Compelling Evidence & Proof of Explicit Psilocybin Mushrooms in Christian Art to Communicate Non-Branching Stable Control

Site Map

Michael Hoffman, November 16, 2020

Top-Level Contents:

Detailed Contents:

  • The Peak Mystic Revelation Experience of Non-Branching of Possibilities
    • John Rush Y Moses
    • Lucas Cranache
    • Knife Cutting Branch
    • Kylix Jason Python Vine Tree Athena
  • Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe
    • The Image
    • Proof of Psilocybe in Christian Art
    • The Image Depicts an Entire Traditional, Time-tested Mushroom Initiation Procedure
    • The Complete Mushroom Initiation Storyline in Pictures
    • Recognizing Depictions of Transformative Effects
    • Trees & Limbs, Branching & Non-branching
    • Class Session: The Good Student and the Bad Students
    • Banquet Meal, then Pulled by Angel by Right Limb
    • Hanging by the Right Leg Above a Sword
    • Blades to Transform Thinking
    • Foot Down or Raised, Column Foot, Mushroom Hem
    • God the Ultimate Controller of Control-Thoughts

/ table of contents

Two Questions and Two Positions Each

In this article, I define three levels of compelling evidence and criteria of proof, to support that there are explicit, open, public, non-hidden mushrooms in Christian art:

  • Literal depictions of mushrooms.
  • Stylized depictions of mushrooms.
  • Depictions of mushroom effects.

I define two positions, Minimal and Maximal:

Are there mushrooms in Christian art?

o The Minimal mushroom theory of Christian art; refusal.
o The Maximal mushroom theory of Christian art; affirmation.

For context, I also treat a broader question:

Are there mushrooms in Greek & Christian art?

o The Minimal mushroom theory of Greek & Christian art; refusal.
o The Maximal mushroom theory of Greek & Christian art; affirmation.

I show that all three levels of compelling evidence and criteria of proof support that there are mushrooms in Christian art.

Findings of this Article, for Non-Reasonable People

For non-reasonable people, for people who refuse to be reasoned with, people who have a covert conflict of interest, committed skeptics, for non-initiates, for the mytheme-illiterate, for those on the outside, for die-hard adherents of the Minimal mushroom theory of Christian art:

I show that there are no mushrooms in Christian art, and that compelling evidence and criteria of proof is inherently an impossibility; it is IMPERMISSIBLE.

See Conceptual Revolutions (Thagard), Chapter 5: Theory Dynamics, Rationality, and Explanation: Impediments to rationality: Sociological explanations.

For that audience, I retract the Maximal mushroom theory of Christian art; I was wrong. There are no mushrooms in Christian art.

Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof” for Mushrooms in Christian Art

Paul Thagard’s Book Conceptual Revolutions

Given two competing theories, explanatory frameworks, or interpretations of data, how do we judge which theory is more compelling?

The interpretation which is the most compelling is that which has the greatest explanatory power and broadest scope of explanation.

What does the book Conceptual Revolutions say about defining the concept of “compelling evidence”? What are the attributes of compelling evidence? What makes data compelling for one interpretation or theory over a competing interpretation or theory?

What does the book Conceptual Revolutions say about the criteria for proof of one interpretation or theory over a competing interpretation or theory?

Conceptual Revolutions (Thagard)

Methodology for Decoding the Canterbury Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree

Scientific Reproducibility of Mytheme Decoding – about the Canterbury Miracle.

A Spectrum of Criteria of Proof, for Identifying Mushrooms in Art or Texts

This spectrum of three levels of evidence was formulated by Cyberdisciple.

Criteria of proof and evidence for mushrooms in art: The simple question-formulation is, Does the item in art look like a mushroom? Now break out an analysis of that question: What does “look like” mean?

There are three levels of evidence for an item in art “looking like” mushrooms (or for a description in text “sounding like” mushrooms):
literal, stylized, & effects:

  • Literal depictions of mushrooms
  • Stylized depictions of mushrooms
  • Depictions of mushroom effects

Three Levels of Depiction, Four Families of Forms, Two Mediums

Thus there are six types of evidence which the scholar must take into account:
[text|art] x [literal|stylized|effects] =

  • Literal depictions of mushrooms (in art & in texts)
  • Stylized depictions of mushrooms (in art & in texts)
  • Depictions of mushroom effects (in art & in texts)

If the would-be “scientific, historical scholar”, allegedly using “sound historical criteria”, only considers literal descriptions or depictions of mushrooms, in texts, and fails or refuses to look through the lens of the other five of the six types of potential evidence, they are blinding themselves to five of the six, 5/6 = 83% of the types of potential evidence for mushrooms in Christian materials, and then claiming “there is practically no evidence for psychoactive mushrooms in Christianity.”

Such an out-of-hand dismissal of 5 out of the 6 types of potential evidence for mushrooms in Christian art is not, as falsely claimed, “proper, scientific, historical scholarship” or “sound historical criteria”, but is a travesty of it.

We must consider all six types of evidence, not just one arbitrarily chosen type of evidence.

This article proves that in Christian art, there is ample evidence of mushrooms; evidence of all three types: literal, stylized, and effects.

There is definite evidence even for the ultimate peak effects of mushrooms in Christian art: the experiential mushroom effects, of transforming the mental worldmodel from Possibilism to Eternalism, through suspension and cancellation of the illusion of autonomous personal control power that operates by wielding steering-power within a tree of open, branching possibilities.

The three levels of evidence for mushrooms in Christianity (literal, stylized, & effects), that are potentially found in art and in texts, are described below.

Literal Depictions

Literal depictions of the physical form of the mushroom.

Photographic realism; the mushroom image is literally depicted, such as Cubensis; Liberty Cap; or Amanita in various forms such as red disc with white veil patches, or upturned Holy Grail chalice.

What attributes make up a mushroom, visually? These depend on the type of mushroom and on its life cycle.

In ancient or esoteric texts, the equivalent would be:
Use of the word “mushroom” in a text (equivalent of photographic realism).

Photographs of mushroom specimens confirm and prove that psilocybin mushrooms have dangling leaves.

Photographs of mushroom specimens confirm and prove that mushrooms have branches.

Michael Wood
proof that mushroom caps have branches under them, as accurately literally depicted in Canterbury Psalter.  Panaeolus semiovatus
California Fungi—Panaeolus semiovatus
Fred Stevens
proof that psilocybin mushroom caps have branches underneath the canopy cap

Stylized Depictions

Depictions of analogies that describe the physical form of the mushroom.

Stylized semi-literalistic depiction; a stylized, modified mushroom shape, such as a tree, grape bunch, chalice bowl, garment fold, umbrella, or vial designed to look like Amanita.

Cross-representation: Amanita means or represents Psilocybe, more than it represents ingesting Amanita. Amanita is an honorary Psilocybe.

Any mushroom in visual art or in religious or esoteric texts stands-in for entheogens in general.

Anything consumed (such as by eating or drinking) refers to entheogen: {wine, bread, cake, meat, water, medicine, poison}, typically in the establishing-context of a food, drink, banquet meal, or potion provided by a god or angel.

Anything that has a shape like a mushroom and its parts refers to entheogen: {cup, wand, cap, spear, plate}.

When sliding the scale of “analogy distance” or “loosening the analogy”, at the extreme, anything can be forced to refer to mushrooms, in a “far jump” of association and analogy; for example, how is an ear of wheat held by a god, like a mushroom?

As an example of the word ‘stylized‘: In ancient or esoteric texts, the word ‘serpent’ means “a dragon or other mythical snakelike reptile” (Oxford dictionary); the word ‘serpent’ as opposed to ‘snake’ connotes a stylized snake in Mythemeland.

The mytheme {serpent} serves (by analogy with a snake’s non-branching shape) to describe the altered-state experiencing of the worldline of one’s pre-set, unchangeable control-thoughts embedded in the block-universe {rock}, whereas the word ‘snake’ is mundane and literal.

In ancient or esoteric texts, the equivalent would be:
Textual description of a non-mushroom object that descriptively makes the object sound like a mushroom: for example, eating a “scroll” given by an angel, with writing on it, tasting like honey, and making the stomach sour (also: producing visions; but the next section is more specific about distinctive effects).

Canterbury Psalter, folio 134

Depictions of Effects

Depictions of analogies that describe the experiential and transformative effects from mushrooms.

Metaphor or analogy describing the cognitive effects of mushrooms – ultimately, describing transformation of the mental worldmodel from Possibilism to Eternalism, resulting from mushrooms.

Lower-level, banal: depiction of altered-state perceptual effects; visual distortion (or in texts, auditory distortion), trippy patterns.

Higher-level; describing experiential phenomena: mythemes that point towards dynamics of self-control; describing by analogy experiential transformation of the mental worldmodel from Possibilism to the Eternalism model of control and time. That experiential mental transformation is like:

{king steering in a tree, drinks wine, tests his power of rulership, sacrifices, becomes snake embedded in rock}

Mastering the altered-state cognitive phenomenology and religious mytheme stage of learning allows the mildly skeptical, reasonable Minimalist to start perceiving mushrooms without relying on the obvious explicit presence of a literalist botanical-science depiction of the plant, in Greek and Christian art and texts.

The {serpent} (worldline) brings the {fruit} (mushroom along with gnosis) to the initiate.

In ancient or esoteric texts, the equivalent would be:
Textual description of mushroom effects (perceptual effects, or experiential mental-model transformation about time and control) in conjunction with the above indicators.

Four Distinct Families of Mushroom Shapes: Liberty Cap, Amanita, Cubensis, Panaeolus

Liberty Cap Morphology
  • Vertical ribs/gill-lines.
  • Thin straight stem, no branching.
  • Tassels where gill-lines remain but cap is gone.
  • Nub on top.
  • Some specimens have bands of different shades, due to the veil remnant.

Amanita Morphology
  • White veil remnant patches against orange-to-red cap.
  • Thick white stem.
  • Varied shapes or forms throughout its lifecycle.
    • Bulb; knurled egg form.
    • Dumbbell form; separation of top from bottom.
    • Tearing of veil.
    • Unfolding of cap.
    • Folding up of cap to make a cup shape; Holy Grail, upturned kylix-chalice, typically collects a pool of rain.
    • Dried mushroom cap, separated from bone-like stalk.

The Amanita lifecycle of forms is covered by Clark Heinrich’s book Strange Fruit.

Cubensis Morphology
  • Shrub-like clusters with wandering/veering angles.
  • Ball-on rod shape when the veil has not separated from the ring of the cap.
  • Attached veil (not-yet-separated & dropped) resembling the underside of a tree canopy, suggesting branches.
Panaeolus Morphology
  • Bands, rings, shades of brown & tan & beige & sand around the cap.

Exercise for the Reader: Identify this Object:
Some experts say it’s an Italian Pine.
Other experts have definitively identified it as a Parasol of Victory.
Which of these top experts is correct?

There Is No Reasoning with Willful Blindness: Parallel Branching-Message Mandrake Trees and Mushroom Trees in the Abbey of Montecassino

In the course of discussing the question of mushrooms in Christian art, I define what constitutes compelling evidence, and define criteria of proof.

But let us not be daft. No amount of fancy “defining the criteria for compelling evidence and proof” can make people see, if they are invested in not seeing. What more needs to be said?

Italy [Abbey of Montecassino]; circa 1072 – British Library

Exultet roll, Monte Cassino monastery, dated 1075.
[10:32 p.m. December 28, 2020] – I identify the right as a mandrake-tree, and in late March, 2022, I more specifically identified the right tree in both images as a branching-message Mandrake tree (due to added cut branches contrasted against the added trunk), establishing the generalized abstracted category & art motif of “branching-message tree”, the latter which includes Lucas Cranach’s painting, The Temptation of Eve by the Serpent – Michael Hoffman

This pair of images shows a debranched mushroom tree in parallel with a debranched Mandrake tree. Two mushroom-shaped grape-bunch baskets set on the ground between Eve and Adam allude to mixed-wine mushroom wine. The serpent is winding up the trunk of the mushroom tree, to the place where the tree would branch.

Since the Mandrake “tree” is psychoactive, the parallelism means that the mushroom is psychoactive: we can positively identify it as Psilocybe. Here is an example of Mandrake next to a mushroom, the Mandrake thus establishing the psychoactive context — resolving the argument, “Granted, it looks like a mushroom, but we have no proof that the mushroom is of a psychoactive type”.

Although an item in Christian art looks like a mushroom, we cannot know that it represents a specifically psychoactive mushroom.  This image is evidence that this mushroom represents a psychoactive mushroom, because the mushroom and Mandrake are exactly shown in parallel (both with debranched branches). The Mandrake is mis-drawn as a tree, to force the parallelism.

The snake is not on Adam’s Mandrake tree; only on Eve’s mushroom tree, preserving the traditional mytheme grouping of {serpent, tree, fruit, Eve then Adam}.

Other esoteric stylized Mandrake art for comparison:
My Plaincourault article gallery, which shows other esoteric stylized Mandrake art for comparison: “Adam and Eve with serpent-entwined Psilocybe mushroom (caduceus). Mandrake is chemically similar to Henbane and Belladonna.  Mandrake drawings traditionally show a human body instead of the tree trunk shown here.”

Bolstering Entheogen Identification by Depictions of Branching

We should expect to see psychoactive mushrooms depicted in conjunction with their effects of changing the mental model from Possibilism to Eternalism, which is expressed by mythemes such as {king, tree, wine, snake, rock, dragon, treasure, sacrifice, branching, non-branching}; in this case, in the Abbey picture, we see {tree, snake, otherworldly eating, non-branching}.

The trees branch at the same elevation as Adam & Eve’s heads and the serpent’s head. The block-universe worldline-snake gives the fruit/ entheogen/ gnosis to Eve, while Eve gives it to Adam.

The snake is wrapped around both of Eve’s feet on which she stands; she now knows both models of time, possibility-branching, and personal control:
o The possibility-branching, ordinary-state, freewill-premised, Possibilism model.
o The non-branching (single-possibility), rock-frozen, altered-state, no-free-will, Eternalism model.

How Blindness Works: The Blindness of the Entheogen Scholars: Seeing and Identifying Mandake

The Montecassino Mandrake picture above is an example of blind entheogen scholars: previous scholars who published this image in print and commented on the mushroom, such as in the book The Pharmacratic Inquisition (Irvin) and in Entheos Journal (maybe Ruck), failed to spot or mention Mandrake, when publishing this.

I am the one who saw Mandrake in the print-published image (my identification of Mandrake has been at the website since 2006) – the other authors were fixated on the Psilocybe, and failed to say anything about the other tree.

Those trapped in the mundane world can object that a mushroom’s fallen veil ring would not be shaped like the 3 broken branches on the mushroom. This art modifies the mushroom shape, which is normal practice for mythological mushroom representations, to add a message about non-branching. I further discuss branching in another copy of this image, below.

Mushroom-shaped Grape-bunch Baskets as an Example of Stylized Mushroom Representations

The mushroom-like plants on the ground are the same shape as the grape-bunch baskets in the Dionysus triumph procession below, with flaring stem.

Paralleling the vial debate,

1. Irvin would say: It’s a representation of a mushroom.

2. Brown: Actually, it’s a representation of a grape bunch in a basket, not a representation of a mushroom.

3. Hoffman: Actually, it’s a representation of a grape bunch in a basket that is designed to look like a mushroom.
This answer gets {Apollo’s laurel wreath crown of victory over the dragon}.

It is consistent to expect or “predict” these prominent objects are some type of entheogen representation or allusion, since the context has already been established, by the stylized Mandrake and Psilocybe, that this art piece is depicting entheogens, not mundane plants.

Which entheogen do these two items represent? I interpret and decode them as representing baskets of grapes that are shaped to look like mushrooms, as shown in the firmly mushroid Dionysus triumph mosaic which is analyzed in the present article.

above Ariadne
above the Maenad
rotated. middle, along the right.
rotated. lower, along the right.
How Discovery of Identification Works

I had similar rudiments of this idea / hypothesis swirling around in years past, but tonight (November 14, 2020) it came together to See the Logic of it:

Greeks shaped grape-bunch baskets to look like a mushroom; they did interplays of mushroom, grape bunch, ivy, and grape vines (worldline snake, revealed by mushrooms mixed into grape wine, that grows on vine – closure, or swirl of intertwined themes you’d weave together).

So these past years, it was no coincidence when you see a confusing muddle of mushroomy grape-bunchy vague ambiguous images along a spectrum.

It was supposed to slide between grape-bunch shape and mushroom shape. It was supposed to make you say “Huh? (rubbing your eyes) What am I seeing? Is that a mushroom… or what?”

Game: Find the most mushroom-shaped grape bunch; the best grape-bunch:

The best grape bunch is that which looks most like a mushroom. The game is to deliberately find photos of grape bunches that are the most mushroom-shaped; shape-bias.

By putting out grape bunches that are shaped like mushrooms, the snaky grape vine is sending a message: mushroom reveals worldline snake.

Enter Mythemeland, the Otherworld

{take fruit from snake-shaped vine, mushroom-shaped bunch, mix-in mushrooms, experience worldline snake petrified embedded into block-universe rock of marble, panic, frenzy, un-bind hair, grab thrysus spear that penetrates wound rebirth opening, sacrifice branching possibility-thinking on rock altar, burn away perishable aspects, become imperishable with the gods}

If you feel unsure, it is because you are supposed to feel unsure, slip back and forth between seeing and not seeing. It’s designed to trip-up the outsiders, to HIDE TRANSCENDENT KNOWLEDGE FROM THE UNWORTHY. And boy we have some particularly unworthy.

Exactly like acid-rock lyrics. What did he say? The printed lyrics say “kill”, but I swear that that time, he sang “cure” with the Black Blade. I’m really not sure. We can’t be sure — it’s ambiguous by design.

The idea in this art is play, to mess with the heads of the Minimalists, to retain “plausible deniability” for the unworthy.

Me? Paint a mushroom in the religious scene? No, it’s just a bunch of grapes, you are surely just seeing things. The lyrics are supposed to toy with you, to make you unsure. It’s just an accidental echo effect, when Ozzy sings “Never heard a thing I said [dead, dead, dead].”

How Discovery Works

Discovery of idea 11:45 p.m. November 14, 2020: These baskets are DESIGNED to create a mushroom effect, a conventional stylization decor:

Regarding this breakthrough: what is the magnitude? Not huge, but a definite feeling of breakthrough, i just mean, Discovery Of Significance. It’s always hard to pin-down what the magnitude of a breakthrough is — except 2013 was the most intensely experienced, that whole following week, after November 26.

I feel the connections rattling around, Paul Thagard is in there in my mind re-coding the re-connections and weightings of the connections in the conceptual system.

upper-right corner, rotated to be more right-side-up.

The krater/ grape vine pot, in Dionysus’ triumph scene. The wine-mixing krater to mix the mushroom wine, used as a pot to grow the grape vines.

{grape = mushroom}; in an isomorphism play, otherworld poets held that {grape bunch = mushroom = ivy = grape vine = snake = ribbon tied on the thyrsus spear-tip open-leaved pinecone…}: mythemes are are highly consubstantial (of the same substance).

That poetic multi-representationalism is like I laid out regarding an Amanita-vial (

1. Irvin says it’s an Amanita mushroom.

2. Brown says it’s a vial, not an Amanita mushroom.

3. Hoffman says it’s a vial that’s designed to look like an Amanita mushroom. An object is set up to look like a target object. One thing can deliberately be made to look like another. A fold in a garment can be made to look like a mushroom. A mushroom can be made to look like a tree.

A Mandrake can be painted to look like a tree. An Amanita can be made to branch like a Psilocybe cluster to look like a fantastical branching tree. “but you are deviating from a scientifically correct illustration!”

Therefore, in this context, {grape bunch} represents and alludes to {mushroom}.

Grape bunches were presented in a mushroom shape. A basket assists in holding the grape cluster in the desirable mushroom-shaped form, as an idealized decor convention.

Around we swirl, mixing the mythemes together in the mytheme krater for mixed-wine mushroom wine.

Mushrooms were mixed into wine, in the krater, in which the non-branching grape vines grow, which reveal when mixed with mushrooms, non-branching of one’s worldline in the block universe rock.

As important as the specific realization is that the grapes in baskets are meant to look like mushrooms, and that in the house, you’d decorate that way; bigger-scoped than that, is important, how to think about the language of mythemes on a higher level, the “language” level. It’s a cluster of realizations, including “how the game works” — in several senses or aspects.

It’s not just a breakthrough specifically about a grape bunch deliberately shaped like a mushroom in the house; it’s about the mode of play, decoding or catching onto the rules of the mytheme-figuration/imagery game.

Carl Ruck may bandy-about saying X is “consubstantial”, he’s always saying that, but why is X consubstantial with Y? It’s mytheme-play, of the standard mythemes – here, including {grape/ wine/ mixed wine / ivy/ grape vine/ snake}.

Schizophrenics have hard-to-follow jumps of association, loose association. The association-jump game is not exactly free-form, though. There is a common cluster of meaning, a domain, constraining the seemingly far-flung mythemes such as:

{king, tree, wine, snake, rock, dragon, treasure, sacrifice, branching, non-branching}

Mytheme List

It’s not endless, the list of standard key mythemes, although it is possible to map any thing/idea into this system of mythemes that describe by analogy the cognitive phenomena of the ASC. The menagerie of the altered-state of consciousness Otherworld.

Play a game of Minimal theorist in Ambiguityland, where Jesus speaks in parables that hide and reveal, only to those with ears to hear.

An idea of mine from some years ago: yes, Minimalists, committed literalists: for you, it’s not a mushroom. Go ahead, reject all mushrooms in art – that just reveals you as an outsider, and identifies you as among those on the outside.

A Snake Hidden and Revealed Inside a Mushroom-shaped Grape Cluster Box
For the first image, Cyberdisciple (2011/11/05) wrote text, modified here.

This piece in a museum portrays and describes the discovery of Eternalism/heimarmene through entheogens.

Shown are the top and bottom of a box shaped as a mushroom-shaped grape cluster.

The grape/mushroom combination represents entheogenic mixed wine.

The message is that when you open up the grape cluster, which is to say, the mushroom, you discover a frozen worldline snake inside the experience.

You discover the fixedness of your worldline, the fixedness of your thoughts and actions: heimarmene; Eternalism.

The snake wavers like your perception in the loose cognitive state with perceptual distortion, undulation.

As with Moses’ healing brass serpent on a pole, a snake bite can be fatal through its venom: egodeath.

When you explore this grape cluster, you find a snake. When you explore entheogens, you find the fixedness of your thoughts and actions.

This mushroom-shaped grape cluster containing a serpent is rigid like block-universe rock.

A grape cluster is the fruit of the snake-shaped vine, which is primarily non-branching.

The Peak Mystic Revelation Experience of Non-Branching of Possibilities

John Rush Y Moses

See my full commentary at The Mystic Y.
Plate 1:5 –Vienna, Austria – Moses Before the Burning Bush, Domenico Fetti, Oil on Canvas, 1613 CE We see God as  the burning bush and he holds one of the symbols for the “bush” in his left hand. In the bottom frame, the hand of God comes through the cloud (cap), while the red material around his wrist is the annulus, and the white hand and wrist are the stalk of the mushroom. Notice the plants to the right of Moses, the mushroom shapes in his alb and stole, including the celestial erection.” – John Rush

Lucas Cranache

Holding branch,
branch in front of branching legs,
branching legs,
stag with branching antlers behind branching legs

Knife Cutting Branch

Cutting mushroom tree branches.
Color-enhanced / sharpened tight crop, by Cybermonk. The original photo is Plate 8 of Saint Martin de Vicq. You[Cybermonk] are hereby authorized to use this image as you see fit, giving the photo credit as: Julie M. Brown.
– Jerry B. Brown and Julie M . Brown
Coauthors, The Psychedelic Gospels

Kylix Jason Python Vine Tree Athena

Non-branching serpent, non-branching vine tree

Stylized Cubensis Clusters, Literal Liberty Caps

My Plaincourault article gallery shows mushroom-cluster photographs and some Christian art mushroom-tree tangle examples; at least one art example showing a twisting Psilocybe cluster is there, copied below.

Christian Mushroom Trees
Section: Canterbury Psaltery Showing Cluster of Mushroom Fruiting-Bodies

From the Canterbury Psaltery, early 12th C.  It appears in the book:
Celestial Treasury: From the Music of the Spheres to the Conquest of Space
Marc Lachieze-Rey & Jean-Pierre Luminet (2001), p. 178.

twofold, basic Y branching, from upper left

tree shrub cluster, from upper right

This Isn’t a Cubensis with Liberty Caps; It’s an Impressionistically Rendered Italian Pine with Umbrella Pines

From High-Resolution Complete Canterbury Psalter, folio 11

There are Liberty Cap mushrooms in the cap of the mushroom tree, depicted literally; this is an example of “Literal Depictions of the Physical Form of the Mushroom”.

Actually, for those on the outside, that mushroom-tree is a “schematization of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree, as art historian Brinckmann explained in his 1906 book, as cited by the top art historian, to the Pope’s banker, Wasson.

The umbrellas depicted on the cap are further proof that it’s an umbrella pine ( Italian stone pine; Pinus pinea); therefore this image definitely does not represent a Cubensis mushroom with Liberty Cap mushrooms on the cap.

You see, unbeknownst to mycologists, medieval artists worked not from nature, but off of prototypes, which got screwy over the years, as the top art historian Panofsky explained in a letter to Pope-banker Wasson.

When re-printing Panofsky’s letter in his book SOMA, Wasson, probably to save on printing costs, replaced Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann by elipses; and so the matter was settled by the top art historians, based on discussions that settled the matter back in 1906.

Panofsky’s letter citing Brinckmann’s book is typewritten on “THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY” letterhead; therefore, the matter is settled.

Further proof that Pope Wasson is correct and you shouldn’t trust your lying eyes:
Italian Stone Pine Information – How To Care For Italian Stone Pines
By Teo Spengler
Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea) is an ornamental evergreen with a full, high canopy that resembles an umbrella. For this reason, it is also called the umbrella pine. These pine trees are native to southern Europe and Turkey, and prefer warm, dry climates.”

As you can plainly see, it’s a match; this Psalter image isn’t a Cubensis with Liberty Caps; it’s an impressionistically rendered Italian pine, with Umbrella pines in its canopy.

Here’s what you need to know, from the topmost art historian, to stop making your blunder:

“the style is provincial, a particularly deceptive one – of a conventionalized tree type … which art historians actually refer to as a ‘mushroom tree’ … It comes about by the gradual schematization of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree … there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development … the medieval artists hardly ever worked from nature but from classical prototypes which in the course of repeated copying became quite unrecognizable”

Panofsky quote excerpts

I strongly agree with Panofsky that this artist’s botched attempt to depict an Italian pine with Umbrella pines in its canopy “became quite unrecognizable”; it became so unrecognizable, it accidentally ended up looking exactly like a Cubensis with Liberty Caps in its cap — unbeknownst, of course to the artist, who was working off prototypes; who “hardly ever worked from nature but from classical prototypes which in the course of repeated copying became quite unrecognizable.” I’ll say!

Branches Under the Cap: Unnatural Branching Is a Specific stylized depiction that Indicates (Rather than Mitigating Against) Psychoactive Mushrooms

Here’s where the poetry-illiterate fools say: “Hah! Proof it’s not Psilocybe: everyone knows that Psilocybe doesn’t have branches under the cap!”

They should also point out that that cannot possibly be a snake poking its head through the branches, because proper snakes don’t have legs branching out from the body.

“The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside, everything is said in parables, so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding.”

The unnatural branching added to the mushroom and serpent (legs) is a form of “Depictions of Analogies that Describe the Experiential and Transformative Effects from Mushrooms”.

I have established that {branching vs. non-branching} is a common description of the mental transformation from Possibilism to the Eternalism model of control, possibility, and time, that is caused by Psilocybe cubensis (or Liberty Caps; Psilocybe semilanceata) — which is the highest, ultimate experiential effect from mushrooms.

The worldline snake brings the initiate Psilocybe mushrooms to Eve, who gives it to Adam.

Why is it that scholars, when they write about this topic of mushrooms in Christian art, can’t write a clear, intelligible position-statement sentence to save their lives?

Hatsis brings his confusion into the matter by getting sidetracked in an ill-explained position statement. He cannot articulate his own position, in his book Psychedelic Mystery Traditions, about the Eden tree. It is unclear what he is trying to say, about his position on the Tree of Knowledge — it is garbled and incoherent; he is literally unreadable and not worth reading on this particular topic.

Kindle page 140, “There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest that medieval artists secretly signified entheogens as the fruit by depicting the Amanita muscaria mushroom into art.” Why does he write the word “secret”? What exact position does he think he’s arguing against?

It’s strawmanning. Instead of naming specific scholars who allegedly hold the position he’s arguing against, he vaguely writes “the discipuli Allegrae”. Here you have someone, an outsider who doesn’t understand the field, the scholars, and their positions, inventing a strawman to heroically defeat.

Why does Hatsis rush to narrowly specify “Amanita muscaria”, instead of writing broadly and neutrally, “psychoactive mushrooms”? That is the issue, not specifically Amanita. He leaps to hamfistedly conflate all mushrooms with, specifically, Amanita.

Who exactly does Hatsis imagine is advocating, narrowly, the “secret” depiction, specifically of “Amanita”? He’s in a shared hallucination with Andy Letcher (author of the book Shroom). Letcher and Hatsis argue victoriously — against a position held by no one, a position that they essentially invented themselves, a cheap target to appear to defeat.

The final section within Hatsis’ section “A GODLESS AND LIBERTINE HERESY” is too garbled to bother point-by-point refuting; the whole section needs a rewrite for clarity — from “In recent decades” (p. 139) to “how it got there in the first place (p. 140). The section needs to:

  • Stop fixating on ‘Amanita’. Discuss all mushroom forms, including Liberty Cap, Cubensis, and Amanita — not just Amanita.
  • Stop fixating on ‘Secret’. Address non-secret depictions, or just stop using the canard-word “secret” entirely.

    Writers just get their argumentation confused, the more they use the word ‘secret’, which needlessly introduces ill-specified presumptions that complicate and confuse what exact point they’re arguing about.

    Letcher argues that since the mushrooms on the church door are openly visible, that disproves mushrooms in Christian art, because it disproves the secrecy part of the “secret Amanita cult” theory which he depends on, to push against.
  • Bracket-off as a separate, distinct debate, ideas like “a secret Amanita cult that’s transmitted widely”. The only entheogen writers who are intent on keeping this poor hypothesis alive, are Letcher & Hatsis, who build a career and an industry out of mocking this idea, which no one holds.
  • Specify who exactly he thinks holds the position he’s intent on arguing against, and what he thinks their position is, regarding “secrecy”, and which mushroom type (Liberty Cap, Cubensis, or Amanita) he thinks they are arguing for.
Two Truths: For Minimalists, There Are No Mushrooms in Christian Art

For committed Minimalists, who adhere to the Minimal mushroom theory of Christian art no matter what the cost, there are no mushrooms in Christian art or texts, and miracles are meant literally. Their religion is Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism.

Maximalists consistently adhere to the Maximal mushroom theory of Christian art. You don’t want a mushroom? Fine. You can’t have a mushroom. For you, it’s just a stupid tree. Have it your way.

Yes, for you: it’s not a mushroom. For you, it’s a tree, a nail, a vial.

Commentators on mushroom trees in Christian art are thus divided into two groups:

  • Exoteric, mytheme-illiterate, Minimalist, clueless, blind, non-initiates; outsiders.
  • Esoteric, mytheme-literate, Maximalist, clued-in, those who see, initiates; insiders.

For those on the inside, it’s a mushroom. For those on the outside, it’s stupid.

(covering eyes) “I can’t see the mushrooms! Furthermore, I concede that deliberate mushroom shapes are hidden and visible in the folds of the Maenad’s billowing cloth, and another mushroom is hidden and visible in a matching fold on Dionysus’ wind-blown clothing, but still, we don’t have any evidential proof that these deliberate mushrooms are intended as psychoactive. Maybe they are grocery-store mushrooms, who knows? Look at me, how dense I can be! Nya Nya, you can’t make me see!”

[switching to aggressive arm-waving mode:] “Furthermore, you Maximalists who see mushrooms everywhere, are ignorant of my “sound, tried-and-true historical criteria” for dismissing mushrooms, “which those who still support the theory have simply not considered,” criteria which I’m not even going to bother summarizing here in this book, which you specifically bought in order to learn about mushrooms in Christian art — instead, I’m going to insult you as ignorant of my absolute proof.

“If only you weren’t so ignorant, you’d put down this book you bought, and instead go do a Web search for my online attack-and-discredit articles, and then somehow extract my devastating, unimpeachable, rock-solid arguments from there.” Park Street Press, you owe me $15.40 plus labor.

It is a false statement that I “who still support the theory have simply not considered” the alleged and unspecified-in-the-book “sound, tried-and-true historical criteria” — I read all of the attack-and-discredit articles and posted critically about them at the Egodeath Yahoo Group around 2015, five years before reading this 2020 book that has a gigantic gap right where the most important pictures and interpretive commentary should be, regarding mushrooms in Christian art.

Some of the circa 2016 discussion of Letcher or Hatsis, by Cyberdisciple or EgodeathTheory (Cybermonk, Michael Hoffman), at Cyberdisciple’s weblog:

That completely non-scholarly, vague, arm-waving bravado doesn’t cut it, no matter how much ink is spilled by the author singing praises to his own superiority of scholarship.

Top-dog art historican Panofsky similarly insults Ramsbottom the mycologist cavalierly; Panofsky is as self-confident and wrong as can be (an ever-popular combination):

“… the plant in this fresco has nothing whatever to do with mushrooms … and the similarity with Amanita muscaria is purely fortuitous. The Plaincourault fresco is only one example … of a conventionalized tree type, … which art historians actually refer to as a ‘mushroom tree’… there are hundreds of instances … – unknown of course to mycologists. [Brinckmann’s book censored here] … What the mycologists have overlooked is that the medieval artists hardly ever worked from nature but from classical prototypes which in the course of repeated copying became quite unrecognizable. – Erwin Panofsky, in a 1952 letter to Wasson, excerpted [i.e., censored] in Wasson’s book SOMA, pp. 179-180

Lunacy! Folly! What use are reasoned arguments and evidence, in the Minimalists’ madhouse?

We’re through being cool. The Minimalists can be fools, that’s their free choice, but get out of the way, stop the cover-up attempt, and stop trying to block serious development in the field, regarding mushrooms in Christian art.

Go ahead, double-down on the investment in the Minimalist position, stick to your guns no matter how high the cost; use the “sound, tried-and-true historical criteria” to “easily explain away the supposed mushrooms that appear in Christian art” — instead of Apollo’s victory wreath, publicly wear the fool’s dunce cap. Keep pouring it on, the vigorous public demonstrations of folly.

If not an apology and retraction, the Minimalists need to at least stay the hell out of the way; stop trying to block research and advancement in the field, and stop striving to discredit the Maximalists.

I’m speaking in defense of the Maximalists, who have been slandered and defamed by the aggressors, the Minimalists.

History of the Field-Blocking Scholarly Slap-Fight Over the Plaincourault Mushroom Tree: 68 Years of Foolishness

John Allegro aggressively tried to sensationally discredit and defame Christianity in a four-pronged attack (only one of which used mushrooms in Christian art, and not coherently), in his book The Sacred Mushroom & The Cross.

It is not too surprising that in defense of the Pope’s status quo, Wasson censored Brinckmann’s book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings and steered people away from seeing its mushroom-tree plates, such as the double-headed Eden-tree which I analyze in terms of branching, at “Brinckmann”, below.

For Heaven’s sake, can we please get away from these politicized, emotionally distorting factors, to make progress in the field with productive, reasonable scholarship?

Wasson and Allegro never even had an actual debate, but only threw darts past each other.

The Wasson vs. Allegro, abortive non-debate over the Plaincourault fresco has been blocking the field since at least 1970 (for 50 years!) – and the 1952 Panofsky letter to Wasson against Ramsbottom was 68 years ago!LET IT GO!, and move forward.

Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita
Section: Various Authors on the Plaincourault Tree

Instances of Art Fulfilling Attributes of “Compelling Evidence”

There are 5 mushrooms in cloth folds, in Dionysus’ victory procession mosaic shown in the present article. And an upturned Amanita that a leopard is drinking out of.

There’s an image with a mandrake “tree” parallel to a mushroom tree, both of them as de-branched trees, shown in the present article.

Christian Mushroom Trees
See these Italian Pine and Psilocybe specimen & cluster photos for reference, and a few Christian art pieces here depicting mushrooms that look like the specimen photos:

I photographed several of these art pieces from books — it is pretty easy finding mushrooms in Christian art when you look for it — including on newsstand magazine covers.

Gallery of Mushrooms in Greek & Christian Art

Canterbury Psalter Mushroom Inventory

It is a myth and a preconceived bias, to think that mushrooms are hard to find in Christian art; it’s actually easy to find numerous good examples. The only reason I hesitate to throw together a big gallery of good examples is, there are so many of them, immediately available.

This gallery was not meant to gather an impressive number of Christian art pieces; the motivation was to provide reference photographs, mainly of Italian Pine trees, specifically for my 2006 Plaincourault article — the Psilocybe images in Christian art were merely a bonus.

For example, this fungal reference-comparison gallery shows the Eustace window, with many mushroom shapes like the lower left of this higher-resolution portion:

Psilocybe mushrooms (Liberty Cap & Cubensis) are found in Christian art; see, first image in main article, lower left of image:
Copied to below:

Image search links, for examples of mushrooms in Christian art:

This has nothing to do with the outdated fixation on the color red or Amanita or “Secret Amanita cult”. Lose those blinding assumptions. Stop dismissing examples just because they aren’t Amanita or red.

Mythology Art Avoids Literalistic Representation, to Represent Altered-State Consciousness

Stop assuming that the images must be botanically accurate — the whole goal in mythological art is analogy, magic, double-representation, and a major mytheme is {hidden and revealed}.

It’s not the mythology artist’s goal, to merely literalistically do a photorealistic rendering as if a science journal — that would be an uninspired, this-worldly, anti-religious styling, expecting a non-religious styling within a religious, religious mythology, altered-state genre.

It’s the exact wrong way to look at religious, mystical art, expecting the lens of the dull mundane literal workaday ordinary state, of tight cognitive binding, and then complaining when the mystic artists fail to meet your uninspired, this-worldly demands.

Demanding literalistic evidence from religious mythology art is like going into the recording studio session of a Psychedelic band that’s producing an album, and expecting to see a live performance of the four band members each playing an instrument simultaneously, once-through, to record a song. That’s not what the genre is about.

Wrong expectations produce a wrong assessment. We should expect, typically, to see distorted — not literalistically styled — mushroom shapes; like electric guitar, so much of it is about warping the sound, altering it — not playing clean-clean very often.

The more literalist, photorealistic style of Christian art is uninspiring and mundane. Looking for that, as evidence, is — in spirit — the exactly wrong type of evidence, at one end of the literal-to-figurative, literal-to-analogical spectrum, literal-to-mytheme-laden spectrum.

The more fanciful, otherworldly style, like the heavily stylized mushroom trees and scenes in French Christian Medieval art, is inspiring and interesting, when mythemes are visually interwoven, not keeping mushrooms isolated and restricted to a boring technically botanically accurate photorealistic rendering.

To see and appreciate mushrooms in Christian art, you have to be in the right mindset: the mythological altered state, the otherworldly land of myth, Mythemeland:

{king, tree, wine, snake, rock, dragon, treasure, sacrifice, branching, non-branching}

Mytheme List

Need General and Particular Criteria for Identification

Attributes of “compelling evidence” can be general principles, and particular criteria for the question of mushrooms in Christian art.

What type of “compelling evidence” would persuade a reasonable mild skeptic? For example: the evidence should be commonplace; so that it’s easy to find examples.

What constitutes “criteria of proof” is both expressed as general principles, and particular for the question: what type of “criteria of proof” would persuade a reasonable mild skeptic that mushrooms are represented in Christian art?

Defining the Minimal and Maximal Positions

‘Minimal’ means strongly dismissive; committed to refusing.
‘Maximal’ means strongly affirmative; committed to affirming.

The Minimal Mushroom Theory of Greek & Christian Art

There are no mushrooms in Greek or Christian art.

We dismiss and refuse, and commit to rejecting, mushrooms in Greek art.

We dismiss and refuse, and commit to rejecting, mushrooms in Christian art.

There cannot ever be compelling evidence for psychoactive mushrooms in Christian art.

There cannot ever be any criteria that would prove psychoactive mushrooms in Christian art; if Jesus returns and draws a mushroom for me and tells me it represents a psychoactive mushroom, even then, there’s no possible justification for us reading it as a psychoactive mushroom.

Any possible criteria of proof that are defined in the present article, cannot possibly succeed; that is not permissible, under any conditions.

The very idea of “compelling evidence for mushrooms in Christian art” is a contradiction in terms. It is inherently impossible for there to exist any “compelling evidence” for mushrooms in Christian art.

The Anything But Mushrooms theory of Greek art.

The Anything But Mushrooms theory of Christian art.

The Anything But Drugs theory of Greek history.

The Anything But Drugs theory of Christian mysticism.

There are no entheogens in Greek alternate states of consciousness.

There are no entheogens in Christian mysticism or other Christian alternate states of consciousness.

We dismiss and refuse, and commit to rejecting, entheogens in Greek history.

We dismiss and refuse, and commit to rejecting, entheogens in Christian history.

Mythology is about anything but drugs.

Greeks were rational philosophers, therefore would never have used drugs.

Any exceptions are heretical abnormal deviations. The main way people have religious experience is exoteric experience in the OSC, or access the ASC by meditation/ sleeping/ alien primitive psychology.

There are no entheogens in Greek & Christian religious mythology.

The “anything but drugs” explanation of Greek alternate states of consciousness (Yulia Ustinova, Divine Mania: Alterations of Consciousness in Ancient Greece).

The Maximal Mushroom Theory of Greek & Christian Art

We commit to affirming mushrooms in Greek art.

We commit to affirming mushrooms in Christian art.

There are many mushrooms in Greek or Christian art, and they represent psychoactive mushrooms and the resulting cognitive phenomenology.

It is possible to identify compelling evidence for mushrooms in Christian art.

It is possible to identify criteria of proof for mushrooms in Christian art.

There are many entheogens represented in religious art, and they represent visionary plants and the resulting cognitive phenomenology.

We commit to affirming entheogens in Greek history.

We commit to affirming entheogens in Christian history.

It is possible to identify compelling evidence for mushrooms in Greek history.

It is possible to identify compelling evidence for mushrooms in Christian history.

It is possible to identify criteria of proof for mushrooms in Greek history.

It is possible to identify criteria of proof for mushrooms in Christian history.

We should continue explaining and recognizing mushrooms in Christian history such as mysticism; this is highly profitable and successful.

We should continue explaining and recognizing mushrooms in Greek history; this is highly profitable and successful.

Alternate states of consciousness in Greek Antiquity are normally from entheogens.

Alternate states of consciousness in Christian mysticism are normally from entheogens.

The origin and wellspring of religion is visionary plants such as Psilocybe. Normal, traditional, mainstream.

We should continue explaining and recognizing mushrooms in Christian art; this is highly profitable and successful.

Mushrooms Hidden and Visible in Fabric Folds: Dionysus’ Triumph

An extreme positive commitment does not mean seeing every fold in cloth as mushrooms — there is not a dearth of reasonably clear-cut instances.

In mytheme-art shape-shifting, or form-sliding, there are instances all along the spectrum from definitely not mushroom, to definitely mushroom; from definitely X to definitely Y and all morphing-points in-between.

Recognize the game as an animated morphing; sliding fluidly among mytheme-shapes, in Mythemeland.

There is 1 mushroom above each tiger’s head/neck (in the Maenad’s garment), and 1 mushroom above the left tiger’s tail (in Dionysus’ cloak).
5 instances in 1 art work is evidence of deliberate repetition — mushrooms hidden & revealed in garment folds.

The upturned Amanita leopard-watering bowl is mushroom #6, not to mention the mushroom-shaped grape-baskets above and to the right (see the below copy of the image).

Thiasus – Wikipedia-Triumph of Dionysus on a fragmentary Roman mosaic (3rd century, Sousse Archaeological Museum)-SCEPTER

Complete image, except bottom cut off. study/copy page.
“Triumph of Dionysus on a fragmentary Roman mosaic (3rd century, Sousse Archaeological Museum)
Incomplete but hi-res; shows mosaic tiles.

From Wikipedia

From Egodeath main article

Four mushrooms above the four chariot-drawing tigers’ heads/necks, hidden/visible in the folds of the Maenad’s spirit-billowed cloth. {billowing} = altered-state spirit wind; an additional indicator of her altered state is her {unbound, loose hair}, depicting loose cognitive association binding.

Mushroom on the chariot of Dionysus, isomorphic with the mushrooms above each tiger drawing the chariot.

They are probably grocery-store dinner mushrooms, to be sliced and sauteed – look how reasonable I am.

These mushrooms are in the spirit-blown garment of Dionysus (with Ariadne) who is carried by the chariot, and in the spirit-blown garment of the Maenad who is carried by his mushroom tigers, and a leopard is drinking from an upturned Amanita in its Holy Grail form.

If you deny these are mushrooms, specifically psychoactive mushrooms, you have lost your reason, driven mad by the sight of Dionysus’ victory triumph procession.

Identifying the Leopard-watering Bowl as Amanita
Photo: Michael Hoffman, 10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010, IMG_1971 my chalice Amanita crop.JPG
Photo by Michael Hoffman (ego death),
10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010
amanitaholygrailheinrich.jpg (703×517)

On November 14, 2020, I positively identified the leopard’s bowl in the Dionysus triumph fresco as Amanita mushroom — not as a fleeting possible hypothesis to consider, like in 2006 with a sense of high uncertainty and skepticism (that was a preliminary, hypothesis-formation phase of the discovery process) — but this time as a conclusion that I commit to and stand behind.

I defensibly concluded that this image represents an Amanita, based on:

  • My own first-hand, close-up inspection and photographing of numerous Amanita specimens. My specimen-photo confirms that a rim can be formed, matching the leopard-fountain image, when the Amanita is upturned but not extremely upturned.
  • The wide stem; the proportions of stem and bowl.
  • The distinctive gills exposed on the outside.
  • The established mushrooms and mythology context of the mosaic.
  • In contrast to the striped tigers, this is a spotted feline, a leopard. The veil-remnant spots are not shown on top of the fountain, but the associated leopard has spots, like an Amanita cap, making the leopard a better choice of feline, to visually match the Amanita fountain, than a tiger would be.
The Argument from Congruency

Why would a mundane, ordinary-state, dog-watering bowl be shown in this otherworldly Mythemeland, this mythology-and-mushroom context, when the Amanita in its striking upturned form provides the perfect opportunity to add esoteric power to the scene?

It would be incongruent to choose a mundane object to place in a mytheme-scene in Mythemeland, when otherworldly, magical objects are available.

Choosing a mundane object for this scene, like a purely functional watering bowl, would be like putting a non-candy, non-food object in a candy land where everything is edible — it would be incongruent.

This brings the mushroom count in Dionysus’ Triumph mosaic to six: four mushroom-tigers that draw Dionysus’ and Ariadne’s chariot and that carry the unbound-hair Maenad, one leopard drinking from an Amanita chalice, and the mushroom in Dionysus’ spirit-blown garment.

The garment-fold mushrooms probably represent Psilocybe cubensis, which is an efficient entheogen. Mixed wine was typically Psilocybe wine, and was less likely to be Amanita wine.

The Amanita was included in the scene primarily because of its otherworldly form, highlighted in this scene by depicting it in its Holy Grail upturned form, rather than for its less-ergonomic psychoactivity.

I posted my best photos to the Egodeath Yahoo Group: an adjacent pair of large, striking, attention-demanding, upturned Amanitas in their Holy Grail form, with raindrops making ripples in the collected pools of water, taken October 10, 2010, at 10:10 a.m.

Minimalists Doing Their Best to Block the Way with Unreason

Minimalists need to stay out of the way and let the sane people move the field forward; stop smugly defaming and ridiculing the Maximal theorists; the Minimalists are only revealing themselves as foolish, ignorant, and blind. Dry wells; they block the entrance, neither will they let anyone else pass through the gate.

After awhile, it becomes a tiresome exercise listing out additional redundant evidence. If a handful of art pieces don’t convince the Minimalists, they are a waste of time and just being obstinate and unreasonable — is there a conflict of interest making them shut their eyes?

We Maximalists are done presenting the evidence; we have more productive things to do among reasonable people. Preach the gospel to everyone, let God select his pre-ordained elect.

How many examples do the Minimalists need? 5? 50? 500? Infinite won’t be enough? Then they are being willfully blind, this debate is a farce in bad faith, is only pretending to be a debate (so is only a travesty of persuasion and debate), and there is no discussion to be had.

The Minimalists are just doing an exercise in obstinacy, being irrelevant and an obstructionist. Count us Maximalists out; we are not interested in the Minimalists’ position, their exercise in bullheaded willful blindness; and please stay out of the way of serious scholarship and theory-development and stop trying to discredit those with eyes to see.

The Blind and Wrong, Minimalist Bullies Blocking Progress in the Field – 3D images, if you rightly focus. If you can’t see the images, that’s your own inability; the images are there, as some people can attest.

If you can’t see the 3D images, don’t block the road and condemn other people and impede research and say “I have proof and evidence that there are no 3D images in Magic Eye art, if only you ignorant people would read my watertight arguments.”

Two Minimal mushroom theory of Christian art theorists have written smugly (and falsely) just like that, one being Panofsky quoted by Wasson in SOMA.

Shall I say the following? “We professional computer art historians have already studied those so-called “3D images”; we have an entire 1 books by a team of 1 authors, written recently (1906), who have resoundingly determined that these are random patterns with no 3D image. But of course mycologists are unaware of our rock-solid treatment of this well-studied matter, and are ignorant of our final, proven conclusions.”

It is silly for me to write that, here — but I’m not the one who has been actually pushing just such silliness! Wasson and his ilk have well-earned this mockery. We Maximal theory initiates can only laugh at the blindness and smug self-certitude of the Minimal theory non-initiates.

The Minimalists are the ones who’ve been calling the Maximalists ignorant, for too long; the Minimalists (Brinckmann, Panofsky, Wasson, et al) have been actively blocking progress in the field, even bullying the Maximalists, saying that the Maximalists are seeing things that aren’t there, and taunting and mocking and trying to discredit the Maximalists.

Defining the Scope of Each Term in the Two Questions

mushroom” – Psilocybe, Amanita.

entheogen” – Mushrooms (Psilocybin, Amanita), DMT (Acacia/Rue), Scopalamine (Datura/Thornapple, Mandrake, Henbane, Belladonna), Cannabis (eaten).

Greek” – Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Ancient Near East, Antiquity, Late Antiquity, Platonism, Neoplatonism.

Christian” – Bible, Old Testament, Christian, New Testament, Levant, Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, Classical, Western Esotericism, Jewish Mysticism, Gnostic.

art” – mythemes found in all forms of artifacts: art, statues, coins.

history” — texts, altered-state practices

Strategy and Justification of the 2 Combinations of Positions and Question-Scope

For an initial strategy of analyzing positions, I ignore the undecided voters, eternal fencesitters, those who have attained oneness with the fence. 

For initial analysis, leverage the committed skeptics and committed advocates – define the simplest positions to characterize & caricature

Mushrooms in Greek art & Christian art? Absolutely not! Never!
Mushrooms in Greek art & Christian art? Absolutely! Make it so!

Drugs in Greek & Christian alternate states of consciousness? Absolutely not! Never!
Drugs in Greek & Christian alternate states of consciousness? Absolutely! Make it so!

Subsequent phase after analyzing the extreme question/position combinations:
Address reasonable people, who are persuadable with reasonable evidence, for the specific relatively narrow topic of mushrooms in Christian art.

I address reasonable people, who are persuadable with evidence and argumentation, showing that compelling evidence and criteria of proof support mushrooms in Christian art.

What is the point of establishing this criteria? To change the mind of those who are committed to not changing their mind?

There are potentially good-willed, mild skeptics (as opposed to determined skeptics) who would be convinced by a certain assemblage of criteria with evidence.

Anyone who is not convinced by evidence and argumentation should not be taken seriously. Productive scholarly research and theory-development will continue, regardless of those who adhere to unreasonable positions.

Leverage the idea of “determined skeptics”, negative commitments and positive commitments (when defining the question/position combinations, skip over the Moderate, persuadable position, “the undecided’s”).

Define the ‘Minimal’ or ‘negative’ position in an extremely negative way, as an obstinate, incorrigible, hardheaded commitment to refusal (or to obstinate, incorrigible, hardheaded commitment to affirming, like the Egodeath theory; the “diamond hammer of interpretation”).  

Define question/position combinations with that extreme commitment.

Utilize World Religion, but only implicitly (for simplicity of the following triangulation strategy).

Keep both questions focused on the forte topics: Greek & Christian.  
Especially leverage & cover, as a triangulation and attack-vector, a stronghold, familiar home territory:

the critique of the ‘Anything But Drugs‘ Theory of Alternate States of Consciousness in Greek history 

the critique of the ‘Anything But Drugs‘ Theory of Alternate States of Consciousness in Mysticism

Retardation by the Hobgoblin of “Proof”

The concept of “proof” is usually too brittle and is an obstacle. Focus on productively applying systematic interpretation of religious artifacts by applying the Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism lens, instead of shackling the mind with the bunk concept, overly heavyhanded, of “proof”.

The only thing I know for certain is my present awareness of the mental constructs depicting a desk. I don’t have any proof that the desk exists. Much less, proof of mushrooms in Christian art.

If you’ve already cast your ballot, married your commitment to no-mushrooms from the outset, a priori, and you are committed to not seeing, to never allowing a mushroom image to mean psychoactive mushrooms, then there is no hope for you; you are a lost soul whom God has elected for perdition, and there’s nothing I can do after having preached the gospel to you. Our work is done here, the conversation is over.

I still might read your scholarly books which lay out all the case against the mushroom view; simply flip your view over, and truth is then laid out in your book.

unreasonable – not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational: an unreasonable person

Moving from the Old Superficial “Spot the Entheogen” Game Up to the Mytheme-Decoding, Experiential Level

Tree, Snake, Mushroom/psychedelic: abundance of evidence
This weblog page shows how easy it is to find evidence, and how researchers should stop acting like it is hard to find evidence.

Cyberdisciple photographed a public, prominent stone relief, in the equivalent of a town hall, clearly depicting a classic mushroom tree with snake winding up it, depicting the contrasting Possibilism and Eternalism mental models of time, with the mushroom-shaped tree depicting clear mushroom-like fruit.

In that page, he starts by discussing evidence for commonplace cultural incorporation of psychedelics, but he quickly shifts to focus on {tree vs. snake} mythemes.

That ready shift among these topics, from the plants to their most profound effects, indicates the ease with which the Egodeath theory’s approach (Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism) moves from the narrow, restrictive topic of ‘psychedelics’, to metaphorical depiction of distinctive loose-cognitive experiencing.

This ease of switching from the limiting, no-longer-new topic of entheogen identification, to key-mytheme decoding, is compelling evidence of the superior explanatory power of the Egodeath theory.

This interpretive and theory-informed approach, Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, has contributed significantly to spotting entheogens in art and texts, but is not limited to merely yet another round of the now long-in-the-tooth “spot the entheogen” game, which peaked around 2003, in the era of Entheos journal.

The field of entheogen scholarship needs to make some major progress, in a suitably elevated direction.

To do better than the mere superficial “spot-the-entheogen” game, an adequate theory of distinctive altered-state cognitive phenomenology is needed.

Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, per the Egodeath theory, provides a developed interpretive theory of the rich, classic descriptions of the peak dramatic experiential insights from mushrooms.

Assessing Robert Graves’ 1950s psychedelic scholarship on Greek myth/religion/art
A summary of methods used by Graves in producing evidence for mushrooms.

Bad anthropology; Robert Graves; moderate entheogen theory
Psychedelics in Greco-Roman antiquity; ‘bad anthropology’ and its effect on entheogen researchers. )


In this project, I’m omitting the Moderate position, for simplicity, to analyze only 4 combinations of question-scope & position: (the narrow vs. broad questions) x (Minimal vs. Maximal positions).

The original question is relatively narrow (though still massively broad), “Christian art”. Argue only about the Minimal vs. Maximal position on that relatively narrow question, ignoring the complex and inconsistent Moderate position.

Supplement that question with the broader question of mushrooms (and to a lesser extent, other entheogens) in Greek and Christian art (and to a lesser extent, broader culture).

This strategy is to apply pressure where it will most effectively make progress: gathering evidence from Greek and Christian art, not just Christian art.

That “Greek+Christian” strategy is already proven to be successful and profitable, by my 2013 tree vs. snake breakthrough that was based on comparing two art pieces: one Bible, one Greek, which then enabled me to decode either Christian or Greek art, by the same explanatory framework of mytheme-decoding.

Combinations of Question-Scope and Positions

The Minimal mushroom theory of Christian art
The Maximal mushroom theory of Christian art

The Minimal mushroom theory of Greek & Christian art
The Maximal mushroom theory of Greek & Christian art

That’s a good set of well-scoped, well-distanced combinations of question-scope & position.

Define a restricted definition of each term (mushroom; also: entheogen; Greek; Christian; art; also: culture) in each of those question/position combinations, to define the scope of the question.

Criteria Must Be Explicit-Paradigm Driven, not Isolated Evidence-Driven within a Silent Received Paradigm

The scope I propose to address is defined best in terms of Core, Periphery, and Outer Periphery; or generally, the idea of defining concentric theories as above, from narrow to broad, all cohering.

The fact that things cohere, is evidence compelling one to adopt or gamble/invest in a new explanatory paradigm. The Egodeath Core theory from 1997, was able to decode and explain myth.

The Egodeath Myth theory from 2013, was able to map myth to the Core theory, of the two models of time: Possibilism vs. Eternalism.

Those two legs cohere, therefore this theory has superior explanatory power, while the Minimal mushroom theory of Christian art has no such explanatory power.

An Inchoate, Fragmentary Position (“the Old Theory”) vs. a Coherent, Developed Position (“The New Theory”)

It’s more a matter of comparing my position, which is a bona fide theory, (which is consciously considered, developed, researched, checked for coherence, explicitly articulated) to the opposing position, which is not a theory but is a fragmentary default view undergirded by poorly considered, un-articulated, received assumptions.

The 2013 “Tree vs. Snake” Discovery as an Example of Hypothesis, Evidence, Testing, Prediction, and Theory Confirmation

I focus on “Greek/Christian” in a broad sense — it’s the most potent, effective approach to make progress, as demonstrated by my huge breakthrough of reconnections and ability to condense my mytheme-decoding system (that’s compelling evidence in favor of a theory/ explanatory-framework) on Thanksgiving week of November 2013, by comparing a Christian, Eden tree art piece vs. a Greek, Jason art piece.

The success of a theory-adjustment, its ability to suddenly explain that much more, and its ability to direct your attention for where else to look [that’s a form of Confirmation By Ability to “Predict” the “results of an experiement”] (image search of Aeslepius’ debranched tree + snake; Moses’ snake-on-pole which I failed to decode 2006) — is compelling evidence in favor of the theory-adjustment, or New Theory/explanatory framework.

November 26, 2013 breakthrough: “If my insight about tree vs. snake = Possibilism vs Eternalism is true, then I should be able to predict that if I search on myth images, I’ll see important centrally placed instances of {debranched}; for example, look closer to see if Asclepius staff is debranched, and if pictures of Moses’ brass snakebite-healing serpent on a pole show a debranched tree.

The result of that prediction of an experiment outcome, in early December 2013: Success! I’m finding treasures of {tree vs. snake}, and various permutations of {branching vs. non-branching}, all throughout mythological art, centrally placed; for example:

o Aeslepius’ debranched tree-trunk and snake.

o Rock statues’ supporting, debranched tree trunk with snake winding up it, or lizard with snake-shaped tail.

o Moses’ brass snake on a pole to look at to heal and rescue from dying from fatal snake bite.

o Standard sarcophagus scene of a rider on a reined or non-reined donkey or horse, being carried along a path to see a tree or a de-branched tree trunk with a snake winding up it.

o Western Esoteric man-woman andro-gyne holding up a Y.

Suddenly I was able to read many mytheme-scenes, with {branch} decoder lantern in hand, guiding what to look for. Going the opposite direction of those who look for literal depictions of mushrooms, this is an attribute of “compelling evidence” & “criteria of proof”, for mytheme-decoding in terms of non-branching, in conjunction with being able to see and judge mushrooms in Christian art:

If it’s a scientific illustration of a mushroom, we should ignore it, but if it includes a fantastical branching pattern, then we know that it represents a psychoactive mushroom.

Therefore, for the 2013 theory-under-test:

{tree vs. snake} = Possibilism vs. Eternalism

By the above experiment-outcome prediction, the theory has been confirmed; I now (in December 2013) have a coherent explanation of my unsolved 2006 article passage about Moses’ brass healing snake on a “time-pole”.

The predicted experiment outcome proves, to some degree, that the insight is correct; the explanatory power of the theory continues to increase, and the theory should be pursued further.

If the trajectory of predictions and findings is heading toward greater scope of explanatory power, adopt the theory.

After decoding Greek and Christian art mythemes as referring to mushrooms, with that broader scope of answers in hand, it’s then possible to return to the original narrower question about mushrooms in specifically Christian art.

Claims of Certainty and Proof that “Explain Away” Mushrooms Are Premature and Empty Bravado

“I have proof and sound arguments that I’m right. I have a ton of unimpeachable proof that I’m right. The experts have already settled this matter. I have proof. I have evidence. I know how to look at a piece of evidence and tell whether it is True or False, by using my Criteria.” (No need to discuss Incommensurable Paradigms.)

Paul Thagard argues that we can construct rule-systems with interconnections-revisions, to develop and adjust an explanatory framework, it is not black magic incommensurable like Thomas Kuhn asserts. Thagard fills-in the “here is mystery” area of Kuhn’s explanation of how two competing paradigms battle.

The Egodeath theory has massive successful explanatory power.

The Egodeath theory consistently makes sense of mythemes and readily “reads” images of mythology-art as they are found.

With the Egodeath theory in hand, I know what to expect:

{king, tree, wine, snake, rock, dragon, treasure, sacrifice, branching, non-branching}

Mytheme List

Identify and commit to a set of guiding assumptions, to apply with full force:
o The ordinary state is the freewill state of consciousness.
o The mystic altered state is the no-free-will state of consciousness.

These principles cohere, providing powerful explanatory power; this is an argument from coherence.

Adopting these principles gives greater explanatory power, if there is a greater scope of explanation covered, with more puzzles solved than previously. This broader scope of explanation means that a theory is more compelling than the competing theory, or the previous version of the theory that lacked the new explanatory feature.

Egodeath Theory Writings About “Evidence” and “Proof”

Check, Egodeath Yahoo Group postsings, and Cyberdisciple’s weblog for writings on ‘criteria’, ‘proof’, ‘evidence’, and ‘compelling’.

Check Paul Thagard’s book Conceptual Revolutions for how to measure explanatory power.

Religious myth is explained in terms of something that makes sense: myth describes the altered state, not workaday ordinary-state mundane experience (in which case, religion would lose its distinctive character, such as “wrestling with angels”).

The Fire-Transformed Salamander-Serpent and the Two Legs

What is the explanatory power of the “competing theory”? How does the competing, Minimal mushroom theory of religious mythology explain the mytheme {wrestling with angels}?

A mytheme-illiterate Minimalist who attempted to read the following picture had no good reading of the one-foot-dancing guy by the mushroom; but I immediately read it as “the two legs = Possibilism-premised control vs. Eternalism-premised control”, justifying that by reference to the Hephaestos lame god, pulling into play my large-scoped decoding of mythemes.

Folio 027v (Bodleian Library, Medieval Bestiary)

This is a fantastical mushroom because of its branching, not merely because of its stylization.

{Fire} means using the altered state to burn away the {perishable}, vulnerable, mistaken and temporary aspects of control-thinking, to become {imperishable, immortal}, no longer subject to the threat of catastrophic seizing-up, panic, and failure of control.

Realizing that your previous basis foundation of personal control power was built on air (left foot), on illusory assumptions of Possibilism, and now realizing Eternalism (right foot supported by the ground).

How Decoding Mythemes Works: Completing the Decoding of the Salamander in the Bestiary by Adding Branching Analysis

The previously missing key: Do a branching morphology inventory and analysis, including proximity-to-branching.

The mushroom stem branches into two. The {salamander}, which is something to apply {fire} to, is placed next to the odd branching.

I already decoded {fire} = subject the mind to the altered state (loose cognition) to transform the mind (transform the mental model from Possibilism to Eternalism).

The {salamander} has a {serpentine tail}; the serpent is non-branching, making this a {salamander-serpent}.

We know that the mushroom represents Psyilocybe, because of the added message by distorting the mushroom to add odd {branching}, which describes transformation from:
ordinary-state, tree-universe, branching-tree, branching-path Possibilism-thinking, to
altered-state, block-universe, non-branching, worldline Eternalism-thinking.

I had to figure out that there are not two salamanders; there is one, shown at two points in time: {salamander} here represents the mental model, which is first transformed in the altered-state fire.

The {salamander’s snake-shaped tail} represents the worldline.

The mental model under transformation by altered-state {fire} is represented by the {salamander}.

The {fire-cooked salamander with serpent-tail} represents understanding of monopossibility and the frozen block-universe worldline.

First, the mind is passed through loose cognition {fire}, {burning away perishable} Possibilism-thinking, freeewill-premised thinking.

When the impurities of Possibilism thinking have been purged, the mind gains the transformed mental model of time and control. The upper {salamander-serpent} next to the odd {branching} now understands and perceives the point about branching; the new mental model has gnosis about non-branching Eternalism.

The {cooked salamander} (the new, Eternalism mental model) is placed next to the odd branching of the mushroom stem, representing that the {fire-purified} mental model is now able to understand the profound, panic-inducing, experiential insight about the illusory nature of branching possibilities.

Here, {right hand placed on forehead, left hand floating} means successful apprehension, profound change of mental model, new understanding, with control power testing-and-failure from loose cognition.

The {salamander-serpent} in the {fire} includes a worldline-shaped tail. A man normally doesn’t have a tail.

Sometimes in a statue’s supporting debranched tree trunk, instead of a serpent winding up it, it’s a lizard (= salamander), with snake-like non-branching tail.

Summary of Decoding the Bestiary Salamander Image

When you put the salamander-{serpent} in the {flames} (the altered state from mushrooms), it then goes “next to” the branching tree — so you then have, placed next to each other, therefore contrasted:

salamander-{serpent} versus {branching} mushroom {tree}

You could omit or ignore the now non-essential (that is, non-mytheme) “carrier” aspects or features (salamander, mushroom), leaving:

{serpent} versus {branching tree}

We know from my November 2013 formula:

{tree} vs. {snake} = Possibilism vs. Eternalism

In this image, the order is the opposite:

{snake} vs. {tree} = Eternalism vs. Possibilism


salamander-{serpent} versus {branching} mushroom {tree} means Eternalism vs. Possibilism.

How best decode {right hand on forehead}?

His {left hand} is floating in thin air like his {left foot}, not giving any stability; his {right hand} is stably planted on his head, like his {right foot} is solidly and stably on the ground.

It is increasingly clear that in Greek & Christian myth, {right} = Eternalism. Therefore:

{right hand on forehead} = “Oh my God, I just realized that my mental worldmodel was Possibilism-thinking, but reality is Eternalism! I just understood & recognized Possibilism vs. Eternalism!”


There is a mushroom shape in the upper part of the strangely detailed, wind-blown fold of the salamander-man’s clothes, I’m sure it’s nothing

Oh but I forgot, that’s not a mushroom in Dionysus’ wind-billowed cloth, either – go back to sleep. We know that Greeks achieved their intense “alterations of consciousness” by doing Zen meditation (non-drug, obviously) in caves, as the brilliant, Minimal, Anything But Drugs scholars have discovered.

Cyberdisciple’s weblog page:
Book: Ustinova. 2018. Divine Mania: Alterations of Consciousness in Ancient Greece

Actually, for those on the outside, the salamander drawing doesn’t represent mushrooms, and it has no religious meaning, as explained here:

How Discovery Works in Loose Cognitive Science, the Paradigmatic Science

The Egodeath theory (including the Maximal Theory of Mushrooms in Christian Art) is evidently superior, it’s a real theory, for one thing; superior because it is able to productively read the image as not only “a mushroom”, but more like a story narrative involving also mytheme-decoding, non-control, and worldmodel transformation.

It’s difficult to compare the Egodeath theory (Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism) to the Minimal mushroom “theory”, because the Minimal theory is so much less of an actual theory, whereas the Egodeath theory is on the other extreme end of that spectrum: it’s a comprehensive, tested, and developed theory of mushrooms.

The Maximal mushroom theory of Christian art has the advantage of knowing Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism; it is a theory of the distinctive cognitive phenomenology effects induced by mushrooms, and of the analogy-based language of mythology, to judge and recognize not only depictions of mushrooms themselves, but more to the point, their classic experiential effects.

See Cyberdisciple’s inventory of theories of mythology — how do the bad theories of myth explain {wrestling} with angels, in fear, the angel saying “Fear not”?
Evaluating Theories of Mythology

Then do a similar approach for:
o The broader question of mushrooms (or broader, entheogens) in Greek and Christian art (and culture).
o The narrow question of mushrooms in Christian art.

Bring to that analysis, a broader theory (Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism), not just looking for mushrooms themselves (whether depicted literally or stylized), not lacking a way to look for telltale descriptions of the signature classic effects of mushrooms.

Look at the various theories of mythology, to extract examples of criteria that can be used to test competing mushrooms in Christian art theories (the Minimal vs. Maximal theories of mushrooms in Christian art).

The Maximal mushroom theory of Christian art leverages and coheres with the Egodeath theory of mytheme decoding (as Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism), which the bad, competing Minimal theory lacks.

We must leverage an entire paradigm, a whole, coherent explanatory framework, as opposed to the false and simplistic claims of the Minimal mushroom theory of Christian art advocates — typically with vague arm waving and suppression of mushroom Christian art evidence — that they have evidence against mushrooms in Christianity (while they neglect the real problem of interpretive explanatory frameworks and incommensurable paradigms).

‘Incommensurable’ means there’s no common shared way to “measure” or judge or adjudicate between the two competing systems, no neutral ground outside the two systems.

The Minimal mushroom “theorists” are as adamant as they are vague, doing a poor job of stating their arguments and showing their evidence in their books, while smugly claiming that they have settled the matter if only people weren’t so ignorant of their slam-dunk proof.

Their over-strong claims to having settled the matter (if only you people weren’t such ignoramuses) amounts to empty bravado trying to hide the weakness of their arguments, their case, their claims, their positioning, their inchoate interpretive explanatory framework, their less-than-theory, packed with unchallenged assumptions.

The Concomitant Topic of No-Free-Will, a Top Cognitive Phenomenon from Mushrooms

All religions are wound-up in anguish debating no-free-will, angels wringing their hands for eternity.

The universality of the no-free-will dispute suggests that no-free-will is a key concern that surfaces in the religious altered state.

The ability to densely connect no-free-will with entheogens with myth-decoding with non-control with panic… the ability to form my 2006 article, and now reach more “closure” by condensing its connections using “tree vs snake”, “branching vs. non-branching”, is “evidence” that “proves” the Maximal mushroom theory of Christian art, and supports the associated theories of various scopes, such as the Maximal entheogen theory of Greek and Christian culture.

Interpretation of mushrooms in Christian art requires a paradigm-first, not an evidence-instance-first approach; yet, the instances still are important: the more powerful explanatory framework provides the ability to read and incorporate more and more evidence instances coherently.

The Minimal “theory” is a joke; it is a less-than-theory.

The Egodeath theory of interpreting mushrooms (Analogical Entheogenic Eternalism) is incomparable with such positions, not because of incommensurability of paradigms, but rather, because the Minimal position is less than a paradigm or a coherent theory; it’s a heap, an incoherent mess of scattered fragments.

What does the Minimalist Wasson think about an intense no-free-will, block-universe non-control experience that’s induced by mushrooms, to explain mythemes?

He doesn’t even have a speculation in that key area. No contest. The Egodeath theory wins hands-down, immediately. The other debater didn’t show up.

The Egodeath theory goes freely back and forth between zooming on one instance of mushroom in Christian art, way out to the broad scope of explaining the serpent’s fruit as Transcendent Knowledge, gnosis. That’s a kind of Evidential Proof, Compelling.

Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe

At this point in writing the present article, I came across John Lash’s blurry, highly cropped image of the Canterbury mushroom tree with two men and sword. I started decoding Lash’s portion of the comic panel, above, by applying my circa 2016 hypothesis that the man in the salamander-roasting image is standing on his right leg, meaning eternalism-thinking rather than possibilism-thinking during the mushroom state, for control stability.

My 2016 hypothesis, when applied to the above image, was immediately successful, and triggered the Canterbury Miracle of decoding an incredibly perfect image to prove that it depicts ingesting Psilocybe Cubensis for peak religious experiencing (likely re-dosing), in Christian art. When Cyberdisciple provided the URL fo the complete image, below, this section of the present article quickly became 11 pages, as I spent several weeks decoding or translating the received miraculous message about non-branching.

The Entire Image

Due to mechanical constraints, I moved the 11-page section from here to another webpage, where it quickly expanded further to 92 pages. The present article (webpage) is 100 pages. The combined article length is 192 pages.

The present webpage contains smaller art piece interpretation solutions, and the Canterbury article or webpage covers a large art piece interpretation solution.

Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe

Moved the long article to a separate webpage when it reached 11 pages (became 92 pages).

Chapters of that now-separate webpage/article, which originally started out as subsections in the present chapter of the present article:

The Image

Proof of Psilocybe in Christian Art

The Image Depicts an Entire Traditional, Time-tested Mushroom Initiation Procedure

The Complete Mushroom Initiation Storyline in Pictures

Recognizing Depictions of Transformative Effects

Trees & Limbs, Branching & Non-branching

Class Session: The Good Student and the Bad Students

Banquet Meal, then Pulled by Angel by Right Limb

Hanging by the Right Leg Above a Sword

Blades to Transform Thinking

Foot Down or Raised, Column Foot, Mushroom Hem

God the Ultimate Controller of Control-Thoughts

Brinckmann’s Book that Proves with Finality that Mushroom Trees Are Trees, Not Mushrooms

Brinckmann’s book which Panofsky recommends that mycologists look at, which Pope-buddy Wasson censored:

Baumstilisierungen in der mittelalterlichen Malerei
(Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings)
A. E. Brinckmann
The entire book at
The plates are shown at the end.

Where does this tree trunk branch? First, the trunk splits, at their waists, to branch into two, then those two trunks actually separate at the snake’s head, then finally, both tree-tops visibly branch at Adam and Eve’s heads.

Adam and Eve, eating the fruit of entheogenic Transcendent Knowledge, are looking at the branching, seeing their frozen non-branching worldlines, with {hand held palm-forward} here expressing apprehension of the control loss. They are experiencing and mentally perceiving the frozen block universe with non-branching worldlines of pre-set, pre-existing personal control.

{branching-into-two} means:

  • A rejection of branching (the possibilism world model) and adoption of non-branching (the eternalism worldmodel).
  • During initiation, the single, personal control system, consciously starts to experience, apprehend, and differentiate two distinct functions; two, intertwined locuses of control, or {partners}:
    • The “male”, control-thought inserter.
    • The “female”, control-thought receiver.
Branching in Montecassino

Adam and Eve with serpent-entwined Psilocybe mushroom (caduceus). Italy [Abbey of Montecassino]; circa 1072 – British Library”. Also shown and discussed above in this article.

Image found at – That original URL is 404.
My long-time URL since 2006:

My motivation for copying the above picture again into this article is, something I couldn’t explain until now that I have my 2013 discovery in hand: look at the branching; these are two debranched trees (repetition is evidence of deliberate messaging, about non-branching).

The message isn’t only “mushroom”, the more important message is “mushroom reveals that branching possibilities (Possibilism) is an illusion” – Eternalism (non-branching future possibilities, and thus non-control) is the case.

Besides their blindness to Mandrake in their fixation on Psilocybe in the Abbey art piece, the other amazing example of half-blind entheogen scholars, this time fixating on the Amanita mushroom – maybe Ruck – wrote about the red and white colors in Mithras’ cape, and failed to say anything about the blue-stemmed mushroom in Mithras’ straight leg and garment hem.

I am the one who identified the more direct, Psilocybe mushroom depiction — in someone else’s entheogen print-publication discussing the Mithraeum image looking for Amanita mushroom indicators!

The cover of David Ulansey’s book The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World, which is about transcending Heimarmene, shows part of that Mithraeum tauroctony, including upper stem and Psilocybe cap.

Manfred Clauss’ book cover “The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries” shows the entire tauractony — but disastrously, backwards, so that Mithras is turning to look to the left, to forget Transcendent Knowledge, instead of remembering it.

That’s two, almost unbelievable to me, cases of entheogen scholars themselves being blind to a Mandrake or Psilocybe in the very art piece that they present and discuss, where I was the one to see it, aided by the adequate lens of the Egodeath theory and its guiding assumptions of what to look for — of how to see.

Branching Is Key

People pay too much attention to the literal mushroom shape of mushroom trees, and fail to see the more important message about branching vs. non-branching. Analyze Brinckmann’s book not for mushrooms, but for branching.

Keep an eye out for top-10 key mythemes that describe, by analogy, loose cognitive phenomenology:

{king, tree, wine, snake, rock, dragon, treasure, sacrifice, branching, non-branching}

Mytheme List

Do not make the mistakes of the naive illiterate non-theorists, of only looking for entheogens or mushrooms. This broader net acts as a lens to better spot and recognize mushrooms, potions, ingesting, entheogens — for example:
{billowing cape} = altered state = Holy Spirit.
Maenads’ {untied loosened hair} = altered state, loose cognition.

Mushroom trees convey two things:
o The mushroom shape, including mushroom clusters (a single fruiting body, with, like a shrub, multiple stems from it).
o Branching vs. non-branching themes, which describe not the plant, but the experiential effects and highest revelations about personal control stability, that are induced by ingesting the plant.

The other, flimsy, incompetent, less-than “theories”, can barely succeed at spotting entheogens, much less, spotting mythemes that describe high revelation about what they call dumbly, “the shadow” (self-control seizure, and restabilization through revising the mental model to enable consciously trusting the hidden control-source).

Spotting the plants in art, and spotting the high revelatory message in art, go hand-in-hand. If you can’t see descriptions of Eternalism, you can’t see (or accept) mushrooms well, either.

The most important thing in mythology art is branching & non-branching.

Greek trees are also heavily stylized in order to play with ironic branching & non-branching themes — strands of non-branching ivy, the world’s most pathetic trees, more scrawny than Charlie Brown’s Christmas Tree.
I used to draw branching trees, in High School.

My mytheme research and theory development of November 2011 & November 2013 led me to see, the hypothesis to test: “it’s about the branching!”

When testing that hypothesis by predicting that I would find it prominently in art, that led to a jackpot of theory-confirmation: indeed, play on ironic branching vs. non-branching is all throughout myth — key myths, major mythological artwork.

I predicted I’d find lots of intelligible art references to the theme of branching/non-branching in conjunction with the standard top-10 mythemes prominently in important art — and I did.

Testing the hypothesis with experiment (that is, looking at mythology images again, for branching) confirmed the theory-addition by getting the predicted result, proving my 2013 theory-addition correct, demonstrating that with the new additional hypothesis (“myth and gnosis concerns branching vs. non-branching“), the already well-developed 2006 Egodeath theory gained greater explanatory power, scope, coherence, and prediction-ability.

The addition of the “branching” hypothesis made for an improved theory, superior to how the Egodeath theory previously was without that key, and making the Egodeath theory still further superior to the other competing theories of myth — or, so often, non-theories, a kind of Whig history:

“Our primitive ancestors must have had an alien psychology that we highly evolved Moderns are too sophisticated to ever understand.

“(But they certainly didn’t use drugs; there’s no point in investigating along those lines, beyond my due-diligence nod to that misguided idea, to show how well-informed I am; waving aside this point, burying it in a footnote, because everyone knows that they were rational Greek philosophers and morally pure Christians.)”

Stop projecting mid-20th Century presumptions onto pre-Modern culture; stop committing the presentism fallacy.

By the time of the “myth highlights branching” breakthrough (2013), I had thought about Thagard’s work for years.

Paul Thagard builds on and goes beyond Thomas Kuhn, on the theory of discovery, with his computer-tested, computer-demonstrated model of theory replacement and modification, and comparative testing to check how much explanatory power.

Conceptual Revolutions
Paul Thagard

By 2013, I had given meta-theorizing much thought; see Egodeath Yahoo Group posts on theory-development & theory-confirmation; search for my phrase “the diamond hammer of interpretation”.

Can’t Take Any More Obtuseness

When Brown’s article came out, I didn’t do more than skim it. When the Brown’s mushroom debate came out, I didn’t want to watch it. Because I don’t care what the Minimalists have to say on this topic; it’s an embarrassing farce, an unreasonable exercise in sheer obtuse obstinacy.

Even Minimalists make some positive contributions, despite their efforts to retard the field — but you may have to invert their assertions first.

Minimalists are “professionally” committed to doing any and every move possible, to resist and deny and dismiss the mushrooms in Christian art.

There may be a conflict of interest distorting their position, such as promoting a single-plant fallacy; an occultist scholar-sorceror may be devoted to his Mandrake and devoted to seeing mushrooms nowhere in any art that touches Christianity — but see my image above, pairing Mandrake with Psilocybe.

(“My image”, because I spotted Mandrake, while other entheogen scholars who published the image fixated only on the Psilocybe and were not able to see the Mandrake.)

The Minimalists may have a conflict of interest that makes them dedicated to never seeing mushrooms, and when they are made to look at the most literal depictions of mushrooms in Christian art, they fall back on the WEAK argument,

“You have no PROOF that it represents a psychoactive mushroom. Therefore, my superior professional scholarly impressive credentialed position holds (but first let me tell you in a paragraph about my superiority of scholarship): there are no mushrooms in Christian art; and the most literal mushroom images that are shown in Christian art are not psychoactive.

“There is no possible way, no possible criteria by which we could ever be justified in saying these are psychoactive mushrooms in Christian art. There cannot exist any criteria by which it’s permissible these are mushrooms.

“It is never permissible to think that these are psychoactive mushrooms in Christian art.

“We are helpless, weak, and we just can’t know, because we have no reason to assume that these religious mythology art works have anything to do with the altered state induced by mushrooms.”

That is not a stance of neutral judgment; it’s a committed, bullheaded, obstinant refusal to see, at any cost. “You can’t make me look through your telescope! The Bible tradition says the Earth is stationary; I believe it; that settles it.”

The Minimal mushroom theory of Christian art is firmly committed to self-preservation at any cost, through any cheat, using kettle logic (incoherent fragmentary ad-hoc dismissal).

“Even if the artist drew a mushroom shape, they had no inkling” (Wasson in SOMA, with his garbled, ambiguous, writing style).

It’s an incoherent, weak position, that’s not compelling. We need to talk about the full gallery of images, which range from literal mushroom depictions to abstract shapes.

Committed to Not Seeing: the “Anything But Entheogens” Position

Committed to Not Seeing: the “Anything But Mushrooms” View of Christian Art, and the “Anything But Drugs” View of “Alternate States of Consciousness

No one has time to waste reading literalist outsider authors with no good poetic sense on this topic, since they are pre-committed to never seeing mushrooms anywhere.

It’s a waste of time to engage them on this matter, although granted, their writings are worth reading, somewhat, despite their a priori refusal to see.

The Minimalists’ strategy amounts to, “Show me any mushroom, no matter how literally depicted, and I’ll do any and all moves, to uphold any explanation other than mushrooms — or even a non-explanation is to be preferred, “The Ancients must have had an alien psychology that we Moderns can’t ever understand”!

On the broad question of entheogens in religious art and literature, there is no point in deeply point-by-point engaging with scholars who are devoted to the “anything but drugs” view on “alternate states of consciousness”, such as Yulia Ustinova, Divine Mania: Alterations of Consciousness in Ancient Greece.

Just as Ustinova is committed to affirming any explanation of the mystic state other than drugs, so are the Minimalist mushroom “theorists” — for whatever reasons, whatever conflicts of interest — pre-committed to affirming any explanation of a mushroom in an art work, other than “it represents psychoactive mushrooms” — or no explanation whatsoever; “We just can’t know what the object represents, but we can know that it cannot be mushrooms — so it must just be fantastical nonsense.”

There is no profit in deeply engaging with people who are devoted to the “anything but mushrooms” reading. They close their eyes, “You can’t make me see it!” You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

You can put 100 of the most literal mushroom depictions in Christian art in front of him, but he’ll say “You can’t make me agree that that’s a psychoactive mushroom!”
— as just a start.

We know Wasson’s conflict of interest: protect the status quo from the Pope’s point of view; that’s why Wasson censored mushrooms, censored Brinckmann’s book, replaced it by ellipses in SOMA while treating Panofsky’s letter like a club — a club with “Brinckmann” deliberately removed; don’t look behind that ellipses curtain.”

The Art Experts have reached such a final verdict, I’m not even going to tell you where to check their verdict of those many art historians which have thoroughly discussed and debated and resolved the matter (a single, short book; by only one author; in German; back in 1906; presenting only 4 or 5 Christian art images; only focused on trees, not other mushroom forms; and we can assume he does not discuss the distinct morphology of Liberty Caps, Amanita, and Cubensis).

Serious, productive scholarly research and theory-development will continue unimpeded, regardless of those who refuse to look through the telescope, who strive to hold back the field and maintain in their own scholarship, “There are no entheogens in Greek & Christian history.”

Different Scopes to Question

The question of mushrooms in Christian art can be broadened by degrees, keeping it centered around that topic:

What would be compelling evidence, or criteria of proof, for:

1. mushrooms in Christian art (narrowest question) – pushing here is too narrow, it’s hard to solve and hard to prove.

2. entheogens in Greek and Christian art <– this is the ideal spot to push, as the center of problem-solving pressure/focus.

3a. entheogens in Western religion [or: Western religious mythology].
3b. mushrooms in World Religion (same size of scope as 3a).

4. psychoactives in World Religion (broadest question, kept centered around narowest, is used to support the interpretation of the narrowest).

There are many possible question-scopes, and several positions on each question. Need only 2 questions (the original narrow question, and one broad question), and only 2 positions (Minimal, Maximal).

People are extreme in their thinking, because the middle position is complicated; nuanced middle positions require more thinking and are harder to articulate.

The Moderate position is the most self-contradictory; for example:

The Moderate mushroom theory of Greek and Christian art is a highly incoherent and self-contradictory position.

The Moderate mushroom theory of Christian art (“Secret Christian Amanita Cult”), is a highly incoherent and self-contradictory position.

Conflating the Distinct Questions: Sloppy Scholars’ Game of Slip-and-Slide

Careless entheogen scholars slip and slide among vague, shifting position on exactly what they are denying and affirming; constantly, silently changing their mind about what subject they are centrally debating about:

  • The Secret Amanita Christian Cult theory?
    • How knowledge & tradition spread?
  • Which mushrooms?
    • Just Amanita?
    • All mushrooms (including Cubensis, Liberty Caps, & Amanita)?
  • Mushrooms in which aspect of Christianity:
    • Mushrooms in Christian art?
    • Mushrooms in Christian practice?
    • Mushrooms in Christian culture?
    • Mushrooms in Western culture, including Ancient Near East & Mediterranean Antiquity; Hellenistic Mystery Religions & Greek mythology?
  • Which genre?
    • Strictly explicitly religious art?
    • Broad esotericism art within Christendom?
    • Strictly Biblical, or equivalent Hellenistic content as well?

The Minimalist school (“there’s never mushrooms, there’s never evidence”) is vague about:

  • On what basis each of those questions is to be explained away.
  • Why their sometimes-chosen scope of question is the key issue to deal with and center all discussion around (silently, as it suits them from moment to moment).
  • Why some types of evidence and readings of that evidence count, but others are to be ignored and discounted: texts & art; literal depictions, stylized depictions, and depictions of effects.
  • Which form-family of mushrooms to discuss: Amanita? Cubensis? Liberty Caps? This most-basic, elementary level of differentiation and discussion is completely missing from the Minimalist explainers-away; these fervent, shallow, and inarticulate wavers-of-arms.


Jerry Brown

This article sort of includes the spinoff, Proof article. The Proof article began as a section within the present article, and quickly grew to require a separate article.

I was motivated to write this article (which directly led to writing my Proof article) because Jerry Brown asked me whether I or Cyberdisciple have documented and defined “compelling evidence” & “criteria of proof” for mushrooms in Christian art.


Cyberdisciple provided the rough seed idea outline that I reworked and expanded into the key chapter A Spectrum of Criteria of Proof.

Cyberdisciple’s idea was to define three tiers of evidence (literal; stylized; effects) in art, and the equivalent three tiers in texts. This solid, key relevant idea of 3 tiers, was a life-saver for the article. I then added “3 types of mushrooms”: Cubensis, Liberty Caps, and Amanita.

See Also

Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe

Gallery of Mushrooms in Greek & Christian Art

The 75 Mushroom Trees of the Canterbury Psalter

Canterbury Psalter Mushroom Inventory

Possibilism vs. Eternalism: Two Models of Time and Control

Scholars’ Failure to Debate Mushrooms in Christian Art
A summary after writing several articles.

Psychedelic Mystery Traditions (Hatsis)

Theory of Mythemes

Plaincourault Partly Contradicts Allegro’s Thesis

Webpage title:
Competing Views about Entheogens in Religious History
Michael Hoffman, 2007
Subsection title:
Minimal Entheogen Theory per Psychedelics Advocates:
Andy Letcher’s Book, Shroom


Michael Hoffman, April 11, 2022

Updated the Title

Original title (November 2020):

Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof” for Mushrooms in Christian Art

New title (April 2022):

Compelling Evidence & Proof of Explicit Psilocybin Mushrooms in Christian Art to Communicate Non-Branching Stable Control

The old title now reads as tone-deaf and out of touch with the changed playing field. The news story has changed and developed drastically, from “theory of evidence” to “Massive, game-changing evidence found, of a far more forceful type than expected or fathomed as possible, by using these perspectives.”

At the same time, the question arises, how to prevent the evidence from being deflected through inversion – or how to ignore that expected, defensive move, on the part of the Minimal Entheogen presupposition matrix.

In late 2020, Thomas Hatsis wrote his attack article against Dr. Brown.

The playing field has changed, so I ruggedized the title, made the title advocate a specific interpretation, made the title announce a theory, and made the title more descriptive of the predominant content that’s delivered in the article: meta-theory is a portion of the article, not the whole focus of the article.

So I have updated the title and added this Update/Postscript section.

Differentiating the Meta-Theory from the Application of this Interpretation

The old title claimed that the entire article focused on meta-theory: defining what would constitute a compelling evidence, for a given interpretation of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Around the section about Literal/Stylized/Effects, make a section integrating Paul Thagard’s model from his book Conceptual Revolutions.

Analyze the present article – including the Canterbury webpage – to find where there are aspects of meta-theory.

Review & link to the webpages about the process of discovery of the Canterbury miracle.

The Massive Breakthrough that Writing this Article Led To

This point is about the Discovery – the Canterbury miracle.

The need to weaponize and defensively ruggedize “the new theory”.

Discovery: Re-Integrating the Canterbury Miracle Article via the Present Article’s Title and a Chapter Heading Inline

Add headings and links, add a major section placeholder where the Canterbury article was originally embedded as a 1-page, then 11-page section in the present article. Re-frame the relationship of the two webpages. Canterbury might be a distinct article, but essentially it is a chapter of the present article, as the Canterbury article was born from the present article’s research and development.

While finishing writing this article in November 2020, I added a section that started to decode the “balancing/ leg-hanging/ sword” mushroom tree of the Great Canterbury Psalter.

That section quickly ballooned and I moved it to become a second, more important article, Proof Canterbury is Psilocybe.

The two articles were born together so I treat them as a pair; a single pair of articles, cross-linked and always both listed in citations, side-by-side.

I have been so busy following up the Canterbury massive top-magnitude breakthrough, that only now, a year and a half later, have I finally turned my attention back to the present article that led to the giant discovery.

Now, as I attempt to read-aloud the present article, after I recently read-aloud the Canterbury article, the old title of this article is too calm, neutral, and business-as-usual; detached, aloof, abstracted, Platonic.

The old title didn’t reflect the gigantic, massively game-changing breakthrough discovery that it led to – a discovery that directly fulfills and proves the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion by providing deliberately transmitted proof provided intentionally by the Eadwine artists group.

But the “news story” covered by this article has entirely changed now, and, the original title was too neutral, weak, unprotected, and aloof.

Making the Title Aggressively Defended Against Covert Attachment of Hostile Meaning-Halo Framing

All data is theory-bound, and this must be explicitly, proactively emphasized, especially in the field of entheogen scholarship. The original title was defenseless, naive, and unaware that evidence is covertly wrapped with the reigning default presupposition halo or donut and forcefully deflected. At worst, in this field, positive evidence is even inverted to be re-framed as evidence for absence of visionary plants from normal religion.

The old title of this article up until March 27, 2022, was Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof” for Mushrooms in Christian Art. That title was too neutral, and implied that the character of the entire article was meta-theory. So I’m demoting that title to become just one chapter title within the article.

This article is not neutral. This article is ferociously pushing and asserting one particular interpretation, along with its optimized theory of interpretation, against attacks on it from other, competing interpretations:

Competing Interpretations from the Salvation Salesmen, Dr. Secret, the Witches, and the Monks

This new theory, interpretation, and paradigm, and explanatory framework is competing against three other theories. One of the competing theories or interpretations resides essentially outside of the field of entheogen scholarship, and two of the competing theories reside inside the field of entheogen scholarship.

The competing interpretations are:

  • Group/school
    Interpretation of Mushroom Imagery in Christian art
  • The Salvation Salesmen, including Art Historians & banker working for the Pope (essentially includes the Meditation Hucksters, who have the same, direct conflict of interest & business model)
    Anything But Mushrooms: Italian Umbrella Pine; so, salvation through our installment plan; give us your money to buy salvation through Mr. Historical Jesus.
  • Dr. Secret – John Allegro/ Carl Ruck/ M. Hoffman/ Entheos journal/ Gnostic Media-era Jan Irvin –
    Secret Amanita, to conceal. Entheogens are an alien intrusion coming toward the Eucharist from outside it.
  • Witches/Scopolamine/”no Psilocybe in England until 1975″ –
    Anything But Mushrooms: Parasols of Victory; isolate & “easily explain away” each instance.
  • The Monks –
    Mushroom imagery in art is explicit and public, for communication, to depict re-dosing psilocybin for ultimate peak religious experiencing of non-branching stable control.

The latter is the present interpretation that is specifically championed and aggressively defended against the competing interpretations and their covert presupposition matrixes and invisible framing of meaning-halos that the other interpretations attempt to clamp onto & around the evidence, including their biased assumptions about what is reasonable, neutral, unbiased, and natural of a reading and framing of each piece of evidence.

The Salvation Salesmen’s Interpretation

Adherents/Representatives: the Pope; Brinckmann & Panofsky (the art historians); Wasson; Meditation Hucksters.

  • The covert presupposition matrix from the Salvation Salesman’s anti-mushroom cover-up interpretation (mushroom trees are distorted Italian umbrella pines), from outside the field of entheogen scholarship.

The fact that there are 75 mushroom plants (mostly psilocybin mushroom trees) in Canterbury Psalter absolutely proves that Plaincourault can’t possibly be mushrooms, because that interpretation would imply a known* falsehood, that the Psalter’s mushroom trees mean mushrooms, as well.

*”Known” (that is, assumed; taken as granted, per the “begging the question” or “circular reasoning”), according to the Minimal Theory’s prejudicial premises & presupposition matrix.

In the Minimal interpretive paradigm, all data always is interpreted in such a way as to support (or appear to support, per specious argumentation) the fundamental paradigmatic unassailable foundational premise, “Normal religion, by definition, doesn’t include entheogens.”

Dr. Secret’s Interpretation

Adherents/Representatives: John Allegro, Jan Irvin; Carl Ruck, M. Hoffman, Clark Heinrich, contributors to Entheos journal.

The covert presupposition matrix from Dr. Secret’s (the Allegro/Ruck school’s) pro-Amanita but anti-psilocybin “alien intrusion” interpretation: secret Amanita hidden as an alien, private intrusion into normal public Christianity.

Positive evidence is inverted to be re-framed as evidence for absence of visionary plants from normal religion.

Positive evidence such as Amanita that’s supposedly “hidden” in art is deflected-through-inversion, to tell the Ruck paradigm’s story, of essentially the orthodoxy-compliant, Minimal entheogen theory of religion: the more evidence for the presence of entheogens you give Carl Ruck, the more strongly he tells his story of the absence of entheogens from real Christianity.

Giving more evidence to the Minimal Entheogen Theory only results in strengthening the Minimal Theory’s premise that normal religion, by definition, excludes entheogens – due to the default presupposition matrix that’s asserted by the reigning theory within the field of entheogen scholarship.

This interpretation resides or comes from inside the field of entheogen scholarship.

The Witches’ Interpretation

Adherents/Representatives: Andy Letcher (Shroom, 2007), Thomas Hatsis (Psychedelic Mystery Traditions, 2016)

  • The covert presupposition matrix from the Witches’ pro-scopolamine but anti-mushroom (read: anti-Amanita) cover-up interpretation: all mushroom imagery in Christian art is “easily explained away” by “sound, tried-and-true historical criteria”, such as parasols of victory, from inside the field of entheogen scholarship.
The Monks’ Interpretation

Adherents/Representatives: M. Hoffman, Max Freakout, Cyberdisciple, Dr. Jerry Brown, Eadwine.

The present article’s presupposition matrix:

Mushrooms in art explicitly mean psychoactive mushrooms, specifically re-dosing psilocybin mushrooms, for peak religious altered-state mental transformation.

Psilocybin, not Amanita.

Explicit, not hidden. Meant to publicly communicate and reveal, not at all to hide and to block communication.

Mushroom imagery in Christian art doesn’t mean mushrooms.

Mushroom imagery in Christian art means the revelation of non-branching in the psilocybin mystic altered state.

Mushrooms are depicted with a meaning-halo of the altered-state experience of non-branching.

Coming from the normal Eucharist, not toward it from an alien source. Especially in the Middle Ages, as the heart of normal Christianity, but rooted in the ancient banqueting tradition of the Last Supper (rounds of mixed wine; that is, re-dosing psilocybin mushrooms).

Mushrooms should be assumed by default, because mushrooms induce religious experiencing, and this is mystical and religious art.

🍄 means the traditional method of the mystics, which is re-dosing psilocybin to realize non-branching stable control.

%d bloggers like this: