Messages

In this recent podcast the "churches" chemist explains his process of investigating the substance and what he has found so far. He is more circumspect in his descriptions than the PR the church put out. Though he feels he really may have found it. I can't comment on his chemical analysis. Perhaps others who are more molecularly fluent here can?
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/entheogenic/episodes/2024-03-25T10_00_00-07_00

Really good analysis by David Nickles of Psymposia

https://www.psymposia.com/magazine/church-of-psilomethoxin-part-1-sacramental-skepticism-is-the-church-in-denial-church-of-the-sacred-synthesis/




 

Rainbowbody,

It would be illegal to work collaboratively with them (other than them sending a sample to a lab) because one way or another they are engaged in an illegal enterprise. Psilocybin and 5 MeO are illegal and both are used in their attempted biosynthesis to make their alleged psilomethoxin. I have no issue with people transgressing the law to practice their religious and cognitive freedom. Yet, to do so publicly without a clear strategy and with a lot of, IMO, lack of discernment and clear thinking is foolish and dangerous. 

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....

Hi Rising,

I don't think they are intentionally being fraudulent. I think they, more or less, believe their misguided and misinformed views though I also think this entails a lot of avoidance and denial on their part. I'm somewhat familiar with the principals in the "church" and want to discuss this with them in a way that is considerate of where they are at while also being honest, clear and accurate. Of course, as in any dialog, it takes a willingness on both parts to engage and see ones blind spots and how strongly held positions may be in error.  This may not be possible with them. 

Here is an article by the pharmacologist Mario de la Fuente :

Opinions | The Church of Psilomethoxin: Fantasy Chemistry Gets Fact Checked

https://psychedelicalpha.com/news/opinions-the-church-of-psilomethoxin-fantasy-chemistry-gets-fact-checked

Some of the questions I have for people who are more pharmacologically fluent then myself are:
-Is Psilomethoxin similar enough to a neurotoxic tyrptamine like 5,7-Dihydroxytryptamine? Mario seems to think so yet I have read elsewhere that it is not likely to be.

-What are the specific amounts of the psilocybin alkaloids found in the sample and how do they compare to those of psilocybin samples of similar weights?

-Is Dr Sherwood's answer to the question of whether a reference sample of psilomethoxin is necessary to affirm or deny it's presence well grounded (it sounds like it is to my ears) This is what he wrote on this board or at least was quoted here:

"That's a great question!Although psilomethoxin had not been produced as a standard (this is underway and hence why the manuscript is a preprint), we were able to search for the presence or absence of it based on its proposed molecular structure and its exact monoisotopic mass. By comparing the retention time and accurate mass of the ions detected in the sample with those of known tryptamines, it was quite clear that psilomethoxin was not detected in the sample (and would have been if present)."

These questions are all relevant in being able to push back on what will likely be the churches objections.

Thanks

I will eventually do a more in depth analysis of what the Church of Psilomethoxin wrote in response to the Usona paper. These are my initial thoughts. 

Their whole endeavor is predicated on the assertion that they are producing, distributing and using psilomethoxin. That is the name of their church. Their legal claims for being able to use it are based on its alleged legality  because it is not specifically listed as a scheduled substance (though this is highly dubious given that it's pharmacological structure and phenomenological effects are so similar to other scheduled substances that it would likely be covered under the Analog Drug Act).

Their claim that a reference sample is needed to affirm or deny the presence of psilomethoxin appears to be sketchy.  Here is how one of the papers authors answered that:
"Although psilomethoxin had not been produced as a standard (this is underway and hence why the manuscript is a preprint), we were able to search for the presence or absence of it based on its proposed molecular structure and its exact monoisotopic mass. By comparing the retention time and accurate mass of the ions detected in the sample with those of known tryptamines, it was quite clear that psilomethoxin was not detected in the sample (and would have been if present)."

The argument that the presence of psilomethoxin in their sacrament is a religious belief is specious and incredible. This is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of chemistry. Religious beliefs have to do with a wide range of metaphysical, theological and existential assertions. Whether or not a specific molecular configuration is present in a given substance is not in the domain of religion. It is the domain of physics and chemistry.

While no psilomethoxin has been found, psilocybin, psilocybin and baeocystin were found (this is at least the second analysis that has shown this). Their response was to call these "trace" amounts. I will have to look into what these levels are. People sometimes say there are only trace or small amounts of DMT in ayahuasca. This may be true in terms of absolute weight yet not in terms of efficacy.

I'll note too that on social media they are referring to the Usona paper as being AI generated. Of course, they are not backing that assertion up with any clear reasoning much less evidence!

Beyond this their claim to be a church with members who express sincere beliefs is also very shaky. Anyone will be sent the capsules as long as they answer the questions in an appropriate way. It is not required to have one on one much less face to face discussions and relationships to procure the capsules. And, of course, those who obtain them can store, use and distribute them in any way they want. If nothing else this would never fly with the likely federal regulations that may evolve (and this is a federal matter since they are using interstate mail).

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 characterised 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 characterise 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 and amazing medicines, sacraments, agents....
More to come.

Hi Everyone,


Glad to be here. I was invited to join this group by one of the administrators after we engaged in some discussions about the claims of the Church of Psilomethoxin. I have been drinking ayahuasca and santo daime for 23 years as well as making use of other sacred medicines (and when I was younger I used a variety of substances in more haphazard ways). 18 years ago I began to become involved in legal and organizing issues first with the Santo Daime then with the broader ayahausca and sacred medicine community. In particular I have been involved with the Ayahuasca Defense Fund and the Chacruna Institute for Psychedelic Plant Medicine. I am also a co founder and board member of the Sacred Plant Alliance-a self regulating association of spiritual congregations using sacred medicines based on best practices and community education and empowerment.



I have been instrumental in helping to form a couple congregations and am in the process of doing so now with a number of friends, colleagues and mentors. We are a syncretic congregation involving UmbandaDaime (an Afro Brazilian lineage), indigenous beliefs and practices especially via the Guarani people of SE Brazil, Buddhist Dharma (with lineage holders in the Soto and Kagyu traditions as well as major influences from the classical Pali based traditions and contemporary inquiry) and somatic practices.

I am thankful for the many in depth discussions and civil discussions I see taking place here and look forward to participating in them.