The Knowledge of our Mentors: on Entheogens

Our conversation on entheogens begins first with a few prerequisite statements. First, while I will only discuss my use of those entheogens where such use is legal where I live, laws change frequently, and depending on where you live what is legal here may not be legal there. Second, I am in no way endorsing or recommending the use of any of the substances that I discuss throughout this series. I will simply outline my own experiences, potential use cases, and their historical, cultural, and geographic backgrounds, or mention substances I have not used to exemplify certain concepts. You are ultimately responsible for all of your own choices, including the choice to use or abstain from any and all psychoactive substances.

If you've been following this newsletter so far, you have likely read my previous post on the alteration of consciousness. If you haven't, it describes the role of consciousness alteration as a critical part of spiritual practices, and mentions several methods utilized to achieve such an altered state. Deserving of mention, of course, when venturing down the road of spiritual consciousness alteration and the seeking of ecstatic states are psychoactive substances.

In the modern, Western world, we have a quite contentious relationship with such substances. I think that it is of critical importance to radically interrogate any urge to imbibe psychoactive substances, as the dominant narratives even around spiritual use tend to encourage a kind of quasi-spiritual use that is often a useful rational cover for the utilization of such substances to manage negative physical or emotional states. Of course, there are other narratives around substance use that are equally harmful, but those are out of scope for today. My goal with this series on entheogenic substances is to challenge the narratives of extreme abstinence and of both outright harmful or quasi-spiritual use of sacred substances: I wish to help the reader re-frame their relationship or potential relationship with these substances, and to guide decisions around use with thoughtful questions.

What are entheogens?

First, I recognize that the word "entheogen" may be off-putting or unknown. To create clarity, the definition of an entheogen given by our dear friend Wikipedia is as follows:

a chemical substance used in a religious, shamanic, or spiritual context that often induces psychological or physiological changes

Specifically, I wish to discuss substances that have a historically and culturally spiritual context, and I will be discussing their use relating to these contexts only, even where these substances may commonly be used habitually or in other contexts. My decision to drive this discussion in such a way is purposeful, as I don't wish to currently dive into an enormous moral discussion around substance use period, and because most of the readers of this publication are inclined towards learning about spiritual practice specifically. It also fits into the deeper theme of all of the writing I've published on this platform thus far: challenging spirituality that only exists within a hyper-individual capitalist framework, and challenging consumptive modes of life and spiritual practice. The use of entheogens in our world tends towards consumptive or performative use too often, leading towards harms that truly don't need to exist if we can simply recreate context around the use of such substances.

Why use entheogens?

I'd imagine that if it were possible to survey each and every culture with a history of entheogen use, there would be as many answers to this question as there are cultures. Anthropologists have distilled these answers down into a few summaries, but I think it is important to acknowledge that any answer I or anyone else from my corner of spacetime can give is not necessarily the authoritative answer to this question. The use of entheogens in a given culture is not necessarily always rooted in history or tradition. Sometimes, we see cultures creating a container for periodic (or even habitual) use of entheogens in response to a changing world, such as the use of Peyote by the members of the Native American Church in North America.

Some answers I feel I can give, though, which are at least relevant to this aforementioned corner of spacetime which I inhabit (if none other), are that entheogens are often used to supplement existing religious practice in order to bring about states which are difficult or impossible to achieve with other methods of consciousness alteration.

More importantly, though, entheogens provide a way of getting everyone in a communal setting "on the same page", so to speak. Where when seeking to alter one's own consciousness alone there are often alternatives to a given altered state, creating a communal situation where all members achieve the same experience through only bodily means is quite a bit more difficult. If we study the use of entheogens historically, with some exceptions, this tends to be the way they are used. Sometimes this communal experience is only two people, where one is guiding the other through the use of a substance to achieve a specific altered experience. Sometimes there is a similar guide/guidee dynamic with a whole circle of people, and sometimes an entire group imbibes a substance to engage in a state without definitive hierarchy present.

Communal context is when entheogen use is most justified and most valuable. However, depending on the substance, individual calibration or exploration beforehand can enhance such a communal spiritual experience. With some substances, I would simply not recommend individual use. There is a lot of nuance to this entire conversation, and I hope to be able to illuminate some of this nuance with this series through examples of specific substances.

Things to consider: Ecological impact

Before going further, there are some vital considerations to the use of any of these substances. First, because I will not be going into any synthetic or lab-derived substances in this series, all of the entheogens I will discuss are plants or fungi. All come from various parts of the world, and all have a different level of ecological significance, ease of cultivation, and history around their export or establishment in a different part of the world. Before considering the use of a given entheogen, I would implore you to think about the ecological impact of this decision. Some questions that may be helpful as a guide:

1. Where does this substance come from? What does it take to grow, harvest, process, and ship it? Some substances, like coffee or kratom, only grow in very specific regions under specific environmental conditions, and the demand for them is relatively high. In the example of kratom, poaching is an enormous issue and this incurs an ecological as well as human cost that is important to acknowledge and be aware of before engaging in its use.
2. Is this something that I could cultivate instead of purchase? Research soil requirements, seed or cutting availability, legality of shipping seeds or cuttings, nutrient and water requirements, hardiness, and so on. Finally, make sure you are aware of the legality of cultivation. Some things are legal to possess, but once you plant it in the ground it becomes production and is illegal (or incurs more severe consequences than possession alone). For some plants, the point of their illegality is harvest, and for others processing into the final consumable. You may also want to consider if you can wait to use the substance until it is cultivated, based on whatever your reasoning is for wishing to use it. I will say, I rarely would criticize the average person for sourcing an entheogen relatively ethically once to try it before making the decision to put forth the effort to cultivate it themselves. You'll have to decide where your own ethical lines lie.
3. Why are we using it? Are you culturally tied to this particular plant, as a member of a diaspora or a member of the land which this plant tends to belong to? If not, is there an alternative? If you're looking to induce lucid dreams, perhaps an herb native to North America, like Mugwort, would be a better choice for a resident of North America as opposed to Silene capensis (African dream root), if such an alternative exists. Also, if such an alternative does not exist and your reasoning is not sufficient (i.e: "I'm just curious about trying it"), perhaps it is wise to make the more ethical choice to leave it alone.

There are, of course, more things we can consider when we think about the ecological impact of a choice. If the plant we would like to use is native and forageable, are we being considerate when foraging? Are we asking permission of the land and the plant? Are we paying close attention to what other organisms rely on this plant before removing it? If the plant is non-native, we can consider our source rigorously: there are several small kratom farms (orchards?) in Southeast Asia that do ship their wares, and many sources that fairly uncritically sell whatever (potentially poached) product they can get their hands on to smoke shops in the US. One of these choices has a much higher human and ecological cost than the other, though neither may be a perfect choice.

Some substances simply should not be used those who have not lived with it for generations, and who understand its needs and ecological niche. While the Native American Church is made up of Native Americans from north of the Rio Grande who use peyote/peyotl spiritually and who feel some ownership of this plant, some native Mexicans (Wixáritari and others-the original users of peyote) criticize their demand for peyotl and the resulting over-harvesting of the slow-growing and delicate cactus and related desecration of the habitat it needs to propajpgate.

We should always aim to do the least harm. Ideally, we will just not use substances that cause any harm unless we are culturally tied to that particular substance and have very deep reasons for wishing to use it. However, most of us are guilty of using substances that are sacred or have been sacred in one culture or another historically, which through circumstances of globalization and colonization have become staple goods in our daily lives: cacao, coffee, tea, tobacco, and so on. This brings us to another thing we should discuss about the use of such things before we come to the general shape of some potential guidelines for making decisions about using entheogens: the cultural appropriation conversation.

Things to consider: Cultural appropriation

The topic of cultural appropriation is, in some ways, like water in a closed fist. Anytime one wishes to grasp the outline of what is and is not cultural appropriation (or where the line of causing harm begins) they will likely encounter someone who has a different opinion and need to re-calibrate their own opinion as a result. This is important, as many of the opinions that differ from some of the more common leftist narratives of cultural appropriation come from members of cultures that such narratives claim to speak for, and we should privilege these opinions over those that come from people who are not impacted by appropriation. At the same time, it is vital to consider that not a single ethnic group, language-bound culture, or geographically connected peoples in the world are a monolith with a single opinion, and that we can find ourselves drawn to using a single individual's opinion that is permissive as rationale for our actions and ignoring all of the other individuals who have an opposing opinion. Simultaneously, we may tend to use a single (or handful of) opposing opinion(s) as evidence that we should police the use of a given substance by anyone else we deem to be unworthy of it, and this also can become maladaptive or misguided.

With this being said, we do need to find some general schemas to navigate the reality of potential harm caused by consuming culturally significant substances, whether that harm is inherent in the use of the substance by an outsider or is more specifically caused by the way that this substance is sourced (in which case this harm could potentially be mitigated by considering some of the questions from the above section).

In general, I feel that based on my life experience my opinions around cultural appropriation are similar to my opinions on introducing plants to an area where they are not native, or planting established plants: they're a little liberal, because I see that humans have always brought things home with them, brought things abroad with them, and shared things. These opinions come from having been offered, invited to, and given permission to do and be a part of things that others who look like me have not been given. This has not been the result of luck, but of offering things in return, and holding truly reverent that which others hold reverent. The creation of context sometimes looks like this: we share, we do not take. If it feels right, perhaps this could be your first consideration when attempting to build a schema around what you are "allowed" to use and what you are not. How is it coming to you? How are you coming to it? Is it being offered, or sought out? What are you bringing in return? Are you asking permission of the land, the plant or fungi, and the people who are directly impacted by this single use? Perhaps some members of a group would say that no outsiders should use a given substance, but perhaps you are in a context where it is clear that your presence is invited and mutual, and that can take precedent if you are sure that you are bringing what you need to bring to the experience.

I am guilty, however, of not always remaining in this "lane", so to speak. With kratom, for instance, I stumbled into it and fell in love with it for a while before even really thinking about where it came from or what it was to the people who grew it. It wasn't until I started cutting global imports wholly out of my diet that I considered the other substances in my life, and at that point I began to more deeply interrogate my relationship with kratom, my source, and when I would use it and abstain. The point is not to be perfect, but to always be interrogating the impact of our actions.

Some substances though feel, to me, squarely out of my realm. Ayahuasca (hayakwaksa) is not something I would use, anyway, due to its illegality in the US, but just to use it as an example: many who have tried ayahuasca as tourists have told me that their experience was terrifying, as though the medicine was telling them they should not be there. Not only do I feel like this specific entheogen requires decades of cultural integration to fully experience and understand, and a guide who is truly blessed by their people to offer this experience to those outside of the group, but it is a medicine that speaks in a language I could not understand regardless of whether I was invited to it or not. This is another thing to consider: when you think about using the substance you are thinking about using, how does it feel to you? Does it feel like it could speak to you, like it will be willing to offer up the experience you are looking for? Furthermore, what real harm is being generated by people like you seeking it? In the ayahuasca example, the ayahuasca tourism industry (and its parallel in Mexico, the psylocibin tourism industry) is hotly contested among locals. Some appreciate the money coming in, most seem to voice that they wish outsiders would leave their medicines alone because of the law enforcement attention, the attention of colonial interests, and further issues like the re-writing of the relationship with the medicine and its rituals, and the exploitation of native species that are caused by demand for the experience by outsiders. Even if you claim you are not a tourist, say, you are seeking a waksa/ayahuasca retreat in your own country, where are your supposed guides obtaining the substance? What authority do they have to provide this experience? They may be obfuscating the harm being done in the substance's homeland, but is it actually being mitigated?

There are varying intersections of sociocultural and socioeconomic power dynamics that may inform our use or abstinence from a given substance. The conversation around cultural appropriation is quite nuanced, and I know that I cannot describe each and every potential use case and the questions one could ask here. But I will say a few more things: we must be critically aware of when our urge to use a substance is due to the way we think it will make us appear to others. We must be critically aware of when our urge to use a substance is due to some kind of "fear of missing out". We must be critically aware of when our urge to use a substance is due to the desire to negate what we perceive as negative emotions. There is the very real potential to create harm with our use: ecologically, economically, and culturally speaking. The spreading of awareness of spiritual and cultural practices through the shared, purposeful, and mutual use of entheogens can be a way to align ourselves within our communities and access a kind of oneness, or deep appreciation and understanding of one another. When our use is commercial, appropriative, selfish, misguided, destructive, or out of context, however, it runs the very real risk of perpetuating cultural erasure and destroying the very potential for the genuine connections we hope to be creating.

Final thoughts

The blight of colonization has left us at a crossroads, with access to sacred substances we never would have known about otherwise. Sitting and looking both back and forwards, or rather, at time and existence as a spiral, we can consider our place in it all and how we would like to live, what we would like our Practice to achieve. It is tempting to explore, to experiment, with the world's history and culture seemingly, illusorily, at our fingertips. The mutual, connected, and purposeful use of entheogens could well be a way towards communal spiritual Practice which achieves deep attunement to one another, the land, and the Divine. These things certainly have their place, which is why I'd like to discuss them. However, where alternative modes of achieving our goals exist, we should consider those wholly as well. There are no shortcuts, and we would do well to avoid seeing entheogens as such. To re-frame and re-build context around the use of certain entheogens in our practice may be to preserve something out of time and space altogether, but to blunder forward without such context may be to destroy it. Let us move forward as always: in consideration of the whole. I look very forward to sharing more about our first entheogen: Blue Lotus (Nymphaea caerulea) next time.

Until then ~