Religion has been a dominant factor throughout human history, both constructively and destructively. It has served to bond whole cultures together, but also to tragically divide individual cultures and to draw lines between different ones. In the context of the Grid and the move toward Sacred Status, we want to explore some broad questions about religion and spirituality.

It seems that religion arises in every culture and takes many forms, ranging from violence and bloodthirstiness and blood sacrifice to complete pacifism, and from devout worship of a higher being to a purely philosophical attitude that recognizes only the “natural order.” Do all these manifestations of religion arise from some impulse that is inherent in all humanity?

Yes, they do, but the impulse isn’t “Recognize you are a part of the greater whole.” The impulse is “I can put this in a package that will allow me to become more powerful.”

I’m willing to be startling with this. Do you think it’s the direction you want to go?

Of course. We all want to be startled. I think we should be blunt.

Religion is the human need to manipulate and control, for its own purposes, an inherent trait toward growth and good. Now you understand why I asked if you minded if I was startling, because I don’t usually take off the mask that hides the idea that religion, even though it appears to be so good, is based in something that is inherently not good. I do not usually care to take your cultural background and shake it out and say, “Is this what you’re looking at here?” And I don’t usually care to imply that something that is meaningful to you might be a negative thing. But just as the spirit is beyond human, religion is about human. And Guardians need to remember that, even if mass consciousness cannot.

I want to say this, perhaps as a warning. Discussing religion without bias is almost impossible. You are naturally pulled toward spiritual awareness, but in your society religion has been the only acceptable way to express your spiritual function—which is a pity. Nonetheless, ninety-nine percent of humanity only accepts spiritual understanding through the filter of their own version of what god will or will not accept, which is a reflection of what they will or will not accept. The religious impulse is an instinctual and seeded and primary function of spiritual awareness in mass consciousness. It is the means for most to experience god.

So human nature will make that need a security issue because it is such a primary function, meaning you will have more defense mechanisms arise out of a talk regarding religion and spirituality—out of this interview—even amongst Guardians, because the means of expressing oneself and the reasons behind accepting certain beliefs are so tied in to cultural acceptance.

This is a dangerous interview, and readers need to be aware ahead of time that, even if they do not officially follow the religious version of spirituality, even Guardians are still looking for an all-knowing god and rules they can follow. That shows up in every area of your life that requires security. So you’ve got to read this realizing that your security issues are going to be punched, even if you don’t think you have anything to do with religious acceptance.

The whole concept of worship is one I don’t understand; in my Christian experience it seems to equate with praise, which addresses God as if he had an ego. In other traditions, worship seems to take the form of offerings or sacrifice, sometimes in perverted forms (sacrificing others or an animal instead of making a sacrifice of oneself, for instance). What is this idea of deity and worship, and where did it come from?

Most of the time worship is a means by which a human is able to have an example that it can compare itself to and model its behaviors on. And most of the time, worship is the by-product of taking oneself out of the game and pretending that nothing in your life is in your control, that it’s fate or God’s will or something to do with “I don’t have that kind of power, therefore I need to appease this greater being by being humble.” Of course the problem with that is you’re going to end up with a higher being that is more a reflection of you than anything else, instead of recognizing your power to create a life that gives you your own empowerment. It’s better not to risk failing in one’s own higher-level empowerment, and therefore you choose a representation that is so impossible to attain that there is no reason to make the attempt.

It’s a whole lot easier in this world to follow someone else’s direction than to step forward and make your own map. Making your own map is a lot of hard work. Following someone else’s directions because they are the “authority” allows you to justify lacking the courage to move forward in that same way yourself.

God is in you. Like political leaders in the United States, you get the god you deserve, and you get the one that you’re willing to deal with. And at different times within your history, that has been a different god. Of course it’s not a different god, but it’s a different choice based on what you need at the time. When what you need is absolute, fearsome, stunning power, you’re going to create a god that is the embodiment of fearsome, stunning power.

The god of the Old Testament.

For instance. “Smite your enemies,” because you feel overwhelmed by your enemies. You want a god that will smite them for you, and you will create a standard that allows you to see the behaviors of that god as fulfilling what you need at the time.

It’s an externalization of your self-justification.

Yes, exactly that.

When you said “seeded” into humanity, that leads me to believe that religion is a natural part of the human evolution into the spirituality of “I am god,” as opposed to “god is outside of me.” Are you saying it was seeded as part of that evolution?

What was seeded was the urge to seek your spiritual connection. Religion becomes the means by which it is culturally acceptable to do that, to keep that seeding in effect. So religion isn’t seeded; the search is. Religion is the easiest way to check that search off your list as done.

When we as Guardians say, “Universe, will you give me this?” are we actually doing that very thing that you’re talking about, instead of saying, “Oh, I’d like to create this myself.”

You accept what you know, which is to say you anthropomorphize a construct so that you can relate to it. That’s a good thing and a bad thing. I am spirit that has no Scottish accent, no gender, no need for conversation. All of that is put on to give you something to relate to comfortably.

You are really this big thing out there, and Samuel is the user interface.

I like that. Actually, that’s perfect.

Your relating to that comfortably is to my advantage, isn’t it? And it’s to your advantage, isn’t it? But if you limit the relationship and the contact to “Scottish male,” no matter how real that has been in your past, you’re doing that for your convenience. I’m always ready to tell you, this [channeling using Lea’s body] is a circus, a show; this isn’t the point; there is much, much more. Your need to have god or gods is to give you something to relate to.

That doesn’t deny, however, that the Universe sees the misuse of an instinctual seeking and is able to make use of it, so that now that comfortable personification becomes a means for you to actually move higher spiritually.

The nature of Guardians tends to be that you’re not comfortable with the types of limitations mass-consciousness is subject to. But if it works, why not use it, because you and they (mass consciousness) will reach a point where you realize, All right, this is going to take a leap, but it makes sense. Guardians tend to come resistant enough to authority that that leap happened a long time ago for you, whereas for mass consciousness it’s been such a comfortable, everyday function of life that that leap often doesn’t happen until mid-life.

I see what you’re saying. It could seem disempowering, but if we are aware as we say it, in a sense we’re sort of putting out a language that we all understand, even though we are aware at the same time that we’re in charge and we are creating our own reality.

What I’m hearing you say is that religion’s success throughout human history has been because it capitalizes on two things: our seeded desire to connect back to Source and the physical form’s need for security. Religion is a vehicle for fulfilling both of those needs. If I look at religious teachings and at what you teach, our beliefs about Heart Portals in the earth are not any farther out there than the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

When you get into questions about the different religions’ value systems, you realize that there isn’t all that much difference in the foundations of the world’s various religions. But you’ve got to be really careful in dealing with that. Christians don’t want to know that the god Ahura Mazda is exactly the story of Jesus. [The Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda had a son, Mithra, whose life had many parallels with that of Jesus.] They don’t want to know that the concept of the devil and demons doesn’t exist in the ancient Jewish faith, where the Christian roots are. Christians don’t want to think that their beliefs are no different than the primal beliefs of other religions, and so they don’t look at it, and they create a rule that says you mustn’t look at it, that only one way is allowed. And you accept that way because you need it. When you stop needing it you start looking beyond, and what you come up against is that your religious faith won’t hold up to that kind of examination. But the rules say that there is nothing else out there except this one way, and if you look for something else you are an enemy of your faith.

Because it won’t stand up to scrutiny, religion doesn’t allow you to scrutinize.

Without being cast out. Do not forget, though, that the other side of that religion is that it’s very comforting to people. It’s even very empowering to those who are willing to follow the rules and who have the need to have the technique and the certainty. In fact, there are a whole lot of Guardians who look to me to provide “One, two, three, four, five . . . you do these things and it will work out,” just like the religions say.

It’s very satisfying to have rules to follow, and even more satisfying to be able to say that you follow them perfectly. It’s human nature, and I’m asking Guardians to turn their backs on human nature, and not everyone can do that. Some come in and get it, and some come in and are so afraid they never come back again, even if they have a compact for it. That is the hard part.

Sacred Status is defined as that time when a majority of humanity is consciously aware of its spiritual component. Assuming that you could “keep score,” would you count the primitive warlike religions and superstitions among the spiritual?

Yes, I would.

How about the fundamentalists whose religious views are narrow, exclusive or even punitive to those that don’t share them? Are they contributing to Sacred Status?

I would count them too, and I would even count the Inquisitors, with their zeal. It’s not what coat you have on; it’s what’s under the coat. It doesn’t matter what crutch you needed to get you there.

That answers the question, but it’s an uncomfortable answer, because nobody wants there to be a natural spiritual drive. Everybody wants their way of getting to it to be right, better, real. And your way counts, but so does that “horrible, blood-sacrificing evil version that causes children to put on bombs and blow up good Christians.” You don’t want to accept that that is just a different coat, a different costume, and that what’s under it is acceptable. That’s a real threat. That gets people storming into a church and shooting the choir.

You find the religion that works for you; you stick with it as long as it works with your beliefs. What causes change in your version of what works says a lot about the hold those beliefs have on you. You may have a child that dies of a genetic disease before it reaches the age of three, and your heart is broken and you become fully convinced that no god would take children like that, and so you move away from those beliefs that you held for so long because losing something vital to your happiness is beyond the limits of your beliefs. If you can’t see your god as bigger than that, then you become angry with your god, and that makes you change your view of what god is. That might open the door to you no longer putting a limit on god and becoming godly yourself, or you may become so angry that that anger touches every spiritual part of your life, and you remain kicking and screaming against any kind of spiritual acceptance—which causes you to miss the spiritual boost that experience could bring you. It’s as though you need to believe in evil to justify painful things in the world because your god isn’t big enough to have a bigger picture than you do.

Only good things should happen to good people if god is good.

Correct. But at the same time you have a religion that accepts the sacrifice of the first-born of a household or of a herd. It’s horribly wrong when it’s the Aztecs and Mayans, but not when it’s the foundation of the Jewish faith.

You accept the beliefs that work for you, and if what works for you is staying ignorant of your power, you are going to find a way to do that. If that’s what security is for you—a lack of responsibility and a lack of commitment—then you are going to find that and stick with it. If that’s not what you’re about, I promise you that in one way or another you are going to find the means within you to seek another way of understanding your world. Some of the most amazing pagan beliefs are found in your comfortable religions.

The fact that religious belief and devotion have inspired such altruism and self-sacrifice, as well as such incredibly beautiful artistic and musical expressions, has always argued to me that, even though religious dogmas contradict one another, they all express some sort of underlying truth. Is this the case?


How do you resolve the differences between the paternalistic religions like Christianity and Islam, the pagan polytheisms (such as those of the Celts, the Norse, the Hindus), and animism such as Native American religions or the beliefs of Australian aborigines? If there is such an underlying truth, how does each of these express it?

Again, you create—or you find—the religion that fits your beliefs.

Monotheism is the closest most humans come to recognizing the individual’s godness. Monotheism reflects a point in human awareness that your god-self is a possibility. It’s an advance—not necessarily chronologically: it’s not that polytheistic understanding was first and monotheism came out of that later. The polytheistic religions are looking at attributes, much in the way the Rays represent aspects of Source. Any one Ray contains all the Rays, but its focus is a particular function. In every multiple expression of god, there is a single creator expressed through multiple versions: god releases All That Is, which expresses through Ellic force, and causes the world to say, “This being is a god, a goddess. This is the highest representation of this belief.”

You get the religion that fits your level of spirituality at the time.

Does it have anything to do with our ability to control the natural world—you have to pray to the god of the spring, the god of the wind, because you need help with the natural world, whereas when you get to monotheism you have more control over your environment? Or is that way off base?

It’s not off base, but it’s bigger than that. Recognizing that the wind is bigger than you—that you can’t control it—causes you to want to personify it so that you can appease it in order to keep your house upright, or your fields pollinated—to control it; thus you have the god of the wind. But in the really big picture, there is an elemental force that expresses itself in this dimension as a force that can be affected by somebody who knows how to weave that energy. It can either be used to make you behave a certain way or to prove you are powerful and therefore have a right to certain things because of that. That’s behind every organized way of claiming your power over a thing or a person. Recognizing power outside of the human’s need to make it like itself so that it can relate to it is very hard to do. It’s more advanced.

And I just keep coming back to this one thing: you get what you want. You choose to live with the religion that serves you. You do it in whatever way—culturally and maybe someday individually—works, whether it’s because you only expect this much out of life and it works, or because you are so tuned in to your spiritual presence that you can see how all the things work together. It depends on how limited you need your view to be.

Religion and science have come to represent contradictory outlooks rather than complementary ones. Has this schism served a necessary purpose for our evolution, or does it too severely separate what should be a more inclusive view?

It severely separates what should be a more inclusive view.

Do Christian fundamentalism or creationism or beliefs about intelligent design continue to serve a purpose, despite their contradictions of science and scientific fact?

You know, when a person’s beliefs contain the unexplainable, it’s a religion. When your whole life is about quantifying the unexplainable, you’re a scientist.

How would you differentiate between religion and superstition?

Or between science and superstition. It’s all the same. One is working to control the elements by internal behavior, and it’s called religion; and the other controls them by knowing and understanding how they work, and that’s called science. But everything in science, as any scientist will tell you, is filled with the unknowable, the unexplainable, the beautiful and magical. You cannot truly study the way this world works and not see the magic.

There should not be a gap between the true basis of religion and the ultimate working of science. There should not be that gap. But science doesn’t make people behave in certain ways insofar as manipulating the human mind and harnessing empowerment. Science looks to understand, and religion looks to control, and I would go so far as to say the methods you use, be they empowering superstitious beliefs and calling them religion, or understanding natural law and calling that science, whichever one you accept and believe is because—here is my song again—it’s what you need to believe to function here right now. They shouldn’t be different. They shouldn’t be different.

Do you have anything to add to how all this variety of religious belief and practice plays into the Grid and the progression toward Sacred Status?

They play into the grid by creating such ridiculous boundaries that more and more people are moving out of it. And that’s a pretty good thing.

I don’t have any problem with religion for those who are aware of why they’ve chosen it. The thing of it is, though, if you’re aware of why you’ve chosen it, you probably won’t choose it. A Guardian should be compassionate with those who have chosen the religious path, not judgmental, but should also be very grateful that they see otherwise. To put it bluntly, conformity just makes it harder to reach your potential. It doesn’t make it impossible.