Methods of Interpretation and Sacralization of Entheogenic Practice in Western Esotericism

📖 What’s This Paper About?

This paper examines the concept of “entheogenic esotericism” – a term coined by Wouter Hanegraaff in 2012 to describe Western esoteric traditions that incorporate psychoactive substances for spiritual enlightenment. The author provides a comprehensive overview of the history, key figures, and theoretical frameworks of this phenomenon, while addressing the academic prejudices that have limited serious study in this field.

Why This Matters

The study of entheogenic practices in Western esotericism has been historically marginalized in academia despite substantial evidence of its influence on religious and spiritual movements. This paper represents an important step toward legitimizing this area of study by providing a comprehensive historical context and addressing the biases that have prevented serious academic consideration.

• Challenges academic prejudices against studying psychoactive substances in religious contexts
• Maps the historical development of entheogenic esotericism from the 19th century to modern times
• Identifies key figures who shaped the integration of entheogens into Western spiritual practices

Top 5 Takeaways

2. Academic Biases

Hanegraaff identifies three prejudices limiting academic study: Protestant assumptions about divine grace (viewing chemical assistance as “magical” rather than “religious”), idealistic assumptions about spirituality (believing the material cannot access the spiritual), and the stigmatization of psychoactive substances through the “war on drugs” rhetoric.

Keep Up with Uncensored Psychedelic Trends

Join our newsletter at Psychedelics Uncensored.

Email*

We respect and protect your privacy. By subscribing your info will be subject to our privacy policy . Unsubscribe easily at any time

The Bigger Picture

The concept of entheogenic esotericism challenges conventional academic boundaries between religion, science, and spirituality. By examining how psychoactive substances have been integrated into Western spiritual traditions, we gain insight into alternative approaches to consciousness and transcendence. The historical continuity from 19th century occultism through the psychedelic revolution to contemporary neoshamanism demonstrates that these practices aren’t merely countercultural aberrations but represent a persistent thread in Western spiritual exploration—one that continues to influence contemporary culture through what Partridge terms “occulture.”

Final Thought

As the “psychedelic renaissance” continues in both scientific research and popular culture, understanding the historical and spiritual dimensions of these substances becomes increasingly important for appreciating their full impact on human consciousness and society.

METHODS OF INTERPRETATION AND SACRALIZATION OF ENTHEOGENIC PRACTICE IN WESTERN ESOTERICISM

S. S. Petrukhin

Keep Up with Psychedelic Trends

Get uncensored psychedelic news, events, and updates. Join Psychedelics Uncensored!

Email*

We respect and protect your privacy. By subscribing your info will be subject to our privacy policy . Unsubscribe easily at any time

Keywords: Western esotericism, entheogenic esotericism, entheogenic occultism, psychedelic movement, history of esotericism, American counterculture

Terminology

The term “entheogenic esotericism” was proposed by Wouter Hanegraaff in 2012 in an article with the same name – to denote certain trends in Western esotericism that formed under the influence of the psychedelic movement of the 1960s and used psychoactive substances for the spiritual cognition of higher reality. As Hanegraaff notes, the term he introduces can be considered somewhat problematic, as it “combines two already controversial terms in a new combination, thus trying to draw attention to a specific phenomenon of modern religiosity – the use of psychoactive substances for religious purposes.”

To analyze this phenomenon, we need to sort out these already controversial terms. In the context of this work, we will use S. V. Pakhomov’s definition of esotericism, defining it as “a complex of specific interpretations of reality that claim to be secret in nature and confirmed by special psycho-spiritual practices.”

The history of the term “entheogen” should be discussed in more detail. This term was proposed in 1979 by a group of ethnobotanists and anthropologists in the process of developing terminology related to the ritual use of psychoactive plants, which were known from a wide range of religious sources. The previously known term “psychedelics” was considered unsuitable by scientists due to its counterculture connotations.

According to these researchers, among whom ethnomycologist Gordon Wasson should be mentioned first, entheogens should refer to natural or synthetic substances if they are capable of causing altered states of consciousness interpreted as religious.

Continuing to talk about terminology, it is necessary to mention Christopher Partridge, who in his recent work proposes to abandon the word “entheogens” and return to the previously rejected term “psychedelics.” He writes: “As for terminology, I stubbornly adhere to the term ‘psychedelic,’ proposed in 1956 by the British psychiatrist Humphry Osmond in a letter to Huxley.”

Partridge’s criticism is that the very word “entheogen” (from ancient Greek “ἔνθεος” – (divinely) inspired, enthusiastic) theologizes chemically induced experiences of transcendence. With such an interpretation, the term “psychedelic” (from ancient Greek “ψυχή” – “soul,” “consciousness” and δῆλος – “clear,” “obvious”) may indeed seem more appropriate. At the same time, terms such as “hallucinogen” are unacceptable due to the other extreme, as they are associated with the sphere of pathology.

Partridge also draws attention to the fact that the introduction of the term “entheogen” in 1979 implied distancing from the psychedelic counterculture. This may have made some sense from the perspective of ethnobotanists and anthropologists, but from a religious studies perspective, this division seems artificial and counterproductive and introduces dubious value judgments regarding individual groups of entheogenic religiosity, placing archaic entheogenic practices above entheogenic practices associated, for example, with the psychedelic movement of the 1960s, neoshamanism, and New Age. Partridge also notes that by the 1990s, the word “entheogen” had firmly entered occultural slang and took on all the connotations from which Wasson and colleagues had tried to escape.

Nevertheless, despite the criticism noted above and the situation in which the terms “entheogen” and “psychedelic” are practically synonymous, in our opinion, the term “entheogen” is still preferable due to both its rootedness in the academic environment and its greater potential for coverage of phenomena. Indeed, undoubtedly, the term “psychedelics” has a strong connection with the events of the 1950s and 1960s, and using it for events that occurred, for example, 100 years before the psychedelic revolution, seems not quite correct.

However, even with the term “entheogen,” at least in the context of studying esotericism, not everything is so simple. As it seems, it is necessary to redefine the scope of its application. Namely, as indicated above, to move from an essentialist to a contextual understanding of any psychoactive substance as an entheogen. That is, it is necessary to rely primarily on how a substance is understood purely in the context of mystical-religious practice: as a means of transcendence, or as a theophany in itself. And accordingly, the concept of entheogen should be used regarding substances only in the context of beliefs, leaving aside the ontological status of the characteristics attributed to them. With this approach, we get rid of scientifically dubious connotations contained in the original interpretation of the term, as well as the value judgments characteristic of Wasson’s definition of entheogens.

Perhaps the most important advantage of such an interpretation of “entheogens” in the context of studying esotericism is the expansion of the field of study to areas that could not be covered by it with an essentialist understanding. For example, in this context, it is quite possible to consider nitrous oxide in William James’s description or alcohol in the Yuzhin circle and other groups of Soviet esotericism as entheogens.

Speaking about alternative ways of conceptualizing the concept of entheogens, besides Wasson’s definition, let’s pay attention to how C. Partridge understands them. For Partridge, psychedelics (in the context of Partridge’s work – synonymous with entheogens) are “technologies of transcendence.” The term “technologies” is understood with reference to M. Foucault’s concept of “technologies of the self.” Through technologies of the self, the subject actively constructs his own identity, which opposes the imposing “technologies of power.” Thus, by placing psychoactive substances in the context of Foucault’s philosophy, Partridge introduces into his work a certain countercultural pathos.

Hanegraaff’s Critique

In his article, W. Hanegraaff engages in a polemic with the scientific community that marginalizes the field of academic study of entheogenic religiosity, and as part of it – entheogenic esotericism. It seems appropriate to consider it, as in the modern realities of Russian humanities, it seems no less relevant than in the West.

According to Hanegraaff, the existence of lacunae related to the study of entheogenic religiosity in general and entheogenic esotericism, in particular, is not due to the absence of factual information, but to a number of deep-seated prejudices. Below we will present the three most important ones.

1) The first goes back to the Protestant assumption, rooted in religious studies, about religion as a kind of relationship between creator and creation, in which the process of receiving grace is entirely God’s initiative. Following such logic, the use of psychoactive substances for the purpose of obtaining divine grace, when the subject of practice independently shows initiative and claims to have “keys” to such grace, places such practices in the category of “magical,” and therefore not “truly religious.” In this dichotomy, the magical is presented as something unconditionally negative, while the religious is positive.

However, Hanegraaff argues that “the opposition of ‘religion’ and ‘magic’ (along with ‘science’) as unconditional universals has been completely deconstructed in recent decades as artificial and extremely ethnocentric, rooted in modernist ideology and the hidden power claims of the West. Heresiological, missionary, and colonialist pathos has no right to claim either universal or scientific significance.”

2) The second misconception, according to Hanegraaff, lies in the idealistic attitudes rooted in the scientific community, according to which the place of religion is in the spiritual, not the material sphere. In this paradigm, the use of chemical substances that alter the brain’s chemistry for obtaining mystical enlightenment seems simply illogical. In such a situation, the adept is presented as a victim of deception (or self-deception), caught in a quasi-materialistic trap, a simpleton who accepted a chemical surrogate for a true religious experience. Naturally, such an experience cannot claim any truth.

However, such a position is somewhat problematic. First, it assumes the existence of certain scientific procedures capable of distinguishing true religious experience from false. The second shaky point in this hypothesis is the assumption that we are able to experience some “purely spiritual” states. However, any activity related to consciousness or spirit is inseparable from the biochemical activity of the brain: “And since all types of experience, including ‘religious experiences,’ are bodily to some degree, excluding entheogenic religion from the religious field simply because of a special method of affecting the brain is arbitrary,” Hanegraaff notes.

3) The third cause of disagreement is the rootedness of entheogens in counterculture and other marginal formations, as well as the rhetoric of the “war on drugs” of the 1960s. In such a situation, any polemic on the topic of consciousness-altering substances becomes problematic due to their affiliation with the monolithic category of “drugs,” burdened with the rhetoric of crime, hedonism, and vice. In such a situation, any attempts at demarcation or indications that entheogens can perform a normal function in the context of religious practice (despite the abundance of such examples) inevitably become shocking and unacceptable to the general public. As a result, scientists engaged in the problems of entheogenic religiosity and not reducing these practices to marginal and hedonistic deviations automatically take a defensive position: “critics can always easily assume that their scientific arguments are a cover for personal psychedelic apologetics.”

For all the reasons mentioned above, it is extremely difficult to look at entheogenic practices from an unbiased position, as even before any act of comprehension, they are categorized in the optics of our cultural conditioning. In connection with this, they fall into the category of the “trash bin,” sharing it with magical and irrational practices and, of course, with Western esotericism. And they automatically fall into opposition to “serious forms of religion.” However, Hanegraaff proposes to take these phenomena with all seriousness, arguing this as follows: “The first reason for this is strictly empirical: if entheogenic esotericism really exists as a significant movement in the development of religion after World War II and in modern society, then its study is our direct duty as scientists. The second reason is more theoretical: both ‘esotericism’ and the ‘entheogenic’ dimension of this topic call into question some of our deep-seated ideas about religion and rationality, so considering their combination may prove especially useful for recognizing our blind spots.”

Periodization

Moving on to directly determining the place of entheogenic esotericism in the series of many other occult-mystical currents, it is necessary first of all to define the time frame in which this phenomenon unfolds, periodization, as well as directions within the phenomenon. It is also necessary to demarcate entheogenic esotericism from other currents of entheogenic religiosity, such as shamanic, Native American (for example, the Native American Church), or Rastafarian beliefs. In the context of esoteriology as a field of academic knowledge about esotericism, we will consider strictly those entheogenic practices that exist within Western esotericism. Thus, the object of research can be considered esotericism, and the subject – entheogenic practices in esotericism.

Probably, the first attempt at periodizing entheogenic esotericism was proposed by Christopher Partridge in 2005:

1. From Albert Hofmann’s discovery of LSD (1938 – late 1950s), with Aldous Huxley as the central figure;

2. The flourishing of the psychedelic countercultural movement (1960s – 1976), the main figure – Timothy Leary;

3. The development of rave culture (from the mid-1980s to 2005).

The next important step is Hanegraaff’s article, already mentioned in our work. In it, Hanegraaff identifies such areas as: entheogens in New Age, entheogenic shamanism, and separately – entheogenic esotericism as such. Despite the fundamental importance of this article, such content of the concept seems more than incomplete. Moreover, the boundary between what Hanegraaff calls entheogenic shamanism and entheogenic esotericism seems blurred, especially since the central figure in both these directions, according to Hanegraaff, is one and the same person – Terence McKenna.

The most detailed at the moment is the work of Christopher Partridge, entirely devoted to the topic of entheogenic esotericism – “High Culture: Drugs, Mysticism, and the Pursuit of Transcendence in the Modern World” (2018), in which he significantly expands the framework of the periodization he initially proposed, finding representatives of entheogenic esotericism already among figures of mesmerism and early occultism, thus deepening the history of entheogenic esotericism to the beginning of the 19th century.

Based on these and several other studies, we have compiled the following working model of the stages of development of entheogenic esotericism:

1) The period from the beginning of the 19th century to the 1950s, mainly associated with the Orientalism of the European bohemia, the penetration of entheogens into mesmerism and occultism. This period is also characterized by the spread of experiments with nitrous oxide to evoke religious experiences, perhaps the most famous of such reports being that of William James.

2) The period of the 1950s – 1960s, associated with the personalities of Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary, counterculture, and the psychedelic revolution. This is the most important epoch in the history of entheogenic esotericism, the time of formation of its main doctrines and concepts, active involvement of ideas and practices of Eastern mysticism. During this period, entheogenic esotericism acquires a mass character.

3) The period after the decline of the psychedelic revolution in the early 1970s, continuing to the present day. It is associated with the development of neoshamanism in the interpretations of Carlos Castaneda and Terence McKenna, the human potential movement and transpersonal psychology, as well as with some branches of New Age and neopaganism.

Since the mid-2000s, there has been a renewed interest in academic research on psychedelics, both in the natural and humanitarian sciences. This phenomenon has been called the “psychedelic renaissance.” During this period, a huge number of publications appear concerning entheogens and aimed at rethinking early research on psychedelics in psychology and the legacy of the 1960s. The topic of mysticism in its connection with psychedelics is often raised in them, in the sense as formulated by Aldous Huxley. However, at this stage, no formation of new concepts of “entheogenic esotericism” is observed. For this reason, it seems premature to distinguish the period from the beginning of the “psychedelic renaissance” to the present day as a separate segment of “entheogenic esotericism.”

The basis for attributing all of the above phenomena to the field of entheogenic esotericism is the conceptualization within these movements of psychoactive substances as a means of achieving gnosis. Gnosis, a central concept for esotericism, is not always characteristic of entheogenic practices of traditional peoples. For example, the curandera Maria Sabina, who became famous thanks to the works of G. Wasson on the Mexican cult of sacred mushrooms, was amazed that the hippies who visited her in the 1960s used entheogens to obtain psychic effects. In her understanding, it was a means of healing. In turn, such representatives of neoshamanism as T. McKenna or C. Castaneda, about whom we will speak in detail below, consider entheogens as a means of personal transformation. Undoubtedly, the interpretation of the experience of an altered state of consciousness associated with entheogens varies with each esotericist in connection with their personal views and hermeneutical filters of the era.

Historical Forms of Entheogenic Esotericism

Entheogenic Occultism (from the beginning of the 19th century to the 1950s)

Without pretending here to fully present the history of entheogenic esotericism, we will still try to outline in broad strokes the boundaries of the phenomenon and describe each of the periods of its development we have indicated above and the ideas of the most prominent representatives.

Undoubtedly, the formation of entheogenic esotericism is directly related to the fascination with consciousness-altering substances within the framework of European occultism of the 19th century. Here, first of all, it is necessary to mention Pascal Randolph, Louis-Alphonse Cahagnet, and those who lived somewhat later: W. B. Yeats, Stanislas de Guaita, and especially Aleister Crowley.

However, it is necessary to understand that the first entheogenic experiments within occultism did not arise in a vacuum. By the beginning of the 19th century, one can already speak of a tradition of spontaneous entheogenic mysticism associated with the romantic-Orientalist fascination of bohemian circles in European countries with opium and hashish. In the works of T. De Quincey, C. Baudelaire, G. de Nerval, F. H. Ludlow, and many others, we find descriptions of their experiences as something “mystical,” “unimaginable,” opening doors to other dimensions and allowing communication with immaterial entities. Undoubtedly, such descriptions could not but interest the esotericists of that time who were constantly searching.

It should be noted that consciousness-altering substances circulating in Europe by the beginning of the 19th century, which were primarily hashish and opium, had Eastern origins, and in the consciousness of romantic Orientalists, they became carriers of the Eastern spirit. Marco Polo’s famous story tells of the Old Man of the Mountain, who fed his assassin warriors with hashish, after which they, according to Marco Polo, became absolutely devoted to him, for now they were sure of the existence of paradise. Despite the dubiousness of such judgments, Polo’s work well illustrates the context of the perception of the Orientalist attitude towards hashish in Europe.

In 1840, a salon was organized in Paris, in which any of the participants could try hashish sent from Algeria. The atmosphere of the salon also bore the imprint of Orientalist aesthetics, and the club’s guests dressed in Arab burnouses within its walls. This place was called “The Club of Hashishins” (Le Club des Hashischins) and attracted many bohemian intellectuals, including the famous writers Gérard de Nerval (1808–1855), Charles Baudelaire (1821–1867), and Théophile Gautier (1811–1872), who in 1846 wrote the novella “The Club of Hashishins,” in which he described the psychic effects he experienced. Descriptions of the drug’s effect can be found in the works of all the above-mentioned authors, which undoubtedly became one of the reasons for the popularization of hashish in France in the middle of the 19th century. It is not surprising that the first works directly related to entheogenic esotericism appear in Paris at this time. A special place, besides the works of members of the Parisian “Le Club des Hashischins,” is occupied by Fitz Hugh Ludlow’s book “The Hasheesh Eater,” in which the author describes his religious-mystical journeys into spaces that he entered by eating hashish.

Probably one of the first occultists who began to use hashish as a means of transcendence was Louis-Alphonse Cahagnet (1809–1885). At least, that is what many researchers believe, including W. Hanegraaff, who dedicated an article to him with the telling title “The First Psychonaut?”

In recent years, the name of Louis-Alphonse Cahagnet is increasingly remembered as undeservedly forgotten. Antoine Faivre notes that Cahagnet “was a central figure in the history of early occultism, French Swedenborgianism, mesmerism, and spiritualism.” Before engaging in entheogenic experiments, Cahagnet was in some sense a classical spiritualist-Swedenborgian. First of all, he is known as the author of the three-volume “Arcana,” published from 1848 to 1851, containing protocols of numerous séances conducted by Cahagnet with eight somnambulists.

However, Cahagnet was not satisfied with the role of a simple observer recording the messages of somnambulists. The need for personal transcendence, the desire to follow in Swedenborg’s footsteps led him to entheogenic experiments. However, before proceeding to experiments, Cahagnet decided to ask for advice directly from the spirit of Swedenborg, to which he received the answer: “The only means is magnetism. Any drugs disorient ideas and irritate nerves.”

Despite the unambiguous prohibition expressed by Swedenborg’s spirit, Cahagnet subsequently still proceeded with entheogenic experiments.

Between the first and second volumes of “Arcana,” Cahagnet publishes in 1850 the book “Sanctuary of Spiritualism,” written in the form of a dialogue, one of whose participants, Alfred, can quite be identified with Cahagnet himself. Alfred states that after his first experiments with somnambulists, he very much wanted to experience this state himself. But through magnetism, this could not be done. Further, Cahagnet describes his unsuccessful experiments in composing a narcotic pomade from cannabis flowers and red poppies, which needed to be applied to the lips before sleep. In desperation, he even summoned a spirit, following Agrippa’s instructions from “Occult Philosophy”: “Following Agrippa, I called a spirit, and it appeared in a dream. Having written an incantation, I put it under my pillow. This time I had better luck. After a few days, I began to be visited by visions – perhaps not those that I desired, but bright enough to multiply my zeal in studies. <…> But these visions did not give me what I was looking for. I desperately needed to find the means to achieve blessed ecstasy, and I would give the rest of my life on earth to achieve it. At that time, I cared so little about my life that I was not afraid of poison. I left the countryside where I lived and went to Paris.”

The first records of Cahagnet’s successful experiments with hashish are dated 1850. If the descriptions of other authors who experimented with substances before Cahagnet represented an interpretation of experienced visions of bizarre hallucinations, possibly having some creative potential, but not possessing ontological characteristics, or among the more mystically inclined public they could be perceived as real visions of paradise and hell in the spirit of the same Swedenborg, then Cahagnet significantly corrects the approach. In his interpretations, these substances become technologies for achieving transcendence, the mechanism by which the subject not only gets access to gnosis and higher worlds but also the ability to conduct manipulations there that have an influence on our world. In particular, he discovered that he could not only leave his body and return to it at will but also completely identify himself and “become one” with any external object in the field of view: “Everything that I have ever seen or known in my life appeared before me in the form of bright colored tablets, illuminated from behind by otherworldly light. I was surrounded, continuously rotating, by a panorama of infinite variety of images. And to describe what I saw in a few hours would require a whole book. This experience is so different from the ordinary material state that it is completely impossible to assess how much time has passed while images replace each other in some kind of flow. It is also impossible to give any adequate description of the space in which this happened. I am completely convinced that I was in the center, located above this microscopic universe. The material world seemed lower in all respects. <…> From now on I found the solution I was looking for. I knew man, I was the universe in miniature, I understood how a clairvoyant travels to Egypt or China without taking a step, how one can shake the hand of an African without moving from the spot.”

Undoubtedly, this was exactly what Cahagnet had been looking for so long. Based on the fact that following his own description, he provides 14 reports from other people, performed in the same “Swedenborgian” manner, it can be concluded that Cahagnet organized in Paris in the first half of the 1850s something like an entheogenic salon similar to “Le Club des Hashischins” but with an occult-Swedenborgian slant.

To explain why we have dwelt in such detail on the personality of this extraordinary man within the framework of this overview article, let us quote Hanegraaff’s words: “Cahagnet appears to be a key figure in the context of entheogenic esotericism: on the one hand, he summarized a wide spectrum of now forgotten discussions about the role of psychoactive substances in magic and witchcraft of the era preceding him. And at the same time, he is at the origins of a new tradition of using hashish as an instrument of spiritual vision.”

One of the people attracted by Cahagnet to entheogenic experiments was the famous occultist Paschal Beverly Randolph (1825–1875), known as the first theoretician of sexual magic, who greatly influenced O.T.O practices, and also the founder of the first Rosicrucian organization in the United States. He writes that while in Paris in 1855–1856, he encountered a group of mediums who rejected the role of passive observers in magnetic experiments and found a way to see everything with their own eyes. Obviously, Randolph is an important link in entheogenic esotericism, chronologically located somewhere between Cahagnet and Crowley. The latter and Randolph are connected not only by a common interest in drugs and sexual magic but also by membership in the Order of the Eastern Templars. The connection between entheogens and ritual magic that appears in Cahagnet’s works becomes much tighter in Randolph’s works.

On the importance of hashish for his work, as well as on Cahagnet’s personality, Randolph speaks in one of his interviews for the periodical “Banner of Light,” published in 1860: “This is the royal road to a special ‘mediumship,’ surpassing our ordinary state, as the bright sun surpasses a wax candle. And the visions induced by it surpass ordinary sight as much as gold surpasses tin if you are going to make a piece of jewelry. <…> It affects not only the body but the soul itself, producing ecstasy and enlightenment that surpasses human ability to describe it. With its help, Alphonse Cahagnet, myself, and many others have passed through the eternal gates that are forever closed to embodied people who do not have this key. We passed through them in blessed peace, exploring the ineffable mysteries of the world and the human soul, gaining conviction in the reality of immortality.”

The above quote looks quite eloquent. The perception of hashish as a means of transcendence is declared on the pages of one of the most famous spiritualist journals of its time. Of course, the role of an apologist for sexual magic and a proponent of hashish use in combination with African roots endowed Randolph in the middle of the 19th century with a certain scandalous reputation, which he fought with greater or lesser success at different times. It should be noted that for occultists interested in entheogens at that time, they were perceived in terms of countercultural undermining of everyday perception of life. And even when occultism and drugs did not merge, they shared the space of irrational fringes of Victorian society. And for many decadents, both these phenomena served primarily as means of countercultural subversion of their contemporary reality. Here, as in much else, one can note the commonality of polemic with the counterculture of the 1960s. Randolph is brought closer to the psychedelic enthusiasts of the 1960s by another interesting passage from the same interview, where it is mentioned that almost a hundred years before the psychedelic revolution, he was engaged in the same thing as they were: trying to extend the history of entheogenic esotericism into the distant past. This is a well-known technique of esoteric legitimization. “At all times, many people have used it to comprehend the mysteries that surrounded them. There is no doubt that Confucius, Pythagoras with his disciples, as well as many alchemists, hermeticists, illuminati, and mystics of all times used it for self-elevation and comprehension of the secret of the philosopher’s stone.”

Moving further along the milestones in the history of entheogenic esotericism, we cannot overlook Randolph’s colleague in the O.T.O., Aleister Crowley. Crowley is probably the most famous occultist of the late 19th – early 20th centuries. He is no less known for his interest in consciousness-altering substances. In the book “The Life of a Mage. Aleister Crowley,” Martin Booth even calls Crowley the first European to try mescaline, and although this is not the case, there are still many facts in favor of the idea that Crowley was a pioneer in the world of “entheogenic esotericism.” By that time, entheogenic experiments in occult orders were not uncommon. Members of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor and the more famous Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn conducted experiments on altering consciousness. Probably within the “Golden Dawn,” Crowley first learned about such technologies for achieving gnosis from another of its members – Alan Bennett (1872–1923). It is hardly possible to talk about the influence on Crowley of another member of the order, Nobel laureate in literature W. B. Yeats (1865–1939), who also conducted experiments with hashish and mescaline: Yeats and Crowley had strained relationships. It is more likely to assume the influence of Randolph, mediated by O.T.O.

In Crowley’s teaching, drugs occupy a special place. He formulated it in such essays as “The Psychology of Hashish” (1909), “Absinthe – The Green Goddess” (1917), “The Great Drug Delusion” (1922), as well as in the novel “Diary of a Drug Fiend” (1922). In the latter, we find the following passage, which can quite be considered autobiographical: “Since 1898, I have mainly been engaged in the study of the influence of all kinds of drugs on the human body. I was especially interested in the possible connection between such phenomena of mental life as neurosis, insanity, and mystical enlightenment.” It is important to note the commonality of interests between Crowley and such future researchers as Abraham Maslow and Humphry Osmond. Maslow’s judgments about peak experiences seem extremely close to what Crowley writes.

In Crowley’s doctrine, psychoactive substances fulfilled the function of “weakening the supports of the soul.” As he himself wrote, “the intake of magical medicines should precede all magical ceremonies: they make access to mystical experiences easier.” Considering the entheogenic experience an important stage of learning, in the sense that the student, having experienced it, should be convinced of the existence of spiritual reality and earnestly strive for it, Crowley encouraged his students to do this.

It is widely known that the central place in Crowley’s teaching is occupied by the concept of “will” and the magician as a person who “does his will.” Obviously, a magician understood in this way is in no way identical to a drug addict, whose will is completely subordinated. Therefore, Crowley was not afraid of dependency problems. Among other things, he claimed that there are three classes of people in relation to psychoactive substances:

1) Those who are afraid to experiment with anything.

2) Those who become slaves of what they like.

3) Those who are able to use anything without harming themselves.

He believed he belonged to the latter category, and even claimed that, serving science, he tried to cause addiction through constant use, but failed, so strong was his will. However, in the end, he faced this problem in a very serious form. For most of the second half of his life, Crowley was in greater or lesser dependence on drugs.

Of great importance for the popularization of Crowley’s ideas was the activity of one of his most famous students – Israel Regardie (1908–1985). Having met Timothy Leary in 1968 and communicating with hippies, Regardie presented his mentor’s teaching about psychoactive substances to a new generation. Although Regardie rejected the idea of Crowley as a Victorian hippie, he drew parallels between Crowley’s work “Psychology of Hashish” and the works of Maslow, Huxley, Watts, and Timothy Leary. He called Leary, Metzner, and Alpert’s work “The Psychedelic Experience” the only one approaching Crowley’s work on hashish. In his introductory article to the reissue of Crowley’s works on hashish in the 1960s, Regardie writes: “If Crowley had lived in our time and been familiar with this work, I am sure he would have immediately written an enthusiastic review of it in ‘Equinox’.” Under Regardie’s influence, British occultist Kenneth Grant claimed that Timothy Leary “fully realizes that he belongs to a movement initiated by Crowley, <…> and considers his goal to be the completion of the preparation of the world for the transition to cosmic consciousness, begun by Crowley.”

However, despite the similarity of Crowley’s ideas with the psychedelic movement of the 1960s, it seems unlikely that he was their source. Rather, having already formed its basic doctrines, the psychedelic movement, retrospectively looking back and trying, like Randolph, to find its predecessors in the past, drew attention to Aleister Crowley.

The Psychedelic Movement of the 1950s – 1960s

Following entheogenic occultism, we should highlight the movement of the 1950s – 1960s with Huxley as the central figure in the early stage and Timothy Leary – at a later one. This is the most important and, perhaps, the most famous time in the history of entheogenic esotericism, the time of formation of its basic doctrines and provisions. Probably, the publication by Aldous Huxley in 1954 of the work “The Doors of Perception” can be considered the event that separates the first and second stages in the history of entheogenic esotericism.

It should be noted that the roots of this stage lie not in occultism, but in the academic environment of professional psychologists and psychiatrists and European bohemian salons. If these trends intersected with occultism, as, for example, in the case of psychologist Havelock Ellis (1859–1939), who conducted experiments with mescaline together with W. B. Yeats, this was rather an exception. However, in forming their key doctrines, the founding fathers of the psychedelic movement turned their gaze to the mystical traditions of the world, introducing both Western esotericism and Eastern mysticism into their orbit of ideas.

The psychedelic movement has its origins in the fateful meeting between Aldous Huxley and Humphry Osmond. Osmond was engaged in the treatment of schizophrenia and was the author of a rather original theory. He and his colleague John Smythies noticed the similarity of the mescaline molecule formula with the adrenaline molecule. This led them to the idea that in pathological situations, adrenaline in the brain can change into a substance similar to mescaline, thus poisoning the person’s consciousness and leading them into a state of insanity. These ideas interested Aldous Huxley, resulting in Osmond coming to visit Huxley in 1953, where he offered mescaline to the latter. What Huxley experienced is described in detail in “The Doors of Perception.”

It is in Huxley’s work that the most important connection for all psychedelic counterculture appears: “psychedelic experience = mystical experience.” And based on Huxley’s treatise “The Perennial Philosophy,” mystical experience is the central intuition of all religions; consequently, psychedelics acquire a sacred status. Huxley constructs his theory of identity based on Osmond’s research on the chemical prerequisites of schizophrenia. If in Osmond’s case, the change in the structure of the adrenaline molecule leads to schizophrenia, then Huxley suggests that the spiritual experience achieved through fasting and other practices is a consequence of changes in brain biochemistry. Huxley’s ideas can be reduced to the fact that mystical experiences lie in changing the chemistry of the brain, and there is nothing shameful in the fact that in the West they came to the same states that Eastern mystics achieve through science, which is a distinguishing characteristic of Western civilization.

The person who popularized this idea to the extreme, as well as the use of psychedelics among countercultural youth, was Harvard professor Timothy Leary (1920–1996). The professor became acquainted with psychedelics during his vacation in Mexico. One of his colleagues, who was fascinated by the ideas of Gordon Wasson, who told in his books, and primarily in the work “Mushrooms, Russia, and History,” about the mystical mushroom ceremonies of Mexican curanderos and the influence of the cult of the sacred mushroom on human culture, acquired some mushrooms and gave them to Leary to try, who experienced very unusual sensations. Upon returning to Harvard in 1960, Leary organized the “Harvard Psilocybin Research Center,” for which the university administration even allocated a separate house. The program attracted interest both from the junior teaching staff and among students. Particularly among its participants, Ralph Metzner and Richard Alpert should be highlighted. The latter would later adopt Hinduism and become known as Ram Dass.

Leary fairly quickly rejected Huxley’s view on the elitist approach to the use of psychedelics in favor of a democratic approach. By 1963, the program for the study of psilocybin had lost all connection with science in the eyes of Harvard’s leadership, and Leary and colleagues’ activities in organizing the International Foundation for Inner Freedom finally compromised him. The International Foundation for Inner Freedom was registered as a religious organization. In it, Leary tried to implement ideas for building a new society based on ideas expressed by Huxley in his last novel – the psychedelic utopia “Island” (1962).

Leary’s plans took on a frightening scale: “The organization was supposed to consist of a branched system of cells, each headed by a specially trained psychedelic guide. Cells will grow, expand, creating new cells until the world turns into a mini-island. <…> In 1961, according to our estimate, 25,000 Americans became acquainted with psychedelics. Given the planned cell structure, by 1967 there would already be a million people using LSD in America. The critical number for changes in American society was supposed to be 4 million. This was supposed to happen in 1969.”

The plan to remake the world did not succeed. But the approach to using psychedelics as a means of transcendence embraced by the counterculture and its fascination with Eastern mysticism, characteristic of both Huxley and Leary, created the environment in which mystical-esoteric ideas underwent serious change and, what is especially important here, became massive.

Here a question may arise: on what basis do we consider the writer Aldous Huxley and the psychologist Timothy Leary as representatives of esotericism? There are certainly grounds for this. Huxley’s interest in mysticism appeared many years before his first entheogenic experience. It was expressed in his fascination with both Vedanta teachings and the concepts of Western mystics and seers. His book “The Perennial Philosophy,” written in 1946, had a significant influence on the development of New Age and the synthesis of Eastern and Western mystical traditions. Huxley’s longstanding communication with such personalities as J. Krishnamurti and A. Watts is a clear consequence of his interests. The ideas formulated by Huxley had a significant influence on Western esotericism, and his assertion about the identity of mystical and psychedelic experiences can certainly be considered one of the key concepts of entheogenic esotericism.

Timothy Leary’s personality seems so multifaceted and inconstant that it is difficult to assert the degree of seriousness of his attitude towards esotericism and mysticism. As it seems, scientism (with a slant towards psychology) occupied a central place in Leary’s worldview before his first entheogenic experiences, which happened at the very beginning of 1960, and again came to the forefront in works published from the 1970s. At the very least, mystical experience in Leary’s later works is psychologized to a greater extent. However, in the 1960s, esotericism and mysticism occupy one of the central places in the concepts of entheogens that Leary proposes. Undoubtedly, Leary saw himself as a spiritual leader during this period. At the same time, he traced the genealogy of the movement he proclaimed precisely to the mystics and esotericists of the past, not to his fellow psychologists. The following formulation is quite typical for Leary’s texts: “This was understood by the Gnostics, hermits, Sufis, tantric gurus, yogis, occult healers. What is outside is inside. Your body is a mirror of the macrocosm. The kingdom of heaven is within, in your body. The great psychedelic teachings of the East – tantra and kundalini yoga – consider the human body a sacred temple, a seed center, an artfully constructed ark of the universe.”

The peak of the countercultural movement is commonly considered to be 1969, after which it went into decline. In the history of Western esotericism, this time is often defined as the transition from hedonistic counterculture to the more careful in terms of using entheogens New Age movement. However, the impulse given by the counterculture did not disappear. According to Hanegraaff, despite all the apparent distancing of New Age authors from the counterculture, this was rather political in nature. The compromised counterculture of the late 1960s was perceived by many as a pathological structure, and New Age writers deliberately tried to change the discourse. However, their ideas have their origins precisely in the psychedelic-Orientalist counterculture. For example, Hanegraaff considers the descriptions of their experiences by such New Age authors as Fritjof Capra and Jane Roberts to be cryptoentheogenic.

Entheogenic Shamanism

Probably, this is the most widespread direction of entheogenic esotericism at the present time. Its roots should be sought in two sources. The first is M. Eliade’s book “Shamanism. Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy” (1951). The second is the work of the aforementioned Gordon Wasson, a banker who for many years sought evidence of the existence of a secret mushroom cult and, ultimately, found it in Mexico. Probably, Wasson and photographer Alan Richardson in the 1950s became the first Europeans to take part in the ceremony of ritual mushroom consumption in Mexico, which the curandera Maria Sabina conducted for them.

A series of articles, and subsequently books by Wasson, attracted wide attention to Mexican mushrooms. Given the events of the psychedelic revolution that occurred after Wasson’s discoveries, it is not surprising that the ideas of entheogenic shamanism became popular. However, not all participants in this story turned out for the better. In the 1960s, Maria Sabina became a real celebrity among hippies who sought to see her, and these were often not the best representatives of the counterculture: “These young people, light and dark-skinned, did not respect our customs. I had never seen the ‘holy children’ treated with such disrespect. It was outrageous.”

Outraged locals burned Maria Sabina’s house for profaning their mysteries. This became a severe ordeal for Gordon Wasson himself, who felt directly responsible for what happened: “These words make me shudder. <…> I, Gordon Wasson, am responsible for the cessation of religious practice in Mesoamerica. Practices that go back to the previous millennium.” In the context of this information, Wasson’s attempt to distance himself from the counterculture, which was mentioned at the beginning, becomes more understandable. Subsequently, he wrote several more studies devoted to the role of entheogens in the history of religions. Most of them are now considered outdated. Another interesting consequence of Wasson’s discoveries is a series of crypto-theories devoted to the role of psychedelics in the history of world religions, the most famous of which is probably “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross” (1970) by John Allegro, which puts forward the hypothesis that Jesus was a mushroom.

The formation of entheogenic neoshamanism is not without reason associated with the name of Carlos Castaneda (1925–1998), whose books were initially considered simply field studies of an anthropologist. Gordon Wasson long remained a proponent of the idea that this was indeed the case. Castaneda’s descriptions of his training with Don Juan are widely known, so dwelling on it would be superfluous. However, let us note, following W. Hanegraaff, a surprising paradox – the remarkable blindness of researchers of creativity who spoke very little about the role of entheogens in Castaneda’s work, although, as Hanegraaff points out, for any follower of Castaneda this role is obvious.

Terence McKenna, another representative of entheogenic neoshamanism, not only synthesized in his work the legacy of the psychedelic revolution, Wasson’s research, ufology, and Western esotericism. In addition, McKenna is responsible for popularizing the theory of the Mayan apocalypse of 2012. In the 1970s, McKenna went to the Amazon in search of psychedelics and found them there in large quantities. One of McKenna’s most famous ideas is the idea of symbiotic coexistence of humans and mushrooms and the defining role of the latter in the process of human intellect emergence. Entheogenic shamanism in his theory turns out to be the least distorted form of original religiosity, going back to the times of symbiotic coexistence of humans and mushrooms; the very origin of mushrooms and mushroom gnosis has an extraterrestrial character. These ideas can be found in many books and lectures by T. McKenna, including the works “Food of the Gods” and “True Hallucinations.”

Conclusion

Entheogenic esotericism, despite its long and sometimes quite bright existence, has only in recent years become the subject of consideration in the academic environment. The need for conceptualizing entheogenic esotericism as a legitimate area of religious studies appeared long ago. As was shown in the first part of the work, the reason for the existence of this lacuna was a number of prejudices rooted in the academic environment. An additional set of difficulties here is created by the very status of esoteriology in the scientific environment, to which S. V. Pakhomov points: “Those specialists who conduct esoteriological research often attract suspicion from the ‘exoteric’ public of engaging in esoteric (occult) practices. Such suspicion, expressed, for example, by ‘orthodoxally’ minded scientists, affects their perception of the significance of scientific approaches and results in esoteriological works.” Undoubtedly, the entheogenic dimension of esotericism is one of its most deviant areas, which makes involvement in its study “impractical” in perspective.

However, as has been shown, extensive factual material indicates that entheogenic esotericism not only exists but has deep roots in the history of European esotericism. The continuity of ideas and the search for their own roots indicate a process of self-understanding by this area as something different from other esoteric movements. The connection between entheogens and esotericism exists both in the mass consciousness and in what C. Partridge calls occulture. A good example might be the film “Midsommar” (2019) or the series “Strange Angel” (2018–2019). The study of this whole complex of phenomena undoubtedly has a prognostic sphere of application. Entheogenic esotericism is not a relic of the past, and the analysis of tendencies occurring in it will help determine the place that this phenomenon will occupy in the spiritual life of humanity in the near future. And the task of esoteriology as a field of academic knowledge about Western esotericism is the comprehensive study of this phenomenon.

This is informational, not medical advice.

Sources

Sources

1. Brown, J. B., & Brown, J. M. (2021). In the beginning was the mushroom. Psychedelic Gospels. The secret history of hallucinogens in Christianity. (O. V. Pelipeichenko, Trans.). Moscow: BIO-Press.

2. Booth, M. (2006). The life of a mage: Biography of Aleister Crowley. (N. Makarova, Trans.). Yekaterinburg: Ultra. Culture.

3. James, W. (1910). The varieties of religious experience. (V. G. Malakhieva-Mirovich & M. V. Shik, Trans.). Moscow: Publication of the journal "Russian Thought".

4. Leary, T. (2001). Seven tongues of God. (Trans.). Kyiv: Janus, Moscow: Peresvet.

5. McKenna, T. (1995). Food of the gods. The search for the original Tree of knowledge. A radical history of plants, psychoactive substances and human evolution. (R. K. Sergachev, Trans.). Moscow: Publishing House of the Transpersonal Institute.

6. McKenna, T. (1996). True hallucinations, or a tale of extraordinary adventures of the author in the devil's paradise. (T. Naumenko, Trans.). Moscow: Publishing House of the Transpersonal Institute.

7. Pakhomov, S. V. (2008). On the question of demarcation of the concept of "esotericism". In S. V. Pakhomov, Yu. Yu. Zavgorodniy, & S. V. Kapranov (Eds.), Mystico-esoteric movements in theory and practice. History. Psychology. Philosophy: Collection of materials (pp. 7-14). St. Petersburg.

8. Pakhomov, S. V. (2011). Contours of esoteriology: A sketch of a scientific discipline on esotericism. In S. V. Pakhomov (Ed.), Mystico-esoteric movements in theory and practice. "Secret and explicit": Diversity of representations of esotericism and mysticism. Collection of materials of the Fourth International Scientific Conference (December 2-4, 2010, Dnepropetrovsk) (pp. 76-91). St. Petersburg: RHGA.

9. Stevens, J. (2003). Storming heaven: LSD and the American dream. (A. Vedyushkin, Trans.). Moscow: Ultra.Culture.

10. Huxley, A. (2016). The doors of perception. Heaven and hell. (M. V. Nemtsov, Trans.). Moscow: AST.

11. Cahagnet, L. A. (1848). Arcanes de la vie future dévoilés, où l'existence, la forme, les occupations de l'âmeaprès sa séparation du corps sont prouvées par plusieurs années d'expériences aumoyen de huit somnambules extatiques qui ont eu quatre-vingt perceptions detrente-six personnes de diverses conditions décédées à différentes époques; leurssignalements, conversations, renseignements, preuves irrécusables de leur exist-ence au monde spirituel. (Vol. 1). Paris: Germer Baillière.

12. Cahagnet, L. A. (1851). The sanctuary of spiritualism; a study of the human soul, and of its relations with the universe, through somnambulism and ecstasy. London: Published by Geo. Peirce.

13. Crowley, A. (1922, June). The Great Drug Delusion: by a New York specialist. The English Review, XXXIV, 571-576.

14. Faivre, A. (2008). «Eloquence magique», ou descriptions des mondes de l'au-delàexplorés par le magnétisme animal: Au carrefour de la Naturphilosophie romantique et de la théosophie chrétienne (première moitié du XIXe siècle). Aries, 8(2), 191-228.

15. Hanegraaff, W. J. (2013). Entheogenic Esotericism. In E. Asprem & K. Granholm (Eds.), Contemporary Esotericism (pp. 392-395). London: Routledge.

16. Hanegraaff, W. J. (2016). The First Psychonaut? Louis-Alphonse Cahagnet's Experiments with Narcotics. International Journal for the Study of New Religions, 7(2), 105-123.

17. Ludlow, F. H. (1857). The Hasheesh Eater: Being Passages from the Life of a Pythagorean. New York: Harper & brothers, publishers.

18. Partridge, C. (2018). High Culture: Drugs, Mysticism, and the Pursuit of Transcendence in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press.

19. Regardie, I. (1974). Roll Away the Stone: An Introduction to Aleister Crowley's Essays on the Psychology of Hashish. Saint Paul: Llewellyn Publications.

20. Suster, G. (1989). Crowley's Apprentice: The life and Ideas of Israel Regardie. London: Rider & Co Ltd.