The original mental model of the personal control system is not done away with or harmed, though holy threat experience drives transformation.
It may be that full comprehension gives full control instability. Try stand on right foot — but per Merkavah mysticism per Doctor Sledge, in the 6th palace, regardless of how correct your thinking, the angel will randomly kill you, or not.
God is struggling to keep that overzealous angel under control.
The angel argues with God, can’t I kill that righteous man, please? He’s got unjustified confidence.
Wisdom = of threat, as depicted 6 ways in Great Canterbury Psalter.
How Block Universe Eternalism Influences agency, in the Loose Cognitive State
I created this page (finally) to answer Q from anonymous email via the Contact page. So I don’t forget.
The Intersection of Psychedelic Experiences and Cognitive Models
In the Egodeath theory, what’s the intersection of:
psychedelic experiences
cognitive models
How Does Block Universe Eternalism Influence Agency, in the Altered State?
The Loose Cognitive Association Binding State
The intense mystic altered state = loose cognitive association binding; the eternalism state of consciousness.
Personal Agency Worldlines Frozen in the 4D Block Universe in the Eternalism State of Consciousness
Drawing by Michael Hoffman 2006
Drawing by Michael Hoffman 2006
Saturn Threatening the Child to Death
Saturn threatening the child-thinking to death, passing through the saturn gate to the eternalism fixed stars in sphere 8, where the soul halts for eternity, and the spirit in the 2nd phase of rebirth moves on to sphere 9 outside the block universe, the spirit transcending frozen, preexisting, block-universe eternalism.
Saturn threatening the child-thinking to death, passing through the saturn gate to the eternalism fixed stars in sphere 8, where the soul halts for eternity, and the spirit in the 2nd phase of rebirth moves on to sphere 9 outside the block universe, the spirit transcending frozen, preexisting, block-universe eternalism.
Eve Tempted by the Serpent
7:42 p.m. Nov. 29, 2013, Michael Hoffman Eve Tempted by the Serpent. Lucas Cranache, 1530. The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell. Branching confirmed to be a main theme in mythic art.
Douris: Jason Dead with Dragon Leg, Ladon Dragon Guard, Athena, Golden Ram Fleece, Tree of the Garden of the Hesperides
7:42 p.m. Nov. 29, 2013, Michael Hoffman Douris: Jason and Ladon and Athena. block-universe worldline kills possibilism-premised personal control agency. Branching confirmed to be a main theme in mythic art.
Douris: Jason and Ladon and Athena. block-universe worldline kills possibilism-premised personal control agency.
Serrated Baby Amanita
Photo credit: Not Michael Hoffman. Serrated baby Amanita. Like the St. Walburga photo that’s in both The Holy Mushroom and The Psychedelic Gospels is: Not Julie Brown.
Photo credit: Not Michael Hoffman. Serrated baby Amanita. Like the St. Walburga photo that’s in both The Holy Mushroom and The Psychedelic Gospels is: Not Julie Brown.
Leopard Drinking from Balancing Amanita Fountain: Dionysus and Ariadne Victory Wedding Procession Mosaic
Photo Credit: Michael Hoffman, 10:10 am, 10/10/2010. Raindrops ripples in pool of water in double holy grail.
Photo Credit: Michael Hoffman, 10:10 am, 10/10/2010. Raindrops ripples in pool of water in double holy grail.
Double Holy Grail Amanita Fountains with Ripples 2
Photo Credit: Michael Hoffman, 10:10 am, 10/10/2010. Raindrops ripples in pool of water in double holy grail.
Photo Credit: Michael Hoffman, 10:10 am, 10/10/2010. Raindrops ripples in pool of water in double holy grail.
Acid Metal: Little Dolls
Photo: Michael Hoffman 1:31 a.m. Jan. 24, 2026 Blizzard of Ozz Band, lyrics by Bob Daisley: Little Dolls. Agency gone.
Photo: Michael Hoffman 1:31 a.m. Jan. 24, 2026 Blizzard of Ozz Band, lyrics by Bob Daisley: Little Dolls. Agency gone.
Song: Little Dolls Artist: The Blizzard of Ozz Band Album: Diary Of A Madman ℗ 1981 Epic Records YouTube channel: Ozzy Osbourne https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA1CKGGPYPA&t=137s (2:17) Transcription by Michael Hoffman
YOU NEVER IMAGINED SUCH A FATE COULD FOLLOW YOU YOU NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS TRUE! AND WHEN IT’S YOUR TIME, I WON,-DER HOW, ⚡️ YOU’LL DO (I, WON, DER, HOW, YOU’LL, DO) YOUR KIND OF TROUB,LE’S RUNNING DEEPER THAN THE SEA (I WONDER WHAT YOU’RE GONNA DO, ⚡️ ABOUT IT) YOU BROKE (THE RULE) YOU’VE BEEN (A FOOL) THE LITTLE DOLL IS YOU, YEAH!
NOWHERE TO RUN ⚡️ YOUR FATE IS IN HIS HANDS YOUR TIME HAS COME ⚡️ YOU’LL LIVE TO HIS COMMAND I’M WARNING YOU ⚡️ THE WORST IS YET TO COME THE KILLER WHO ⚡️ REMAINS A MYSTERY
Lego Greek Myth: The Serpent Harassed the Pregnant Woman
Book: Lego Greek Myths. Scholarly notes by Michael Hoffman.
Motivation for this Page
Someone asked me this question. d/k when I can develop the answer, but in case I get to it, here’s a page to remind me.
Proof that Psilocybin Can Be Considered “Mainstream” per an Accepted Claim of What’s “Mainstream”
Psilocybin Is at Least as “Mainstream” as the Mushroom-Tree Motif in Christian Art, Which Panofsky Says Is Far too Mainstream to Mean Mushrooms
Panofsky Says the Mushroom-Tree Motif in Christian Art Is Mainstream
(Too Mainstream to Mean Mushrooms)
Mushrooms Are As Ubiquitously Mainstream as the Mushroom Experience Shaped Eucharist
[7:33 p.m. Feb. 1, 2026]
mushroom-trees are a mainstream element in Christian art.
Turns out mushroom-trees mean Psilocybin & Amanita.
Therefore, now realized, Psilocybin & Amanita are a mainstream element in Christian art.
if this mainstream element in Christian art – mushroom imagery in Christian art — mushroom-trees — and some motifs have a different, overlapping history:
The {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs each have a different time range in art history.
mushroom imagery in Christian art includes mushroom-trees / the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} .
the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} is Mainstream, Therefore Psilocybin Is Mainstream in Christian History:
the Eucharist produces control transformative effects and communal mystic unity experience — my great quip recnetly to pastor:
Integrate & Differentiate the Personal, Communal, and Transpersonal
“integrate & differentiate the personal, communal, and transpersonal”
as mainstream as the Eucharist mushroom bread and mushroom wine
Dr. Justin Sledge: Merkavah mystics didn’t ingest psychedelics, Merkavah mystics ingested nothing but special bread that they were strictly required to make themselves to prevent impurity.
/ end; con’t:
The Death-Star Strategy: aim for the center false premise.
Christian art (and broadly, mushroom imagery in Christian art)
Psilocybin is at least as mainstream as the mushroom-tree motif in Xn art including (play-dumb Hatsis) bestiary which is same psilocybin guild of trip depictor artists’ guild of psychedelic initiation into the 4 motifs combined: the Standard Reference: Great Canterbury Psalter (Lindgren 1999 Discovered
1999 I will Unconfirmed. I will ask evil M. Hoffman tell me about your conversations with Lindgren, Arthur.
xn xn xy xy xn xn xn xn xn xn xn
xn xy xy xv x’n xn
the x’n Wouter Hanegraaff Wouter Hanegraaff xn xy cn cy
Christian crn
Christianity crsty crsty
Scattered incoming leading-edge ideas / idea development across old and new pages and “idea development page n” pages
in emails
scattered summaries in txt msgs
and in Notes mobile files
within old pages
within new pages
within an “idea development page n”.
voice recordings
heading
sm inspiring research in Western religious history for all the wrong reasons; as a backlash against her
Sharday Mosurinjohn ~= shorthand for Mosurinjohn & Ascough
keyboard shortcut
Mosurinjohn msr
i ❤️😍 Mosurinjohn – for inspiring me – for all the wrong reasons
key words:
opportunistic
self serving
parasite
invader
two-faced
self-contradicting
ingratiating 2 opposite camps, both hate her
shopped their POS article for YEARS (she cryingly tells us repeatedly IN the selfsame article. do ppl reject your article b/c they “dysfunctionally need to communicate w/ trash Pop entheogen scholarship”?
Or, is it because your arricle is a parasitical POS try to elevatte yourself – underservingly!
[ie what have u contributed, postiviely, substatively, other than self-elevating self-prromootionsal finger-wagging?]
above the people who scholars who revolutionary innovative path-breakers [Muraresku is a bit of a question mark since he allegedly abandoned entheogen scholarship] i mean evil M. Hoffman (a pathbreaker/seminal) & Ruck, Heinrich’s awesome Amanita 1995 book, who else do you want to demonize, smear, & hit-job: demonize, a blanket demonization of Paul Lindgren and James Arthur who CREATED the damn field that you try to BOTH dismiss and deligitimize ENTIRELY, and yet, you ALSO want to preteend to be part of the club of entheogen scholars? two faced turncoat.
who next to do a hit job on, after you “DESTROYED Ruck and Muraresku!!”: next, a hit job on Samorini? Lindgren?! the fkking DISCOVERER and Pioneer of Great Canterbury Psalter !!
What have YOU discovered and seminal breakthrough innovative paradigm, Sharday Mosurinjohn / Mosurinjohn & Ascough?
keyboard shortcut
Ascough asc
Sharday Mosurinjohn + 2 wrote 2023 article that is good critique of the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” but she misfires, blames Christianity – Breau later in 2023 corrects them, not Christianity but rather Popular Neo-Advaita Indian Hinduism inarticulate one particular “philosophy of religion” school within Hindu Indian religion Swami Vivek ananda Nondual boundary
The possibilism version of the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” is a form of Possibilism by default since it doesn’t focus on eternalism. Mis-targeted; a false goal of move from separateness to unity; fails to control transformation transformation of the mental model from possibilism to eternalism; result is Possibilism-thinking.
Popular Neo-Advaita Fails to Add Eternalism-Thinking to Possibilism-Thinking
Popular Neo-Advaita fails to add eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking.
pna Popular Neo-Advaita detroys possibilism-thinking insanely.
Popular Neo-Advaita fails to achieve eternalism-thinking, which requires integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
Decent model from Ken Wilber: e a i k w
“embrace and include” per Ken Wilber:
Consider applying the “embrace and include” phrase both ways:
Possibilism-thinking embraces and includes eternalism-thinking.
Eternalism-thinking embraces and includes possibilism-thinking.
confusing , maybe omit alien lexicon , purity of lexicon coal from angel touch unclean lips clean them
Cybermonk
todo: crop of hat & hands and {left foot lifted} BARELY, need magnif glass. crop only the R guy. isolate him.
branching = ordinary-state possibilism-thinking vs. non-branching = psychedelic eternalism-thinking
pair of hands has branching fingers and non-bracnhing thumb, therefore hand shapes can be used flexibly to make statements about possibilism vs. eternalism. to contrast and relate possibilism vs. eternalism. start w/ possibilism (lower hand no thumb), end up with integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking (upper hand: fingers and thumb)
After completion of initiation – . — the best kind of mind ends up with integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
unlike TOXIC ADVAITA inarticulate alien low-quality, modern confabulation Pop-driven, inarticulate, negative explanation: from self to other, via “the self-other boundary is an illusion, my intelligence is an illusion, foo is an illusion” – junk inartic sheer confusion and avoidance of eternalism-driven control-transformation
Popular Neo-Advaita is a phony, preservation tactic, to avoid eternalism-driven control-transformation.
hand-shape theory hst
I Guide and Support and CORRECT the Bad , Parasitical behavior of Sharday Mosurinjohn – and I 100% Support Ruck
Her 2023 article critique of the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” was good; its Christian crit’m misfired,
Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) not biased by Xy Christianity so much as Westernized Popular Neo-Advaita (1893). Ken Wilber is biased and Stace is biased… consider! lineage callled:
Vivek James, [name], Stace 1960, Pahnke 1962, Wm Richards and Ralph Hood 1975, Ken Wilber 1978 his first book
Jeffrey Breau’s article nailed the real bias: Westernized Popular Neo-Advaita 1893 given to us by Vivek Indian Hindu Vedanta narrow one narrow little school, lapped up SELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE, positive Unity model explanatory model won, not eternalism-driven control-transformation.
mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism
end up with possibilism, no trace of eternalism
The Unity Model of Mysticism Fails to Produce Eternalism-Thinking; Retains the Reign of Possibilism-Thinking Alone
I 100% Support Ruck, and Take Corrective Guideance of wannabe opportunitistic parasitical invaders of the field, so newbies ADD TO the field instead of posturing as if tearing down the field to elevate themselves.
todo: (a first: a todo as a heading): new page, inviting Mosurinjohn to become a CONSTRUCTIVE critic of entheogen scholarship, not blanket smearing her elders WHO CREATED the field of Indig Shams Studies and Western Entheogen Studies
I don’t like addressing Mosurinjohn & Ascough as if they are a couple that’s fuzeed together. More powerful is to separately correct and chaasten stodgy Ascough , and separately Mosurinjohn — as i wrote, it’s really hard to accurately criticque two ppl at onece, in fact, THAT’S A MISTAKE Mosurinjohn & Ascough MAKE: LUMP TOGETHER QUESTIONABLE Muraresku (his commitment to entheogen scholarship is apparatenly null, he appears to have abaondaoned the field on bad terms, d/k why)
Error: Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s co-written article (rejected by all types of journals for years, she says), attempts to critique Ruck and Muraresku at the same time: doesn’t work; too imprecise
In a way, it “works”, to simul-critique Mosurinjohn & Ascough who say they have collab’d (ie, before they em
johnny come lately, before they 5 minutes ago discovered entheogen scholarship as a self-promptional prompotional self-aggreandizing opporunity to finger-wag and smear the whole field while simult posturing as if they are constructive contribrs in that very same field – have it both ways!
Mosurinjohn & Ascough saw off the branch that they started sitting on 5 min. ago. We demonize and entirely reject, blanket, entire field. AND, we show u inferior ppl (Muraresku, Ruck, and Rogan all lumped together fgor for crit’m and hit-job dismissal in the same breath, by the same, CRUDE BLUNT-CLUB amatuer hack job critique — how its done: to contribute to the field of entheogen scholarship.
my point got lost in fulmination-layers insertions : (
Our self-marketing posture business plan:
Condemn and dismiss the entire field of entheogen scholarship.
AND
Follow our wise superior lead, in correctly doing entheogen scholarship. In the field that — in the previous sentence — we sweepingly, crudely, clumsily , aggressively, said the ENTIRE FIELD OF ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP IS ENTIRELY BUNK AND ILLEGIT.
“Don’t mis-hear me; it’s good you research in psychedelics in Western religious history.”
and: you idiots, i’m way better than u, psychedelics in Western religious history is a MYTH, BEEN DEBUNKED!
AND:
Pls let me in ur club, i’m legit contributor to your field you created, entheogen scholarship.
AND:
WE DESTROYED RUCK AND THE MYTH OF PSYCHEDELICS IN MYSTERY RELIGIONS!! 😵😵😵🔫👹😈 (Rogan = Ruck = Muraresku)
😵😵😵🔫👹😈 (Rogan = Ruck = Muraresku)
We Wiser, “Anything but Drugs” Academics DESTROYED the Foolish, Falsehood-Tellers Rogan/ Muraresku/ Ruck!! Follow Our Balanced, Measured, Reasonable Lead
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience peire
Missing Person Alert: Need Again Image of Angel Cooking Mystics in Fire
i think @Cyberdisciple re-found and re-sent the image, BUT, his tip pointed to a defunct url at Egodeath Yahoo Group.
I might be able to get the URL from his email, and find at Archive.
Re-found the “Rebis Holding a Y” Image, Happily
I have hope and faith of finding the image, because with Rick driving the computer, when I described the “rebis holding a Y” image that I was unable to find, his search immediately found it. Very grateful.
image search image of angel cooking mystics in fire angel cooking mystics in fire
picture angels correcting mystics
Question for AI
Can you please help me find again an old, probably pre-modern, image of an angel (or possibly a few angels, I can’t remember) cooking variously dressed mystics in flames or fire? It is a good image, but I can’t figure out how to find it again.
“Based on your description, this sounds like an allegorical, alchemical, or early modern (16th–17th century) depiction rather than a standard biblical scene.
Several possibilities match the “angel cooking” and “flames” imagery:
Leonora Carrington’s The Chrysopeia of Mary the Jewess (or similar alchemical art): Carrington (a 20th-century surrealist working with older esoteric themes) created works depicting angels/figures cooking in ovens, often with alchemical transformations in fire.
Alchemical “Fire” Illustrations: In 17th-century alchemical emblem books (like Atalanta Fugiens), angels are sometimes depicted with fire or aiding in the “cooking” (distillation/sublimation) of elements within a furnace.
“The Four Elements: Fire” by Joachim Beuckelaer (c. 1570): While this is a kitchen scene, it is a 16th-century work that uses the “cooking/fire” metaphor intensely, often with mystical or spiritual subtexts in the background.
Allegory of the Soul/Martyrdom: Medieval or early modern engravings sometimes depict the Archangel Michael or other angels with purifying fire, often in a way that looks like cooking or refining, meant to symbolize the purgation of the soul.
Given the “good image” description, it might be an alchemical engraving (like those by Michael Maier) or a surrealist take on an old painting.
If it looks like an illustration/engraving: Search for “alchemical furnace angel.”
Keywords for searching: “Alchemical emblem angel fire,” “Leonora Carrington oven [NO],” “17th century angel distilling,” “Angels in fire art.”
If it looks like a painting: Try searching “Leonora Carrington” or “Hieronymus Bosch hell” (though that is more demon-heavy).
/ end of AI response
todo: email Mark Hoffman
email the evil M. Hoffman
Mark Hoffman posted a Q to me at Facebook?
in our private thread, did Mark ask me Q at Facebook? that site is scary, too many ppl in my life. Way too visible. I wanted contact w them, got too much exposure.
Who Is Paul Lindgren?
Tell me everything about your 2001 conversation with the discover of mushroom imagery in Christian art in Great Canterbury Psalter, by Paul Lindgren.
Entheogenics: Psychedelic Experiences as Revelatory Events in the History of Western Esotericism (Mosurinjohn)
Her book title doesn’t sound very “DESTROYED RUCK’S MYTH”
her two incompatible postitions she waffles:
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 who knows can’t draw any conclusion about anything ever < double cry emoji > – MAN UP, SHARDAY!
Timid Ascough copies my 2006 article Plaincourault: that way he can avoid making any assertions, except “sideline Allegro”.
But my article contributes nothing substantive to the field.
I was forced to write it, just to clear the damn OBSTACLE of Allegro out of the damn way so that we can do, after that, substantive positive contrib to field of entheogen scholarship.
Destrroyed ruck’s myth that psychedelics has a key role in Western religious history
yet
there were psychedelics in Western Esotericism
PICK A F*CKING SIDE SHARDAY FLIP FLOP – like Greer. ITS NOT THAT HARD SHARDAY.
she would choke on ‘key’ why? b/c like Hatsis is fixated on Allegro, Sharday Mosurinjohn is fixated on Muraresku, see focuses on the way the pop audience turns Muraresku, supported by Ruck, in the most extreme way possible.
Muraresku’s book wishes to prove that … i need to read the damn thing.
Muraresku’s book wishes that it could prove its hypoth: psychedelics were KEY , “key”, to mystery religions. As I say:
A typical religion had this traj:
Psychedelics are used, a religion starts because of using psychedelics. not institutional yet.
Institutional religion is built on psychedelics.
The institutional religion denies and suppresses psychedelics.
Images painted by spain regardless wehether drawn by eadwine or spain.
Images drawn by Eadwine and painted in Spain. todo: assign likelihood %, guessing which images were drawn by Eadwine. It would be interesting to afterwards compare my list, vs. the scholars’ list of such – if such a list exists. How do scholars know that some images were drawn by Eadwine and painted by Spain?
Which images get paired on a side of a sheet of paper, depends which images, if keep in num order.
My gallery of all images no text — does it include all of the Spain images? seems yes. 17 Spain-painted images, some obviously look as if sketched by Eadwine but implemented with zilch compreheension of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, so, falls entirely flat.
Eadwine’s images are worthy of a king. Spain, not. even the images that were drawn/ sketched by Eadwine, were painted by Spain w/o inspiration.
My main gallery for Great Canterbury Psalter now shows all the images that were painted in Spain, not only the images that were drawn and painted in Canterbury.
Poor average Spain artists can’t keep up with brilliant themes, technique, and style of Eadwine.
Compound Png combining dog-asp, asp, and {hand mushroom-tree}
wish to get close together the dog-asp, asp, and {hand mushroom-tree}.
how about another first: multi-pic analysis in a single list:
{mushroom} motifs in the 3 pics: asp’s mushroom-tree; {hand mushroom-tree}
{branching}: IY asp mushroom-tree, non-branching asp tail, cut branches in {hand mushroom-tree}, visually cut “, non-branching thumb, IY hand
{handedness}: magician stand on right foot; asp L foot on branching part of tree [
{stability}
1:46 a.m. Jan. 25, 2026: the ultra-clear asp diagram, proves that dancing man reading of salamander: it DOES matter which part of the mushroom-tree the salamander touches w/ which limb.
Does it matter which part of the mushroom-tree is touched by which part of the sasp asp? YES! that’s THE WHOLE POINT!
Does R foot touch the branching part of the mushroom-tree? NO!! That’s the whole point of the image diagram! the entire message is,
R foot does not touch branching part of tree
R foot touches a non-branching… the TREE IS THERE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MESSAGES ABOUT BRANCHING VS NON BRANCHING
IN THE MEDIEVAL ART GENRE OF {MUSHROOM-TREES}, DONT GIVE A SH!T ABOUT THE SUROUNDING TEXT!
THE GENRE EXISTS UNTO ITSELF! the art genre exists on its own with no text, and then the text people bring in, import those structures-of-concern
ie the network of main cares: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs – that network of high concerns, is then brought into texts, brining ITS OWN UNIVERSE OF TOP CONCERNS WITH IT.
“I wrote a random psalm and a Christian moral bestiary book. Pls add pictures.”
“ok, here’s some of our {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs pictures, to put with your into your text. We’ll send an artist straightaway to decorate your text – we’ll send one who’s trained in the best art technology: highly inventive and innovaive in variants of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs! We’ll elevate your text by our Classic
Static Rigid Hand Shapes and Blessing Signs w/ Fingers? No, the Exact Opposite! You’re Expected to Come up with Clever Variants of the Classic Motif Areas, Variations on these 4 Themes: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
What is consistent: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs. But the direction of impln is open, expansive variants.
An element of constancy, but imp… the picture a truee:
Picture a tree:
At the bottom of the tree is a shared, common, bounded, unchanging trunk, which is the common set, {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, that constitutes the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
Move up the tree, it branches out into variants on that set of themes.
New unique ways to depict the unchanging 4 themes; medieval artists loved UNIQUE, Clever ways of implementing their fav 4 themes, {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
the {IY} hand
the {IY} hand shape
“shape” redunant like saying “a snake-shaped, non-branching snake”
saying “IY” is redun w/ saying “shape”
White Boxes on Pairs of Hands-Including Both Hands of the {hand mushroom-tree}, This Time!
I have been noticing the 4-trunks problem since like 2021, a long time, figured out today/yesterday: = 4 fingers. via the technique of white boxes on pairs of hands.
Almost immed after drew white boxes on pair s of hands, figured 4-trunks. So, was a success strategy / investment. but had to go back and patch 4 trunks to include in white box – important, in this game; doing so is important for the purpose / Goal of understanding Eadwine’s meaning.
The teacher/ quiz-poser is very concerned that I figure out {4-trunks}. a couple days ago, a difficult hypothesis to judge: “COULD IT BE – CRAZY TO THINK, BUT — COULD FINGERS FOLDED TIPS HIDDEN, BE MEANINGFUL?”
BEST Best answer: EVERYTHING IS MEANINGFUL! As long as you’re gonna paint, paint something worthile: a puzzle in the genre of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
sim idea: FOOD AND DRING *ALWAYS* MEANS PSHIL PSILOCYBIN , IN MYTH & MYTHIC ART. What the hell would REGULAR non-psychedelic food be doing in MythLand? Get it right, what genre.
WE ARE NOT IN MUNDANE EATING SCENE. in justin sledge ESOTERICA land, merkavah mysticism series of videos, “the mystics are so plain, they only eat bread, they have to make it themselves, specially”. why the f would we talk about bread, unless it is MAGICAL BREAD? GET THE GENRE RIGHT! Everything in myth and mythic art means psilocybin (thus also means experiencing eternalism, from psilocybin)
The Magical, Must-Bake-It-Yourself Bread of Dr. Justin Sledge of ESOTERICA YouTube Channel
Sledge assures us, “There are no psychedelics in Merkavah mysticism. Just nothing but bread.”
Psilocybin doesn’t break down at 425 degrees.
The mystic descender to chariot throne palaces nested guy must not have the wife bake
This is special bread “b/c she is unclean” – fake cover-story.
It’s b/c it is high dose psilocybin bread he’s baking, not for wife & fam.
Everything in myth and mythic art means psilocybin (thus also means experiencing eternalism, from psilocybin)
My strategy was sucessful, yesterday into today; Jan 23-24, 2026:
Drew white boxes on pairs of hands. d/k 4 trunks lower right, got omitted. didn’t know what to do w/ 4 trunks, didn’t think of them as visually cut fingers yet. Uploaded the png.
Quickly figured out 4 trunks = 4 fingers folded guy. Cross-cropped, cross-decoded the {hand mushroom-tree} in 107 & 109, drawing lines on 109’s connecting fingers to tree cap stems.
Created crops of guy + tree, ended up w/ 3: 1) shades of green & pink boxes. 2) simpler, white boxes w/ white lines connecting – later, next day ie jan 24 2026, today, realized: ultra blurry (bad process of capture&crop/trim). 3) crisp capture this time, draw very simple 4 white boxes.
Returned to look at the 1st pass entire image white boxes, realized and judged, I MUST fix the pass 1 entire image. done.
Figured out scepter cross Jess Christ holds, has thumb & 4 fingers, L & R. That was made possible by my successful straettgey of taking the time to initially draw white boxes around “all” pairs of hands.
Why not wings? partly just time. SHOULD I PATCH PIC AGAIN TO DRAW ON WINGS? YES
Patched the image to include BOTTOM of {hand mushroom-tree} not just the top hand, but its companion bottom hand too; extended lower right white box to entire {hand mushroom-tree}.
Judged that this is one of the hardest things in the image, and, that the orig v1 of this image … therefore MUST be corrected. pretty much in line w/ my orig straegtegy; never intended to catch everything; v1 pass The first pass was to flush out exactly this sort of hard problem, what to do w/ the 4 trunks.
todo: organize my f107 crops page, create more crops.
“In Donnie Darko, the book about time is titled The Philosophy of Time Travel, written by the character Roberta Sparrow (also known as “Grandma Death”).
“It is a fictional text that serves as a guide for the movie’s events, explaining the mechanics of the Tangent Universe, the dangers of unstable time, and the roles of the “Living Receiver” (Donnie) and the “Manipulated”.
“Key details about the book’s content include:
The Tangent Universe: The book explains that when the Fourth Dimension is corrupted, a “Tangent Universe” is created. It is unstable and will destroy the Primary Universe if it collapses.
The Artifact: When a Tangent Universe occurs, an object from the real world—the “Artifact”—appears in the new, unstable one (in the movie, this is the jet engine).
The Living Receiver: Donnie is described as the “Living Receiver,” who is chosen to guide the Artifact back into the Primary Universe to stop the collapse.
Water and Metal: The book explains that water and metal are key elements for constructing time portals.
Purpose: The book provides the rules for the world the characters inhabit, helping to explain the strange, apocalyptic events, such as the falling jet engine.
“The book was written for the film by director Richard Kelly to explain the plot and was included on the official DVD.”
/ end of ai ans.
Phrases from Block-universe eternalism slides to add to church reader article
Wording per the church leader’s slide deck slides:
The “What’s Right” Slide
“the Block Universe Theory”
“There is no free will in the Block Universe”
“The Block Universe Theory (Eternalism)”
“A philosophical concept supported by physics, especially Einstein’s theory of relativity, which suggests that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously and are equally real, forming a four-dimensional “block” of spacetime.”
“picture the universe as a giant block of spacetime — past, present, and future all existing together, like pages in a book.”
“We don’t write the book as we go. The whole book is already there — we just experience it one page at a time.”
Petkov’s Book: Minkowski Profoundly Comprehends Absolute Four-Dimensional Spacetime, Einstein Doesn’t
Photo: Michael Hoffman
[vs Petkov’s word-choice, “absolute four-dimensional spacetime” – in 1987/88 i had a problem with how relativity is taught couched in Einstein’s reasoning – Petkov shows that Minkowski had better understanding than Einstein, I like Petkov not Ein’s view
Petkov / Minkowski: “absolute four-dimensional spacetime“; book pages photos are in WordPress gallery – or only mobile device? – and maybe visible some idea development page here. Petkov would recoil at some statements in the slide deck.]
Panofsky & Huggins Perceive {branching} in Mushroom-Trees, but Fail to Perceive {non-branching}
Was this point omitted from the emails? i swear i wrote it: maybe in the “lost” (& restored) Email 1 to Entheogen Scholarship Journal Editor and Author.
Panofsky and Huggins both make their main argument (their main support for denying mushroom imagery in Christian art) the presence of branching/ branches.
But both Panofsky and Huggins fail to perceive the {non-branching} motif, or the {branching vs. non-branching} motif.
Email 4 to Entheogen Scholarship Journal Editor and Author
That is true, I have the most solid of content for articles ready.
My theory of mental transformation driven by psychedelics is very mature,
and my model of analogies (in myth and in mythic art) for psychedelic mental transformation is very mature.
With my concise Aug. 2025 article for Sacred Garden Community Church Reader, my model, and my manner of explaining that model, reached great maturity:
Emailing you, Brown, Cyberdisciple, and Max Freakout has been helpful, to speak plainly on complex, advanced points.
Emailing with Travis Kitchens has been helpful, re: journalistic reporting on both psychedelic (pseudo) science (eg. the major conflicts of interest exposed in the Hopkins “religious leaders study”) and entheogen scholarship.
Sharday Mosurinjohn and Richard Ascough for whatever reasons (flip-flopping between two inconsistent positions) had a hard time for years trying to submit their articlePsychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience to both psychedelics journals and religious studies journals.
If only I knew a Classics expert to help outline professionally a classics journal article, who is an expert at my particular theory of psychedelic transformation, along with myth themes as analogies for that transformation of personal agency: https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/site-map/ (per previous emails from him to me, providing a professional outline structure.)
I am accustomed to thinking of writing an article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, not a Classics journal.
— Michael Hoffman
Email 3 to Entheogen Scholarship Journal Editor and Author
An error in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies (Browns 2019), and an important, missing connector point that I intended:
Huggins 2024 carries forward the extremely important “branching” argument from Panofsky‘s entirely censored-by-Wasson, 2nd letter (available to scholars in 2019 by Brown):
Panofsky 1952 puts forth, as his ultimate basis for denying mushroom imagery in Christian art:
* But mushroom-trees have branches, therefore, cannot mean mushrooms, and must mean trees; I cannot accept mushroom-trees as meaning mushrooms (unless someone explains the branches).
“But even that [that “some especially ignorant craftsman may have misu[n]derstood the finished product*, viz., the “Pilzbaum,” as a real mushroom.”] is not very probable
because even the most mushroom-like specimens [of the hundreds of mushroom-trees in Christian art] show some traces of ramification [branching];
if the [Plaincourault fresco] artists had labored under the delusion that the model [prototype] before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree
he would have omitted the branches altogether.”
Here’s where I jokingly — the highest of humor — show pictures of cutting branches, a major motif in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
eg the image contributed by the Journal of Psychedelic Studies – Brown 2019, St. Martin
Direct link to the PNG that I derived from Julie Brown:
Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown; crop and image enhancement by Michael Hoffman.
showing a youth cutting off a branch, with the {Left vs. Right}, {handedness} motif.
Compare Panofsky’s “he would have omitted the branches altogether”.
Except that the very message of the “mushroom-tree” genre, ie the “branching-message mushroom tree” art genre, is regarding branching!
Psilocybin changes the experiential mode from [branching-thinking; possibilism-thinking] to [non-branching thinking; eternalism-thinking].
Browns 2019 Error in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies
Browns mistranscribed Panofsky’s letter as “project”, ie the fresco at Plaincourault.
But actually Panofsky wrote “product”, ie alleged “prototype” template artists supposedly worked from like human photocopy machines with zero intentionality — but only when it comes to the “hot” topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
This seemingly minor error messed me up while analyzing Panofsky’s argumentation in a podcast – it changes the meaning from “the prototype given to the artist” to “the finished fresco”.
Embarrassed, I had to retract, revised, re-publish a correct analysis based on accurate reading of the letter itself instead of the mis-transcription in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies.
Comprehending Panofsky’s arguments in the condensed, rough letters was difficult; this error made it harder and Panofsky’s argumentation (in his 2nd, completely censored-by-Wasson letter) even more baffling to follow.
Now by 2026, since Browns 2019 revealed the Panofsky letters 7 years ago, and I provided an extreme, sentence-by-sentence webpage for reference, I fully follow Panofsky’s arguments.
I now follow not only Panofsky’s explicitly stated arguments to Wasson, but even Panofsky’s silent presuppositions that accompany the argument:
“There are hundreds of mushroom-trees, therefore this fresco cannot mean mushrooms.”
There are hundreds of mushroom-trees in Christian art.
The mycologists in 1952 (ie Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art) are unaware that there are hundreds of mushroom-trees in Christian art.
If the mycologists/affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art had been informed and aware that there are hundreds of mushroom-trees in Christian art, they certainly would not have asserted that Plaincourault fresco means mushrooms.
Therefore the Plaincourault fresco cannot mean mushrooms.
But the reaction of Giorgio Samorini and me, upon reading in SOMA (1968) that there are hundred of mushroom-trees in Christian art, is: ALL OF THE HUNDREDS OF MUSHROOM-TREES mean psilocybin mushrooms or Amanita. Not “Oops my mistake, I thought Plaincourault fresco was the world’s only instance of mushroom-tree in Christian art. Since I learned there are hundreds of mushroom-trees, I cannot possibly maintain that Plaincourault fresco means mushrooms, because that would imply an impossibility: that Christian art contains hundreds of psychedelic mushrooms.” That’s how Panofsky ASSUMES (because of his presuppositions/bias/ prejudice) we mycologists/ affirmers would react.
There are hundreds of mushroom-trees in Christian art, therefore the Plaincourault fresco cannot mean mushrooms
“There are hundreds of mushroom-trees in Christian art. Therefore the Plaincourault fresco cannot mean mushrooms.”
What kind of logic is that?! DOES NOT FOLLOW.
— until you include the silent presuppositions/ prejudice/ bias, that Christian art cannot (“of course, obviously!“) contain hundreds of mushroom imagery in Christian art; hundreds of mushroom-trees that intend psilocybin mushrooms or Amanita mushrooms.
Panofsky makes that (“mushroom-trees have branches/ branching, therefore cannot mean mushrooms”) as his ultimate argument, and so does Huggins 2024.
But by 2024, I had already fully explained the central importance of not only branches, but {branching vs. non branching}, in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
The {branching vs. non branching} contrast is the main message of the genre, standing for possibilism vs. eternalism, and the personal-control ramifications.
Psychedelics produce the eternalism state of consciousness (against psychedelic pseudo science; not “the (Positive) Unitive state of consciousness; not “the Unitive state of consciousness “as everyone, eg. Jeffrey Breau 2023, mischaracterizes it re: the central dynamics/experience.
eternalism = non-branching of possibilities = analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control.
A YI tree — or thumb vs. fingers, in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} — contrasts possibilism vs. eternalism.
You don’t “get rid of” possibilism-thinking; you add eternalism-thinking to it; you end up with 2 points of view.
The “Perception of eternalism” article in Josie Kins’ Effect Index
See Josie Kins’ (mediocre, semi-comprehending) Effects Database entry on “eternalism”, showing that I’m not the only one focused on this effect of psychedelics.
/ end of Email 3 to Entheogen Scholarship Journal Editor and Author
Email 2 to Entheogen Scholarship Journal Editor and Author
Sent 12:58 p.m. Noon, Jan. 24, 2026:
That a certain “disproved Ruck” article that got rejected by this journal cropped up elsewhere, sounds like the possibly fallback, 3rd-rate (d/k), journal that FINALLY accepted the Mosurinjohn & Ascough article, the journal psychedelic medicine.
I felt pretty sure that Sharday Mosurinjohn was referring to the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, in her live 10-minute talk video, or in her interview with Hu / blogpost.
She said and wrote that for YEARS, Mosurinjohn & Ascough submitted their “Invention” article to psychedelics journals, and FINALLY it was accepted by the psychedelic medicine journal.
One of her (sometimes inconsistent & self-contradictory, tightrope-walking) messages is: and it’s somewhat vague:
Academic journals and pop entheogen writings need to start communicating with each other.
I assume she means, pop entheogen writings (ie Ruck, or Muraresku) need to shut up and listen to the academic naysayer authority journals (1-way “communication”).
I feel like every statement I make about Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s position or message, I need to provide 10 exact quotes showing how they prevaricate, waffle, and sit on both sides of the fence.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough then get booted by both parties: “anything but drugs” academics, and “pop” entheogen scholars (they repeatedly list Muraresku, Ruck, & Joe Rogan).
Sharday Mosurinjohn seems to really be struggling against both camps, beaten-down, trying to have it both ways and appease both camps, alternatingly.
It’s a tough balance, or flip-flop, tightrope she’s trying to walk, in this contested (& ignored, suppressed) topic of scholarship.
One of the most glaring contradictions by Ascough, in a video interview, is:
We academic scholars have written rebuttals proving that Ruck is wrong, and we don’t want to keep repeating publishing (he says “have considered”, vaguely – what’s that mean, exactly?) of these ample disproofs of Ruck and disproofs of the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis.
Academic publications practically NEVER have written anything on the topic of the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis.
Citations needed!
Exactly as I wrote in 2006 re: Wasson SOMA p. 180, Wasson’s censored passage from (one of the!) Panofsky 1952 letters: I said:
More than anything in the world, I WANT to “consult” the art authorities, but you refuse to give me any citations!
SURELY I guarantee that Panofsky MUST have given Wasson citations, to make such an aggressive claim, “we experts know all about mushroom-trees, totally routine, we’ve “covered” that.”
Me, in 2006: Citation needed PLEASE!
In 2019, the Journal of Psychedelic Studies – Browns to the rescue, PROVED my 2006 accusation that Wasson was withholding citations, probably super-weak citations.
In my book-length, 64-page article in 2006, about Plaincourault, which Ascough cites in article “John Allegro and the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis”,
. . . . I got fooled by the . . . . ellipses on p. 180 of SOMA, where the academic, obstructionist fraud Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔 Wasson (an academic fraud regarding his cover-up of mushroom imagery in Christian art, as the pope’s banker) berates mycologists (= MICA Affirmers) for not “consulting” (what’s that mean?) the art authorities, who are experts on “related” matters (but not THIS matter, of pilzbaum, mushroom-trees)
and the art authorities never thought or wrote about mushrooms according to Wasson, and art authorities have never thought about, written about, or published anything about trees, per Ronald Huggins.
Email 2 to Entheogen Scholarship Journal Editor and Author con’t below, after the following addition:
SOMA’s insane arg’n [insertion]
Having never thought about, written about, or published about mushrooms in medieval art (per Wasson 1968), or trees in medieval art (per Huggins 2024), this makes (per Wasson 1968) the art authorities a must-consult authority on the topic of mushroom-trees in medieval art, because the art authorities are experts on “a matter relating to art” (per Wasson 1968).
“For more than half a century the mycologists have refrained from consulting [? Citation needed! “Consult” what writings; or conversations, discussion, telegrams, smoke signals, or anything??] the art world on a matter relating to art.
“Art historians of course do not read books about mushrooms.“
Or write or think about trees in medieval art, because “trees are merely incidental”, per Huggins 2024.
Therefore, entheogen scholars must be sure to consult art authorities on the topic of mushroom–trees.
Wasson’s argument makes no sense at all.
Actually, it follows that entheogen scholars should IGNORE the ignorant art authorities, because those “authorities”, “on a matter relating to art”, don’t know anything at all about mushrooms, or about or trees in medieval art.
Page 180 of Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔 Wasson’s SOMA (1968) (with My Annotations) Quoting and Censoring Panofsky (1952 Letter 1 of 2)
p. 180, SOMA, Wasson 1968, annotations by Michael Hoffman. Gallery date of this, 2nd version of photo = Jan. 8, 2025. That’s the 2nd pass, of adding text. Wrritten on the page says Dec. 2, 2024: that’s the first pass of my writing, with cuss words, on the page; see my older photo Dec 2 2024 showing cuss words and fewer add’l annotations.
p. 180, SOMA, Wasson 1968, annotations by Michael Hoffman. Gallery date of this, 2nd version of photo = Jan. 8, 2025. That’s the 2nd pass, of adding text. Wrritten on the page says Dec. 2, 2024: that’s the first pass of my writing, with cuss words, on the page; see my older photo, Dec. 2, 2024, showing cuss words and fewer add’l annotations.
Ronald Huggins 2024 is extremely suspect (he’s a Wasson/Panofsky apologist) in failing 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
Huggins doesn’t assist entheogen scholars by usefully citing Browns’ article; he just uselessly cites a drawer at Harvard (entheogen scholars: please fly to Harvard, if you want to check my citations).
Huggins suspiciously cites Brinckmann out of the blue, by magic, without pointing out Wasson’s censoring of Brinckmann in Wasson’s 1968 SOMA book.
How the heck did Huggins find out about the two letters from Panofsky, if not from the Journal of Psychedelic Studies?!
Panofsky’s two, complete letters (sans 2 mysterious medieval artworks copies showing “even more emphatic” mushroom imagery); and Brinckmann’s book are a huge discovery, independently, by the evidently brilliant scholar Ronald Huggins, if he is honest, which I suspect not, because he’s a Wasson/Panofsky apologist and is on team “MICA Deniers”, who is concerned with wanting to appear credible, no matter how bad of argumentation is required.
Huggins, like the other MICA Deniers — “anything but drugs” academics –shamelessly sign their name to junk argumentation.
The great discovery of the two complete Panofsky letters along with the Brinckmann book citation are a HUGE DISCOVERY!
Yet Huggins nonchalantly cites and glosses over these previously unknown-to-the-public (scholars) citations, as if everyone has had the two letters and the Brinckmann citation since 1968 or since 1952.
Mosurinjohn cites Huggins’ 2024 article (Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter) AS IF it is credible/fact.
But Huggins’ article is terrible and fails to provide any argumentations that stand up to scrutiny; it’s a typical fallacy-fest, typical of MICA Deniers.
Huggins’ article is valuable for indirect reasons: He says he can’t accept mushroom imagery in Christian art until someone explains the branching (picture two exact cubensis arms L & R in famous image panel Day 3 of Creation, in Great Canterbury Psalter) in mushroom-trees – which I had already done, by the time of writing to Jerry Brown March 21, 2022, my first mention of “branching-message mushroom trees”.
Screenshot of my March 21, 2022 email to Jerry Brown, announcing the identification of branching-message mushroom trees:
Similarly, in 2023 I emailed Jerry Brown the identification of branching morphology of fingers vs. thumb, which in the past couple days in 2026, got full confirmation in relation to branching morpology of mushroom-trees in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}:
Feb. 9, 2023 – Decoded Hand Shapes, Fingers, Thumb, Mapped to Possibilism & Eternalism
Those are emojis in the url. Scroll down to the pictures from St. Martins’ church fresco, Entry into Jerusalem: Jesus holds out finger-shapes.
I confirmed and proved in the past few days, in Great Canterbury Psalter, that {fingers & thumbs branching vs. non-branching} is a stock motif in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
Huggins pretty much bets his entire denial of mushroom imagery in Christian art on one panel, which shows strong mushroom imagery: the 2000 Paul Lindgren-discovered, famous Day 3 of Creation panel] as a Medieval Test Case, the cover of Browns’ 2016 book and other books) , based on the fact it has “branching” (which is exacly identical to L & R cubensis arms).
TWICE credits Paul Lindgren with discovering, by 2000, mushroom imagery in Christian art in Great Canterbury Psalter. Ruck et
Also Huggins magician re: panel Day 4, which shows 4 exact mushrooms with no branching (so, these are not mushroom-trees): in misdirection-of-attention fashion, instead of him pointing out that these are exact literal mushrooms, he instead directs our attention to the minor, trident little plants, pointing out that they also appear in the mushroom-mountain folio image of Great Canterbury Psalter, folio f22:
Per the artist Eadwine, we are to analyze the branching, YI morphology, of his mushrooms, mushroom-trees, and these smaller plants.
We are to see Eadwine’s images through the lens of branching vs. non-branching morphology.
Eadwine’s message: We are to affirm non-branching of possibilities (and nullity of personal control ability), in contrast to our usual, familar thinking in terms of branching possibilities and personal control ability.
To re-stabilize personal control while on psilo., we are to stand on right foot (relying on eternalism-thinking), instead of our usual standing on left foot (relying on possibilism-thinking).
Huggins 2025 just pulls the two complete Panofsky letters and Brinckmann citations out of the blue, out of nowhere: the Brinckmann book citation and the two, uncensored-by-Wasson, Panofsky articles. These are huge discoveries!
Does Huggins not realize the import of these citations, since Huggins published in an art scholarship journal, as a newcomer in the field of entheogen scholarship?
Huggins wrote one previous article on entheogen scholarship: Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?” re: dancing man image / salamander in bestiary.
The characteristically shady ways of MICA Deniers; no integrity.
MICA Deniers are a fallacy-generating machine; where do argumentation fallacies come from?
Logical argumentation fallacies are produced from the hot/suppressed topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
References/See Also:
Ronald Huggins’ articles on entheogen scholarship:
/ end of Email 2 to Entheogen Scholarship Journal Editor and Author
Email 1 to Entheogen Scholarship Journal Editor and Author
Email 1 WAS in the present page, but vanished! Check History. Meanwhile, here’s a fresh copy again.
A couple pairs of scholars may have contacted the Journal of Psychedelic History, or the Journal of Religious (Anything-but-Drugs) Studies.
One pair of scholars is named Mosurinjohn & Ascough. Their position is that:
There are no psychedelics in mystery religions; Ruck is wrong and foolish and needs fundamental correction.
I flagged in bold red, around 10 phrases that assert this, and that send this signal or message.
The other pair of scholars is also named Mosurinjohn & Ascough. Their position is that:
Psychedelics might have been used in mystery religions, but we only have a little evidence for that, and cannot draw a conclusion, and the field of entheogen scholarship badly needs our input to caution them that a hypothesis is not a fact.
I will do my 4th close reading of their article that’s been rejected by both camps: “anything but drugs” academics, and entheogen scholars:
One highlighter color on phrases that assert and signal “There were no psychedelics in Mystery Religions.” (Aggressive, bailey position.)
Other highlighter color on phrases that pander to entheogen scholars, saying “We’re on your side, don’t be pissed off at us, alls we’re saying is merely that you guys need to gather more data before any conclusion is possible.” (Feeble, motte position.)
If Ruck turns mere possibility (maybe there were psychedelics in mystery religions) into as-if fact (we can be certain the engine of mystery religion was psychedelics),
Mosurinjohn & Ascough do the same, in the other valence direction: they turn mere possibility (maybe there were no psychedelics in mystery religions, because eg contemplative drama in a cave can/ could/ might/ may produce same effect as 10g of Cube) into as-if fact (we disproved the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis).
This way both camps will love and accept Mosurinjohn & Ascough — or, both camps reject and are pissed off at Mosurinjohn & Ascough, the double agents who skew negative, unlike Ruck who skews positive.
They wrote an article that’s about how that selfsame article got rejected for publication by both camps, for years.
Their strategy of selling to one camp with one message, and also selling to the other camp with the opposite message, has been a terrible struggle for them, and we should feel sorry for Sharday Mosurinjohn and the dead weight of Ascough she’s dragging along with her while she avoids journal publication and instead writes a book about entheogens in esotericism, that has:
* One chapter on “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis is false and foolish”
* Another chapter on — not contributing any new research to add substance to the field, but rather — cautioning the misguided and weak-minded entheogen scholars to remember that a hypothesis is not a fact.
Should be a great leap forward for the field. Just pick which one chapter you agree with, and read that one.
By the time the book comes out, she hopes to figure out how to pander to both opposed camps, without them continuing to both shun her and her alter ego; Dr. Jekyll: “We must be nuanced, balanced, reasonable, and cautiously gather more data, before we can draw any conclusions”, and Mr. Hyde: “Entheogen scholars fools and have BEEN DEBUNKED!”
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Mosurinjohn & Ascough, 2025)
In f107 that Jan 19 discovery by me 5 days ago, the 4 weird cut trunks, is pretty big; ie, the trunks are very weird and puzzling and baffling, but, totally SOLVED HERE.
A good riddle (or puzzle, here, functioning largely as an instructional aid / quiz), has the property:
The moment that you figure out the solution, facepalm “IT’S TOTALLY OVIOUS” and there’s essentially the opposite of doubt; there’s natural certainty, “OF COURSE THATS THE INSTRUCTOR’S RIDDLE SOLUTION!”
Figuring out a riddle = 100% certainty, of a certain kind.
How do you know when you figured out the solution to a riddle or puzzle; why does it feel so definitely the correct solution, with such certainty?
The Submitted Question, Broken up Per-Sentence
How do you know when you figured out the solution to a riddle or puzzle; why does it feel so definitely the correct solution, with such certainty?
For example, the well-known riddle where a person is told words that seem unrelated, but the trick to figure out, in this game, is that each word has a repeated letter, such as ‘nn’.
Anyone who figures out the trick to solve that “repeated letter” riddle immediately can start producing their own example words that contain a repeated letter; there is no doubt (why not?) that it’s the correct, intended solution.
The Question as I Submitted It to AI
How do you know when you figured out the solution to a riddle or puzzle; why does it feel so definitely the correct solution, with such certainty? For example, the well-known riddle where a person is told words that seem unrelated, but the trick to figure out, in this game, is that each word has a repeated letter, such as ‘nn’. Anyone who figures out the trick to solve that “repeated letter” riddle immediately can start producing their own example words that contain a repeated letter; there is no doubt (why not?) that it’s the correct, intended solution.
AI’s Answer
“Knowing that you have solved a riddle or puzzle—the “Aha!” or Eureka moment—feels like absolute certainty because it represents a, cognitive restructuring of information, where your brain suddenly switches from an incorrect, blocked, or disorganized view to a coherent pattern that perfectly fits all available data.
“In your example of the “repeated letter” riddle (e.g., words like “Balloon,” “Sunny,” “Committee” hidden among random words), the certainty arises because the solution is predictive; once you find the pattern, it explains every clue instantly and allows you to generate new examples, confirming its validity.
“Here is why that solution feels so definitive:
1. The “Aha!” Moment (Insight)
The Shift from Impasse: You likely struggle initially, trying to find thematic, logical, or emotional connections between the words. You reach an “impasse”—a moment where you are stuck.
Sudden Restructuring: Insight happens when your brain rearranges the information—perhaps shifting focus from the meaning of the words to their orthography (spelling).
The Feeling of Certainty: This moment of insight is accompanied by a rush of positive emotion (dopamine) and a high level of subjective confidence, often called the “Aha! experience”.
2. Why It Feels Correct (Pattern Recognition)
Total Fit: The solution (the repeated letter) is not just a good guess; it perfectly matches every single word provided. It satisfies all criteria without leaving lingering anomalies.
Predictive Power: When you realize the “nn” in “Sunny” is the trick, you immediately test it on “Balloon” and “Committee.” Because the rule holds true, you have verified the solution. This allows you to generate your own examples (like “Puppy” or “Bookkeeper”), which provides absolute certainty.
The “Elimination” Factor: The feeling of certainty also comes from the unconscious brain “turning down the volume” on incorrect interpretations that you were previously considering, leaving only the correct one in focus.
3. The Psychology of Why We Trust It
“Aha!” vs. Analytic Solving: Research suggests that insights are often more likely to be correct than slow, step-by-step analytical reasoning.
Memory Boosting: These moments of insight sear the solution into memory, making it feel robust and “real”.
Cognitive Load: The “Aha!” experience is surprisingly resilient to cognitive load, meaning your brain is confident in the solution even if you are distracted or tired, because the pattern-recognition process happens subconsciously.
“In summary, you know it is correct because it resolves the chaos of the puzzle into a single, simple, and universally applicable rule, triggering a neurological sense of, satisfaction and certainty that is hard to doubt.”
/ end of AI’s answer
The Search Url
Might give different results if click it again.
The search url posing the question to AI. That url is:
Hand Mushroom-Tree – “hand” not distinctive but … can’t RIGHT NOW! NEED PIC IN EACH SECTION HERE. CAN’T THINK.
Right-Limb Ossuary
Clean Temple
Cut-Branch Dog
Hand Mushroom-Tree
5 Hand-Guys
Scroll & Book
Ossuary No Left Limbs
Hellmouth — poor because so non-distinctive, how damn many hellmouths are there in Eadwine? net is WAY more distinctive. dog, too. cloth-wrapped temple, too. OTOH it’s my fav hellmouth.
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 the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis” has taken place.
Mosur has merely cautioned, 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 weasely,
“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.
Greer doesn’t do this con-artist shell game. He has ONE, nuanced position: psychedelics were present in mystery religion culture, to some extent, the only thing left to debate is extent.
I hate the question of extent, because it blinds people to evidence, even really clear evidence, because ppl have the “extent” tail wag the “evidence” dog.
eg Letcher looks hard for secret mushrooms, but sees them on door, so, it’s proved: no secret mushrooms in Xy; ie, no mushrooms in Xy.
The whole “secrecy” concept totally derails and blinds people to simple sheer fact of presence of evidence.
Wrong paradigm blinds people.
My eyes have finally been opened to see the evidence I didn’t see for Nov 2020- Dec 2025 or from 2001 (online gallery of entire folio image f11 by Entheos journal, supporting “Conjuring Eden” article) until Jan. 13, 2025:
Day 1 panel in f11 in Great Canterbury Psalter, God holds a {balance scale} containing mushrooms per indications by Eadwine in panel Day 4 under Day 1.
AI Hilarity: Generated Title “This Post Reports that Mosurinjohn Has Definitively Proved There Were No Psychedelics in Mystery Religions [pers. comm.]”
I was looking for wording that SOUNDS like Sharday Mosurinjohn has “disproved” Ruck.
I was glad to find this title of this post — but! it’s AI gen’d.
That is, AI interprets Henry Winslow’s post as asserting this, even if he uses wording that is inadvertently hazy and doesn’t define “Sharday totally disproved Ruck”.
I highlighted the title as showing guilty word-choice.
It’s an AI-gen’d title trying to characterize his post – not literally Winslow’s wording – but he DID accept the AI suggestion/ characterization, so he’s fully responsible for the false word-choice.
But, blame Sharday Mosurinjohn for pretending to hold two different positions, covertly flipping between them, and they PERSONALLY CONVERSED, so, no excuse.
Henry Winslow’s Post Claiming That Mosurinjohn Proved That Ruck Is Wrong
Date calc: 5 months before 2026/01/23 = 2025/13/23 – 0/05/00 = 2025/08/23
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[sic] 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 [2025]) and Richard Ascough systematically dismantle [??? vague] what they call “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis,” pointing out there’s zero archaeological evidence for psychedelics at Eleusis.
[The former doesn’t follow from the latter! Deniers employ a loaded, poisoned notion of “evidence”, purpose-built. – Cybermonk]
“They say proponents are presenting speculation as fact, and the entire narrative is built on shaky foundations and circular reasoning.
[A paradigm is “circular”; inherently. (Or, elliptical orbits, in the sun-centered revised cosmos model that took from 1510 to 1677 to be switched to.) – Cybermonk]
[Mosurinjohn & Ascough present speculation as fact, when they venture boldly from their boring motte position into their exciting-to-Winslow, indefensible bailey position, “There definitely were no psychedelics in mystery religions” before crying “We didn’t say that” and rushing back to hide in their cold, boring motte -Cybermonk]
“So why does the myth persist?
“The authors argue it’s about legitimacy.
“People want to believe there’s a ‘respectable’ Western pedigree for psychedelics with our European ancestors.
“Never mind that there are plenty of Indigenous lineages around the world that have preserved psychedelic wisdom for millennia.
[the entheogen scholars are the ones who researched Indig Shams – Cybermonk]
“If we need history’s stamp of approval to justify research and policy reform today (we don’t), surely that’s enough.”
[lies of omission about entheogens in Western religious history are not “enough” – Cybermonk]
/ end of Winslow’s credibility
Blame Mosurinjohn for playing 2-faced, flip-flop, have-it-both-ways games with him, to ingratiate herself with two opposed camps and paradigmatic commitments incompatible:
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.
The Egodeath Theory Is the Leader, the Perfect Opposite of Indigibaloney Shams P.C. Shoved Down Your Throat
Sharday Mosurinjohn, P.C. Hack, resorting to cheap cliche namecalling & false accusations against opponents, instead of actual argumentation of substance. Hack.
Mosurinjohn is a newcomer amateur newbie who hasn’t read the most important papers in entheogen scholarship and presumes to lecture and caution us who have been in the field since 1975 & 1998 doing productive research, unlike her EMPTY paper presenting to contribute caution but not providing anything new at all but self promotion.
hasn’t read Egodeath.com (Ascough cites my Plaincourault article, misreps it)
hasn’t read EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com
Yet presumes to lecture and caution us that hypoth != fact. Shut up. Try contributing something other than flip-flop the motte-and-bailey fallacy …
I don’t like “the motte-and-bailey fallacy” in sentences.
motte-and-bailey covert flipping between two contradictory positions mbcf
Yet presumes to lecture and caution us that hypoth != fact. Shut up. Try contributing something other than motte-and-bailey covert flipping between two contradictory positions.
Unlike Christian Greer, who is honest, steady, and consistent, reasonable, coherent (Stang seems pretty good this way too) and DOES NOT MISLEAD GULLIBLES SUCH AS HENRY WINSLOW.
How much does each bandwagon rider do motte-and-bailey covert flipping between two contradictory positions?
Charles Stang
Christian Greer
Richard Ascough
Sharday Mosurinjohn
Winslow is a Mosurinjohn fanboi, conversed with Mosurinjohn.
Winslow made a super sh*tty blog post, says “M&A DESTROYED ruck and proved HE’S wrong, there’s no psychedelics in mystery religions!!!!” (frothing at mouth)
REMINDER: NO ONE HAS DISPROVED RUCK.
So — Mosurinjohn & Ascough — STFU about “correcting the myth”, etc., all your LOADED phrases that imply you have definitely concluded “no psychedelics in mystery religions”.
This is misleading language to cowtow to stodgy academics like Ascough.
He’s so reasonable and balanced one moment; the next moment, his Abstract of the Inventing article loudly trumpets “Psychedelics in mystery religions is a myth! What’s wrong with entheogen scholars that they are so foolish and blundering?! We explain their errors. No evidence! A myth!”
Mosurinjohn & Ascough “signal”.
They want to both crow about demolishing foolish entheogen scholars – RUCK IS A MILLION TIMES YOUR BETTER, SHARDAY — and yet at the same time:
pander to entheogen scholars AND pander to “anything but drugs” academics
posture, posture
flip, flop
{spear and shield} in hand, they venture into high dose Cube land … nice:
High Dose Cube Land = 4D Spacetime Mysticism, Land of Controller-Transformative Myth
The biggest dispute in the field is between Sharday Mosurinjohn[A] and Sharday Mosurinjohn[B].
PICK A GODDAMN SIDE (like Greer)
Greer stays in the moderate middle: in ancient religion, we can safely assume that some Xns used psychedelics. The real issue is extent. THAT IS A CONSISTENT VIABLE STABLE *SINGLE* POSITION
Sharday Mosurinjohn flips between two positions like a con artist shell game, covertly, and pretends she didn’t. but she sends a loud message, swill that Henry laps up, “WE DESTROYED THE RUCK MYTH THAT MYSTERY RELIGION USED PSYCHEDELICS”.
Next sentence: “You foolish entheogen scholars need to realize hypoth != fact.”
OH SHUT UP, WE DON’T NEED YOU TO POINT OUT THE STUPIDLY OBVIOUS.
I’ll pay 2 cents for your contributions to the field.
ALSO I REJECT THEIR ARTICLE’S MAIN ARG,
“RUCK SLIDES FROM POSS’Y TO FACT”.
BULL ONEY.
That’s called, developing a model.
Your arg has NO MERIT, just like Ronald Huggins Conclusion that YOU CITE HIS GARBAGE ARTICLE AS FACT.
But Huggins conclusion is:
Huggins’ article’s conclusion: This image cannot mean mushroom, because it has branches.
Day 3, Canterbury Psalter: Huggins Bets His Entire Denial of Mushroom Imagery on this panel: It has branches, therefore, doesn’t look like “a mushroom”; cannot mean “a mushroom”; It Must mean “a Tree”
But on the page where he says “has branches”, he does not show the image. But when you bring his sentence next to the image, you’d have to be a moron to buy his — like Sharday Mosurinjohn citing gullibly his article as if fact, as if this is credible scholarship that has endured pushback and testing.
Huggins’ article totally fails every test, it has no merit, aside from incidental, like Hatsis accidentally contributing his excellent Hatsis Gallery of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art, then when I impl’d that (I failed to take the time to copy his images; I linked to them), he deleted all of his articles & website.
Above, I was I’m curious to see if I can get it sharper, I wouldn’t bet on it: fresh mushrooms Jan. 24, 2026.
Huggins’ article’s conclusion: This image cannot mean mushroom, because it has branches:
Crop by Cybermonk per Huggins, has branches, therefore can’t be mushrooms; must be tree
Based on the branches, this clearly means a tree, not a mushroom.
BRAIN = DEAD.
This is the quality of academic works that Mosurinjohn & Ascough cite as fact.
ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state.
“anything but drugs” academics abda
I don’t blame Henry Winslow; I blame Sharday Mosurinjohn for condoning and causing this sh*t, by playing slip-n-slide, the motte-and-bailey fallacy.
I hate term “the motte-and-bailey fallacy ” – it’s of little use in sentences to describe the terrible situation w/ Mosurinjohn & Ascough.
We can do better; we have the technology, since April 1987, developed in-house, purpose-built:
motte-and-bailey covert flipping between two contradictory positions [MBCF]
Mosurinjohn & Ascough m&a
“Fellow Academics: Our Position Is, Entheogens are False!”, and Also: “Fellow Entheogen Scholars, Our Position Is, Entheogens Might Be True, and We’re Merely Saying, Differentiate Hypothesis vs. Fact”
also, i’m on a roll with Sharday Mosurinjohn / Ascough, i get it!
They are playing a stupid game with our precious field of entheogen scholarship:
they covertly are playing a shell game the motte-and-bailey fallacy, THEY ARE HOLDING TWO DISTINCT POSITIONS AND COVERLY FLIPPING BETWEEN THEM.
“Stop attacking us, we’re on your side, entheogen scholars!
We are neutral, even SLIGHTLY positive to collect data.”
— Sharday Mosurinjohn as Dr. Jekyll; feeble motte position
and also:
“We DESTROYED Ruck!
the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis is BULLSH!T!
There were CERTAINLY NO psychedelics in mystery religions!
Stop attacking us, ABD Apologists! “anything but drugs” academics!
We’re on your side, look at us throw the walburga tapestry in the river to show what great skeptics we are, exactly midpoint on the spectrum of reasonableness.
Dogged Avoidance of Perceiving Non-Branching in the Eternalism Experiential State
Michael Hoffman 9:10 p.m. Jan. 24, 2026
Mosurinjohn’s feeble, motte position: “There’s inconclusive evidence for psychedelics in mystery religions.“ Uses that stance when marketing her scholarship to entheogen scholars.
Mosurinjohn’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.
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.
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
John Allegro and the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis (Ascough, 2025)
John Allegro and the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis Richard Ascough 2025/08/08 School of Religion, Queen’s University at Kingston, Kingston, ON, Canada https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/8/1029 John_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Mysteries_Hypothe.pdf
Richard Ascough on Psychedelics in Western Religious History
todo: need two pages:
Ascough in general (scope of present page)
The On John article only.
Mosurinjohn/Ascough Assert Two Contradictory Positions
A couple pairs of scholars contacted the Journal of Psychedelic History, and the Journal of Religious Anything-but-Drugs Studies.
One pair of scholars is named Mosurinjohn & Ascough. Their position is that:
There are no psychedelics in mystery religions; Ruck is wrong and foolish and needs fundamental correction.
I flagged in bold red, around 10 phrases that assert this, and that send this signal or message.
The other pair of scholars is also named Mosurinjohn & Ascough. Their position is that:
Psychedelics might have been used in mystery religions, but we only have a little evidence for that, and cannot draw a conclusion, and the field of entheogen scholarship badly needs our input to caution them that a hypothesis is not a fact.
I will do my 4th close reading of their article that’s been rejected by both camps: “anything but drugs” academics, and entheogen scholars:
One highlighter color on phrases that assert and signal “There were no psychedelics in Mystery Religions.” (Aggressive, bailey position.)
Other highlighter color on phrases that pander to entheogen scholars, saying “We’re on your side, don’t be pissed off at us, alls we’re saying is merely that you guys need to gather more data before any conclusion is possible.” (Feeble, motte position.)
If Ruck turns mere possibility (maybe there were psychedelics in mystery religions) into as-if fact (we can be certain the engine of mystery religion was psychedelics),
Mosurinjohn & Ascough do the same, in the other valence direction: they turn mere possibility (maybe there were no psychedelics in mystery religions, because eg. contemplative drama in a cave can/ could/ might/ may produce same effect as 10g of Cubensis) into as-if fact (we disproved the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis).
This way, both camps will love and accept Mosurinjohn & Ascough — or, both camps reject and are pissed off at Mosurinjohn & Ascough, the double agents who skew negative, unlike Ruck who skews positive.
They wrote an article that’s about how that selfsame article got rejected for publication by both camps, for years.
Their strategy of selling to one camp with one message, and also selling to the other camp with the opposite message, has been a terrible struggle for them, and we should feel sorry for Mosurinjohn and the dead weight of Ascough she’s dragging along with her while she avoids journal publication and instead writes a book about entheogens in esotericism, that has:
* One chapter on “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis is false and foolish, and urgently needs correction by me”.
* Another chapter on — not contributing any new research to add substance to the field, but rather — cautioning the misguided and weak-minded entheogen scholars to remember that a hypothesis is not a fact.
Should be a great leap forward for the field. Just pick which one chapter you agree with, and read that one.
By the time the book comes out, she hopes to figure out how to pander to both opposed camps, without them continuing to both shun her and her alter ego;
Dr. Jekyll: “We must be nuanced, balanced, reasonable, and cautiously gather more data, before we can draw any conclusions”,
and Mr. Hyde: “Entheogen scholars are fools and have BEEN DEBUNKED!”
“She [Sharday Mosurinjohn] texted me and she said: Richard, you knew I was working on psychedelics, Why didn’t you tell me that [at] the root of the Eleusinian mystery religions, one of the oldest, on their very core, they were doing psychedelics?
And I would text her back: “uh, because they weren’t.”
What happened to Ascough’s nuance, his “I agree that maybe”, “we need to be cautious”, “Be a nuanced, cautiuous scholar, like wonderful me, the perfect model”?
Jekyll & Hyde:
Dr. Jekyll says “Maybe psychedelics in mystery religions, we need to investigate w/ caution and nuance. Follow my wise, cautious lead.”
Mr. Hyde says “It’s a myth, psychedelics in mystery religions. There were no psychedelics in mystery religions.”
The motte-and-bailey argumentation, slip-n-slide, what is your position?
Ascough oscillates and prevaricates between two self-contradictory positions, back and forth.
Here, he SLAMS his cards down on the table, and definitively asserts NO.
I don’t think Christian Greer waffles and contradicts himself this way.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough (When Holding Their Aggressive, Bailey Position) Present as if Fact, the Mere Possibility that There Were No Psychedelics in Mystery Religions
Abstract of Article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience”: Mosurinjohn & Ascough Assert No Psychedelics in Mystery Religions
From the Abstract of the article Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Mosurinjohn & Ascough, 2025):
“This article corrects an idea in psychedelic science and culture that the ancient Eleusynian Mysteries used psychedelics“
“the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages“
“the writers of this pseudo-history“
“the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed in its study of antiquity”
“Instead of committing to a specific (and erroneous) view of history,”
Conference Schedule: Mosurinjohn Asserts no Psychedelics in Mystery Religions
From the conference schedule’s description of Sharday Mosurinjohn’s talk:
“these writers’ dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages“
From the video’s description of Mosurinjohn’s talk:
“the belief that ancient Western religions were fundamentally psychedelic [is] less a historical hypothesis but a myth“
“Why is the psychedelic discourse so intent on hanging on to this narrative?”
Hu Weblog Interview: Ascough Asserts No psychedelics in mystery religions
From the Hu weblog interview with M&A:
I shred this contradiction, below in this page, in detail.
Ascough said to Hu:
“And my response[citation?] is, no, it has been considered, [yeah ok but was it published, when, where, by who?] and it’s so wrong that we don’t need to keep repeating it! [repeating what? which articles? citation needed]
“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.]
“[re: psychedelics in Mystery Religions] It’s very rare [in classicists’ publications] 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 by biblical scholars and classists [citations needed!], 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?”
Ruck Sometimes Changes the Possibility of Psychedelics in Mystery Religions into a Fact
Ascough Sometimes Changes the Possibility of No Psychedelics in Mystery Religions into a Fact
Hypocrites Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, in their self-promotional posturing, try to draw all attention to Ruck’s shifting from possibility to fact — while at the same time, they themselves do the same, just in the opposite direction:
Ruck’s feeble, motte position: “There might be psychedelics in mystery religions.”
Ruck’s aggressive, bailey position: “There certainly were psychedelics in mystery religions.”
Ascough’s feeble, motte position: “There might not be psychedelics in mystery religions.” Ascough’s aggressive, bailey position: “There certainly were not psychedelics in mystery religions.”
Everyone get ready, now Shift! Shift back! Shift back again!
Motte is a bad-sounding word; the undesired position of no consequence, to retreat to:
“I’m merely saying, quite unobjectionably, X.”
Bailey is a good-sounding word; the position you WISH you could defend, but can’t:
Ruck (when he shifts to his aggressive, bailey position): “There definitely were psychedelics in mystery religions; that’s a fact.”
Ascough (when he shifts to his aggressive, bailey position): “There definitely were no psychedelics in mystery religions; that’s a myth.”
Both Ruck and Ascough, when pressed, and retreat to the feeble, undisputed, motte position, have the SAME POSITION:
Ruck’s & Ascough’s feeble, motte position: “There might be psychedelics in mystery religions.”
The above is simplified, depending on which variant of the question is under dispute. There is certain evidence for certain presence of some plants in some contexts; no one disputes that.
The hardest thing in dirty entheogen scholarship debate: What exactly is the point under dispute? It shifts in shell-game fashion.
Ascough has disproved Ruck. What exactly did Ascough disprove? Nothing of any consequence:
At most, Ascough proved that WHEN Ruck asserts that we have certainty that psychedelics were in in mystery religions, Ruck is wrong on that particular point or position.
What Ascough has NOT proved, is there were not psychedelics in mystery religions.
Yet, half the time, Ascough asserts that he has proved”Ruck is wrong”; proved “no psychedelics in Mystery Religions”.
Look at the juicy bad phrases in the Abstract of Mos & Asc Inventing Religion:
These phrases are meant to imply and assert “There definitely were not psychedelics in mystery religions”.
This is the aggressive, indefensible, bailey position that the authors attack from, when they are not retreating into their weak, motte position that no one disputes.
Video: Psychedelics, and the Birth of Christianity – Dr. Richard Ascough (Dec. 25, 2024)
The 2nd 40% of the video is on psychedelics in Western religious history, which certainly didn’t exist, andwhich may have existed to some extent, too early to say, therefore, [loud headline propaganda:] entheogen scholars are WRONG and foolish (ie inferior to me), and we shall analyze why they persist in their wrong folly hypothesis.
Motte –> Bailey –> Motte –> Bailey, slip-n-slide, shifty shell game con artist like all the MICA Deniers – mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Not “Logical Fallacies”; Rather, Propaganda; Narrative Framing Tactics
These are not “logical fallacies”; these are PROPAGANDA TACTICS AGAINST psychedelics in Western religious history.
Kettle logic; Ascough contradicts himself constantly.
What is your claim? It keeps shifting! It’s a contradictory shifting set of claims, elastic.
You can’t rebut his position, b/c he is dancing hard on the dance floor, or skating rink with foul dirty moves.
Richard S. Ascough is Professor of Religion Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada.
Motivation for this Page
Need to examine transcript of 2nd part of his talk in this interview.
Found timestamp in vid where he says “we haven’t gathered the .. we’re still collecting the evidence to see if psychedelics — ie THE EXTENT TO WHICH psychedelics in Western religious history.”
Insanely flip-flops contradicting the F out of himself. Motte & Bailey Fest.
Xn Greer has a viable, stable, coherent, consistent position he puts forth. It’s minimal/moderate, but consistent!
Ascough: “There was no psychedelics in Western religious history. Entheogen scholars are blundering fools, they are WRONG. Why do these stupid entheogen scholars persist in their folly and false wishful theories?
Also Ascough: “There MIGHT be some amount of psychedelics in Western religious history and evidence, we don’t know.”
THEN WHY DO YOU PERSECUTE, INSULT, DISRESPECT, AND TELL ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS THEY ARE DEFINITELY WRONG?
You can’t write your abstract’s PROPAGANDA-type NARRATIVE assertions “there were no psychedelics in Mystery Religions”, yet then say “We don’t know; absense of evidence isn’t ev of ab; still collecting data, not done yet; cannot draw conclusion” — and,
“CONCLUSION: ANNOUNCEMENT IN ABSTRACT OF ARTICLE: HEADLINE: ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS ARE IDIOTS, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, AND THERE WERE NO PSYCHEDELICS IN Western religious history“
5 min later, footnote, ENDNOTE, “Look how reasonable and balanced of a thinker I am: There might have been some amount of use of psychedelics, too soon to say.”
Greer doesn’t do that sh!t. He holds a moderate position, CONSISTENTLY; artic’d w/ nuance; a defensible actual position.
Animation of the motte-and-bailey fallacy at 7:22: Aggressive, bailey position: “Your mind controls reality.” Feeble, motte position: “How you think can have some effect on what happens.”
There’s no hard line between Science vs. Pseudoscience.
Summarizes the book about how after cold war, Physics was defunded, then Marketed by Woo scientists successfully:
[The end of vid is 1:13:39 = 1:14:00 = 60 + 14 = 74 minutes. This is 44/74 = 60% into the vid before he talks about the psychedelics topic promised by the vid title.
First 60% of vid is good, summary of history of Christianity, not at all psychedelics. -mh]
I guess we should turn to psychedelics now.
This is this a new place for me but sure
I think it’s a new place for all of us
I think like religion psychedelics have
like
if there’s religion; there’s spirituality; psychedelics are kind of a third rail topic
there’s an incorporation of all of these tenants but it’s also I guess more science-backed, because there’s Neuroscience research, psychology, psychology research
all of this how
is there a history of religion and psychedelics that we should talk about
Ascough Is Not Self-Motivated Interest in Entheogen Scholarship: Mosurinjohn Pushed Him into “Psychedelics in Mystery Religions”
certainly I’m I’m happy to and this is it’s new to me because it’s my colleagues that’s pushed me
so I’ll give a shout out to Sharday Mosurinjohn who teaches religion and contemporary culture here
um and so
A colleague but also a friend
and
She was starting to investigate religion and psychedelics, and she’d be at conferences and she would
you know
We’ve worked on papers, published papers, a couple of different papers together.
below is con’t: Transcript of Video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”…
Myth-busting psychedelics in ancient Greece: 5 Questions for religious studies professors Sharday Mosurinjohn and Richard Ascough (Hu, Sep. 2025)
This is just a minor copy of this citation info; see longer entry further down below.
Ascough Is Storytelling an Inaccurate Narrative, According to Mosur; Not Trustworthy (nor Consistent)
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
And so she [Sharday Mosurinjohn] texted me and she said [or not -mh]:
Richard, you knew I was working on psychedelics,
Why didn’t you tell me that the root of the Eleusinian mystery religions, one of the oldest, on their very core, they were doing psychedelics?
[Sharday disputes that. That’s Ascough’s imaginative telling of what she texted him; a docu-drama fictionalized; see Hu: Myth-busting psychedelics in ancient Greece: 5 Questions for religious studies professors Sharday Mosurinjohn and Richard Ascough]
[she says b.s. she did not say that. She *ASKED* his opinion. -mh]
and I would text her back uh because they weren’t
and she’d say well no no no
I’m at this conference and they just I’ve just heard all these papers on it
[by the loaded, negative word “narrative”, he means it’s false – but that is Not Proven, as he sometimes says -mh]
I’m like yeah nobody in the religious studies Fields thinks that, but in the study of psychedelics, they have this narrative that the ancient mystery religions were all about psychedelics
and and
part of their narrative is, it’s so controversial that people working on ancient history can’t face it
it’s it’s they
they’re afraid of it, so they buried it
uh and
that’s a very different argument
rhetorically it’s very clever, but it’s different than
no it’s just wrong because there’s no evidence for it
[“wrong” is not the same as “no evidence”! as Ascough says, sometimes: absense of evidence != evidence of absence -mh]
so
she and I spent last couple of years back and forth and when writing a paper now on psychedelics and the ancient Mysteries and what– where the evidence isn’t there
neither of us would say they didn’t– it didn’t involve psychedelics
[but half the time, in your sprinting between Motte & Bailey, you DO say exactly that.
it is a mere tedious, and amusing, exercise, to gather adjacently, your directly contradictory statements, and tone-soaked insinuations
WE ARE NOT SAYING IT WASN’T PSYCHEDELICS next page: IT WASN’T PSYCHEDELICS -mh]
“There Is Some Evidence” (Yet Blaring Headline: “Entheogen scholars are fools, there is no evidence; there were no psychedelics in Mystery Religions”)
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
but both of us agree that that there’s very very little evidence for it and what evidence is there is it has to be nuanced and played out carefully
[that is what Greer says UP FRONT. more consistent and honest than Ascough -mh]
and there’s two books one from the 70s the road to elus and one more recently The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku.
[The Road to Eleusis – Ruck, along with academic fraud Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔 Wasson
The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 -mh]
For Better or Worse, Entheogen scholarship is now in the age of Muraresku-Centered Debate
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
so
Both of those report [purport?] to present a lot of historical evidence and a lot of scientific evidence
Ascough’s Argumentation: When you Dig Past the Rhetoric, There’s Not Much Substance to It
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
when you dig past the rhetoric there’s not much substance to it
there’s
there’s
a lot it it plays well to be honest
it reads well, but there’s a lot of
For example, the use of of words in Greek that sound like other words, and so this proves points, but they don’t emologic like linguistically it doesn’t work
sort of the
the conjecture on one page becomes fact on the next page
[science model adoption is fair, Ascough’s criticism doesn’t nece. hold water -mh]
so we
we traced it through to kind of say this is problematic
it just means their arguments are problematic so going back to you
“Students, You Are Not Wrong, But Need More Evidence”
Self-Promotional Headline: “YOU’RE WRONG!! I’m Right and Disproved, DESTROYED, the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis!”
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
what I say to my students:
not saying you’re wrong, but you’d have to give me evidence, and if I can poke holes in the evidence then we have to go back and reexamine the evidence
Poke Holes in the Ascough Wall of Fallacies
5th-Grade Just-So Story about “The Scientific Method”; “If Disconfirm a Theory, Means Instantly Must Discard It”
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
any scientific experiment you test the hypothesis again and again again each time you might Nuance the hypothesis a little bit bit so you know
logically is it conceivable that for 5 600 years or even more you have thousands of people going through these Mysteries all doing psychedelics to have the experience and not one of them not one ever put on record that this is what happened
it seems like something would slip out somewhere
um and and the you know
“Synthesizing the Ergot from Mushrooms into an LSD Type of Substance” – Ascough’s Level of Credibility
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
the idea of of synthesizing the airut from mushrooms into an LSD type of substance there just very weak basic you know we can do it now in highly technical Labs but could priests do it back then
not saying they couldn’t but I’m saying where’s it’s conjecture but it has to be proven
so we have a lot of fun kind of going back and forth on on this um
What Motivates Idiot Entheogen scholars in Their Error, Folly, and Wrongness? I Explain Their Inner, Incorrect Thoughts
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
what’s actually more interesting to me and so this is now getting to your real question I think what’s more interesting to to Professor Moz and John and myself is not
“did they or didn’t they involve psychedelics”
They Have These Strategic Motives, for their Wrongness and Error
[“i can list some actual motives of Ruck correctly, to discredit him”; “to explain his motives, is to reveal that he’s false”.
The TONE, the framing, of Ascough’s explanation of / listing of motives, is delivered as if it is therefore disproof of psychedelics in Western religious history.
“Proof of no psychedelics in Western religious history: The motive of the entheogen scholars is to legalize psychedelics. Therefore, no psychedelics in Western religious history. Q.E.D.” -mh]
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
But why is it so important to the Psychedelic Community today that they did and part of it is they want legalization and we know that in South America they were using iasa [aya] in what we would call religious rituals long before Christianity
Indigenous Shams Are Known for a Fact to Use Aya in 3000 B.C., therefore, Entheogen scholars [think “Muraresku”] are wrong, only looking back to 30 A.D.
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
and they know this as well but that’s not where they want to find their evidence they want to find it in Greece and in Rome and where the evidence is big barely discernible and I in part of me thinks that’s because they know in North America we you know especially in the United States which has grounded itself in Roman republicanism I mean their Senate Building look exactly like the Roman senate they just want to be Roman and now probably want to be more of an Empire so that’s a whole different topic uh you might want to cut that one out um but uh they need the antecedent to be Greek and Rome not Inca
Looking for Psychedelics in Western religious history is Impermissible and False, because It Is Racism, which is the Worst Sin that Moses Listed in the 10 Commandments (Colonialist Violence!)
Redeem Yourself by Only Studying Indig Shams on Ayahuasca in 3000 B.C.
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
not my end Mayan sort of an almost an implicit racism there right that that you’ve got it right in your backyard but for it to sort of support the kind of legal arguments they’re making for for for the um wider use medicalization but even broader social use of psychedelics they they keep looking to Western history and and that’s fascinating to me absolutely they have Alternatives so that’s so this is where we’re going with this so a lot of work being done it’s it’s just so so since Professor Moz John has started working on this and sort of pulled me in a few years ago more and more work is just exploding in terms of of psychedelics and religion so it’s really exciting lots more to learn and and lots of arguments coming along but but again my question is just is the evidence there yeah we can look at that but why why does it matter to me why does it matter to me that we get a historically right because it doesn’t matter to me whether the substances are legalized or not I I have no skin in the game that way I haven’t invested in any kind of pharmaceutical companies or anything um but but I’m fascinated as the story both what they do at the ancient times but what they’re trying to do now using that evidence
Host (Ayush Prakash) Pushes Back Against Full of Sh!t Ascough
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
yeah I I do want to kind of go back and forth in this and if I might push back just a little bit yeah absolutely it it does seem kind of it would be strange that the church has this intense scrubbing of anything that goes against like directly what they want but they would include psychedelics that does that does seem to calculate that if they didn’t want these their their disciples or the working class to undergo these um sessions of spiritual enlightenment to see that there’s so much more um you know we always see you know people that undergo DMT or even high doses of LSD and pilosyan and even um what’s it even Molly I forget of ecstasy when they undergo these high doses there’s an incredibly religious experience um yeah where they they see we’re all one they interact with sentient beings if they’re on DMT or engaging in the iasa ceremonies and so all of these tenants of religion without the oppression come into being and you get a a Oneness you get a sense of unity and it would make sense that all of these oppressive authoritative dare I say totalitarian um regimes um religions would kind of hold off and say no no no those are the devil’s lettuce
Drunkenness Means Alcohol, in the Bible, No Trace of Psychedelics in the Bible
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
let’s say you know those are the devil’s compounds and not want anybody to take them to see that there’s something so much more than what they’re being offered well so to start with that then that’s exactly what they’ve done as they become aware of these kinds of of hucog genics [hallucinogens?]
right so so
we do see that
you’re right what we find and you do find that all the way back so you do find warnings in let’s stick with Christianity you do find warnings in the texts against drunkenness
They knew people were getting drunk and they were saying don’t.
What you don’t find is warnings against people getting high.
so
The absence of evidence is not evidence, but it’s
it’s
they
you are right:
they are trying to control people and people’s experiences, but that they never explicitly ban it suggests to me that maybe they’re not aware of it
[everyone knew flesh of gods
it may be happening but they’re not aware of it because if they were they would they they didn’t hold back on explicitly Banning things sure right and and so it’s like how and and it’s not that they wouldn’t have I think they would have it’s just how accessible were these things to people that that’s so for me that’s the bottom line is it’s not that these things wouldn’t have done exactly what you said and don’t do exactly what you said it’s just how accessible were they and and in the absence of evidence of their accessibility do we find are there other ways of explaining those kinds of experiences so you know I I joke with my students the guy that wrote the Book of Revelation he had to be doing something it’s just such a weird a wacky bar on the one hand I could totally see he’s on an LSD trip on the other hand we know
so maybe I should jump back to a more concrete example the elosan Myst the one the the psychedelics argument is they they take these psychedelics and they have this experience but these are people that have marched over three days from Athens to ucus they’ve had to sa sacrifice a pulet on the way they’ve been deprived of sleep deprived of food they’ve been dancing in an ecstasy they’re putting in a small closed room full of smoke and shown revealed this
do they have a altered state of consciousness
[weasel-word spotting: “AN” altered state — but is it a CLASSIC altered state that’s transformative in the classic way? -mh]
yes yeah
do they need psychedelics to get that?
not necessarily
we know enough physiologically and psychologically that people could have these kinds of experiences without alcohol or or psych doesn’t mean they didn’t but but psychedelics aren’t the only experience and so
our problem with the books like the ones I mentioned is not that they’re saying psychedelics were there;
it’s [my problem with them is] just they’re saying it was only psychedelics
and that legitimates psychedelics
as opposed to saying there are other ways of explaining it
[“Hyperventilating can/ could/ might/ may produce the same effect as 10g of Cubensis” -mh]
so you know we have have to take those into account
Snake Handling “Can” Produce the Same Transformative Effect as 10g of Cubensis
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
The modern example would be snake handlers you know in the in the Deep South they don’t need any alcohol or drugs to do the crazy things they’re doing
with playing with things
The Alien Psychology Theory: Primitive People Have Ritual to Be in the Intense Non-Drug Psychedelic State
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
but they do need rituals that put them into an altered state of consciousness that allow them to do that so I don’t I I don’t think the I think the evidence is still being collected and explored and I think it’s absolutely the case as you said what these different psychedelics can do in terms of human experiences the
the question sort of as a historian is did they right not not do they do they absolutely but did they or are there other explanations or were they working together you know were some people doing those and part of that goes to the marginalized voices were the groups that were using psychedelics have they been locked out of the dominant narrative and so I have to be open to that too and so say where’s the evidence let’s see let’s uncover it let’s let’s let those voices go through and not just believe the dominant narrative yeah absolutely and and thank you for that thank you for being open to you know um differences in and perspectives you know oh yeah like like I say I mean U and we we’ve gone in print saying the same thing like our agenda is not to say no like to the whole people the people that want to um um legalize psychedelics I mean and in some ways quite supportive of that um and and you know being Canada you know um you know
we’ve had Marana [cannabis?] at least legalized for some time now and other things that could be done um but that’s that’s different than the his so let me let back we I don’t think we need the historical argument to do that but if we get a historical argument that’s based on flimsy evidence then it’ll make it easier for those who don’t want the legalization of drugs to tear down our argument right so so you don’t want to say oh the religion is grounded in psychedelics and then have it torn down from under you because it’s historically suspect realize my light is getting very bad here so a little bit the sun is moving
um Shin you
I hope to make that clear
it’s not like psychedelics are bad or didn’t do it
it’s just if you’re going to make a very important argument on the legalization of these substances, let’s make sure it’s grounded in the best possible evidence is there and get rid of the spous [spurious] ones because the spirous ones will kill us in court
yeah there there is a kind of and I I’ll speak very carefully because I don’t want to piss off two communities at once even though we just went against the [Taylor] swifties which I’m still scared I might cut out that part
but there there is this again there’s there’s always
Captain Condescension Calls Others Sanctimonious
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
when you’re talking about religion and when you’re talking about these belief systems there’s always a sense of condescension
right being
being incredibly sanctimonious with with arguments
and I feel like
with psychedelics there is kind of like
oh your religion doesn’t matter
like this
The same arguments with atheism happen with psychedelics, where as soon as we pinpoint that a religion or Religion capital R is predicated on psychedelics, it automatically has no meaning, or the meaning is lost, and I don’t like that.
It would be interesting if there was a history, like a very blatant history of psychedelics in these major religions, and so we could explore that
We could see exactly how Altered States Of Consciousness again change history
but it’s also like
is it
just again as you were saying
The legalization
like they need that precedent in order to legalize it now
and saying
oh
“We’ve existed with these things for thousands of of years; it doesn’t make sense to ban it now”
or is there something more of like
I want to make sure that you are wrong
I think it depends on who you’re talking to in the community
and
I think there’s a bit of both of that
and and this so
the conspiracy theory that comes up through the books like Ro particularly road to eleusis of how this is so radical that we’ve been ignored
That’s an easy default, and when you have a very small community or at least early on, it’s it’s nice to feel marginalized.
what we noticed in the literature is there’s they have a bit of a bind because, on the one hand, there there is this rhetoric of classicist so people that study the classical world or ancient history like me don’t take us seriously because they’re so afraid of these arguments and so we’re A persecuted minority
but then up just up until it didn’t go through but they looked like they were going to get FDA approval for stage four testing on on on um LSD with with PST um uh veterans then all of a sudden it was becoming mainstream and it’s it’s it’s hard to say nobody takes us seriously oh but the FDA is giving us approval
right you you’re in a bit of a bind and you can’t have it both ways and and there was a tension in the rhetoric of you know again these are two different groups but of saying you know scientists and religion people and um and ancient historians don’t take us seriously when they wanted to but then when they were taken seriously it it then all of a sudden there was a whole other level of evidentiary basis that they needed and and I think think that it’s come far enough now that they could they can they
transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity” continues below, after my comments in next sections
Entheogen Scholarship (Secret, Suppressed) is Consp Theory Type Thinking
[equivalent in the Egodeath theory:
Entheogen scholars need to spare us the social drama narrative and open your eyes to the plain evidence, sans your arbitrary added framing “thank you for yet more evidence of use of psychedelics in heretical Christianity groups“.
I’m quite interested in Ascough’s treatment of such social drama narrative. ]
The Egodeath Theory: We Must Move Ahead with Firm Commitment to the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis
[Sharday Mosurinjohn keeps flip flopping on whether she agrees or disproves that.
Trying to play both sides and fence-sit, or put herself oppor’ly on both sides of the fence.
Sharday Mosurinjohn:
“I am firmly committed to debunking the fallacy of the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis. I have no quarter w/ those radical Pop Scholars. The engine of the Mystery Religions was definitely not psychedelics; it’s a myth that it was. I am superior to those pop writers.”
Also Sharday Mosurinjohn:
“We must remember, more, that even as we commit to investigating the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis, it is a hypothesis, not a fact. Look how reasonable, balanced, and nuanced I am. The engine of the Mystery Religions may possibly have been psychedelics; we’d need to collect more data to draw a conclusion.”
Unlike M&A, Greer is consistent in asserting the latter; he does not crow about “I have debunked the myth, and showed that there were no psychedelics in Mystery Religions.”
Ascough lists truths about that motivation, but I insist WE MUST MOVE AHEAD WITH FIRM COMMITMENT TO THE PSYCHEDELIC MYSTERIES HYPOTHESIS.
Ascough’s posturing and waffling and the motte-and-bailey fallacy:
THE PSYCHEDELIC MYSTERIES HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED BY THIS ARTICLE THAT GOT REJECTED BY ALL THE JOURNALS OF ALL TYPES
[Should we firmly commit to developing the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis, or should we now reject it because “THE PSYCHEDELIC MYSTERIES HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED BY THIS ARTICLE THAT GOT REJECTED BY ALL THE JOURNALS OF ALL TYPES”?
Greer aligns with me here, and Stang, probably some points Ascough makes.
There is some degree of agreement here among:
Stang
Greer
Michael Hoffman
Ascough with Sharday Mosurinjohn
I’m sure I’d want to spin it differently than them though.
keyboard shortcut
the book The Road to Eleusis, by Ruck, Hofmann, & Wasson, 1978 rte
-mh]
Transcript Con’t: Drop the Consp Theory
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
They can and probably should drop that conspiracy theory kind of rhetoric and go back and reexamine the evidence and say what can we hang on to and what can we get rid of the root to elus [the book The Road to Eleusis, by Ruck, Hofmann, & Wasson, 1978] the part of our concern is it’s coming up on its 50th Anniversary
it will be
every 10 years it’s re-released with a new introduction and inevitably the introduction says oh
“Everybody hates us because they don’t understand us and they’re wrong.”
and just drop that and and go through the evidence again and say what can we keep; what can we get rid of based on new science, new history, new ways of thinking, and build on those more solid foundations into something
right so it’s like
not throw the whole thing out, but say:
what are the possibilities
just
before as as we end off if I can put you on the spot
when we talked so much about evidence, what kinds of evidence would you be looking for when it comes to psychedelics in religion,
like what would be the smoking gun
oh that’s interesting
I don’t think
I mean I guess if
if we had a text that we uncovered that said explicitly we use these plants to to create this kind of experience
Talk About the Article “Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience”
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
hn’s talk about the article.
Crops by Michael Hoffman
I mean that’s that’s that’s the direct line kind of stuff we don’t have anything quite like that
we do have medical texts, a whole book of them that do mention Pharmaceuticals
the the pharmco the pharmacos [pharmakos?] which gets translated often as sorcerer in into English
but the the Greek word pharmacos is somebody that that deals with herbal medications
that
we know they knew about opium
that
we know they had the effects
but we it the med you know
some of the medical texts that get cited in psychedelic ler if , if you read them they say:
Use a little bit; if you use too much they die.
CLUE-LESS about Figurative Ego Death; Literalist
[I am not saying that this particular text means ego death; but Ascough shows ZILCH awareness of {death} ie awareness of eternalism; the eternalism state of consciousness – look at his OUTSIDER talking, “a great experience” – incomprehension of the richness of angel/demon experiencing; HE IS MANIFESTLY NOT QUALIFIED to interpret and read texts as an insider; ie, he is illiterate about mythic analogies, the Mytheme theory -mh]
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
But nowhere do they say in there:
If you use like the right amount, they’ll have a great experience.
it’s like little bit; healthy; a lot … and and so or so
that would be one something that sort of makes that direct line
another would be yeah more clearly
somebody Secrets leak so something out of elusive being found that does
actually we have some leaked texts some of them from Christians who are very derogatory
you don’t trust them at all but
something again that that says very explicitly that involved substances as well as these other experiences
there is one that gets cited in the book and in the literature
about
it’s from a satire and it’s about barley wrote being eaten and
the person is vilified for releasing the mystery
but he’s actually prosecuted because he’s a foreigner and not prosecuted for doing that.
Ancient Playwright Permitted to Reveal the Mysteries
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
but even more importantly, the playwright
If the characters in this satire have actually told what happened in the Mysteries, which you’re not allowed to do, and you could be prosecuted for it, the playwright should have been prosecuted for putting that into the play but he wasn’t.
So again that when he talks about the barley grows having this kind of effect, it’s probably not true; otherwise he would have been prosecuted
right so and no nobody
nobody saw oh look he mentioned this, this is a proof that the psychedelics were used in the Mysteries
Arguing Based on “Secrecy” Premise: A Mis-Emphasis that Trainwrecked Entheogen Scholarship
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
but you can’t have it kept a secret and not be prosecuted there
true so
that’s what I’d be looking for: something just very clear, and it would still not convince everyone, but something a little bit clear
it’s too
it’s too circumstantial and too much, like I say, going through the book [the book The Road to Eleusis, by Ruck, Hofmann, & Wasson, 1978], saying it might be the case that they were able to synthesize the ergot[sic], and then two pages later they say, “when the priest synthesized the ergot” — well you you didn’t prove that; you made it a hypothesis two pages earlier but now
[GTFO, this is stupid, he is misrep the nature of theory dev’mt. I don’t buy it. He’s making a big stink over “Ruck’s paradigm is circular”. WTF do you expect a new theorist to do, grovel and obscure their point, and block their every conjecture by saying “I’m probably wrong, but perhaps maybe… blah blah QUALITFY QUALIFY QUALIFY , Asc expects Ruck to POUND ON THE POINT OF “HYPOTHESIS MAYBE WHO KNOWS??” IN EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE.
Ascough Magically Moves from Possibility, to As-if Fact – EXACTLY as He Accuses Ruck of Doing
[Ascough makes much out of little, here, in this line of accusation — and Ascough himself is guilty of this very same shorthand;
Ascough very often talks as if Asc has proved that psychedelics were not the engine of the Mystery Religions.
“We don’t know for certain at this time whether psychedelics were in Mystery Religions.” (possibility)
“I have proved that psychedelics were not in Mystery Religions.” (fact)
Ascough himself does EXACTLY what he claims is a fatal method’y flaw by Ruck: Asc moves magically from a possibility (that Ruck is wrong), to as-if a fact (that Ruck is wrong).
M&A act like this is devastating, if Ruck ever says “The hierophant did X.”
We do not hold ppl to this standard on any topic other than this taboo topic, demanding that every statement be couched in “We really don’t know anything for certain, not even in Physics”.
To do Science per Ascough, every statement in every textbook must be timid and emphasize we know nothing about anything for absolutely certain; to attach the degree of confidence to every statement, as a mode of writing.
On topics other than psychedelics in Western religious history, we do not demand that every single sentence be couched in heavy qualifiers. This is ridiculous over-arg’n, trying to make a mountain of a molehill – and also, projecting, or, hypocrisy.
When Ruck moves from writing as possibility to writing as speculated fact, that’s bad, a method’l flaw.
When M&A move from writing as possibility (“we can’t conclude if, at this point, psychedelics in Mystery Religions”) to writing as speculated fact “We destroyed the myth that psychedelics were in Mystery Religions!“, that’s good, a victory of superior scholarship.
Self-promotional hypocrites.
-mh]
Possibility-to-fact magician Ascough con’t:
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
You’re saying they did it
and moving to the next hypothesis and so it’s hypothesis
but it’s you know turtles all the way down
but if if the bottom turtle is gonna reide
so again
Motte-and-Bailey Master of Posturing and Self-Promotion, Ascough; While Hypocritically Denigrating Entheogen Scholars for “Moving from Possibility to Fact”
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
it’s just like
let’s have a solid argument
and so this is what professor Sharday Mosurinjohn and I are pushing for.
it’s like not we don’t believe it [the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis]
[“BULLSH!T – THEN WHY DO YOU ANNOUNCE IN THE ABSTRACT OF THE ARTICLE, “WE HAVE DESTROYED THE MYTH OF THE FOOLISH ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS!”
You should admit you keep shifting, the motte-and-bailey fallacy, your accusations and positions back and forth. -mh]
it’s like
let’s make sure it’s as solid as we can make
yeah absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
but also we need to make sure that we’re staying grounded, and not
you know
divulging to the same [todo – listen to vid]
it’s interesting that they want to be grounded, but they also say “I think or I believe I think and I believe actually”
My Students, Passion, Teaching Religion
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
going back to where I was with my students, it’s always fun yeah yeah absolutely
So speaking of your students and I guess my entire generation, I do want to ask someone like yourself
What advice do you have for them um it can be in terms of learning and education
it could be in terms of religion but we talked about you know the 20 second Tik Tok attention spans
and what we’re trying to do with this podcast as
someone like yourself who found passion and understanding and fun in a very dense and historical and um complex field
what advice would you give to Gen Z
in this way I think you’ve touched on the key word, passion
Follow Your Passion
Ascough Magically Shifts from Possibility to as-if Fact; from “We Don’t Know if Psychedelics Were in Mystery Religions”, to “We Proved Ruck is Wrong for Asserting Psychedelics Were in Mystery Religions”
[There is waffle room in the latter: do you mean [Ruck is wrong to say that we definitely know psychedelics were in mystery religions], or that [Ruck’s hypothesis is wrong]?
Ascough’s passion for hypocrisy, magically shifting from possibility to as-if fact, in his use of DIRTY RHETORIC:
“We don’t know for certain, if psychedelics in mystery religions“ — and then, “We victoriously proved Ruck is wrong for asserting psychedelics in mystery religions“.
-mh]
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
because that’s when it gets hard
that’s what’s going to dis sustain it
so I mean I
I love what I do but there are times when I slog through some inscriptions, go oh my gosh this is killing me
you
I get the big dictionary out, trying to figure out what this grammar means,
that’s tedious but it has its reward in the end
but what push
what helps me push through is, I have a passion for it, I have a passion to know
so I would say you know
if you’re doing work on your own research on your own or in a school, do the things that drive you, that you want to know more about, that you want to learn more about, and don’t let it go
like keep
keep shaking it even when it gets hard, and then that’s where the passion part comes in
He Wants SO BAD to Say “Psychedelics in Mystery Religions Is an Easy Solution, Therefore, Wrong”
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
Don’t accept easy answers, and if they come easy [eg “simple explanation: psychedelics in mystery religions], they’re probably [YOU KNOW HE WANTS TO SAY “WRONG”!] … they probably need … that’s not that they’re wrong; they probably need to be re-examined.
[Mr. Super-Reasonable, here, after trumpeting “I DESTROYED RUCK’S CLAIM OF PSYCHEDELICS IN MYSTERY RELIGIONS!!”
This is nothing but posturing, self-marketing as “Look how skeptical I am! I’m better than those gullible Ruck & Muraresku amateur writers; buy my product!” -mh]
and yeah, don’t accept everything everyone tells you but don’t reject it outright think about it and and work your way through it yourself um and that’s hard to do we we like to be told what to do you know it’s it’s much easier if someone would just tell me to do but think more than ever right now with the way the world is sort of tilting to the right there’s a lot of people out there that want to so to the right I mean sort of not necessarily even politically but just kind of to a sort of a more right wrong black white kind of dichotomy there’s a lot of people out there that quite happy to tell us what to think and what to believe and make our life so much easier because we don’t have to think for ourselves and and I just go back to that great scene again dating myself
Life of Brian
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
In Monty Python’s Life of Brian where Brian is mistaken for the Messiah and this big crowd in front of him says
tell us Brian tell us what must we do
and he says just go away just go and think for yourself
and they kind of pause and look at us tell us Brian
tell tell us how must we think for ourselves
collectively you know it that’s easy the difficulty is you know it’s easy having someone tell you it’s it’s more difficult
and so yeah
we have the internet
we have ai now to help us
we can generate so much information
but don’t just take it at face value
push back on those topics that really drive you
yeah
a good question I like to ask myself and that I tell other people my age and even a bit younger and older is
how much of your thinking is predicated on the algorithms that you consume
yeah you know exactly that
that that gets them to stop and think
yeah
I was going to say
I didn’t know whether to go down there or not but appr propo of that you know re the internet absolutely we should use it
but remember that’s that’s not the only way of doing research or
just running a Google search is not research
you know people say I’ve researched this that because the algorithm will give you often things you already want to find
so try and get the ALG the other algorithms to give you the alternative and again it’s not that the alternative is is right and yours is wrong it’s just hear both voices
con’t below the next section(s)
Ascough Hasn’t Read the Best Entheogen Scholarship
[Ascough didn’t read the best entheogen publications – he cites my Plaincourault 2006, copyied the concl about sidelining Allegro, did he read it though? anyway my article is only negative, way-clearing, I really cared about
[Affirmers of psychedelics in Western religious history publish lots of writing.
Deniers of psychedelics in Western religious history don’t write anything about that.
Wasson says art historians don’t think about mushrooms in art.;
Huggins says art historians don’t think about trees in art.
This is why, against Affirmers/mychologies,
Art historians are the authorities on mushroom-trees:
because art historians never think about or write about mushrooms or trees in art.
Art historians are expert on “related topics”
ie, they are not experts on mushroom-trees, and never gave any thought, or published anything, about mushrooms in art, or trees in art.
Thus, academic art historians are the authorities to consult, on mushroom-trees.
Ascough uses the same arg’n.]
Ascough con’t:
Opinion Column Format of Newspaper: Get Both Sides
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
I remember back in the you know because I’m a dinosaur newspapers used to have um you know the opinion piece where it be Pro and anti and you could read both of them beside each other
and the algorithms now will only give us the one that that it thinks we want and it’s okay to go and look for the other one to find the opposite and pay attention to it and get both sides
even if you end up I think if you end up not changing your opinion you’ll at least strengthen your position
yeah the confirmation bias and combined with the dun and Krueger effect is a powerful and terrifying combination
Justice, but Not Decrim of Psilocybin
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
[slight relev. psychedelic relig freedom:]
If you had a magic wand, and you could solve one problem in the world what would it be and why that’s difficult?
The obvious ones are me world peace and things like this.
If I could solve it all I would but really to to get people to having the conversations about Justice and actually acting on
Justice Transcends Politics and Religion
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
What I would want is Justice, human Justice, human rights for everybody
that transcend all the other things like nationalism and national politics, or religious rights or religious freedoms.
that Justice would always triumph over that
and to to you know have a world in which you know it’s it’s kind of like Plato’s philosopher king it’s not quite a dictator but it sort of sounds like one
but somebody that would do always do the right thing but for justice
and make sure that that that people are not being trampled
and that you know religion, governments, economics, these are not being used as tools for oppression
That’s a big wish I know but we evolve as human beings we we have more and more tools
we have AI it’s scary it’s thrilling you know it’s it’s it’s a mixed bag in terms of what the potential are for achieving some of these things.
… omitted off-topic …
Finding Richard Ascough Online
Continued transcript of the video “Psychedelics and the Birth of Christianity”:
Why waste time on slop of off-cuff vid, when should read print article instead?
Because I happened to hear “WTF!” (ie juicy; stop-everything; must-capture timestamp and quote him) statements in the vid, nuances contradicting his OFFICIAL self-promotional narrative, and wanted to check transcript, and take 5 minutes (2 hours) to paste here to read it.
I have read his article 1-2 times; will look for this pattern of:
This article corrects the FALSE CLAIM of psychedelics in Western religious history. Buy my $cholarship. I correct the folly and errors of Pop, inferior entheogen scholars (ie, Muraresku train I’m riding, with Ruck footnoted underneath Muraresku).
I’m reasonable and balanced: There well may have been, not unlikely, some extent of psychedelics in antiquity.
Easy Mode scholarship by appearance, the appearance that I DESTROYED the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis.
Easy-Mode, Post-Muraresku-Train Scholarship by Appearance: Posturing and Giving the Appearance that I DESTROYED the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis
His message is a copypaste of bottom of my article; compare quotes, same idea:
“Sideline Allegro, do not build on him, to move entheogen scholarship forward.
“Also (volume: Max): Only fools think there were psychedelics in Western religious history; this article [the one w/ Sharday] disproved that false myth.
“And, it’s too early to know if there were psychedelics in Western religious history. Follow my reasonable lead.”
Myth-busting psychedelics in ancient Greece: 5 Questions for religious studies professors Sharday Mosurinjohn and Richard Ascough (Hu, Sep. 2025)
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!
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 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 “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.
WHICH SPECIFIC ARTICLES?
WHICH SPECIFIC BOOKS?
WHICH SPECIFIC TREATMENTS OR PHONE CALLS OR TELEGRAPH MESSAGES, 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 classists[sic] don’t take it seriously because we’re afraid of it.
“The narrative is we’re afraid of it because it’s so radical.
[weasel word: “considered”. citation needed.
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.
Here’s the f-d up dynamic that Allegro caused:
Allegro, to harm Church, writes against Xy by misusing entheogens topic.
Backlash against Allegro by academia.
No other academics dare assert psychedelics in Western religious history.
Academics take empty pot-shots, like Ascough, against those who assert psychedelics in Western religious history, but not in proper academic fashion by publishing.
Classicists or other academics “considered“, and don’t want to “keep repeating” their… repeating what? Their “consideration”. Totally vague!
All that the Deniers have is alleged conversations, never publications.
Ascough ought to say “We academics have published these specific rebuttals [providing citations], and we don’t need to keep PUBLISHING these articles.”
It’s the old familiar Wasson/ Panofsky bluff.
Wasson’s bluff, since Panofsky provided a citation and two art works to Wasson, which Wasson censored, in con-artist fashion.
“And my response[citation?] is, no, it has been considered, [yeah ok but was it published, when, where, by who?] and it’s so wrong that we don’t need to keep repeating it! [repeating what? which articles? citation needed]
“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.]
“[re: psychedelics in Mystery Religions] It’s very rare [in classicists’ publications] 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.”
[True or false? “Entheogen scholarship has no evidence of entheogens in Mystery Religions.”
If you don’t look at or cite the evidence publications, you are ignorant of the field.
Ascough just reveals his exclusive view; he doesn’t want to cite anyone or do scholarship.
Letcher, the naysayers, avoid engaging the published evidence.
Ascough limits the conversation to two books. Easy Mode scholarship. He treats them as a proxy. He only knows of:
Works by classicists that don’t mention psychedelics.
The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020
Road Eleusis.
No other entheogen scholarship is cited.
ASCOUGH HAS READ ONLY ROAD to Eleusis & KEY, acts like that’s the only publications he has to read and cite.
He has read 2 books affirming, and has read no classicists publications because there aren’t any.
Why does he not cite the rebuttal books & articles, that he fears needlessly re-publishing?]
[weasel word: “said”. whatever. give us citations! and quotes in published works]
And yet, at these psychedelics conferences, it keeps coming up again and again. There’s a disconnect between what has been said by biblical scholars and classists [citations needed!], 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?”
Academics write nothing on the topic of psychedelics in Mystery Religions, or Western religious history.
Non-academics write on the topic of psychedelics.
Ascough false arg: “If Ruck and Muraresku had read the writings of academics, they would abandon their myth of psychedelics in Mystery Religions.” But, “Academics never write on psychedelics in Western religious history.”
What does Shar have in mind by “we need communication between the camps”. The only camp publishing is Affirmers (of “Did psychedelics have an important role in Western religious history?”)).
Affirmers publish on the topic of “Did psychedelics have an important role in Western religious history?”
Deniers don’t publish on the topic of “Did psychedelics have an important role in Western religious history?”
Ascough’s greatest fear is that scholars will have to again publish their articles and books that are negative about “Did psychedelics have an important role in Western religious history?” But he says they never published any; they have never written or even thought about this topic. Kettle logic.
We’ve already written tons disproving psychedelics in Western religious history. [no citations provided]
And, we’ve never written anything on the topic of psychedelics in Western religious history, because there is no evidence.
And, writers who publish positive articles and books [he thinks ONLY: RtE + The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020] should be in communication with classicists, who never write anything on the topic.
Sharday can be taken in a true, constructive sense: entheogen scholars SHOULD be in communication with Classicists. That’s true. Who is at fault here?
Rotten Abstract of M&A Article: “Exposing Methodological FlawS; Namely, a Single Pattern of Turning Possibility into Fact
The Abstract Commits the Same Fallacy it Claims to Report
The Abstract Acts Like M&A’s Possibility (That There Were No Psychedelics in Mystery Religions) Is Fact
“Ruck says that the engine of the Mystery Religions was psychedelics.
We show that Ruck is wrong; the engine of the Mystery Religions was not psychedelics.”
An unwarranted conclusion, as if to turn the possibility of Ruck’s wrongness, into fact.
Academics don’t know if the engine of the Mystery Religions was psychedelics. Yet academics assert, as if fact, that the engine of the Mystery Religions was not psychedelics. And brag about having disproved Ruck’s psychedelic mysteries hypothesis.
REMINDER: NO ONE HAS DISPROVED RUCK’S PSYCHEDELIC MYSTERIES HYPOTHESIS.
NO ONE HAS DISPROVED RUCK’S PSYCHEDELIC MYSTERIES HYPOTHESIS.
the engine of the Mystery Religions was psychedelics emrp
It is potentially reasonable to “turn a possibility into as if a fact”.
You must develop a hypothesis like the heliocentric theory, and build up a model with vigor.
Limp-wristed, feeble, “We don’t know anything, nothing is certain, who knows” gets you NOWHERE.
I tend to defend this alleged “turning possibility into as-if fact”. If M&A can do that in their article’s Abstract, so can everyone else.
The Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy in the Abstract of M&A’s “Invention of religious experience” Article; a Functional Self-Contradiction
M&A Turn the Possibility That the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis Is Wrong, into the Fact that the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis Is Wrong
M&A Turn the Possibility That Ruck Is Wrong, into the Fact that Ruck Is Wrong
“We point out, Ruck might be wrong in saying that the engine of the Mystery Religions was psychedelics.
That is, we point out, Ruck IS wrong in saying that the engine of the Mystery Religions was psychedelics. It is a myth, ie false, that the engine of the Mystery Religions was psychedelics.”
We must remember, the specific interactions Mosur had.
M&A are specifically pushing against The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 (enfolding Ruck’s RtE and all of Ruck’s work).
The article is too meta: it’s an article about the rejection of the article for publication.
The Abstract alone is so nasty, cock-sure, insulting, self-assured, that’s reason enough that the article got rejected by two kinds of journals, for “years”.
The Abstract is a motte-and-bailey fallacy: in fact it does same as a… “to accuse is to confess”.
We do not have evidence. We don’t know, we cannot conclude if psychedelics in Western religious history / if the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis is true.
Ruck is wrong to claim psychedelics in Western religious history. Ruck is wrong to assert that the engine of Mystery Religions was psychedelics. In fact, the engine of the Mystery Religions was no psychedelics.
M&A in the Abstract assert:
The Abstract presents possibility as if fact. It’s possible Ruck is wrong, in claiming that the engine of the Mystery Religions was psychedelics; we don’t know if that claim is true or false.
M&A in the Abstract also assert:
We correct Ruck’s false claim that the engine of the Mystery Religions was psychedelics; the fact is, the engine of the Mystery Religions was not psychedelics
When I read Andy Letcher’s book Shroom, 2006, I noticed the same tactic, the motte-and-bailey fallacy. He acts as if he is certain that no mushrooms in Western religious history.
“No evidence for X, means that you are false in asserting X.”
Have Mos & Asc been studying Thomas Hatsis’ superior historiographical methodology?
Which means Hatsis spilling ink on that claim, while failing to deliver even basic, simple, elementary scholarship.
eg the Psychedelic Mystery Traditions page, “Been debunked; see my writings online”.
Making it worse, Hatsis deleted that site, breaking my wonderful, valuable Thomas Hatsis Gallery of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art – the best thing Hatsis contributed to the field.
“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)
The obnoxious summary of the talk that’s in the Conference Schedule is mostly the same as the Abstract of the article.
For a copy of this Desc interleaved w/ my commentary, see a below section; find “schedule”.
“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.”
/end of description of the talk in the conf. schedule
Video of Talk: The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences (Mosurinjohn, Sep. 29, 2025)
Video title: The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences | Sharday C Mosurinjohn Sep. 29, 2025 YouTube channel: Harvard Law School Program on Jewish & Israeli Law HARVARD LAW SCHOOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k858spSK-bQ —
Audio: The first minute is too quiet, it gets louder.
Video’s Description (Mosurinjohn’s Talk)
“The persistence of the belief that ancient Western religions were fundamentally psychedelic [is] less a historical hypothesis but a myth serving cross purposes for different psychedelic communities.
“Why is the psychedelic discourseso intent on hanging on to this narrative?
“Why is improvement to the empirical and theoretical rigour of psychedelic history resisted rather than welcomed?
“Why accept a swath of self-serving speculation drawn from the humanities, and then insist on resisting critical analysis?”
Transcription of Video (Mosurinjohn’s Talk), No Commentary
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn 2025.
Cleaned up, formatted, and clarified by Michael Hoffman.
“Search for pre-Christian origins.
What happens when that search for origins focuses on the finding of the drug and the phenomenology of the drug as the way to find the drug?
I’m talking about the claim that the Eleusinian mysteries were psychedelic, as claimed by Carl Ruck & authors in the Road to Eleusis 1978 and revitalized as my colleague Dr. [Richard Ascough] mentioned in Brian Murarescu’s The Immortality Key in 2020.
These books attempt to shed light on the enigmatic rituals of the elusinian mysteries.
They argue that the consumption of a psychoactive substance played a pivotal role in the rituals which dramatized Persephone’s underworld death rebirth journey nested in the cosmic fractal cycles of destruction and creation.
These books are really popular, and they’re very mainstream, and they’re almost totally ignored by scholars.
I’m going to draw out something important about this reception and response history.
Let me detail it a little bit.
Until a couple of weeks ago, in response to The Immortality Key, for instance, I was only aware of one great paper, and the fact that both Dr. Charles Stang and I both independently presented papers on it in the summer of 2023.
Mine was with my colleague Dr. Richard Ascoff.
Dr. Stang’s excellent essay is now published in Harvard Theological Review.
There also recently appeared a new piece in Reason magazine.
Otherwise, this psychedelic mysteries hypothesis [Ascough’s term] was not being engaged in religious studies.
There is some work [scholarly critique] on Road to Eleusis.
Not a lot, but I saw the claim that “the ancient mysteries were psychedelic” constantly repeated at psychedelic conferences.
I saw it especially on the slide of the presentations that gave the cultural historical background.
Particularly the psychedelic science [~= Tim Leary-type psychometric q’airs] presentations included this [such a] slide. [saying “the ancient mysteries were psychedelic”]
There would be the bas relief of Demeter handing Persephone a mushroom.
Apparently, the alleged mushroom.
Seeing this all over the place [the claim that “the ancient mysteries were psychedelic”], I wanted…
Having colleagues always coming up to me going “Did you know — you’re in religion; you’re a religious studies scholar —
“Did you know that the ancient mysteries were psychedelic?”
There’s not evidence for this.
So I thought,
“Let me put this piece in a psychedelic science journal to speak particularly to that crowd.”
The psychedelic science journal did not want to critique Ruck and Wasson and Hofmann.
[It] seemed [to me they’re reluctant] to undermine some of the bedrock on which rests the popularization of psychedelics and the dignification of psychedelics as old and religiously serious, and on which therefore rest certain arguments for the legalization of psychedelics.
After a year of back and forth, we tried to publish it in a religious studies journal that after another year turned out didn’t want to touch psychedelics.
This publication non-history, or non-publication history, is emblematic of a larger problem.
The siloing of academic disciplines and academia from popular discourse means that sometimes an idea gets picked up like the “psychedelic mysteries” claim from a classicist, and then it gets repeated in another discipline, such as psychedelic science work, but it’s then insulated from getting evolved by interdisciplinary critique.
The contribution that I want to make is towards supporting:
the discussion of psychedelics coming into mainstream culture on sound historical footing and to emphasize drawing on sophisticated frameworks for working with the psychedelic experience rather than the finding of the drug, and the phenomenology of the drug.
I want to foreground the importance of scholars bringing our subjectivity to the claims that we are making – which for all of the talk of positionality becoming de riguer during the academy, it’s not exactly often that academia trains us to make a practice of inventorying what we’ve disowned and avoided knowing about ourselves and projected onto others or the past and so on in order to continually come into integrity around what we’re doing.
But our work is deeply served by inquiring into what our “come from” is with it.
What stands out for me with the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis is the strength of the desire to have a western civilizational pedigree to dignify the use of stigmatized drugs.
Other psychedelic histories don’t seem to do it.
Other non-drug modes of changing consciousness.
The Eleusist discourse is very focused on mushrooms [differentiate Ama vs. Psilo -mh] and acid [sic; ergot, or LSA] and aligning with an older and truer religion.
Now the “come from” is an understandable defense against anti-drug attitudes.
There’s a case making by appealing to ancient authority speaking back to anti-drug authority today saying:
“Drugs aren’t going to fry my brain; they shouldn’t be illegal.
“Real religion is about drugs, and it feels ecstatic, and you’ve kept good stuff from me, and now I’m going to take it back.”
Don’t mis-hear me: There is nothing wrong with looking to the past and wanting to know what is there.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to inquire about Western psychedelic histories. That’s valuable.”
The growth edge in this psychedelic mysteries discourse is instead of appealing to ancient authorities to create a normative landscape that can hold, rather than wage war on psychedelics; to become grounded in, and advocating for, one’s own experiences and values and practices.
So, hear this critique not as a dismissal of the inquiry into ancient psychedelics,
but as being about what to emphasize, and the importance of a grounded, centered “come from” to integrate toward.
What happens when we focus on finding the drug in history, and finding that drug through a phenomenological comparison of “this is what I think this drug felt like to me, now” and “this description in an ancient text sounds like what I felt like, and so therefore that’s probably this drug“.
When that happens, it means that it focuses on the task of that finding [ie which plant] [BAD] and the phenomenology that authorizes the linkage, [BAD] rather than a program of creative work for taking up an injunction in the psychedelic space [GOOD] from spirit, from the divine, from the higher truth, from personal and human potential, from a deeper level of consciousness; however you model it.
And so again, hear this as a matter of emphasis, not a dismissal of studying phenomenology.
I’m talking about what happens when a discourse focuses on the drug per se, rather than what is the work that you do once it gets you into a state.
How do we model the parameters and the ends of spiritual evolution of Godwaking up in form of connecting with the fundamental waveform of the universe that might be best described in human terms as love.
Thank you Jim Fadiman for that amazing phrase.
However you model that work.
How this plays out in Road to Eleusis, for example, is that the authors present a case for the use of ergot ritually drunk at the ceremony to peak at the climax of the hierophants’ drama.
Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck write that given the size of the audience (thousands) and their reactions, it quote “seems obvious that an hallucinogen must have induced it”, end quote.
This sort of thing is repeated frequently throughout the book.
They make this assumption based on their interpretation of the phenomenology of psychedelics, specifically of ergot, which is a source of LSD precursors, but which they assume felt like a mushroom trip.
Wasson writes:
“I am certain that this word ‘ecstasy’ came into being to describe the effect of the mystery of Eleusis. Can you find a better word than that to describe the be mushroomed state?”
We have this claim that experiences described in the ancient texts (which are few) obviously fit with modern psychedelic experiences, and the focus is on finding the drug by using the phenomenology.
The problem is that it’s underwriting a cultural container for psychedelic practice being forwarded through biomedical therapeutic mainstreaming by gesturing to an uncertain history based on a phenomenological comparison and circumstantial evidence, absent of modeling of the gnosis and the practical modeling of the processes for working with it.
; integrating the eternal potential into the temporal manifest of daily life.
In this space, some philosophers have attempted to introduce secular resources for this modeling, such as Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes’ “metaphysical matrix”.
I’ve tried to do something similar with modeling experiences, particularly of evil and suffering, which appeared in this wonderful collection that came out of last year’s CSWR “Psychedelic Intersections” conference.
My final remark is:
To the extent that what frames the West’s cultural historical resources for psychedelic practice, is an attempt to authorize it [psychedelic practice] by finding drugs in the past by way of phenomenological identification.
Those coming to psychedelics through this route are learning form over content.
What they really need is bodybuilding for the disclosure, and to know that the divine disclosure is not one ceremony in the Telesterion.
It is a lifetime of successive increasingly subtle deepening.
Thank you.
[Applause]
/ end of transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, 2025
Video: Psychedelics, and the Birth of Christianity – Dr. Richard Ascough (Dec. 2024)
Video title: Psychedelics, and the Birth of Christianity – Dr. Richard Ascough Dec 25, 2024 Channel: Ayush Prakash Ayush Prakash Podcast This is episode 111. Richard S. Ascough is Professor of Religion Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada. The topic of psychedelics starts at 44:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8GcCjja74M&t=2670s [44:30] —
The idea of of synthesizing the ergot from mushrooms into an LSD type of substance, there’s just very weak basi– you know we can do it now, in highly technical labs, but could priests do it back then? Not saying they couldn’t, but I’m saying where’s– it’s conjecture, but it has to be proven.
Flip, flop; we know there was no psychedelics = we don’t have evidence for psychedelics; Motte <–> Bailey <–> Motte <–> Bailey.
In characteristic entheogen denier fashion, Ascough shifts his position back and forth like Hopkins’ Buddha statue moving back and forth between the trip room and the closet (mystic Roland Griffiths vs. naturalist Matthew Johnson).
See new Ruck article:
Article: Investigating the psychedelic hypothesis of kykeon, the sacred elixir of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Ruck, Oct. 2025)
Interview blog: Myth-busting psychedelics in ancient Greece: 5 Questions for religious studies professors Sharday Mosurinjohn and Richard Ascough (Hu, Sep. 2025)
Academic Indoctrination in Realtime: Ascough Prevents Mosurinjohn from Affirming Entheogen Scholarship
Title of blog post: Myth-busting psychedelics in ancient Greece: 5 Questions for religious studies professors Sharday Mosurinjohn and Richard Ascough The professors discuss the scant evidence for the idea that the Eleusinian Mysteries used psychedelics, and why it persists anyway. Jane Hu, Sep. 15, 2025 https://themicrodose.substack.com/p/myth-busting-psychedelics-in-ancient
Transcription of “Sweetest Taboo” Video, with Commentary, Added Headings, and Citations of Works Mentioned
Video title: The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences | Sharday C Mosurinjohn Sep. 29, 2025 YouTube channel: Harvard Law School Program on Jewish & Israeli Law HARVARD LAW SCHOOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k858spSK-bQ —
Audio: The first minute is too quiet, it gets louder.
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, 2025
Cleaned up, formatted, and clarified by Michael Hoffman. Research on mentioned works; added headings; commentary, etc. by Michael Hoffman.
~~
[00:00]
“Search for pre-Christian origins.
What happens when that search for origins focuses on the finding of the drug and the phenomenology of the drug as the way to find the drug?
I’m talking about the claim that the Eleusinian mysteries were psychedelic, as claimed by Carl Ruck & authors in the Road to Eleusis 1978 and revitalized as my colleague Dr. [Richard Ascough] mentioned in Brian Murarescu’s The Immortality Key in 2020.
[did Richard Ascough talk at this conference? Not mentioned in schedule. -mh]
These books attempt to shed light on the enigmatic rituals of the elusinian mysteries.
They argue that the consumption of a psychoactive substance played a pivotal role in the rituals which dramatized Persephone’s underworld death rebirth journey nested in the cosmic fractal cycles of destruction and creation.
These books are really popular, and they’re very mainstream, and they’re almost totally ignored by scholars.
I’m going to draw out something important about this reception and response history.
Let me detail it a little bit.
Until a couple of weeks ago, in response to The Immortality Key, for instance, I was only aware of one great paper, and the fact that both Dr. Charles Stang and I both independently presented papers on it in the summer of 2023.
Mine was with my colleague Dr. Richard Ascoff.
Dr. Stang’s excellent essay is now published in Harvard Theological Review …
Psychedelic Futures and Altered States in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (Charles Stang, Dec. 2024)
Psychedelic Futures and Altered States in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean Charles Stang December 31, 2024 Harvard Theological Review Published online by Cambridge University Press.
I have Stang’s entire article. -mh]
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
There also recently appeared a new piece in Reason magazine.
Otherwise, this psychedelic mysteries hypothesis [Ascough’s term] was not being engaged in religious studies.
There is some work [scholarly critique] on Road to Eleusis.
Not a lot, but I saw the claim that “the ancient mysteries were psychedelic” constantly repeated at psychedelic conferences.
I saw it especially on the slide of the presentations that gave the cultural historical background.
Particularly the psychedelic science [~= Tim Leary-type psychometric q’airs] presentations included this [such a] slide. [saying “the ancient mysteries were psychedelic”]
There would be the bas relief of Demeter handing Persephone a mushroom.
Apparently, the alleged mushroom.
Seeing this all over the place [the claim that “the ancient mysteries were psychedelic”], I wanted…
Having colleagues always coming up to me going
“Did you know — you’re in religion; you’re a religious studies scholar —
“Did you know that the ancient mysteries were psychedelic?”
There’s not evidence for this.
Sharday Unable to Get Either Type of Journal to Publish Her Critique: Journals Affirming or Denying Psychedelics in Religious History
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
So I thought,
“Let me put this piece in a psychedelic science journal to speak particularly to that crowd.”
Possibly Rejected by the Journal of Psychedelic Studies (M. Wink.) probably
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
The psychedelic science journal did not want to critique Ruck and Wasson and Hofmann.
[It] seemed [to me they’re reluctant] to undermine some of the bedrock on which rests the popularization of psychedelics and
the dignification of psychedelics as old and religiously serious, and
on which therefore rest certain arguments for the legalization of psychedelics.
Religious Studies Journal Rejected Her Critique Article: Journal Allergic to Psychedelics
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
After a year of back and forth, we tried to publish it [citation? of her conf presentation above, not found yet? mh] in a religious studies journal that after another year turned out didn’t want to touch psychedelics.
This publication non-history, or non-publication history, is emblematic of a larger problem.
Larger Problem: Isolation and Separation of Academic Scholarship vs. Popular Scholarship, produced the False Lie and Blundering Error, the “psychedelic mysteries” Pseudo-Fact
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
The siloing of academic disciplines and academia from popular discourse means that sometimes an idea gets picked up like the “psychedelic mysteries” claim from a classicist, and then it gets repeated in another discipline, such as psychedelic science work, but it’s then insulated from getting evolved by interdisciplinary critique.
Scholarship Should Evolve by Communication FROM Academic True Scholarship, TO Popular Reception of Correction
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
[I suspect Mosur of credentialism, authoritarianism, institutionalism: She likely imagines stupid pop scholars need to be informed by omniscient-like-her, academic authorities, in a strictly 1-way communication -mh]
The contribution that I want to make [having entered the field 5 minutes ago and seeing a self-promotion and instant leadership opportunity for myself -mh] is towards supporting:
the discussion of psychedelics coming into mainstream culture on sound historical footing and to emphasize drawing on sophisticated frameworks for working with the psychedelic experience rather than the finding of the drug, and the phenomenology of the drug.
Change from Looking for Which Plant (Based on Phenomenology of Your Trips); Instead
She Said “Positionality”
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
I want to foreground the importance of scholars bringing our subjectivity to the claims that we are making – which for all of the talk of positionality becoming de riguer during the academy, it’s not exactly often that academia trains us to make a practice of inventorying what we’ve disowned and avoided knowing about ourselves and projected onto others or the past and so on in order to continually come into integrity around what we’re doing.
[you entered the field 5 minutes ago, haven’t read the published evidence, and presume to lecture others about proper scholarship. Proper scholarship is good, but bully in a china shop I need to find her unpublishable article to clarify her recommendations for changing how entheogen scholarship, or psychedelic science, is done – mh]
But our work is deeply served by inquiring into what our “come from” is with it.
What stands out for me with the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis is the strength of the desire to have a western civilizational pedigree to dignify the use of stigmatized drugs.
[she’s not representing my scholarship, theorizing, and motivations -mh]
Other psychedelic histories [?] don’t seem to do it. [???]
She Pontificates on Non-Drug Psychedelics (Academia-Approved)
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
Other non-drug modes of changing consciousness.
The Eleusist discourse is very focused on mushrooms [differentiate Ama vs. Psilo -mh] and acid [sic; ergot, or LSA] and aligning with an older and truer religion.
Now the “come from” is an understandable defense against anti-drug attitudes.
There’s a case making by appealing to ancient authority speaking back to anti-drug authority today saying:
Drugs aren’t going to fry my brain; they shouldn’t be illegal. Real religion is about drugs, and it feels ecstatic, and you’ve kept good stuff from me, and now I’m going to take it back.”
Sharday, in a moment of clarity of thought and expression
Don’t mis-hear me: There is nothing wrong with looking to the past and wanting to know what is there.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to inquire about Western psychedelic histories. That’s valuable.”
TODO: QUOTE HER ARTICLE ABSTRACT, NOXIOUS PHRASES CONTRADICTING THAT. At top of present page, copypaste to here, the bold markup of best bad phrases, in the Abstract of the article and in the Conference Schedule’s description of her talk.]
Conference Schedule (extra link)
[In contrast, see her written description of the talk, from the conference schedule, where she rudely attacks and dictates what scholars are permitted to investigate https://www.psychedelicsandreligion.info/schedule — copied to below. We are not “mis-hearing” you; we are READING your Abstract ~= conf Schedule summary, which says exactly the opposite of what you’re now saying, now that your TEXT finished insulting entheogen scholars. Motte and Bailey arg’n; shifting what your position is, opportunitically, a shell game.
Like Andy Letcher’s book Shroom: “No Secret Christian Amanita Cult, b/c the Liberty Cap(!) mushroom tree on Bern door is not hidden, as Stamets & Gartz in 1996 in typical fashion say [false; those mycologists wrote no such thing, only “matches Liberty Cap”]; Thus I have proved: No mushrooms in W relig history.” – mh]
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
The growth edge in this psychedelic mysteries discourse is instead of appealing to ancient authorities to create a normative landscape that can hold, rather than wage war on psychedelics; to become grounded in, and advocating for, one’s own experiences and values and practices. [as long as they center on Indig Shams, and are limited to that -mh]
So, hear this critique not as a dismissal of the inquiry into ancient psychedelics,
[but quote her writeup of the talk, where she dismisses and forbids and demonizes inquiry into ancient psychedelics -mh]
Important: Have a Grounded, Centered, “Come-from” to Integrate Toward
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
but as being about what to emphasize, and the importance of a grounded, centered “come from” to integrate toward.
[this newcomer to field dictates what we have to emphasize -mh]
What happens when we focus on finding the drug in history [BAD], and finding that drug through a phenomenological comparison of “this is what I think this drug felt like to me, now” [BAD] and “this description in an ancient text sounds like what I felt like, and so therefore that’s probably this drug“. [BAD]
[I rail against overemph of Amanita directly at the expense of Psilocybin. Irvin commits that bad move: The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity (Jan Irvin, 2008) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439215170 -mh]
Important: Do Creative Work for Taking up an Injunction in the Psychedelic Space from Spirit
[academic bafflegab meaning nothing – maybe after I read her article cover-to-cover the FOURTH time, I can translate this to STEM normal talk.
She talks about “need for communication” between smart academics and stupid pop audience – ie, from academic authorities of which she is the exemplar, to stupid pop audiences — yet she can’t communicate.
She hides her lack of substantive ideas, by needless academic bafflegab. -mh]
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
When that happens, it means that it focuses on the task of that finding [ie which plant] [BAD] and the phenomenology that authorizes the linkage, [BAD] rather than a program of creative work for taking up an injunction in the psychedelic space [GOOD] from spirit, from the divine, from the higher truth, from personal and human potential, from a deeper level of consciousness; however you model it.
And so again, hear this as a matter of emphasis, not a dismissal of studying phenomenology. [eg how your trip felt, like ancient religion reports]
[phenomenology? I thought the dispute is whether it’s ok for scholars to look for particular entheogen plants in religious history – shifts the topic of discussion -mh]
[Her field-changing revolutionary advice: don’t emphasize “which plant“; don’t emphasize “what phenomenology effects?”; instead, emphasize: “creative work for taking up an injunction in the psychedelic space from [the transcendent; the work that you do once the drug gets you into a state. -mh]
[Ruck says: Gnosis is the Amanita. I say: gnosis is psilocybin 10x, giving eternalism-driven control-transformation, adding the eternalism POV to the possibilism POV. -mh]
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
I’m talking about what happens when a discourse focuses on the drug per se, [BAD] rather than what is the work that you do once it gets you into a state. [GOOD]
[equivalent idea in the Egodeath theory:
I de-emphasize psychedelics themselves; it’s all about loose cognition; the loose cognitive state, and how the mental model of control is transformed from possibilism-thinking, to add eternalism-thinking.
She’s scrambling, thrashing around looking for something to correct you on. The work is 10 psilocybin sessions, adding eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking. -mh]
How do we model the parameters and the ends of spiritual evolution of Godwaking up in form of connecting with the fundamental waveform of the universe that might be best described in human terms as love.
[wtf are you even on about? relational mysticism instead of positive unitive model? -mh]
Thank you Jim Fadiman for that amazing phrase.
However you model that work.
[Mosur chastises Ruck and Muraresku: instead of looking for which plant, based on which phenomenology (eg eternalism-driven control-transformation?), you should instead model the work. See the closest Ruck & M. Hoffman comes: book: Entheogens, Myth & Human Consciousness. -mh]
How this plays out in Road to Eleusis, for example, is that the authors present a case for the use of ergot ritually drunk at the ceremony to peak at the climax of the hierophants’ drama.
Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck write that given the size of the audience (thousands) and their reactions, it quote “seems obvious that an hallucinogen must have induced it”, end quote.
This sort of thing is repeated frequently throughout the book.
They make this assumption based on their interpretation of the phenomenology of psychedelics, specifically of ergot, which is a source of LSD precursors, but which they assume felt like a mushroom trip.
[Sharday says: Ruck is bad for having mushroom/ acid journey, then using his phenomenology to try to identify which plant in ancient mystery religions. -mh]
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
Wasson writes:
“I am certain that this word ‘ecstasy’ came into being to describe the effect of the mystery of Eleusis. Can you find a better word than that to describe the be mushroomed state?”
We have this claim that experiences described in the ancient texts (which are few) obviously fit with modern psychedelic experiences, and the focus is on finding the drug by using the phenomenology.
[just texts? then, “evidence is few” — Peak transformative experiences are also described by the best world religious mythology, and the best mythic art -mh]
The Problem Is, Underwriting a cultural container for psychedelic practice, via psychedelic science, historical uncertainty, based on experience descriptions, without modeling the processes for gnosis
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
The problem is that it’s underwriting a cultural container for psychedelic practice being forwarded through biomedical therapeutic mainstreaming by gesturing to an uncertain history based on a phenomenological comparison and circumstantial evidence, absent of modeling of the gnosis and the practical modeling of the processes for working with it.
[Egodeath theory’s equivalent call for a change of focus: Don’t focus on psychedelics themselves; or generic trip report effects; model the mental model transformation process, from possibilism to eternalism; eternalism-driven control-transformation — and how myth and art depict that by analogies. -mh]
Sharday, Expert in Modelling Gnosis and the Processes for Working with Gnosis
[See her article in which she supposely models Gnosis, and models the processes for working with Gnosis.
Ruck & Hoffman try that, sort of, in the book Entheogens, Myth & Human Consciousness, but I couldn’t find anything about consciousness in that book.
Probably its content is invisible on my radar because Ruck & Hoffman probably use the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” (Popular Neo-Advaita), which is nothing to me, compared to eternalism-driven control-transformation to add the eternalism POV to the possibilism POV. – mh]
Model the Integrating of Gnosis into Daily Life
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
; integrating the eternal potential into the temporal manifest of daily life.
In this space, some philosophers have attempted to introduce secular resources for this modeling, such as Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes’ “metaphysical matrix”.
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t below the next section:
Video: Dr. Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes – ‘Metaphysics and Psychedelics’ (The MIND Philosophy Series #3) (Jun. 2022)
Video title: Dr. Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes – ‘Metaphysics and Psychedelics’ (The MIND Philosophy Series #3) June 21, 2022 Channel: MIND Foundation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ6UDyF4KWo —
Vid desc: “Psychedelics can occasion intense #metaphysical experiences – are such shifts delusional, or might they carry an element of truth?
“Continuing our Philosophy Series, Dr. Sjöstedt-Hughes, research fellow and associate lecturer at the University of Exeter (UK), will speak of how we might:
Make sense of such [psychedelic] experiences by critically framing them through several rational metaphysical systems.”
/ end of Desc from Sjöstedt-Hughes video
Modelling Experiences
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
I’ve tried to do something similar with modeling experiences, particularly of evil and suffering, which appeared in this wonderful collection that came out of last year’s CSWR “Psychedelic Intersections” conference.
[“current year” = 2025; “last year” = 2024]
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t below the next section
Collection Including Modelling Experiences of Evil and Suffering: Center for the Study of World Religions’ “Psychedelic Intersections” conference
[Found the paper, seems relevant to the Egodeath theory.
Clearly relevant (sarcasm) — her previous 200 articles not about psychedelics, and her johhnny come lately discovery of Get Rich Quick opportunities in this newly reopened field.
So, 5 minutes ago, she started trying her hand at co-authoring articles with people, and trying to pose her totally NON psychedelic articles as if relevant to psychedelics -mh]
Transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, con’t:
My final remark is:
To the extent that what frames the West’s cultural historical resources for psychedelic practice, is an attempt to authorize it [psychedelic practice] by finding drugs in the past by way of phenomenological identification.
Those coming to psychedelics through this route are learning form over content.
[“form” [BAD] means: identifying which drug in ancient texts or myths or images; and doing that by matching current altered effects with past descriptions of experiences]
What they really need is bodybuilding for the disclosure, and to know that the divine disclosure is not one ceremony in the Telesterion.
[She assumes entheogen scholars say, “A single experience with a single drug, in antiquity, is what we must identify the plant for; then we have understanding.”]
It is a lifetime of successive increasingly subtle deepening.
[cliche: “Is enlightenment in a pill, or not?” Complete initiation, actual “complete mystical experience”, is 10 psilocybin sessions, producing eternalism-driven control-transformation, adding the eternalism POV to the possibilism POV. Been developing & deepening this explanatory model since 1988-2026. -mh]
Thank you.
[Applause]
[we’re being incoherently chastised and lectured by a newbie who hasn’t read the basic literature in the field, fishing around for some sort of appearance of correcting the field. What are the executive takeaways: none?
“Learn form over content.”
“Stop looking for plants based on phenomenology.”]
This is not all academic hot air without useful, actionable substance.
/ end of transcription of video of the talk “The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences” by Mosurinjohn, with Commentary, Added Headings, and Citations of Works Mentioned
Video’s Short Description, with My Commentary (Mosurinjohn’s Talk)
“The persistence of the belief that ancient Western religions were fundamentally psychedelic [is] less a historical hypothesis but a myth serving cross purposes for different psychedelic communities.
[a mere zoom-out rough desc of video. Elastic wording immediately: “less X than Y”, Y = “a myth serving cross purposes – “cross purposes”? How many assertions, ever-vaguer, try to slip in here? -mh]
“Why is the psychedelic discourse so intent on hanging on to this narrative?”
[I could ask similar about dominant Pop narrow theory, Secret Christian Amanita Cult. vs. the important BROAD question, “What’s the extent of psychedelics in religious history?
Is Sharday HELPING OR NOT, TO ANSWER (POSITIVE SCHOLARSHIP): TO WHAT EXTENT PSYCHEDELICS IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY?
There are various ways to define the scope of such questions.
There are variant Q’s, w/ broad or narrow scoping:
To what extent psychedelics in religious history?
To what extent did religious myth serve as analogies describing eternalism-driven control-transformation in religious history?
Is religion legit when, in places & times, it failed to be analogies describing eternalism-driven control-transformation?
Are brands of Transcendent Knowledge bogus and lower, exoteric reductions that perpetuate deluded possibilism-thinking, when they fail to be analogies describing psychedelic eternalism-driven control-transformation?
To what extent psilocybin mushrooms in earliest Xn history?
When was the peak of using psilocybin mushrooms in Medieval Xy – or, Medieval Europe?
/ end of mh interjection
Desc con’t:
“Why is improvement to the empirical and theoretical rigour of psychedelic historyresisted rather than welcomed?
“Why accept a swath of self-serving speculation drawn from the humanities, and then insist on resisting critical analysis?”
/ end of video’s Desc with my commentary
Summary of “Invention” Article (Liebert Inc., Aug. 5, 2025)
In that 6-paragraph summary, watch out for “secret”, “suppress”, “hidden”, “key”, etc.
Delete all that junk, it prevents evidence & theory development.
The obsession with secret/suppressed, as we see well in Shroom by Letcher, ENTIRELY DERAILS what topic we’re even investigating. Letcher is under the delusion that we are investigating the narrow specific pop Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory.
Far more important is to investigate the broad, general question: the extent of psychedelics in history, including in Christendom. That in no way implies that the primary structure of the investigation, the #1 question:
Which groups had the Secret Amanita Gnosis?
Which groups lacked the Secret Amanita Gnosis?
Which groups suppressed the Secret Amanita Gnosis?
The mis-focus on “which groups” shuts out the far plainer question, more basic and elementary: did Christendom have psychedelics, or not? What are all types of evidence, and particular evidence of such types, for SHEER PRESENCE. Do not say per Ruck,
“Thank you for finding yet more evidence of SECRET psychedelic use by HERETICAL GROUPS.”
Ruck should instead halt at:
“Thank you for finding yet more evidence of psychedelic use by people within Christendom.”
People act like that speculation about “which groups” is a required, main part of theorizing — it’s not!
Delete the social drama narrative, and do scholarship instead; evidence + theorizing — sans made-up (to feed Popular Audience Demand) storytime speculation that’s not needed, and is unhelpful, and distracts the conversation in an irrelevant direction.
Got Nothing to Contribute, Not that Bright, and Don’t Feel Like Reading the Literature in the Field? Become an Entheogen Scholarship Critic, and Guide the Field
Pollan and Muraresku invaded the field suddenly, and were investments in astroturfed “overnight bestsellers”.
Now anyone feels they can invade the field, not read the bulk of the literature, and operate as a Wise Critic: On Easy Mode; just criticize The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 – way easier than contributing to the field.
Greer doesn’t have to backpedal and contradict himself, b/c starts off w/ a balanced, nuanced stance – and hopefully isn’t promoting himself by denigrating everyone in a field he entered 5 minutes ago as Shar did.
Greer gives a better balanced arg’n than very lopsided denier Mosur – she has to catch up w/ Greer’s quality of arg’n in realtime.
Watch Mosur scramble to counter her article’s Abstract and her talk’s desc in the conf Schedule.
Direct self-contradiction, she’s scrambling in her talk: move those goalposts! “Motte! No, Bailey! No, Motte! No, Bailey!”
Greer doesn’t directly contradict himself / his Abstract like Mosur does.
Everyone was PISSED OFF at Shar’s POS lopsided, self-righteous, self-assured article sh*tting on the entire psychedelic mysteries hypothesis for self-promotion.
Can tell that by her self-contradiction during her talk; her defensiveness; her article being hated and rejected by all types of journals.
Greer: “my pal erik davis”, “a christ trip”. “This micro-tradition“
Overconfident and biased, lopsided, oft clumsy loaded characterization. Histo article.
p. 281: “Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck violated law and schol decorum and used Amanita” – face palm, there went all your credibility, Greer. Read a book.
Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck violated law and schol decorum and used Amanita.
Xn Greer, newbie to the field
“The amateurs boldly go where no scholar has gone before, both intellectually and experientially.
“Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck ([1978] 2008: 34) repudiated “armchair” scholarship and instead defied legal prohibitions and scholarly decorum by experimenting with Amanita muscaria themselves as a means of testing their hypotheses.
“They even went so far as demanding their detractors do the same before passing judgment on their arguments.”
F*CKING TERRIBLE WRITING!
A botched smear job by blundering Greer the Pop Sike zine contributor writing for the Pop Sike audience.
“Scholarship on the global history of psychedelics is divided into two rival approaches.
“This article analyzes these approaches, emphasizing the way in which ideological biases on both sides have stymied serious research on the use of psychedelic substances across space and time, before introducing the empirical approach as an alternative.
“The most prevalent view, “pharmacological Calvinism,” essentializes mind‐altering drugs and their users as degenerate or antisocial.
“This reductive approach has defined the intellectual mainstream across academic disciplines to the present.
“In contrast to pharmacological Calvinism, the entheogenic school offers a maximalist interpretation of psychedelics’ impact on human culture and cognition, presenting consciousness‐expanding drugs as the “secret key” behind the world’s religious traditions, mythology, and folklore.
“This article proposes that the empirical approach offers a corrective to the overstatements of both schools,
“as it is defined by comparatively granular research that draws from a deep understanding of primary sources
“placed in conversation with the intellectual apparatuses of the secondary literature.
“Distinctly uninterested in unveiling psychedelics as the “key” to any tradition, this approach interprets the multiplicity of meanings and values associated with powerful psychotropics, alongside other modes of ecstasy and transpersonal relationality, as an integral dimension of the human story.”
Abstract of Article “Historians on Drugs” (Greer), with Commentary
“Scholarship on the global history of psychedelics is divided into two rival approaches.
“This article analyzes these approaches, emphasizing the way in which ideological biases on both sides have stymied serious research on the use of psychedelic substances across space and time, before introducing the empirical approach as an alternative.
“The most prevalent view, “pharmacological Calvinism,” essentializes mind‐altering drugs and their users as degenerate or antisocial.
“This reductive approach has defined the intellectual mainstream across academic disciplines to the present.
“In contrast to pharmacological Calvinism, the entheogenic school offers a maximalist interpretation of psychedelics’ impact on human culture and cognition, presenting consciousness‐expanding drugs as the “secret key” behind the world’s religious traditions, mythology, and folklore.
[every last one of ’em is OBSESSED by the secrecy/suppression social drama narrative (not Stamets/Gartz 1996, against Andy Letcher’s Shroom’s botched endnote 31), but the secrecy/suppression premise is actually distinct from the broad general proposal; don’t conflate.
In some ways, the Egodeath theory = the empirical approach, moderate middling way; theory-driven maximal entheogen theory of religion -mh]
“This article proposes that the empirical approach offers a corrective to the overstatements of both schools,
[fallacy of the middle
you need to prove it by throwing the Walburga tapestry in the river, like the perfect, reasonable middle-men, J & J Brown -mh]
“as it is defined by comparatively granular research that draws from a deep understanding of primary sources
[how about start by just reading Samorini 1997, Samorini 1998, & “Conjuring Eden”? not being completely unread in the field, for 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm). -mh]
“placed in conversation with the intellectual apparatuses of the secondary literature.
[d/k all this “key” business, — oh, I see: these latest batch of writers is pushing against The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020: playing the “entheogen scholarship critic, buy my book” game on Easy Mode. -mh]
“Distinctly uninterested in unveiling psychedelics as the “key” to any tradition, this approach interprets the multiplicity of meanings and values associated with powerful psychotropics, alongside other modes of ecstasy and transpersonal relationality, as an integral dimension of the human story.”
/ end of Abstract of Greer article
I sent to Greer at Academia, Jan. 20, 2026:
“Defining a middle way.
I have lots of intensive critique of entheogen scholars.
Entheogen scholarship needs internal critique from within the field.
Butthead academic naysayers, ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state.
The field of psychedelic science needs internal critique from within the field.
This psychedelic pseudo science incorp’s the 1893/1960, ultra narrow (eliminative, reductionist), Popular Neo-Advaita, positive unitive model of “mystical experience”.
Breau 2023 adds negative unitive experience, but is stuck within the 1893/1960 bubble still.
Taves 2020 is broader, at least nominally: she remains stuck within the narrow “mysticism = unitive” bubble, but calls to broaden the field from only Unitive effects, to “altered sense of self”.
/ end of msg to Greer
Bully Opportunism
Sharday is a bully/opportunist version of Greer & Ascough article/talk.
Takes advantage of work by Greer & Ascough to self-promote — by smearing and insulting Pop Entheogen Scholarship and striking the relative stance of cautionary wise advisor — but doesn’t move the field of entheogen scholarship forward.
Look how awful entheogen scholars suck, those fools – I advise them, and buy my book.” -mh]
Self-assured denier of … “no solid proof” re specifically, ancient Xy.
Greer says “Colleague of Stang.
“psychedelics make feel chosen for a mission”, “ego inflation”, an “all too real danger”.
Video: Psychedelic Christianity: Real and Imagined | Christian Greer
Video title: Psychedelic Christianity: Real and Imagined | Christian Greer Harvard Law School Program on Jewish & Israeli Law Uploaded Sep. 9, 2025 HARVARD LAW SCHOOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYlotZTyOFA —
“We can accept that SOME Xns used SOME plants.”
Video’s Description: Psychedelic Christianity: Real and Imagined (Greer)
“Was the original Eucharist a psychedelic?
“Were the original Christian communities entheogenically supercharged?
“Was Jesus actually a mushroom? [he ridicules the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis]
“These are simply some of the questions that historians of drugs field on a regular basis.
“And to be clear, our answers are almost always disappointing. Let me explain why.
“All of the arguments that suggest a psychedelic origin of Christianity are pure conjecture.
“There is simply no solid proof that Christianity had a psychedelic origin or that ancient Christians used psychedelics.
Yet, as the expression goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And I anticipate that some archaeo-chemists will eventually unearth a vessel that demonstrates some Christians in some part of the ancient world use some sort of psychedelic sacrament in their worship.
[Greer here makes Mosur look TERRIBLE & unbal – ppl are not PISSED OFF at Greer, but at Shar]
Greer is willing to play, w/ entheogen scholarship – Mosur garbage-cans the entire entheogen scholarship field. She makes enemies; Greer less so. -mh]
“And why not?
Over the last few millennia, humans across the globe have used a variety of psychedelic substances to access visionary states of consciousness.
This vast pharmacopoeia includes plants, roots, vines, cacti, nuts, herbs, nectar, roots, snuffs…. you get the picture.
There is no doubt that psychedelic substances have played a key role in human culture, animating religious rituals, rites of passage, communal ceremonies, not to mention healing, sorcery, divination, communion with the dead.
And all of that continues to the present day. But again, there is still no proof that they were used amongst Christians in the ancient world.
I’m not going to belabor this point by mapping all of the deficiencies in the arguments suggesting a psychedelic origin of Christianity.
Rather, I’m going to focus on the real stakes involved with this preoccupation with an imagined psychedelic Christian origin, as opposed to the real traditions of psychedelic Christianity.”
/ end Greer vid desc.
Commentary about Video: Psychedelic Christianity: Real and Imagined (Greer)
Christian Greer (conference Mar. 2025, uploaded Sep. 2025)
Greer makes Mosurinjohn look bad; he affirms reasonable though “no proof ancient Christian use of plants”.
“Avoid pharm’l Calvinism” (one extreme).
“Avoid ___” (other extreme; entheogen scholars see mushrooms everywhere)
He argues for this middle way, like tapestry-discarder Browns.
Mosur’s talk follows Greer’s talk.
Greer makes her look dull and obstinate; looking for a cheap opportunity to denigrate entheogen scholars, in order to elevate herself.
She overshoots, insults the hell out of the entire broad notion of history of psychedelics in religion, pisses off everyone in entheogen scholarship, then has to backpedal and say she didn’t say what she, hamfisted, clearly said:
You’re not allowed to study psychedelics in Euro history, because that is violence against Indig Shams, and is ignoring Indig Shams.
Sharday’s clumsy, rude, ignorant, biased message:
“Foolish, blundering entheogen scholars: Do not research & theorize about the past 3000 years in Europe. You have to restrict your research & theorizing to only the past 100 years, in the Americas. Because there’s only evidence for psychedelics in Indig Shams history, not in other cultures. You need to start reading and investigating history of Indig Shams, which no one has covered.”
Video’s Description Again, Mosur’s Talk, with Commentary
Video’s Desc: [it’s below, but cluttered w/ my commentary – re-post here, todo, w/o my commentary]
The talk was probably given on March 5, 2025. Vid uploaded Sep 2025.
The video’s description is as obnoxious, cocky, ignorant, & unprofessional, as the written summary of the talk, in the conference schedule:
Video’s Desc:
“The persistence of the belief that ancient Western religions were fundamentally psychedelic less a historical hypothesis but a myth serving cross purposes for different psychedelic communities.
“Why is the psychedelic discourse so intent on hanging on to this narrative?
“Why is improvement to the empirical and theoretical rigour of psychedelic history resisted rather than welcomed?
“Why accept a swath of self-serving speculation drawn from the humanities, and then insist on resisting critical analysis?”
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?
Emma Betuel
Reasons:
Plaincourault as mushroom has not debunked repeatedly, or ever.
The Plaincourault fresco means mushroom-tree. The medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} depicts by analogies, mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism, during 10 psilocybin sessions. Via {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Various other reasons for entheogen scholarship (or rather, psychedelic science?) to persist, are named by Mosur. and suchlike writers/articles that I’m reading on mysticism, entheogen history, and psychedelic science.
The Baier article High Mysticism is good, tracing cultural history & motives of, not entheogen scholarship, but psychedelic science & its model of mystical experience (narrow, Popular Neo-Advaita).
Distinct topics:
entheogen scholarship; extent of psychedelics in relig hist?
psychedelic science: Learyean psychometric questionnaires that totally buy into the narrowing, selective, exclusively positive unitive model of mystical experience.
philosophy of mystical experience (ie, welding in place, the narrowing, exclusively positive unitive model of mystical experience).
Her Rejected Article: Accepted by “psychedelic medicine” journal
I have 3 articles on desk:
Likely: Mosurinjohn & Ascough: Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience – July 2025
Not: Mosurinjohn, Roseman, Girn, April 2023: “Drug mystical experience critique“
Not: Richard Ascough (not Shar Mosur): Allegro & the the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis, Aug 2025
link to that paper: not yet at my Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science page. does belong? anyway link it here, then. done.
Comments about Video’s Desc
Who is she pushing against: Muraresku specifically? It’s the history of her rejected article, rejected by both camps of journals:
Extremist entheogen scholars pushing maximal entheogen theory of religion (eg Brown 2019 lists first, Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com)
Extremist ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state.
I have her referenced article. I know it, have it, have read it.
Pop social drama narrative of Secret Christian Amanita Cult? the Secret Amanita paradigm? Or ergot equiv of that.
Mosurinjohn Doggedly 🐶 Pursues Her Mirage 👻 of Non-Drug Entheogens, Committing Myopic Indigenous Shams propaganda against presence of psychedelics in non-Sham’ic religious history
Crop by Michael Hoffman On left, R thumb (non-branching) holds {lifted garment}; pairs of hands below: YI (thumb & fingers) above, & Y (fingers, no thumb) below. 11:19 p.m. January 19, 2026
Hold branch in L hand.
Need a name / label / symbol for “one hand fingers no thumb; and other hand thumb as well as fingers”. Y + YI. The YI Hand shape, plus fingers-only:
{fingers only vs. fingers & thumb} fft
On left, R thumb (non-branching) holds {lifted garment}; pairs of hands below: YI (thumb & fingers) above, & Y (fingers, no thumb) below. 11:19 p.m. January 19, 2026
It’s puzzling why this set of conference videos (including one of my colleagues), are at the channel “Harvard Law School Program on Jewish & Israeli Law“. Half the talks in the conference/set are not Jewish.
Sharday Mosurinjohn, The Sweetest Taboo: Psychedelics and the Invention of Religious Experiences
“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 [the talk] 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.
Any Scholar Who Looks for Psychedelics in Religious History (Other than Indig Shams) = “These writers’ dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages“
Please Scream “I’m Ignorant, Vague, Myopic, and Mean” Louder
“I argue that these writers’ dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages
[unprofessional, rude, rhetoric, ignorant jerk; rude & wrong are married forever, deserving each other -mh]
has to do with wanting a western civilizational pedigree to dignify the use of stigmatized drugs.
[is that so? is that the motive of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm: Samorini, Michael Hoffman [theorist of eternalism-driven control-transformation], & Browns? -mh]
This myopia is rooted in colonial violence
🤦♂️ 🤦♂️ 🤦♂️ 🤦♂️
that precludes seriously relating to [??? do you not know that the same entheogen scholars covering Europe covered Americas? WTF does that even mean, “precludes seriously relating to”?? -mh] the many well-documented Indigenous histories of psychedelics, [far back as 100 years!]
Another Plug for non-drug entheogens, As Ever, by Fake, Posturing Academics
ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state
Shar con’t, in writing:
“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.”
[Shar args: If you are a dog, pursuing evidence that is known to certainly be a mirage, then you cannot perceive current psychedelics use “in continuity with” older, original, non-drug methods of entering the psychedelic state. -mh]
Shardog the female dog of a scholar, doggedly continues in her evidentiary mirage hallucinating non-drug psychedelics in religious history:
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.
Her Paper Was Rejected Again
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.”
[by “communicate” she means, scholars – of her persuasion – to pop audience? 1-way?]
Psychedelic Bioscience Scholarship (ie, psychedelic pseudo science founded on ultra-narrowing, Popular Neo-Advaita)
[translation: psychedelic pseudo science, using Leary’s psychometrics q’airs, with Popular Neo-Advaita — extremely eliminative narrowing of what’s “real mysticism” — baked-in as the “science foundation”]
/ end of Shar Mos’s written summary of the talk
[How is the psychedelic [mysteries] hypothesis “fundamentally flawed in its study of antiquity” – fundamentally flawed, in what sense? See her mystery article. -mh]
Self-Contradictory Flip-Flop: “Euro Entheogen Scholarship is False and Foolish, but I’m Not Saying Euro Entheogen Scholarship Is False and Foolish”
Self-contradictory, Mosur’s article Abstract saying you’re not allowed to do entheogen scholarship other than centered around and limited to Indig Shams, because there is no evidence (of any kind) for any other psychedelics history – she backpedals and contradicts that in her talk.
She bluffs as if we “misheard” her Abstract, her demonization and ridiculing of entheogen scholarship except for on Indigenous Shams.
You can tell, from her defense in her talk: entheogen scholars hate her article, and called her on her “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” fallacy. The old flip flop, I’ve seen it before, in Andy Letcher, see my review of Shroom:
“We don’t know entheogen history for a fact.” <- flip/flop-> “We know for certain it wasn’t drugs.”
“ONLY IF WE LOOK CLOSELY DO WE FIND SOMETHING DIFFERENT” – That’s an important pattern, eg Mosur wrote (in the Abstract of the 2025 article Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience, copied into the conference schedule):
“My talk is about: You must not do research in Euro history of psychedelics in Euro religious history, else guilty of Colonialist Violence;
“you are only permitted to focus on Indig Shams and make that your boundary of thought.
I suspect she’d ok Jewish , just not Xn — she, like John Lash, is trying to prohibit Xn history (specifically Mr. Jesus; Mr. Moses, Mr. Paul) from having psychedelics.
But in her actual talk [= more detail, more precise], Mosur. defensively backtracks from that f*cking obnoxious, outrageous dictate.
Every entheogen scholar hates her crummy, namecalling, insulting article.
She can’t retract the wording on the conf sched b/c its a copy of the article’s Abstract, which she can’t change.
She ATTACKS and INSULTS the entire field of entheogen scholarship, and I can tell that other entheogen scholars were as offended as me.
She tries to tell the same self-assured narrative in her talk, but, she’s intensely defensive, and denies smearing the entire entheogen scholarship field.
I have sound criticisms of entheogen scholarship and its contradictions.
The journals wouldn’t publish her article: neither the Journal of Psychedelic Studies (I’m guessing), nor a Religious Studies journal.
Mosurinjohn = authoritarian dictator, projection, colonialist-type violence, bossing around ppl in the field for which she hasn’t read the basic articles, and entered 5 minutes ago.
She wrote a hundred articles over decades, and a week ago comes into entheogen scholarship for the first time, immediately throwing punches, strutting around, dictating “you can’t study entheogens in Euro history, b/c you are a Colonialist Violence against Indig Shams by not making your world revolve around alien Shams.”
Giving vague recommendations: Instead of looking for which plant, based on your phenomenology experience effects, you should instead [academic bafflegab] … attend to the “spiritual work”.
Her recomm for how to conduct entheogen scholarship is pretty empty of meaning; escapes into POSTURING AND ABSTRACTION.
Reactionary Against Newbie Bully Sharday Mosurinjohn Dictating What We Are Permitted to Study
Correct reaction against Mosur:
F*CK INDIGENOUS SHAMS (Mexico psilocybin; Amazon Aya), THEY ARE LOWER, CRUDE RELIGION; EURO HISTORY IS HIGHER, PROPER Transcendent Knowledge.
INDIG SHAMS HISTORY IS WORTHLESS; EURO ENTHEOGEN HISTORY IS WHAT IS WORTHWHILE TO STUDY.
p. 389 Baier: “For him [Frits Staal] South Asiatic mystic religions are not irrational but quite rational explorations of mystical experience that foreshadow a holistic scientific psychology”
Like saying “Popular Neo-Advaita is bunk, insane, and irrational, but Ken Wilber’s ultra sophisticated Advaita is REAL Advaita; Popular Neo-Advaita doesn’t count”.
I reject that. What ruined psychedelic science is mostly Popular Neo-Advaita: “You must stop thinking; cease constructing the self-other boundary; that’s what Transcendent Knowledge is all about.”
Transcendent Knowledge is actually all about, centrally, the process of mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism (ie to integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking).
The pop, avoidance tactic is take fav 1% of mystical experience (positive unitive), and declare that to be the entirety of mystical experience thus rejecting and discarding 99% of mystical experience.
The all-dominant model of mystical experience (positive unitive model) is so wrong, to this extent: it’s a model selectively based on just 1% of a thing, pretending to be the entire thing. The result is not merely “wrong emphasis”; the result is entirely false, wrong, misrepresentative FUNDAMENTALLY.
Mystical experience is NOT about positive unitive; actually, mystical experience is about eternalism-driven control-transformation.
I refuse to grant any high, ultimate, central focus to “positive unitive realization”, when ALL the action is re: the eternalism-driven control-transformation process.
The positive unitive model is nothing but an avoidance tactic and popular sales.
re: Reactionary against Indig Shams propaganda, see:
Mosur Elevates Presupposed Non-Drug Methods of the Mystics “can/ could/ might/may” Produce Psychedelic Effects, As Every Academic Does
To absolute hell with “fasting, breathing, sens dep” – this is sheer agenda-driven posturing and buttheadedness; ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state.
My challenge: PLEASE DEMONSTRATE how other methods work to “can/ could/ might/ may” produce the same effect as psychedelics.
Starving = 10 g of Cubensis? Sheer bull sh!t & self-righteous posturing. A tired, cliche argument, very worn out.
I have no respect for deniers of the entheogen theory of religion.
Their arguments are fallacious, and posturing to ingratiate themselves with the butthead committed skeptics in academia, who say chanting and watching drama is likely to produce mystery religion intense mystic altered state.
The ABD Apologists say that asserting that “the intense mystic altered state in mystery religion required psychedelics” is “unreasonable” and has “no evidence” and “debunked”.
What do you think of the articles by Samorini 1997, 1998, & Ruck 2001 “Conjuring Eden”? Oh, you haven’t read them – you only are aware of 1st-generation entheogen scholarship.
But you know “There is no evidence.”
Cheap reasoning, lazy scholarship. Establishment-compliant propaganda by professional academics – who retain their “competent scholar” status by their affiliation proclamations:
“I solemnly swear, I disavow Allegro’s theory, that psychedelics had a major role in European religious history. Please don’t kick me out of the club of competent scholars.”
The deniers propose intense mystic altered state through fasting. They say that’s a more sensible explanation than psychedelics. A really weak position, they have.
I’ll gladly bet on and commit to the entheogen hypothesis ANY DAY, just like I’m glad to own the Psilocybin hypothesis of what was the engine of the mystery religions, & mixed wine.
You can have your 3rd rate, Amanita single-drug fallacy.
And fasting to produce the full, transformative psychedelic effect – you can have that solution, and the hyperventilation method, while I’m stuck just owning Psilocybin as the explanation.
Henry Winslow really likes and repeats the very worst arg’n from Sharday Mosurinjohn.
It’s false “there’s no evidence”.
No evidence, for what, precisely?
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.
The post is rotten arg’n and POSTURING and bluffing; RHETORIC of the butthead ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state.
“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?”
[is what true: how much evidence we have? whether psychedelics were used? do we know the fact of that? do we know for certain that Eleusis was NOT psychedelics? according to this sleazy wording, acts as if “yes, we know Eleusis was not psychedelics”.
Henry Winslow LAPS UP THE SWILL, BAD ARG’N (Motte & Bailey flip-flop of exactly what’s being asserted], SHARDAY DISHES OUT.]
—
“Researchers from Queen’s University think not. [YOU MEAN, THEY POSTURE AGAINST ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP, TO INGRATIATE ESTABLISHMENT. THEY DO NOT IN FACT SAY “WE KNOW KYKEON WANS’T PSYCHEDELICS”]
WORLD’S SLEAZIEST WRITING (Sheer Propaganda): “a thorough takedown of the whole theory”
There’s pushback in comments, even glad to see accusation of Henry Winslow’s camp “posturing”.
Note the weasel wording: “a takedown”.
Henry Winslow didn’t say “proved kykeon wasn’t psychedelics”. He vaguely said “a takedown” of “the theory” — which theory, precisely?
This is a con artist shell game via vague, elastic use of language. This is rhetoric, posturing, propaganda:
“So they just dropped a thorough takedown of the whole theory in the journal Psychedelic Medicine. “
What does “dismantle” mean? This is not precise determinate language!
That style of writing is highly suspect; internet flame war mode, not factual debate. “Destroyed by facts and logic!“
“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. “
Sharday markets herself as “Proving no psychedelics in Euro history”, but when pinned down, she claims “I’m merely pointing out that it’s a hypothesis, not proved.”
Letcher/Mosurinjohn: “We Don’t Have Evidence” = “We Know Entheogen Scholarship Is False”
“Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence.”
Sharday’s arg’n paraphrased; posturing, Motte and Bailey, flip-flop, moving the goalposts arg’n:
“I totally disproved the psychedelic hypothesis, we now know psychedelics did not have a major role in religious history.
My point is, the entheogen theory of religion is not proved, but a hypothesis.
How can ppl be so stupid as to assert what we definitely know to be false.
I disproved psychedelics’ role in religious history.
I’m merely cautioning you scholars [after having entered the field 5 minutes ago, and seeing self-promotional opportunities in this field] we must differentiate hypothesis vs. proved fact.
Thus I have proved, no psychedelics in European history.
Henry Winslow continues his Motte and Bailey fallacious arg’n game:
“They say proponents are presenting speculation as fact, and the entire narrative is built on shaky foundations and circular reasoning.”
[these are typical, weak, ineffectual objections, as discussed in Phil & Hist o Sci -mh]
“So why does the myth persist?”
This is fallacious and vague writing, “the myth”. Vague.
What aspect of the hypothetis is “the myth”, here?
Are you claiming that we know for a fact, ppl at Eleusis tripped out without using psychedelics?
Henry Winslow SOUNDS like he’s claiming that, when he says, with Sharday, “Why does the myth persist?”
Didn’t sharday write same words? he interv’d her.
Henry Winslow con’t: [this is practically a quote from Sharday:]
“The authors argue it’s about legitimacy.
“People want to believe there’s a ‘respectable’ Western pedigree for psychedelics with our European ancestors. “
Next, he repeats the arg, “European not allowed to have entheogen history; scholars must worship Indig Shams else guilty of Colonial Violence”:
Henry Winslow con’t:
“Never mind that there are plenty of Indigenous lineages around the world that have preserved psychedelic wisdom for millennia.
“If we need history’s stamp of approval to justify research and policy reform today (we don’t), surely that’s enough.”
Who says our goal is “to justify research and policy reform”? That’s part of it, but “YOU ARE WRONG AND UNETHICAL TO LOOK FOR PSYCHEDELICS IN EUROPEAN HISTORY” – STFU
ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state.
Sharday’s Proclamation of What’s Good and Bad
Sharday Mosurinjohn. 2023 article, June 2025 article.
Begs for a Parody Article inverting her bad logic especially her super-bad logic in her summary of her 10-min talk at Jewish Harvard Law.
Haven’t figured out where the Jewish comes in, why the conference (not advertised as Jewish) has the video talks (including Christian) at the Jewish YouTube channel.
She args:
Good: Focusing on history of Indigenous Shams.
citation: Alan Houot 2019 masters thesis: shamans good, have full control on psilocybin; mystics bad; pursue loss of control & surrenderism. He strangely omitted this topic/argument from the 2025 book Rise of the Psychonaut.
Good: Focusing on history of entheogens in Jewish history (not directly asserted, but implied on some adjacent talks at the conf).
Bad: Focusing on Western, Christian history of entheogens, = colonialist violence, because fails to put the central focus on Indig Shams.
“IT’S AN EVIDENCED FACT THAT SHAMS HAVE LONG HISTORY OF LOFTY WISE SPIRITUAL RELIGIOUS USE OF PSILOCYBIN”
entheogen scholarship – extent of psychedelics in religious history; “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis” (Ascough).
theory of psychedelic mental model transformation – the Egodeath theory: STEM-expressed positive, can-do explanatory model; Loose Cognitive Science; the {gate} requirement to enter the experiential space: stand on right foot; know eternalism-thinking as well as possibilism-thinking. Know that more wisdom = more control instability; to soar upward is to go unstable and fall down, thus forming a boundary limit, regardless of insane Pop Advaitababble about “all boundaries are unreal”, “your mind is an illusion”, “everything is illusion” – unhelpful, irrelevant, exact opposite of STEM and development progress.
Philosophy of Mystical experience (totally taken over by the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”; Popular Neo-Advaita).
“As part of the “Psychedelics and the Future of Religion” series, Dr. J. Christian Greer hosted a discussion panel with Dr. Erik Davis and Dr. Gary Laderman, focusing on the intersection of:
psychedelic culture
sacred drugs
the modern American zeitgeist
spiritualities centered on psychoactive substances
the material culture of psychedelia
the potential role humanities scholars could play in the current wave of clinical research on psychedelics“
STEM explanatory model of mental model transformation, from possibilism to eternalism; Loose Cognitive Science.
myth, mythic art, and analogies
the ahistoricity of religious founder figures
astral ascent mysticism
eg my correction of Hanegraaff and everyone who says “the 7 spheres of the visible cosmos, then leave cosmos and arrive at the Ogdoad/Ennead, which is outside the cosmos” — as if there are not 4000 stars but only 5 or 7. A few paragraphs later, safely separated, they say, contradicting: “8th sphere contains evil zodiac; avoid it”. “OGDOAD GOOD; 8TH SPHERE EVIL” (obv. they are the same thing).
“This publication features insights gleaned from thousands of psychedelic experiences of healing, creativity, connection, and consciousness expansion.
“I invite you to become a monthly subscriber or, if your budget allows it, a founding member.
“As a member of our tribe, your financial support will help sustain my team as we continue to provide bold, unabashed interviews on topics that require careful handling.
con’t:
Greer
con’t from above webpage about a video with Richard Miller & Xn Greer
[SAY EVERY WORD AT THE SAME VOLUME. 1 out of 10 words, Greer whispers:
“BEAR WAS THE SOUND ENGINEER
[whispered: for the grateful d..]
As a member of the WELL, I was in the Dead/Internet before the Web; I was one of the first couple people to announce the Web on the WELL. -mh]
“This week I have the privilege of bringing to you an academic researcher – Dr. J. Christian Greer – a scholar of religious studies, specializing in the global history of psychedelic spirituality.
“Several of Christian’s findings threaten to overturn a number of sacred cows in both academia and organized religion, but his diligent scholarly approach has led him to his current lecturing position at Stanford in the American studies department, where he can freely explore his controversial thesis regarding the prominence of psychedelics in modern American spirituality.
“We discuss this thesis with reference to bands like the Grateful Dead, charismatic figures like Timothy Leary, and authors like Aldous Huxley, along with the ancient history of psychedelics and the handful historians who have been brave enough to study it.
Christian [Greer] asks me [Richard Miller] whether I think the current renaissance in psychedelic research taking place is a sign of greater things to come, or represents a brief island of sanity before resumption of the long Dark Age I’ve lived under for more than 50 years.
[but “the current renaissance in psychedelic research”, which suicided in 2025 w/ Religious Leaders Study conflicts-of-interest fiasco, and self-destruction of the Hopkins inner circle team — is premised 100% on Popular Neo-Advaita, the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” – an extremely narrowed, exclusionary, narrowing, thus reductionist model -mh]
You can listen to the entire interview free of charge, or read the transcript for subscribers only below:”
Contradictory Writing – Best Bad Quotes & Backtracking & Shifting the Claim
Animation of the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy
A copy of this section is in my Sharday Mosurinjohn page (“Invention of Religious Experience”) and in my Ascough page.
Video: What is the difference between science and pseudoscience? (Strange Loop, Dec. 2025)
Animation of the motte-and-bailey fallacy at 7:22: Aggressive, bailey position: “Your mind controls reality.” Feeble, motte position: “How you think can have some effect on what happens.”
There’s no hard line between Science vs. Pseudoscience.
Summarizes the book about how after cold war, Physics was defunded, then Marketed by Woo scientists successfully:
I sent someone a capture of an animation of animation of the Motte and Bailey fallacy. (Found it; above.)
Nice town hard defend –> Bad building easy defend
More powerful a term than “move goalposts”: you move them in, then out, then in; wide, narrow
Now we can employ both fallacies variants
move goalpost
the motte-and-bailey fallacy
Nice town hard to defend <–> Bad building easy to defend
What does Sharday do; which is which?
Sharday’s feeble motte position: “Maybe there were no psychedelics in mystery religions.”
Sharday’s aggressive bailey position: “There definitely were no psychedelics in mystery religions.”
Do not look for psychedelics in Western history.
You must make Indigenous Shams the central focus of your scholarship, and the boundary limit of your research.
How dare you, Shard and Cough, dictate in your Invention Abstract what we may or may not study, or must study or else colonial violence GTFO fake scholar, biased AF, shamelessly brazenly biased Shard & Cough. We entheogen scholars who MADE the field of Indigenous Shams, will study whatever the f*ck we want – F off, interloper, interfering, the outsider’s outsider.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough Are Guilty of Colonialist Violence because they Fail to Make Euro Psychedelics the Center of their Historical Research
They Must Not Study Indigenous Shams, because I Am the Declarer of the Correct Topics to Research
Shard and Cough are a laughingstock, look at her backpedal, DOES THEY NOW WANT WISH TO CHANGE THEIR RUDE IGNORANT UNPROFESSIONAL SMEAR-PHRASES IN THEIR ABSTRACT?
My god is the body of the article – read it 4th time – filled with gold nuggets of badness like the Abstract
Amateur outsider hacks, namecalling, bully argumentation. Hey Shard and Ascough you have to study what I tell you to, blundering disproved Pop Scholars.
Flip around all the badness.
The Egodeath theory Is the Correct Dictator of What People May and May Not Research
It’s good of Mosurinjohn and Ascough in their invention abstract to declare they are the dictators of entheogen scholarship
they mistake tho
the Egodeath theory is the dictator of entheogen scholarship
You must not study Indigenous Shams.
Mos & Cough: Per the Egodeath theory’s wise and correct, superior judgment, you and other scholars must not study Indigenous Shams. You must study only Western psychedelics history.
psychedelics myth demote history
the Egodeath theory is a history-free theory of myth and history of religion myth tripping
First get the the Mytheme theory right, global myth whatever era, all eras
global myth all eras
all regions
all eras
myth
psychedelics in myth i was glad to find ruck greek myth textbook but it miss heros, MONSTERS
Ruck’s Myth Textbook Suppresses Monsters
pushing positive unitive model – does
Does the book Consc Ruck push positive unitive model the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” like – it turned out recently, why i preorderd Wm Richards bk but it was nothing- is it the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”? How much?
How heavily d
How much do I dislike……it’s invis neutral book, made no impression at all, no takeaway at all
Sacred Knowledge
Wm Richards
~2016
like as much as ZZZ
Why am i as unimpressed by Richards as by Badiner? Allan ZZZ
in diff’t ways
like food gods, i hate how it takes as given, no psychedelics in relig origins … myth is my strong point.
history psychedelics myth
the history of myth
history of psychedelic myth
Sometimes i like history perspec.
dislike “history” usu
theory good
history bad
weed out history from the Egodeath theory
Brazenly Biased Shard & Ascough Dictate What We Must and Must Not Study, but the Egodeath theory Is the Correct Dictator of That: No More Indigenous Shams Research; You Must Study only Western Psychedelics History
Ascough and Mosurinjohn must submit to the authority of the Egodeath theory and must not study Indig Shams and must devote all their research to European psychedelics history.
Ascough and Mosurinjohn Must Not Study Indigenous Shams, and Must Devote All Their Research to Western Psychedelics History
Tip: You gotta want it, to find “evidence”, and data is theory bound
Tip: The Egodeath theory is the correct interpretive/ explanatory framework for the data and evidence, to generate the evidence and data that successfully supports the theory. The two legs work together: the best psychedelic myth proves the egodeath core theory
YOUR THEORY IS GARBAGE, BLUNDERING ASCOUGH AND MOSURINJOHN, Pop Scholars. Xn Greer writes Pop Esotericism for a popular audience. He ought to listen to the authorities: the Egodeath theory the Egodeath community secret hiden suppressed group that has the Secret Amanita Gnosis
On the mythic plane where is Amanita the super psychedelic, the master ultimate psychedelic like Rutajit book says: step aside 5MeO here comes Amanita:
The cybernetic theory supports the Mytheme theory, the Mytheme theory supports the cybernetic theory.
psychedelic cybernetic eternalism analogy
the two fit:
psychedelic cybernetic eternalism
psychedelic analogy [not ‘myth’?] myth functions as analogy describing / for referent domain item {myth m}.
The Analogies chapter in Creating Scientific Concepts.
The Mytheme theory proves the Egodeath theory core theory, and the Egodeath theory core theory proves the the Mytheme theory.
ALL YOUR RESEARCH ARE BELONG TO US.
Obnoxious Phrases in the Abstract or Schedule, of “Psychedelics, Eleusis, & the Invention of religious experience
I do a lot of internal correction of the field of foo.
keyboard shortcut
psychedelic science with psychometrics questionnaires – the name of a distinct field of debate articles; my page Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science
psychedelic science with psychometrics questionnaires pspq
psychometric drugs
a psychometric trip
psychedelic science with psychometrics questionnaires
vs.
entheogen scholarship – insider tech term
whats that about?
psychedelics
religion
ancient
the “ancient psychedelic religion” theory aprt
that’s my equiv of Ascough term:
the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis
long ago
field This is the era of internal correction of the field of foo
foo =
psychedelics in religious mythology
the history of psychedelics in religious mythology
entheogen scholarship – obscure, opaque, dark term: no one has ever heard the term ‘entheogen’. wtf is “scholarship” could be anything. u have to b expert in this field like me to decode WTF is intended… the bad term assumes that you already know:
‘entheogen’
scholarship on WTF precisely could be anything
The Term ‘Entheogen Scholarship’ a poor description of the field
Slip n slide the domain of contention.
I already analyzed in detail connots of … least talked is psychotomimetic, WAY more accurate than totally wrong term ‘hallucinogen’
Must say psychedelic in the…. but name of the field but ….
entheogen scholarship is a good term sometimes, for insider writing
‘entheogen scholarship’ a very insider term – doesn’t mean “never use it!” I work hard to at least have available alien external lexicon:
the Egodeath theory is like
ego dissolution
in the DMN
of Popular Neo-Advaita
positive unitive model
the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” – SIMPLY TRASHCAN ALL OF YOUR THINKING, GET RID OF THE SELF-OTHER BOUNDARY: THAT’S SUPER PROFOUND TYPE OF Transcendent Knowledge – eliminate thinking and the mind and the world, …. THIS IS SHEER DEGENERATE REGRESSION this direction of Popular Neo-Advaita caricature revel in bad ways of shirking proper correct use of lang. Enthusiastic obfuscation and revelling in … even STace calls it or Pahnke calls it ALLEGED “ineffabilty”.
entheogen scholarship -thta’s that’s a more abstract term than descriptive term:
psychedelics history of mythology
the psychedelic history of mythology
the history of psychedelics in religious mythology
January 21, 2026: grid cap = multiple = branching; pages of book = multiple = branching; fingers often touch pages of book (side of book); thumb is against open page. in Great Canterbury Psalter. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom
Angel feathers are YI; a single feather is sep. from the rest. f109. God’s R hand touches the “thumb” (sep. feather) of angel L wing.
Motivation for this Page
I’ve been activated by Mosur’s atrocious, intensely offensive written desc of her talk.
Hu’s interview of them shows indoctrination in realtime; Ascough prevents Mosur from affirming entheogen scholarship.
Need transcription of the actual talk [done], to see in what way she vigorously backpedals during her talk.
What exactly are her positive recommendations for entheogen scholarship? Do they amount to anything of substance? No, or barely anything. She says focus on psychedelic transformation process, not just an isolated psychedelic session.
The Egodeath theory does not look for psychedelics (in isolation) in history of religious myth; the Egodeath theory looks for analogies of mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism, from a series of 10 psilocybin sessions.
Status of this Webpage
12:48 p.m. January 21, 2026 — This page is very good now.
At the start of the video “Psychedelics, and the Birth”, Ascough disparages athiests for being condescending and insulting; he’s an atheist.
I now think much of the condescending tone in the article’s Abstract, and in Schedule, is from the SMUGLY SELF-ASSURED AND CONDESCENDING (& ignorant) atheist Ascough. He’s not in the field of entheogen scholarship.
Ascough’s Credibility Level: “synthesizing the ergot from mushrooms into an LSD type of substance”
Ascough is just another cheap lazy careless fly-by “demolishing” of entheogen scholarship by yet another outsider with no credibility, who talks (Birth video) of “ergot from mushrooms” nonsense:
The idea of of synthesizing the ergot from mushrooms into an LSD type of substance, there’s just very weak basi– you know we can do it now, in highly technical labs, but could priests do it back then? Not saying they couldn’t, but I’m saying where’s– it’s conjecture, but it has to be proven.
Video title: Psychedelics, and the Birth of Christianity – Dr. Richard Ascough Dec 25, 2024 Channel: Ayush Prakash Ayush Prakash Podcast This is episode 111. Richard S. Ascough is Professor of Religion Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada. The topic of psychedelics starts at 44:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8GcCjja74M&t=2670s [44:30]
At least Letcher wrote a book, can’t call him lazy except he got 1 image from Stamets and neglected to read any other art evidence.
Mosur should break away from Ascough’s mental cell.
I titled this page “Mosurinjohn” not “Ascough”, because the motivation for creating this page is her video, specifically for me:
To compare her transcript vs. her description of the talk in the conf Schedule.
That description is 95% same as her & Ascough’s paper’s Abstract.
contains transcription of her 10-minute talk, which is a summary of her article, that finally got pub’d July 2025: Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience
Contains her written summary of her talk – and of her paper – from the conf schedule.
I’ve only read her article with Ascough 3 times; need 4th, now.
Now after I threw together this page, I’m ready to re-read my two printouts of her article, which is same as her talk and her summary of the talk, including self contradictions.
She makes several points including “study non-drug psychedelics”.
I consistently get the feeling that little is contributed by Mosur., but, need to read the article more.
Need to convert her academic wind into an executive summary list of takeaways.
Guy in fire no left arm, YI hand reaching toward Christ, implies leaving fire via ossuary. Ossuary guy has cloak, = improved mental world model; improved personal control system.
11:24 a.m. January 19, 2026 — there are 4 caps of mushroom-tree and there are 4 fingers; caps = fingers. cut branch = thumb.
todo: crop rightmost 1/8 of picture: black key tree mushroom-tree guy touching mushroom-tree
Psilocybin mushrooms reveal purification by repeated immersion in the psychedelic state, harrowing, corrective demons fire, done cooking and transforming when made to make the YI sign w/ thumb & fingers.
Then rescued from experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control , when lose left arm & lose left leg, and receive thumb, along with fingers.
Elab’d:
Then rescued from experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control , when lose left arm & lose left leg (those = branching thinking; possibilism-thinking) and receive thumb (non-branching; eternalism) along with fingers (branching; possibilism).
Receive ‘I’ along with ‘YI’; Receive eternalism-thinking added to possibilism-thinking.
The psilocybin mushroom revelation of eternalism causes panic, dread, control instability; control stability occurs after mental model transformation; end up with integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
Revelation of: eternalism — that is: eternalism-thinking analogical psychedelic eternalism analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control analogical psychedelic eternalism thinking with 2-level, dependent control
instead of only knowing: possibilism — that is: possibilism-thinking literalist ordinary-state possibilism literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control literalist ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control literalist ordinary-state possibilism thinking with monolithic, autonomous control
End up with:
2POV
two different points of view
two different mental models of possibility and control
qualified possibilism-thinking along with basic eternalism-thinking
integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
f107 Proves Previous Hypothesis Reading Fingers and Thumb as Branching vs. Non-Branching
When did I first try to map possibilism & eternalism to hand / finger shapes? March 21, 2022, when emailing Jerry Brown re: Marcia Kupfer art historian re: “cuts the branches” in St Martin … maybe. That email made term “branching-message mushroom trees”, but did that email thread include figuring out finger shapes by Jesus on donkey? Same week probably.
3:39 p.m. January 19, 2026 – important: this picture PROVES my previous speculations about fingers and thumb.
This image clearly links on the right: cut branch ~= thumb, 4 mushroom branches ~= fingers.
Other motifs in f107 that corroborate that:
Angel’s thumb against open book.
Sage’s thumb against open book.
Policeman’s thumb against open scroll touching God’s cloud; fingers not touching scroll.
God’s thumb touching God’s cloud; God’s fingers not touching God’s cloud.
Hellmouth fire pit guy making IY shape with thumb & fingers reaching to Christ via ossuary.
In the course of this decoding, 11 p.m. January 17, 2026, I analyzed (in max detail) dancing man: fingers touching head, came away with the same type of creativity: 3 fingers splayed touching L of forehead; Index finger separate, touches R of forehead. Has closed eyes, same as f107 sleep guy.
Bad Conjectures by ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art dmica
ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state.
Clueless outsiders crying “no evidence” have zero chance of reading this picture.
1:40 p.m. January 19, 2026
Is the message “Jesus was a mushroom?”
Is the message “secret hidden suppressed heretical Amanita Gnosis”?
Keyboard shortcut can paste an image URL
[weird idea: a keyboard shortcut can’t paste a picture, but can paste a fullscreen picture’s URL 🤔] b/c I wish to quickly paste pictures:
Alan Houot talks about Engineering-type, technical UX progress toward Transcendent Knowledge – I do it. Invented the acronym in April 1987, on expansive, wide-ruled paper.
Not the case: you might speculate, as implied by naming:
Wide ruled = high school, to 12th grade.
College ruled = college. College freshman+.
But the official story is very different:
Wide ruled paper = grade school, but only through 4th grade.
College ruled is for upper grade school (5th grade) and after. ie, you are expected to have your hand writing dialed in by end of 4th grade, age 9. When turn 10, expect small excellent hand writing (5th grade) suitable for college hand writing.
In April 1987, I threw away 6″ x 8″ blank books with maybe college ruled, and did a fresh start (when father died), using binder filler paper Wide ruled.
That change of paper & binding hugely blew open the horizon, and I started explicitly, consciously, doing theory development for the first time.
I became a theorist of mental construct processing and STEM-expressed Transcendent Knowledge, in April 1987, by moving to Wide ruled paper; in start of binders series: around April 1987 through June 1987.
Then, having really gotten routine doing this theory devmt, I switched from Wide ruled binder sheets, to College-ruled binder sheets, keeping some expansiveness, but miniaturizing the lines.
I cannot just use College Ruled paper, now, to tap into that consciousness; I must also use the pivotal key expansion: Wide Ruled binder sheets.
d a t v i r l [l = long] “Daturas for the Virgin” by Ruck & Celdran, in Entheos 2, 2001 (no urls? non-fancy)
Non-Branching Dionysus and Branching Ariadne: Dionysus and Ariadne Victory Wedding
WordPress gallery April 30, 2022 – todo: crop with chariot visibleDec 2020 in WordPress gallery Crop desired: [not top pri] Not leopard / bottom. Not vines on top. Not tiger 3 & 4.
11:56 a.m. January 19, 2026 — solved! decoded! in both trees, the count of cut branches, or cuts, or etc.: just like I found a mushroom-tree often has 4 protrusions, like 4 limbs – or here, 4 fingers.
mushroom-tree: 4 cut trunk at bottom, maps to his 4 fingers, or the 4 caps/crowns of the tree.
black key tree: 2 cut trunks & 2 branching leaves (Y on left)
mushroom-tree: 4 cut trunks, 4 caps/crowns; his 4 fingers. 2 visual cuts of 2 of the 4 branches/stems.
12:00 Noon January 19, 2026 – semi correction: below, bottom of mushroom-tree, is 4 cut trunks, maps to his lower hand showing 4 fingers visually bent/cut.
keyboard shortcut: black key tree bkt
mushroom-tree, upper half: each of the 3 branches that ends w/ cap/crown, has a cut:
from bottom up:
L branch has cut L branch.
M branch has visually cut stem, 1 cap.
R branch has visually cut stem of L branch.
Key to box colors:
bold red (main point) = branching; possibilism, of tree (matching fingers)
bold green (main point) = non-branching; eternalism, of tree (matching thumb)
light red = other instances of branching motif
light green = other instances of non-branching motif
Splayed Fingers Touching Face (Dancing Man, Golden: Jonah Gourd); row 1 R: Sleeping Sage has L hand showing fingers & thumb, R hand at forehead showing fingers, no thumb.
Lower-Level Guys Aware of Stood on by Upper-Level Guys
Boundary Between Lower and Upper Level
Ossuary Rescue
Closed Books on Left, Open Books on Right
todo: bulk create crops:
each row, each panel.
boxes/lines eg pairs of books, vertical pairs of figures.
Karl Baier Article High Mysticism p. 366: Features in f107, January 18, 2026
Great Canterbury Psalter f107
Notes and Photo: Michael Hoffman, 11:00 p.m. January 17, 2026. Orig device metadata: 2.4 MB, 9 MP, 3548 x 2786 px. WordPress metadata: img_8885.jpg, January 19, 2026, 1,004 KB, 2000 x 1570 px.
I finish transcribing the notes (to the present page) from page 366/367 Baier article, about features of Canterbury Folio f107, 10:17 a.m. to 11:10 am, January 19, 2026.
Possibilism and Eternalism Are Cumulative, Not Mutually Exclusive, per Ken Wilber’s “Embrace and Include” the Earlier, Lower Developmental Structure
Since 2025 April/Aug 2POV breakthrough way of thinking and expressing, I fear to say “vs” as in, “possibilism vs. eternalism”.
Possibilism and Eternalism are not pitted against; mut exclusive.
possibilism-thinking and eternalism-thinking are not mutually exclusive. Gaining eternalism-thinking does not mean “get rid of possibilism-thinking” like insane Popular Neo-Advaita says.
Ken Wilber tries to distance from Popular Neo-Advaita, calling for more sophistication. This is No True Scotsman fallacy: “Real Advaita is not insanely deleting egoic structures.”
I don’t care about irrelevant, alleged postdoc University Academia Armchair Learned Sophisticated PHILOSOPHY THEORY of Advaita that has a buried footnote “Strictly speaking, ego is relatively real.”
The only thing that matters is Popular Neo-Advaita, which is insanity and developmental ruin. The model of mystical experience that’s baked into psychedelic pseudo science is not “sophisticated nuanced real Advaita”; but rather, Popular Neo-Advaita in its simplified insanity:
you don’t exist
nothing is real
your mind doesn’t exist
nothing exists
lang is incapable
truth cannot be in words (functional self-contradictions L & R)
ineffable
apophatic
Transcendent Knowledge cannot be explained per STEM, clearly and explicitly.
In 1985-1987, I required a clear, rational, useful model of Transcendent Knowledge, articulated exactly same as any field explained per STEM fashion.
Baier wrote: p. 390: “Staal accuses Learn and Alpert for having ceased to be rational explorers”
Baier quotes Staal there: “They seemed to have lost their rational mind, and founded instead a religious sect.” Staal p. 188.
“The academic research of mysticism is not even developed enough to provide a valid definition of mysticism”
Baier wrote: “According to him [Staal] at the present time [1975] the academic research of mysticism is not even developed enough to provide a valid definition of mysticism.”
Alan Houot in Rise of the Psychonaut says “be rational”. He thus implicitly rejects “Transcendent Knowledge is non-rational.”
Staal wrongly, like EVERYONE other than me, imagines that “mysticism” = the Unitive experience (he probably gives away that specifically, he imagines mysticism = positive unitive model.
Read the word choice loosely in such articles about mysticism & psychedelic mysticism. Notice every time the writer uses, for any purpose/point, words like: 3 groups of key words:
EXAMPLE 9:24 a.m. January 19, 2026 — “ego dissolution” a la Dittrich OAV 1994: or the guy who in 1985 extracted the OAV dimensions from Dittrich’s 1975 v1 APZ questionnaire: ego dissolution connotes what they are thinking, everyone who assumes mysticism = positive unitive model: “dissolution = separation != unitive”; You were supposed to have unitive experience, but instead, you had dissolution into multiplicity/ separation, so, bad trip.” Their off-based explanation.
unitive (union, merging, oceanic)
non unitive (separation, multiplicity, dissociation, angst)
positive (bliss, pleasant, joy)
union
non separation
non multiplicity
boundary
encapsulated
merging
oceanic
bliss
also trace words that carry the paradigm “anti-rational”:
non-rational
irrational
ineffable
apophatic
words cannot explain
Quotes from Staal High Mysticism re: Rejecting the Anti-Rational Premise
“anti-scientific exoticism“: p. 389 top: Baier wrote that Staal is “not a naive adherent of the countercultural worldview and criticized a hippie-like anti-scientific exoticism.” Staal wrote: “Those who have had enough of science and rationality [eg anti-rational interps of QM] … look at exotic repositories of the irrational; the Oriental religions and cults seem to meet such a description very well. ONLY IF WE LOOK CLOSELY DO WE FIND SOMETHING DIFFERENT” …
Or find something self-contradictory, like Mosur’s article Abstract saying you’re not allowed to do entheogen scholarship other than centered around and limited to Indig Shams, because there is no evidence (of any kind) for any other psychedelics history – she backpedals and contradicts that in her talk.
QM, Hidden Variables
see interps of Quantum Mysticism other than Bohm’s hidden variables & superdetermism: my complaint is that these are gleeful anti-rationalists, who WANT physics to be irrational, and do not even TRY to find a way of “the particle has a position, we just are ignorant of what that position is”; they DESIRE the particle to have no position until we, magically, “observe/measure it consciously” which then “gives” the particle a position. -mh
The “Positive Unitive” Model Is Disproved by the {shadow dragon monster}
Be suspicious of the connotation network they try to weave via word-choice; even when not directly talking about nature of mystical experience, the articles are flooded with flavor-connotation words to paint that paradigm.
Paradigm-driven lexicon and word-choice.
the positive unitive paradigm vs. the eternalism-driven control-transformation paradigm.
Sure, control might transform into unitive, but it is spiritual bypassing to do as __ says, and just skip over control transformation to cheat and jump straight to unitive, bringing possibilism-thinking pollution –> PRODUCES CONTROL INSTABILITY.
{SHADOW DRAGON MONSTER} = EXPERIENCE OF THE THREAT OF CATASTROPHIC LOSS OF CONTROL DISPROVES THE POSITIVE UNITIVE MODEL.
Mysticism: Rename the positive unitive model of “mystical experience” to add: {shadow dragon monster} ie control instability
The positive unitive mystical experience comes with the shadow dragon monster.
The “shadow” that matters is NOT personal “material coming up”.
The shadow monster is transpersonal; universal in all minds, which start with possibilism-thinking then learn eternalism-thinking, producing integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
Mysticism in Psychedelic Science: Good Friday Experiment at Marsh Chapel: “frightened by loss of control; terrifying fight to overcome”, & tower escapee was given tranquilizer (both omitted by Pahnke)
The Baier article High Mysticism shows Doblin’s redo of the Good Friday Experiment at Marsh Chapel on April 20, 1962 by Walter Pahnke under the advisor Tim Leary , censored:
a guy was terrified of loss of control and had bad trip fighting against that threat – Baier article High Mysticism p. 386 middle.
a guy was brought down to baseline w/ a tranquilizer eg Thorazine/ CPZ, in stairwell postal message to the university leader. – Baier article High Mysticism p. 387 bottom.
the control instability that is produced by combining psilocybin with positive unitive model, disproves that Unity is the central focus and activity of the mystical experience process
Unity is nothing but an alleged end-state, skipping all the fullness of the process/ ladder/ path which would be needed to get to the alleged destination of Unitive experience/ “realization”
psychedelic mysticism psmy
Mysticism: The ‘positive unitive’ model of “mystical experience” (Popular Neo-Advaita) is insanity, chaos, developmental failure, avoidance of Transcendent Knowledge
Positive unitive Pop Neo-Advaita is insanity destroying previous developmental structures.
Ken Wilber warned about this.
Must “embrace and include” the earlier developmental structure (egoic personal control system; possibilism-thinking).
Must Integrate and Differentiate, Preserve and Include, Childish “Separation”/ “Multiplicity”, by which they should say instead, egoic control thinking.
Popular Neo-Advaita pna
ADDITIVE, NOT REPLACIVE!
The “spiritual work” that must be done: In 10 psilocybin sessions, add the eternalism POV to the possibilism POV.
The final, verbose term has APET2DC; has all 4 basic components: analogical psychedelic eternalism thinking with 2-level, dependent control
analogy
psychedelic (loose cognition)
eternalism
control-type: dependent, 2-level d2lc d2c
monolithic, autonomous control mcac (c = comma; don’t want “mac”)
2-level, dependent control tdc tldc ( ‘t’ not ‘2’, b/c ‘2’ prefix is unreliable.)
Practice: m c a c t l d c monolithic, autonomous control 2-level, dependent control
keyboard shortcut review of the full long term; long version of “LOP” & “APE”:
Short:
possibilism psm
eternalism etm
possibilism-thinking pt
eternalism-thinking et
literalist ordinary-state possibilism lop
analogical psychedelic eternalism ape
— imprecise: no focus on control, just “eternalism”.
Medium length:
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control lopac
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control apedc
— omits “monolithic”, omits 2-level.
Long, verbose, precise:
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control lopmac
analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control ape2dc
— omits “thinking” or “mental model”.
literalist ordinary-state possibilism thinking with monolithic, autonomous control loptmac
analogical psychedelic eternalism thinking with 2-level, dependent control apet2dc
The referent, decoded message of motif {cut left arm touches open scroll touching God’s cloud} = “Transcendent Knowledge = non-branching = eternalism = analogical psychedelic eternalism thinking with 2-level, dependent control”
The Message of Image f107
The referent, decoded message of motif {cut left arm touches open scroll touching God’s cloud} = “Transcendent Knowledge = non-branching = eternalism = analogical psychedelic eternalism thinking with 2-level, dependent control”
Features:
8:33 a.m. January 19, 2026: {cut left arm} of ossuary guy touches {open scroll} that touches God’s cloud. The referent meaning: “Transcendent Knowledge = non-branching; eternalism; analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control .”
thumb is main motif, representing non-branching, representing
Strictly speaking, handedness is used in a few spots, only. Nimble selective application. eg God doesn’t show L hand, but R.
Upper L: Light and awake on L w/ L tree
Upper R: Dark (dim reflected moon light) and asleep on R with black key tree compare pink key tree’s simplifying function in f134 row 1 L.
Holds wisdom-{beard} with thumb and fingers; non-branching & branching; knows 2POV: integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking. His branching fingers (no thumb) touch his closed non-awake eyes.
Most of this anlysis — receiving Eadwine msg — isn’t adding much new, just new combinations & implementations.
mental model transformation from fingers to fingers and thumb.
Transformation from Y to YI; fingers to fingers and thumb
Transformation from Y [bad] to YI [good]. It’s bad to have only Y; It’s good to have YI. YI = Y & I = possibilism + eternalism = integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
possibilism-thinking is not bad; having ONLY possibilism-thinking is bad. Good is having both possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking; YI. Hand showing YI shape.
Pair of hands showing YI & Y; YI vs. Y. 5:50 pm Sun 1/18/26.
The Y + I hand = Transcendent Knowledge. especially when favor thumb as done in f107. Y hand = egoic thinking/ folly; from Y to dest: Y fingers branching + add thumb.
from [branching [fingers] possibilism] to [branching [fingers] possibilism + non-branching [thumb] eternalism] bottom of notes written on p 366 Baier
Notes Written on Baier p. 367, Top
non-branching = sun light, standing; thumb on scroll. branching-demon = S [?] each branching-demon has ears like Y horns.
{thumb over heart} motif 6x because YI mushroom-tree (lower R) naturally maps to hand as:
cut branch of mushroom-tree is to the branching part of the mushroom-tree, as:
thumb is to fingers.
a:b = c:d
{cut branch of mushroom-tree} : {the branching part of the mushroom-tree} = {thumb} : {fingers}
a:b :: c:d
wiki: “A statement expressing the equality of two ratios A:B and C:D is called a proportion, written as A:B = C:D or A:B∷C:D The latter form, when spoken or written in the English language, is often expressed as: (A is to B) as (C is to D).”
branching = moon, eyes closed, sitting on ground, not seeing (yet, hold beard, w/ thumb & fingers)
God’s non-branching thumb touches God’s cloud, fingers don’t. That’s like: Police’s L hand: thumb over/above scroll that’s touching non-branching branch of tree that’s touching the Sun Light cloud; Police’s R hand: thumb against open scroll that’s touching God’s cloud.
Thumb vs. fingers; eternalism vs possibilism; non-branching vs branching
Favor thumb over fingers
Favor YI (thumb & fingers) over Y (fingers, no thumb).
Notes Written on Baier p. 367, Right Margin
Consistent:
Closed book how favor — .. correction: No hand at closed book. Hand holds book / Police’s L [R hand is favored: evidence: A scroll]
ie, we can’t say Police’s L hand is favored over R hand, b/c both are affirmed:
L hand is affirmed by being against open scroll that’s touching God’s cloud.
R hand is affirmed by holding an open scroll that’s touching non-branching branch of tree that’s touching cloud of Sun Light.
Police looks at top of Sun Light, as if looking above the folio image.
Sleep guy: HOLDS Holds beard (enlightenment/ wisdom); = holding the open scroll. Problem: Not holding the end of the open scroll. Solution: His L hand shows thumb and fingers holding beard, = holding the end of the scroll.
Inventory of Trees
Left YI Tree
circular leaves
cut left trunk
no cut right trunk
sun light is not only touching non-branching R branch; it’s also touching the R branch of the Y on the L.
all 3 leaves touch sun light cloud; affirm Y & I; affirm possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking & contrast (= integrate + differentiate) between possibilism & eternalism
That’s per the 2POV philosophy.
The two different points of view, two different mental models
(against the “Get rid of possibilism, it’s bad” error, bad like Popular Neo-Advaita’s insanity, “get rid of the self”).
{cut left trunk} is equivalent to non-branching branch on right
{cut left trunk} is on the lower level
(always interp the branching morphy of a mushroom-tree starting at bottom upward)
Right YI Tree
trident leaves
{cut right trunk} & {cut left trunk}
only 1 of 3 branches touches the moon cloud: the leftmost, = max branching.
Compare the {cut right trunk} & {cut left trunk} with mushroom-tree’s 2 pairs of same.
Mushroom-Tree
midway up: {cut right branch} & {cut left branch} near-bottom: {cut right trunk} & {cut left trunk} very bottom: {cut right trunk} & {cut left trunk}
Two visually cut branches.
Bottom has 4 cut trunks, matching a hand’s 4 fingers w/ fingertips hidden.
Guy has form of lifted garment, John Rush calls “celestial erection” motif.
Inventory of Books
Closed Book on Upper Level
No hands.
Open Book on Upper Level
1 hand, YI, {thumb against open book}, fingers are not against open book but touch multiple pages.
1 hand behind it, not shown.
Closed Book on Lower Level
L hand, hidden, holds book and forms lifted garment motif.
Image has {mushroom hem} motif ~20x; ~10 guys have it.
The hook demon does The Kneel stance, R leg forward.
Open Book on Lower Level
R hand no thumb, only fingers.
L hand YI thumb & fingers, {thumb against open book}.
{thumb} maps to “non-branching” via __ (mushroom-tree)
{thumb} maps to “rescue from control instability” via __ (demon hook touch R leg…) .
Inventory of Scrolls
Scroll 1
Scroll 1: L end is held up by, or touches: __
Scroll 1: R end is held up by, or touches: __
Scroll 2
Scroll 2: L end is held up by, or touches: __
Scroll 2: R end is held up by, or touches: __
Scroll 3
Scroll 3: L end is held up by, or touches: __
Scroll 3: R end is held up by, or touches: __
Scroll 4
Scroll 4: L end is held up by, or touches: __
Scroll 4: R end is held up by, or touches: __
Scroll 5
Scroll 5: L end is held up by, or touches: __
Scroll 5: R end is held up by, or touches: __
Notes Written on Baier p. 367, Bottom
{beard} = YI hand (shows fingers & thumb) of sleep under moon w/ closed eyes = branching (Y) (no thumb) … by branching tree = moon.
Vertical Notes on Baier p. 367 (Left Margin)
Middle vertical notes on p 367, written last:
Upper right: brings togeher:
moon
asleep
closed eyes / not seeing
Y-fingers
branching on L part of black key tree.
Sleeping guy joins 2 motifs: [closed eyes / not seeing = Y fingers = branching thinking].
enlightenment (light, sun) = revealed non-branching thumb vs. branching fingers. Favor thumb, and favor [Y vs. I]; ie:
favor thumb over fingers, of a hand
favor hand showing Y-vs-I, over a hand showing just fingers.
I really want to see which other folio I was struggling to interp before (couple weeks ago), re: the “only showing one of his two thumbs” motif. I was struggling w/ Handedness, in that other folio:
“the thumb moves from L hand on this guy, to R hand on that guy, so is thumb = good = Right??
Ans: I doubt specifically handedness is utilized there; I doubt the meaning utilizes L vs R.
The meaning is just, “inferior hand shows fingers; superior, other hand shows THUMB AS WELL AS FINGERS, regardless of whether L or R. 10:36 a.m. January 19, 2026
This nuance (that when you get non-branching, you retain branching thinking) conveyed by Eadwine f107 corroborates my April/Aug 2025 2POV breakthrough, like the two images that breakthrough was based on:
mental model transformation from branching thinking to non-branching thinking .
You don’t go from fingers to thumb; you go from fingers to [thumb as well as fingers], favoring thumb but still having fingers. “embrace and include” fingers (branching thinking; egoic thinking; possibilism-thinking) per Ken Wilber.
Contrast fingers and thumb, and favor thumb – but honor fingers, if thumb is present, complementing.
Jesus holds cross staff with fingers working together with thumb.
When you hear “eternalism-thinking”, or abbr as simply “eternalism”, it does not mean get rid of possibilism-thinking; rather, think: integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking; qualified possibilism-thinking + eternalism-thinking;
mental model transformation from: possibilism to: possibilism + eternalism
eternalism is revealed, open book; thumb against open book, 2x
from possibilism to integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
Transcribed Baier Article p. 366 Notes about Image f107
Thumb —— Fingers
Thumb+Fingers ————- Fingers
Degrees of goodness.
Upper level = reconciled with non-branching ; lower level = embed in branching.
mushroom-tree (lower R) = emphasize cut trunk; it signals: “{cut branch} is important motif.”
mushroom-trees are higher psychedelic religion/ mysticism
indigenous shams are lower psychedelic religion / mysticism
(reacting to page James & Leuba make a value scale, like Zaeh: there’s
Git
Big
Hierarchy of Inferior Mysticism and Superior Mysticism
The best model of mystical experience is the Egodeath theory; eternalism-driven control-transformation.
The worst model of mystical experience is reducing narrowing mystical experience to nothing other than positive unitive experience.
They say introvertive mysticism is higher mysticism extrovertive mysticism is lower mysticism
ackshually,
eternalism-driven control-transformation is higher mysticism unitive mysticism is lower mysticism
L tree has L cut trunk; cut trunk signals “non-branching is important”
same role as pink key tree in f134
The black key tree reinforces/ confirms/ establishes interp of the mushroom-tree below it: note that a cut branch touches his elbow/arm / left limb, which hand shows IY, thumb against heart,
Eternalism-Thinking (in the Broad Sense) Is Integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism Thinking
mental model transformation from possibilism to possibilism + eternalism [the big 2025 2POV idea]
1st-order, simp’d crude model: imprecise: “mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism” [true if “eternalism” includes integrated qualified possibilism-thinking] – not exclusively eternalism-thinking; an eternalism-thinking that “”embrace and include” per Ken Wilber, possibilism-thinking.
1st-order, simp’d crude model: imprecise: “mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism”
2nd-order, sophisticated model: precise: “mental model transformation from possibilism to possibilism & eternalism”
3rd-order, sophisticated model: precise: “mental model transformation from possibilism-thinking to integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking”
Major:
God’s thumb touches God’s cloud.
God’s fingers don’t touch God’s cloud.
Police’s thumb is within the open scroll that touches God’s cloud.
Police’s fingers don’t touch the open scroll that touches God’s cloud.
Great Canterbury Psalter folio f107
Non-Branching Thumb = Message from God: Thumb in Middle of {open book} 2x
White box around each pair of hands
Corrected to Include 4 Cut Trunks
admittedly that is a harder task than ppls hands, THINKING POSITIVELY U COULD SAY MY STRATEGY WAS A SUCCESS: FIRST *TRY* PUTTING AROUND PAIRS OF HANDS, THEN THE 4 TRUNKS STICKS OUT SUPER MUCH, TO SOLVE IT IN 2ND PASS JUST LIKE I PLANNED (NOT) (SORTA)
White Boxes on Pairs of Hands-Including Both Hands of the {hand mushroom-tree} This Time!
As a memento of the blood/toil, flaws in R white box remain. I patched the white bar midway up the {hand mushroom-tree}.
FAILED to Perceive 4 Cut Trunks, was still mystified puzzling over them
Eadwine got me. Too dumb to pattern-match despite clearly trying. I tried, I failed. Welcome to this puzzle-genre, or encoding-to-communicate and teach, genre.
The first-time fails I keep falling into, demonstrates in detail what’s involved in the decoding project. It’s not trivially easy.
Error: if draw box around upper part of mushroom-tree, must include in that box, the 4 cut trunks (= lower hand of tree). 1:55 p.m. January 19, 2026 I hadn’t yet figured out the mapping of 4 trunks ~= 4 fingers of lower hand.
Hand showing fingers and also thumb is favored over hand showing only fingers but no thumb.
Thumb is favored over fingers, on the YI hand (ie showing thumb and fingers).
Decoded motif: {pair of hands, one hand showing fingers, the other hand showing fingers and thumb}
11:10 p.m. January 18, 2026
The message of the {pair of hands, one hand showing fingers, the other hand showing fingers and thumb} is:
You start with branching thinking (possibilism-thinking), [fingers, no thumb] you end up with integrated branching thinking and non-branching thinking; integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking. [fingers and thumb]
todo: re-analyze my other top images, with hand shape, re: pairs of hands; both of a person’s hands:
Which other Canterbury folio(s) did I see that shows often, something like: one hand w/ fingers, other hand with fingers and thumb? It seemed to switch around a lot, which hand showed thumb.
Thumb = non-branching = eternalism-thinking Fingers = branching = possibilism-thinking
Emphasis is on non-branching thumb. Branching fingers only on one hand (possibilism); fingers and non-branching thumb on other hand (thumb = eternalism).
mushroom-tree: IY branching morphology of hand touches cut tree branch on L, branching of tree on R.
upper trees: both are YI, yet have cut left trunk forming at bottom level, IY.
Mushroom-tree bottom emph. cut trunk 4x.
Ossuary guy has no left leg or left arm – cut. Hook touches left missing leg.
Jesus non branching right big toe on ossuary; left toes = branching, on unstable ground. Angel behind has similar toes, right foot on boundary, left foot on lower level head of sage who is aware of being stood on.
Thumb Against Open Scroll or Open Book 3x
Police officer’s thumb against open scroll of God’s cloud.
Angel’s thumb against open book.
Sage’s thumb against open book.
Lower right: thumb against open scroll 2x.
Angel left wing touch moon cloud Angel right wing touch God cloud
The Thumbs of Demons: One Hand Fingers & Thumb, Other Hand Fingers, No Thumb
Earth Mounds: Altered Ground Unstable
Left Tree: YI Sun Light
Right Tree: YI Moon
Mushroom-Tree with Grid Caps
Hellmouth Demons
Open Scrolls
Cut Left Limb
The YI Hand Shape
Inventory of Fingers and Toes
Inventory of Pairs of Hands: One Hand Showing Thumb and Fingers, Other Hand Showing Fingers, Not Thumb
Splayed Fingers Touching Face (Dancing Man, Golden: Jonah Gourd)
11 p.m. January 17, 2026 — Dancing Man: Three Branching fingers touch L side of forehead/mind; index finger, alone, touches R side of forehead/mind. This is discussed in voice recording DR-O5B-2814.wav, p.m. January 17, 2026, where I talk through much of f107, and switch out to Dancing Man to analyze f107 row 1 R: Sleeping Sage, who has L hand showing fingers & thumb, R hand at forehead showing fingers, no thumb.
Branching fingers (pinkie, middle, ring) = L side of forehead
Non-branching index finger = R side of forehead
Lower-Level Guys Aware of Stood on by Upper-Level Guys
Boundary Between Lower and Upper Level
Sleeping guy’s open scroll is re: boundary.
His R foot is above the boundary.
His L foot is below the boundary, on lower guy’s head.
To contribute to legal protection. Risk, critique: “Gaming the system with theology”.
Community/group helps support difficult or ambitious experiences.
To build community bonds. The entire purpose of church is community – as opposed to individual journeying or a random crossing of paths of journeying individuals. Even a Rock Festival has some ceremony aspects.
To increase control of the event and give insurance, to some extent.
To reduce chance of one person commandeering the event.
For increased safety (vs. “member-disorganized non-events”).
To avoid chaos & leaving group formation to chance. Negative reasoning: If you don’t define or have a ceremony, the result is no ceremony, and less group cohesion in that way.
Meanings of ‘ceremony’.
Group prep is ceremony.
The sequence [group prep; group journey; group integrate] is ceremony.
Least Ceremony: Steps in Liturgy, the Prep portion of Journey/Practice
Do prep steps as ceremony.
Contributors to this list: church members and friends, including latecomers; this exercise to define Least Ceremony was a group successful group project.
Days before: Announcement of planned event; invitation to come to location. Risk: “member-organized events that use non- or sched- subst.” Consider keeping the two separate, not interwoven in church conversation: Discussion of indiv sched journey. Discussion of group non-sched journey, eg religiously traditional Welch’s grape juice & cracker.
Gather in a circle. risk: people arrive & leave at different times. How can official church events and member-organized events manage to get ppl there on time, together?
Write down the time, T0.
Have water available.
Give an altar item, eg Pentel P205 pencil. [todo: image]
What’s your first & last name? risk: social freeze; excess privacy; legal worries in favor of anonymity.
What’s your contact info? Does someone have it? Community requires contact info.
Which sacrament are you taking? eg Welch’s grape juice & cracker; red wine & bread.
What dosage of sacrament? image: {balance scale} motif is 8x in Great Canterbury Psalter, meaning: to balance amount; to balance control.
Do you plan to consider redosing, re-sacrament, at 3 hours? eg more Welch’s grape juice & cracker.
Do a reading from a church document.
Are you making a contribution/donation?
State intention, in some sense, open or specific. See “Care”, in About page.
Take sacrament together: see each other take it. Risk; negative clarification: Not: go off alone doing/taking who knows what, when. Be able to answer: “Did person X ingest [item/qty]?” Risk: group cohesion falls apart during/after this step. Solution: Prayer after ingest.
Prayer together. Risk; negative clarification: Avoid multiple conflicting theologies. We only have 1 theology, Least Dogma; recite that as prayer.
/ end of Least Ceremony section
/ end of talk: The Importance of (Least) Ceremony.
A Pastor on Ceremony
A pastor emailed:
“I appreciate a beautiful ceremony.
“Least Dogma suggests that – while “ceremonial ritual” may be important to many lineages and paths, our way can support diverse (more or less ‘ceremonious’) forms of practice,
“For example:
“very basic (little or no detailed performative ritual), silent group meditations, more or less ‘traditional’ forms of ceremonies, much ritual, little ritual…
“As long as we bring care, respect, integrity / trust, and attention to basic steps including:
“Navigation
Preparation [standard]
Initiation
Practice [standard]
Integration [standard]
Community Integration.
“It’s wonderful that our community can welcome detailed ceremonial forms as well as ‘least ceremony’ in our practices.
“That opens the question: What is ceremony?
“May sitting quietly at the beach with no explicit ritual behavior be considered ‘ceremonial’? That includes following our Wheel of Practice for practical guidance.”
moved draft content from here to idea development page 31, jan 7 2026
Photos: Michael HoffmanCrop by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 3, 2026Crop & annotations by Michael HoffmanCrop by Michael HoffmanCrop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 4, 2026
which artist?
Douce Apocalypse
Pulled-from-Banquet guy
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 1, 2026
heading
Soma p. 180 & 181
Zep Book
von Trimberg
4 sets favor upper hand — 9:02 p.m. Jan. 30, 2026
stand on right foot all 4
subtle jewhat {left foot lifted} like/ corrobs
subtle favor upper hand
Guild
a.m. Jan. 30, 2026
The Psychedelic Gospels (Browns 2016)
Mushrooms and Mankind (Arthur 2000)
Entheos Issue 1 – The Journal of Psychedelic Spirituality – Entheogens and the Judeo-Christian Mysteries 
Sharday Mosurinjohn
“Conjuring Eden” First Page, Crediting Paul Lindgren
“Conjuring Eden” Endnote 134 Crediting Paul Lindgren
Mushrooms and Mankind Crediting Paul Lindgren
White Boxes on Pairs of Hands-Including Both Hands of the {hand mushroom-tree} This Time!
I should have included wings. d/k why i didn’t, b/c known already.
11:02 p.m. Jan. 24, 2026: L wing touch moon, R wing touch god cloud
Eadwine got me. Too dumb to pattern-match despite clearly trying. I tried, I failed. Welcome to this puzzle-genre, or encoding-to-communicate and teach, genre.
f107 white boxes on pairs of hands Great Canterbury Psalter
THE MAIN IDEA AND CHALLENGE IS TO EXPALIN THE WTF TRUNKS. TEACHER DOESN’T EXAP EXPECT ME TO IMMED GET IT, 1ST TIME. MY TECHNIQUE WAS A SUCEESS, REQUIRING TWO PASSES — I LITERALLY PLANNED SOME SORT OF 2-PASSES ATTACK APPRAOCH, WHICH PAID OFF. After the sort of … In a way, I planned a 2nd pass; when I drew white boexs last night p.m. Jan. 23, 2026 , i was thinking: invest in this straetgey , to flush out something interesting. i spent next day drawing on the tree correctly, then I came back to fix this 1st-pass whole image.
Draw white boxes, miss the trunks though. they are not hands, but are like hand of guy.
I figured out the 4 trunks, created zooms 3 of them! of best way … an hour ago i decided best to simply 4 white boxes on guy + tree.
I came back to this 1st pass entire pic, gave it thought 40 minutes ago, “yea, i HAVE to apply my solution and go back to v1 entire pic, and fix it.
So, strategy worked, as planned.
I only thought of the boxes as a setup for discovery; in that sense, my failure was a planned success. Obviously missing lower right white box.
Below, the more I thought about it, I had to proceed w/ my sort of planned 2nd, correction pass.
The purpose of the white boxes 1st pass was exactly to flush out the right decoding, in a subsequent pass, so, my overall strategy is effective, just not immed.
I certainly did not think I was completed.
I KNEW I was missing something. That’s kind of a given, I have learned.
I never claimed or EXPECTED the 1st pass to be complete. I at that ttime, REGISTERED 4 TRUNKS AS PUZZLE UNSOLVED, TO BE SOLVED, which I immed did. I take It takes time to propagate my findings / corrections by making and fixing my annotated crops, in f107 page of crops. and here. It’s in this images upload page where I realized the first pass is so gappy, must fix.
This picture is embarrassing not having a white box on the 4 trunks lower right = lower hand of guy – this feeling of embar and missing the mark in those boxes, confirms to me that, re: successfully interp this puzzle / pattern match training device, a MAJOR requirement is {4 cut trunks} = 4 fingers of guy’s lower hand.
I SHOULD HAVE PUT WHITE BOX AROUND ENTIRE TREE WHICH STANDS FOR ISMOROPHICALLY, PAIR OF HANDS: UPPER + LOWER HAND.
Hey idea — 10:17 p.m. Jan. 24, 2026: Idea for what to do with the small {cut right branch}, was “dangling” unaccounted for, halfway up: map it to guy’s hidden thumb of lower hand.
Huggins’ Inane Argument: Great Canterbury Psalter Day 3 Can’t Be Mushroom, b/c Has Branches – That Exactly Match Cubensis 🤦♂️
This is infinitely weak of an argument, just like every argument from the deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, but they try to make up for it in quantity.
An infinite number of worthless arguments.
Great Canterbury Psalter, Day 3 of Creation, folio f11: Tree 1 & 2
Huggins’ Brazenly Biased “Conclusion” Section: Every Mushroom Tree Has Both Tree Features and Mushroom Features, Therefore It Must Be a Tree, Not a Mushroom
Screengrab of top of “Conclusion” section of article: soak-in the badness of arg’n:
“noted” = censored by the lying, bully, academic obstructionist & fraud Wasson, banker for the Pope; world’s record for maximum Conflict of Interest.
The “Conclusion” section’s argumentation backfires left and right:
Mycologists (affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art) must trust the art authorities (deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art) because:
The art authorities never wrote anything about trees, which are unimportant and merely peripheral (argues Huggins)
The art authorities never wrote anything about mushrooms, because Christians have no reason to think about mushrooms (argues Panofsky via Wasson).
The art authories are expert in related matters (ie, are NOT expert, in fact are utterly ignorant, on THIS topic). – Wasson’s gaslighting phrasing.
The censored – I mean, “noted” – exception, the lone exception, is a flimsy, thin, old book, which doesn’t say what Panofsky claims it says, and only mentions pilzbaum a few times, before knowledge of psychedelic mushrooms.
Even if the book were to claim what Panofsky says (over time, the images shift from umbrella pine to “emphatically” mushroom-shaped imagery), that shift would in no way indicate that the mushroom form was unintended and accidental, and implies the opposite: intentional use of mushroom imagery.
Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens: a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.
Erwin Panofsky to Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952
Alan Houot: Mystics Bad, Shamans Good; Masters Thesis: PASS
Hatsis 2025: Psychedelic Injustice, p. 260: Totally Omits Scholarship when Summarizing the Pop “Suppression of Psychedelics” Premise
See my book review, which is scathing re: this passage:
i think i credit the artist w/ url in my page that uses this image, August 2025
Transcendent Knowledge (Enlightenment) Is About Vulnerability, the Pedestal and Serpent of Vulnerability on a Pole
Greater knowlwedge and wisdom is of vulnerability. Merkavah palace 6: regardless of your knowledge and wisdom, ANGEL 6 GUARD MIGHT KILL YOU RANDOMLY.
image: Great Canterbury Psalter > king holds open scroll in left hand from God/ of God [God-shaped knoweldge; the harsh shaping = {angel harassing mystic}], open scroll in right hand to lion threat … the threat-vulnerability gate.
To comprehend that clear knowledge of cybernetics = know where the boundary line is forming two 2 2-level, dependent control – Eastern Advaita sucks b/c lacks structure, [long long list of bad things about Adv]
CAn we make long list of suchlike badness in W relig or phil of religion or theory of mysticism eg Neoplatonism overlaps – even advaita articles say The One… not only was Vivek guy forced through Christian schools, Greco Roman Christian, actually, including Neoplatonism; likely, this Theosophy Advaita nonduality incorps Neoplat; these writers studied Neoplatonism and then studied Advaita into the frame of Neoplatonism, the One, inarticulate,
the One [recast as “nonduality”]
nonduality Advaita
ineffable
apophatic mysticism [recast as “Eastern ineffability”]
Is Neo-Advaita Orientalized Neoplatonism? First, intensively study Neoplatonism. Afterwards, study Neo-Advaita, into the lens frame of Neoplatonism. Neoplatonic Advaita
Neoplatonic Advaita
It’s the same badness: overfocus on self/other boundary, along w/ inarticulate glorification of inarticulate and lacking structure in important areas of psychedelic experienceing.
Neoplatonism: insufficiently coming from psychedelics; coming from Pop armchair unaware of psychedelics, subst’g non-drug meditation instead, building up timeframe expectations, 70 years of meditation required. Expectations are unhinged.
pass through gate = comprehend inherent cybernetic vulnerablility threat.
Sanitized Neoplatonism, battle transformation instability realization of cybernetic vulnerability omitted like the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) omits 18 of 21 Angst/Dread effect items from OAV 1994.
OAV (ideally) is a (sometimes called 5D-ASC, which is conflated w/ — i should call it 13 FActors since they so, so weakly brand the Studerus questionnaire. 15 Factors = Studerus, != 5D-ASC which contains OAV (3 hi-lev dims) + 2 other irrel dims no one cares about, that vary per substance.
15 Factors starts w/ OAV, combines O & V into Pleasant hi-lev dim, A = Unpleasant hi-levl dim, and ADD sub-dimensions (factors), eg in A, add sub-dims: ICC; ANX; and Shadow Factor 13.
f60: Double {balance scale}, Lion Den, Two Tables
awareness of inherent vulnerability cybernetic: open scroll touching lion. youths learn YI hand shape (2 POVs) and are starting to discover the vulneratibility threat; they know 2 POVs but — although they are experienced psychonauts — they have not yet wisdom about inherent vulnerability threat.
youths know YI contrast but not yet baby lion threat sleeping baby lion, youths not yet awakened to the peak climax threat: Dread ETCLOC the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control by being made to focus on vulnerability threat, driving control transformation.
My article prior to Merkavah is about Pahnke 1962/1963 PhD Good Friday, and contains this 3-article content, that doesn’t fit best in the Merk or Stace-specifiec article.
Moving that content to this new page.
Studying these 3 papers together has been rewarding, a leverage point.
Dump on Shamanism & insult and reject it; reactionary pushback against the dominant paradigm.
Dump on Eastern Phil o Religion [disparagement of Boomers’ [ie 20th C] Orientalism]; reactionary pushback against the dominant paradigm.
Advocate Western mysticism / Western Esotericism as (relatively) superior.
Laugh at Psychedelic pseudo science and the Deserved Hopkins DISASTER.
Move writers from Centering Positive Unity, to centering eternalism-driven control-transformation.
Neo-Platonism = Neo-Advaita
The closest thing Western mysticism has to Pop Modern Advaita’s negativity of expression and glorification of being inarticulate, is Neoplatonism and apophatic theology.
Oneness per Neoplatonism, or Unity per Neo-Advaita, are a part of Transcendent Knowledge & mystical experience.
Oneness and Unity are a false model of the central experience of mystic-state transformation. Papers such as Pahnke & Breau explicitly state and emphasize, that Unity is the essence of mystical experience.
The essence of mystical experience is eternalism-driven control-transformation. Mysticism is actually from psychedelics, not “traditional methods of the mystics” fabricated by academics; and the essense and characteristic hallmark of psychedelic experience is encountering eternalism instead of familiar possibilism — the eternalism state of consciousness. Not, as Breau writes, “the Unity state of consciousness” — a charged, telling phrase.
The Foo state of consciousness.
What word you use for Foo, is your paradigm and proposal for the central focus.
the Eternalism state of consciousness
the Unity state of consciousness
the altered state of consciousness [general; particular isn’t specified; altered in what essential way?]
It is so profitable critically reading these 3 papers together, I’m considering making a page covering the set of them. Taves and Breau tinker with fine-tuning the Unity model, but they merely develop and entrench the wrong, Unity model.
Between 1500 and 1687, the geocentric model lost its hegemony but people didn’t yet settle on the heliocentric model.
Model 1: Unity-Centric: Stace 1960 / Pahnke 1962
Pahnke start of psychedelic pseudo science 1962 incorp’ing Stace 1960 (Unity per Neo Advaita).
Model 2: Unity-Centric: Ann Taves 2020
“We should study negative ego dissolution boundary ailment; negative Unity, not only positive Unity which = mystical experience. We should study alterations of sense of self.”
Model 3: Unity-Centric: Jeffrey Breau 2023
Breau advocates:
“We should not only study the Neo-Advaita brand of Unity; we should study ALL brands of Unity.
Neo-Advaita is bad, it’s only one interp OF UNITY, OF THE UNITY STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS, = perennial philosophy, armchair philosophy.
Unity is good, experiential, we need to model Unity better than Neo Advaita does.”
The Egodeath theory equates the Unity paradigm = the Neo-Advaita paradigm [= Neoplatonism in Wester armchair philosophical ‘mysticism’].
Breau acts like Neo-Advaita isn’t the exact same shiite as the Unity model altogether.
Breau rejects Neo-Advaita yet totally affirms Unity – which, re: essential central emphasis, is same thing as Neo Advaita.
Model 4: Eternalism-centric: Michael Hoffman 2025
Psychedelics and myth (Western culture’s mysticism) are centrally reporting eternalism transformation encounter, not Unity.
Sledge equates mysticism with Neoplatonism, and says Merkavah mysticism isn’t mysticism if we define “mysticism is Neoplatonism”, but says obviously Merkavah mysticism is mysticism.
Neo-Advaita & Neoplatonism Are Irrelevant Armchair Philosophies Useless for Actual Psychedelic Altered-State Experience; Myth Is Closer and a More Trustworthy Description
Neoplatonism is wrong, a false, poor model – misrepresentative – a poor explanatory framework, delivering little explanatory power, with LOW RELEVANCE to actual altered-state experience.
Diagrams: 4 Models of “Mystical Experience”; 3 Center Unity instead of Eternalism
back page of printout of Taves 2020 article, probably Sunday, Nov. 23, 2025
transcription below
Top of Diagrams Page
transcription:
[key strategy: pay total attention to the] Emphasis [in the various writers’] Use of Unity
Breau [says we should] include dualistic [relational mysticism]
who wrote Stace is covert Christianity? Breau p. 14 bottom: Mosurinjohn & Girn 2023
My [work is like a dissert for] PhD proves Eadwine [Great Canterbury Psalter] threat-driven 2-level, dependent control / eternalism-driven control-transformation, vs. [Breau] only have POV of possibilism / monolithic, autonomous control, including Unity Advaita pantheism with carrying a load of [arbitrary metaphysics additions such as “pure consciousness” – but that’s a mere side-concern which Katz latches onto in order to refute – instead – the common core Unitive theory of mystical experience]
Main, Outer Circle: The Center and Boundary of Stace/Pahnke’s Conception of Mystical Experience
Positive Unity
per English Advaita 19th-20th Century Advaita Vedanta Hindu Pantheism.
A Contained, Subset Circle: Where Unity Functions within the Stace/Pahnke Paradigm
No contained circle. Positive Unity is the entire extent of the model.
Notes to the Left of the Stace Diagram
“Western mystical union, Abrahamic, is inferior, indirect; Advaita is superior, direct: Unitive/Unity”
Notes to the Right of the Stace Diagram
Positive Advaita Unity, along with “pure consciousness” , Metaphysics, subtractive explanation; Paradigm.
Notes Below the Stace Diagram
Advaita’s positive unity = mystical experience. “Advaita”, including theory-traits:
subtractive explanation
a particular, elaborated Metaphysics
pantheism
“Phenomenology” According to Neo-Advaita’s Unity Model of Mystic-State Experience
(to the lower left of the diagram)
The “phenomenology” of Positive Advaita Unity; Neo-Advaita: armchair philosophy model treats mystic-state phen’y as nothing other than Positive Unity; the experience of cessation of the mind constructing the self/other boundary experience.
This cessation (this boundary alteration) is Transcendent Knowledge, revelation, gnosis, satori, etc.
The center and boundary: Unity, Unitive, union.
Taves 2020 (Diagram): Unity Includes Negative Valence (Ego Dissolution) as Well as Positive Unity; also Altered Sense of Self Other than Unity
Main, Outer Circle: The Center and Boundary of Tave’s Conception of Mystical Experience
experiences of altered sense of self
Her nominal outer circle is broad “altered sense of self”
Taves gives a few sentences worth of lip service to experiences outside of the Unity paradigm – which she expanded from only positive Unity to also negative Unity ie ego dissolution.
But in practice, her paradigm is nothing more than [expanded] Unity.
She continues centering Unity as the main mystical experience.
A Contained, Subset Circle: Where Unity Functions within the Taves Paradigm
separate alterations in sense of self from valence + also negative unity/ ego dissolution, positive unity , valence: positive / negative Unity
the “mysticism” construct
alterations in sense of self
unusual sense of self
change in sense of self
altered sense of the self/world boundary
key word: valence [as in, assumed-positively experienced unity vs. assumed-negatively experienced ego dissolution]
Notes to the Left of the Taves Diagram
Critiques centering “boundary” alteration, like she critiques centering Unity; she wraps “boundary” and “unity” in scare-quotes (which is good to do; a very good sign).
Notes to the Right of the Taves Diagram
Positive Unity
She first adds: Negative Unity [eg ego dissolution] [she clearly does this]
She then adds: Any altered sense of self [not just versions of Unity experience. she’s hazy and advocates this, but doesn’t propose any specific substance – b/c she’s actually limited to the Unity paradigm.]
Notes Below the Taves Diagram
see Phen’y section below
“Phenomenology” According to the “Positive Unity, Negative Unity (Ego Dissolution), and Other Alterations of the Sense of Self” Model of Mystic-State Experience
The “phenomenology” of (nominally: altered sense of self) positive unity and also add negative unity
compare per the Egodeath theory: transformation from: literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control to: analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control (actually includes the first, ending up w/ 2 POVs)
Breau 2023 (Diagram): Unity Includes Interpretations Other than the Neo-Advaita Interpretation of Unity
Main, Outer Circle: The Center and Boundary of Breau’s Conception of Mystical Experience
Unity [is the whole circle; the whole of mystical experience: central focus & boundary]
Dualism (relational mysticism); mystical union [emphasiszes “union” to force this into the Unitive paradigm], Abrahamic mysticism & pantheist Unitive
A Contained, Subset Circle: Where Unity Functions within the Breau Paradigm
Neo Advaita (a contained circle eg merely 1 interpretation of Unitive)
One instance of the Unity model (one circle within the global Unity space) is Neo-Advaita.
Breau thinks that Unity is the case, and that Neo-Advaita is to be rejected or demoted as merely one interpretation of “the Unity experience” and not the best interpretation.
But Breau doesn’t suggest any other specific interpretation of “the Unity experience”, which is a red flag proving that his favored concept, Unity, is identical with Neo-Advaita’s notion of Unity.
It’s nonsensical for Breau to reject the Neo-Advaita interpretation of Unity, while advocating some vague, unspecified “real, correct” interpretation of Unity.
Neo-Advaita is precisely the wrong selfsame model as Unity in general, against Breau.
Rejecting Neo-Advaita is practically the same as rejecting the Unity model.
What’s wrong is not merely Neo-Advaita’s interpretation of Unity; what’s wrong is the Unity model altogether.
The Unity model doesn’t need broadening or adjustment; we need to stop using Unity as the model of mystical experience, and put eternalism-driven control-transformation in place of Unity.
Breau wants to broaden — thus entrench even deeper — our commitment to the Unity model, retaining the Neo-Advaita interpretation of Unity, along with any and every other (vaguely hypothesized) model of Unity.
Notes Above the Breau Diagram
[Breau advocates:] “Don’t only focus on Advaita-styled Unity
[when writers employ the Neo-Adv model, they] must explicitly state [that they are using the Neo-] Advaita interpretation, [as an eliminative] subtractive filter [ie elim ASC experiences that don’t fit the Neo-Advaita model, as “non-mystical”].
Notes to the Left of the Breau Diagram
“the Unity state of consciousness” [vs. saying “the Eternalism state of consciousness”]
What does Breau do with negative, challenging experience? negative unity, ego dissolution
Notes Below the Breau Diagram
Mystical experience = the Unity state of consciousness, all versions, not only the Advaita version ie Pantheist Unitive per Advaita
eg union dualistic relational per Abrahamic religions
“Phenomenology” According to the General Unity (not only Neo-Advaita’s) Model of Mystic-State Experience
missing, intended: “phenomenology” of what, in this paradigm? Of the Unity state of consciousness.
Breau critiques using only the Neo-Advaita model of Unity, advocates considering other models of Unity other than Neo-Advaita’s model of Unity – but doesn’t suggest a different model, because in fact, centering Unity is the same thing as Neo-Advaita.
Hoffman 2025 (Diagram): The Central Focus of the Best Mystical Experience is Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation, not Alleged Eventual Unity
the Hoffman (Eternalism/ Control) Paradigm
Main, Outer Circle: The Center and Boundary of Hoffman’s Conception of Mystical Experience
eternalism-driven control-transformation eternalism-driven control-transformation mytheme analogy 2-level, dependent control best is via psychedelics
A Contained, Subset Circle: Where Unity Functions within the Hoffman Paradigm
Unity [ie, minor, incidental, included but not central nor boundary]
visual distortion
Notes about why have circle showing visual disotrtion: ie, Unity is as unimportant and non-central to mystical experience as mere visual distortion
key, to make sense of OAV dimensions: Ocean = positive unity; Angst = negative unity = ego dissolution; Vision = perceptual distortion
Unity is minor, incidental, included but not central nor boundary.
Unity is as unimportant and non-central to mystical experience as mere visual distortion.
Notes Above the Hoffman Diagram
The essence of mystical experience = eternalism-driven control-transformation
Notes to the Right of the Hoffman Diagram
the Egodeath theory
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
Notes Below the Hoffman Diagram
the Egodeath theory
eternalism-driven control-transformation
“Phenomenology” According to the “Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation” Model of Intense Mystic-State Experience
“phenomenology” of what, in this paradigm? of psychedelics, depicted in the best religious mythology & art & Metal lyrics. not of cave meditation sensory deprivation; not of armchair philosophy; not of academics’ fantasized, outsider constructions.
About the 4 Models of Mystical Experience
In my characterization of the dominant, Unity paradigm, I put ‘Advaita’ first, before ‘Unity’, b/c this model is intensively a whole raft of specific arbitrary philosophies per the neo-Adv. package deal, eg fused with “pure awareness” — such that Katz doesn’t attack unity; he attacks ‘pure awareness’ as a proxy, changing the subject from Unity to awareness.
We can often simply critique “Advaita” instead of “Modern Advaita”; discussing Pop Advaita in current culture. My shorthand for Pop Neo Modern Advaita is just “Advaita”. Actual traditional Advaita is lower relevance for this critique.
It is NOT necessary to deeply analyze Neoplatonism or Advaita in a generous and charitable way, to reject and critique them & how they are used as a safe neutral dummy substitute for the intense mystic altered state.
No matter how great “real Neoplatonism” or “real Advaita” are, they are bogus in that they are used to replace intense mystic altered state by armchair philosophy sky-castles, an avoidance tactic.
The dirty strategy of Neo-Foo is to get rid of the hardest part of control transformation, the mythic peak part, replacing it by elaborate philosophy model of the alleged final, eventual, ultimate, end-state, of positive Unity or harmonious mystical Union.
They are dirty attempts to get God’s mercy, without God’s wrath.
Selling Positive Unity by Censoring Negative Drama of Transformation
Everyone in psychedelics agrees that we need to address risks and not whitewash them. Every article does give some attention to risks – but the Unity paradigm ends up eliminating the risks, exactly as we see in phase 2 of how the the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) was constructed.
In phase 1 of making the the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) (“initial item pool”), there was balanced attention to risks.
In phase 2 of making the the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), the risks were simply discarded by the Marketing dept, so that the Scoring appendix shows that only 3 of 21 Angst items from OAV 1994 were retained, and there is no explanation of judification of omitting 18 of 21 challenging effects — so they silently deleted eg:
OAV 1994 Item 54: I was afraid to lose my self-control.
MEQ147/129 per Pahnke 1962: Item 15: Fear of losing control. Deleted from MEQ43, and diluted as an item in the broader SOCQ which had 57 distractor items; the item was replaced by a lame distractor item.
todo: MEQ30: are there now 70(!) “distractor items” in the SOCQ that contains Grifty’s shrunken MEQ30?
This item always silently goes missing: Dread ETCLOC: the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control.
Neoplatonism and Neo-Advaita sell and market God’s mercy and blissful positive Unity/union, by deleting the scary central part – passing through the threat-guarded gate – and denying God’s wrath.
Positive Advaita Unity, along with “pure consciousness” (an arbitrary addition), and a particular entire Metaphysics brand, bolstered by impotent subtractive explanation (and “ineffability” as an excuse, which even Stace couldn’t swallow and he wrote ALLEGED ineffability.
This “Unity” (covert Neo-Advaita) is an entire, narrow, particular Paradigm, a bad, package deal.
Translating OAV’s Dimension Names, to Expose Dittrich’s Use of the Same Old Unity Paradigm
To make sense of OAV dimensions, “decoding” their coded language into what the writers are actually thinking:
Ann Taves exposes that “ego dissolution” is actually firmly conceptualized within the Unitive paradigm; it’s “ego dissolution” as an inexplicable, “negatively valenced” side-effect that often occurs within the Unity experience/ state of consciousness.
The clueless writers in the Unity paradigm attempt to explain ego dissolution — = what we dread = in terms of the Unity paradigm.
O = Ocean = positive unity per the Neo-Advaita model.
A = Angst/Dread “of ego dissolution [sic]” = negative unity = ego dissolution (for when the Neo-Advaita model CONSTANTLY FAILS in actual, psychedelic practice – the inexplicable bad trip is explained as, “it’s your fault, for resisting unity and cessation of the self/other boundary illusion” (per a recent paper)).
Vision = perceptual distortion (the theorists don’t attempt to force visionary perception into their Unity paradigm; these items/effects are treated as non-Unitive)
Walter Stace 1960 Insults and Disparages Western Mysticism, Elevates Crude, Inarticulate Eastern Religious Philosophy Instead
Exposed by Jeffrey Breau 2023 article. Against Mosurinjohn’s 2023 article that claims that Stace overly favored Christian mysticism.
I don’t have her article he cites; I expect it to be as mediocre as a recent Mosur. article I wrote about (probably in email).
Houot Insults and Disparages Western Mysticism, Elevates Crude Sham Instead
Shamans have control in the Psilocybin state.
Western mystics fail to have control in the Psilocybin state.
How do we assess “having control”? Apples and oranges. I assume Western mysticism runs circles around shamanism re: height of development represented in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, and in Merkavah mysticism.
Theory-Driven, not Crude Notion of “Evidence” Driven: Reconceiving “Evidence” and “Theory”
I aim for cartoon approximation that has great explanatory power.
I don’t care what happened historically. I’m a theorist, not a historian. Good historiography first needs a good, sound, compelling, coherent theory. Not “more evidence”, crudely conceived.
I’m against dumb focus on “evidence” done with crude Theory.
Critique of the “Positive Unity” Model of “Mystical Experience” vs. the “Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation” Model
A Development: Instead of Hazily Dismissing the Pop Positive Unity Model of “Mystical Experience” as “a Mere Beginners’ Experience & Model”, I Now Appreciate the False, Unity Model as a Fully Articulated, Detailed, Particular, Dominant, “The Old Theory” (per Thomas Kuhn’s Model of Paradigm Replacement)
It is useful for the Egodeath theory (analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent, 2-level control) to define a specific “the old theory” to help define “the new theory”.
I previously posted a ton against Amanita, Secret Christian Amanita Cult, Eleusis, ergot, … in favor of Explicit Cubensis paradigm;
Canterbury replaces Plaincourault
Forget the Amanita-based proxy lone art, Plaincourault fresco.
Replaced by Great Canterbury Psalter & the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}; following Huggins call for a new proxy image: bet everything, on the single image: Day 3 of Creation, folio f11 of Great Canterbury Psalter by Eadwine.
Mythology, Classic Metal, & the Medieval Art Genre of {mushroom-trees} Corroborate Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation, and Disconfirm Hindu, Indian, Eastern, Orientalist, Neo-Advaita Vedanta
Everything disconfirms Neo-Advaita.
Many things confirm the Egodeath theory and disconfirm the “Positive Unity” model that’s all-dominant and entrenched (and produced garbage like the Hopkins Religious Leaders study with its Conflicts of Interest section; fake Science for purchase):
religious mythology
acid Metal
Merkavah mysticism
the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}
Attack on Neo-Advaita: Anti-Rationality; Inarticulate; Useless; Fantasy-Based; Orientalist; Subtractive Explanation
People are understandably going insane from Pop Advaita propaganda that doesn’t even try to explain anything, like:
you don’t exist
nothing is real
eliminate thinking
the mind is an illusion
the world doesn’t exist
everything is unreal
eliminating the self/other boundary = Transcendent Knowledge & enlightenment.
It’s beyond parody.
Subtractive Explanation Is Failure of Model Specification
My term subtractive explanation: Neo Advaita SUCKS because it communicates in vague, inarticulate ways:
“X doesn’t exist”
“the self/other boundary is an illusion that ceases being projected by the mind”
True explanation – a real explanatory model – speaks positively.
Fake pseudo-explanation is parasitical and destructive: it takes mental constructs and then smashes and deletes them, replacing them with inarticulateness, giving the EXCUSE of “ineffable” and “beyond description”. FAIL.
Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples (Nakamura, 1981)
My mood or inspirational mood lately is to DUMP on [Psychedelic] Sham [anism] narrative, and DUMP on Eastern religion.
I want to cast Neo Advaita in the worst possible light, which is all too easy.
Against Ken Wilber (Yet More Covert-Advaita)
Given that what Ken Wilber is selling, a bunk product, is Neo Advaita, it’s bad that he doesn’t make that clear.
Even before my Jan. 1988 breakthrough — since 1986 — it was obvious that Ken Wilber had severe limitations.
Wilber presents an elaborate, 16-stage developmental model built around a bunk engine, of covert Neo Advaita.
Advaita = Pop Nonduality; Late 1800s Covert Transnational Political Unity Disguised as Mystical Experience
‘Advaita’, especially Modern Advaita or Neo Advaita, means a certain particular package deal of Eastern non-thinking; Advaita means non-duality, of a very particular brand and flavor with a ton of useless and alien metaphysics]
“Author Disclosure Statement” Section of Hopkins Religious Leaders Study
Would you like to purchase some Science Conclusions?
The psilocybin was ingested in 2015 [confirm]. The article was published in May 2025.
Copy/pasted from .pdf, formatting added:
Article title: Effects of Psilocybin on Religious and Spiritual Attitudes and Behaviors in Clergy from Various Major World Religions
Author Disclosure Statement (p. 17-18)
“The Johns Hopkins Medicine Institutional Review Board (JHM IRB) conducted an audit of the JHU site (IRB00036973—“Effects of Psilocybin-facilitated Experience on the Psychology and Effectiveness of Professional Leaders in Religion”) and concluded that the following must be reported to all journals and disclosed in all publications where data related to this study may be published:
(1) There were two unapproved study team members, one who was also a study funding sponsor, directly engaged in the research.
(2) There was an additional approved study team member whose role as a funding sponsor of the study was not disclosed to the IRB and who directly led the qualitative analysis.
(3) Conflicts of interest related to the two individuals who were engaged in the research and also served as funding sponsors were not appropriately disclosed nor managed.
(4) The funding sponsorship for this study was not disclosed to the JHM IRB.”
Planned/Needed Posts
Inventory of {balance scale} Motifs in Great Canterbury Psalter
I’m slightly disgusted (since before 1988) with Ken Wilber. A long time ago (though seemingly recently), I posted at Egodeath Yahoo Group revealing that Ken Wilber is nothing but warmed over, junk Advaita that totally fails to deliver its vague, mirage-like, ever-receding promises.
Wilber’s airplane never gets off the ground, and never can, inherently, because his engine is bunk: Neo Advaita.
The Death of Hopkins Psychedelic Mystical Science Is an Opportunity for Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation
December 1, 2025
Don’t battle competitors; wait for them to fail on their own, just keep standing while the bad theories fall.
The Advaita Positive Unity model of “mysticism” is a bad, failed, irrelevant, useless theory with a hidden political agenda, lacking psychedelics (Vivek 1893 – Stace 1960, taken up by Leary/Pahnke 1962, through Griffiths 2025 TERMINUS). My collegauees …. 3 names I try to recall:
Wm Richards (w/ W Pahnke)
Thom Robts – i preordered his book and “hated” it; puzzled over why does this book leave me utterly cold? Doubt I posted a review at https://www.amazon.com , b/c I couldn’t figure til lately, why I hated it. Recent answer: b/c it’s Neo Advaita Positive Unity, a false model of Transcendent Knowledge.
CSP
I now relate to the article title “Moving Past Mysticism” in a new way: we in Psychedelic Science indeed must move past “Mysticism” Misconceived as Centered on Nondual Unity.
I’m firmly committed to maximal entheogen theory of religion. If it’s not psychedelic, it’s not real religion.
Any exceptions prove the rule.
Spare me the cliche from every lame academic, “other methods can/ could/ might/ may produce same effect as 10 hits of acid” – to the extent that’s true, that’s irrelevant and inconsequential, and beside the point.
By far the main point of reference is ingesting the flesh of Christ, the Teacher of Righteousness.
I made that move in 1997 summary spec, listing psychedelics alongside schizophrenia.
I am hypocrite but I can justify why I wrote that, better justification than other writers have.
My 1988 theory, summarized in 1997, is FIRMLY from study of psychedelics, NOT substantially coming from meditation or drumming (rhythmic driving) or dancing or hyperventilation or not of hyperventilation during cave meditation sensory deprivation while dancing, chanting, and drumming after fasting [I here mock by piling up & summing, every stupid academic theory at the same time].
My point, and view, didn’t change from 1988 to 1997, and that remains a fair point.
I don’t deny that other ways sometimes produce same effect as high dose psychedelics – but that’s of little importance or relevance.
I do not give a public professaion of faith like every academic, for purpose of appeasing critics.
Unlike academics, I don’t “punch radical” by saying “Some ppl go too far by saying only psychedelics work; other ways can/ could/ might/ may produce psychedelic effects.”
I don’t market myself as more trustworthy and moderate, by lowering psychedelics and elevating other ways. I loathe that strategy and self-marketing.
I am committed to being the most radical and extreme, not allowing evil future-me to be more radical.
Other ways give a tiny glimpse of a weak psychedelic experience, no more than that.
Non-drug methods fail to deliver the full eventual control transformation that psychedelics potentially deliver and sometimes do deliver.
I hold, in 2025 as in 1988: the best mystics, best art, best myth, best shamanism, comes from none other than psychedelics.
That’s the best shape and balance of the best theory of entheogen scholarship and mental model transformation.
It is indeed noteworthy that the mind can produce same state — to some extent — without psychedelics, but that is no more than a minor side point, and we MUST keep the focus firmly centered on none other than psychedelics.
Do not elevate other ways to same high level as psychedelics; do not lower psychedelics to the same level as other ways. Psychedelics utterly and totally tower over other ways.
Johnson’s right that psychedelic pseudo science must move past “mysticism” – b/c every time any of those articles say “mysticism”, they do not mean mysticism; they mean Neo-Advaita.
Deliver a Successful Explanatory Model of Psychedelic Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation [PEDCT]
For that purpose, chronology revisionism (subtract 700 revolutions of the Earth between 1 AD & 2000 AD) is outer periphery, non-essential. Inner periphery: …. revisit the 4 onion layers now with failure of Hopkins in mind.
Ahistoricity of religious founder figures is peripheral not Core, for the Egodeath theory. Add Mister Jesus, and the Egodeath theory remains basically the same.
The Hopkins Faceplant of Psychedelic Pseudo Science Is an Opportunity for Transformative Rebirth of the Field of Cognitive Psychedelics
December 1, 2025
The Doorway / Guarded Gateway of Cognitive Psychedelics is, experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control.
Replace Neo-Advaita’s Paradigm/ Worldview/ Project by Plain Scientific Model of Possibilism experiential mode psychedelic eternalism eternalism-driven control-transformation Steering by the Stars of:
Psychedelic Experience (More Like OAV [Ocean/ Angst/ Vision] 1994 than Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 1962) and
The Best Religious Mythology (including the best religious art ie the art which best analogizes psychedelic eternalism-driven control-transformation.
Stace 1960 Positive Unity model of “mystical experience” is an entire Game: with its own internal
system of value judgment; its own
definition of the goal of the game;
what are we to aspire to;
what’s the goal of Transcendent Knowledge,
what’s the standard reference to look to, to define what Transcendent Knowledge should be? A paradigm; worldview; game; value-system; purpose in life.
A set of questions, answers, standards of reference, objectives, rules, and end-state.
Why are we here?
Per Neo-Advaita: to experience lack of self/other boundary.
Per the Egodeath theory (psychedelic eternalism): eternalism-driven control-transformation; mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism (to end up w/ 2 POVs).
“The best religious mythology” includes the best religious diagrammatic art, ie:
Great Canterbury Psalter – eg f134 row 1, left 2/5, ie, what John Lash uploaded around 2008, re-found by me mid-Nov 2020: that portion in particular was a God-send, confirming the Egodeath theory — like what I wished for from Jesus & Paul in 1998 before those figures instantly became mythic-only.
the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}
branching-message mushroom trees;
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
[funny, i only remember the finger muscle memory of [m b h s] keyboard shortcut – i remember the location of the keys, not which letters or motif-words]
Text Message, December 1, 2025
final nail in coffin, for Pop Psychedelic pseudo science, as far as im concerned, is the conflicts of interest in the Hopkins Religious Leaders Study – where the industry leader, J Hopkins Medical, faceplanted-to-death.
that failure, like an ego death, cleared the way for what regrouping/ reframing/ rebirth opportunity?
past tense: what WAS the Vivek/ Theosophy/ Stace model of “mystical experience”?
A life philosophy, set of values, outlook, & transnational political philosophy; a Trojan horse, grand narrative that took advantage of / leveraging “mysticism”, up to Stace 1960
Pahnke 1962 folded that model (master narrative of What Transcendent Knowledge Is All About) into psychedelic science
the latter agenda is, according to Christian whistleblower /critic/ watchdogs, to replace Christianity by a new, global religion
Phase 1: engineer a political-tuned scheme around “mysticism” – culminated in Stace 1960. book Phil & Mysticism (out of print, its so outdated) Phase 2: add: psychedelic, leveraging Big Pharma; started with Pahnke 1962.
am i merely, narrowly quibbling over what “mystical experience” should most accurately mean? or, replacing an entire covert-agenda PROJECT of social engineering??
what should we care about, in mysticism / psychedelc alt-state/ religious mythology?
what is the best source of truth for defining what sort of scope of theory to construct?
Discard the Theosophy Modern Advaita Agenda & its value-system (killed by Hopkins Religious Leaders Study fiasco a few months ago); replace that by a sufficiently encompassing paradigm that sails by the stars of:
psychedelic experience (per OAV 1994 questionnaire)
religious myth as analogy describing the best, peak asc
Since the English-translated, Transnational paradigm died in Johns Hopkins (even the topmost inner circle of Roland Griffiths & Matthew Johnson imploded!), what replacement opportunity is there, to Reset?
The day the Psychedelic Nondual Unity model of “mystical experience” died.]
Form a model of how the mental world model transforms, centered on the transformation process – not centered on the idealized, alleged, final, ultimate, tranquil Unitive nondual state.
In Jan 1988, I said: Here is a way to absolutely cancel egoic thinking and transform to another specific model, far more than the [Theosophy] Neo Advaita brand of “nondual Unitive” concern that’s driving the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology & Ken Wilber.
Separation = Bad Trip = Ego Dissolution = Non-Mystical Experience, in Breau’s Paradigm
If mystical = positive Unitive, non-mystical = negative Separative.
Every word, as used by a paradigm, is a paradigm-loaded code word:
“multiplicity”
the self/other boundary
self = boundary = the separate self
mystical experience (= the Positive Nondual Unitive experience, AS conceptualized by Theosophy Neo-Advaita – welded together, as a package deal, with a Trojan horse-load of arbitrary additional metaphysics premises: “pure awareness”, “ineffability”, “common core” [a good idea, badly implemented]; “the perennial [armchair] philosophy”, etc.)
Every word and phrasing that I employ, is loaded carrying the Egodeath theory.
See Also
Walter Pahnke 1962/1963 PhD thesis Asserts the 1960 Stace narrow concept of mystical experience; asserts Neo-Advaita nondual, suspension of the self/other boundary = mystic-state enlightenment & Transcendent Knowledge. Unitive Mysticism, shuts out Relational Mysticism [eternalism with 2-level, dependent control depicted in Great Canterbury Psalter f177 and f107 (lifted up by God/Christ)] Drugs and Mysticism: Psychedelic Drug Experience and the Mystical State (Pahnke, 1963)
Intro vid: June 27, 2025 title: Introduction to Merkavah Mysticism and Hekhalot Literature Seminar Announcement
“Hundreds of years prior to the rise of the Kabbalah, shaman-like rabbinic mystics were described as having made the terrifying and awe-inspiring descent into the Divine Palaces.
“There they met with and bypassed fearsome angels with magical codes, gained control over angelic powers, became transformed into beings of fire, gained vast wisdom and mounted the very throne of G!d to carefully measure the vast dimensions of the divine body, join in the heavenly liturgy or be transformed into beings of fire.
“These experiences and their praxes are recorded in about 50 manuscripts now known as the Hekhalot (lit. palaces) literature.
“Outside of specialists this late-classical form of (a)(de)scent mysticism is poorly understood and little appreciated.
“In this course, we will explore the foundations, social origins, myth-world, praxes and the afterlife of Merkavah Mysticism over the course of 12-14 weeks starting Sunday July 20th at 2pm EST a bit like the Agrippa seminar last year.”
video title: Introduction to Merkavah Mysticism – 15 of 15 – The Twilight of the Merkavah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8f7euCwchs Nov. 21, 2025 Desc: slightly different than for Intro:
“Hundreds of years prior to the rise of the Kabbalah, shaman-like rabbinic mystics were described as having made the terrifying and awe-inspiring descent into the Divine Palaces.
“There they met with and bypassed fearsome angels with magical codes, gained control over angelic powers, became transformed into beings of fire, gained vast wisdom and mounted the very throne of G!d to carefully measure the vast dimensions of the divine body.
“These experiences and their praxes are recorded in about 50 manuscripts now known as the Hekhalot (lit. palaces) literature.
“Outside of specialists this late-classical form of (a)(de)scent mysticism is poorly understood and little appreciated.
“In this course, we will explore the foundations, social origins, myth-world, praxes and the afterlife of Merkavah Mysticism.”
Text Message Thread Wed. Nov. 26, 2025
The day before Thanksgiving. 🦃
Forbidden to Behold the Throne; Here’s How We Do It
it is strictly prohibited to behold the throne
it is customary to ignore this prohibition
here’s how to behold the throne, in a 15+ part Summer university course 4 days ago
Introduction to Merkavah Mysticism and Hekhalot Literature Seminar Announcement YoutTube channel: ESOTERICA [Dr. Justin Sledge] https://youtu.be/J8QE5Fsse1A
Merkavah Sledgehammer to Entrenched All-Dominant False Model, Advaita
perfect antidote & sledgehammer ⚒️💥 to the all-dominant, totally entrenched, fantasy-based Positive Advaita, false & fabricated model of “mystical experience”
partially exposed by Taves 2020 & sgc Harvard member Jeffrey Breau 2023 who reached same concl as me-independently:
Walter Stace 1960 makes a narrow model of “mystical experience” thats just Neo Advaita w/ its raft of metaphysical interp, a package deal. a particular Positive Unity phil of religious experiencing
Stace (& therefore ALL psychedelic pseudo science, based directly on Stace lineage) — and Alan Houot Masters dissert 2019 — insults & demotes Abrahamic, Relational Dualistic mysticism as inferior and amateur and failed, because resorts to “surrender” and fear
“Mysticism” marketed as unicorns & rainbows is a fake product; the ulterior motive: transnational political unity disguised as nondual Advaita Unity boundary-removal —
but Relational mysticism in Abrahamic religions deeply disagrees (& has been silenced by psychedelic pseudo science)
🦄💨🌈 💦🔫🤨
Metal mysticism & myth disproves fake pop Neo-Advaita’s coverup operation
A’s Reply: Bias Against Relational Mysticism in Favor of Westernized Advaita’s Unitive Mysticism; Theosophy’s Biased Conception of “World Religions”
“I need to find some of my papers from my graduate course, as this bias goes back to the historical origins of comparative religious studies and the influence of the Theosophy movement on the idea of “World Religions” in the 19th c.”
Disaster of the Long-Awaited Hopkins Religious Leaders 2015 Psilocybin Research
im perversely revelling in the total disaster of the long-awaited Hopkins Religious Leaders 2015 psil research:
poetic justice for the entire field & the entire related field of “theories of mystic-state enlightenment”, that wrongly made narrow Neo-Avaita (the self/other, boundary-suspension model [Positive-only Unitive]🦄💨🌈) the be-all, end-all, definitive, all-dominant model adopted wholesale hook/line/sinker by EVERY writer:
when the Hopkins paper finally flopped across the finish line a month ago, has a big Conflicts of Interest section. “science conclusions” for purchase $$$ 🤑💰🤥👖🔥🤞 i hope to send u screengrab of that pdf section
Describes Merkavah Mysticism as Metal
effective subtitle of Dr Sledge series: Metal Merkavah Mysticism 🤘🎸😈😱
🤘🎸😈😱
Mythology, Metal Lyrics, & Art Disprove Relevance of Unitive Mysticism
myth, acid Metal, & Merkavah, & the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, confirm my centering of threat-driven fearsome boundary-crossing, against Pop Neo Avaita eg Ken Wilber (bleh) that cant get off the ground 🚫🛫 the planned, companion Hopkins article was cancelled in disgrace, as explained to us by Michael Pollan at UCBerk a few months ago (some [of our church members] were there in person)
Michael Pollan Replied: The Bogus “Mystical Experience” Questionnaires Are Already Being Replaced by Broader, More Realistic Questionnaires
Pollan replied to my extreme/ harsh question: “Will the bogus “mystical experience” questionnaires be replaced by broader, more realistic ones?” “yes, theyre already working on it”
A’s Reply: More Varied Perspectives Needed in Psychedelic Research
“So clear that more varied perspectives are needed in psychedelic research”
Angels at War with the Mystics
Sledge manages to tell a consistent, useful, coherent presentation,
despite freaky fractured sources
angels at war with the mystics
“This Myth Is Psychedelic-Styled (without Using Psychedelics)”
Sledge constantly, casually describes journeying-myth as “psy’c”
– while claiming, “no evidence”
i say:
sound theory interacts with the ability to discover various evidence – proved resoundingly _in general_, eg Great Canterbury Psalter
many kinds of evidence are plentiful, from a suitably informed pov
effective theory/evidence feedback, across the broad genre of the best religious myth
not super concerned about evidence re: any one brand of such myth
Ezekiel eat scroll sweet in mouth bitter in stomach then visions
Dr. Justin Sledge’s YouTube series just finished, about Merkavah (Merkabah) / Hekalot (palaces) mysticism.
In episode 11, Sledge says:
* There’s no evidence of psychedelics in the Hekalot literature.
* The only ingesting reported in the literature was bread and water. See “raven’s bread” in entheogen scholarship eg Ruck. See ergot leavening in Dan Merkur book.
* They (men; husbands) were required to bake their own bread. The cover-story that Sledge swallows is: wife might be unclean. Real reason: keep control of psilocybin bread.
* There was no wine in this tradition.
Dr. Sledge doesn’t discuss the recipe for this bread; that’s a wide opening for the maximal entheogen theory of religion:
Psilocybin, such as Liberty Cap (grows everywhere) doesn’t doesn’t break down at 425 degrees F (baking temp.)
Sledge simply takes for granted, that “bread” means ordinary bread – which makes no sense for the genre of altered state mythology, in which the suitable kind of ingestion is magical bread.
Assume such a magical ingredient in the Merkavah mystics’ (“descenders to the throne”) self-baked bread – now we have a workable explanation, instead of fabricating made-up explanations for how they battled with angels to behold the throne.
Sledge attempts to make the following techniques produce the same effects as high-dose psychedelics:
isolation
bathing
fasting
ie, a list of all academics’ usual stand-ins – ANYTHING BUT DRUGS.
If isolation and bathing and fasting produced the same effects as high-dose psychedelics, high school & college students would be using isolation and bathing instead of psychedelics.
The sensible, plausible solution, based on relatively reliable effects, is psychedelics such as Liberty Caps, more than accompanying techniques such as isolation, bathing, or “contemplative prayer” (academics’ code-word for Meditation).
Merkavah Is Mysticism, Despite Leading to Encounter with God but not Union with God
I’m alienated from Neoplatonism and apophatic theology.
Episode 1 of Merk Seminar raises the question of “Is this mysticism? If mysticism = Neoplatonism union with God, Merkavah isn’t mysticism.
The proposition that Merkavah isn’t mysticism b/c Merkavah only leads to encountering God, but not identifying with God, is patently nonsense and too narrow, arbitrarily narrow of a definition of ‘mysticism’.
My 4 diagrams of:
Stace model, per 1963 Walter Pahnke PhD dissertation under Tim Leary.
Ann Taves model in 2020 article.
Jeffrey Breau model in 2023 article.
Image: Ezekiel Eating Scroll
Features:
Weight on Right foot
Left hand makes the YI shape; “the hand shape”
Eats the open scroll
God’s Right hand from hidden in cloud, holds scroll.
expose: claims there are item-count 147 in Apx C, but only 129 items:
WHERE ARE THE OTHER 18 items?? MEQ147/129. a problem.
this shows again how powerful my analysis and B S uncovered simply by the technique of “item counts”.
Date of Marsh Chapel Good Friday Experiment
determined & added to wikip by Michael Hoffman:
April 20, 1962 (4/20)
phd thesis June 1963
pdf scans on web (by MAPS) in year: __
text provided on web apparently 2015 (check same url at Archive)
also see Harvard dissertations catalog?
Motive of this Page
in conjunction w Taves 2020 then Bro 2023 questioning A LITTLE the Unity model, but really merely tweaking it; no real challemge is offered to the terrible all-dominent, entrenched model – diespite all the scare quotes and empty promises of internal critique and empty lip service talk of :
Expanding “to all changes of sense of self” (Taves) &
“negative as well as positive experiemce of Unity” (Bro).
& critique of Otto p 32 in Pahnke.
these acknowledgments and field-internal critiques are merely corrective circles epicycles — essentially just more of the same wrong core model — to try to bolster the field’s failed model like the earth-centered, circles-committed, Old Theory, before the circa 1687 switch to the sun-centered, New Theory.
both the field of Ken Wilber Advaita model of Transcendent Knowledge (mysticism sans psychedelics ) , and, psychedelic pseudo science per Griffiths, Leary, etc (mysticism model with psychedelics )
remember: EVERY writer holds the unanimous false dichotomy: “mysticism was not via psychedelics”. The wrong, Unity model is fully entrenched; even adjustments efforts just further entrench the same old, same old. inorder to avoid the real deal, E D C T
eternalism-driven (threatened-driven) control transformation [EDCT]
driven by revelation perceptionof the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control
Item 54 in OAV’94: I was afraid to lose my self-control.
see the many motifs of “open scroll held by sage = awareness of being under threat” in Great Canterbury Psalter
This thesis is the Best Document to Track How the Unity model of mystical experience was baked into psychedelic pseudo science
We must study this thesis, to grasp psychedelic pseudo science – how the wrong model of mystical experience came to totally dominate non psychedelic & psychedelic models conceptions of ASC/ mystical experience/ the mystic altered state.
it’s a super-key doc; the pivotal moment when psychedelic pseudo science was spawned around incorpg Stace lineage model of mystical experience as Unity, Modern Advaita, non-dual, Eastern non-explanation non relevant non useful substitutive avoidance to shut out Eternalism control transformation.
The Later-Censored Item 15: Fear of Losing Control
item 15 mentioned 2x:
Apx C p 97; see pic
next -to-last page: Disturbing instead of mystical experience p 113 good grouping of items in “Fear and Anxiety”, 6 items:
“As the chemical came over me, I began to be aware of a mounting disorder in the chapel. …
“from out of this bizarre mix [of jealous, joking, short-changed controls & the winning experimentals], one of our number emerged.
He arose from his pew, walked up the aisle, and with uncertain steps mounted the chapel’s modest pulpit.
Thumbing through its Bible for a few moments, he then mumbled a brief incoherent homily, blessed the congregation with the sign of the cross, and started back down the aisle.
But instead of returning to his pew, he marched to the rear entrance of the chapel and exited.“
Mentions of fear, control transformation, eternalism
Item 15: Fear of losing control
expose! where did this go in meq43 (year?), followed by meq30? deletion of psychedelic effects, like during awful construction of the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)
The Mysteriously Shrinking MEQ147 [but only 129] in 1962; MEQ43 in 1969 or 1975; MEQ30 in 2012 (MEQ0 when?)
“The tenth experimental subject had what he termed an interesting “psychological” and “aesthetic” experience for the first three-fourth of his experience, but then became frightened by loss of control and spent the remaining time in a terrifying fight to overcome the drug effects.
“He would not be interested in repeating the experience because his most predominant memory of the experience was that of fear.
“Six months later, in Part I of the followup questionnaire, he considered this fear-experience slightly harmful because “in a mob panic-situation, I feel I would be less likely to maintain a calm objective position than I might have formerly.”
“During the interview he admitted that he had gone into the experience “as a psychological experiment” and had done no serious devotional preparation.
“His “inspirational” reading while the drug was taking effect consisted of studying some Psalms for a course in the Old Testament.
“His interpretation of his experience was a “psychotic episode.””
Passages to Excerpt
Find: psychotic, psychosis
Find: dread
Find: fear
Find: separateness [grouped w fear, in the Unity paradigm]
The “Unity” vs. “Eternalism-driven control transformation” model of mystical experience
map the equivalent constructs across the two paradigms, to compare & contrast the two explanatory models.
Eternalism ~= Unity
“the One” is soaked with eternalism; its not the same as Eastern, Modern Advaita, nondual Unity.
this Eastern bad style of expl is not the same as the One in antiquity. tho comparable.
Eastern, subtractive, pseudo-explanation has no useful/ relevance to control transformation that’s driven by threat; by the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control
Eastern Bad; Shams Bad; Western Good, More Developed
Eastern, unitive mysticism is less developed than Western, Relational, eternalism-driven control transformation.
2-level, dependent control = Relational mysticism; see Great Canterbury Psalter f177 Left; & the other folio similar w God making Jesus lift the demon-threatened guy by right arm from rock ossuary.
Shamanism is bad/ inferior/ underdeveloped, too: against Alan Houot’s masters thesis , Shams fail to engage & discover eternalism-driven control transformation.
Shams are inferior to Western mystical experience that’s eternalism-driven control transformation.
Eastern phil’ers of religion are inferior to Western mystical experience that’s eternalism-driven control transformation.
the Unity, non-dual, Modern Advaita, boundary-removal, Eastern crude non-explanation” model of the mystic altered state/ mystical experience
the awful, subtractive mode of “explanation” – eastern _ways of thinking of Eastern Peoples_ book: “X is an illusion” , “no X” = enlightenment.
Transcendent Knowledge = non boundary exper. [bad: explanation by subtraction]
good: the Eternalism / control transformation” model of the mystic altered state / mystical experience, per psychedelic eternalism ; the Egodeath theory.
See Also
Taves 2020
Bro 2023
Kitchens entries — remember, for all , misled scholars, ‘MYSTICISM’ & its “phen”, ALWAYS MEANS THE UNITY PARADIGM — instead of the correct, “eternalism-driven control transformation”, relevant, useful , helpful explanatory model.
the old theory = Stace lineage, Modern Advaita, nondual, Unity model, see Taves expose then Bro who builds directly on her
yet Taves & Bro give just enough lip service to “other than Positive Unity”, to ensure the permanent entrenchment of the wrong, Unity model.
like u can find Fear (indicative of eternalism-driven control transformation) buried hidden in Pahnke’s thesis, in “Sacredness” & “non mystical” & Otto & relational eg Hasidic Jewish mysticism
Pahnke explains-away and categorizes-away, Western, Abrahamic, Relational, Christian mysticism & Jewish mysticism.
He acknowledges these problems, but plows ahead w the Unity model and applies his eliminative filter & neutralizing categories. Find: Otto
todo: transcribe my cover-page notes, shown in photo – not needed; already summarized here.
equates negative, separateness, fear
equates positive Unity
gives lip service to fear/negative, to ack it to explain it away into the Stace lineage: mystical experience = positive unity modern Advaita motive of political transnatiinal unity; the fakse false, subst religion in order to shut out Dread Eternalism control transformation.
avert & ward off, apotropaic, the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control , via neutered, substitutive, dummy, harmless, panic-free, pretend-mysticism
All modern scholars are stuck in wrong theory, in every word & explanatory construct they use.
todo: delete entries other than relevant Kitchens entries: (copy of toc of fav page)
The Egodeath theory 
