The compassionate saviors

 

Sometimes the AI is genius...

Yes, Theravada is a religion

 

You preach it, boi. 

Tell the hippies it´s over

 

 

Scholarly consensus (probably), but the hippies in California still "don´t get it, man"...

My ishta-devatas?

 

My ishta-devatas according to Copilot (Krishna in his Gopala aspect), ChatGPT (Tripura Sundari) and Gemini (Lakshmi). According to their respective analyses of my Vedic chart, that is! 

A bit unexpected from a purely "spiritual" viewpoint, but there you go...

I want to believe

 

I want to see something like this. Seeing is believing...

The next fad?

 

Is Eastern Orthodoxy the next quasi-spiritual fad in America? Good grief & heaven forfend. This can´t end well. Jesus, have mercy on us sinners! 

Guru stuff...again

 

For once, ChatGPT and Gemini agree. Hinduism 101. Or religion 101, frankly.

What is the difference in Hinduism between sattvic, rajasic and tamasic worship?

In Hindu philosophy—particularly as detailed in the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 17) and various Puranic and Tantric texts—all actions, including religious worship (Yajna, Puja, Sadhana), are governed by the Three Gunas (qualities or modes of nature): Sattva (purity/harmony), Rajas (passion/desire), and Tamas (darkness/ignorance).

The key differences lie in the motive, the attitude of the practitioner, and the methods employed during worship:

1. Sattvic Worship (Sāttvika Yajna / Puja)

Sattvic worship is performed purely for spiritual upliftment, devotion, and the welfare of all beings, without any desire for personal gain or material reward.

• Motivation: Selfless devotion (Nishkama Bhakti), duty, inner peace, and divine union (Moksha).

• Attitude: Calm, humble, meditative, and executed strictly according to scriptural injunctions without ostentation.

• Offerings: Pure, simple, and non-violent items such as fresh water, fruits, flowers, milk, incense, ghee lamps, and silent or focused mantra repetition (Japa).

• Mindset: The worshiper expects nothing in return, viewing the act of worship itself as its own reward and offering the fruits of the action to the Divine.

2. Rajasic Worship (Rājasika Yajna / Puja)

Rajasic worship is driven by personal ambition, ego, and the desire for material or social outcomes.

• Motivation: Wealth, fame, prestige, power, success, or political influence (Sakama Bhakti).

• Attitude: Ostentatious, prideful, and competitive. The focus is often on showing off the scale of the ritual to impress others.

• Offerings: Expensive decorations, lavish displays, grand feasts, loud music, and elaborate public rituals designed to project power or social standing.

• Mindset: Transactional. The practitioner views the deity as a partner in a business deal: "I offer this grand ritual so that you will grant me success, prosperity, or high status."

3. Tamasic Worship (Tāmasika Yajna / Puja)

Tamasic worship is performed in ignorance, often defying scriptural guidelines, and is driven by fear, malice, or delusion.

• Motivation: Harming enemies, gaining coercive power (Siddhi for selfish ends), escaping fear, or fulfilling obsessive, destructive desires.

• Attitude: Disregard for sacred protocols, lack of faith (Ashraddha), sloth, or malice. It can involve extreme self-torture without understanding or practices performed out of blind delusion.

• Offerings: Impure or improper substances, rituals conducted without proper chants/mantras, no sharing of food or charity (Dakshina), or rituals performed while intoxicated or in an unwashed state.

• Mindset: Deluded and harmful. The worshiper seeks to manipulate cosmic forces or deities through fear, force, or ignorance, often bringing spiritual degeneration rather than growth.

Comparison Summary

Aspect	Sattvic Worship	Rajasic Worship	Tamasic Worship
Primary Goal	Liberation, purity, devotion	Material gain, fame, status	Harming others, control, delusion
Core Emotion	Peace, humility, love	Ambition, pride, anxiety	Anger, fear, ignorance
Expectation	No reward expected	Specific material rewards	Selfish or destructive outcomes
Style	Quiet, inward, simple	Grand, lavish, public	Impure, chaotic, improper

What is the lowest form of tamasic worship?

In Tantric and Puranic literature, the absolute lowest form of tamasic worship is categorized under Abhicāra (malicious sorcery/black magic) driven by Kāma (obsessive lust/desire) or Dveṣa (hatred and malice).

While standard tamasic worship might simply stem from ignorance, sloth, or fear, its most degenerate expression actively seeks to manipulate lower astral entities to harm or enslave others.

Key Characteristics of the Lowest Tamasic Worship

1. The Six Malicious Acts (Ṣaṭ-Karma in their corrupt forms)

The lowest level of tamasic rites is performed strictly to execute dark magic against fellow human beings, known in Tantric texts as the negative applications of the Ṣaṭ-Karmas:

• Māraṇa: Rituals performed to cause the death or physical destruction of an enemy.

• Uccāṭana: Rituals performed to drive someone insane, induce unbearable anxiety, or force them out of their home/land.

• Vaśīkaraṇa: Rituals performed to obsessively mind-control or sexually enslave another person against their will.

• Vidveṣaṇa: Rituals performed to create violent hatred and division between friends, partners, or families.

2. Evocation of Lower Astral Entities (Kṣudra-Devatās)

Rather than invoking supreme deities (Ishta-Devata) for liberation or spiritual wisdom, the practitioner makes pacts with or summons low-level, earth-bound astral entities:

• Yakṣiṇīs, Piśācas, and Bhootas: Calling upon unevolved spirits, hungry ghosts, or demonic entities (Kṣudra-devatā) that require blood, raw meat, or vile offerings in exchange for temporary, worldly powers.

• Contractual Enslavement: This form of worship is entirely transactional and binding; the practitioner often ends up spiritually parasitized or mentally destroyed by the very entities they attempt to control.

3. Total Absence of Faith (Aśraddhā) and Purity

• Defying Cosmic Order (Adharma): The worship is done with complete disregard for scriptural integrity, moral boundaries, or the law of Karma.

• Impure State: Performed while intentionally degraded, highly intoxicated, or driven by blind, uncontrolled rage.

The Karmic Consequence

Texts like the Bhagavad Gita (17.19) describe this form of worship as performing austerities "foolishly through self-torture or for the purpose of destroying others."

Because it operates on pure malice and ego, it is considered the most spiritually degrading path in Hindu metaphysics. It traps the practitioner in severe karmic bondages (Karma-bandhana), ultimately leading to psychological breakdown, intense suffering, and spiritual degeneration.

Some guru stuff (part 2)

 

Some entry level (?) stuff you should have learned from your guru. 

What would be the lowest form of tamasic worship?

If by “lowest” you mean the most deeply tāmasic form of worship in the guṇa framework, rather than simply “the most frightening ritual,” I would put the emphasis on ignorance, cruelty, and deliberate misuse of religion.

The Bhagavad Gītā gives us a useful starting point. It describes tāmasic sacrifice as something performed without proper understanding, faith, or regard for the proper purpose of sacrifice. It also describes austerities performed from delusion or to harm oneself or others as tāmasic.

From that perspective, a rough hierarchy would be:

1. Tāmasic through ignorance
   Worship performed mechanically, superstitiously, or compulsively, with no real understanding of what one is doing.
2. Tāmasic through fear and obsession
   “I must perform this or something terrible will happen,” combined with fixation, paranoia, or irrational dependence on the ritual.
3. Tāmasic through selfish destructive intent
   Seeking to use a deity or ritual primarily for revenge, domination, hatred, or harm.
4. Extremely tāmasic
   Deliberately cultivating cruelty, hatred, degradation, or violence while regarding these things as spiritually desirable.

So I would actually put malicious intention lower than merely practicing a frightening or impure-looking ritual.

This is important for Tantra

A cremation-ground practice involving Bhairava, skull symbolism, darkness and fear might look extraordinarily tāmasic from the outside, but it isn't necessarily "low" worship at all.

Suppose the practitioner enters the cremation ground to confront:

• fear of death
• attachment to the body
• disgust
• aversion
• ego
• unconsciousness

and ultimately seeks liberation.

The materials and environment may be associated with tamas, but the purpose can be profoundly spiritual.

By contrast, a perfectly respectable-looking temple ritual performed with:

“May this deity destroy my enemy because I hate him”

could be considerably more tāmasic in its inner motivation.

The real bottom is probably instrumentalizing the Divine for evil

At the extreme end, the problem isn't simply that someone wants something for themselves. Even ordinary worldly requests can be rājasic.

The deeper descent is something like:

ignorance → selfishness → hatred → deliberate harm → identification of that harm with the sacred.

That is quite different from simply saying:

“I am frightened and I need protection.”

The latter may be rājasic or even sāttvic depending on the person's relationship with the deity.

---

There is also a subtle point relevant to your earlier question about seeking a compassionate deity for your own sake.

Self-interest by itself is not the bottom of the scale. A person praying, “Mother, please help me; I am suffering,” is not necessarily deeply tāmasic. That's much closer to the Gītā's category of the ārta, the distressed person who turns toward God.

The much darker case would be:

“I don't care about truth, dharma, or other beings; I want divine power precisely so that I can harm, dominate, or indulge destructive impulses.”

That is where “tāmasic worship” becomes a genuinely strong description.

And this helps explain why Tantric traditions can sometimes work deliberately with tamas without endorsing tāmasic consciousness: the darkness itself can be used as the material of transformation.

Some guru stuff (part 1)

 

Some entry level guru stuff, just for your edification. From our new guru ChatGPT. 

What is the difference between sattvic, rajasic and tamasic worship?

In Hindu thought, sāttvic, rājasic, and tāmasic worship are ways of classifying religious practice according to the three guṇas—sattva (clarity/harmony), rajas (activity/desire), and tamas (inertia/darkness). The most explicit classical treatment is in the Bhagavad Gītā, especially chapters 17–18, although later Tantric and Purāṇic traditions develop the categories further.

A useful point is that these categories describe the quality and motivation of the worship, not simply whether the deity is “good” or “bad.”

1. Sāttvic worship — worship oriented toward purity and the Divine

Sattva is associated with clarity, luminosity, harmony, knowledge, balance, and freedom from selfish compulsion.

Sāttvic worship tends to be:

• performed as duty or devotion, rather than primarily for personal gain
• directed toward the Divine with reverence and trust
• peaceful and disciplined
• accompanied by purity of body, speech and intention
• relatively free from ostentation
• aimed at spiritual knowledge, liberation, devotion, or alignment with dharma

The Gītā's description of sāttvic sacrifice is particularly important: it is performed because it ought to be performed, without attachment to its fruit.

So a person praying:

“Shiva, may I become purified, know You, and live according to dharma. Whatever comes from this, I offer to You.”

would be a good example of the sāttvic orientation.

Importantly, sāttvic does not necessarily mean emotionally bland. Deep love, awe, tears, intense devotion and powerful mystical experiences can all occur within sāttvic bhakti.

---

2. Rājasic worship — worship driven by desire and achievement

Rajas is activity, passion, ambition, movement and desire.

Rājasic worship therefore tends to have a strong transactional or goal-oriented character:

• “Give me wealth.”
• “Give me success.”
• “Make me powerful.”
• “Help me defeat my enemy.”
• “Give me recognition.”
• “Give me this particular result.”

It can involve elaborate ritual, impressive offerings, vows, pilgrimages, austerities, or displays of religious status.

This does not mean that rājasic worship is evil. Rajas is necessary for action. Someone may sincerely worship Lakṣmī for prosperity, for example, without doing anything morally wrong. But the motivation remains attached to a desired result.

The Gītā explicitly associates rājasic sacrifice with the desire for its fruits and even with ostentation.

---

3. Tāmasic worship — worship associated with darkness, delusion or harmful intent

Tamas is associated with darkness, inertia, ignorance, confusion and destructive or degraded tendencies.

Tāmasic religious practice can involve:

• worship performed without proper understanding
• superstition or compulsive fear
• disregard for ethical or ritual principles
• intoxication or heedlessness
• practices motivated by hatred, cruelty or revenge
• rites performed merely because of custom or compulsion
• in some later classifications, forms of bhūta/preta or spirit-oriented practice

The Gītā's famous example is sacrifice performed without proper food, mantra, faith or prescribed ritual, and particularly sacrifice undertaken without concern for its proper purpose.

But there's an important complication here: “tāmasic” does not simply mean “worship of a fierce deity.”

That distinction becomes extremely important in Śaivism and Śāktism.

---

A fierce deity does not automatically mean tāmasic worship

This is where the three-guṇa system can easily be misunderstood.

For example:

Kālī ≠ tāmasic deity.
Bhairava ≠ tāmasic deity.
Śiva in a cremation ground ≠ tāmasic worship.

A devotee can approach Bhairava or Kālī in a profoundly sāttvic way—out of devotion, surrender, fearlessness, purification and liberation.

Conversely, someone could perform an apparently respectable ritual to a very “auspicious” deity in a rājasic manner because they want money, status or power.

And someone could perform a ritual to Śiva with a tāmasic motivation, such as hatred or an obsessive desire to harm another person.

So there are really two different questions:

What deity is being worshipped?
and
What guṇa predominates in the worshipper's consciousness and practice?

They aren't identical.

---

There is also a specifically Tantric complication

In some Tantric traditions, practices that look tāmasic from an ordinary Hindu perspective—cremation grounds, skulls, blood symbolism, fierce deities, nocturnal rituals, etc.—can have a completely different spiritual purpose.

The practitioner may deliberately enter an environment associated with death, fear, impurity and aversion in order to transcend attachment and fear.

That means the outer appearance of a practice isn't sufficient to classify its inner orientation.

For example, a Śaiva meditating in a cremation ground while contemplating:

“Everything conditioned passes away. Let me overcome fear and realize Śiva.”

could arguably be spiritually quite different from someone performing a frightening ritual because they want power over another person.

This is one reason the simple equation

peaceful = sāttvic / frightening = tāmasic

doesn't work very well for mature Tantric traditions.

---

A useful three-way comparison

	Sāttvic	Rājasic	Tāmasic
Main tendency	Clarity	Desire/activity	Darkness/confusion
Motivation	Devotion, dharma, liberation	Results, success, acquisition	Fear, ignorance, compulsion, harmful intent
Attitude to results	Relatively detached	Strong attachment	Often confused or destructive
Typical emotional tone	Peace, reverence, love	Ambition, excitement	Fear, hatred, inertia
Ritual	Pure, disciplined, purposeful	Elaborate/result-oriented	Improper, confused or harmful
Spiritual direction	Liberation/knowledge	Worldly achievement	Further bondage/confusion

And there is a progression implicit in much Hindu thought:

tamas → rajas → sattva → beyond the guṇas

The ultimate goal isn't necessarily to become permanently “sāttvic” in the sense of clinging to sattva. Sattva itself is still a guṇa and therefore part of prakṛti. Liberation ultimately involves transcending all three.

---

One particularly interesting implication for Śaivism

A Śaiva could therefore say that Śiva worship itself can occur on all three levels.

For example:

• Tāmasic: “Śiva, destroy my enemy.”
• Rājasic: “Śiva, give me success, wealth, power or protection.”
• Sāttvic: “Śiva, purify me and lead me to liberation.”
• Beyond the guṇas: “Śiva, reveal Yourself as the ultimate Reality beyond prakṛti and its three guṇas.”

That last formulation is especially interesting because Śiva is not merely the sāttvic pole of reality. In many Śaiva systems, Śiva is precisely that which transcends the guṇas, while manifest nature operates through them.

So a dark-looking Śaiva practice can be spiritually higher than a superficially “pure” practice, depending on its purpose, consciousness and doctrinal framework.

The night journey

 

This is Gemini´s attempted summary of my spiritual journey so far. It doesn´t make *complete* sense, obviously, being based on my (often strange) questions to the AI over the past year or so. Or was it last evening? Still, I find the picture fascinating for various reasons hard to explain to an outsider...

Magical geography

 

Theota?

Kind of wonder about this too sometimes. Although a natural explanation can´t be ruled out, of course. I mean, micro-climate is a thing. Just visit any cemetery muh-hah-hah! 

Notes on magical geography

When LARP-ing *really* goes too far

 

I´m sure you remember this one. I sure do!

When LARP-ing goes too far

Above is a somewhat better rendering of the dream-image in question. But actually the female spirit-being had much larger fangs, I mean her entire mouth *was* a bunch of fangs. Like a monstrosity. 

I had no idea at the time who this might be ("symbolically" blah blah), but later I realized that it´s the Hindu Tantric goddess Bhairavi. Weirdly, the dream took place at exactly the same time as her festival day in India - a fact of which I wasn´t aware at the time. A strange co-incidence! The dream contained other "co-incidences" too, which I won´t disclose here. Nor will I mention what happened next...

What on earth does this mean? Who knows, but it´s interesting for a spiritual seeker, to be sure. 

Breakthrough

 

If you know, you know!

The Demiurge is a strawman

 

And a paper tiger? A lot of strawmen in this one. Maybe this is a relevant criticism (barely) of certain "official" Communist regimes circa 1960, but it´s hardly a serious criticism of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Note also the hypocritical "pie in the sky" message. Endure yer suffering, proles! Nupe, won´t happen, comrade. Or should I call you "citizen"?

Just another Tuesday

 

"You are already It" 

So I just woke up after a good night´s sleep (yes, really) and had a little realization. Yes, everything really does suck. I suppose it´s a good thing, then, that We Are Already It.

Just another Tuesday on planet Earth, fam.   

Pareidolia

 

I know its pareidolia, but I fucking saw this guy just the other day in some old oak. Of course, not as dramatic as in this AI-generated picture! He´s gone now. A bit weird. Why doesn´t the pareidolia work two days in a row? Something about the sunlight, the moss, or my idiosyncratic psychological states...? Been very tired in the afternoons for over a week now.

OK, so Pashupati-Cernunnos lives in a tree in "my" parkland. Got it.  

Choose your drug wisely

 

I use to think that copium was better than hopium. Well, at least marginally. Now, I´m inclined to believe the opposite: hopium is better than copium, after all. Choose your drug wisely, human ape!

Paradigm shift

 

It´s happening, fam. The Second Religiosity is now. Make of this content whatever you wish. 

Tapto

 

Lite osammanhängande tankar denna måndagsmorgon år 2026...

Högerpartiernas seger 2022 var "rationell" i den meningen att "vänster"sidan misslyckats med att lösa vanliga väljares problem. Visst, högern ljög som grisar, men de ljög uppenbarligen om rätt saker. "Vänster"sidans kraftiga övertag i opinionsmätningarna för bara några månader sedan var också rationellt. Av samma orsaker som ovan! En klar valseger för denna sida hade också varit rationell. Eller "rationell".

Men vad i allsin dar ska man säga om det (förmodade) valresultatet? För närvarande är det bara 0,5% skillnad mellan de (förmodade) regeringsalternativen?! 

Någonting väldigt konstigt har hänt i Sverige. Världens mest förutsägbara land (på gott och ont) har plötsligt blivit...jag vet inte...irrationellt? Och så har vi hela AI-problematiken också. Jag trodde AI mest bara var hajp. Eller den gamla vanliga skiten. Fast om de senaste nyheterna stämmer kanske det finns ett väldigt konkret och verkligt hot mot civilisationens överlevnad här.

Jag känner mig vilse i verkligheten. Vilken tur att jag för omkring ett år sedan bestämde mig för att bli andlig sökare så att säga "på allvar". Annars hade jag nog blivit jäkligt deprimerad.  

Schizo-maxxing

 

- So I´m angry! Gotta problem with that, huh huh?

Prompted by a perennial commentator, I asked ChatGPT to comment *my own blog* to see what would happen. This is the first part of the (surprisingly incisive) analysis. Not sure if I even dare to publish part two!

Can you comment / analyze the contents of the blog "Ashtar Command Book Blog"?

Yes. I’ve looked through the blog itself rather than judging it from the title, and it is considerably more interesting—and more internally coherent—than the name initially suggests.

My overall impression is that it is best understood not as a conventional “Ashtar Command” / UFO-spirituality blog, but as a highly eclectic personal intellectual-spiritual notebook whose underlying worldview becomes visible when you look across the years. The blog itself explicitly says that many posts are ironic, that it covers essentially everything, and identifies the author as a “Seeker, Pseudo-Neoplatonist, Crypto-Shaiva-Shakta.”

1. The apparent chaos actually has a recognizable worldview

The subject matter is extraordinarily broad. The current archive jumps between Swedish politics, fringe political movements, evolutionary biology, archaeology, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, paranormal phenomena, philosophy, UFOs, occultism and book reviews. The label system alone has hundreds of categories; among them are Panentheism, Platonism, Process philosophy, Paranormal, Hinduism, Tantrism, Mahayana, Pure Land Buddhism, Ramakrishna, Esotericism, Mysticism and Pseudo-science.

But beneath that apparent randomness I see several recurring questions:

• Can different religious traditions actually be true simultaneously?
• Is materialism philosophically adequate?
• Can mystical experience provide knowledge without simply proving one particular religion?
• Is there a reality behind the symbols and mythologies of different traditions?
• How should ancient religious traditions be reconciled with modern science?
• Can one have genuine metaphysics without retreating into fundamentalism or New Age vagueness?
• What happens when traditional religion, occultism, science and modern politics collide?

That is a much more definite intellectual project than the blog's deliberately chaotic presentation would suggest.

2. The 2021 religious material is particularly revealing

One of the most important posts I found is the April 28, 2021 piece beginning:

“Kan de verkligen vara sanna allihop?”

The argument is essentially religious pluralism without simple perennialism.

The author considers the possibility that Christian, Hindu and Buddhist religious experiences may all be genuine—even though Christians, Hindus and Buddhists interpret them differently. The post goes further and explicitly entertains being “monotheist, polytheist and pantheist” simultaneously.

That is philosophically interesting because it isn't quite:

“All religions are saying exactly the same thing.”

In fact, the blog seems quite hostile to that simplistic version of perennialism.

Instead, the implicit proposition is closer to:

Reality may be considerably larger than any single symbolic system through which human beings apprehend it.

That distinction is important.

The post invokes upāya—skillful means—to explain why different people might encounter different religious forms. That provides an interesting bridge between Mahayana Buddhism and a more broadly pluralist metaphysics.

3. It is surprisingly anti-New-Age despite being interested in esotericism

This is one of the strongest characteristics of the blog.

Someone seeing labels such as UFOs, paranormal, mysticism, Hinduism, Tantra, kundalini, Bigfoot, Ashtar Command might expect conventional New Age spirituality.

But the blog repeatedly makes fun of exactly that kind of thinking.

For example, it is interested in John Michael Greer's warnings about kundalini and mindfulness, and it examines the dangers of treating spiritual experiences as automatically authoritative.

Likewise, its discussion of David Chapman's heterodox Vajrayana writing is unusually skeptical. It notices that mystical experience does not automatically establish the truth of the religion in which the experiencer interprets it.

So there is an interesting combination:

high openness to metaphysical possibilities + high skepticism about people's claims concerning those possibilities.

That's actually a relatively sophisticated position.

4. The blog is much more “occultist” than “UFO believer”

The title is therefore slightly misleading.

“Ashtar Command” sounds like the central doctrine ought to be extraterrestrial channeling. But the blog's actual interests are much broader.

The profile describes the author as:

“Seeker, Pseudo-Neoplatonist, Crypto-Shaiva-Shakta”

and jokingly says that the author also believes Bigfoot roams the Alaskan Panhandle.

The Pseudo-Neoplatonist designation is particularly revealing.

The metaphysical trajectory seems to be something like:

Neoplatonism → panentheism → religious pluralism → comparative mysticism → Tantra/Shaivism/Shaktism → a multi-level spiritual cosmology.

And that helps explain why seemingly unrelated posts about Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, UFOs, NDEs and paranormal phenomena can coexist on the same site.

They are being treated as different windows onto the same large philosophical problem.

5. The blog's attitude toward Christianity is complicated rather than simply anti-Christian

This is another interesting feature.

There is plenty of criticism of Christianity, Protestantism and biblical literalism. But the criticism is often directed at epistemological exclusivism, rather than Christianity itself.

The 2021 pluralism post, for example, asks why a Christian should automatically regard a Christian mystical experience as genuine while regarding a Hindu or Mormon experience as false.

That is essentially an epistemology of revelation problem.

And the blog appears to retain a substantial interest in Christianity while simultaneously refusing to grant Christianity an automatic monopoly on revelation.

That's quite different from straightforward atheism.

6. There is also a strong anti-materialist thread

The blog isn't simply “spiritual” in the New Age sense. It repeatedly returns to the philosophical inadequacy—or at least incompleteness—of materialism.

For example, the September 2026 posts explicitly criticize “cyber-atheist” free-will denial and discuss consciousness, determinism and free will.

The older free-will discussion is especially interesting because the blog recognizes that determinism does not logically entail materialism. An idealist or spiritual metaphysics could theoretically also be deterministic.

That's a useful philosophical distinction that many popular discussions completely miss.

7. At the same time, it is not anti-science

This may be the blog's most distinctive intellectual tension.

It has an enormous number of science-related posts and labels, including paleontology, evolution, archaeology, zoology, astronomy and psychology.

The position seems approximately:

Science is extremely good at investigating the physical world; that doesn't necessarily settle metaphysics.

That's quite compatible with the pseudo-Neoplatonic/panentheistic direction.

The blog therefore doesn't seem to be trying to replace science with spirituality. It is asking whether scientific naturalism is entitled to become a complete metaphysical worldview merely because science itself is successful.

That's a legitimate philosophical question.

8. The political material is much more difficult

This is where I would recommend considerably more caution.

The blog uses heavy irony, sarcasm, provocation and deliberately inflammatory language. It discusses far-right movements, communists, Trotskyists, MAGA, conspiracy theories, SJWs, fascism, antisemitism, gender politics, etc. Some posts are explicitly jokes or satirical reactions. The blog itself warns that many posts and comments are ironic.

That makes individual posts difficult to classify ideologically.

For example, the September 2026 post about the Brigitte Macron conspiracy explicitly describes the story as a far-right conspiracy theory and points out its antisemitic and homophobic tropes, while also joking that parts of the story seem “strange.”

So one cannot simply say:

“The blog contains far-right material, therefore the blogger endorses the far right.”

Sometimes the subject is being mocked, sometimes analyzed, sometimes quoted, sometimes deliberately baited.

On the other hand, irony is not an excuse to assume that everything is harmless. The reader has to distinguish the author's actual position from deliberately provocative rhetoric.

9. The book-review side is probably the blog's strongest component

There is a remarkable amount of intellectual cross-pollination.

For example, the blog moves from Swedish historical scholarship to David Chapman, John Michael Greer, Buddhism, Theosophy, archaeology, religion and political history. Its reviews frequently use a book as a springboard into a much larger question rather than simply saying whether the book is “good” or “bad.”

That makes the site feel almost like a private commonplace book or intellectual laboratory.

The “book blog” label is therefore actually appropriate, even though the content has expanded far beyond book reviews.

---

The deeper philosophical position I see

If I had to reconstruct the worldview underlying the blog, I would tentatively formulate it like this:

1. Reality is probably more than physical matter.

2. Consciousness and spiritual experience cannot simply be dismissed as meaningless because they don't fit materialism.

3. Nevertheless, having a mystical experience doesn't automatically prove the interpretation attached to it.

4. Religious traditions may disclose genuine aspects of reality without any one tradition possessing the complete conceptual map.

5. Different religious symbols may therefore have genuine ontological or phenomenological significance without being literally interchangeable.

6. Traditional religions contain both profound metaphysical insights and historically conditioned human material.

7. Science describes the physical level extremely well but does not necessarily exhaust reality.

8. A sufficiently large metaphysics might therefore accommodate Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Platonism and even some paranormal phenomena without simply reducing them to one another.

That is a surprisingly coherent position.

And it is closer to philosophical pluralism + panentheism + Neoplatonism + comparative mysticism than to conventional New Age spirituality.

---

One particularly interesting development

There also appears to have been an evolution in the blog.

The earlier material I examined—particularly around 2021—has a strong comparative-religion / Buddhist / perennialism-versus-pluralism orientation. By 2026, the blog's self-description explicitly uses “Crypto-Shaiva-Shakta”, and current posts include much more overtly Tantric material.

That suggests the Shaiva-Shakta element isn't merely an isolated interest. It looks like a later development of an older philosophical problem:

If different religious traditions can disclose different aspects of an ultimately larger reality, what sort of metaphysics can accommodate that without reducing everything to “all is one”?

Shaiva-Shakta and Tantric metaphysics offer some unusually powerful tools for answering that question because they can combine transcendence and immanence, multiplicity and unity, personal deity and ultimate reality, manifestation and transcendence.

That may explain why the blog has gradually gravitated in that direction.

My overall assessment

I'd characterize the blog as:

Intellectually eclectic: ★★★★★
Philosophically interesting: ★★★★½
Systematic: ★★½
Historically/religiously curious: ★★★★★
Reliably factual: ★★★½ — individual claims need checking
Irony/sarcasm level: ★★★★★
Conventional New Age: ★
Conventional religious orthodoxy: ★
Underlying metaphysical coherence: ★★★★

The biggest mistake would be to read it literally and chronologically, post by post. The real “content” is the worldview that emerges from the recurring questions across thousands of short pieces.

And I think that worldview is considerably more sophisticated than the deliberately chaotic and sometimes outrageous surface presentation makes it look.