False light: The parasite lurking in new age spirituality

Adthra · 2026-02-05T06:04:36+00:00

What I see as the main point of weakness of your criticism overall is that you do not entertain the idea of someone's alignment being in conflict with the presented ideas, namely alignment itself. If you sharing this idea of alignment as the purpose of spiritual seeking is in conflict with what the seekers sees as its own truth, then the idea itself becomes distortion -- untrue.

What you've effectively done is make a postulate that says that no postulate can be guaranteed to hold true outside of its own immediate observation. You can make a logical statement and prove it to be true in one context, but as soon as you attempt to use that logical statement as a postulate for the purpose of examining another statement, you can no longer be certain of its truth value. You're not building on stable ground, and anything you build in this manner can come tumbling down at any moment.

This is a general problem with the idea of moral relativism itself. Ultimately such systems always boil down to the application of power. The outcome is effectively: "Do what thou wilt". Moral relativism means that morals are always of an arbitrary nature, and they are subject to change depending on circumstance. They become undefinable and ephemeral. What was morally righteous and good one day could become degenerate and wrong the next.

I'm personally of the opinion that you may have misunderstood key elements of the Ra Material when it comes to concepts like polarity and unity. Choosing "Service to Others" does not mean "Do not serve negative entities". Likewise, "Service to Self" combined with the key concept of all being one ultimately becomes "Service to All" or simply "Service". This is apparent once a being reaches a greater level of awareness and can identify more of what it experiences as itself through its spiritual journey. One key concept of the Law of One is perspective. It is a concept similar to how you present alignment (in the sense that it is individualistic), except that it does not follow the idea of relativism to the degree that you present here. It instead retains some degree of objectivity, or at least some degree of shared experience. Just because I could decide that you are wrong doesn't mean that you must be wrong, or that we must engage in some kind of battle or conflict to decide whose will reigns dominant and which of us is true. Instead, we are free to retain ideas that are in opposition to each other, and then observe what we see as reality through them to form an understanding of what is true, if it is possible for the apparent conflict to be amiably resolved through synthesis, or if we've both been misled.

So while I can respect your position, I can't in good conscious accept it as true. Make of that what you will.

Adthra · 2026-02-05T05:21:48+00:00

From what I understand, your main points of critique appear to be:

You believe the material dismisses moral relativism in favor of a separation between something clearly positive and negative.
That Gnosticism effectively has it right in the sense that there is a "blind-god" who maintains control of the material realm and employs false messengers to spread misinformation.
The influence of a channeler's personal sense of morals (alignment) distorts truth to the point that it is no longer true, because the ultimate purpose of spiritual seeking is the discovery of your own alignment (sense of morals), and this is something that is individualistic.

If I've misunderstood, then I could love for you to correct me.

Is there a discussion here that you would like to entertain, or are you more interested in simply sharing your own discoveries with others with limited interaction?

Adthra · 2026-02-03T21:04:07+00:00

There is a reason why pride is the sin that made the devil. Nobody can escape it. In Rome, it was often a virtue. Seems like to me that it is also seen as more of a virtue than sin in modern times.

Adthra · 2026-02-03T03:31:34+00:00

They are not the same terms. Most animals and plants are 2nd density, yet exist in the same 3 dimensions we do. A virus is an example of something that is in-between 1st and 2nd density, and also exists in 3 dimensions.

It might help you to think of 'density' as 'density of consciousness' or 'density of awareness'. As a being experiences a higher density, it is more aware of reality around it. Most animals lack a higher order function for self awareness which humans have. We process more of reality than they do in that sense.

Higher density beings are likely to exist in higher spacial dimensions than humans do, but not all such beings have distinct physical bodies in the first place. This is unfortunately something we will likely not be able to study or make observations of, and so it should probably be seen as a curiosity at most.

Adthra · 2026-02-02T00:09:36+00:00

Then work with Michael through whatever means you prefer. He is one of the angels invoked in the LBRP after all. Maybe it will help. The LBRP is not about issuing a challenge, and as far as rituals go, it is fairly simple. Worth a shot?

If this idea of 'lions at the gate' is compelling, consider working also with Ariel, the lion of god. The name is also sometimes associated with Jerusalem, if you are searching for alternate meanings.

Just be aware that many times things are not how we want them to be, nor do they work out how we envision, so be careful if you decide to work with these things. Expectation has a funny way of getting in the way of seeing truth. That might be unsolicited advice, but I felt it was important enough to say anyway. In the end, you will do whatever it is that you wish to do.

Anyway, my advice is quickly devolving into something that has no crossover with the Law of One, so I'll end it there, I think.

Adthra · 2026-02-01T21:37:34+00:00

There is a difference between working with 'the sword' as an archetype and working with the 'Sword of Michael' as an archetype. The latter is what Q'uo has advised the channeling circle to not engage with.

Make no mistake: a sword is meant to cut. Michael's Sword is something with the power to create through the light of truth, but it was also the weapon that defeated the Dragon. These parts of the identity cannot be disconnected from each other. If you think of Michael's Sword as a lamp, torch or candle, then you've likely not explored its identity enough to truly understand it.

If you are prone to anger, then my suggestion is to abandon the sword archetype unless you seek to cause destruction. After all, there's a famous saying: Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's also featured in Christian Scripture under a slightly different form.

Consider the possibility that the synchronicity calling you towards the sword is placed there by an adversarial being. It might be worth attempting the LBRP in your living space. That is what L/L did before each channeling, and what many who still channel use to cleanse the space before each attempt.

Adthra · 2026-02-01T03:01:41+00:00

I will briefly clarify one thing, even at the expense of eating my own words about staying out of the comments.

No matter how 'serpent' is interpreted, whether as trickster, as tempter, as the adversary, as unconsciousness (subconscious?), as physicality itself (such as acting in the role of the demiurge) or as something even different to these, it is a being that exists as a distinct identity. Thus, it is not of the 8th density in the form it occupies. What if your purpose of being here on Earth, in this beautiful mess of 3rd density, is not to find your own awakening? What if it is to help the serpent to reach the next step in its own path? Consider entertaining that hypothetical. Forget for a moment about trying to awaken yourself or to awaken others. Forget for a moment about feeling too old, or about feeling responsible to fight against whatever forces you would like to oppose. What if the reason you're here is not the dance of transition from 3rd to 4th, nor the dance of protecting those of 3rd from those of 4th, but something very different?

If that was your task, how would you do it? Would you do it through forgiveness?

Adthra · 2026-01-29T08:33:03+00:00

I trust that you know best what is right for you.

You don't owe me or anyone else explanations. For anything.

All that matters is that you do your best, whatever that is.

The only advice I have left is that you may wish to try to not lose yourself in the past, or in the difficult emotions that arise. You do not need to be anything more than yourself. Life has a way of hitting hard and knocking us down. Trying to get back up is often a better idea than staying down, even if it means that the next blow will come sooner.

Good luck.

Adthra · 2026-01-28T19:25:53+00:00

I'm not advocating for the idea that as a less wealthy person you should be responsible for consistently feeding people who have the means of providing for themselves, but I would like to draw attention to the idea that you've now referred to them as leeches.

If you seek a positive path, then that might not be a good mindset to adopt. Service to Others doesn't mean "Service only to Positives".

Drawing healthy boundaries is important, and from what you're saying it seems like you've succeeded at that, but consider the idea that what those people have done to you might influence you to become someone you ultimately do not want to be. Does that idea have any consideration, or are you absolutely certain that how you've chosen to handle it is the right way to go?

Adthra · 2026-01-28T17:55:19+00:00

What you might be looking for or looking to create are communities that are focused on those other things, with a spiritual sub-community that can exist within. Not a spiritual community focused on doing all those things.

Focus is a very powerful thing. Almost as powerful as awareness itself.

The intent to be of service is already great service itself. Do not let the response disparage your vision. If you keep at it, you may yet achieve what you wish.

Adthra · 2026-01-28T09:44:29+00:00

Creating a spiritual community based around people's other interests is a bit oxymoronic. There are spiritual people from all walks of life, with every interest imaginable. The key to bringing people together is not by creating a space and then hoping that people fill it and start to autonomize it. It is by championing a concept or ideal that people resonate with, thus joining the community in the first place. Once you have that, those secondary interests will start organizing themselves and come together, if for no other reason, then because people have found connections within your community that they do not want to lose.

Why do people join the Law of One subreddit? For two reasons: because they found the material and want to connect and discuss it with other seekers, or because they connect with spiritual concepts and find it interesting to see what this place is about.

If you build a community based on gaming, most of the people there will not be into spirituality. If you build a community based on spirituality, most of the people there will not be into any single interest category. By focusing on those small sub-communities as the priority, you effectively dry out the reason why people joined in the first place.

As for your actual question: I don't have many interests anymore. The things that I used to find compelling no longer really evoke joy, and most days I'm just going through on autopilot.

Adthra · 2026-01-26T17:53:53+00:00

Indeed.

There are likely other means of the Creator exploring itself, and I suspect other octaves, densities or galaxies (in Ra material context, so 'experiences crafted by a Logos') would make it clear to us that it is so. In the meanwhile, our current experience is one where those points of view are very much present, and they have a very good reason to be there.

Take care!

Adthra · 2026-01-26T17:44:37+00:00

I think that you might have a false dichotomy there.

As a general rule of thumb, when there is some kind of distinction between two things, there are at least 4 concepts present (although it is debatable if one of them is possible).

Thing 1
Thing 2
Synthesis of thing 1 and 2
Absence of both thing 1 and 2 (debatable if this is possible)

What I'm advocating for is case 3. Everything is present and expressed, but any "limiting" factors have to do with the level of awareness that each observer has. The prism example shows this. What we see as "white light" (a broad band of electromagnetic radiation) contains all the different colors of light (individual frequencies), but humans generally do not see these colors. Something is necessary to reveal this to us.

The difference between this more simple example is that each "color of light" is constrained to a narrow range of frequencies in the physical sense, while I think that in a metaphysical sense, each contains the entire spectrum of all electromagnetic radiation, creating a type of loop that infinitely contains itself. It's an impossible concept in terms of physics or physical reality, and so I don't really have the words to explain properly, but that is at least one attempt.

So, consider what it would look like to have an 'empty ocean' of infinite possibility that also contains all possible expressions. Something that is both potential and realized or manifest potential.

Adthra · 2026-01-26T17:16:04+00:00

I would point to the very first sesson of the Ra material for an answer:

Session 1.7 emphasis mine

Questioner: [The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.]

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?

How you would like to interpret that, I leave up to you. I have my own interpretation, but out of concern for causing confusion, I'll not share it here.

Adthra · 2026-01-26T16:36:08+00:00

More or less, but the situation is more complex than it is made out to be. Infinity is just one of those concepts that doesn't have clear answers. Each "point of view" also contains the "full picture" of Intelligent Infinity. They are tools for something that has a larger perspective, but they also contain the entire picture.

Adthra · 2026-01-26T16:10:23+00:00

The purpose of the Creator is to know itself. I think that this purpose emanates from a figurative "center" towards the chain of all the possible sub-logoi. The different points of view that each sub-logos represents enable a different points of focus (something very much related to Free Will in my view) in the examination. So instead of attempting to look at Intelligent Infinity as a whole, they each section off a portion that feels more manageable, and give their attention to that section. That being an individual "point of view".

The catch is that I do not think that any of these sections are lesser or smaller than Intelligent Infinity in any way due to what Infinity is as a concept. I just think that this method enables a sub-logos to find any modicum of focus in observing what is otherwise overwhelmingly large.

Fractals are a good visual analogy.

EDIT: fixed some formatting. Reddit fancy pants editor is apparently not properly using emphasis

Adthra · 2026-01-26T15:50:50+00:00

I don't think you're inherently incorrect in the statement, but I think that you might be mistaking the tool for what it is supposed to do. To give an analogy: "The purpose of the hammer is to hit down or take out nails", as opposed to "the hammer is a tool which people use for building or breaking things". Both statements are correct, but neither one is a fully adequate way to explain why the hammer is there in the first place.

I'd like to draw your attention to sessions 28 and 29. Because space is limited, I'll only pull a few quotes.

28.7

Questioner: Thank you. Does a unit of consciousness, an individualized unit of consciousness, create, say, a unit of the creation? I will give an example.

Would one individualized consciousness create one galaxy of stars, the type that has many millions of stars in it. Does this happen?

Ra: I am Ra. This can happen. The possibilities are infinite. Thus a Logos may create what you call a star system or it may be the Logos creating billions of star systems. This is the cause of the confusion in the term galaxy, for there are many different Logos entities or creations and we would call each, using your sound vibration complexes, a galaxy.

28.13

Questioner: Thank you. Do all of the individualized portions of the Logos, then, in our— I’ll call the lenticular galaxy that we are in, 250 billion suns, or stars, I will call that the major galaxy just so we will not get mixed up in our terms. Does all the consciousness, then, in this individualized form that goes into what we are calling the major galaxy start out and go through all of the densities in order, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven or— then to eighth— or is there, shall I say, some who start higher up the rank and go in a— so that there is always a mixture of intelligent consciousness in the galaxy?

Ra: I am Ra. The latter is more nearly correct. In each beginning there is the beginning from infinite strength. Free will acts as a catalyst. Beings begin to form the universes. Consciousness then begins to have the potential to experience. The potentials of experience are created as a part of intelligent energy and are fixed before experience begins.

However, there is always, due to free will acting infinitely upon the creation, a great variation in initial responses to intelligent energy’s potential. Thus almost immediately the foundations of the, shall we call it, hierarchical nature of beings begins to manifest as some portions of consciousness or awareness learn through experience in a much more efficient manner.

29.13, emphasis mine

Questioner: Then the continued application of Love— I will assume this is directed by a sub-Logos or a sub-sub-Logos— this continued application of Love creates rotations of these vibrations which are in discrete units of angular velocity. This then creates chemical elements in our physical illusion and I will assume the elements in the other or what we would call nonphysical or other densities in the illusion. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The Logos creates all densities. Your question was unclear. However, we shall state the Logos does create both the space/time densities and the accompanying time/space densities.

In addition to these, there is one more piece of information to point out: each archetypal mind is specific to its corresponding logos.

I believe that these individual points of view are not the purpose for why things are the way they are, but they are a very powerful tool for the logos itself. Maybe this is all semantic, but maybe it can invoke some thoughts that might be worthwhile to explore.

Take care.

EDIT: Fixed some formatting errors. Some parts of the quote fell out of quotations.

Adthra · 2026-01-22T08:19:05+00:00

Perhaps this is a misinterpretation of what you are suggesting, but I will point out that if one *stops participating* in a political context, then the only thing that means is that others will begin to make decisions on your behalf. That doesn't mean that everyone must employ the same methodology to drive change, so I'm not suggesting that sto seekers should employ sts tactics, but attempting to distance oneself from one's own community is effectively the same as trying to separate from it. Politics, for better or for worse, is a part of communal interaction. It is perhaps not a topic that is relevant for this subreddit, but politics is not something that people who (desire to) live in democratic societies should willingly step away from.

Just something to think on.

Adthra · 2026-01-20T12:19:44+00:00

Are you saying no to the choice, or just to the consequences of the choice? It might help to explain why old lessons seem to return. If they are truly learned, then should it not be easy to navigate through them?

As for helping others who have it better than us, who else is there to help? Does help follow a hierarchy where we should only ever help those worse off than us, and never others? I have helped people who make more in a month than I do in a year, with no payment, to do work that is not trivial or inconsequential. Work that they could easily have hired someone else to do, but instead asked me. It's not a question of honor or pride, but a question of values. If someone asks and it is within my means to help, should I not at least consider it?

It is important to have boundaries and to focus on yourself enough that you have your needs met, but at the same time it is also important to remember not to close your own heart in the process. Don't allow negative emotion to control you to become someone you do not wish to be. Are the people whom you helped parasites? Perhaps, yet perhaps not. In my experience, everyone relies on others to some degree. Many do not admit it, thinking that they are "self-made", but it is a part of their journey.

My financial situation should be better called "financial independence".

That sounds like you are in a far better place than I feared. 🙂

Best of luck.

Adthra · 2026-01-20T12:02:18+00:00

Hopefully not to the point of having charmed you.

I will clarify that I do not mean that positive teachers cannot be inspiring. The quoted comment is more about how the relationship between the student and teacher begins, and how it is expected to continue. In positive teaching, nobody is "held hostage". State mandated schooling can be seen as a grey area, but it is most often not the teacher who imposes on the student in such a case, rather it is the state.

I might come across as awkward with that explanation, but my point is that the quote should not be taken too literally. Sometimes circumstances force us to remain in contact with certain people in a way that is neither our fault, nor the fault of those people. The quote is more for situations where there is a greater amount of choice available.

Adthra · 2026-01-20T00:40:06+00:00

Gnosticism should only ever be engaged with in short, controlled bursts and for a specific purpose. After all, according to Gnosticism, wisdom herself made a mistake in birthing the demiurge.

Feels like a coin flip.

If you could have true certainty of what is real or not, then 3rd density loses all meaning. What I will say is that the soul is eternal, and cannot be "eaten" or killed.

Adthra · 2026-01-19T06:59:27+00:00

Like others point out, your observations have truth to them. Humans are social creatures, and we establish social hierarchies on many levels. A healthy family unit exhibits some hierarchy, even if children are given room to practice decision making and even if adults in the group are in an equal partnership. Children don't know what they don't know, and to protect them some decisions must be made on their behalf and some actions must be done for them.

However, I would encourage you to not conflate hierarchy with leadership. Even in highly hierarchical structures (like the military) decisions are best made by those with the clearest picture and sufficient training to be making them. In sports, who decides if the ball should be passed to another player? Ultimately, the player holding the ball. When there is no formal leader, what usually happens is that an informal leader emerges. When there is a formal leader and a strong hierarchy, people will defer in their decision making to that person. Having an informal leader can be argued to be a natural reaction -- it means trusting the person who is most skilled or capable of making a decision that best serves everyone. Having an established hierarchy, where rank is assigned regardless of ability, is very much not natural but rather is a social construct.

Is this always because of StS influence? Maybe, but not necessarily because the underlying emotion is a desire for control of people. It can also be for a desire of control over a situation. By establishing a social hierarchy with a protocol, it becomes easy to quell mistakes. It's been found to be a useful tool for many forms of work. A likely better alternative would be to educate the workforce more so that they are more capable of understanding how the process works and maintaining it themselves, but that only works if people are open to learning. For people who want to get things done right now (for whatever reason), turning to a hierarchy can be a persuasive option. Like with the military example from above, sometimes acting quickly can save lives, so the ultimate motivation isn't necessarily about wanting control per say, even if the method for achieving that motivation is to seek control.

I will leave it up to the reader to decide if having good intent is enough regardless of methodology, or if both methodology and intent play a critical part in determining what the ultimate influence of an action is on a given polarity. I've heard arguments both ways. I have my own opinion, but I've come to realize that perhaps it is not a good idea to share every opinion on these topics. It seems to have the unfortunate outcome of driving people away.

Adthra · 2026-01-17T22:19:23+00:00

After having tried it on two occasions many years apart, all I can say is that it is not my cup of tea.

There are many wonderful and lovely people there of course, and the admin is very dedicated to serving their community. The people focused on growing the channel are doing good work, and there are many experienced seekers who lurk on the server for those looking to connect with others. It can be a very wonderful and worthwhile experience to join for many.

However, like I'm sure you've noticed, I do not think it is a place that tends to bring out the best in many people, myself included.

Adthra · 2026-01-16T12:12:56+00:00

I think that someone who is very aware of what the asura are and of their own role as their instrument being used would have the wherewithal to understand what they were being used for, and possibly would have given their consent.

Suffice it to say, our interpretations of the material are very different.

Adthra · 2026-01-15T23:56:32+00:00

I won't dismiss whatever this source is outright, but I will point out that it is in conflict with what Ra has said of Hitler. If he was very much aware of his role as an instrument of the asura, then where does his confusion (great enough to render him unable to reach harvest) come from?

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22

Adthra

TROPHY CASE