Ectoplasm Gone Wild: Why Blood Sacrifice should be Avoided Today

[causticus]

In the other thread I ended up penning a rather lengthily comment reply to boccaderlupo on the topic of Neopagan blood sacrifice, and it just occurred to me that this should be its own topic. And thus, a post!

From all the occult reading and rumination I've done on this topic, I've come to the conclusion that ritualistic blood sacrifice is something to be explicitly AVOIDED unless the practice is part of a well-established lineage that goes back to practitioners who actually understood the occult mechanics of what they were doing. (How many Neopagans today can substantiate this type of teaching lineage?)

Otherwise, when done today simply for the sake of pageantry aesthetics (which I suspect is the case with almost all Neopagans who attempt this), this practice will run a huge risk of inviting in unwanted spirits. Basically, spilt animal blood is etheric jet fuel to discarnate entities. Blood is the most etheric-rich physical substance and a spirit absorbing the released energy from bloodletting allows them to manifest and project into the physical world. We can use the term "ectoplasm" for the etheric appendages spirits can manifest when sufficiently-fed with this type of energy; these appendages allow them to interface with physical phenomena in a limited manner; for example, how a ghost or house spirit is able to rap on hard surfaces or knock dishes off a shelf.

With these types of serious practice, an established orthopraxy is crucial. Of course historical polytheists usually weren't giving away free blood snacks to cruddy spirits. On the contrary, their rites were specifically designed to attract the kinds of entities that could bring benefit to their community. As an example, a sacrifice could be made to a Sylvan or Faun spirit that participates in the energy of a major god from the culture's pantheon (the major deity name would be invoked during the rite). The spirit would show up at the site of the ritual and consume the energetic food released during the sacrifice. In exchange, the spirit would repay the priest(s) by helping their village's crops grow grander and more vibrant than they would unaided; the spirits would do this by infusing extra life force (etheric energy) into the crop plants. We can see here how sacrifices were a quid-pro-quo sort of arrangement. The spirits get fed and in exchange they do whatever they can to help out the humans calling upon them. Of course, even the proper sacrificial practices can end up going septic. Priests claiming to serve their culture's proper deities can end up feeding cruddy spirits in exchange for "gifts" that help them augment their own personal power. The absolute worst example of this sort of priestly degradation is the Aztec human sacrifice mass-hysteria that led to the downfall of their civilization.

Today, humans living in affluent, high-tech countries use industrial technology to do the things (like increase crop yields) we had to make deals with spirits in the past to do. So when some group of aesthetic reenactors sacrifice a pig, they are doing so entirely removed from any cultural context where such a practice may have been useful and just. I would ask the simple question: Just how many of these neopagan reenactors grow all their own food and do so without the aid of industrial technology? I would guess most of them procure 99%+ of their food from the local big-box supermarket like everyone else around them does.

Indeed, these practices are not to be taken lightly! There are countless other substances besides animal blood than can and should be sacrificed to Gods, spirits, saints, angels, heroes, ancestors ect.

Comments

[neptunesdolphins]

I remember reading in the Bible about corrupt priests (Hebrew) and their blood offerings going awry. It was in one of the books of Samuel. Anyway, you are correct in the lineage and the not playing around.

I often wonder about the pig sacrifices and the downfall of Theodism was not connected in some way.

[causticus]

Interesting. I suspect that Judaism (and then later Abrahamisms) came about largely as reaction to the various decrepit and degenerate forms of polythesitic cults of the time. The way any cultic praxis can go awry is something Neopagans today tend to whitewash or just not be aware of in the first place. Really, it can apply to any and all sorts of religious expressions, including monotheistic ones.

[goatgodschild]

The degradation you're talking about can happen quick in a community. Guy who was leading a pagan group I was in said that I had offended the gods with my rude requests, and so I should sacrifice three drops of blood to make up for it.

I couldn't feel anything from Pan saying that I had done this, and he was the god I had supposedly offended!

No blood was spilt, and I left the group that day.

[causticus]

Great to hear you got away from that nasty situation real fast! It sounds like this guy might have been cutting deals with low-grade entities. Your intuition and connection to Pan saved you from this potentially-harmful influence.

[boccaderlupo]

Indeed, sounds like blessed Pan was watching out for you, and may have saved you from a not-so-great end at the hands of this guru.

(Gurus in general give me the creeps, personally, but they seem to arise in any context, both secular and religious, where human hierarchies develop...but that is perhaps another topic altogether.)

Alternately, I suspect there is good reason that some of the Big Monotheist cults have an aversion to pork, and it's not merely trichinosis.

And more to the topic of this post, I suspect there's a reason wine is employed in many ritualistic contexts...

Axé and all blessings to you.

[d_mekel]

Where would hunting fall? What if one killed a deer for food, but at the same time used the opportunity to honor diana/artemis/whatever hunting God and goddess? Not necessarily done as a sacrifice.

[causticus]

Saying a quick prayer or call-out I think is fine. As long as it's not a formal ritual being conducted, I think simply acknowledging a deity and thanking them is perfectly safe.

[violetcabra]

Something I note is that the question of animal sacrifice is one of the major and most vexed issues in the polytheist revivalist/reconstructionist scene. It almost acts as a dividing line between difference in approach. For instance, Galina Krasskova has written extensively on the importance of appropriate animal sacrifice on her blog, with this as one example: https://krasskova.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/the-politics-of-sacrifice/ Elsewhere, she has discussed many of the rites of animal sacrifice she has performed, apparently to good effect.

On the other hand, John Michael Greer and polytheists influenced by the Golden Dawn Tradition seem to take a hard line against animal sacrifice. John Michael Greer writes in his book on Monsters that outside of traditional contexts it draws demonic beings. On my end, I'm more in the Ecospohia clique than Krasskova's clique, and so I take JMG's warnings seriously. To be fair to Krasskova, she does highlight the dangers and importance of competent ritual technicians.

In my own life I have slaughtered animals for food: I've killed numerous chickens, a sheep, and butchered many deer, squirrels, and some rabbits and a groundhog. Having watched animals bleed to death in front of me I have immense disgust and repulsion to the idea of combining death and blood with religious practice and would avoid groups that engaged in that. The whole thing I find profoundly creepy. Personally, I'd always prefer to stick with prayer, frankincense, and libations, which the Neoplatonists found more than adequate.

[causticus]

Yeah as you can see I too am clearly in the GD / Ecosophia camp on this issue.

Krasskova's case for animal sacrifice basically boils down to, (1) "Our long-ago ancestors practiced it, therefore it's good" (This line of logic can end up producing some rather sketchy conclusions, but I digress), and (2) Christian oppressors/invaders banned the practice, therefore reviving the practice is a rightful act of reclaiming our wrongfully-suppressed heritage." I think the second point, which seems to employ idpol logic, is a bit myopic, as it ignores the examples of other cultures/religions around the world who frowned on this practice, and instead frames the issue entirely within the dichotomy of "Christianity vs. everything Christianity suppressed."

Essentially, I find her pro-sacrifice arguments to be rather weak on abstract moral grounds (blind appeals to "tradition" never really do it for me), but in terms of practice and the lived experience that comes from practice, she certainly knows a ton more than I do about animal sacrifice as performed by whatever reconstructed praxis she and her peers have been employing. The question then is, is this reconstructed praxis a "traditional context," or is it a rough guess based on fragmentary evidence? I have no answer to that and thus must leave it an open question. Color me weary, however.

Finally, I appreciate you sharing your direct experience on the slaughtering of animals. I think it helps frame this issue in a more vivid light.

[(Anonymous)]

It's worth noting that Krasskova claims training in an African Diaspora tradition--from a Voudou house, I think, but I could be wrong about that. So her work isn't entirely a rough guess, but a transposition of a different tradition's practices to fill in the gaps of that fragmentary evidence.

Personally I don't find the arguments convincing either, but since I'm a vegetarian by oath and vegan by conviction, I am completely biased. Because of that, I usually keep quiet, let the omnivores duke it out, and pray that anyone who does engage in sacrifice gives the animal a better end than a corporate slaughterhouse (which is not difficult, to say the least).

--Sister Crow

[causticus]

Sister Crow, yeah that's one of the things I like about her the most; that is, her willingness to combine different methods from different sources when it comes to formulating a praxis. Vs. say, strict reconstructionists who will only use practices derived from academic sources relating to whatever cultural time capsule they're trying to resurrect.

[boccaderlupo]

There are folks in my neck of the woods—Candomblé and Santeria practitioners—who actively employ animal sacrifice. But these are from established traditions. Barring that, or an extremely well-developed understanding of the dynamics involved in such rituals, I would personally stay away. Just my opinion.

[randomactsofkarmasc]

Fortune, in the Mystical Qabalah, defines sacrifice as "the transmutation of force" or "the deliberate and open-eyed choice of a greater good in preference to a lesser good". Her example: "For instance, a man may sacrifice his emotions to his career; or a woman may sacrifice her career to her emotions. If the cut is clean, and there is no repining, an immense amount of psychic energy is released for use in the chosen channel."

Also, "When we make a sacrifice of any sort, we take a static form of energy, and by breaking up the form that imprisons it, put it into free circulation in the cosmos." (So burning incense releases it from form.)

IIRC, she doesn't discuss blood sacrifices at all, but it seems to me that a group "sacrifices" a pig, the group isn't making the sacrifice, the pig (if it had a choice in the matter) would be.

Roman Sacrifice

[(Anonymous)]

Take my perspective with a shaker of salt, but I think the Roman model might shed some light on things.

The Tarquin kings of Rome conducted blood sacrifices for a while until the native Romans threw them out on their ears and instituted a Republic along with banning all blood sacrifice, urging the people to return to a simpler, purer form of sacrifice taught to ancient King Numa that included only salted grain and wine. Yet the Romans continued to sacrifice cows to Jupiter and Sows to Ceres, so what gives?

I think there's a big difference in sacrificing the life of the animal versus sacrificing its meat. When a public sacrifice for the sake of all the Roman people was conducted to Jupiter, first a white cow was brought to the altar and sprinkled with salt mixed with grain to purify it and mark it as sacred to Jupiter. If the cow lowered its head and approached the altar, it was seen as consenting to the sacrifice. Next, and here's the important bit, the cow was led off to the side, killed and butchered by an expert butcher. All the meat and organs were offered to Jupiter, prayers and rituals commenced, entrails were read to see if the sacrifice was accepted, and if all went well the flamine conducting the ritual would then mark a portion of the meat as profane (i.e. blessed by Jupiter's presence but no longer under his ownership) and it would be roasted and shared out to everybody attending as part of a grand feast with Jupiter as an honoured guest.

Note that the animal is killed off to the side, its blood returned to the earth from which it came. It doesn't lose its life on the altar as part of the ritual, it loses its life because that's the only way to turn it into a fancy steak dinner, and that's only after it had been sanctified and signaled its consent to the rite.
It's the meat that's being offered, not the life (though I like to imagine the cow's spirit receives a kindly rub on the snout and a "you did good, well done" from Jupiter as it leaves its body behind).

Compare that to the Aztecs ripping the hearts out of innocent women and children, gleefully watching them die atop a step pyramid and painting its steps red with their blood. Though there's little evidence for it I'm fairly convinced the Aztec "gods" were demons that displaced a previous pantheon, and the Aztecs were an invading people that made a terrible deal with demons that allowed them to wipe out the original builders of those pyramids (I mean honestly! How do you build a suspiciously Old Kingdom Egyptian style pyramid without a system of mathematics or writing? The early Spanish accounts seem to scream "We killed the people who built this place and now we're living in their city").

So I think it's important to make a distinction between offering the blood and life of an animal, versus offering the meat of the animal with death as a necessary side effect. Where it gets tricky is the Norse offering slain enemy kings and soldiers to Odin and Roman generals dedicating all the enemies they will slay in the upcoming battle to Dis Pater/Pluto/other underworld deities. I'm not sure I understand the rationale for those just yet. Perhaps Human Sacrifice (https://youtube.com/watch?t=2m12s&v=QnvUfkpBM5g) deserves its own topic.

Re: Roman Sacrifice

[causticus]

1. Yeah I agree, what the Romans did was meat sacrifice, not blood sacrifice. It seems like a running theme throughout history is that certain religious reformers tend to ban blood sacrifice, like they are purifying the religion by purging it of malefic practices. In this case, Numa being the reformer.

2. On the Aztec Gods, I'm not sure of the historical Aztec orgy of industrial-scale human sacrifice was because those Gods themselves were evil by nature, or that it was the priests who were working with evil beings who were (mis)representing themselves as those Gods. Some contemporary anecdotal accounts I've come across challenges the idea that the Aztec pantheon was evil. A friend of mine (he's of Mexican ancestry) has reported visionary experiences of one particular Aztec deity and ever since has had a fascination with the Aztec (and Mesoamerican in general) religion. There's nothing in her personality and demeanor that indicates he's under any demonic influence, at least not from my vantage point or from that of the perspective of any of our mutual friends. Second, there is a frequent commenter on MM (he lives in Mexico, IIRC) who has also claimed interaction with the Aztec Gods and he says there's not evil or inherently violent at all, just a bit intense. Then again, if those entities really are evil, they could just be playing nice for now and patiently waiting until they re-gain enough followers before the fun begins once again.

3. On that last part, I don't think this would at all qualify as human sacrifice, rather I think the act of Roman generals dedicating all the enemies they will slay in the upcoming battle to Dis Pater/Pluto/other underworld deities, is merely an acknowledgment of the humanity of their enemies, since really all the dead are expected to pass through the underworld. This is no different that a general of a Christian army declaring that the slain enemies will meet God/Christ. Same with the Odin business you refer to.

[sdi]

Forgive me for being four months late to the discussion, causticus, but I was reading Porphyry and was reminded of you: https://sdi.dreamwidth.org/58778.html

[causticus]

Ohh, thanks for this! What a gem of an excerpt from Porphyry!