1. Please define what is gnosticism and luciferianism to you, and if possible make a distinction between luciferianism and Satanism.
I’ll leave aside any academic definitions of the term and personally define Gnosticism as the establishment of a dogma, built upon the basis of the paradigm shift provided by the attainment of Gnosis. Luciferianism is the reverence of Lucifer as the Light Bearer, symbolized in the earliest of times by the planet Venus in its role as the Morning Star, seen by the ancients as a herald of the Dawn. The Venus concept parallels that of the Serpent of Eden in that, much as the Morning Star ushers in the Dawn, so too does the Serpent usher in a new age of Wisdom for the previously ignorant race of Man. It is this symbolism of darkness as ignorance and light as Wisdom that justifies the application of the name of Lucifer to the Soter of this path.
It differs from Satanism in that it reveres the soteriological aspect of Lucifer, as opposed to the more destructive aspect, the latter of which I believe exists solely as a reaction to stimuli that came long after the defining act in Eden, rather than being an inherent Luciferian trait.
However, the faces of Lucifer and Satan are possibly as numerous as are Luciferians and Satanists, so these rules can’t be applied universally.
2. Of all paths, what was it about the ideas called gnostic that drove you to them?
Intuition drove me to Gnosticism. From the days of my youth during which I was compelled away from the Church, I knew that there was something fundamentally wrong with the orthodoxy. The myth of Jesus Christ’s mission as described in the Bible can only be seen as fallacy to a reasonable person, and if there were any merit to it, it serves as a testament to the brutal nature of the Christian god, whose lust for destruction among the masses of his own creation can only be sated by the blood sacrifice of his own begotten son. The power of that myth dissolved permanently in my mind. The God of the Jews and Christians is a wretched deity. His priests declare that he is love, but never has there been an example of this love. It stood to reason that our world was inverted – the god of Abraham instilled, through fear, the idea that to stand at his side for all eternity was the only worthwhile goal, but he was the most despicable of all gods among the various ancient pantheons. When you can wipe yourself clean of the psychic enslavement imposed by this god, the Universe looks different to you. You may then analyze all things that you have been taught, and separate the wheat from the chaff.
For me, the defining moment in human history took place in the mythical Garden of Eden, in the act of disobedience, ingesting the forbidden fruit in spite of the promised sanctions. Prior to this, Man was but another beast of the field, unwittingly. Were it not for the first great defiance at the behest of the Serpent, we would still be as simple as all beasts, living in the paradise of ignorance, completely stagnant and without progress. No matter what Adam and Eve did with their original Gnosis, no matter how they repressed it or permitted it to be suppressed, the DNA of our race was forever altered.
I am not a Christian Gnostic. Although most Christian Gnostics believe that the Old Testament god is a false god, they are of the belief that Jesus was our key to salvation through Gnosis. I believe, contrary to the ‘orthodox’ Gnostics, that Jesus was a redundant figure. The one who truly was our key to Gnosis was the Serpent. There was no need for Christ – the damage to the Demiurge had already been done in Eden, and the Gnostic current was already well under way by the time of Christ. I refer to myself as an Ophite Gnostic, which I see as interchangeable with the term Gnostic Luciferian or Luciferian Gnostic. The Ophites were a sect whose faith was born at the moment when the Serpent delivered us from eternal servitude. Ophitism is the worship of the Serpent of Eden, the name being derived from the Greek Ophis, serpent. Some scholars argue that the Ophites predated Christianity (note: the reality of pre-Christian Gnosticism is heavily debated), thus making them more akin to what one may call inverted Judaism, as the Ophite concept of what is holy, and what is unholy, is opposite that of their parent religion.
This Ophite current is strong and enduring, and it has been seen emerging periodically throughout history. In fact, I am of the belief that the Ophite current will always be coursing through the blood of a select few, even beyond the death of all Abrahamic faiths, as imposed ignorance will always be a threat, and so the venom of the Serpent will always be relevant.
3. One of the most interesting and distinct features that unifies what is called gnosticism is the rejection of the god of the Old Testament, who is considered a malicious figure, sometimes blind.
It has come to my attention that writers and practitioners of “left hand path” Zeena and Nikolas Schreck consider the Egyptian god Seth as the true nature of the being religions Christianity, Islam and Judaism worship. Nikolas Schreck says in an interview about what he discovered in his time as a satanist: “(…) to make a long story short, Zeena and I discovered that the Devil we thought we were worshipping was actually God.” and in another interview, that Seth “is, in Gnostic terms, the Archon of this Aion, or the supreme ruler of this realm of being”.
Zeena has described Seth as a “chaotic god” and “a brutal terrorizer historically known to be the mightiest of physical strength and incessant force; he is the epitome of everything destructive, abhorrent and anomalous in nature, yet he is essential to the creative destruction necessary for the continuance of life.” She also says: “a lamb born with five legs, a spontaneous forest fire of devastating destruction, an albino, a solar eclipse, a hermaphrodite, a war, freak weather conditions, or an executioner, are all disruptions to the natural flow, order, or status quo of the universe and therefore are intrinsically Sethian.” Reading that really surprised me because it agrees with the opinion of the gnostics and the Manicheans that the god of the old testament was actually a warped deity, and that some people really believe this in a literal sense, while I sometimes was under the impression that it was all symbolic. Zeena goes on to talk about viewing gods as creations of the human mind or simple forces or energies:
“I completely reject the anthropocentric idea that man created the gods. This idea seems to me one of the greatest and most arrogant follies of the modern era, dating back to the so-called age of enlightenment; then given new emphasis again at key points throughout history such as with the industrial age, in post-Marxist secular humanism, and most recently with post-modern (or as I refer to its adherents, post-mortem) trends of hollow, ironic nihilism.
My personal understanding of Seth, and of all the gods and spiritual hierarchies of beings, is that they are not in any sense the creation of man, but that their existence preceded mankind and will continue when mankind ceases to exist. (…) “energies” suggests that the gods are a property like light or radioactivity or gravity. While the manner in which the gods manifest may well appear similar to those properties, I perceive Them as actual sentient spiritual beings possessed of consciousness and the ability to communicate with and influence mankind.”
In you work you talk about the demiurge as a sentient being with intentions, emotions, etc… How much of it do you really take literally, and how much you consider only a myth to help speed up a liberation and “wake people up”? And why do you think the demiurge was not considered bad when first talked about by Plato, but then the gnostics came and made the fact that he is bad and should be transcended an important part of their ideas?
That’s the million-dollar question: to what degree are the mythos of the Path taken literally, and how much is considered figurative or allegorical? I think that the most honest answer to that, from my personal vantage, is that I’m not certain. I believe there are certain elements that can be ruled out as literal, such as Eden as a real place; Adam as an actual, historical person; the talking Serpent; et cetera. But rather the myth serves to illustrate a very real phenomenon, being that the world is as ugly as it is beautiful, as bitter as it is elegant; the creating force placed limitations upon us, and the divinity – which lies both within us and throughout the Universe – provided us a way out. Lucifer is real, but Lucifer is man’s name for Him. The same is true of Sophia, Abraxas, Yahweh – whether one may see them as entities or energies, they are real, but some of the characteristics, names and images that we believe them to bear are constructed by man throughout the years.
Plato’s Demiurge was a pure concept, part of a cosmology that spread the responsibility of existence among more than one entity. When Platonism met the Judeo-Christian element in Hellenistic Egypt, the paths collided, placing Yahweh as the Demiurge, and the many referenced exploits of Yahweh colored the Demiurge a nasty shade of evil.
4. It is also said in your book that abraxas was considered, depending on the gnostic sect, both as the “most high”, a personification of pleroma and as the demiurge. I have also read in other sources that the image of the lion headed serpent used by gnostics in gems represented the lord archon (the demiurge) but was also regarded as a source of power and awe. I have also read Abraxas was both the father of Christ and his adversary. There were also Gnostics of the opinion that in the Old Testament there were two gods, or that the god of the old testament divided itself into two after the New Testament. That seems to me to point to a kind of unity, perhaps the gnostics were not dualists, and were much more profound than this “the world is evil” philosophy that most people think defines them?
It doesn’t point to unity between Pleroma and the Demiurge. Rather, it illustrates a disconnect between the Gnostic sects. What we know as Gnosticism was not one grand religion with a united dogma, but a grouping of independent sects. They’re all referenced under the umbrella term of Gnosticism, but it’s unlikely that the sects would have seen themselves as a family. Gnosticism, as found in sources such as the Nag Hammadi texts, emerged in both a time and place that saw much melding of culture: Hellenistic Egypt. It was a cultural melting pot, the America of its time, and many Gnostic ideas are a reflection of this fact. They often incorporated Neo-Platonic philosophy into Abrahamic myth, with hints of mystical concepts of varied origin. To the orthodoxy, to whom the Gnostics were a threat, the Gnostics were a single enemy to be destroyed. However, they did indeed each have their own dogma and interpretation of common symbols and concepts. Abraxas is but one of many of these disputed elements.
I think it’s likely that to one Gnostic sect, another Gnostic sect was no better, no worse than the orthodoxy. But history is written by the victorious, and the Catholic Church was the victor of the battle for the minds of the masses that rattled early Christendom in the first few centuries of the Common Era; therefore much of the history that we have was penned by the Church’s advocates.
“What happens after death is so unspeakably glorious that our imagination and feelings do not suffice to form even an approximate conception of it.”
– Carl Jung
5. You regard death as the end of the illusion of the state we are in now. I read that some gnostic texts say that archons may try to prevent us from entering the upper realms after death. Don’t you think it is reasonable to assume that even if this is true, there may be more experience of illusion and suffering before we be totally “cleansed”? There are Gnostic writings that talk about this, saying that in the afterlife Archons may try to prevent us from crossing to higher realms of being. Some gnostic teachings such as those of Carpocrates also talk about the soul/spirit returning to this world if it has not destroyed the ties that we have with it in one lifetime. Regardless of how this return of the soul to the bonds of the world is viewed in a symbolic or literal way, there is a consensus that death does not mean instant liberation. It has also come to my attention that some Gnostics interpreted these words of Jesus to be about the archons ruling over us after death: “When you are with your adversary on the way, act so that you may be freed from him, lest he deliver you to the judge and the judge to the officer and he cast you into prison; truly I say to you, you will not come out from there until you pay the last quadrant.” What I mean is, it is said that the deceased person is reunited with its source, but suffers after death before getting to that stage due to the way the person lived life on earth.
It is possible that there are further steps and hurdles to be experienced after death, but to believe so really makes this all seem like an elaborate scheme rather than a cosmic accident, the latter of which I believe to be the case. I see no logic in the idea that we were created and trapped on this world, only to finally escape our physical bonds and land in another trap. Rather, I see that our evolution was in fact an inadvertent occurrence, and all of the traps that are set have been done so on the physical plane. Matter is, essentially, the ultimate emanation, the lowest form of existence. This is the realm of the Demiurge. I do not believe that once we leave this stage, we are still subject to the strings he’s so intent on pulling. In death we are one step closer to the Most High, and Yahweh’s influence has ceased to affect the dead wanderer.
If one were to ask why, if everybody moves into the afterlife, would one even pursue an esoteric path or Gnosis, the answer is simple. It’s analogous to visiting a foreign country: you can go in blind, knowing nothing of the place’s culture and language, or you can learn the language, study everything available about the place prior to your arrival and get the most out of the experience. The Gnostic learns to speak the native tongue.
6. Do you think gnosticism has an attraction to a certain type of person due to the weirdness of its ideas?
It definitely has an appeal for the malcontent among us. It can be used to complement one’s dejection and reinforce one’s hunch that everything truly is corrupt. But on a more sincere level, it resonates with many people either due to personal Gnosis, or because it is a more accurate representation of reality. It takes all that we’re taught, turns it on its head and reveals its vulnerable underbelly, exposing it as the rubbish we know it to be.
7. Are you aware of works of fiction, film, or art in general with a Gnostic theme? Like in the tale “Mesmeric Revelation”, Edgar Allan Poe presents a vision similar to yours, altough with some differences, about the mysteries of life, death and god, including the body and organs as a kind of prison, god as something similar to the Pleroma and related to “quanta”, death as mental freedom, etc., or writer Phillip K. Dick, who claimed he was visited by a beam of pink light that brought him knowledge, including knowing in advance of something wrong with his son that helped him save him, among other things? A book over 900 pages was released called “Exegesis” consisting of all his written works trying to make sense of his experience. Grant Morrison’s “The Invisibles” also has a Gnostic bent.
I’m a very big admirer of Poe’s poetry, but my knowledge of his prose is limited to only a few of the better known classics. Although I am aware that much of the work of Phillip K. Dick has a Gnostic bent, I have never been a reader of fiction beyond a few lucky writers (mostly Lovecraft, Hesse and a few others), so I’m afraid I haven’t had the opportunity to become acquainted with just how Gnostic his work might be. The description you provided does appear to be an illustration of Gnosis, however.
8. Have you ever studied manichaeism and its similarities to gnostics thought? What did you think of it? It considers the god of the Old Testament as the “Prince of Darkness”.
Along with the Yezidi and the Mandaeans, Manichaeism is one of those “is it Gnostic?” type faiths. I won’t purport to know everything about Manichaeism’s origins, nor of Mani’s influences since his writings have survived in fragments, but there are undoubtedly some parallels and I’d wager that many of his ideas were of common origin with that of the Gnostics.
9. What other Gnostic sects aside from the Ophites influenced your thinking?
All in all, the general study of Gnosticism in its varied entirety came to inspire me in one way or another. But it is the Ophite current (Naassenes included) that really resonated with me, as many of the Ophites’ conclusions were those to which I myself came independently. They were the sect most like what is now called Gnostic Luciferianism.
10. Studying the fields you do, like theology and occultism, it is hard not to find talk about what is called paranormal phenomena. Would you care to give your opinion about these matters?
The validity of any claim of paranormal must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. There are legitimate cases of paranormal phenomena, but at the same time, there is plenty of delusional nonsense floating about, and in many cases both are present. I’ve seen several instances of people living in ghost filled worlds, but it turns out they were merely paranoid and superstitions, completely unwilling to question the things they experience. In one very extreme case, the person was a severe schizophrenic but was discouraged from seeking treatment by the esoteric order to which the person belonged on the basis that there is no such thing as mental illness, but that all phenomena were real, there were no hallucinations nor delusions, and all phenomena could be resolved by esoteric means.
This person was indeed attractive to one or more evil entities, but I’m certain that it latched onto the individual due to the obsession with – and fear of – darkness, driven by the psychological disorder. Flowers withered in the person’s presence, and a disgusting, oppressive, black atmosphere followed this person at all times.
I’m a student of psychology as well as the Occult, and as such I know full well the difference between real and imagined phenomena, and I understand that there is often a very blurred line separating the two.
11. Some people claim the symbolism of the serpent it is very widespread because it is important for humanity. In gnosticism it has great importance because of the story of the fall, a story which is in the minds of most people who are raised in places with a christian majority. Many people interpret that event as being of a sexual nature, and although I am against a purely sexual interpretation of the events on the story of the fall, it is hard not to think about sex with such obvious hints as the serpent, the enjoyment of “forbidden fruit” and the fact that after the fall Adam and Eve became ashamed of their naked bodies. What does this symbol of the serpent means to you and why do you think it is so important, does it have some meaning to you apart from the story of the fall, like something to do with our “reptilian past” or “reptilian brain”? There is also the “kundalini” connection: the serpent in the tree be the “fire serpent” from the base to the spine. I believe a lot of other researchers made the connection of the serpent of eden with the fire serpent of india.
Fertility was perhaps the most prized of traits among the ancients, and Ophiolatreia is an ancient form of worship; the phallic nature of the serpent cannot be denied. But just as you, I reject a wholly sexual interpretation. Mankind has always been capable of complex thought, and our oldest ancestors were capable of far more than we’d like to credit them. So it’s entirely possible that they embraced multiple meanings for a single symbol. They were much closer to the primal religion of Animism and saw the many elements of the universe as something of a giant organism. This is something we have trouble doing now. We now demand a single, clear definition or we consider it invalid. Our ancestors did not possess this handicap. Magical thinking once came naturally. It wasn’t a skill to be honed as it is today. So it could be that any combination of the many theories you’ve presented were accurate.
Even in the ancient days, cultures did not form within a vacuum. There was much communication and sharing of culture between nations, so the idea that the Serpent of Eden had some connection with Kundalini is one to which I lend a great deal of credence. Vedic philosophy has always been of interest to me, and helped in the formation of my worldview.
12. Anthropologist Michael Harner, after using the drug known as ayahuasca, reported seeing reptilian creatures that claimed to be the true masters of humanity. The account goes as follows:
“I learned that the dragon-like creatures were thus inside of all forms of life, including man,” claims Harner. “They were the true masters of humanity and the entire planet, they told me. We humans were but [their] receptacles and servants…” 
True to form, when Harner demanded an explanation from the medicine man who gave him the potion responsible for this ominous vision, the old man just laughed and explained that, “…they’re always saying that. But they are only the Masters of Outer Darkness…”
If that was true, could it be that those creatures were what Gnostics called Archons?
Psychedelics introduce us to realities outside of the readily empirical, but the specifics of these realities will be skewed by the individual’s mind. Harner’s vision could well have been much more than a mere hallucination, particularly given his choice of entheogen. But as for whether or not these were the Gnostic Archons or simply some lesser spirits toying with him, it’s impossible for one to determine. Dr. Rick Strassman’s DMT experiments led him to the conclusion that DMT (the psychoactive agent in Ayahuasca, which is also naturally produced by the human pineal gland, which is frequently associated with the Vedic Third Eye) is the chemical responsible for the spiritual experience in our species. I suggest reading Strassman’s DMT: The Spirit Molecule.
|“The energy of death reduces man’s total being, the product of all his days, to an invisible quintessence, as distillation may reduce tens of thousands of flowers to a single drop of essential perfume. And just as this perfume has the power of passing through the crack of a door, in a way which would be inconceivable for the flowers in their original physical form, so the essence of man distilled by death appears able to pass through time in a way quite inconceivable from the point of view of his organic body.”– Rodney Collin, The Theory Of Eternal Life|
13. One of the things that surprised me while reading your latest book is the confidence with which you make some fantastical claims. I’m saying I was surprised because in private communication you seemed very skeptical of some phenomena and not willing to believe in anything without proof. You seem to make an effort to give a scientific basis to your theories but on some areas you just put out opinions that would be rejected by mainstream science without any further explanations. Some examples of those claims are: you’ve written that “most any person with the proper mental discipline can attain quantum psychic abilities”. This is also the opinion of many other people including scientist Russel Targ who has worked with the US government in remote viewing experiments, according to him with success. Another example would be the chapter on supernatural entities where you state an entity can be one’s guardian angel and even intervene to save a person when there is danger. Do you talk by personal experience, do you really believe those things are possible, or are they just part of your theory, of which you have no certainty, and you made that statement only because it would make sense based on your theories?
I’d say that all of my theories would be rejected by the scientific community, even if I attempted to justify them until I was blue in the face. In fact, all of my peers and contemporaries would be laughed out of a legitimate scientific conference. Science has no use for philosophy, especially that of a spiritual nature. When writing Kosmology, it was important to me clarify my Gnosis using scientific terms, largely because the two arenas paralleled so flawlessly. The chapters written to expand on Kosmology, which I included in Order of the Skeleton Key, were written with less of an interest in scientific justification. I certainly was much more philosophically liberal in my assertations, but I continue to stand by them as valid theories.
To put it straightforwardly, I do believe these things are possible. I don’t write for the mere sake of thought experiment.
14. What music do you consider to embody the Gnostic spirit?
It’s hard to say, in an artform such as music, which works are Gnostic; an artist who indulges in Gnostic imagery and lyrical themes may produce dull, uninteresting art that does nothing to inspire the listener, while a completely oblivious artist may produce work that throws the listener into a beautiful, receptive state that one may feel complements the Gnostic ideal.
A few of the works that have been most important to me, personally, over the years: Tiamat – A Deeper Kind of Slumber, an album of psychedelic beauty and lyrical curiosity. Any time I listen to this (with or without entheogenic enhancement), it provides a peaceful state in which the mind can wander and explode with creativity. The same is true for Yob’s Elaborations of Carbon, a very heavy, psychedelic Doom album, rich in atmosphere and meaningful lyrics, typically with an Eastern philosophical bent. I find that psychedelic music suits me best for Gnostic inspiration. For more sinister meditations, the work of Nightbringer, I find, is an excellent tool. When I am writing, I’ve found that listening to Burzum’s self titled album, and Filosofem, put me in the most productive writing state.
Your mileage may vary. Music is an art, and the value and purpose of art is very subjective, regardless of the artist’s intentions.
15. Occultism is known to attract many degenerate people. In your involvement with it, did you encounter many?
Having known many people from within, and without, of the Occult milieu, I can honestly say that degenerates are present throughout all of human society; it’s just that those who dabble in the Occult present their degeneracy in different ways. I have always rejected people of poor character, whether or not they were interested in esoterica, simply because I myself am not of poor character. On the odd encounter, I have dealt with a thinly veiled threat of a curse, or had to tolerate the delusions of pseudo-Occultists whom I eventually found to be suffering from severe schizophrenia (unbeknownst to them), but by and large I’ve found most of my problems to be caused by meddling Christians. Perhaps there are insecure Satanists out there somewhere throwing curses at me, I don’t know. There is a lot of jealousy and unprompted malice in the Occult world, but by and large those whom I deal with are quite good, reasonable people.
16. Please comment a little on your views on reincarnation.
I reject reincarnation because I believe that all processes require a mechanism, and I cannot see a mechanism driving the process of reincarnation, nor do I agree with the explanations for the necessity of the process itself. We are born Tabula Rasa, our consciousness develops and evolves, and we die. I believe that the consciousness survives and remains that which was the “I” during our lives. The life energy (not thought energy) that compels us in life may be absorbed and consumed by other bodies upon our deaths; some have argued that this constitutes reincarnation, but this is a very physical process, not metaphysical. The leap of the person into another, new person (or non-human through metempsychosis) does not continue the consciousness of one’s previous life and, in my opinion, would serve no spiritual purpose. There’s simply no allowance of this concept in my cosmology, and I personally find the notion useless.
17. Physicist Amit Goswami presents an interesting view of relaxation, saying that whenever we think in disharmonic ways and there is “noise”, like mental chatter, we produce collapses, and that the more quiet the mind and the more relaxed the body is, the less collapse there is and thus there is more possibility for intelligence and creativity. That for me relates a lot to the model you expose about the expansion and contraction of the universe. If that is the case, don’t you think the conservation and transmutation of the libido, by avoiding the collapse caused by orgasm (which is kind of a loss of energy and can be compared to the first expansion that created the world) we can raise our possibilities of producing interesting results? The connection between semen and Christ/Light is made on some old Gnostic scriptures. I ask this for mere curiosity but the actual practices with sexual energy are very demanding and not recommended to the common folk.
There is much to be said for sexual abstinence, among other forms of lifestyle discipline, for the furtherance of one’s innate abilities and potential. Many religious paths have seen it as a way to become closer to their deity, and fasting, abstinence, and other denial-of-pleasure approaches are a requirement leading up to certain rites in several magical traditions.
However, I enjoy my vices too much to make a lifestyle out of this discipline. Collapses be damned.
[Note from Interviewer: I have no real knowledge of quantum physics and the notions on the question above were taken from ´pop science´simplifications, thus I cannot surely say if what is stated is accurate, however it remains as an interesting subjective view.]
18. You regard yourself as a student of occultism, as it is said on Lux Ferous website, you studied it for half of your life. What does occultism means to you and what drove you to study it with such dedication? What books were important to you about this subject?
In the 1980s and early 1990s, the United States was whipped into a frenzy that came to be called the Satanic Panic. Folk stories of Satanic cults, black magic and evil workings were abundant, and even the media was in on it. I grew up in this era, and although the incessant talk about all this was spoken in fear and warning, it had the opposite effect on me. This is when my interest in the Occult was born. When I was 14, I actually began studying whatever type of Occultism I could find at major bookstores and local libraries. It was largely the easily digestible material with little substance, such as Wicca and LaVeyan Satanism, but it was a good start for a kid in America’s Bible Belt in the pre-internet era.
The first book that produced a magical effect in my life was the Simon edition of the Necronomicon. Even with the historical authenticity of the text being absolutely non-existent, the book contains power. Upon first reading it, I could feel the veil between myself and the realm of spirits becoming weak, and I began to see shadowy figures moving about in my peripheral vision. And this was in the simple act of reading the book. Although I have studied books on ceremonial/high magic since my youth, the more Witchcraft-oriented material always appealed to me the most. I recommend Huson’s Mastering Witchcraft to anybody looking for a primer on such a path. Additionally, Lon Milo DuQuette’s The Magick of Thelema is the perfect introduction to Crowley’s system, for those who are not yet acclimated to Crowley’s long-winded, and sometimes overly complicated, style of writing.
19. Could you name and comment on books that were important in your quest for knowledge?
Hermann Hesse’s Siddhartha is perhaps the most important book I’ve ever picked up. It illustrates the path of the young spiritual wanderer perfectly. It teaches one to prepare for disappointment when seeking Wisdom from mighty men, and that far greater gems are to be found in less conspicuous places.
Also vital to the development of my own worldview in my teen years was the work of Michio Kaku, particularly Hyperspace. Other important works include: Science and the Akashic Field, by Ervin Laszlo; Gnosticism, by Benjamin Walker; Food of the Gods, by Terence McKenna; The Beginnings of Western Science, by David C. Lindberg; The Holographic Universe, by Michael Talbot; The Secret Teachings of All Ages, by Manly P. Hall.
Kaku’s work, as well as The Beginnings of Western Science and Science and the Akashic Field were instrumental in assisting me with articulating my cosmology and Gnosis prior to beginning the writing of Kosmology, as you will see if you were to read the works yourself. Terence McKenna’s theory of the role that psychedelics played as the catalyst in human intellectual advancement resonates with me in a manner suggestive of equating the hallucinogenic mushroom – be it the Psilocybe or the Fly Agaric – with the forbidden fruit that opened Man’s eyes to realities beyond the obvious. Indeed, if approached properly, the psychedelic state has the ability to induce a sort of Gnosis that, while in most cases not as mature as true Gnosis, can effect a profound change on the personality – a permanent change.
20. What movies and other works would you characterize as gnostic, or have influenced you in a way related to gnosticism?
The Matrix trilogy is undoubtedly Gnostic; the idea that mankind is forced into servitude, unbeknownst to them as they are under a placating spell (Maya), while steps can be taken to rise beyond the illusion and fight against the forces which have imposed this slavery upon our race is Gnostic through and through. The Last Temptation of Christ, a rather controversial film, can be said to have a Gnostic Christian theme, although there is emphasis on the importance of the crucifixion, which the Christian Gnostics saw as unimportant. William Blake’s work is heavy in Gnostic themes, and it could be argued that Milton’s work is as well, as it’s certainly sympathetic to the rebel spirit.
21. You present an interesting view of the universe fusing theoretical physics with gnostic theology in your work. What books would you recommend on the subject, on levels begginner and advanced?
The only formal education in physics that I’ve had is in the subject of astronomy, but I have independently studied theoretical and fringe physics for many years. For those with no previous knowledge, I strongly recommend Hyperspace and Beyond Einstein, written by Dr. Michio Kaku. For more fringe ideas, look to Zukov’s The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Capra’s The Tao of Physics, and Laszlo’s work.