ABOUT THE CHURCH OF PSILOMETHOXIN CONTROVERSY
[The views expressed below are my personal opinions. They do not represent those of any organizations I may be associated with]
There has been considerable controversy about the Church of Psilomethoxin since the publication of a study (pre print) by researchers at Usona who determined that samples of the churches sacrament contained psilocybin, psilocin and baeocytin but no psilomethoxin.
Some people believe this indicates that the Church of Psilomethoxin and its principals have been engaged in fraud. I don’t think this is the case. I think they believe what they have been asserting though I also feel this has been mixed with avoidance, denial and a lack of critical thinking. Yet, this is not necessarily mutually exclusive with being sincere.
While the researchers have only found psilocybin and not psilomethoxin I can’t discount the reports of people who are very experienced with tryptamines who say the churches sacrament seem qualitatively different from psilocybin. These are anecdotal reports and they could be influenced by suggestion. Yet, it’s also possible what they experience is due to a novel tryptamine or variant of psilocybin.
These are speculations of course. And I believe they underscore one reason why it was a serious misjudgment to publicly promote this church until these questions were resolved. If you can’t be clear what substance you are using how can you know it is safe? For instance it took a number of years to get a handle on the what the safe dosage and frequency of use for MDMA might be. And in that case it was at least clear what the substance was.
I’m a bit taken aback by the churches claim that the have “never, at any time, laid claim to the fact that Psilomethoxin has ever been positively identified in its sacrament.” This rings hollow in my ears. They are called the Church of Psilomethoxin. They clearly maintain that psilomethoxin is contained in the mushroom fruiting bodies that they dry.
The alleged legality of the church is based on the notion that psilomethoxin is not specifically scheduled in the Controlled Substance Act. Though even this is questionable since its pharmacological structure and its alleged phenomenological effects are close enough to other scheduled substances to be covered under the Analog Drug Act.
Likewise the churches assertion that: “Our claims to the existence of Psilomethoxin, at this time, are solely based on faith, bolstered by our and our members’ own direct experiences with the Sacrament” seems specious at best. The presence of a particular molecular structure in a compound is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of chemical analysis. And people can’t evaluate through their “direct experience” the pharmacology of a substance that neither they nor anyone to our knowledge has used before.
Sending this substance through the mail to members also raises a host of issues. As already noted it’s not clear what the substance is and whether it would be considered a controlled substance (given that it appears to contain psilocybin it certainly would be considered a controlled substance).
To be a member one needs to fill out a simple online questionnaire, pay a membership fee and then pay the cost of procuring the substance. This hardly seems to constitute an actual membership in a religious congregation.
The fact that the church has no control over what happens to the substance once it leaves their premise would never accord with the case law we have for least restrictive means for RFRA if, as is likely, it is considered a controlled substance.
The actual production of the substance itself raises other legal questions given that both psilocybin and 5 Men DMT are illegal. Again to my mind it seems premature to create and promote a church when so many outstanding questions need to be considered and resolved. In my view it’s best to be patient, do research and quietly build a community instead of marketing it to a wide public.
I believe the principals involved with the Church of Psilomethoxin are basically good people who got carried away with their enthusiasm. I hope they can navigate through this in a way that has integrity, is sensible and understands the social, legal and spiritual complexities they are facing, and that we all are, with the unfolding of psychedelics in our culture.
FYI, I feel people should be, more or less, free to use psychedelics as they wish with whom they wish regardless of how that use is characterized as long as it is done in a safe and ethical manner.
Yet, we are far from that social and legal reality. I think it is incumbent that we characterize our beliefs, use and engagements in an honest, authentic and integris way as we move forward in claiming our full freedom to use these powerful healing and illuminating medicines, sacraments, agents....
