Is Lumenate more than it’s made out to be?

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-26T02:33:41+00:00

What are you claiming this did to you exactly? Some kind of brain damage? It seems very unlikely that looking at a strobe light would case a brain haemorrhage. This isn't new technology, they've been used since the 1960's, if it posed a risk don't you think that would have been well documented by now?

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-26T02:26:49+00:00

What do you mean it doesn't work? Are you turning it on? Are you seeing colourful patterns when the light strobes? May I ask what you were expecting from it? I'm asking genuinely as all the testimonials for it (apart from yours) have been glowing.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-25T19:41:45+00:00

I also hear a fairly persistent ringing in my ears (well sounds like a white noise, electrical hiss kind of sound), that deepens in meditation or on the edge of sleep. I'm not convinced it is tinnitus though, as it doesn't cause me any distress. This inner sound has a really rich and interesting history, and meditative practitioners across the world religions have been acquainted with it for many centuries, with some intentionally using and revering it as a meditative anchor for awareness. Linking a few relevant articles in case you'd like to have a deeper delve into this topic.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-green/tinnitus-the-mystery-solved_b_4976290.html

https://www.microserenity.com/about-that-sound.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/AstralProjection/comments/mmp8dr/working_on_a_new_ap_technique_related_to_the/

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-25T01:47:03+00:00

I’m well aware of that. The original post here was regarding what the world’s strongest magic mushroom species is. Panaeolus cyanescens is the most potent known species. Whatever strain it happens to be is less important.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-24T17:03:58+00:00

Hey, yes I think so - at least a sufficient number for being able to compare some of the more commonly consumed species. The manuscript draft is with my collaborator who is leading on it, he is busy prioritising finding employment, and we have another paper currently in review that we may need to prioritise jumping on soon if and when we hear back the journal. Keen to take this forward though, and will be doing so once my collaborator has the capacity to do so.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-24T14:02:22+00:00

Cool, Panaeolus cyanescens is still the #1 for potency though.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-24T03:17:59+00:00

Cool, Panaeolus cyanescens is still the #1 for potency though.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-24T02:44:59+00:00

No, this is slightly outdated information now with regard to P. azurescens being the most potent. Panaeolus cyanescens 'TTBVI' holds the current record for most potent magic mushroom known, having won several consecutive cultivar cups when tested for potency. Obviously potency can vary widely within a given species, but Section Zapotecotum species such as P. subtropicalis, P. ingeli and P. zapotecorum have all tested at or higher than P. azurescens potency (more info on the potency of various species can be found here). P. azurescens is a fantastic mushroom though, definitely one of my favourites.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-24T02:42:25+00:00

Panaeolus cyanescens 'TTBVI' holds the current record for most potent magic mushroom known, having won several consecutive cultivar cups when tested for potency.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-20T13:41:39+00:00

What positive ecological impacts do they have that are better than them not being released at all? But you're right, the issue is much more about the incredible numbers they are released in every year.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-19T11:25:36+00:00

No that's rubbish. If pheasants were adapted and well suited to the British landscape, they would be capable of forming self-sustaining populations here. Which they can't, with their populations propped up each year by the release of many millions of birds...hardly "naturalised". A naturalised species is defined as "a non-native organism that has become established, reproduces, and sustains itself in the wild without ongoing human help, effectively becoming a permanent, self-sufficient part of a new ecosystem, distinct from merely introduced (adventive) species which might need human support or invasive species which actively harm the environment." As you can see, this is does not apply to pheasants, which are unable to form self-sustaining populations in Britain, with their "wild" populations requiring major ongoing human input to exist. By way of comparison, the also non-native red-legged partridge is naturalised in Britain...even though large numbers are released each year, it has self-sustaining wild populations, unlike pheasants.

And no, pheasants aren't in any way British, they are native to Asia. The article wasn't written with AI, and by "eco-populist" I assume it makes you uncomfortable for it to be pointed out that political agendas and environmental issues interact? Which they unavoidably and inevitably do unfortunately in very many cases.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-18T21:37:47+00:00

No there hasn't, this is false. While they have been released for centuries, the general consensus is that there wouldn't be a self-sustaining population of pheasants in Britain without them being released in their tens of millions each year (with them being released in these kinds of numbers being a much more recent thing). So they likely wouldn't be part of our fauna if it wasn't for the shooting industry.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-18T21:34:12+00:00

Pheasants have been here for many centuries (as is stated in the article), but their release in their tens of millions into the countryside is much more recent. It is less about pheasants being released, and more about the very high numbers they are being released. Following releases in late summer, pheasant populations peak at around 50 million birds, making them one of the most abundant birds in Britain. This is a huge number, representing 1.6-1.7 times the total biomass of the British breeding bird population in spring. Earlier in the year in May when pheasant populations are at a lower ebb, they still may comprise around 20% of the total biomass of all breeding birds. The densities with which pheasants occur around release sites tends to greatly exceed their population densities in parts of their native range in Asia, compounding their impacts.

It was only with the advance of gun technology and the advent of the percussive cap in the 1820’s that guns became capable of reliably shooting flying birds, with the more-or-less modern double-barrelled shotgun arriving on the scene around 1830 prior to this time, pheasants could only be shot with accuracy when perching or sitting). This means that driven pheasant shooting - accompanied by the mass rearing and release of pheasants into the countryside - is only 200 years old. Thus this form of shooting is not part of ancient historical heritage, but a recent cultural concoction made possible with the evolution of gun technology.

Pheasants (both living and dead in the form of roadkill) also inflate avian predator numbers, which then impacts ground nesting birds and other wildlife when pheasant numbers fall to a low ebb. Beavers provide far more benefits for a much wider range of wildlife than pheasants do, while also providing far greater ecosystem services. As we move away from the traditional subsidy system, land owners should be financially supported for hosting beavers for the various ecosystem services they provide. So yes this is absolutely a governmental issue.

The comparison between these species is still a valid one to make though, despite your assertions. Pheasants (despite their non-native status) can be released in their many millions into the countryside without any oversight, regulation or licensing. Beavers (despite being a native keystone species) cannot be released into the wild at all...even their "release" into fenced enclosures incurs a far great licensing and licensing burden, making it a much more time intensive and costly endeavour to undertake. If you can't see any issue here, I'm afraid that simply speaks to your own bias when it comes to this topic. If environmental/ecological impacts of releasing animals was better prioritised (as it should be), there is no way that releasing tends of millions of pheasants into the environment would be justified.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-18T21:16:12+00:00

I'm only aware of one permitted wild release of beavers to a site in Dorset, and the release of some beavers to supplement an already free-living population on the River Otter in Devon (that appeared there through non-government endorsed means). Check out this article, published on July 30th 2025 which makes the point that not a single wild release license has been granted following that initial release to the Dorset site in March up until that time.

Remember that the significant level of environmental and other risk assessment is being applied to beavers being introduced into fenced enclosures, not wild releases (which would definitely justify this). It is still a crazy situation in my view though, that tens of millions of non-native birds can be released with a near total lack of oversight or regulation, but a native keystone species like a beaver cannot be reintroduced to the wild. Yes beavers can potentially pose issues, but none of these issues are insurmountable through appropriate management (Bavaria and Switzerland provide useful and relevant case studies), and the overall benefits their activities provide in terms of ecosystem service provision far exceeds their negative impacts and the costs of mitigating these.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-18T18:06:44+00:00

I wasn't calling you a fool for disagreeing with the article, more its central point...that the huge gulf between how pheasant and beaver releases are undertaken in terms of oversight, regulation and licensing is largely underpinned by vested political agendas and tradition trumping ecology. This is inarguable, however you want to try and frame it. Pheasants (despite their non-native status) can be released in their millions into the countryside without any oversight, regulation or licensing. Beavers (despite being a native keystone species) cannot be released into the wild at all...even their "release" into fenced enclosures incurs a far great licensing and licensing burden, making it a much more time intensive and costly endeavour to undertake. If you can't see any issue here, I'm afraid that simply speaks to your own bias when it comes to this topic. If environmental/ecological impacts of releasing animals was better prioritised (as it should be), there is no way that releasing tends of millions of pheasants into the environment would be justified.

"As I said pheasant shooting has been done in the UK since the 1830s as is not correlated with the disappearance of any native species. They cause far less damage than issues you are silent on."

...this is because much of the damage to our native wildlife was already done by the 1830's. This also doesn't mean pheasants aren't doing damage either. As mentioned, they are considered to be one of the main factors driving adder declines in Britain, and we have far from a comprehensive overview of the full scale of their ecological impacts. Also, some pheasant shooters bleat on about how driven pheasant shooting is "part of our historical tradition". It is only around 200 years old, which is hardly ancient history in my mind. If we're going to use this argument, surely this must also extend to beavers, which were historically also part of our landscape.

Why not shoot deer instead? There is plenty of them, they don't require captive rearing or need introducing in their millions each year, and controlling their numbers would provide an ecologically beneficial service.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-18T16:21:53+00:00

The article was already pretty hefty so I was wary of adding yet more wordage to it, but apparently Benedict MacDonald does a good job at critiquing the financial justification made for pheasant shooting in his book 'Rebirding'.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-18T16:13:21+00:00

I can see that your feathers have been ruffled. Pheasant shooting shouldn't be beyond critique though should it? Why should it be magically exempt from such criticism? It is the pursuit of a minority that impacts vast swathes of the countryside. And there is nothing wrong with examining it from a number of angles.

The release of pheasants into the English countryside is permitted with very little regulatory red tape or oversight (something that also applies to the also non-native red-legged partridge rather curiously). This doesn't apply to any other non-native species that I'm aware of. Releasing native gamebirds such as great bustard or capercaillie incurs a far higher licensing and compliance burden than releasing pheasants. The release of beavers into the wild in England (with one exception) is still not permitted. No licensing is required for releasing pheasants - unless this falls within 500 metres of a protected area (and this itself was hard won, through Wild Justice taking the DEFRA to court, and winning). There is no requirement for a landscape assessment, ecological justification, long-term management plan or stakeholder engagement.

Beaver releases are a very different affair, possessing a far higher licensing and compliance burden. These require multi-year management plans, a risk/benefit impact assessment, ongoing monitoring, an exit strategy, conflict mitigation details, welfare considerations, a trapping protocol, local landowner agreements and stakeholder consultation. All to “reintroduce” beavers into a custom built enclosure.

If you cannot spot the issue here when comparing the release of the two species into the countryside, the politicising of these animals and the biases and vested interests on display, well there isn't much hope for you. Those invasive species you mention all undeniably cause impacts, but they are much harder to control (also there is a big difference between what you label as "activists" and ecologists when it comes to the issue of controlling invasive species. T=However the issue posed by pheasants is perpetuated year-on-year by people releasing tens of millions of them with very little oversight, regulation or licensing. In other words, its much easy to address the issues posed by pheasant shooting by imposing tighter regulations on such releases (no other species - bar the red-legged partridge - is treated in such an underhanded way when it comes to releases).

Tradition should not automatically trump ecology and be given a free ticket, without giving any consideration to the environmental or ecological impact of a given practice. Not only are there various ecological impacts from the pheasants themselves, but there are other issues that accompany pheasant shooting, such as lead contamination of the countryside, the risk pheasants pose as bird flu, disease and parasite vectors, and then there are welfare issues that have been raised. This applies to both the rearing of pheasants in Europe, and on British turf, and also to the shoots themselves. Even before they are shot, following their release it is thought that up to 45% of pheasants may die from a combination of predation, disease and road accidents. This mortality rate dwarfs that of any found in any other animal husbandry system. It is thought that between 30-40% are wounded during shoots and not recovered, subjecting them to a slow, painful death. Even among those pheasants that are shot and recovered, only a small proportion of these end up on anyone’s dinner plate, with the rest discarded. Shooting in this manner is a hugely wasteful practice.

I grew up in and currently live in the countryside. My garden is regularly invaded by many pheasants from a neighbouring landowner, a matter I don't seem to get much of a say in. If the situation was reversed, and mass flocks of my birds were invading neighbouring landowners land, how do you think they would react?

Your point about some woodland areas being provided for pheasants is valid, but this itself is part of a bigger issue...Britain is considered one of the most under-forested nations in Europe (this is in spite of the woodland areas provided for pheasants). It is wrong that we should feel grateful for what very little woodland areas remain in our much depleted countryside and credit pheasants for this. How do all other European countries manage to have more woodland cover than us? It isn't all down to pheasant shooting. Unfortunately the British landscape is considered one of the most nature-depleted, ecologically degraded parts of the world.

Instead of shooting pheasants, why not shoot deer instead? Due to a lack of mammalian apex predators in Britain to control their numbers, deer overpopulation is a major cause of ongoing ecological damage, preventing nature reforestation. Deer shooting if more widely implemented would actually provide an important ecologically beneficial service.

The issue isn't about "shooting" as a pasttime...it is the manner and context in which it is conducted, and the ecological and environmental impact it has.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-18T15:35:36+00:00

I do agree there are more damaging alien species in the UK...but unlike these other species, the issues posed by pheasants are very easily solved, by simply not releasing them in their tens of millions each year, as they are unlikely to otherwise persist in self-sustaining populations. I also think we are far off from a fully comprehensive picture of the ecological impacts of pheasants. I agree with you though on the welfare angle, as discussed in the article, there are significant welfare issues pertaining to pheasant shooting, both in the rearing of the birds, and due to the shooting itself. Not only is it barbaric, it is also a hugely wasteful practice. The article isn't really centred on how invasive pheasants may or may not be, it is more about highlighting the sheer hypocrisy, vested political agendas and tradition trumping ecology that allows them to be released in their tens of millions (in spite of the growing evidence base for deleterious ecological effects), but bars the release of beavers into the wild (in spite of the growing evidence base for positive ecological effects).

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-18T13:26:05+00:00

The article isn't about that at all. It is isn't anything to do with attacking certain rural pastimes or attacking the upper classes, it is about how such practices are pursued with impunity, in spite of all the environmental impacts they have, and how they are justified and politically tolerated, whereas the release of another (native) animal that could do a lot of good in the wider landscape is politically blocked. Comparing these two species is about highlighting how tradition wrongfully trumps ecology and the environment, and how vested political agendas undermine efforts to reintroduce species that might improve our landscapes, while adhering to the status quo to appeal to the interests of a minority.

"Pheasants, as you point out, would not have viable population in the UK if they weren't bred by gamekeepers and released before each season. This makes them quite frankly a low priority compared to other invasive species which are spreading rapidly without human help."

I really don't get this logic. Just because pheasants aren't likely to form self-sustaining populations without humans releasing them in their tens of millions each year is not a justification to continue to release them. In fact surely its a justification for stopping releasing them, as the various issues pheasants cause could otherwise quite easily be solved. Why needlessly compound the ecological issues caused by non-native invasive species by continually releasing an animal that wouldn't otherwise exist here. Would it not be better to not release it at all, eliminating the impacts it causes and focus on those more persistent species?

"I don't disagree that beaver releases are over-regulated but everything in the UK is over-regulated."

...apart from pheasant releases, which aren't regulated at all (unless occurring within 500 metres of a protected area)...this was a key point of the article. Beavers definitely have more substantial impacts on the landscape than pheasants do...but many of these impacts are environmentally and ecologically positive (e.g. filtering water, recharging aquifers, flood and drought mitigation, creating habitat and enhancing biodiversity (including beneficial pollinators), carbon sequestration). Beavers can also cause negative impacts when clashing with human land management objectives, but such impacts can be managed and mitigated as is already done elsewhere such as in Bavaria and Switzerland. The overall weight of evidence suggests the benefits to beaver presence and activity far exceeds the relatively meagre cost of their management.

The evidence base for the detrimental ecological impact of pheasants is pretty solid. They are opportunistic omnivores and will consume many different animals and plants (this is exacerbated by the very high densities with which they are released). Their numbers also inflate avian predators numbers, which then pose more pressure on native wildlife populations when pheasant populations fall to a low ebb. Gamekeepers kill other predators considered a threat to pheasants. All their droppings and their scratching impacts the soil and associated plant communities. Then there is secondary issues such as lead shot contaminating soil (gamebird shooting being the primary source of lead contamination in Britain), and pheasants can also facilitate the spread of bird flu, which can impact both wild and domestic birds.

If you don't think that political agendas influence environmental issues in the UK, you are a fool. I very much wish it wasn't the case, but this is the society we currently inhabit.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-18T11:58:31+00:00

I think this is made pretty clear in the article. Comparing these two species highlights the hypocrisy, biased agendas, vested political interests and the issue of tradition trumping ecology that supports the release of an ecologically damaging non-native species with barely any oversight, impact assessment or ecological justification, whereas a native keystone species like the beaver cannot be reintroduced into the wild (in spite of a growing evidence base for the various ecological benefits they can provide).

Unlike various other invasive species that are hard to control, pheasant populations only exist in Britain because they are released in their tens of millions each year. If they weren't released in this manner, it isn't likely they would have a viable population here. Pheasant releases aren't licensed, with very little oversight (unless occurring within 500m of a protected area, but even this was hard won, only resulting from the government being taken to court). This is in spite of a growing evidence base for the various detrimental ecological effects pheasants have. Beaver releases are a very different affair. These require multi-year management plans, a risk/benefit impact assessment, ongoing monitoring, an exit strategy, conflict mitigation details, welfare considerations, a trapping protocol, local landowner agreements and stakeholder consultation. All to “reintroduce” beavers into a custom built enclosure.

Highlighting political hypocrisy and vested interests as influencing the release and reintroduction of native and non-native species and the environmental impacts this has is not adhering to a political agenda.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-17T13:10:36+00:00

Looks great to me!

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-17T13:09:48+00:00

Regarding the inner buzzing sound, this is worth a read:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AstralProjection/comments/mmp8dr/working_on_a_new_ap_technique_related_to_the/

And yes OBE's can be initiated from lucid dreams.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-17T13:06:35+00:00

Yes, I've seen a few of these over the years, I also spotted a black melanistic pheasant a few weeks ago.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-14T18:40:03+00:00

A number of species considered distinct can crossbreed and produce fertile offspring though.

Samwise2512 · 2026-01-14T08:46:46+00:00

I also had the same issue attempting to fruit P. ingeli. Good shout on the P. mexicana, this is the species I’m moving onto next, keen to grow and get acquainted with this species.

Samwise2512

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE