UPDATED BY VCG ON 9/22/2026 @ 23:23 EST#

Anyone can do this, but most won't.#

ChatGPT - Library of Rickandria

I’ll treat the thread as the primary source, separate what it actually claims from what can be independently verified, then test each claim against historical/scientific evidence and Scripture. I’ll also flag rhetorical techniques, cognitive biases, unfalsifiable moves, and places where the thread mixes observation, inference, and theology.

/x/ - OBE and Astral Travel - Paranormal - 4chan

The thread is still live and short enough to audit completely: it runs from the OP on September 19 through replies on September 22. The main factual clusters are DMT/endogenous DMT, OBE/“astral” claims, Monroe/Gateway, alleged psychic corroboration, shamanic practice, Neville Goddard-style visualization, and the final racial/metaphysical claims.

One important distinction is already emerging: the skeptical reply (“you had a dream”) is too certain, but the paranormal replies are also far more certain than the evidence permits. Modern neuroscience can reproduce key OBE-like features experimentally and links spontaneous OBEs to sleep/REM and multisensory self-processing; that explains plausible mechanisms without proving that every OBE is “just a dream.”

The DMT point also needs a narrower correction than either side usually gives. Endogenous DMT has been detected in humans, and its physiological role remains debated; but there is no demonstrated human DMT surge during astral projection, dreaming, or near-death, and the popular pineal-gland story is not established. Strassman himself presents much of that bridge as hypothesis/speculation, not a finding from his dosing studies.

Soli Deo Gloria. I pulled the live thread and checked the substantive claims against peer-reviewed neuroscience/pharmacology, CIA/Army records where relevant, the Monroe Institute’s own materials, scholarship on shamanism and philosophy, and the supplied KJV Pure Cambridge Edition. The thread snapshot runs from No. 42983208 on September 19, 2026 through No. 42995591 on September 22. (boards.4chan.org)

The most important conclusion is not “nothing unusual ever happens.” It is more disciplined than that:

The experiences are data. The experiencers’ interpretations are hypotheses.

Feeling outside one’s body, seeing geometric environments, sensing an apparently autonomous presence, or experiencing a “push” may be accurately reported phenomenology. It does not follow automatically that an immaterial body left the physical body, that a geographically independent realm was entered, that an entity objectively existed, or that the entity judged the experiencer’s “vibration.”

That distinction governs almost everything below.

1. Methodology: how I am testing the thread#

There are six different questions that the posters repeatedly collapse together.

This distinction matters especially because internally generated experience can be astonishingly vivid. Perception itself is constructive: expectations and prior beliefs influence what is experienced, and source-monitoring errors can cause internally generated events to acquire an external quality. None of that means an experiencer is lying or mentally ill. Those are ordinary areas of cognitive science and can occur in healthy people. (PubMed Central (PMC))

For purported remote perception, the proper test is straightforward: choose targets randomly; keep the percipient and experimenter blind; eliminate sensory leakage; record the report before feedback; specify scoring rules beforehand; include decoy targets; quantify chance performance; and replicate with independent investigators. Anecdotal “corroboration” after the fact is weaker because ambiguous impressions can be matched retrospectively.

That is essentially why the history of laboratory psi research remains disputed. Some analyses have reported statistical anomalies, while critics and failed replications emphasize methodological flexibility, leakage, multiple testing, and unreliable replication. The U.S. government’s own remote-viewing evaluation ultimately found the material too inconsistent and unreliable for intelligence use. (PubMed)

2. OP — No. 42983208: attempting to enter a “DMT realm” without DMT#

The OP says another person’s account inspired an attempt to visit the supposed DMT realm, after which intention was deliberately set toward that destination. Darkness, an approaching light, psychedelic patterns, a female presence, a strange face, a sudden lateral force and a European-looking riverside scene followed. OP subsequently interpreted the interruption as denial of entry by a “gatekeeper” because of a discordant “vibration.” (4chan)

“Inspired by someone else’s story…”#

This is methodologically important.

The experience did not occur before exposure to the conceptual framework. OP knew beforehand that there was supposedly a DMT realm and deliberately attempted to reach it.

That introduces priming and expectancy.

It doesn't prove the resulting imagery was imaginary. But it creates an obvious ordinary mechanism capable of explaining why the resulting experience took DMT-like form. Prior expectations can strongly shape ambiguous perception; in psychedelic research specifically, “set”—expectations, beliefs, intentions—and “setting” are recognized influences on subjective experience. (PubMed)

The sequence is therefore:

prior narrative → intention → altered state → matching imagery → interpretation through prior narrative.

That is not independent confirmation.

Darkness → distant light → “waiting room”#

There actually is a recognizable “waiting room” motif in DMT reports. A large qualitative study of inhaled DMT narratives found recurring rooms and environments; “waiting room” language occurred in about 2.8% of the experiences analyzed. Entity/guide-type encounters and alternate-dimensional interpretations were also common themes. (PubMed)

So the OP is correct about one limited point:

People really do report this motif.

But the inference

multiple people report similar environments → therefore they entered one shared location

does not follow.

Shared phenomenology can arise from shared neuropharmacology, shared human visual architecture, shared expectations, culturally circulating terminology, or combinations thereof.

Dreams provide an obvious analogy. Many humans experience falling, paralysis, pursuit, deceased relatives, impossible buildings, sexual encounters, flying, or being unable to move. Recurrence does not automatically imply that dreamers visited one geographically shared world.

Psychedelic patterns#

This part fits known altered-perception phenomenology unusually well.

DMT profoundly alters neural dynamics and visual experience; classical psychedelics exert much of their characteristic action through serotonergic receptors, especially 5-HT2A. Geometric and kaleidoscopic visual imagery is common. (PubMed Central (PMC))

But OP claims not to have taken DMT.

Therefore the resemblance establishes, at most:

a non-drug altered state can phenomenologically resemble descriptions of drug states.

It does not establish endogenous DMT as the cause.

“Female presence”#

The feeling that another intelligence is present can be extraordinarily compelling.

But perceived agency does not establish independent agency. Human cognition is strongly oriented toward detecting agents, intentions and faces. Furthermore, source-monitoring research shows that imagined/internal material can sometimes acquire qualities experienced as externally generated. (PubMed)

This is precisely where intellectual humility matters:

• “I sensed a presence” = testimony about phenomenology.
• “There was a female entity” = ontological interpretation.
• “She guarded the DMT realm” = further interpretation.
• “She rejected me because of my vibration” = further causal interpretation.

Only the first is directly given by the experience.

Sudden push → entirely different environment#

Again, abrupt scene transitions are perfectly compatible with dreams, hypnagogic imagery, lucid-dream phenomena and other altered states.

Current OBE research specifically connects many spontaneous OBEs with reduced vigilance, sleep transitions, REM-related phenomena, lucid dreaming and sleep paralysis. (PubMed)

“I was denied entry”#

This is a classic case of narrativization.

Observed:

The imagery changed abruptly.

Interpretation:

Someone intentionally expelled me.

Those are not synonymous.

An unexpected scene change naturally invites causal explanation. Once “gatekeepers” are already part of the narrative vocabulary, an intentional-agent explanation becomes readily available.

“Other DMT users experience this too”#

Partially correct.

DMT users report entities, guides, autonomous presences, rooms and apparently independent worlds at nontrivial rates. A survey of 2,561 people specifically selected for memorable entity encounters found that respondents commonly interpreted entities as intelligent, conscious or independently existing. (PubMed)

But notice the methodology: that study documents what participants experienced and believed about the experience. It does not experimentally establish that those entities exist independently.

Likewise, the naturalistic DMT phenomenology study documents recurring motifs; it does not demonstrate a literal alternate geography. (PubMed)

The “vibration” explanation#

This is scientifically very weak because “vibration” is undefined.

What quantity?

Hertz?

Electromagnetic oscillation?

Mechanical vibration?

Brain oscillation?

Emotion?

Moral character?

Mystical compatibility?

Unless “vibration” receives an operational definition and measurement procedure, it cannot explain anything. It functions rhetorically as a flexible placeholder.

Worse, it is self-sealing:

• entrance succeeds → your vibration was compatible;
• entrance fails → your vibration was incompatible;
• nothing happens → your vibration was wrong;
• something frightening happens → vibration mismatch.

A hypothesis that explains every possible outcome predicts none of them.

Psychological reconstruction#

The OP's experience may have been entirely sincere. The strongest mundane model does not require conscious fabrication:

expectancy + absorption + internally generated imagery + altered self-location + agency detection + retrospective interpretation + confirmation searching.

And importantly, saying that this model exists does not prove it explains this individual event. It simply means the paranormal interpretation has not excluded ordinary competing explanations.

3. Biblical correction to the OP#

Scripture does contain extraordinary visionary experiences. Therefore a simplistic argument—

“The Bible says supernatural experiences never occur”

—would itself be unbiblical.

But Scripture does not teach a human technique called astral projection, a DMT dimension, vibrational frequencies, spirit-guide travel, or gatekeepers.

The passage most often pressed into service is Paul:

“whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth”

—2 Corinthians 12:2–3, KJV.

That verse deserves special attention because Paul does the opposite of what occult systems often do.

Paul has an extraordinary experience and refuses to dogmatize about its mechanism.

He does not say:

I discovered the astral body.

He says:

“I cannot tell… God knoweth.”

Indeed he says it twice.

That is almost a biblical model of epistemic restraint.

Furthermore, Paul was “caught up.” Nothing in 2 Corinthians 12 gives instructions for deliberately exiting the body, traveling by visualization, altering vibration, locating spirits, or reproducing the experience.

So:

Text: Paul experienced something so extraordinary that he could not determine whether it involved bodily or extracorporeal experience.

Legitimate inference: Scripture does not require us to deny that extraordinary altered/visionary states occur.

Illegitimate inference: Paul was practicing astral projection and thereby validates modern occult techniques.

And when purported spirits enter the picture, Scripture's posture is not automatic trust:

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God…”

—1 John 4:1, KJV.

The immediate context concerns false prophets and confession concerning Christ. “Try the spirits” is therefore anti-credulity, not an invitation to collect spirit encounters.

4. No. 42983219: “Could the brain produce DMT during astral projection?”#

Excellent question.

Current answer:

Possible in the bare logical sense; not demonstrated scientifically.

Humans appear capable of endogenous DMT synthesis, and DMT has been detected in human body fluids. The physiological significance of endogenous DMT remains debated. (PubMed)

But there is no established human evidence showing:

astral-projection attempt → DMT surge → OBE experience.

Likewise, the famous claim that the pineal gland releases a psychedelic dose of DMT during dreams, birth or near-death experiences is not established. A pharmacological review devoted specifically to separating evidence from popular pineal-DMT mythology concluded that the scientific evidence did not support those claims. (PubMed)

Animal work is interesting but often misrepresented. DMT has been measured in rat brains, including after removal of the pineal gland, which itself weighs against treating the pineal as the uniquely necessary DMT source. (PubMed Central (PMC))

So the correct fact-check is:

Endogenous DMT: yes.

Important endogenous brain function: plausible/debated.

Human pineal psychedelic burst: unproven.

DMT release during OBE/astral projection: unproven.

5. No. 42983286: Strassman, Gallimore and “natural DMT metabolism”#

The poster says DMT “might” participate in these experiences and in perception generally, recommends Rick Strassman and Andrew Gallimore, and recalls a researcher proposing that psychedelics may modulate endogenous DMT metabolism. (4chan)

Several things need untangling.

Rick Strassman is being cited beyond what his experiments demonstrated#

Strassman's human DMT research was real. He administered DMT under controlled conditions at the University of New Mexico.

But his better-known ideas concerning pineal DMT mediating mystical, near-death or other extraordinary states were hypotheses.

Strassman's own account explicitly describes his belief that endogenous DMT might mediate such states and describes the pineal proposal as speculation. (Rick Strassman)

That matters enormously.

“Scientist X proposed hypothesis H” ≠ “experiment established H.”

The metabolism claim is partly garbled#

There is one famous situation where DMT metabolism absolutely matters: ayahuasca.

DMT taken orally is normally rapidly metabolized by monoamine oxidase. Traditional ayahuasca preparations combine DMT-containing material with beta-carbolines that inhibit monoamine oxidase, enabling orally administered DMT to become psychoactive. (PubMed)

But that does not mean psychedelics generally work by manipulating the body's endogenous DMT.

Psilocybin/psilocin and LSD have their own pharmacology, with 5-HT2A receptor activity central to their psychedelic effects. (PubMed Central (PMC))

Thus:

“Ayahuasca alters DMT metabolism”

is well supported.

“Psychedelics generally work by manipulating our natural endogenous DMT system”

is not established.

6. No. 42984324: “I felt my astral body” and its “orthogonal” relation to meatspace#

This claim jumps from sensation to ontology.

The poster may unquestionably have felt a second body or an altered bodily geometry. Body-schema distortions are well documented neurological phenomena.

Electrical stimulation near the right angular gyrus/temporoparietal region has repeatedly induced body-displacement and OBE-like sensations, and experiments using manipulated multisensory information can induce the feeling of being located outside one's normal bodily position. (Nature)

That gives us:

“I felt another body.”
Credible subjective report.

“Therefore an astral body exists.”
Not demonstrated.

“It exists orthogonally to physical spacetime.”
A mathematical-sounding metaphysical statement with no measurement offered.

“Orthogonal” has a precise meaning in mathematics. Here it is being used metaphorically unless the poster can specify dimensions, coordinates and measurable relations.

Technical vocabulary can create an illusion of explanatory depth without actually supplying a model.

Biblical note#

Scripture distinguishes body and spirit/soul in various contexts, so Christianity cannot simply be equated with reductive physicalism.

But biblical anthropology also strongly emphasizes embodied creaturehood and resurrection. Genesis 2:7 says man “became a living soul” after God formed him from dust and breathed life into him; the verse does not describe an eternal astral self temporarily imprisoned inside biological machinery. Christian eschatological hope in 1 Corinthians 15 is resurrection, not permanent escape from embodiment.

7. No. 42986130: stuck at “Focus 10” in the Gateway tapes#

This part is easy to fact-check.

The Monroe Institute itself describes Focus 10 as essentially “mind awake/body asleep,” a deeply relaxed state taught early in the Gateway program. (The Monroe Institute)

Later Gateway material explicitly markets exercises involving “remote viewing,” “nonphysical energy” and “separation.” (The Monroe Institute)

The important correction concerns the famous “CIA Gateway document.”

A real June 9, 1983 U.S. Army memorandum titled Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process exists in the declassified intelligence archive. It attempted to conceptualize the Monroe system using ideas borrowed from physiology, hypnosis, meditation, Bentov's models and speculative physics. (Spookstack)

But:

A government document analyzing a claim is not governmental proof of the claim.

Declassification means:

the record was released.

It does not mean:

everything asserted in the record was scientifically validated.

This is perhaps the single most common Gateway error online.

Nor does difficulty progressing beyond Focus 10 mean the person has a spiritual defect or “low vibration.” Relaxation and altered attention can be learned to different degrees; the advertised nonphysical interpretation is a separate proposition.

8. No. 42986152: “There is no DMT realm … you had a boring dream”#

This skeptic is methodologically stronger than the OP in demanding restraint, but goes beyond the evidence in the opposite direction. (4chan)

“There is no gatekeeper” cannot be established simply from disbelief.

Likewise, “you had a dream” is a plausible hypothesis, particularly given what we know about sleep-related OBEs, but the thread contains no polysomnography establishing that the OP was asleep.

The better conclusion is:

There is presently insufficient evidence in the post to infer a literal DMT realm, gatekeeper or vibrational rejection. Dreaming/hypnagogia/altered-state imagery are well-established competing explanations.

That statement is stronger scientifically precisely because it does not pretend to know more than the evidence allows.

The 2024 neuroscientific review of OBEs treats sleep-related OBEs, lucid dreams and sleep paralysis as overlapping but distinguishable phenomena rather than merely declaring all OBEs ordinary dreams. (PubMed)

So the skeptic commits premature closure, while the believers commit premature ontology.

Neither is ideal.

9. No. 42986188: shamanism, psychic corroboration and “controlled imagination”#

This is the most methodologically consequential post in the thread.

The poster claims experiences while awake in which distant observations were allegedly confirmed by third parties, then asserts that controlled imagination constitutes genuine extracorporeal perception and appeals to Bruce Moen. (4chan)

“I saw things corroborated IRL”#

This could potentially be evidence.

But the thread provides none of the details necessary to evaluate it.

We need:

• What exact information?
• Written down before verification?
• How specific?
• How many misses?
• Was the target selected blindly?
• Could the observer know anything beforehand?
• Could the verifier unintentionally provide cues?
• Were alternative matches counted?
• Were all trials reported or only successes?
• Did independent scorers evaluate it?
• Could the procedure be replicated?

Without that, “corroborated” may mean anything from a spectacular blinded hit to an ambiguous retrospective resemblance.

Anecdotes are useful for generating hypotheses.

They are much weaker for proving mechanisms.

“Ask any psychic”#

That is not evidence.

It substitutes testimony from people already committed to the phenomenon for controlled investigation.

“Random imagination isn't the same … controlled imagination is”#

This is the largest epistemological red flag in the thread.

If the very faculty generating the image is simultaneously defined as the detector of external nonphysical reality, we need an independent discriminator telling us which imagined content corresponds to reality.

Otherwise:

1. generate image,
2. experience image vividly,
3. call vivid/controlled images perception,
4. cite the experienced quality as evidence they were perception.

That is circular.

Bruce Moen did indeed explicitly teach “imagination as a means of perception” for exploring an alleged afterlife. His own materials describe using imagination and “nonphysical senses”; they do not constitute independent scientific validation that imagination accesses an external afterlife. (Afterlife Knowledge)

The thread therefore accurately represents Moen's doctrine.

What it does not do is establish Moen's doctrine as fact.

Source-monitoring problem#

This is precisely where cognitive psychology becomes relevant.

Source monitoring is our ability to decide where a mental event originated. Internally generated material can sometimes be attributed to external sources, especially when it has sensory richness. (PubMed)

Calling increasingly vivid imagination “external perception” therefore needs more independent testing, not less.

10. Biblical correction: “nonphysical beings” and psychic exploration#

Scripture's existence of spiritual beings does not authorize the inference:

spiritual beings exist → therefore these beings contacted through shamanic/psychic methods are legitimate.

Those are separate propositions.

Nor does Scripture teach Christians to deliberately seek unknown spirits for hidden information.

Deuteronomy 18 explicitly condemns divination, enchantment, consulting familiar spirits, wizardry and necromancy.

Isaiah gives an especially relevant epistemic contrast:

“should not a people seek unto their God? … To the law and to the testimony…”

—Isaiah 8:19–20, KJV.

Notice what biblical correction looks like.

The answer to questionable spirit-contact claims is not:

construct a better occult map of the astral plane.

It is:

return to God's revealed testimony.

Yet Scripture also does not justify claiming that every vivid mental image is literally demonic. That would exceed the text.

2 Corinthians 11:14 establishes that spiritual/religious deception is biblically possible—

“Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”

—but in context Paul is discussing false apostles and deceptive ministers. It does not provide a rule saying “every luminous apparition = Satan.”

So the biblical discipline is two-sided:

Do not be credulous about spirit claims.

Do not invent demon diagnoses Scripture has not given you.

11. No. 42986968: asking where to learn shamanism#

There isn't much factual content here beyond the request. (4chan)

But methodologically this illustrates social transmission.

A person struggling with Gateway encounters another poster offering an alternative metaphysical framework. The difficulty is then interpreted not as evidence against paranormal travel but as evidence that the person has been using the wrong paradigm.

This produces a potentially self-sealing system:

Monroe doesn't work? Try shamanism.
Shamanism doesn't work? Train longer.
Still doesn't work? Find a teacher.
Strange imagery appears? Success.

That makes falsification difficult.

A rigorous system should specify in advance what outcome would count as failure.

12. No. 42989650 and No. 42993423#

These posts contain only filler (“a” and a period) and make no substantive claim requiring fact-checking. (4chan)

13. No. 42990018: unpredictable OBEs followed by strange dreams#

This is actually one of the thread's most interesting observations because the poster notices that deliberate effort seems to make the experience disappear. (4chan)

The temporal association with “weird dreams” is at least compatible with current sleep-related models of OBE phenomena.

Recent reviews note that spontaneous OBEs frequently occur in states of reduced vigilance and near sleep and may relate to REM transitions, sleep paralysis and lucid dreaming. (PubMed)

That does not prove this person's experiences are REM events.

But it gives a testable alternative to astral travel:

Track episodes prospectively; use polysomnography/EEG where possible; document sleep timing; note paralysis, REM features, dream lucidity and medication/substance variables.

That would advance knowledge.

“Sometimes the astral body feels like leaving” does not.

14. No. 42993569: shamanic teachers, prayer, Neville Goddard and recommended authors#

The poster claims in-person training is preferable, describes finding a South American-initiated teacher after prayer combined with Neville Goddard-style visualization, then recommends Michael Harner, Jan Fries, Bruce Moen and Robert Bruce. (4chan)

There are several separate issues.

Finding a teacher after prayer/visualization#

The event itself may be true:

person prayed/visualized → later encountered teacher.

But causation is not established.

To show manifestation, one would need to compare what happened against a defined baseline probability and include failed intentions—not just memorable successes.

Otherwise ordinary mechanisms suffice:

• increased attention to relevant opportunities,
• altered behavior,
• selective memory,
• networking,
• coincidence,
• retrospective narrative construction.

This is sometimes called an availability/confirmation pipeline: intention makes related opportunities more salient, which makes the eventual hit feel causally extraordinary.

Neville Goddard#

Goddard's system teaches that persistent assumption/imagination can produce corresponding external circumstances. That is a metaphysical/New Thought doctrine, not an established law of psychology or physics. (Solane)

There is an ordinary psychological truth buried inside manifestation rhetoric:

expectations influence attention, motivation, behavior, persistence and interpretation.

That is very different from:

imagination directly restructures external reality.

The first can be studied psychologically.

The second requires extraordinary causal evidence.

Michael Harner#

Harner was genuinely an academically trained anthropologist and became the founder of what he called Core Shamanism. His system deliberately synthesized what he regarded as common shamanic elements, particularly rhythmic-drumming journeys, for Western practitioners. (Shamanism)

That biographical fact does not establish spirits or alternate worlds.

His academic credentials and his later spiritual claims must be distinguished.

Jan Fries#

Fries belongs much more clearly to modern occult/neoshamanic literature. His work includes trance, magical practice and “freestyle shamanism.” (Google Books)

Again: recommending a book tells us where the doctrine originates; it does not verify the doctrine.

Bruce Moen#

As above, Moen deliberately uses imagination as an alleged perceptual bridge to afterlife realities. (Afterlife Knowledge)

Robert Bruce#

Robert Bruce's own organization explicitly teaches astral projection, energy-body work, kundalini, clairvoyance and related psychic practices, primarily grounded in his reported personal experiences and techniques. (Astral Dynamics)

That should immediately tell us the evidentiary category:

practitioner literature, not controlled scientific confirmation.

The thread mixes those categories repeatedly.

15. Biblical correction to manifestation and obtaining teachers#

Prayer in Scripture is real and commanded.

But Neville Goddard's metaphysics should not be quietly equated with biblical prayer.

Biblical prayer is addressed to a sovereign personal God.

Goddard-style manifestation centers causal power in imagination/assumption.

Those are not interchangeable theological systems.

Likewise, “I prayed and subsequently met X” does not prove that God endorsed every doctrine taught by X.

Providence cannot be used as an automatic doctrinal authentication mechanism.

Scripture's rule remains testing.

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

—1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV.

And if a teacher claims spiritual revelation, the New Testament standard becomes stronger rather than weaker. Even apparently impressive supernatural authority is not self-authenticating; Paul warns in Galatians 1:8 that even an “angel from heaven” preaching a contrary gospel is to be rejected.

That is a remarkable biblical anti-gullibility principle.

16. No. 42993597: “South American shamanism only produces OBEs by drugs”#

This is factually false as stated. (4chan)

Shamanic practices across cultures are heterogeneous. Psychoactive substances play important roles in some traditions, including various Amazonian contexts, but shamanic trance induction can also involve rhythmic drumming, chanting, dancing, sensory manipulation and other non-drug practices.

A 2024 scoping review specifically examined non-psychedelic shamanic trance, making the claim that shamanic trance occurs only via drugs impossible to sustain. (PubMed)

One can be skeptical that such trance accesses an objectively nonphysical world while still acknowledging the anthropological fact that drugs are not required for people to enter states culturally classified as shamanic trance.

17. “Metaphysics is the realm of white men”#

This is historically indefensible.

It is not a serious statement of intellectual history.

Long traditions addressing being, causation, mind, reality, unity, plurality, time and ultimate explanation exist far outside Europe.

Classical Indian philosophy developed sophisticated realist, idealist, dualist, monist, theistic and atheistic metaphysical systems alongside elaborate traditions of logic and epistemology. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Chinese philosophy has a long tradition concerning the ultimate nature, origins and structure of reality. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Islamic philosophers such as Ibn Sina developed extensive systematic metaphysics centered on being, causality, necessity and the First Principle. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

African philosophical traditions likewise contain rational reflection on the supreme being, personhood, freedom, death and the afterlife; modern scholarship has specifically confronted the old racial assumption that rational philosophy is somehow a European monopoly. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So this is not merely offensive rhetoric.

It is factually bad intellectual history.

18. “…white men, logic, and analysis”#

The irony is that classical Indian intellectual history alone demolishes the “logic = white Europe” claim.

Indian philosophers developed sophisticated formal traditions of inference and argument extending across centuries. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The racial claim substitutes identity prestige for argument.

That is the opposite of logic.

Logic asks:

Are the premises true?
Does the conclusion follow?

It does not ask:

What race produced the speaker?

19. “…ridiculous jungle tribe…” / “never entered the 19th century”#

This is an ad hominem/genetic fallacy.

Even if a culture lacked industrial technology, that says nothing by itself about whether an individual metaphysical proposition is true or false.

A person may be technologically sophisticated and metaphysically wrong.

A person may have no electricity and make a valid logical inference.

Truth does not inherit the industrial development level of its speaker.

There is another irony: if the poster's stated standard is repeatability, then indigenous origin becomes irrelevant. A method is either reproducible under proper controls or it is not.

Dismissal by ethnicity violates the poster's own proposed epistemology.

20. “If it isn't repeatable for others, it's nothing”#

This sentence is the strongest methodological point in that post, though “nothing” is too strong.

Repeatability is enormously important for establishing a general external phenomenon.

A unique subjective experience can still be psychologically, biographically or clinically meaningful. What it cannot automatically do is establish a universal external mechanism.

For example:

“I felt myself floating.”

is meaningful phenomenological data even once.

But:

“Humans possess detachable astral bodies that travel independently of the nervous system.”

requires much more.

The correct principle is therefore:

The larger and more general the ontological claim, the greater the need for reproducible, independently verifiable evidence.

21. No. 42995591: “The white man who encounters tribal reality sees more than they do”#

There is no evidence supplied for this assertion. (4chan)

It is unfalsified racial self-flattery masquerading as epistemology.

It also contradicts itself.

If indigenous practitioners supposedly have direct access to this “tribal reality,” yet an outsider automatically perceives more simply because he is white, the alleged superiority has been inserted before the evidence is considered.

That is confirmation bias by identity.

A sound method would blind the evaluator to the person's race and score independently specified observations.

If “whiteness” disappears when you remove racial labels, it was never a demonstrated explanatory variable.

Biblical correction#

The biblical category is humanity under one Creator, not races with privileged metaphysical organs.

Acts 17:26 speaks of God having made “of one blood all nations of men.” James 2 condemns partiality; Romans 2:11 says, “there is no respect of persons with God.”

Nothing in Scripture supplies a “white metaphysical faculty.”

22. What neuroscience actually permits us to say about OBEs#

The strongest evidence currently supports treating an OBE first as a type of conscious experience, not as proof of literal extracorporeal travel.

Important findings include:

Electrical stimulation of the right angular-gyrus region produced repeated OBE-like phenomena in a neurological patient, accompanied by vestibular and body-schema distortions. (Nature)

Experimental multisensory manipulations can produce a feeling of being located outside one's physical body. (PubMed)

Modern reviews connect many spontaneous OBEs with multisensory bodily self-processing and, in sleep-related cases, REM transitions, lucid dreaming and sleep paralysis. (PubMed)

None of those experiments logically proves:

consciousness cannot possibly exist independently of the brain.

That would be a larger metaphysical conclusion.

But they do establish something devastating to naïve OBE apologetics:

The mere feeling of being outside the body cannot itself prove that one actually left the body, because known manipulations of the brain and sensory system can generate that feeling.

External information acquisition would therefore be the crucial evidence.

23. What the CIA material really establishes#

There are actually two different government-associated subjects commonly blurred together online.

Gateway#

The 1983 Gateway memorandum is an Army assessment of Monroe Institute techniques. Its existence proves that military/intelligence personnel examined the material.

It does not prove that its holographic/quantum interpretations are established physics. (Spookstack)

Remote viewing / STARGATE#

Government agencies did spend years investigating remote viewing.

That is real history.

But the later review concluded it had not demonstrated the reliability necessary for intelligence operations. CIA's own historical summary says some results appeared statistically unusual but the phenomenon was too inconsistent and sporadic for operational use. (CIA)

Thus both internet slogans are wrong:

“CIA studied it, therefore psychic powers are proven.”

No.

And:

“CIA never investigated psychic phenomena.”

Also no.

The correct historical statement is:

They investigated it; the records contain striking claims and contested experimental results; the program was ultimately not restored because it did not provide sufficiently reliable operational intelligence.

24. The strongest psychological model of this entire thread#

You can reconstruct the thread almost perfectly without accusing anyone of lying.

Step 1 — absorption.
Participants cultivate narrowed attention through tapes, relaxation, visualization, rhythmic procedures or sleep-border states.

Step 2 — altered body representation.
Vestibular/body-schema processes produce floating, vibration, expansion, rotation or separation sensations.

Step 3 — internally generated imagery increases.
Hypnagogic/dreamlike imagery becomes vivid.

Step 4 — agency attribution.
Complex images or apparently spontaneous thoughts are interpreted as autonomous beings.

Step 5 — culturally supplied schemas organize ambiguity.
“DMT waiting room,” “astral plane,” “Focus levels,” “shamanic realm,” “gatekeeper,” “energy body,” etc.

Step 6 — source-monitoring becomes difficult.
Material that originated through imagination can feel surprising and therefore “not me.”

Step 7 — retrospective matching.
After the experience, the person searches accounts and finds similarities.

Step 8 — hits are memorable.
Matching details become evidence; nonmatches disappear from the narrative.

Step 9 — social reinforcement.
Communities compare stories and develop increasingly standardized imagery.

This is a plausible psychological mechanism supported in parts by research on perception, source monitoring, expectancy and sleep-related OBEs. (PubMed Central (PMC))

But—and this qualification matters—a psychological mechanism explaining how such experiences could occur does not logically prove that no transcendent reality exists.

It simply means extraordinary ontology is unnecessary to explain the presently supplied evidence.

25. The strongest Christian correction#

There are two opposite errors Christians can make here.

One error is materialistic overcorrection:

“The Bible contains no supernatural realm, therefore every experience is neurological nonsense.”

That obviously does not fit Scripture.

The other is occult overcorrection:

“Scripture contains spirits and visions, therefore astral planes, vibration systems, remote viewing, DMT entities and shamanic journeys are biblical.”

That also does not fit Scripture.

The biblical pattern is more restrained.

Scripture affirms a spiritual order#

Angels, demons, visions, dreams, revelation and spiritual deception appear throughout Scripture.

Scripture does not authorize autonomous occult exploration#

Deuteronomy 18 rejects divination and spirit consultation. Isaiah 8 redirects people from spirit consultants to God and His testimony.

Extraordinary experience does not authenticate its own interpretation#

Paul's 2 Corinthians 12 language is almost tailor-made for this:

“whether in the body … or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth.”

He experiences more than he can explain and refuses to pretend otherwise.

Apparently spiritual beings must not simply be believed#

“believe not every spirit, but try the spirits”

—1 John 4:1.

Apparent supernatural glory is not proof of divine origin#

“Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”

—2 Corinthians 11:14.

But Christians should not invent certainty either#

None of those passages says:

every dream character is a demon,
every OBE is demonic travel,
every DMT entity is a fallen angel,
every hallucination is spiritual attack.

Those conclusions require additional argument.

That limitation is essential to honest biblical exegesis.

26. A Scripture-by-Scripture correction of the thread's implied worldview#

All biblical quotations and references above are being checked against the supplied KJV Pure Cambridge Edition.

27. Final verdict on the thread#

The thread contains real phenomenology mixed with premature metaphysics.

The OP's imagery resembles documented DMT motifs—but resemblance does not establish entrance into a DMT world. (PubMed)

Endogenous DMT is real—but a psychedelic DMT discharge causing astral projection has not been demonstrated. (PubMed)

OBEs are real as subjective experiences—but known neurological and sleep mechanisms can generate central OBE characteristics, so subjective self-location is not evidence enough for literal bodily departure. (Nature)

Gateway is genuinely connected to a declassified Army assessment—but declassification is not scientific certification. (Spookstack)

The U.S. government genuinely investigated remote viewing—but did not obtain sufficiently consistent operational performance to continue the program. (CIA)

Shamanic trance does not inherently require psychedelic drugs, contrary to the racist reply. (PubMed Central (PMC))

And metaphysics, logic and rational philosophy emphatically are not racial possessions of “white men”; Indian, Chinese, Islamic and African intellectual traditions alone make that assertion historically untenable. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The biblical correction is equally important: Scripture gives us no warrant to transform modern astral/DMT/shamanic terminology into Christian cosmology. It recognizes spiritual reality and deception while repeatedly demanding discernment. Paul himself models the proper restraint: where he cannot determine whether an extraordinary event occurred “in the body” or “out of the body,” he does not manufacture an occult mechanism—he says “God knoweth.”

That may be the single best sentence with which to approach this entire thread.

Experience is not nothing.
Experience is not automatically interpretation.
Similarity is not identity.
Possibility is not demonstration.
Sincerity is not verification.
Government interest is not government validation.
A biblical category is not permission to import an occult system into the text.
And uncertainty honestly acknowledged is better than certainty invented.

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV.

Yes. The paper already has the core rebuttal, but it would become much stronger if we add a few sections that turn it from a thread response into a reusable investigative framework—especially a formal evidence scale, deeper neuroscience of altered states, a fuller biblical theology of forbidden spiritual practices, and an appendix testing the strongest counterarguments rather than only the weakest ones.

Yes. I’d add eight major sections. Together they would turn the piece from a strong rebuttal of one 4chan thread into a serious reference paper on extraordinary-experience claims.

1. A formal Evidence & Epistemology Framework#

Put this near the beginning. Every claim in the paper should be classified by what kind of evidence it actually is.

Then repeatedly ask:

What happened?
What was experienced?
What was inferred?
What was independently verified?
What would falsify the claim?

That framework may become the intellectual backbone of God Knoweth.

2. A dedicated section: OBE ≠ NDE ≠ Lucid Dream ≠ Sleep Paralysis ≠ Psychedelic State#

The paper currently touches these together, but they deserve a taxonomy.

A strong 2024 neuroscience review treats sleep-related OBEs, lucid dreams, and sleep paralysis as overlapping phenomena that can occur around REM transitions while still having distinguishable phenomenology. The authors specifically call for EEG, polysomnography, and imaging rather than simply declaring the matter solved. (DOI)

Make a comparison table covering:

• ordinary dreaming
• lucid dreaming
• false awakening
• hypnagogia
• hypnopompia
• sleep paralysis
• sensed-presence experiences
• autoscopic hallucination
• heautoscopy
• OBE
• NDE
• psychedelic experience
• meditation-induced altered states
• dissociative experiences

This prevents opponents from fairly accusing us of explaining every anomalous experience as merely “a dream.”

3. Near-Death Experiences: The Hardest Case#

I would absolutely include this, precisely because it is harder than the 4chan claims.

Don't use NDEs as either a cheap proof of the supernatural or a cheap dismissal.

The AWARE II study examined 567 in-hospital cardiac arrests. Among the 28 survivors who could be interviewed, 11 reported memories or perceptions suggestive of consciousness; six reported what investigators categorized as transcendent recalled experiences of death. Importantly, nobody identified the hidden visual target, while one participant identified the auditory stimulus. EEG patterns compatible with organized cognitive activity also appeared during CPR in some patients. (ScienceDirect)

That gives us a fascinating but restrained conclusion:

Conscious experience during extreme physiological crisis deserves investigation.
It is not presently equivalent to demonstrated extracorporeal visual perception.

And here we should deliberately show the dispute.

A major 2025 Nature Reviews Neurology paper proposes an integrated neuroscientific explanation involving interacting neurophysiological and psychological processes. (PubMed)

Conversely, a 2025 narrative review by researchers including Bruce Greyson and Pim van Lommel argues that some evidence remains difficult to accommodate within brain-only models and considers non-local consciousness as an alternative interpretation. (PubMed)

That is exactly the kind of disagreement God Knoweth should present fairly.

Then our conclusion can remain:

Interesting unresolved evidence is not permission to claim more than the evidence demonstrates.

4. A much deeper chapter: The Psychology of “More Real Than Real”#

This deserves perhaps 10–15 pages.

Not “these people are crazy.”

Quite the opposite:

Why can completely sincere, psychologically healthy people have experiences possessing overwhelming reality, autonomy, presence and certainty?

Break it into:

Predictive processing — the brain combines incoming information with expectations about what it expects to perceive.

Top-down expectation — knowing about “DMT waiting rooms,” astral bodies or entities beforehand can influence interpretation.

Absorption — capacity for intense immersion.

Source monitoring — determining whether a thought/image came from oneself, memory, perception or elsewhere.

Agency detection — why complex or surprising mental events can feel generated by another intelligence.

Body-schema disruption — why self-location can detach phenomenologically from the physical body.

Vestibular processing — floating, spinning, flying, rising and rotation.

Pattern completion — ambiguous forms becoming faces, beings or meaningful environments.

Memory reconstruction — memories are reconstructed rather than literal video recordings.

Retrospective matching — an experience followed by internet searching produces apparent matches.

Confirmation bias — hits are remembered more strongly than misses.

Community convergence — communities gradually develop common vocabulary and imagery.

A newer OBE model explicitly incorporates predictive coding alongside REM-transition processes. (DOI)

This section would make the psychological analysis much richer than merely saying “hallucination.”

5. Endogenous DMT: Facts, Unknowns & Internet Mythology#

Give DMT its own technical chapter.

I'd divide it into four boxes:

Established#

DMT occurs endogenously in mammals, including humans, and there is a legitimate scientific debate about its physiological significance. (PubMed)

Demonstrated for administered DMT#

Its pharmacokinetics and profound psychedelic effects after administration are measurable and scientifically studyable. A 2025 systematic review synthesized modern human pharmacokinetic data. (PubMed)

Not demonstrated#

No human experiment currently establishes:

OBE → massive endogenous DMT release

or

near death → psychedelic pineal DMT flood

or

dreaming → DMT breakthrough dose

or

meditation → DMT portal activation.

Contested#

Even researchers disagree about how biologically important endogenous DMT may be. One review argues its potential physiological importance has been underestimated, whereas the well-known pineal review rejects the popular claim that the gland produces enough DMT to account for psychedelic experiences. (PubMed)

That is much more convincing than pretending the science is unanimously settled.

6. The Steelman Chapter: “What Is the Best Evidence for the Other Side?”#

This is vital.

Don't only destroy bad 4chan arguments.

Take the best material proponents could possibly bring against us.

Include:

• AWARE/AWARE II
• veridical-perception claims in NDE literature
• controlled remote-viewing experiments
• ganzfeld/parapsychology meta-analyses
• exceptionally specific spontaneous OBE reports
• shared psychedelic/entity motifs
• transformative aftereffects
• mystical experiences with no obvious drug/sleep trigger
• arguments from consciousness itself

Then give each the same treatment:

Claim → strongest evidence → weaknesses → alternative explanation → what remains unexplained.

This makes our methodology visibly fair.

For example, with government remote viewing, include both facts:

The program produced material judged interesting enough to investigate, and the CIA's historical account says evaluators considered some results statistically unusual. But its operational results were too inconsistent and sporadic for intelligence use. (CIA)

A declassified operational assessment similarly concluded that remote viewing's intelligence utility could not be substantiated. (CIA)

That is far stronger than either meme:

“CIA proved psychic powers.”

or

“CIA found absolutely nothing.”

7. A major biblical chapter: What Scripture Actually Says About Extraordinary Spiritual Experience#

This should become more systematic.

I would use several biblical case studies:

• Genesis 2:7 — biblical anthropology and “living soul”
• Deuteronomy 13:1–5 — even an apparent sign does not authenticate false teaching
• Deuteronomy 18:9–14 — divination, familiar spirits, necromancy
• 1 Samuel 28 — Saul and the woman at Endor
• Isaiah 8:19–20 — seeking God rather than consulting spirits
• Daniel's visions — God-initiated revelation versus technique
• Acts 16:16–18 — a spirit of divination can produce apparently accurate information
• Acts 19:18–20 — rejection of magical practices among converts
• 2 Corinthians 11:13–15 — deceptive spiritual appearance
• 2 Corinthians 12:1–4 — Paul's refusal to claim knowledge about the precise mechanism
• Galatians 1:8 — supernatural messenger does not override revealed truth
• Colossians 2:18 — angelic fascination and religious experience
• 1 Thessalonians 5:21 — testing
• 1 John 4:1–3 — testing spirits

And add one very important subsection:

What Scripture Does Not Permit Us to Claim#

Scripture does not demonstrate that:

• every OBE is demonic,
• every hallucination is a spirit,
• every DMT entity is a demon,
• sleep paralysis is demonic attack,
• every unusual dream is revelation,
• every coincidence is providential guidance,
• every bright being is angelic,
• every dark being is demonic.

That restraint would make the biblical portion far more credible.

The supplied KJV should remain our textual standard for those passages.

8. The Strange Case of 1 Samuel 28#

This deserves its own excursus because someone will eventually bring it up.

Questions to examine:

Did the woman genuinely summon Samuel?
Did God sovereignly permit Samuel to appear independently of her claimed power?
Was it deception?
Why is the woman herself apparently startled?
Why does Samuel condemn Saul rather than validate necromancy?
How does the episode relate to Deuteronomy's prohibition?

Present the major interpretations fairly.

Do not make the weak argument:

“Necromancy cannot possibly result in anything because Scripture forbids it.”

A prohibition tells us it is forbidden; it doesn't necessarily tell us everything about its phenomenology.

That distinction would demonstrate serious exegesis.

9. Occult Genealogy: Where Did “Astral Projection” Actually Come From?#

This could be one of the most visually compelling chapters.

Trace terminology historically:

ancient philosophical/religious ideas
↓
Western esotericism
↓
Mesmerism / Spiritualism
↓
Theosophy and the “astral body” vocabulary
↓
20th-century occultism
↓
Robert Monroe
↓
New Age / New Thought
↓
Neville Goddard / manifestation culture
↓
psychedelic culture
↓
DMT entity discourse
↓
Reddit / 4chan / TikTok occult synthesis

Then compare each layer to Scripture.

A key observation could be:

Many things internet occultism presents as timeless ancient knowledge are actually modern syntheses using relatively modern terminology.

That historical genealogy will be powerful.

10. The Internet as a Myth-Making Machine#

This deserves a standalone chapter because our source is 4chan.

Analyze how anonymous occult communities generate belief:

anonymous testimony
→ repetition
→ shared terminology
→ apparent independent corroboration
→ screenshots
→ “everyone knows this”
→ lore
→ doctrine.

Especially explore:

• survivorship bias,
• story selection,
• engagement incentives,
• creepypasta contamination,
• recursive citation,
• anecdotes citing other anecdotes,
• deletion of failed predictions,
• screenshots detached from context,
• “I read ten people seeing the same entity” without determining whether later people read earlier reports.

That could be called:

The Folklore Feedback Loop#

And diagram it visually.

11. How We Would Actually Test Astral Projection#

This would be excellent because it converts criticism into constructive science.

Design a hypothetical preregistered experiment.

A subject attempts an OBE while a computer randomly generates one hidden target from thousands after the subject begins.

Neither subject nor experimenter knows it.

Afterward the subject makes:

1. a free description,
2. a forced-choice selection among matched decoys,
3. confidence ratings.

Then:

• timestamp everything,
• preregister scoring,
• publish hits and misses,
• repeat hundreds of trials,
• independent replication,
• no post-session target editing,
• EEG/polysomnography simultaneously.

That asks exactly the right question:

Can the purported extracorporeal observer acquire information unavailable to the sensory organism?

The point is not to rig an experiment against the paranormal claim.

It is to give it a fair opportunity to distinguish itself from imagination.

12. Fallacy & Rhetoric Index#

Put this near the back as a reference chart.

Examples from the thread:

I'd make this visually prominent.

13. Add a Source Reliability Hierarchy#

Every citation could carry a small category:

P — Primary experimental research
R — Peer-reviewed review/meta-analysis
G — Government primary document
H — Historical source
T — Testimony
PRACT — Practitioner literature
FORUM — anonymous internet claim
SCR — Scripture

That would make the paper unusually transparent.

A Rick Strassman hypothesis would no longer visually look equivalent to a measured blood concentration.

A Monroe promotional page wouldn't look equivalent to an EEG experiment.

A CIA memo wouldn't look equivalent to scientific validation.

And a 4chan story wouldn't look equivalent to an independent replication.

14. End with “What We Know / What We Don't Know”#

This should be the final serious chapter before the conclusion.

We know#

Humans can experience extraordinarily vivid alterations of embodiment and self-location.

Sleep/REM processes are strongly implicated in at least some OBEs. (DOI)

Neurological and multisensory mechanisms can generate OBE-like experiences.

DMT produces profound and often entity-rich experiences.

Endogenous DMT exists, though its exact physiological significance remains debated. (PubMed)

NDEs are real as reported human experiences and can have enduring psychological effects. (PubMed)

We do not presently know#

Whether any human consciousness can function independently of the living brain.

Whether any alleged astral plane exists objectively.

Whether DMT entities possess consciousness independent of the experiencer.

Whether spontaneous OBEs ever yield independently inaccessible information at reproducible rates.

Whether an extraordinary experience described in spiritual language has a neurological, psychological, spiritual—or combined—cause in a given individual case.

And then bring the title home:

Where Scripture speaks clearly, we should speak clearly. Where experiment establishes something, we should acknowledge it. Where testimony tells us only what someone experienced, we should not quietly convert experience into ontology. And where neither Scripture nor evidence permits certainty, the appropriate answer remains: “God knoweth.”

That would make God Knoweth considerably stronger than a simple debunking paper. It becomes a method for Christian discernment under uncertainty.

I’m going to fold the earlier rebuttal and every added section into one continuous paper rather than bolt on appendices. I’ll keep the voice readable, but I’ll make the sourcing stricter: primary research where possible, practitioner materials only for describing their own claims, government documents for government programs, and the supplied KJV for the biblical analysis.

I’ve also separated a few claims that are often conflated online. For example, the 1983 Gateway memorandum is a genuine Army document, but it is an analyst’s attempt to explain Monroe’s program—not a controlled validation study; and the strongest published DMT work documents recurring rooms/entities as phenomenology, not proof that those rooms or entities exist independently of the experiencer.

A second theme I’m preserving throughout is that biblical discernment is not the same thing as automatic demon-labeling. Scripture plainly forbids divination and consultation with familiar spirits, yet Paul’s own language in 2 Corinthians 12 models restraint about mechanism: “whether in the body… or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth.”

I’ve integrated the entire thread audit with the additional methodology, history, psychology, DMT, Gateway/STARGATE, NDE, steelman, experimental-design, biblical-theology, 1 Samuel 28, internet-folklore, fallacy, source-hierarchy, and “what we know / don’t know” sections. I’ve kept the paper’s governing rule simple: describe the experience fairly, distinguish the interpretation from the observation, and never claim more than the source permits.

That gives us a complete long-form master draft. The strongest next editorial pass would be to turn the inline research trail into numbered footnotes/endnotes and a formal bibliography while preserving every citation, then typeset it with the cinematic cover and section-break artwork for publication.

“God Knoweth”: A Biblical, Scientific & Psychological Examination of Astral Projection, DMT Realms, Shamanism & Occult Experience – Library of Rickandria

I’ll turn the full paper into a compact, publication-style PDF: full-bleed cover, dense but readable two-column body where appropriate, external clickable citations, and the Library of Rickandria astral page linked as the original source. I’ll also avoid internal jump links so every source click goes outward to the web.

I’ve finished the source normalization: the PDF will not contain ChatGPT/file-search citation tokens. Scripture will point externally to the Pure Cambridge Edition source, research citations will open PubMed/Nature/CIA/academic pages, and practitioner claims will link to the practitioners’ own sites so readers can distinguish description of a doctrine from independent validation.

4CHAN THREAD & POST BREAKDOWNS – Library of Rickandria

VCG PAPER PROJECTS – Library of Rickandria

VCG NOTES: “God Knoweth”: A Biblical, Scientific & Psychological Examination of Astral Projection, DMT Realms, Shamanism & Occult Experience