The case for supranaturalism

 

An old gem.

Owen Barfield has a case

The Mars Buddha revisited

 

Look what I found in an old blog post of mine from 2018. This is the explanation we´ve been looking for!

>>>Steiner's lectures contain another very strange speculation: the claim that the Buddha went to Mars (or perhaps the “Mars sphere”, but Steiner does seem to mean the literal planet Mars) in order to carry out a Martian version of the Mystery of Golgotha (!). 

>>>However, Buddha was never literally crucified (since the Martians seem to be ethereal beings, an actual crucifixion might have been impossible to arrange anyway), but rather sacrificed himself by sending out love and kindness to a planet the inhabitants of which were extremely aggressive. 

>>>Apparently, this kind-hearted act has soothed the conflicts among the Martians, making it easier for human souls to pass through the planetary sphere of Mars during our cosmic sojourn between two earthly existences... 

>>>I admit that this mutant Buddha legend is somewhat difficult to take seriously!

Between planetary spheres

En liten konspirationsteori

 

Jag har länge baxnat över den urusla svenskan i vissa kvällstidningsartiklar. Från personer som har svenska namn. Och verkar ha "svenska" utseenden också.

Hur fan är det möjligt? Hur fan kan man få jobb som skribent på en tidning om man faktiskt är värdelös på att skriva? 

Jag har en teori...

Kulturbarnen flummar runt på en Waldorf-skola i typ tolv år där de inte får lära sig ett skit. Sedan fixar deras föräldrar jobb åt dem via kontakter på lämpligt mediahus. Min hypotes har högt förklaringsvärde.

Prove me wrong. 

The 8th lunacy

 

ChatGPT talks a bit too much here, but after rediscovering an old blog post of mine about this topic, I just had to ask...

Here is a link to Theosophy Wiki:

Eighth Sphere

Can you tell me about the 8th sphere and the Moon according to Theosophy?

In Theosophical Society and related esoteric traditions, the ideas of:

• the Eighth Sphere,
• and the occult significance of the Moon

belong to some of the most obscure, symbolic, and controversial parts of Theosophical cosmology.

These ideas were developed especially by:

• Helena Petrovna Blavatsky,
  and later elaborated (sometimes very differently) by:
• Annie Besant,
• Charles Webster Leadbeater,
• and later esoteric movements such as Anthroposophy and Luciferian occultism.

The topic is difficult because:

• Theosophists themselves were often intentionally cryptic,
• and different writers interpreted the symbols differently.

---

1. The Seven Planes and the “Eighth Sphere”

Classical Theosophy often describes:

• seven planes,
• seven globes,
• seven rounds,
• and sevenfold evolution.

Human evolution supposedly unfolds through:

• ascending spiritual refinement.

But Blavatsky also hinted at:

an abnormal or dangerous state outside the proper evolutionary chain:
the “Eighth Sphere.”

---

2. What Is the Eighth Sphere?

The Eighth Sphere is usually described as:

• a kind of spiritually dead-end realm,
• a sub-material or astral residue world,
• or a sphere of spiritual disintegration.

It represents:

• extreme materialism,
• severance from spiritual evolution,
• soul fragmentation,
• or descent into purely psychic existence.

In some interpretations:

souls that become utterly attached to lower desires drift toward the Eighth Sphere.

---

3. Connection With the Moon

In early Theosophy,
the Moon plays a very strange role.

Blavatsky sometimes described the Moon as:

• a “dead planet,”
• a decaying former chain of evolution,
• or a corpse-like remnant of a previous cosmic cycle.

According to Theosophical cosmology:

• Earth supposedly inherited life from a prior “Moon Chain.”

Thus:

• the Moon is spiritually exhausted,
• yet still psychically influential.

---

4. The Moon as Psychic but Not Spiritual

In Theosophy,
the Moon is often associated with:

• psychic phenomena,
• mediumship,
• astral forces,
• illusion,
• subconsciousness,
• and lower occultism.

But usually not with the highest spirituality.

Blavatsky repeatedly warned against:

• lunar psychicism detached from true spiritual wisdom.

---

5. The Eighth Sphere and Lunar Attraction

Some later occult interpretations connect:

• the Eighth Sphere
  with:
• the Moon,
• or a shadow-side occult lunar realm.

This does not mean the physical Moon literally contains damned souls.

Rather:

• “Moon” becomes a symbol for:
  • exhausted evolution,
  • astral illusion,
  • sterile psychic existence,
  • and separation from higher spiritual ascent.

---

6. Steiner’s Interpretation

Rudolf Steiner,
who emerged from Theosophical circles,
reinterpreted these ideas heavily.

Steiner associated certain “Moon forces” with:

• hardening,
• intellectualism,
• mechanization,
• and spiritual alienation.

He also linked the Eighth Sphere to:

• occult materialism,
• and destructive spiritual tendencies.

In Steiner’s cosmology,
the Eighth Sphere becomes almost:

a counterfeit creation separated from divine evolution.

---

7. Luciferic and Ahrimanic Elements

Anthroposophy later developed the idea that humanity could become trapped between:

• Luciferic illusion,
• and Ahrimanic materialism.

The Eighth Sphere became associated with:

• artificial spiritual worlds,
• false transcendence,
• or mechanized pseudo-reality.

This later influenced:

• occult conspiracy theories,
• esoteric science fiction,
• and modern esoteric internet mythology.

---

8. Spiritual Danger

In many interpretations,
the Eighth Sphere represents:

consciousness cut off from true spiritual development.

Characteristics include:

• narcissistic occultism,
• obsession with psychic powers,
• hyper-materialism,
• soul hardening,
• or artificial spirituality.

It is often portrayed as:

• seductive but spiritually empty.

---

9. Is It “Hell”?

Not exactly.

Theosophy generally rejects eternal damnation.

The Eighth Sphere is more like:

• spiritual degeneration,
• disintegration,
• or failed evolution.

Some Theosophists suggested:

• certain soul-elements might dissolve there.

---

10. Relation to Mediumship and Necromancy

Blavatsky often associated lower astral realms with:

• séance phenomena,
• shell entities,
• and deceptive psychic remnants.

These lunar-astral regions could allegedly trap:

• confused consciousness,
• obsession,
• or lower desires.

This contributed to the eerie reputation of the Moon in occultism.

---

11. Symbolic Interpretation

Modern interpreters often read the Eighth Sphere symbolically as:

• alienation from authentic spirituality,
• imprisonment in illusion,
• mechanized consciousness,
• or egoic self-enclosure.

Psychologically,
it can resemble:

• spiritual sterility,
• hyper-materialistic existence,
• or dissociation from transcendent meaning.

---

12. Contrast With Traditional Lunar Mysticism

This is very different from traditions where the Moon symbolizes:

• divine femininity,
• compassion,
• mystical reflection,
• or sacred cycles.

Theosophy often gives the Moon a more:

• exhausted,
• psychic,
• ghostly,
• or karmically residual quality.

---

13. Influence on Later Esotericism

Theosophical Moon/Eighth Sphere ideas influenced:

• Anthroposophy,
• occult fiction,
• esoteric astrology,
• New Age cosmology,
• and conspiracy-esotericism hybrids.

But later interpretations vary enormously.

---

14. Important Caution

Blavatsky herself was often:

• symbolic,
• contradictory,
• and deliberately obscure.

So there is no single perfectly clear doctrine of the Eighth Sphere.

Different occultists understood it differently:

• literal astral region,
• metaphysical danger,
• symbolic degeneration,
• psychic trap,
• or failed evolutionary branch.

---

15. Overall Essence

The core symbolic contrast is often:

Higher Evolution	Eighth Sphere
Spiritual ascent	Spiritual entrapment
Living spirit	Psychic residue
True enlightenment	Illusory pseudo-spirituality
Solar consciousness	Lunar shadow
Integration	Fragmentation

Thus the Moon in these systems often symbolizes:

the ambiguous border between imagination, psychic experience, illusion, and spiritual danger.

Herr Doktor has gesagt

 

Did Steiner predict AI in 1921? 

>>>And from the earth will well up terrible creations of beings who in their character stand between the mineral kingdom and the plant kingdom as automative beings with a supernatural intellect, an immense intellect. 

>>>When this development takes hold, the earth will be covered, as with a web, a web of terrible spiders, spiders of enormous wisdom, which however, in their organisation don’t even reach the plant status. 

>>>Terrible spiders which will interlock with each other, which will imitate in their movements all that which humanity has thought of with their shadowlike intellect.

Schizo

 

Best video title on YouTube! 

Witches in the wardrobe

 

A rather bland and predictable criticism of Rudolf Steiner´s Anthroposophy c/o Doreen Virtue and a former Waldorf School teacher. There is one funny quip: Virtue at one point wonders if Ahriman is a character from "Lord of the Rings"! 

But sure, I suppose Steiner really was an occultist. Although my main problem with Steiner Schools is that the students don´t actually seem to learn anything...

Not even occultism.

Nature´s open secret

 

From the YouTube channel Formscapes:  

>>>

As of the past couple of years, science communication headlines and pop-sci rhetoric have become increasingly and blatantly arcane. Notice how often words such as "illusion" are used. We are told that such and such phenomena aren't actually, really foreal real. We are told that our experiences of space and time - or physical reality itself - are "controlled hallucinations". "Simulation" theory is just a particularly computer-science-flavored variation of a much more general trend.

Many people within the more woowoo regions of the intellectual landscape seem to be very eager to see this as a concession of some sort; "Ah yes, finally..." they declare, "the scientards are finally wising up to the realization that physical reality isn't really real and that the really real reality is actually a world of [insert consciousness, spirit, quantum energy or whatever] which isn't actually visible to human perception!" Such morons believe that it is actually a positive thing that science is so unapologetically abandoning its final pretenses of actually being **empirical**, because their own woowoo beliefs are equally non-empirical, meaningless clickbait garbage. What we are seeing is not science on the verge of reconciling itself with consciousness. What we are seeing is science on the verge of becoming a disgraceful parody of itself and religion simultaneously - which is, to be fair, a rather impressive accomplishment. The psychical world is not hiding from you, concealed by your physical senses. If science is going to ever become truly scientific, it is indeed going to need to reconcile itself with psyche, but it must do so by being (for the first time) genuinely, radically empirical, not by becoming radically non-empirical.

It is quite clear that academic science is choosing the latter option, and gleefully detaching itself from reality so thoroughly as to make the most delusional new-agers blush. Nothing is hidden.

>>>

Humans? What humans?

 

The answers to the first two questions are pretty basic, but I suppose it´s interesting that ChatGPT "knows" it, too. But...I also asked the system a third question and the answer might shock you!!! :D  

What is the least anthropocentric religion, in your estimation?

That’s a fascinating and difficult question — and one philosophers of religion wrestle with often. "Least anthropocentric" would mean a religion or philosophy that:

• Doesn’t treat human beings as the central concern of the cosmos,

• Doesn’t see the gods as primarily existing to bless or punish humans,

• Frames reality in terms of cosmic processes, laws, or consciousness that would exist whether humans were here or not.

Let’s survey some candidates across traditions:

---

1. Theravāda Buddhism

• Why non-anthropocentric?

  • The Dharma is not “about humans” but about the nature of suffering and its cessation — a law as universal as gravity.

  • Beings of all types (gods, animals, humans, spirits) are equally subject to impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anattā).

  • No creator god with human concerns. Even gods (devas) are impermanent and bound by the same laws.

• Key idea: Dharma is cosmic law, not human-centered morality.

• Drawback: Some interpretations still see human rebirth as the “best chance” for liberation, which is a kind of anthropocentrism.

---

2. Advaita Vedānta (Hinduism)

• Why non-anthropocentric?

  • The only reality is Brahman — impersonal, infinite consciousness.

  • The human world (and even the gods) are maya, a projection.

  • Liberation isn’t about human concerns but about realizing impersonal absolute reality.

• Key idea: Humans are not central at all, just temporary forms of Brahman.

• Drawback: Still frames the purpose of realization in terms of human liberation.

---

3. Daoism (classical, Laozi/Zhuangzi)

• Why non-anthropocentric?

  • Central concern is the Dao (the Way), the spontaneous order of nature.

  • Humans are just one manifestation among “the ten thousand things.”

  • The sage harmonizes with the Dao, not by imposing human will but by non-action (wu wei) and yielding to the flow of nature.

• Key idea: Cosmic processes matter more than human ones; the Dao would “flow” whether humans exist or not.

• Drawback: Still gives guidance for human flourishing (longevity, balance).

---

4. Stoicism (ancient Greco-Roman)

• Why non-anthropocentric?

  • The universe is governed by Logos, a rational, cosmic order.

  • Humans are rational animals, but their role is just to align with the universal order, not to dominate it.

• Key idea: Cosmic order > human desires.

• Drawback: Stoics often emphasize human virtue, so anthropocentric in practice.

---

5. Zoroastrianism?

• Actually quite anthropocentric: humans are the battleground between Ahura Mazda (good) and Angra Mainyu (evil).

---

6. Indigenous Animisms

• Many animistic traditions see spirits in rivers, trees, stones, animals, etc.

• Why non-anthropocentric? Humans are just one part of the web of beings. The spirits don’t exist for us; they have their own agency.

• Drawback: In practice, ritual often centers on human survival (crops, health, hunting luck).

---

My Estimation

If I had to choose the least anthropocentric religion/philosophy, I’d say:

• Advaita Vedānta: Humans and even gods are “maya”; only impersonal Brahman is real.

• Theravāda Buddhism: The Dharma applies to all beings equally, human or not.

• Classical Daoism: Nature’s way is utterly impersonal; humans are just one current in a greater flow.

Between these, Advaita Vedānta might win, because it outright declares human life, gods, worlds — all appearances, not ultimately real. From that perspective, the universe isn’t “about” humans at all.

---

👉 Would you like me to make a ranking list of religions from most to least anthropocentric, based on their cosmology and soteriology? That might clarify things.

Yes.

Great — here’s a ranking of religions/philosophical traditions from most to least anthropocentric, based on their cosmology (what reality is about) and soteriology (how liberation/salvation is conceived).

---

📊 Religions Ranked by Anthropocentrism

Most Anthropocentric

1. Abrahamic Monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)

   • God creates the universe for humans, gives humans dominion over Earth, salvation is for humans.

   • History itself is “human-centered.”

   • Angels and even creation often exist to serve human destiny.

2. Zoroastrianism

   • Cosmic battle between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman plays out through human moral choices.

   • Humans are the decisive arena of the war between good and evil.

3. Hindu Bhakti Traditions (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism in devotional form)

   • God or Goddess manifests in forms accessible to humans.

   • The cosmic līlā (divine play) often revolves around human devotion.

   • But less anthropocentric than Abrahamics, since gods also play out cosmic dramas beyond humanity.

4. Mahayana Buddhism

   • Universal compassion extends to all beings, not just humans.

   • Bodhisattvas vow to save beings in all realms.

   • Still, humans are seen as having the best opportunity for enlightenment (more central than animals/gods).

5. Theravāda Buddhism

   • Dharma is universal: gods, humans, animals — all subject to impermanence.

   • Humans are not the center, but rebirth as a human is privileged because it balances suffering and opportunity.

6. Stoicism (Greco-Roman)

   • Humans are not rulers of the cosmos but participants in the Logos.

   • Anthropocentric only in that humans are rational beings who can align with cosmic reason.

7. Indigenous Animisms

   • The world is filled with spirits and powers that have nothing to do with humans.

   • Humans are just one part of a larger network.

   • But often rituals serve human survival (food, fertility), giving a practical anthropocentric flavor.

8. Classical Daoism (Laozi, Zhuangzi)

   • The Dao is utterly indifferent to humans.

   • Humans are just one ripple among “the ten thousand things.”

   • Best life is to stop being human-centered and flow with the Dao.

9. Advaita Vedānta (Shankara’s Nondualism)

   • Brahman alone is real.

   • Humans, gods, animals, worlds — all maya (illusion).

   • Liberation is not about human destiny but about realizing there never was a separate human self.

Least Anthropocentric

10. Nature Mysticism / Deep Ecology (modern spiritual movements)

• Humans are one node in a vast, impersonal web of being.

• Spirituality is about dissolving human-centeredness into ecological consciousness.

• Comparable in spirit to Daoism or Advaita, though much newer.

---

🏆 Verdict

• Most anthropocentric: Abrahamic religions (humans at center of cosmic plan).

• Least anthropocentric: Advaita Vedānta and Daoism (humans are just one appearance of the ultimate reality or the Dao, neither of which depends on us at all).

---

Would you like me to also make a visual spectrum/scale diagram showing these traditions spread from “Human-Centered” → “Cosmos-Centered” → “Impersonal Absolute”?

Is Theosophy or Anthroposophy the most anthropocentric?

Excellent question — because both Theosophy (Blavatsky, Besant) and Anthroposophy (Steiner) are cosmic in scope but still very human-centered. Let’s break it down:

---

Theosophy

• Cosmology: Vast cycles of evolution, with hierarchies of beings (devas, masters, etc.).

• Anthropocentrism: Humanity is the pivot point of evolution on Earth, but not the only concern. Other planets, other beings, and occult hierarchies also matter.

• Goal: The human soul evolves toward divine consciousness, but so do other beings.

• Conclusion: Anthropocentric, but at least humanity is seen as one stage among many in a grand cosmic ladder.

---

Anthroposophy

• Cosmology: Steiner makes Earth and human evolution the central stage of the entire cosmos.

• Angels, archangels, and archai exist primarily in relation to human destiny.

• Christ event = central moment of all cosmic history — and it happens here, on Earth, for humans.

• Goal: Human beings are the meaning of creation. The cosmos itself evolves so that humans can become fully spiritual.

• Conclusion: Extremely anthropocentric — perhaps even more than Christianity in its traditional form, because Steiner explicitly says the cosmos exists for human evolution.

---

Comparison

• Theosophy: Anthropocentric, but not exclusively. Humanity is a cosmic rung among countless beings and worlds.

• Anthroposophy: Radically anthropocentric. Humanity is the main reason for the cosmos itself; everything funnels into our development.

---

✅ So, between the two, Anthroposophy is clearly the most anthropocentric.
It’s actually one of the most anthropocentric spiritual systems ever devised, because it reinterprets the entire universe in terms of human spiritual evolution.

---

Would you like me to place Theosophy and Anthroposophy on the anthropocentrism ranking I made earlier, so you can see where they fit relative to other religions?

Vänta ett slag...

 

Weleda?!  

Stränga regler för journalister på prinsessan Madeleines Minlen-event

The mystery of the Solarian plasma and the Luciferic counter-initiation in the light of Anthroposophy

 

Good luck with this material, a one-hour long discussion about Anthroposophy on (perhaps) middle level. 

Yes, it´s Lucifer versus Ahriman, the Consciousness Soul, the Saturn period, the Solarian (?) and Lemurian periods, and so on. Fun fact: the guy who looks vaguely like Rudolf Steiner himself is actually *not* an Anthroposophist but rather a kind of Whitehead-Jung-occultic best blend. The female mystic Gigi Young, who looks vaguely Pre-Raphaelite, is the Anthroposophist. 

Also contains some criticism of current American spirituality, including its weird combination of the Luciferic and the Ahrimanic. As in: use technology to transcend the world! Final point: is the plasma physicist mentioned the same person as the author of "The Sirius Mystery"? No idea. 

As I said, good luck to ya. (Yes, my headline is somewhat ironic.)   

Get used to it, LOL

 

I haven´t bothered reading all of this typically eclectic Wikipedia entry, but the closing section is priceless. I mean, puleeze...

>>>In 1947, Terence Harold Robsjohn-Gibbings (1905–1976), criticizing modern art, accused it of "vicious connection" with the occult. Robsjohn-Gibbings' criticism was so "successful that, for decades, supporters of abstract art religiously avoided mentioning the esoteric connections of its pioneers." Interest in Theosophy of such abstract art leaders as Mondrian and Kandinsky was used "as a weapon" against modern art in general "by evangelical Christians and other critics."

>>>The prejudgment against connection the sources of modern art with Theosophy still exists. For example, art history scholar Yve-Alain Bois claimed that "the Theosophical nonsense with which the artist's mind was momentarily encumbered" disappeared quite rapidly from Mondrian's art, but Mondrian himself wrote: "I got everything from The Secret Doctrine." The "Inventing Abstraction, 1910–1925" exhibition at the New York Museum of Modern Art in 2012–2013 "completely ignored" the value of occultism and Theosophy. 

>>>Art critic Waldemar Januszczak wrote on 7 February 2010: "The fact is, Theosophy... is embarrassing. If there is one thing you do not want your hardcore modernist to be, it is a member of an occult cult... Theosophy takes art into Dan Brown territory. No serious student of art history wants to touch it."

>>>Januszczak claimed also that Theosophy was "fraudulent" and "ridiculous," and that "one day, someone will write a big book on the remarkable influence of Theosophy on modern art" and "its nonsensical spell" on so many modern artists. But, as Massimo Introvigne wrote, "conferences, publications, and exhibitions about Theosophy's influence on modern art continue at an increasing pace."

LOL. Get used to it, art critics! Modern art is evidently soaked in occultism. Sorry, lads, your "analyses" are worthless. It was Mme Blavatsky and Dr Steiner all the time, ha ha ha!

I suppose the contributions listed in the reference section could be interesting...if I ever get infinite time 24/7.

Theosophy and visual arts

Das Kleinod von Babylon

 

“The Occult Roots of Religious Studies”, edited by Yves Mühlematter and Helmut Zander, is a scholarly volume published in 2021. It´s interesting, to be sure, but the title is (frankly) click bait. (The subtitle is more correct: “Influence of Non-Hegemonic Currents in Academia around 1900”.) The contributors don´t really prove that religious studies have occult roots, and frankly don´t even try. I get the impression of a comfy scholarly conference where everyone made a presentation on their favorite obscure topic, had a quick snack in the bar, and then went home to Paris, Heidelberg, or wherever these people have their domicile! What the book proves is simply that many scholars of religion had “non-hegemonic” side interests. In plain English: they actually believed in Spiritualism, occultism, and the like. But that´s hardly news today. A more edgy volume (which will have to wait another 50 years) would detail which scholars *today* have religious connections and how that influences their academic research (Tibetology cough cough). It´s also somewhat weird that the two biggest fish in the occult/religious studies interface pond are hardly even mentioned. Yes, that would be Carl Gustav Jung and Mircea Eliade. Oh, and what about Henry Corbin?

But sure, “The Occult Roots of Religious Studies” isn´t bad, if you take it in the right spirit (pun intended). The chapter on Britain shows that both the Victorian and Edwardian periods were steeped in occultism, indeed, occultism (at least in the broad sense) was near-respectable. Even after the separation of science and “superstition”, many scientists were interested in Theosophy and Spiritualism on a purely personal level. So nah, Alfred Russell Wallace wasn´t unique. Chances are *Darwin* was! One thing that surprised me was that some Theosophists were members of the SPR even *after* the latter´s conflict with Madame Blavatsky. And SPR´s social base was near-upper class! The scientist Sir William Crookes, inventor of the TV tube and discoverer of Thallium, was a President of the SPR, a former President of the Royal Society and…a member of the Theosophical Society. He is even mentioned in the Mahatma Letters! It was also interesting to note that US philosopher William James was more into Spiritualism than I had expected, and that he was the son of a Swedenborgian minister…

One interesting chapter deals with John Woodroffe alias Arthur Avalon. Or perhaps not, since “Arthur Avalon” was really a collective pseudonym, encompassing both Woodroffe and a number of Bengali intellectuals. I never read Avalon´s works (an unfortunate lacuna, I know), but we´re apparently talking about a very late “reform” Tantra, paradoxically proposed to save India and Hinduism from modernity, while simultaneously claiming to be “scientific”. And speaking of India: one contribution deals with W Y Evans-Wentz, the man behind “The Tibetan Book of the Dead” and a lifelong Theosophist, who never left his occult ideas very far behind. He even saw evidence of reincarnation and other Theosophical doctrines in Celtic fairy lore!

The most intriguing section isn´t even about a scholar of religious studies sensu stricto: the famous German archeologist Walter Andrae. It turns out that his Babylonian exhibition at the Pergamonmuseum in Berlin (the one featuring the Ishtar Gate) is inspired by Anthroposophy! Apparently, Andrae both arranged and interpreted the exhibition according to doctrines he picked up from the Christian Community, the Anthroposophical “Church” founded by Friedrich Rittelmeyer under the inspiration of Rudolf Steiner. Apparently, it´s supposed to resemble an initiatory path. This also explains a weird anomaly in the exhibition: its two sphinxes aren´t Babylonian but Hittite. Yet, Andrae assumed that there simply must have been sphinxes present based on some hard-to-understand Anthroposophical doctrine. Indeed, Andrae believed that the Babylonians were carrying out a ritual created by a certain Zaratos, an earlier incarnation of Zarathustra, and the spiritual teacher of Nebuchadnezzar II. There are also speculations that the exhibition halls were painted according to Anthroposophical principles, Steiner having a complex theory of color supposedly derived from Goethe. While this is all very interesting, what conclusions are we supposed to draw from it? For instance, why did Andrae get away with it? Was it *only* because of his elevated position at an important institution, or did his take on ancient Babylon speak to some more widespread Zeitgeist?

The introduction to the volume does make some points worth pondering. For instance, it asks whether esotericism or occultism is really “non-hegemonic” to begin with? If a worldview is widely shared and discussed in elite society, isn´t it really hegemonic? Further, the introduction points out that the nouns “occultism” and “esotericism” are modern inventions and become common during the late 19^th century. Why? What made it necessary to distinguish occultism/esotericism from everything else during that period? Many of the ideas co-existing under those headers are, after all, much older. Protestant theologians apparently started denouncing esoteric ideas much earlier than Catholics. It struck me that this may explain why many esoteric groups are drawn to Catholicism and even end up creating a kind of pseudo-Catholicism themselves. Conversely, there doesn´t seem to be any esoteric groups obviously drawn to Protestantism, albeit more Protestants than we imagine may have been influenced by “heretical” esoteric ideas.   

With that observation, I close this little discussion.    

WE CONTROL EVERYTHING

- Welcome, seeker,
let me teach you comparative religion!

 

Two quotes from the introduction to "The Occult Roots of Religious Studies" (2021), edited by Yves Mühlematter and Helmut Zander. The entire book seems to be available free at Academia.edu, so I might read all of it when I get the time. Another contribution to the genre "everyone was really an occultist", apparently. Bingo! 

>>>For example, the anthroposophical milieu has not been researched sufficiently. One could think of the anthroposophist Uno Donner, a Finnish industrialist, who donated a chair for religious and cultural history to the University of Turku/Åbo and and also donated/held one of the largest book collections on religion in Northern Europe. 

>>>Another would be the German Diether Lauenstein, priest of the Christian Community, who learned Sanskrit from the Marburg indologist Johannes Nobel, habilitated (presumably) in 1944 at the University of Greifswald, where he subsequently received a teaching assignment for Indo-European Studies and Sanskrit. He was involved in the founding of the Herdecke community hospital (a nucleus of the University of Witten-Herdecke) and died as a supporter of apartheid in South West Africa (modern-day Namibia). We thank Robin Schmidt for the clues.

(...)

>>>However, this problem is not specific to representatives of the cultural sciences; rather, these blurred boundaries can also and especially be found in the “hard” natural sciences, where an even clearer distinction between science and pseudo-science, or religious studies, is often assumed. 

>>>Such examples include Marie Curie, who not only stood in the laboratory, but also attended spiritual seances, or Albert Einstein, who was not only a theorist in the field of physics, but also read Blavatsky and attended lectures by Rudolf Steiner. 

>>>Georg Cantor, the inventor of set theory in mathematics, who was interested in both Catholic theories of infinity and the existence of the “true” Rosicrucians, may be added to this group, along with the mathematician Jan Arnoldus Schouten, the explorer of differential geometry, who was also interested in Theosophy, or Thomas Alva Edison, who not only invented the light bulb and the two-way telegraph, but was also a temporary member of Theosophical Society Adyar (partly for economic reasons, e.g. to better sell his products in India?). 

>>>The separation between the humanities and the natural sciences, which was established in university practice – though always criticised in theory of science – never disappeared on an individual level.