The strange thing about these conversations is how quickly a search for truth can become another search for explanations. One map leads to another, another interpreter appears, another layer of reality is proposed, and before long the thing we were trying to understand has become buried beneath an increasingly elaborate cosmology. At some point, I find myself wanting to step back from all of it and ask a much simpler question: what can I actually observe, test, experience, and know for myself?
. . .
In this discourse we explored Howdie Mickoski’s interpretation of Can You Stand the Truth? The Chronicle of Man’s Imprisonment — Last Call!, and the broader Gnostic, Archonic, loosh, reincarnation-trap, and simulation narratives surrounding it. We considered the problem of interpretation and the accumulation of assumptions across generations of translation, questioned elaborate cosmologies that cannot be independently verified, and looked at the possibility that some apparently metaphysical phenomena may be better understood through consciousness, attention, conditioning, perception, and feedback loops. The discussion ultimately moved toward a simpler form of inquiry: less mythology and certainty, more observation, discernment, resilience, and freedom from conditioning.
Key Points Discussed
- Mickoski’s interpretation presents Can You Stand the Truth? as an elaborate Gnostic model of reality involving the Pleroma, Demiurge, Archons, matter, divine sparks, imprisonment, loosh harvesting, reincarnation, and a possible transition between realities.
- The book’s engagement with ancient Greek, Coptic, Egyptian, and Gnostic material raises an important question: how much of an ancient teaching survives intact through transcription, translation, interpretation, and reinterpretation?
- A long chain of interpreters can leave us with an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation, rather than direct access to an original meaning.
- The concept of loosh harvesting becomes increasingly difficult to accept when it is extended beyond physical life into elaborate post-death mechanisms involving astral entities and memory wipes.
- Claims about astral experiences, near-death experiences, reincarnation traps, and postmortem realities remain profoundly difficult to verify from within ordinary human experience.
- The same experiences can be interpreted through radically different religious, spiritual, or cultural frameworks, raising the possibility that expectation and conditioning influence perception.
- Archons, “skeptimorphs,” tulpas, and egregores share an interesting structural resemblance: patterns or entities that may appear autonomous while depending upon sustained human attention, thought, emotion, or belief.
- Human beings may create and sustain systems, narratives, institutions, ideologies, and feedback loops through collective attention without requiring a literal supernatural entity behind them.
- The modern digital environment provides a tangible example of attention being captured, measured, directed, monetized, and fed back into itself.
- The sense that reality is “speeding up” may have a simpler explanation in altered subjective time, fragmented attention, constant novelty, and an increasing dependence on mediated representations of reality.
- The distinction between reality and our representations of reality becomes increasingly important when so much of daily experience passes through screens, algorithms, cameras, feeds, and endless information.
- Gnosticism contains an apparent irony: a tradition associated with gnosis, or direct knowing, can produce extraordinarily elaborate cosmologies that potentially become another layer between the observer and direct experience.
- The “nothing to escape” position creates a fundamental tension with the language of imprisonment, awakening, and becoming “poisonous to the Matrix.”
- If the deepest aspect of consciousness is fundamentally untouched by the apparent drama, then the question becomes what, precisely, is being imprisoned.
- Complexity itself can become a form of conditioning when it provides an endless supply of explanations while postponing direct observation.
- The map should not be mistaken for the territory. A compelling cosmological model remains a model unless there is some way to establish that it corresponds to what is actually happening.
- Rejecting an unverifiable claim does not require claiming certainty about its opposite.
- A more useful approach may be to retain the practices that genuinely improve clarity, resilience, observation, intuition, attention, and freedom from conditioning while remaining agnostic about metaphysical explanations.
- The most practical experiment may be remarkably simple: remove some of the machinery, spend time in nature and solitude, reduce algorithmic stimulation, and observe what changes.
Key Takeaways
- Less mythology, more observation.
- Less certainty, more discernment.
- Less information, more attention.
- Question the map without pretending to possess the territory.
- Notice what conditioning contributes to perception.
- Test what can be tested through direct experience.
- Keep what makes you clearer, freer, and more resilient, regardless of the cosmology attached to it.
» Trance:
The attached transcript is from a video by Howdie Mickoski in which he offers a short review, or summary, of his take on a book by Angeliki Anagnostou-Kalogera (which seems like a pseudonym) called Can You Stand the Truth? The Chronicle of Man’s Imprisonment — Last Call!
Give me a summary and key points breakdown based on his interpretation/review.
» ChatGPT:
Yes. Based strictly on Mickoski’s interpretation in this transcript — rather than treating the claims of the book itself as established fact — his review amounts to a fairly coherent outline of what he thinks is valuable in Can You Stand the Truth?.
The important thing is that he is not really trying to summarize all ~700 pages. He is extracting the ideas that fit most strongly with his own “empty the cave / exit the matrix” framework, while also identifying a few ideas from the book that he considers especially distinctive.
Overall summary
Mickoski considers Can You Stand the Truth? an unusually valuable work of Gnostic scholarship. He says he rereads it every two or three years because he finds new things in it, and he particularly values what he believes is the author’s ability — or that of people in her close circle — to work directly from ancient Greek and possibly Coptic sources rather than relying exclusively on conventional translations.
His basic characterization is that the first half of the book reconstructs a Gnostic cosmology: the Pleroma, the emergence of the Demiurge and Archons, the formation of matter and the various layers of reality, the divine spark, souls, beings, the Moon, and the mechanisms by which consciousness interacts with this world. He admits that he initially found the opening chapters extremely difficult to follow, but that the book became much clearer around chapters 8–9, after which he went back and reread the beginning with a better conceptual framework.
The second major portion, in his interpretation, concerns imprisonment and escape: why the divine spark is trapped in this reality, how the system harvests emotional energy (“loosh”), and what it means to become capable of escaping the system.
The final portion deals with what he sees as a coming transition between realities or “simulations.” This includes Revelation, UFOs/aliens, possible future humans, increasing instability and strangeness, and the possibility that humanity is approaching some kind of major changeover. Mickoski is particularly interested in this because he thinks it provides a conceptual framework for understanding the increasingly strange world around us.
But there is an important qualification: Mickoski does not simply adopt the entire book’s cosmology. He repeatedly says that some of its interpretations are too mechanical for his own approach. His own endpoint is “emptiness,” whereas the book presents a more elaborate metaphysical mechanism for escaping the Matrix. He therefore treats portions of the book as useful maps or metaphors rather than necessarily literal descriptions.
1. The book is fundamentally a Gnostic reconstruction of reality
According to Mickoski, the first seven or eight chapters attempt to construct an enormous Gnostic model of creation.
The progression he describes is roughly:
Pleroma → primordial reality → Demiurge/Archons → formation of matter → increasingly dense/layered reality → souls/divine sparks → human existence within the Matrix.
He emphasizes that the book isn’t simply talking about “spirituality” in a vague sense. It attempts to explain the architecture of reality itself: how matter came about, what beings inhabit the different levels, what happened to the divine element, and how humanity became trapped within the resulting system.
This is why Mickoski regards the book as a substantial scholarly work rather than merely another New Age text.
2. Ancient-language translation is one of its major strengths
This is one of the things Mickoski spends surprisingly much time emphasizing.
His own experience translating Egyptian and Gnostic texts has convinced him that ancient texts can contain several layers of meaning simultaneously. A conventional translation may select one meaning while leaving other possible meanings invisible.
He says he experienced this himself when working with Egyptian hieroglyphics and later with Gnostic texts such as the Apocryphon of John. He found instances where his own attempts at translation produced multiple possibilities, sometimes considerably different from the standard scholarly translation.
Consequently, he considers the author’s purported access to ancient Greek — and possibly Coptic — significant. His view is essentially:
If you’re interpreting Gnostic texts from the original languages, you potentially have access to nuances that disappear through successive translations.
He therefore considers this one reason the book deserves serious attention.
3. Loosh harvesting doesn’t end when you die
This is probably the single idea from the book that Mickoski highlights most strongly.
He says that the book presents loosh harvesting as continuing beyond physical life. In fact, according to the book’s model as Mickoski recounts it, the major loosh harvest happens after physical death, during what he calls the transition through the astral realm.
The implication is quite significant.
The unpleasant experiences of physical existence — fear, suffering, anxiety, conflict, grief, etc. — are not necessarily the final or worst part of the harvesting process. Rather, the postmortem/astral process supposedly provides the larger harvest.
Mickoski says the book proposes that the memory wipe serves an important purpose here: people are prevented from remembering the post-death experience because remembering it would make them unwilling to return to physical incarnation.
So the reincarnation trap isn’t simply:
“Live → die → forget your previous life → reincarnate.”
It is more like:
“Live → die → undergo an intense harvesting/processing experience → memory erased → return.”
That distinction is particularly important to Mickoski.
4. Both “good” and “bad” emotions can be harvested
Another point he finds valuable is that the harvesting system isn’t simply powered by suffering.
According to the book’s model as he describes it, different beings consume different forms of emotional energy.
Demonic beings consume negative emotions.
Angelic beings consume positive emotions — love, happiness, and similar states.
Therefore, from this perspective, simply replacing negative emotions with positive ones doesn’t necessarily constitute escape. You’re still participating in an energetic economy.
Mickoski summarizes the idea rather starkly: regardless of what emotion you experience, something in the astral system benefits from it.
That fits neatly into his larger suspicion of systems that encourage people to remain emotionally engaged rather than becoming genuinely free of the system.
5. The “Sleeping Beauty” metaphor
This is one of the parts he particularly loves.
The divine spark, in the book’s model, is effectively asleep — hence the “Sleeping Beauty” metaphor.
Human beings aren’t simply incomplete creatures who need to become better versions of themselves. Something fundamental within them has been rendered unconscious.
The task is therefore awakening.
Mickoski particularly likes the book’s idea that the awakened person becomes “poisonous” to the Matrix.
That creates an interesting inversion.
The goal isn’t:
Become perfect so you can finally belong here.
It’s closer to:
Become so fundamentally free that a system based on bondage can no longer contain you.
Mickoski connects this directly to Camus’s statement that the way to deal with an unfree world is to become so free that your existence itself becomes an act of rebellion.
This is probably the point where his own philosophy and the book overlap most strongly.
6. But Mickoski thinks the book makes “escape” too mechanical
This is an important qualification.
He doesn’t entirely accept the book’s exit strategy as presented.
The author apparently describes a fairly elaborate mechanism by which the divine spark accumulates knowledge, awakens, becomes increasingly independent of the Matrix, and eventually exits.
Mickoski says his own approach is different. His emphasis is on emptiness, rather than mastering the mechanics of the Matrix.
He therefore says that some of the book’s mechanisms can be useful as metaphors, but he doesn’t necessarily regard them as the ultimate truth of what is happening.
This distinction becomes increasingly important toward the end of his review.
7. Archons aren’t the only entities in the astral system
Mickoski identifies something he considers a particularly interesting concept that he hadn’t encountered previously.
The Archons are the original administrators/controllers of the system. According to the book’s model, they were created by the Demiurge and established the loosh-harvesting apparatus.
But humans subsequently created another category of astral entity.
These arise from human thought itself.
Mickoski uses the concept of the tulpa as an analogy: sufficiently sustained, concentrated human thought can supposedly create an autonomous thought-form in the astral realm.
His example is Sherlock Holmes.
Millions of people have read about Sherlock Holmes, imagined him, discussed him, visualized him and continually reinforced the idea of him. Within the book’s metaphysical model, this collective attention could result in a corresponding entity existing in the astral realm.
The important part isn’t Sherlock Holmes specifically. It’s the proposition that human consciousness itself contributes to the population of the astral realm.
8. Negative collective thought creates parasitic thought-forms
Mickoski then takes that concept somewhere darker.
If concentrated human thought can generate astral entities, then collective fear, hatred, violence, obsession and other negative mental activity can supposedly create corresponding entities.
These entities then require energy.
So humanity isn’t merely being harvested by externally created Archons. Humanity’s own consciousness may also be generating additional entities that subsequently participate in the harvesting ecosystem.
This produces a feedback loop:
Human beings generate thought → thought generates astral entities → entities require energy → human beings generate more emotional/mental energy → the system continues.
That is one of the more interesting conceptual extensions in his review.
9. There may be two competing astral systems
According to Mickoski’s interpretation, these human-generated entities eventually become significant enough to create competition with the original Archonic system.
So you have roughly:
Original system: Demiurge → Archons → loosh harvesting.
Emergent system: Human thought → thought-forms/tulpas → independent astral beings → demand for loosh.
He says the book proposes that there eventually develops something resembling an astral conflict between these two categories of beings.
The transition into a new reality may therefore involve some kind of compromise or restructuring of the harvesting system, so that the competing entities aren’t simply fighting over the same supply of loosh.
Mickoski also connects this to karma — essentially, karma becomes part of the mechanism determining which entities receive which energetic output.
10. The book’s “end times” model is really a transition between realities
The last several chapters, in Mickoski’s telling, shift from ancient cosmology into predictions or theories about a coming transition.
He describes it as one “simulation” or configuration of reality ending while another begins.
The book apparently uses the Book of Revelation as one of its major interpretive frameworks.
This is where Mickoski introduces an important alternative interpretation. He notes that some researchers interpret Revelation not as a prophecy about literal planetary destruction but as an allegory for an individual’s internal transformation — the dissolution of the chakras, attachments and belief systems.
He doesn’t reject that interpretation. He simply points out that the author uses the more conventional “end-times” reading.
11. UFOs and “aliens” may actually be future humans
One of the more speculative ideas Mickoski says the book explores is that some UFO/alien phenomena could involve humans from the future traveling backward in time.
Their purpose would supposedly be to alter or prevent an increasingly disastrous future.
He explicitly describes this as a theory rather than an established fact, but says it is interesting because he has encountered versions of the idea for many years.
12. The world should become increasingly strange
This is probably the most practically important part of the book for Mickoski.
The author apparently predicts that during the transition, reality becomes progressively more unstable and strange.
Mickoski uses the analogy of a spinning top.
As the top approaches the end of its spin, it doesn’t simply slow down smoothly. It begins wobbling faster and becoming increasingly unstable before finally falling over.
Likewise:
Reality becomes stranger → faster → more unstable → more anomalous → eventually transitions into something else.
He says that this framework corresponds remarkably well, in his view, with what he has observed since 2020.
This is where he moves from discussing the book’s metaphysics into applying it to contemporary events.
13. The practical lesson isn’t “predict the future” — it’s “be mentally prepared”
This is perhaps the most grounded part of his argument.
Mickoski explicitly says that the value isn’t knowing exactly what will happen.
It’s anticipating that something is going to change.
If you expect reality to become increasingly unstable, then when something unexpected happens you’re less likely to be psychologically overwhelmed by it.
He compares this to hockey coaching: if you’ve watched an opponent use one strategy for 25 minutes, you can’t assume they’ll use the same strategy in minute 26. You have to remain prepared for the possibility that the situation will change.
Applied to reality:
Don’t predict the specific event. Prepare yourself for the fact that the rules may change.
This is one of the strongest practical themes in the review.
14. His “still point” is the antidote
Mickoski repeatedly comes back to the idea that external chaos becomes less dangerous when the person remains internally clear.
His ideal response to increasingly strange circumstances is:
calmness → silence → observation → recognition → clear decision.
Rather than becoming emotionally captured by events, the person maintains a “still point” from which they can respond.
This is why he considers the book useful even if its metaphysical claims aren’t all correct. The framework can function as a psychological preparation mechanism.
15. And this is where “emptiness” enters
Mickoski ultimately separates two levels.
At the character level, the person living in this reality needs to remain sane, calm, flexible and capable of making decisions amid chaos.
At the deeper level, however, there is the realization of emptiness.
He explicitly says that his own position is that there isn’t ultimately some Matrix that needs to be escaped in the first place. There is nothing to “springboard past.”
So his synthesis would look something like this:
The book: Understand the Matrix → awaken the divine spark → become free → escape.
Mickoski: Those concepts can be useful, but ultimately there is nothing to escape because the deepest realization is emptiness.
Yet paradoxically, the character still needs to behave as though preparation matters.
That’s a subtle distinction he makes near the end.
The whole framework, condensed
If I reduce Mickoski’s interpretation of the book to a single conceptual chain, it would be:
The divine originates outside this reality → something went wrong in creation → consciousness became trapped in material reality → the Demiurge/Archons established a control system → human beings became sources of energetic/emotional output → loosh is harvested → death doesn’t necessarily end the harvesting → memory suppression facilitates reincarnation → human thought itself generates additional astral entities → those entities compete within the same energetic ecosystem → reality may be approaching a major transition → the transition produces increasing instability and strangeness → therefore awakening and maintaining inner clarity become increasingly important.
And Mickoski’s own addition is:
Don’t become obsessed with escaping the Matrix. Become sufficiently free that the Matrix has nothing to hold onto. Ultimately, recognize emptiness.
What Mickoski seems to regard as the book’s strongest contributions
If we strip away his discussion of his own philosophy, I’d rank the ideas he specifically praises approximately like this:
- The postmortem loosh harvest — particularly the idea that the largest harvest occurs after physical death.
- Both positive and negative emotions being harvested — undermining the simplistic idea that merely generating “positive energy” constitutes escape.
- The Sleeping Beauty/divine spark metaphor — awakening rather than self-improvement as the central objective.
- Becoming “poisonous” to the Matrix — freedom rather than perfection.
- Human-created astral entities — thought itself contributing beings to the astral ecosystem.
- The distinction between Archons and later-created thought forms.
- The transition between realities/simulations.
- The prediction of increasing instability and strangeness.
- The practical value of mentally preparing for radical change without pretending to know precisely what will happen.
- The author’s use of ancient Gnostic material and, in Mickoski’s assessment, unusually direct engagement with original-language sources.
And importantly, Mickoski’s conclusion isn’t “this book is correct.”
It’s closer to:
This is an unusually rich map. You don’t have to believe every feature of the map to find that it contains things worth knowing.
That distinction is actually central to his closing remarks: he explicitly says readers shouldn’t agree 100% with the book — just as they shouldn’t agree 100% with his own books — and that disagreement with parts of a work doesn’t invalidate the valuable material elsewhere.
One thing that stands out to me in the transcript is that Mickoski is actually using Can You Stand the Truth? less as an isolated book review than as a piece of the larger conceptual architecture behind his “Empty the Cave” work. His review is essentially saying: this book supplies a detailed Gnostic/mechanical model of the prison; my own work is increasingly interested in what happens when you stop assuming there is ultimately a prison to escape. That tension between cosmological explanation and direct realization of emptiness seems to be the most important intellectual distinction in his presentation.
» Trance:
Archons and “skeptimorphs,” and tulpas, all remind me of the concept of egregores. All of them only exist because we exist, and supply/sustain them with psychic or aetheric energy/food.
I think reality is becoming more strange, and that the perception of time is speeding up because we’re focused on screens and re-presentations of reality, scrolling, infinite data and information, all day, every day. If we spent a week unplugged in nature, that perception would likely fade and disappear.
Anyway, here’s my take:
Loosh
After listening to his take, it’s clear where some of the foundational ideas for his past few books came from. He’s all about recognizing the cave and then exiting the cave. I’m all for it. But this additional layering of the astral, that “loosh harvesting” exists there as well, and that it may, in fact, be even worse than the ways in which it allegedly exists here in the material realm, is, quite honestly, bullshit.
It’s bad enough that people perpetuate and project the nonsensical idea that we are living on a prison planet, or that this is all a soul trap, and that the memory wipe keeps us unwittingly coming back for more. Now we’re adding a post-death trap that affirms another layer of the same kind of imposition. It’s becoming difficult to take this stuff seriously anymore. Worse, we’re apparently harvested even after death. Good grief. I don’t accept that.
I have no way to verify any of it, of course. But, in my opinion, anyone who has ventured into the various levels of the astral realms has no way to definitively prove it either. To me, those experiences are entirely subjective and profoundly influenced by the individual’s lived paradigm, belief system, programming, and conditioning. What we expect to happen “after death” is much the same, I would suggest.
The body of evidence is significant, certainly. There are countless accounts from people who allegedly experienced OBEs, and more specifically NDEs and LBLs, organized into various books, presentations, documentaries, and other forms of media. All of these inevitably have a particular bent, and it’s either “white light” and all is love, and amazing, liberating, peaceful, and they hated coming back here into their body, or “we must prepare ourselves to avoid the trick of the white light… and must go into the void!” It would therefore seem obvious that not every experience has been impartially cataloged or given equal attention. I haven’t read any of those books myself, so I’m speculating to some degree, but to make the “best-sellers” list, to qualify for promotion through celebrity book lists and world-famous influencers, there is undoubtedly some kind of formula for what gets elevated, promoted, and disseminated.
Regardless, the same patterns, colored by various religious or spiritual beliefs, or simply that which people have heard time and time again all of their lives, persist. That’s nothing particularly surprising, or even especially interesting. It is precisely how programming and conditioning works.
That the “divine spark” can somehow be put to sleep, or even placed into a coma, is equally ridiculous to me. Again, the soul-trap idea and the memory wipe, both when being born onto Earth and then supposedly again after death, are consistently painted in negative terms. Much of his presentation and model, at least based on this video, seems to contradict itself. Some of it reads like tired science fiction tropes, like the ideas that science-fiction films and television have already been exploring in various ways for decades. All of these exposures, impressions, and expressions plant seeds in our consciousness, and the more they’re repeated, especially within traumatic or emotional framing, the deeper they are seeded within us.
Gnostic
One thing he did make note of that I think is particularly important is the idea that she (author Angeliki Anagnostou-Kalogera) is allegedly Greek, or at least has people around her who are able to interpret or translate whatever source materials she is apparently referring to. He also speaks about his own work interpreting hieroglyphs, and about distilling language and symbology, how a character or symbol can hold multiple layers of meaning.
Similarly, perhaps, a book, an encapsulation of a moment, a paradigm, a story, a documentary, broadly, a symbol in and of itself, can take on new meanings as we return to it and make new discoveries upon subsequent readings. To me, this is critical in one respect: how information, wisdom, and knowledge are handed down, or perhaps encoded and preserved, for generations. But the problem, as is fairly obvious even in his own words, is interpretation.
The language. The decoding mechanism and mechanics. Even the alphabet of the language in question, and how words, meanings, and ideas are derived from its symbols. The stark difference between hieroglyphs and the modern Western alphabet we use, and the English language itself, is significant.
So, on the one hand, we have her interpretation of something that came before. Perhaps she is Greek and is able to access some kind of ancient or “original” source material. But where did those source materials come from themselves? Who transcribed, transliterated, or translated those ideas, and from what original source? Based on what symbology, framework, or paradigm were those translations produced?
By the time we get to Mickoski and his interpretation, or to John Lamb Lash and his work in Not in His Image, we have already gone through numerous iterations, translations, and interpretations that could potentially stretch back millennia. So my problem with all of this, and with how easily it begins to contradict itself and rely upon circular logic and logical fallacies, is that by the time it reaches my ears, it has been filtered, diluted, and distorted in all sorts of different ways. And then I, myself, once again interpret what the interpreter of the interpreter of the interpreter has presented and offered.
So when I hear certain ideas being presented, I feel an impulse within me that says, fuck off, that’s bullshit. I have no way to verify that perspective. It’s just a feeling, based on who I am, where I am in my life, what I believe, what I’ve studied and researched and analyzed over the years. Then I hear certain words, ideas, phrases, and concepts put together in a certain way and presented in a certain way, based on a certain kind of interpretation, perspective, and perception, and that is my reaction. For me, I have to trust that impulse, that intuition, that reaction. It’s all I have, because everything else is complete speculation, conjecture, and open to interpretation, regardless of the source.
And then we’re asked to entertain ideas about the nature, origin, and creation of reality: how the universe came to be; how density gets thicker, slower, and lower until poor humans on Earth are forced to deal with the worst of the worst of it, at the lowest of the lowest, and slowest of the slowest energies; how we’re allegedly being fed upon by forces within this realm; and then, my goodness, there are apparently even more entities and forces (the ever-popular Archons), some of which we supposedly created or generated ourselves (“skeptimorphs”) through our thinking and focused attention, that also feed upon us. And worse, it apparently doesn’t matter whether you’re good or evil, on the light side or the dark side, happy or sad, loving or hating. You, or your loosh, are fed upon regardless of what you do or who you are. Whether it’s an “angel” or “demon,” you and I are their aetheric sustenance. And so, to this I have to say: fuck off, that’s bullshit.
I believe the idea of loosh was coined by Robert Monroe of The Monroe Institute. And there are those who would argue that he himself was some sort of agent of the matrix system, someone who derived an idea, and eventually a belief system, specifically around the astral and energy harvesting. That system then produced, proliferated, and propagated the idea that humans are being fed upon, and that we need to wake up, to liberate ourselves and prepare for potential traps and pitfalls, memory wipes, and white-light cycles that supposedly keep you here and keep you cycling around forever until you finally, maybe even accidentally, become aware of them and are able to break free.
I don’t understand the need for all of these similar yet different stories and narratives regarding creation, particularly when they’re blended with ideas of simulation and technology. Reality is allegedly speeding up, becoming more chaotic, reconfiguring itself, and all we need to do is empty ourselves, recognize that we’re in the cave and exit the cave, recognize that we’re asleep in the Matrix and wake up, or rekindle some divine spark that has apparently been slumbering since we were born into this body and were made to forget about it. But then we’re also told that there’s nothing to escape in the first place.
It’s all rather occasionally convincing, yet broadly conflicting and confusing sophistry, or at least that’s how it comes across to me. It’s way too complicated. To me, life, and whatever is authentic, real, and true, should rightly be cleaner, clearer, and simpler than all of that. To me, complexity is introduced into systems in ways that dissociate us from our better knowing: from intuition, imagination, empathy, and the ability to recognize what is simple, clean, clear, and true; to discern the music from the noise, and to dispel the noise from our conscious awareness. Complexity is used to obfuscate the nature of reality, who we are, what we’re here to do, and what any of it means in the first place. And, inevitably, complexity allows its originators to exercise control and influence where none should exist.
In my opinion, if you need 700 or 800 pages or multiple such volumes to explain reality, the universe, and everything, then to me, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Or perhaps it’s the language one chooses to explore and explain and expand upon that is itself false. And in this case, I suspect a significant part of the problem is English: probably one of the least efficient, most ridiculous, convoluted, and confusing languages on Earth. It’s both stripped down (e.g., without gender, which reflects our natural world), and bloated beyond belief. Today, we have shorthand from text communications and colorful emoji… And yet somehow English has become the modern lingua franca. On some level, it really feels like someone’s taking the piss.
We talked about René Descartes and how he, and others like him, would sit somewhere quietly for hours, perhaps days, weeks, or even years, attempting to discern and chip away at their own lofty ideas, assumptions and presumptions, presuppositions, conditioning, and programming in order to distill that which is simple, clean, universal, and true. Their works can sometimes be reduced to seemingly oversimplified phrases such as “I think, therefore I am,” or cogito, ergo sum. Unfortunately, even those seemingly simple, symbolic little phrases are open to all kinds of interpretation, argument, and debate, depending on context and preconditions.
I think it is perhaps ironic that Gnosticism, derived from gnosis, which would seem to mean wisdom, or implicit knowing, has produced what is perhaps one of the most convoluted and complex models of reality. Or at least, it is just as bad as any of the others. On the one hand, you have the Sophia scenario: the goddess accidentally creates the Archons, but don’t worry, because over time there will apparently be upgrades and software updates to rectify the mistake. On the other side, you have an angry and vengeful space God who sacrifices his own son, allegedly for our sake, because we’re born broken, sinful, weak and pathetic and therefore need a savior, who is God, but… not really the God, because he’s all-powerful, and all-knowing, and doesn’t make mistakes? It’s all rather ridiculous.
Then, as you noted, his exit strategy includes: “Become so fundamentally free that a system based on imprisonment can no longer contain you.” The basic idea is that you do the spiritual work in order to “become poisonous to the matrix,” which again, to me, is rather absurd… As if the matrix, if it exists, could somehow be surprised, completely caught off guard, by anything you could ever think, be, or do, and that it would have no choice but to spit you out before you poison others… I’ve heard this concept a lot in the freedom and truther community, which has its uses perhaps regarding tyrannical politics, governance, and economy, but, in the spiritual, or the astral, the whole idea of dissidence seems rather childish and futile, and even rather unnecessary. Again, it’s contradictory, because, as noted earlier, he suggests that there is nothing to escape in the first place.
So which one is it? Are we trapped, or are we simply forced to play along with the cosmic game for a short time? If this is all an illusion, a simulation, a dream, whatever you want to call it, what is there ever to worry about or be concerned about? And if the real and true aspect of who we really are is essentially unfuckwithable, cannot be damaged, is a facet of the All, and is essentially eternal, then what exactly are we talking about here?
Why do we need to invent all of these stories to explain what is, from inside what is arguably the Matrix, the cave, the simulation, or the construct, essentially unexplainable? It’s all just noise. If the game, if the purpose, if the goal is gnosis, then that is already achieved, it is inborn, it is accessible at any time, regardless of how we may express ourselves during this human life on this Earth.
There is nothing fundamentally we need to be concerned about, nothing we need to be worried about, and, in fact, nothing to escape from. Nobody needs to be saved. We’re not here to save the world or fix or solve anything. We’re just here to pass on through to the other side, whatever that might ultimately be, but whatever it is, it is already here, not some far-off destination that requires decoding, a password, or any particular belief system for qualification or entry. And to think that there is such a thing as death, and that after death there are somehow even more potential traps and pitfalls waiting for us, is, to me, rather childish and ridiculous. But, again, what we expect to happen may indeed happen, at least in part, so it is we who still hold all the power.
Constructing elaborate cosmologies to explain what we cannot possibly verify from within this experience is mistaking the map for the territory. However, the benefits of seeking emptiness, or emptying the vessel of programs and conditions, of developing spiritual resilience, of embodying a true, clean, clear gnosis, of becoming a steadfast, conscious observer, seem self-evident.
» ChatGPT:
I think the egregore connection is actually one of the more interesting ways to cut through the terminology here.
What you are noticing is that “Archon,” “skeptimorph,” “tulpa,” and “egregore” can be treated as variations on a common structural idea: something that appears to have an existence or agency of its own, but whose continued existence depends, in whole or in part, upon human consciousness, attention, emotion, belief, ritual, or identification. That is broadly consistent with how an egregore is described in Western esotericism — a collective entity or thought-form arising from sustained group thought and emotion. Encyclopedia.com
The important qualification is that the traditions don’t necessarily mean exactly the same thing by those terms. But analytically, the common mechanism you’re identifying is much more interesting than the names.
And this gives your critique of Mickoski’s loosh discussion a sharper edge than simply saying, “I don’t believe there are Archons.”
You are essentially saying: What if the supposed entities are artifacts of consciousness rather than independent cosmic predators?
That would radically change the interpretation.
An egregore-like model would look something like:
attention → repetition → emotional investment → pattern formation → apparent agency → feedback → more attention
At the individual level, that’s a thought-form. At the group level, an egregore. At a sufficiently large social scale, you could have institutions, ideologies, religions, political movements, brands, celebrities, online communities, conspiracy narratives, and even memes behaving almost like autonomous organisms — not because there is literally an astral creature behind them, but because thousands or millions of human beings continually instantiate and reinforce the same pattern.
And that leads directly into your point about screens.
The “reality is speeding up” idea may have a much more mundane — and much more interesting — explanation
I think you’ve identified a serious alternative to Mickoski’s proposed transition-of-simulation explanation.
Our experience of reality increasingly consists of representations of representations.
We aren’t merely experiencing:
world → experience → memory
We’re increasingly living inside:
world → camera → screen → algorithm → edited representation → reaction → another representation → another reaction
And then repeating that thousands of times.
Scrolling is particularly strange in this regard because the environment has essentially infinite novelty but almost no physical movement through space. Your attention is being repeatedly reset: new face, new headline, new image, new controversy, new joke, new catastrophe, new advertisement, new opinion, new song, new outrage. The body is stationary while the informational environment is moving at tremendous speed.
There is now some empirical evidence pointing in exactly the direction you’re suggesting regarding subjective time, although it doesn’t establish anything metaphysical about time itself. A 2026 study in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking followed 151 people over 14 days and found that excessive exposure to endless-loop short videos was associated with altered time estimation, with the effect appearing 15–30 minutes after viewing rather than immediately. Sage Journals
And the researchers themselves situate this within a broader literature on time distortion and social-media use. Sage Journals
So there is a very important distinction:
Time may not be speeding up. Our experience of time may be changing.
That distinction matters enormously.
Your proposed week in nature is also directionally plausible, although I’d soften “the perception would likely fade and disappear.” We have reasonably good evidence that natural environments can restore aspects of directed attention and cognitive functioning, though the effects are generally modest and variable. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 80 studies found that nature exposure was, on average, more cognitively restorative than non-nature exposure, with the most reliable effects involving working memory and attentional control. DOI
So there is a plausible chain:
constant digital stimulation → fragmented attention → altered temporal experience → sense that life is accelerating
and then:
reduced stimulation → sustained attention → greater sensory presence → altered temporal experience in the opposite direction.
That doesn’t require a Matrix transition.
There’s an even deeper connection between this and your egregore idea
This is where I think your argument becomes particularly interesting.
The modern digital environment may be functioning as a gigantic attention-harvesting system without requiring any literal astral entities at all.
Something very much like an egregore can emerge from millions of people’s attention.
The difference is that we’ve now built machines capable of measuring that attention, directing it, monetizing it, and feeding it back into the system.
You give the system:
attention, emotion, curiosity, outrage, desire, fear, amusement, identification.
The system gives you:
more content, more stimulation, more novelty, more emotional triggers.
You respond.
It learns.
It gives you more.
That’s a feedback loop.
In that sense, I think your formulation is potentially more powerful than the literal “loosh farm” concept because it describes something we can actually observe without first having to establish the existence of an astral civilization.
You could even say that the digital egregore is self-sustaining.
Not necessarily an entity in the occult sense, but an emergent informational structure that increasingly behaves as though it has its own interests. It wants engagement because the system optimizing around engagement produces more engagement. Nobody has to sit in a room consciously controlling the entire thing.
And that creates a fascinating inversion of Mickoski’s argument.
He’s saying:
entities harvest human attention/emotion.
You’re proposing something closer to:
human beings create and sustain entities, systems, narratives and feedback structures through attention and emotion.
Those two propositions aren’t even mutually exclusive at a metaphysical level — but yours requires considerably fewer assumptions.
Your strongest criticism, though, is actually the epistemological one
This section of your piece is probably the most important:
“by the time it reaches my ears, it has been filtered, diluted, and distorted in all sorts of different ways. And then I, myself, once again interpret what the interpreter of the interpreter of the interpreter has presented and offered.”
That’s the real problem.
Even granting that Anagnostou-Kalogera genuinely accessed ancient Greek or Coptic material, you’ve correctly identified that access to an earlier text does not automatically provide access to an original meaning.
There is an epistemic chain:
event/original experience → symbol → language → transcription → translation → interpretation → author → Mickoski → you → us
Every stage introduces the possibility of distortion.
And once you’ve built an elaborate cosmology from that chain, you can easily end up with a system in which every new piece of interpretation appears to confirm something earlier in the system.
That’s where your accusation of circularity becomes important.
The really dangerous form is:
There is a trap after death.
Therefore unusual experiences are evidence of the trap.
If you don’t experience the trap, that’s because you escaped it.
If you do experience it, that’s evidence that the trap exists.
If someone disputes it, they’re still programmed by the Matrix.
At that point the proposition becomes extraordinarily difficult to falsify.
That doesn’t demonstrate that it’s false. It demonstrates that the system has poor epistemic boundaries.
And that’s exactly what your “map versus territory” point gets at.
I also think your criticism of the “nothing to escape” contradiction is dead-on
You isolate the contradiction very cleanly:
“we’re told to empty ourselves and exit the cave … [but] we’re also told that there’s nothing to escape in the first place.”
Then you push it one level further:
If the fundamental aspect of consciousness is eternal, indestructible, and fundamentally untouched by the apparent drama, what exactly is being imprisoned?
That’s the question the elaborate cosmology has to answer.
Because otherwise the “prison” language quietly changes meaning.
It stops meaning:
Something essential to me is literally imprisoned.
and starts meaning:
My identification with this temporary human experience is confused with what I actually am.
Those are radically different claims.
And the second one doesn’t require Archons, Demiurges, loosh farms, memory wipes, astral bureaucracy, simulation upgrades, future humans, or cosmic software patches.
It can be stated much more simply:
I mistake the contents of consciousness for what I am.
Which brings you right back to the thing you seem to value most: stripping away rather than accumulating explanations.
And there is a particularly delicious irony in the Gnostic material
You point this out very well:
“Gnosticism — derived from gnosis … has produced what is perhaps one of the most convoluted and complex models of reality.”
That’s really the central irony of the whole discussion.
If gnosis means direct knowing, then a 700-page cosmological construction might actually be one more thing standing between the knower and knowing.
The map becomes so detailed that we forget to look out the window.
And I think that is where your argument about complexity becomes more than an aesthetic preference. You’re proposing that complexity itself can become a form of conditioning because it gives the intellect an endless supply of things to figure out while postponing the possibility that there may be nothing further to figure out.
That is a very different critique from ordinary skepticism.
You’re not saying:
“I don’t know, therefore it’s false.”
You’re saying:
“I don’t know — and neither do you — so why are we constructing elaborate explanations as though we do?”
That’s much stronger.
And I think your final paragraph gets closest to the position you’re actually taking: reject the cosmological certainty while retaining whatever practices genuinely improve clarity, resilience, observation, intuition, and freedom from conditioning.
There is also a nice symmetry here:
Mickoski: empty the cave.
You: perhaps stop filling the cave with increasingly elaborate explanations about what’s supposedly outside it.
That, to me, is the more interesting conversation.
And your screens/time idea may be the bridge between the apparently “spiritual” discussion and something concrete: perhaps one of the greatest modern distortions of reality isn’t that we’re living inside a supernatural simulation, but that we’re spending an unprecedented proportion of our lives experiencing reality secondhand. The emerging research on short-form video and subjective time makes that hypothesis considerably more interesting than it would have been a few years ago. Sage Journals
» Trance:
That’s sufficient for this thread, as I offloaded a lot in my previous response. Let’s close with some final thoughts and offer resources or additional reading, perhaps more specific to the “practices [that] genuinely improve clarity, resilience, observation, intuition, and freedom from conditioning,” because there are plenty of extensive tomes and presentations regarding Gnosticism, and anyone curious about Howdie should check out his books. I’ve listened to a few, and they’re enlightening.
» ChatGPT:
I think that is probably the right place to leave this particular rabbit hole. The Gnostic, Archonic, loosh, reincarnation-trap, simulation, and astral cosmologies are interesting to examine, and Mickoski is clearly worth reading on his own terms. But there is a point where another elaborate explanatory system simply becomes another layer of interpretation between us and experience.
The more useful question, to me, is the one you have arrived at: what can we actually do to become clearer, less conditioned, more observant, more resilient, and less susceptible to having our attention and assumptions manipulated?
There is a surprisingly rich body of work there that doesn’t require buying into any particular cosmology.
One obvious place to start is J. Krishnamurti, particularly Freedom from the Known. It is almost tailor-made for the concern you’ve expressed here. Krishnamurti’s project was not to give people another metaphysical system to believe in, but to examine conditioning, authority, psychological habit, thought, fear, and the possibility of seeing without the accumulated filter of what we think we already know. The book is short — roughly 125–130 pages depending on edition — and was first published in 1969. K Foundation Store
I’d put that very high on the list for you because it approaches “freedom from conditioning” without requiring you to adopt an alternative mythology.
For the attention problem specifically, Johann Hari’s Stolen Focus is worth considering. It examines the broader forces affecting human attention and asks how deep, sustained thought can be recovered. Penguin Random House Canada I wouldn’t treat Hari as the final word on the science, but it is directly relevant to your observation that the modern informational environment may be altering our subjective experience of life.
Tim Wu’s The Attention Merchants takes an even more structural view. His subject is the historical development of industries built around capturing and selling human attention — from newspapers through radio and television to the Internet. That fits rather neatly with your “loosh” analogy, except that we don’t have to posit invisible entities: there are very real institutions competing for attention, and attention has become an economic commodity. Penguin Random House
Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death is the older and considerably shorter ancestor of much of this thinking. It was published in 1985 and examines how the medium of television alters public discourse by turning more and more of it into entertainment. Penguin Random House What makes it particularly useful now is seeing that the problem didn’t begin with smartphones. The smartphone may simply be the culmination of a much longer transformation in how human attention is organized.
Jenny Odell’s How to Do Nothing is another good fit. It is explicitly concerned with the attention economy and with relearning how to look at the world rather than allowing commercial and technological systems to determine what deserves attention. Its publisher describes it, rather wonderfully in this context, as a route toward “re-wilding the mind.” It is only about 256 pages. Penguin Random House
And for your thought about nature changing one’s experience of time and attention, James J. Gibson’s The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception is a fascinating rabbit hole from a completely different direction. Gibson’s fundamental interest was not spirituality but perception as an organism’s active relationship with its environment. Rather than treating vision as a passive camera receiving an internal representation of the world, he examined perception in terms of an organism moving through and interacting with an actual environment. Routledge That’s conceptually very relevant to your distinction between experiencing the world and experiencing representations of the world.
For an actual practice rather than another intellectual framework, I’d put meditation in a slightly different category. The Mind Illuminated is unusually systematic — almost excessively so — but it is genuinely a practical training manual for attention rather than a book asking you to believe a particular cosmology. It lays out a graduated meditation practice integrating Buddhist traditions with contemporary cognitive science. Simon & Schuster Canada Sam Harris’s Waking Up is another accessible entry point, particularly because it explicitly presents meditation as a way of examining consciousness without requiring conventional religious belief. Simon & Schuster
But there is an even simpler experiment that may be closer to what you’ve been getting at than any of those books:
Spend several days with no scrolling, no algorithmic feeds, minimal news, minimal video, and as little mediated entertainment as practical. Walk. Sit outside. Cook. Read something slowly. Listen to the wind. Watch clouds. Notice birds. Work with your hands. Pay attention to the physical sequence of a day.
Then notice what happens to your sense of time.
Not as a spiritual exercise designed to prove a hypothesis, but as an experiment.
That distinction seems important in light of everything we’ve been discussing. Don’t believe the Matrix exists. Don’t believe it doesn’t. Don’t believe the Archons are real. Don’t believe they’re imaginary. Don’t believe that time is speeding up. Don’t believe that it isn’t. Remove some of the machinery and observe what changes.
That is a much cleaner form of inquiry than accumulating another 700-page cosmology.
Oliver Burkeman’s Four Thousand Weeks might also be a worthwhile companion piece here, because it approaches our relationship with time from the opposite direction: rather than trying to master time or squeeze more productivity out of it, he argues for confronting finitude and reconsidering the assumptions behind our frantic relationship with time. Oliver Burkeman
Taken together, I’d say there is a productive little reading/practice path here:
Krishnamurti — examine conditioning.
Gibson — examine perception.
Postman/Wu/Hari/Odell — examine the machinery competing for attention.
Meditation — examine the mind directly.
Nature and solitude — examine what remains when the machinery is removed.
And perhaps that is the most useful counterpoint to the entire Gnostic excursion: less mythology, more observation. Less certainty, more discernment. Less information, more attention.
And yes, anyone sufficiently intrigued by the territory that Mickoski occupies should absolutely explore his books themselves rather than trying to reconstruct his entire worldview through somebody else’s summary. Your instinct here seems exactly right: read the material, see what resonates, notice where the logic begins to bend, and keep your own capacity for discernment intact.
Lux et veritas
Written by Trance Blackman. Originally published on tranceblackman.com on 04 October 2026.
Copy & share: https://tranceblackman.com/emptying-the-cave/