Spirituality, UFOs, and the Heaven's Gate Cult

[trainedobserver]

UFOs and the spirituality of self-deception and self-aggrandisement. The ultimate "ascension" of the fantasy-prone and easily hoodwinked.

 

[Randall]

UFOs and the spirituality of self-deception and self-aggrandisement. The ultimate "ascension" of the fantasy-prone and easily hoodwinked.

That about sums it up alright. That's why I'm such a stickler for critical thinking. The last thing we need is a repeat of Heaven's Gate or Jonestown, or Scientology. Of course the spiritualists, mystics, and New Agey types would be the the first to deny that they bear any resemblance to such nonsense, while at the same time spinning their own particular brands.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I watched it. Great Doc. & Thank You! It does seem common place that when cults are backed into a corner, it's boom, boom, out go the lights. Isn't it funny how cults, whether formally fitting the definition of the term, or simply that which we become familiar with routinely in singular numbers that serve to fulfill it's mission identically, it always comes down to just one person. The saddest thing, possibly the most fascinating to the more so morose of us, is the fact that a person would be so lost, so without contextual identity, as to allow for such an emptying process to take place on such a primary level of what could only be likened to a vegetative subsistence. No wonder they were ready to check out. Wherein such a bleak transfiguration one could be gracefully lulled to suicide much like a baby being laid in the crib.

If anything, cults are irrevocable proof positive of the complete and total effectiveness of mind control and conditioning. It's mind blowing, however no less mind blowing than those who live within the context that denies that truth itself is purely subjective. Anyone that doesn't "get" that, just take a look a the faces of these people that are getting ready to commit suicide. Does the "truth" convince any of us, no matter how healthy we deem ourselves to be mentally, any more certainly? What is truth apart from mechanistic process, if not the assurance and the comfort that our certainties afford us? How fallible this process is, of comfort through awareness. So fallible that we test everything with the expectancy of failure first. We expect the worse, even within the presence of our comforts. Isn't ironic that this cult got where they were going via expecting the best? That's what happens when you go against nature and attempt to make friends with the bears and get devoured in the process. One man's sick psyche ate them all for breakfast, in bed no less.

I feel bad for these people. They were simply brainwashed. The way I see it, what happened to those poor 8 guys in terms of their castration is worse than the suicide they later endured. Just sick through and through.

 

[Randall]

Does the "truth" convince any of us, no matter how healthy we deem ourselves to be mentally, any more certainly?

Yes. When people see the truth they often change their views, and people have left cults and religions after seeing them for what they were.

What is truth apart from mechanistic process, if not the assurance and the comfort that our certainties afford us?

The truth doesn't always afford us comfort or assurance. Usually it's the other way around. We're more comfortable and assured believing what makes us feel comfortable and assured than facing the cold hard truth.

How fallible this process is, of comfort through awareness. So fallible that we test everything with the expectancy of failure first. We expect the worse, even within the presence of our comforts. Isn't ironic that this cult got where they were going via expecting the best? That's what happens when you go against nature and attempt to make friends with the bears and get devoured in the process. One man's sick psyche ate them all for breakfast, in bed no less.

Truth isn't a process. Truth is a state of affairs wherein what we propose is actually the way it is, and being aware of this doesn't always bring comfort.

 

[trainedobserver]

I thought the insight into Applewhite's motivations was excellent. Applewhite, raised to reject his own self as a broken and flawed individual, chooses to remake his physical being and reality to conform to idealized and glorified versions of his own invention. The people who gave themselves up to be brain washed by someone who had a psychotic break from reality follow his madness of trying to be something they are not. The constant talk of "above human" and not being "human" and not doing things "like a human" play to a universal theme in such "pursuits" where transcending or should I say abandoning human nature is offered as the goal rather than one of acceptance, integration, and maturity of yourself as a human being. The illusion of a perfect human, perfect being, or perfect state is often the enticement of such things and the prime marketing tool since the beginning of human commerce.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I thought the insight into Applewhite's motivations was excellent. Applewhite, raised to reject his own self as a broken and flawed individual, chooses to remake his physical being and reality to conform to idealized and glorified versions of his own invention. The people who gave themselves up to be brain washed by someone who had a psychotic break from reality follow his madness of trying to be something they are not. The constant talk of "above human" and not being "human" and not doing things "like a human" play to a universal theme in such "pursuits" where transcending or should I say abandoning human nature is offered as the goal rather than one of acceptance, integration, and maturity of yourself as a human being. The illusion of a perfect human, perfect being, or perfect state is often the enticement of such things and the prime marketing tool since the beginning of human commerce.

I just see the matter as being one wherein a very specific psychological condition attracted those with severe identity crises due to their own programming. The documentary did a very good job of elucidating this when they mentioned very early on about the cult's prospective attractiveness. There are a great deal of lost people out there. More as damaged goods due to their own inherent programming than anything else. For these people and their chosen cult, it was like fire and gasoline.

To rise above the human condition is not an issue. That is the oldest theme with respect to religion and mysticism that there is. Certainly not everyone kills themselves because they desire to be less materialistic and more spiritual in nature.

IMO, we are all brainwashed in one sense or another from a very early age by those that rear us.

The truth works like this. You go to the doctor to discover your health status. You know, just get a check up. The doctor informs you that you have approx. one year to live due to a terminal illness that you knew nothing of, or even suspected in the most remote sense that you had. Oh no. This truth stuff hurts, right? No, the truth doesn't hurt, your feelings concerning the truth do however. What is being referred to in the documentary is not the truth of anyone's specific mental condition, at any one specific time, but rather the truth of how they, the cult, viewed life. It was about the truth that they had accepted unto themselves. They were simply undefeatable at this point in their delusion. There is great comfort in being undefeatable. You feel down right secure. To many, and certainly not just the HG cult membership, the death sentence would mean alleviation from the mortal coil. A reuniting with family members already departed. Heaven's Gates await. That's the truth, for them. Status is status. Facts are facts. However, the truth they accepted is contingent on what they accepted as factual truth according to their programming. The truth is subjective, even if we know it's not. They knew it wasn't either.

 

[trainedobserver]

Jeff, those poor people were living a lie and an illusion and they suffered horribly for it, enslaved, entrained, and robbed of their humanity (and gonads) by their inability to discern truth from lie. There was no "truth" in any of it.

 

[Randall]

The truth works like this. You go to the doctor to discover your health status. You know, just get a check up. The doctor informs you that you have approx. one year to live due to a terminal illness that you knew nothing of, or even suspected in the most remote sense that you had. Oh no. This truth stuff hurts, right? No, the truth doesn't hurt, your feelings concerning the truth do however.

Not exactly. Using your example, the truth actually works like this: The doctor informs you that you have approx. one year to live due to a terminal illness. If you die in approx. one year from that terminal illness, then the doctor's prognosis was true. If not, then it was false.

What is being referred to in the documentary is not the truth of anyone's specific mental condition, at any one specific time, but rather the truth of how they, the cult, viewed life. It was about the truth that they had accepted unto themselves. They were simply undefeatable at this point in their delusion. There is great comfort in being undefeatable. You feel down right secure. To many, and certainly not just the HG cult membership, the death sentence would mean alleviation from the mortal coil. A reuniting with family members already departed. Heaven's Gates await. That's the truth, for them. Status is status. Facts are facts. However, the truth they accepted is contingent on what they accepted as factual truth according to their programming. The truth is subjective, even if we know it's not. They knew it wasn't either.

What you appear to be saying is that it's true that the way the cult members viewed life ( objective reality ) was delusional. I can't argue that point with you.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Jeff, those poor people were living a lie and an illusion and they suffered horribly for it, enslaved, entrained, and robbed of their humanity (and gonads) by their inability to discern truth from lie. There was no "truth" in any of it.

Actually, I am not so certain "they suffered horribly for it". I fully agree that others like family members suffered terribly, but not so much the cult members themselves. They were enraptured by the false truth that they had accepted and absolutely could not differentiate between it, and any other truths that they might have been presented with. I am not stating that what happened to them was a good thing in the least. Just that they certainly didn't seem to be suffering to me when we watched their interviews prior to the mass suicide. They were fully cognizant of the act itself and were very much eagerly looking forward to it. Naturally we see this as cruel via the programming and conditioning that they were not so much victimized by, but rather, willingly volunteered for. It's the fire and gasoline thing. Remember, it takes two, and each must be compelled in and of it's own conditional force. Think of the young couple that initially abandoned their children. The world is filled with so many weak and sick individuals who simply turn to delusion instead of accepting life's challenges and responsibilities. It takes as much to have as much. Sickness is, as sickness does. In such a scenario, it takes the multiple mentally deranged to make their sick world spin. Just like it takes all kinds to make the world of normalcy spin. It's an orientation thing. A human pack animal thing. There is no escape from nature no matter how idealistic we become. Is the very philosophy of idealism itself really any different than this cult's "above human" thinking? Nope.

 

[Randall]

I feel obligated to interject here that when it comes to UFOs and their connection with "spirituality", that from a ufology perspective, we're getting into fringe culture and history, with only a superficial connection to the serious study of the core phenomena ( alien craft ). To the objective ufologist, UFOs aren't "spiritual". They are craft of alien origin that are as much a part of our physical universe as anything else, and the aim is to discover more about them. The best evidence we could hope to obtain would be verifiable scientific evidence, but as of yet, such evidence has remained elusive, at least to civilians.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I feel obligated to interject here that when it comes to UFOs and their connection with "spirituality", that from a ufology perspective, we're getting into fringe culture and history, with only a superficial connection to the serious study of the core phenomena ( alien craft ). To the objective ufologist, UFOs aren't "spiritual". They are craft of alien origin that are as much a part of our physical universe as anything else, and the aim is to discover more about them. The best evidence we could hope to obtain would be verifiable scientific evidence, but as of yet, such evidence has remained elusive, at least to civilians.

Think about how many unverifiable truths there are in your belief system above. Are they still truths? All great men of science that have brought forth radical, and many not so radical, discoveries, have been referred to as delusional. Nothing new or undenibale there whatsoever. Consensus is merely the social footing that truth is afforded by the common idiot. History has shown us as much repeatedly.

 

[Randall]

Think about how many unverifiable truths there are in your belief system above. Are they still truths? All great men of science that have brought forth radical, and many not so radical, discoveries, have been referred to as delusional. Nothing new or undenibale there whatsoever. Consensus is merely the social footing that truth is afforded by the common idiot. History has shown us as much repeatedly.

You would need to be more clear about what you call unverifiable truths. Please provide a specific example and I'd be happy to discuss it.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Well, for one, there is no evidence whatsoever that UFOs are alien crafts. There is no evidence that they are solid material in a sense that we are familiar with. None whatsoever. You also do not know in the least whether there is a human spiritual connection to UFOs or not. It's utter hogwash to state that you do. So many assumptions. So little truth.

 

[Randall]

Well, for one, there is no evidence whatsoever that UFOs are alien crafts. There is no evidence that they are solid material in a sense that we are familiar with. None whatsoever. You also do not know in the least whether there is a human spiritual connection to UFOs or not. It's utter hogwash to state that you do. So many assumptions. So little truth.

Two problems. The first is regarding the evidence. If you check again you'll see that I wrote, "The best evidence we could hope to obtain would be verifiable scientific evidence, but as of yet, such evidence has remained elusive, at least to civilians." So I've posed no "unverifiable truth" there. In fact we seem to agree. The second is that I was using the word "UFO" in the context of how they are defined for the purpose of ufology studies, not in the context of any particular claim regarding their reality. That's why I said, "... from a ufology perspective, we're getting into fringe culture and history, with only a superficial connection to the serious study of the core phenomena ...". So again there is no "unverifiable truth" there. The only unverifiable truths are your own assumptions about what I was saying. However don't take that too hard. It's easy to jump to those conclusions without some prior discussion or a familiarity with serious ufology.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Two problems. The first is regarding the evidence. If you check again you'll see that I wrote, "The best evidence we could hope to obtain would be verifiable scientific evidence, but as of yet, such evidence has remained elusive, at least to civilians." So I've posed no "unverifiable truth" there. In fact we seem to agree. The second is that I was using the word "UFO" in the context of how they are defined for the purpose of ufology studies, not in the context of any particular claim regarding their reality. That's why I said, "... from a ufology perspective, we're getting into fringe culture and history, with only a superficial connection to the serious study of the core phenomena ...". So again there is no "unverifiable truth" there. The only unverifiable truths are your own assumptions about what I was saying. Don't take this too hard however because they are forgivable. It's easy to jump to those conclusions without some prior discussion or a familiarity with serious ufology.

Here is my opposition to your logic that denies the undefined nature of yes, you guessed it, unidentified flying objects. Also known as aerial phenomenon, or simply, UFOs.

If we start by fixating our perspectives on that which is "alien" to this world, hence, from outer space, or extraterrestrial, we are failing to examine the far more so likely scenario that UFOs represent an aspect of our own environment that we yet understand. I believe without reservation that humanity will discover a great deal more about it's integral role in a natural scheme of things that includes UFOs as being what are now just posits within a whole, that we ourselves are included within.

Ufology, we have to be able to step outside of our observational context here. If we can agree that our species' progress has been nothing short of phenomenal over the course of the last 2oo years, we have a very important point in mutual agreement on which I might successfully build perspective. Humanity's progressive awareness is absolutely, and verifiably, accelerating at an exponentially progressive rate. Along with the exponential rate of our advancements come the same number of conceptual perspective revisions. These perspective induced imagery correlation realignments create what is contextual relevance for our phenomenal observations to be defined, and subsequently, redefined within as our understandings progress.

It would seems most healthy to the cause if we were to at least consider the world we live in as a native host to UFOs, before attributing our own cultural relevancies to their perspective origins and identities.

We need to start with as little a stretch as is possible, and unless we start here with our investigations, rather than projecting their identities as being from way out there, we really can't make that claim.

I make no claims with respect to UFOs in terms of absolutes. There may be no other intelligence whatsoever involved apart from that of the observer, or we may simply be a long way from the top of the food chain right here on good ol' terra firma. I don't know, but I do know that I sure love a good mystery and UFOs make for very mysterious phenomenal considerations.

 

[Randall]

Here is my opposition to your logic that denies the undefined nature of yes, you guessed it, unidentified flying objects. Also known as aerial phenomenon, or simply, UFOs.

If we start by fixating our perspectives on that which is "alien" to this world, hence, from outer space, or extraterrestrial, we are failing to examine the far more so likely scenario that UFOs represent an aspect of our own environment that we yet understand. I believe without reservation that humanity will discover a great deal more about it's integral role in a natural scheme of things that includes UFOs as being what are now just posits within a whole, that we ourselves are included within.

You would be correct, however I use the word alien rather that extraterrestrial for a specific reason, and that reason is that the word alien suggests, but doesn't necessitate ET. The word alien is used in a sense not unlike the way we call a species from elsewhere that is introduced into a local environment an alien species, or the way we call a parasite from outside our bodies an alien organism. But in the context of UFOs, because we're dealing with a global phenomenon observed by people, what we mean is alien to our global civilization and its constructs.

This means that UFOs could be from within Earths environment, while remaining alien to the observers. Hypothetically, they could even be made by people from outside our global civilization ( a secret civilization ). This fits the situation better than any other definition I can think of, and takes your concerns into account. The fact that it is suggestive of ET isn't of any particular concern because that is a leading hypothesis among the various theories. If it weren't, then I'd agree that it would be more problematic.

Ufology, we have to be able to step outside of our observational context here. If we can agree that our species' progress has been nothing short of phenomenal over the course of the last 2oo years, we have a very important point in mutual agreement on which I might successfully build perspective. Humanity's progressive awareness is absolutely, and verifiably, accelerating at an exponentially progressive rate. Along with the exponential rate of our advancements come the same number of conceptual perspective revisions. These perspective induced imagery correlation realignments create what is contextual relevance for our phenomenal observations to be defined, and subsequently, redefined within as our understandings progress.

If I understand you correctly, that makes perfect sense, which is exactly why I don't use the words ET, or ultradimentsional, or transports from Hell, or any number of other presumptions that we can't substantiate. About all we can substantiate is that core phenomenon is material, detectable by our senses and instrumentation ( e.g. radar ), and not identifiable as anything natural or manmade, which for all intent and purposes makes it alien ( but not necessarily ET ).

It would seems most healthy to the cause if we were to at least consider the world we live in as a native host to UFOs, before attributing our own cultural relevancies to their perspective origins and identities. We need to start with as little a stretch as is possible, and unless we start here with our investigations, rather than projecting their identities as being from way out there, we really can't make that claim.

That is perfectly reasonable, and it's also what serious investigators have been doing since the mid 1940s. Early USAF investigations concluded that UFOs were probably ET, specifically interplanetary, and these were people with Top Secret clearance who would have known if there were any secret military projects that were the cause. We know now that an interplanetary hypothesis isn't very likely, so that moves it into the realm of the interstellar, or as you suggest, perhaps some other undiscovered Earth based location, or if you really stretch it, something from outside our spacetime construct.

I make no claims with respect to UFOs in terms of absolutes. There may be no other intelligence whatsoever involved apart from that of the observer, or we may simply be a long way from the top of the food chain right here on good ol' terra firma. I don't know, but I do know that I sure love a good mystery and UFOs make for very mysterious phenomenal considerations.

That's fair. I am willing to go further and make the claim, that despite the lack of sufficient scientific material evidence, the rest of the evidence still makes it's reasonable to believe UFOs are alien ( as clarified here ), and I would go even further to claim that it's reasonable to believe there is some sort of intelligence behind them.

 

[Jeff Davis]

You would be correct, however I use the word alien rather that extraterrestrial for a specific reason, and that reason is that the word alien suggests, but doesn't necessitate ET. The word alien is used in a sense not unlike the way we call a species from elsewhere that is introduced into a local environment an alien species, or the way we call a parasite from outside our bodies an alien organism. But in the context of UFOs, because we're dealing with a global phenomenon observed by people, what we mean is alien to our global civilization and its constructs.

This means that UFOs could be from within Earths environment, while remaining alien to the observers. Hypothetically, they could even be made by people from outside our global civilization ( a secret civilization ). This fits the situation better than any other definition I can think of, and takes your concerns into account. The fact that it is suggestive of ET isn't of any particular concern because that is a leading hypothesis among the various theories. If it weren't, then I'd agree that it would be more problematic.

If I understand you correctly, that makes perfect sense, which is exactly why I don't use the words ET, or ultradimentsional, or transports from Hell, or any number of other presumptions that we can't substantiate. About all we can substantiate is that core phenomenon is material, detectable by our senses and instrumentation ( e.g. radar ), and not identifiable as anything natural or manmade, which for all intent and purposes makes it alien ( but not necessarily ET ).

That is perfectly reasonable, and it's also what serious investigators have been doing since the mid 1940s. Early USAF investigations concluded that UFOs were probably ET, specifically interplanetary, and these were people with Top Secret clearance who would have known if there were any secret military projects that were the cause. We know now that an interplanetary hypothesis isn't very likely, so that moves it into the realm of the interstellar, or as you suggest, perhaps some other undiscovered Earth based location, or if you really stretch it, something from outside our spacetime construct.

That's fair. I am willing to go further and make the claim, that despite the lack of sufficient scientific material evidence, the rest of the evidence still makes it's reasonable to believe UFOs are alien ( as clarified here ), and I would go even further to claim that it's reasonable to believe there is some sort of intelligence behind them.

Frankly, and absolutely amazingly, we are in perfect agreement. Prior to this post, I honestly thought that you were a staunch ETH kind of Ufologist. I don't deny that UFOs may represent a specific technology that ET utilizes to routinely, in vast and tremendously varying numbers, coming here to have a look see. Although quite honestly, after taking in everything that I have over roughly the last 40 years, I find the notion of as much totally absurd.

IMO (strictly/honestly), I absolutely have adopted the belief that there is an intelligence other than the observer involved. I don't know that. It's not a "truth" by any means, but it is what I believe. Subsequently, I believe that we are dealing with just one singular intelligence in any case. Whether that equates to an all us scenario, or a scenario that includes them and us, I don't know, but I truthfully suspect that there are two distinctly different parties involved in the UFO mystery and not just an aberration in the mind of the observer. Even if those two separate parties are both human in nature.

I have been reading the excellent post/thread that @exo_doc provided dealing with the Holographic Universe. IMO, maybe I am wrong, but in a way it seems as though the idea of computerized mathematical simulations depicting the cosmological make up of our universe are a very precise continuation of what is phenomenalism. This has always seemed extremely logical to me.

Why? Because continuously I listen/read, and understandably accept people's thoughts like yourself and trainedobserver referring to our perception of reality as being very limited. What we take in via the information that we personally process concerning what is going on all around us is nothing like what is actually taking place that we are unaware of as a whole. There is simply so much information within our universe that we by, and due to, our naturally adaptive orientations within nature, have no means to process apart from the computational processing that these super computers afford us. Again this seems very much akin to what is phenomenalism due to the fact that we are imaging something (the cosmos) that is based on what is purely informational input beyond the construct of what human awareness affords us. Does this seem reasonable to you?

 

[trainedobserver]

"Spirituality", strange beliefs, and cults have most definitely gone part and parcel with UFOs from the onset. Unidentified Flying Objects are by definition of unknown origin and nature. That's all I'm going to say about that as this pointless debate about what the acronym U.F.O. means and how it should be used. It's absurd to keep doing this. Some UFOs may be alien craft, while others may not.

If you only want to study Flying Objects that have Identified as "Alien Crafts" then I have to wonder just how many you have to "study" and why you would insist on calling them "Unidentified" if you have Identified them as alien? <----rhetorical question.

 

[trainedobserver]

It would seems most healthy to the cause if we were to at least consider the world we live in as a native host to UFOs, before attributing our own cultural relevancies to their perspective origins and identities.

It would seem to be so. While possibly native to the earth they are as Randell would rightly point out "alien" to the general human population. Given the history of UFO reports it certainly seems that some may be coming from somewhere "other than" any known human civilization on the planet. Beyond that ...

I think our perceptional resource limitations could irrevocably mask a great deal of activity, beings, and things that could be coexisting with us on the planet.

 

[Randall]

"Spirituality", strange beliefs, and cults have most definitely gone part and parcel with UFOs from the onset. Unidentified Flying Objects are by definition of unknown origin and nature. That's all I'm going to say about that as this pointless debate about what the acronym U.F.O. means and how it should be used. It's absurd to keep doing this. Some UFOs may be alien craft, while others may not.

If you only want to study Flying Objects that have Identified as "Alien Crafts" then I have to wonder just how many you have to "study" and why you would insist on calling them "Unidentified" if you have Identified them as alien? <----rhetorical question.

Not only do I disagree, it's not reasonable for you to post your opinion and at the same time shut down discussion about it. So if you don't want to discuss how the word UFO is best defined, then you shouldn't bring it up. As always, if you have some specific objection to the facts or reasoning in my article on what UFOs are, then by all means quote the parts you don't think are accurate or don't make sense and we'll discuss them. Make a good enough case and I'll change my views.