getting to:]
[blah blah junk arg’n whatever, fill in the blank with wall of spaghetti], [here comes the exciting climax, the whole purpose of the junk argumentation verbiage:]
“… SO, NOT A MUSHROOM. 😑”
a pre-fixed conclusion
a conclusion in search of a premise
None of our arguments are worth anything, but we’ll impress the people who already agree with our pre-set conclusion, by the sheer quantity of junk arguments.
A million “anything but drugs” academics, giving ten million junk arguments, is enough to please the willing audience. Lap up that swill!
Huggins’ entire article boils down to, literally, this one, trash argument:
3rd Day: Creation of Plants: Huggins’ Entire Credibility Stands or Falls on This One Image; He Bets the Farm on this Panel, and Loses Everything – and Mosurinjohn Cites Him with Confident Self-Assurance
WE DESTROYED ROGAN/RUCK AND HIS MYTH OF PSYCHEDELICS IN MYSTERY RELIGIONS!!
Follow Our Nuanced Lead, Entheogen Scholars!
Got No Ideas, No Talent? A New Opportunity: Make a Name for Yourself by Attaching Yourself to the Hot New Trendy Topic, as an “Entheogen Scholarship Critic” – Just Read The Immortality Key, and You’re Good to Go!
We Can’t Know Anything with Any Certainty – No Evidence!
Mosurinjohn & Ascough use too Muraresku-heavy of a framing/ reference point.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough try to dismiss Ruck THROUGH Muraresku.
They never cared or paid any attention to Ruck; it’s ONLY after & through The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020, that Mosurinjohn & Ascough discovered the field of parasitical, self-aggrandizing opportunity, the field of entheogen scholarship.
Not only are they newbies – ESPECIALLY Ascough; a bad kind of newbie: they came in through Muraresku, and then reached through Muraresku to try to discredit Ruck.
Whereas I joined Ruck’s field in 1998-ish, got his Myth textbook, eons before Muraresku came flying dabbling in the field from astroturf suspect (Robert Forte: “the enterprise 🖖”) from out of nowhere, “surprise bestseller” (as fake as early Beatles writing their own songs while filming and touring, SURE)
6 pm Jan. 25, 2026 suspect , or know, that Pollan and Muraresku “bestselllers” were fake / astroturfed MEGA FUNDED CORPRATE PROJECTS, NOTHING AT ALL ACCIDENTAL or organic.
Pollan and his huge corporate team, is such a good writer.
Muraresku and his huge corporate team, is such a good writer.
How much $ did giant megacorp publisher invest in making his bestseller so popular? Astroturf. The Enterprise 🖖
The Enterprise 🖖
Robert Forte is the editor of the book The Road to Eleusis, by Ruck, Hofmann, & Wasson, 1978.
Analyze Mosurinjohn, Ascough, Greer, & Stang, then Support Mosurinjohn in Writing the Book on Psychedelics in Western Esotericism
My Plan Is to First Analyze Mosurinjohn & Ascough (as an Example of Parasitical Strategy); and then Support Clumsy, Aggressive, Delegitimizer Newbie Mosurinjohn in Writing a Book on Psychedelics in Western Esotericism
Obligatory Citation of Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906) Whenever Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson Is Mentioned
Been wondering about this {4 cut trunks} motif since like 2021. I had to get bold and aggressive re: finger-shapes, taking them 100% seriously in the entire medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}. Must have faith in the hypothesis first, before you get the payout of paradigm/hypothesis commitment.
Ascough calls it, in a weak and weakening framing, “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis“.
Ascough refers to the interpretive framework of “psychedelics were the engine of mystery religions” as “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis”, attaching his enfeebling, weak, weakening framing to the developed paradigm.
Paradigm = interpretation, model, and data, that enables perceiving data.
The present site strongly demonstrates how a good theory enables perceiving and proving data.
I’ve spotted a hundred mushroom-trees, and proved that peak religious experience is there depicted (via the combination of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs), against Letcher’s online claim that we can’t know anything about mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Mosurinjohn’s Dogged Avoidance of Perceiving Psychedelic Evidence, of Non-Branching in the Eternalism Experiential State
“We then explore how the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages contributes to the project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify the use of stigmatized drugs and revitalize experiential religion. Although the desire for legitimacy and meaning is understandable, the strategies used by the writers of this pseudo-history constitute a kind of religious fundamentalism.”
Search – “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.”
Upper Left Mushroom-Tree Next to Displayed Hand-Shapes (f109)
3:12 a.m. Jan. 26, 2026 – the held branch has four cut branches (held with a like hand: no thumb visible, the four fingertips wrapped out of sight, visually cut). In past year I wrote about the typical 4 limbs of many mushroom-trees, mapped to arms & legs – or, now, to four fingers.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s Covert Flipping between Two Contradictory Positions: Their Aggressive, Bailey Position, and Their Feeble, Motte Position
Michael Hoffman 9:10 p.m. Jan. 24, 2026
Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s aggressive, bailey position: “It’s a myth that psychedelics were in mystery religions.“ Uses that stance when marketing her scholarship to “anything but drugs” academics.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s feeble, motte position: “There’s inconclusive evidence for psychedelics in mystery religions.“ Uses that stance when marketing her scholarship to entheogen scholars.
When she ventures out from her feeble, motte position (“there’s inconclusive evidence for psychedelics in mystery religions”) into her aggressive, bailey position (“it’s a myth that psychedelics were in mystery religions”), she can’t stand hearing the {mushrooms}, {non-branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
The chain-controlled dog, or the serpent, is trying not to hear the luring music, of non-branching possibilities.
L foot = branching = possibilism-thinking = ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control – unstable on psilocybin loose cognition; gives way to:
R foot = non-branching = eternalism-thinking = psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
Defining ‘Psychedelic Wisdom’ and Ordinary-State ‘Folly’
The Classic religious history of mythic analogy in the best religious mythology and mythological art (mythic art) defines ‘psychedelic wisdom’ as opposed to initial, not-yet-qualified, ordinary-state ‘folly’:
folly = not knowing wisdom; not yet having transformed and qualified the initial, non-mature mental model of
the maximal mushroom theory of Christianity
the
The Authoritative Definition of the ‘Maximal’ entheogen theory of religion which Mosurinjohn & Ascough mention, is the Egodeath theory
Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s aggressive, insulting weaponization of Indigenous Shams against looking for psychedelics in Western religious history.
Why do Mosurinjohn & Ascough (after their 100-times rejected by every type of journal) article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience”, spend so much time delivering reasonable, measured encouragement to study psychedelics in Western religious history? Because they got MASSIVE pushback against their rude, unprofessaional, INSULTING, agrressive, parasitical-on-the-field, call to:
“YOU MUST HALT YOUR ILLEGITIMATE ATTEMPT to falsely attempt, definitely in vain, daring to commit
need keyboard shortcut for their TOXIX M&AA Mosurinjohn & Ascough
The Most Toxic and Illegitimate Article Ever Published and Foisted on Entheogen Scholarship: Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience”
Peak-Toxicity Mosurinjohn & Ascough Try to Totally and Radically De-Legitimize Entheogen scholarship in Western religious history
“But recently I heard her support Western religious history research, and Ascough (Dr. Jekyll) has been exceptionally modest, balanced, subtle, nuanced, and reasonable lately. Why do you paint them as if Mr. Hyde, Frothing
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll (a Sober, Measured, Model Scholar) and Mr. Hyde (a Yellow-Journalist, Potion-Induced Frothing, Propagandist Attack Dog)
Greer Admits that “anything but drugs” academia Has Lost, in Retreat, Now Shifted to Trying to Contain and Downplay the psychedelic mysteries paradigm
“Only 1% of People Used Psychedelics, So Ignore”: Fallacy; the Pop Junk Traditional vs. the Elite Authentic Tradtion (the 1% that matters)
the majority [bad] tradition vs the minority [good] tradition
authentic
inauthentic
only 1% used psychedelics , and they are the relevant, authentic tradition
99% didn’t use psychedelics, and they are the irrelevant, inauthentic tradition.
anything but drugs “anything but drugs” academics j
“anything but drugs” academia
abda
Greer says, corrupt denier anything-but-drugs apologists have already lost. Now we can only say ok we admit (like Letcher step by step walking back his denial:
anything but drugs abd
ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state. abdl
OK, we ABDP admit Liberty Cap were ubiq, but, YOU CAN’T PROVE IT WAS USED BY 51%, TO HAVE SPECIFICALLY RELIG EPXIERNECE, ON A TUESDAY, [QUALIFIER} HIS 4-STEP ARG WHICH I PROVED 5 STEPS OF.
the Manifest Professional Vicious Propagandist Smear Merchant)
“The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an 1886 novella by Robert Louis Stevenson about a London lawyer, Gabriel John Utterson.
“Utterson investigates the strange connection between his friend, the respected Dr. Henry Jekyll, and the evil Edward Hyde, who is Jekyll’s sinister alter ego unleashed through a potion, exploring the duality of human nature and the conflict between good and evil. The story is a classic of Gothic horror, famous for its psychological depth and for popularizing the phrase “Jekyll and Hyde” to describe people with dual personalities.”
Potion? See the Amanita-Shaped Healing Vial Held by St. Walburga
Photo Credit: Not Julie M. Brown; the Walburga church
Photo Credit: Not Julie M. Brown, who rejected the Browns’ main, trumpeted, superior strategy of travelling to view alleged mushroom art with their own eyes directly.
Photo from web, thank you, good job – Michael Hoffman
The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2016) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620555026
For their book The Psychedelic Gospels, esoteric traveloggers Brown, Brown, & Brown only viewed The Holy Mushroom‘s gallery copy of the church-provided photo in the book (“I held the photograph up to the light” – with a 188-page book attached to it).
Based off that type indirect viewing (contradicting the Browns’ entire claim to superior methodology), because the Walburga Tapestry shows a serrated base, “unlike Amanita, which has a smooth base”[sic].
Thus began my truly epic November 2020 work for Dr. Jerry Brown, with input from Cyberdisciple (Classics expert, PhD in Transcendent Knowledge).
Photo from web, nice design, thank you – Michael Hoffman
Photo from web, nice design, thank you – Michael Hoffman. Supplement for critique and correction of Browns 2016/2019, one of the first images for the present site in Nov. 2020.
The World’s Greatest Breakthrough: My Decoding of Great Canterbury Psalter in Nov. 2020
Page created on All Hallow’s Eve, 2020 (prior to my literally world’s greatest breakthrough in Nov. 2020).
Blurb for Psychedelic Mystery Traditions (Hatsis 2018):
“A comprehensive look at the long tradition of psychedelic magic and religion in Western Civilization
• Explores the use of psychedelics and entheogens from Neolithic times through Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance to the Victorian era and beyond
• Reveals how psychedelics were integrated into pagan and Christian magical practices and demonstrates how one might employ a psychedelic agent for divination, sex magic, alchemy, communication with gods, and more
• Examines the role of entheogens in the Mysteries of Eleusis in Greece, the worship of Isis in Egypt, the Dionysian mysteries, and the magical practices of the Thessalian witches as well as Jewish, Roman, and Gnostic traditions
Unbeknownst–or unacknowledged–by many, there is a long tradition of psychedelic magic and religion in Western civilization. As Thomas Hatsis reveals, the discovery of the power of psychedelics and entheogens can be traced to the very first prehistoric expressions of human creativity, with a continuing lineage of psychedelic mystery traditions from antiquity through the Renaissance to the Victorian era and beyond.
Describing how, when, and why different peoples in the Western world utilized sacred psychedelic plants, Hatsis examines the full range of magical and spiritual practices that include the ingestion of substances to achieve altered states. He discusses how psychedelics facilitated divinatory dream states for our ancient Neolithic ancestors and helped them find shamanic portals to the spirit world. Exploring the mystery religions that adopted psychedelics into their occult rites, he examines the role of entheogens in the Mysteries of Eleusis in Greece, the worship of Isis in Egypt, and the psychedelic wines and spirits that accompanied the Dionysian mysteries. The author investigates the magical mystery traditions of the Thessalian witches as well as Jewish, Roman, and Gnostic traditions. He reveals how psychedelics were integrated into pagan and Christian magical practices and demonstrates how one might employ a psychedelic agent for divination, magic, alchemy, or god and goddess invocation. He explores the use of psychedelics by Middle Eastern and medieval magicians and looks at the magical use of cannabis and opium from the Crusaders to Aleister Crowley.
From ancient priestesses and Christian gnostics, to alchemists, wise-women, and Victorian magicians, Hatsis shows how psychedelic practices have been an integral part of the human experience since Neolithic times.”
My correction of Browns, just after I covered the problematic Hatsis book pmt pmt , which kicked off everything, eg. my breakthrough Classic discoveries of the integrated combination {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs in Great Canterbury Psalter; ie I decoded the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
Talk about prematurely entering the scholarly feild while failing to bring even elementary knowledge, even a cursory glance at the well-known, popular children’s book shows plainly, a serrated base:
Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof” for Mushrooms in Christian Art – which spawned the EPIC discovery of Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f134 provided by John Lash’s vigorous active research travcelling to Paris in 2007: break-off article; Lash’s research just after publishing his bestseller Not In His Image in 2006:
The Best of Western Esotericism Is Vastly Superior to Primitive Indigenous Shams with their “Ancient Psychedelic Wisdom” of Psychedelic-Assisted Human Sacrifice and Savagery
Sharday Mosurinjohn Is Committing Colonialist Violence and Is Studying the Wrong and Foolish Topic that Doesn’t Even Exist (
Sorry, I’m Trying but Failing to Be as Insulting, Nasty, Rude, and Gauche as Mosurinjohn & Ascough
Toxic Parasites Trying to Antagonize and Invalidate their Betters
Lying About “No Evidence”, by Ad-Hoc Rules to Ignore and Invalidate the Evidence
Finger-Wagging and Nagging about Proper Methodology, While Contributing Nothing of Substance
Trying to Harm and Destroy and Eliminate the field of entheogen scholarship in Western religious history – and also, Write a Book Finding psychedelics in Western Esotericism, Hypocrites Shifting their Ploy and Strategy with Every Sentence
Why Is Mosurinjohn Committing Colonialist Violence by Writing a Book on Psychedelics in Western Esotericism? – Hypocrite!
If You Look for Psychedelics in Western religious history, you are wrong, stupid, and bad, and deluded by mirages, and you must make Ind. Shams the central focus, and boundary limit, of your research.
But when Sharday looks for psychedelics in Western Esotericism, she’s ethical, Good, and Buy My Book.
A hallmark of phonies: Fake academic posers and propagandists change their story every two seconds, with every sentence: INCOHERENCE AND SELF-CONTRADICTION.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough talk out of all 3 sides of their mouth at once, slippery as a slime-covered fungus.
There Is Plentiful Evidence, Perceived Through the Correct Paradigm, Confirming that the Engine of Mystery Religion Is Psychedelics Such as LSA and Psilocybin
Counter-Weaponizing Indigenous Shams Against Parasitical Field Destroyers/ Invaders
todo: restructure near here
The Threat to the Field of Entheogen scholarship Posed by Parasitical Self-Serving Invaders
We saw this when fake journalists were BANNED from a psychedelics conference (todo: i have image in gallery of the banning sheet “No Entry”?)
I can vouch for these “journalists” fraudulence: I saw a livestream on their channel where the “journalist” poser DIDN’T EVEN KNOW THAT LSD WAS LEGAL IN 50S AND USED IN MAINSTREAM PSYCHOLOGY.
I am not a modern psychedelics “history” guy, but this Hatsis book is a reference, which topic the fake invader-“journalists” should have read, before even thinking about destructively, self-servingly invading the field of psychedelic studies with complete insincerity:
LSD ― The Wonder Child: The Golden Age of Psychedelic Research in the 1950s (Hatsis, 2021)
I cracked it open in the bookstore, but I’m drowning in my books library and have to specialize.
blurb:
“A detailed history of the blossoming of psychedelic research in the 1950s”
“Explores the different groups–from research labs to the military–who were seeking how best to utilize LSD and other promising psychedelics like mescaline
Reintroduces forgotten scientists like Robert Hyde and Rosalind Heywood
Looks at the CIA’s notorious top-secret mind-control program MKUltra
Reveals how intellectuals, philosophers, artists, and mystics of the 1950s used LSD to bring ancient rites into the modern age
“Exploring the initial stages of psychedelic study in Europe and America, Thomas Hatsis offers a full history of the psychedelic-fueled revolution in healing and consciousness expansion that blossomed in the 1950s–the first “golden age” of psychedelic research.
“Revealing LSD as a “wonder child” rather than Albert Hofmann’s infamous “problem child,” the author focuses on the extensive studies with LSD that took place in the ’50s.
“He explores the different groups–from research labs to the military to bohemian art circles–who were seeking how best to utilize LSD and other promising psychedelics like mescaline.
“Sharing the details of many primary source medical reports, the author examines how doctors saw LSD as a tool to gain access to the minds of schizophrenics and thus better understand the causes of mental illness.
“The author also looks at how the CIA believed LSD could be turned into a powerful mind-control weapon, including a full account of the notorious top-secret program MKUltra.”
The Real Mr. Hyde Himself: The First American to Take LSD: Opening the Doors to Mystical and Psychic Abilities, Not Only a Madness Mimicker
Hatsis blurb con’t:
“Reintroducing forgotten scientists like Robert Hyde, the first American to take LSD, and parapsychologist Rosalind Heywood, who believed LSD and mescaline opened doors to mystical and psychic abilities, the author also discusses how the influences of Central American mushroom ceremonies and peyote rites crossbred with experimental Western mysticism during the 1950s, turning LSD from a possible madness mimicker or mind weapon into a sacramental medicine.
“Finally, he explores how philosophers, parapsychologists, and mystics sought to use LSD to usher in a new age of human awareness.”
Many People Are Being Tempted to Follow m&a’s Lead (and Ronald Huggins’ Lead, and Letcher 2006), to Try to Take Advantage of the Field of Entheogen scholarship for Parasitical Self-Advancement at the Expense, Purely Destructive, of Ruck’s Hard-Won Psychedelic Mysteries Paradigm
I counter-weaponize Indigenous Shams against Mosurinjohn & Ascough.
Indigenous Shams
I speak with highest CLASSIC authority for the most high-quality, which is NOT found in Indigenous Shams,
For the savage, brutal, not transcendent use of psychedelics, unspeakable atrocities aided with psychedelics, see Indigenous Shams in the Index of the book:
When Mosurinjohn & Ascough speak of ‘maximal’: quote: from Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience”: quote
todo: paste quote where they say “maximal” critically
quote
Classic Definition of Wisdom and Folly
wisdom = add the eternalism POV to the possibilism POV = add eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking
add eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking
add the eternalism POV to the possibilism POV
eternalism-thinking = analogical psychedelic eternalism analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
possibilism-thinking = literalist ordinary-state possibilism literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control literalist ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control
The Politicized Corruptness of Entheogen Scholarship: “Anything But Drugs” Academia Wants to Avoid Evidence, not Find Evidence
you gotta want it, to find evidence
most ppl even entheogen scholars do not want to find evidence, they are excited to not find evidence, to prove what they7 are abusing this filed for : to whine against big bad church.
The Field of Entheogen Scholarship Is Beset with Corruption and Cover-up of Psychedelics in Mystery Religions
Mosurinjohn’s Job Is to Not Weigh the Evidence for Psychedelics in Mystery Religions, but to Downplay, Decellerate, Propagandize, Invalidate, Discredit, and Cover-Up; Apply the Brakes; Ruck Applies the Gas:
Job Description: To Obstruct, Invalidate, Suppress, Ignore Evidence, and Interfere
Mosurinjohn’s Assigned Job Is to Not Weigh the Evidence for Psychedelics in Mystery Religions, but to Deceitfully Propagandize, Invalidate, Discredit, and Cover-Up
Same as Wasson Just Like Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson re: mushroom imagery in Christian art [just like Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson re: Psychedelics in Christianity]
term’y: read “Xy” as “Jewish and Christian”
todo: image: dog; {hand mushroom-tree} – always present the asp image w/ the f109 dog image. Dog image depends on asp image.
but to Propagandize and Cover Up Psychedelics in Mystery Religions: a Pre-Fixed Conclusion, Propped Up by Insincere, Fallacious Argumentation Like Wasson re: Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
Academia Is a Phony, Crooked, Pathetic Laughingstock, to Be Mocked, Ridiculed, and Ignored by Genuine Entheogen Scholarship
Citation: the Images gallery below.
It’s Not Sharday’s Fault; She’s Forced to Appear to Try to Invalidate Psychedelics in Mystery Religions
What Matters Is Not Truth about Psychedelics in Mystery Religions; What Matters Is the (Corrupt) Institutional Objectives, Which Are Corruption and Cover-Up and “anything but drugs” academia
Commitment to the ABD Apologists:
Paid to be an anything-but-drugs apologist.
Paid to do anything-but-drugs apologetics.
anything-but-drugs apologetics abdaps
anything-but-drugs apologist abdap
Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state.
Joining a Christian College Requires Being an Apologist, Demands Fealty to the Institutional Apologetics Line (Dogma, Doctrine)
The ABD Confession of Faith-Commitment: Hyperventilation Is Legit, Psychedelics Are Not.
It’s a Sports Team, Your Job Is to Appear to Win; we hire you to win within the rules we set.
Rule #1: anything-but-drugs apologetics. we are NOT here to assess psychedelics in mystery religions; we are here to push the party line.
ABD, The God Worshipped by Corrupt Academia (ie, Satan)
Professional liar Mosurinjohn, that’s the job description: propagandist for ABD Doctrine.
propagandist for anything-but-drugs dogma pabdd
The ABD Confession of Faith-Commitment: Hyperventilation Is Legit, Psychedelics Are Not
Principle: “Every Accusation Is a Confession”: Convert Mosurinjohn’s Accusations to Confessions, to See Truth
A Cover-Up Operation.
Mosurinjohn Is Hired to Be a Cover-Up Operator; Her Handler Is Stick-up-the-Mud Ascough.
It’s the Only Permitted Position: Her Job Is to Be an Attack Dog, NOT to View or Affirm the Best, Explicit Mushroom Findings in the Field So Far
Mosurinjohn’s Job Is to Studiously Ignore the Main Catalog of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art, Especially This Site, but Pretend to Do Scholarship in the Field
Mosurinjohn Is Literally Hired to Be a Professional Phony (Like the Monkees); She Would HAVE to Break Away from Corrupt “anything but drugs” academia (Like the Monkees) to Become an Actual, Honest Scholar
“anything but drugs” academia abdaa
“anything but drugs” academics abca
Mosurinjohn is a Professional Phony, and Academia Has Trashcanned Its Credibility, SOLD OUT its soul.
The Proper Response by Actual Researchers in Entheogen scholarship Is to Mock and Ridicule and Heap 10x the Abuse on Mosurinjohn (ie, “anything but drugs” academics) than those Academics Heap on Entheogen scholarship like Lying Liar Wasson Did to Mycologists (Affirmers) on p. 180 of SOMA
1:05 a.m. Jan. 27, 2026
Your assigned job is to cover-up mushroom imagery in Christian art: to lie, smear, invalidate, insult — to learn how to be a liar, study p. 180 in SOMA, note the art of misdirection; inappropriate non-scholarly “consult experts on the phone” and do not mention “consult the published writings of experts”.
Measure shcolars’ vies by their emotional reaction:
How quickly did the expert disavow?
How fervently did the expert disavow?
How much did the expert insult the psychedelic mysteries “hypothesis” (ie, paradigm).
the psychedelic mysteries paradigm
Academia Is Corrupt and Forcing Mosurinjohn to Attack Ruck, Lest What Happened to Ruck Happens to Her
She is required by corrupt employers to lie, smear, defame, attack, misrepresent what counts as evidence.
Mosurinjohn is paid to NOT read the research articles by Giorgio Samorini 97/98 & Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise“.
She is not paid to read up on mushroom imagery in Christian art; she is PAID TO NOT READ THE ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP.
Mosurinjohn Is Paid to NOT Read the Literature in the Field, but to Ignore It and Deny that It Even Exists
Why hasn’t Mosurinjohn read the best publications in “her” field that she’s trying to kill and destroy and invalidate? Because that’s her job as A PR
Mosurinjohn Is a Professional Propagandist Like Pope’s Banker, Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson
Wasson Was Bribed to Censor the Strongly Urged Brinckmann Citation and Suppress the Two “Emphatically Mushroom-Like” Art Pieces from Panofsky
God’s Hand-Shapes (Branching Morphology) in Day 3 Panel – Gotta Hand It To Me, Hand Shape Analysis Paid Off
2:05 p.m. Jan. 27, 2026 – Day 4: god {thumb against open book}.
2:22 p.m. Jan. 27, 2026 day 4 right hand fingers all 4 are visually cut
9:45 pm Jan. 26, 2026 – important decoding! Day 3 panel, God’s hand shapes mapped to the mushroom morphy progression.
When I figured out Jan 13 2025 4 mushroom-trees go: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI, I failed to apply to God’s finger shapes as well.
How to interp right hand 4 fingers visually cut:
pinkie – not cut, but right-angle base. & borrow the cut from ring.
ring – cut
Blue mushroom-tree = God’s R hand shape: YI with the Y half-cut; pinkie/ring visually cut middle / index and form slight Y also.
Red mushroom-tree = God’s L hand shape IY
branching morphology brm
Brian Muraresku bm
Isolated morphy analysis of God’s R hand (left side of pic)
Isolated morphy analysis of God’s L hand (right side of pic): YI but pinkie/ring visually cut middle/index, showing “branching = false, vanishes on psychedelics”
Then finally, L vs R hand, the difference then is:
L hand (R side of pic) says: Thumb = non-branching, fingers = branching.
R hand (L side of pic) says: Thumb = non-branching; fingers = non-branching (counterarg: but the pinkie and ring aren’t visually cut, and they have a slight Y shape). Rebuttal/correction of the objection: Relative / compared to his L hand (right side of pic), his R hand fingers are 2 out of 4 are cut
Remember the principle:
“More branching on L than R.“
God’s fingers have {more branching on L than R}
Here, Left must mean God’s L hand (R side of pic).
God’s POV or subjective … the figure’s subjective POV.
The scientific name of the hand on R side of pic is “left hand”.
God’s fingers (across all hands) show more branching (4x) on God’s L hand than God’s R hand (2x).
Step 1: Anything-But-Drugs Academia: “You Entheogen Scholars Are Not Allowed to Look for Psychedelics in Western Religious History, Because [Reasons]”
Step 2: Entheogen Scholars: “We Double Down on Looking for Psychedelics in Western Religious History, and We Double Down on Ignoring Indigenous Shams”
Step 3: Anything-But-Drugs Academia: We Call You Names, Smear and Defame You, Invalidate You, and Ignore Your Evidence
Step 4: Entheogen Scholars: “We Double Down Again, on Looking for Psychedelics in Western Religious History, and We Double Down Again, on Ignoring Indigenous Shams”
Step 5: Entheogen Scholars: “We Ignore You Anything-But-Drugs Apologists, Lying Propagadndists Obstractionists; We ridicule you, Anything-But-Drugs Academia Is a Pathetic laughingstock, You Sold Out Your Credibility entirely, You anything-but-drugs academics anything-but-drugs Apologists”
step 6: maximal entheogen theory of religion ; the more the anything-but-drugs apologist cry and name-call and ignore evidence and smear and defame AND INSULT THE F out of entheogen scholarship, the more we entheogen scholars are dedicated to making even more progress, which makes the anything-but-drugs apologist exposed as thoroughly corrupt and paid shills to cover-up truth and reality.
It’s purely political. The anything-but-drugs apologists are dedicated to lying, like Wasson; entheogen scholars are dedicated to making even more progress.
WE CAN LEARN A LOT LEVERAGING Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson p. 180 AS A MODEL OF THE PHONY COVERUP OPERATION
anything-but-drugs academia abdaa
Mosurinjohn, Step 1: “You’re NOT ALLOWED to Look Over There”.
Us: “Okay, now we will NEVER look at IndigShams and are now DOUBLING DOWN ON LOOKING EXACTLY THERE WHERE YOU FORBID US.
Mosurinjohn, step 2: ok i am unable to stop them. backup strategy: Discredit them, namecall, accuse.
Every Entheogen Scholar and Students of the Field, Step 1: We’re Doubling Down on Finding Evidence of Psychedelics in Mystery Religions, and We Are Committed to Disrespecting Indig Shams
Mosurinjohn, Step 2: Since You Refuse to Obey My Commandment to Stop Doing Entheogen Scholarship, I Am Discrediting and Invalidating Your Work
Every Entheogen Scholar, Step 2: We Ridicule You 10x Harder, Phony Fraud Fake Academic, Professional Liar for Hire
Translation: Every entheogen scholar told Mosurinjohn
GO TO HELL, YOU LYING POS – F OFF AND DIE, YOU PHONY.
You can’t interfere with our proofs and progress.
We’re doubling down – if you got a problem with that, too goddamn bad.
Go get a dishwasher job, you fake poser academic, yellow propagandist.
Mosurinjohn, I Hear Your Commandments and Coercion Attempts, to Try to Halt Entheogen Scholarship; to Forbid Trying to Look for psychedelics psychedelics in Western religious history
We jam her in a corner, cornered this way. We exposed her. “You’re NOT ALLOWED TO LOOK OVER THERE –>”
Her next move, then,
Mosurinjohn Pressures Scholars to Avoid Looking for Psychedelics in Mystery Religions
Shardog Mosurinjohn commands and dictates that entheogen scholars are not allowed to try to look for psychedelics in Western religious history.
When entheogen scholars and journal editors all replied in unison, “GO TO ABSOLUTE HELL, SHARDOG!“, and continued doing entheogen scholarship, Shardog then Ridiculed and Demeaned and Invalidated them as Morons, Delusional, doing “Dogged Pursuit of Hallucinated Pseudo-Evidence, a form of religious fundamentalism“.
Shardog Mosurinjohn Attacking and Wholesale-Discrediting the Creators of the Entheogen Scholarship Field –
the Field that She Entered to Write about Psychedelics in Western Esotericism, Somehow Exempting Herself from Her Sweeping Smears and Motive-Accusations.
Entheogenics: Psychedelic Experiences as Revelatory Events in the History of Western Esotericism (Mosurinjohn, Forthcoming)
Hallmark of Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art: kettle logic; fragmented, incoherent argumentation; self-contradiction.
The Anything-But-Drugs Apologists (Not Just Mosurinjohn & Ascough)
Mosurinjohn Provides Extreme, Concrete Examples that are Being Deployed Right Now, So Cannot Cut Her Slack
What’s happening right now in 2025-2026 is that Mosurinjohn has OPENLY, EXPLICITLY DECLARED WAR ON THE FIELD OF ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP TO DESTROY AND INVALIDATE IT.
SEE RED BOLD QUOTES INCLUDING TONE OF VOICE AND INSINUATION AND SIGNALLING.
That’s not only the technical necesary meaning of her words.
But, hear the mood, the tone, the overtones of her word-choice.
The #1 attacker of the field of entheogen scholarship trying to block it, OBSTRUCT IT, discourage and pressure researchers:
Here are 10 reasons why you cannot and must not try to look for evidence.
How much evidence of psychedelics in mystery religions will Mosurinjohn discover, given that her self-marketing BRAND is to discredit, insult, dismiss, and smugly insult.
Maybe the evil comes from Ascough, the voice of the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia.
Mosurinjohn is actively trying to obstruct and SHUT IT DOWN the field.
You all MUST STOP trying to look for psychedelics in Western religious history.
“It’s ok if I do it, though, for my forthcoming book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism.”
High-Pressure Smear Tactics, Bullying, Defamation, Girlish Name-calling, and Aggressive Ridiculing, Just Like Popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson
Do not even TRY to look for psychedelics in mystery religions, else you are doing colonialist violence, and are a religious fundamentalist.
If you tell me to go to hell, and you continue to try to look, you are doing colonialist violence.
Every accusation is a confession:
Mosurinjohn’s assigned job is to be a COMMITTED DENIER, COMMITTED SKEPTIC religious fundamentalist about mandatory denial and cover-up of psychedelics in mystery religions.
“There is no universally recognized, standard logical fallacy formally named “committed skeptic” in mainstream logic textbooks.
The term “committed skeptic” is used in philosophical, theological, and debate contexts to describe a specific type of epistemic failure or dialectic stall.
It generally refers to a person who claims to be a “skeptic”, but is actuallycommitted to a specific, unshakeable negative conclusion (e.g., “God does not exist” or “external reality doesn’t exist”) [there were no psychedelics in mystery religions] , rather than maintaining an open, questioning, or agnostic position.
Contexts of “Committed Skeptic”
Philosophical/Kant’s Refutation of Idealism: In this context, a “committed Cartesian skeptic” is someone who rejects the existence of the external world based on the premise that only inner perceptions are certain. Kant argues this position is flawed because it ignores that inner experience itself presupposes outer experience.
Debate/Apologetics: It is often used to describe someone who adopts the rhetoric of skepticism to avoid the burden of proof, while simultaneously maintaining a firm, dogma-like disbelief.
Begging the Question: A “committed skeptic” is often accused of falling into the fallacy of begging the question (petitio principii), where they assume the falsehood of a claim as a premise to argue against it.
Related Fallacies and Concepts
Begging the Question: Assuming what you are trying to prove, often used when a skeptic refuses to consider evidence because they have already concluded it must be false.
Special Pleading: A “committed skeptic” might dismiss all evidence for a specific case while accepting similar evidence for others.
Dogmatic Skepticism: A contradiction in terms where a person is absolutely sure that nothing can be known for sure.
Ignoring the Evidence: A form of confirmation bias where the skeptic ignores information that contradicts their entrenched disbelief.
Summary
While not a formal fallacy like Ad Hominem, the committed skeptic refers to an informal fallacy or a failure of intellectual honesty—where skepticism is used not as a tool for inquiry, but as a shield for a pre-ordained conclusion.”
/ end of AI answer
Why Should I Helpfully, Constructively Assist Mosurinjohn & Ascough, Who Have Declared War, to Destroy Entheogen Scholarship?
Teams in the Interpretation Derby – todo: add team name: Naysayer Prostitutes, we’ll join your project of anything-but-drugs coverup propagandists.
Doctor Sharday Mosurinjohn, Anything-But-Drugs Propagandist for Hire: You Pay, We Produce History for You
Does it make any sense for me to have a constructive, Positive Mental Attitude, when Mosurinjohn & Ascough Have Declared War to Destroy the Field, as Committed Skeptics, Who Command Researchers to Stop Looking for Psychedelics in Western religious history
(Flimsy excuse: “Look at every other sentence, where I flip to saying “I’m not against your FOOLISH FUTILE error and colonicalist violence, in vain wishing for psychedelics in mystery religions.”)
Mosurinjohn & Ascough (that type) are anything-but-drugs propagandists for hire, scholarly prostitutes selling to the highest bidder to fabricate a narrative, whatever is most self-serving.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough are always out of both sides of their mouths, skating promiscuously, prostitutes, selling their allegiance now to this camp, now to that camp — inter-camp spies.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough Dictate that entheogen scholars must Restrict Themselves Exclusively to Indigenous Shams
Wasson-Level Propaganda Pressure: 100% Conflict of Interest, Totally Compromised Scholarship bowing to the anything-but-drugs Agenda.
the anything-but-drugs academic cabal
the anything-but-drugs academic agenda
the anything-but-drugs agenda
There’s a good reason why fake journalists were banned from psychedelic conferences: toxic parasites electing themselves as police and prosecutors of everyone in a field they don’t even know elementary basics about.
On a livestream:
Really? LSD was legal in the 1950s, and was used in psychiatry? No, that can’t be. I’m going to have to fact-check that.
one of this group of fake, invader, parasite “journalists”, the ones on the “do not allow entry” printout photo list at the psychedelic studies conference
“Really? LSD was legal in the 1950s, and was used in psychiatry? No, that can’t be. I’m going to have to fact-check that.” — I heard one of this group of fake invader parasite “journalists” say — the ones on the “do not allow entry” printout photo list at the psychedelic studies conference.
toxic parasitical hostile invaders
The field needs a STRONG DEFENSE against toxic parasitical hostile invaders! The field of entheogen scholarship is under an insincere, committed-skeptic attack.
If Mosurinjohn Genuinely Wanted “Evidence”, There Is Much More than Sufficient, Compelling Evidence, when Correctly Assembled
(like Hatsis re: mushrooms in Western religious history)
Mosurinjohn’s Brand and Academic Career-Advancement Commitment Is, “Anything-But-Drugs Propagandist for Hire“
It’s in Mosurinjohn’s Interest to Invalidate, Ignore, and Suppress Evidence and Avoid Constructing the Paradigm that Makes them Obviously Perceivable – so as long as she can help it,
Hatsis CLAIMS or storytells, that he wishes “Secret Christian Amanita Cult” were real, but he acts like he is committed to invalidating any evidence.
Hatsis has the narrowest of minds in conceptualizing entheogen scholarship; he follows the worst, pop leads.
IF Mosurinjohn WANTED TO FIND EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHEDELICS IN MYSTERY RELIGIONS , SHE WOULD FIND PLENTY.
But that’s not her marketing ploy/strtegy / business model.
She is INVESTED in shutting out evidence by artifice: “The only evideence that counts” (why? on what basis? who says?) “is that which I choose because I strategically reckon that it has the least likelyhood of success.”
Adopting a Perverse (and Shifting as-needed) Definition of “Evidence”, Purely Designed to Prop Up Anything-But-Drugs Academia: Designed to Lose, as Much as Possible
The name “Hatsis” just flashed through my mind.
Shift those shells around ad-hoc, invent new rules on-the-fly as needed: to appear to support the pre-set conclusion.
Exhibit A: Evidence. “That doesn’t count, because ___________ [fill in whatever, doesn’t matter, junk arg THAT YOU INVENT ON-THE–SPOT RULE MADE UP (special pleading) just for this ONE INSTANCE of evidence] [now that sweet, sweet payoff part, what it’s all about:] “… SO, NOT MUSHROOMS.” “THERE’S NO EVIDENCE.”
Exhibit B: Evidence. “That doesn’t count, because [whatever, no one cares, make up some junk arg just for that one item]; so, not mushrooms.”
“There is no evidence.”
Flexibility in fallacious rejection of all types of evidence, as-needed, to achieve the goal, which we already know is: “… so, not mushrooms. “
Huggins’ Overblown Use of Everyone’s Initial Struggle with the Title of Great Canterbury Psalter, to Invalidate the Finding of mushroom imagery
Huggins makes a big stink: entheogen scholarship is false because botched the name of the psalter, its actually Great Canterbury Psalter not the Paris Psalter.
He is full of baloney since regardless of title, these are the —
Lind & Lash are the ones who found mushroom imagery in Christian art in gcp
HUGGSINS MUST GIVE LASH 2008 CREDIT FOR WORKING ON UNRAVBELLING THE TITLE OF Great Canterbury Psalter EVEN if wiki settled on Great Canterbury Psalter.
Even Lash can’t unravel the EXTREMELY TANGLED CONFUSING copies Great Canterbury Psalter.
Huggins’ Inappropriate, “Presentism” Criteria for Judging the Pioneers Before Him
Huggins is spoiled: HE has benefit of hindsight. The history of science shows this: you have to respect their contribs IN CONTEXT AT THE TIME.
Hug must cut entheogen scholars – PIONEERS! – reasonable slack,
Huggins misses the point.
Hug tries to use trivial mistakes to INVALIDATE ignore/ discount/ delegitimate massive breakthrough findings that happened in the past in the past context. It’s Apples vs. oranges, to use TODAY’S CONTEXT to just yesterday’s pioneers. re names of psalters.
The main thing that matters: they found mica in various psalters, especially in psalter X, not sure of the title: either Paris Eadwine, or Great Canterbury Psalter, or Lash’s other title discussed in Discovery of a Lifetime.
Synonyms for ‘Delegitimize’
delegitimize
disqualify
delegitimate
invalidate
discredit
discount
ignore
undermine the legitimacy, authority, or credibility
diminish
‘Delegitimize’ = ‘Delegitimate’
Which is the more proper word, ‘delegitimize’, or ‘delegitimate’? Are both words ok to use?
AI answer:
“”Delegitimize” is the more common and generally preferred word, although both “delegitimize” and “delegitimate” are acceptable to use
“both words mean to diminish or remove the legitimacy or authority of something.
“Delegitimize” is more common in standard, professional usage
“”Delegitimate” is also a dictionary-recognized synonym.”
Images Gallery
todo: h3 heading above each image
The Psychedelic Gospels (Browns 2016)
Mushrooms and Mankind (Arthur 2000)
Entheos Issue 1 – The Journal of Psychedelic Spirituality – Entheogens and the Judeo-Christian Mysteries 
Reversible Tauroctony Liberty Cap
Back side of the reversible tauroctony
Morris Red Liberty Caps
Holding Liberty Caps
Photo from the web, thank you -Michael Hoffman
Liberty Cap in Mithras’ Leg Hem
Entheos Tauroctony Cover
Victory Wedding Mosaic
Double Holy Grail
Photo Credit: Michael Hoffman, 10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010
Amanita Grail Pool Ripples
Photo: Michael Hoffman, 10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010
Panther Amanita Watering Bowl
Double Holy Grail, Side
Photo by Michael Hoffman, 10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010
Victory Mosaic 4 {mushroom hem}
Dionysus’ {mushroom hem}, Mosaic
Perplexed Hanegraaff
todo: finish properly linking TOC. The bottom half starting w/ “opport.” is linked, but not the added sections below “covert flipping”.
What?! I Have No Site Map Section for Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson? 🤯
A Huge Oversight and Total Failure of the Egodeath Theory, Proving that the Egodeath theory is a MYTH! BEEN DEBUNKED!
I’m just another “blundering mycologist” that failed to “consult”(?? citation needed) the art authorities to correct my ignorance of the hundreds of mushroom-trees, had I been aware of that, I would not have foolishly said Day 3 panel’s mushroom trees mean mushrooms, embarrassing myself.
Strangely, I dont seem to have site map for Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, no idea why. 🤷♂️
I’ll get right on that, since per John Lash, every idea in the field of entheogen scholarship is “Wasson’s theory” – a total error on my part, forgot to give Wasson all credit for entire field of entheogen scholarship, as Lash correctly does.
Appreciation
The present article, and the entheogen scholarship aspects of this website, are in appreciation of the work done by paradigm pioneers, including:
Carl Ruck
Mark Hoffman
Paul Lindgren (1999) re: Canterbury
John Lash (2007) re: Canterbury
Giorgio Samorini (1997, 1998): The first in 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
Brown & Brown (2016, 2019): The Psychedelic Gospels
Wasson 1968
You should be weak like me and only look for Easy-Mode, Cannabis evidence.”
these particular cups), and is minimal.]
“)
)
The Egodeath theory 
