Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker extras:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebook

Demonology and Theosophical Aliens | True Freethinker

One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships.
—Arthur C. Clarke, New York Times Book Review, July 27, 1975 AD

…any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
—one of Arthur C. Clarke’s three laws

Herein we will consider the contents of an article by Christopher Partridge, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University College Chester, “Alien demonology: the Christian roots of the malevolent extraterrestrial in UFO religions and abduction spiritualities,” Religion, Volume 34, Issue 3, July 2004 AD, pp. 163-189

In this interesting article Christopher Partridge focuses on the Theosophical nature of what he terms “UFO religions” and also the shift from viewing “aliens” as extra-terrestrials to viewing them in the Judeo-Christian demonic context (what I term extra-dimensionals; E.D.s and not E.T.s).

Let us begin with his succinct definition or “Theosophy”:
Arguably, ‘Theosophy’ can be traced back through Plotinus, Ammonius Saccas, and Plato to Pythagorean Greece. It has since surfaced periodically in Western esotericism, being, as Emily Seddon and Renee Weber point out, ‘most legitimately associated with figures such as Meister Eckhart, Giordano Bruno, Emanuel Swedenborg, and Jacob Boehme’ (Sellon and Weber, 1992, p. 311). Following a period of obscurity, it was then revived at the end of the nineteenth century by the Russian occultist Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and an American, Henry Steel Olcott, who in 1875 founded the Theosophical Society in New York.

Thus, he notes:
because UFO religions have their roots in the Theosophical tradition, the religious understanding of the extraterrestrial tended to be fundamentally indebted to the concept of the wise and benevolent ascended master…the Theosophical tradition has proved to be enormously significant in the history of UFO religion…UFO religion has been dominated by those from within the Theosophical tradition…
Blavatsky…speculated about the Venusian ‘Lords of the Flame’, which, according to Charles Leadbeater’s interpretation of the concept…were of the highest rank in the hierarchy of ascended masters. This is why there is such a long history of looking up to (pun intended) “aliens” as higher beings; either technologically, spiritually or some combination thereof. They are anti-Christs in the sense of being replacements for Christ Jesus, the savior, as the “aliens” can save humanity from our violence towards each other and the Earth:

UFO groups and contactees of the 1950s claimed to have received messages from highly spiritually evolved, morally superior, technologically advanced, benevolent beings with a deep salvific concern for a humanity.

The other side of the article’s coin is stated as such:
in their construction of the malevolent alien, UFO religionists and abductees turn not to Theosophy and Eastern religious traditions but to the myths and symbols of Christian demonology.

These two extremes, as it were, come together in some personages’ views:
[David] Icke’s relatively complex thesis is interesting in that, whilst it is highly critical of Christianity, its fundamental ideas demonstrate a dependence on Christian demonology.

Before continuing, note that Adolf Hitler himself was deeply into, and the Nazi Reich was premised upon, Theosophy. It is readily discernible how the concepts of Theosophy, which includes Eastern mysticism, were incorporated into Nazism where it was expressed by a frowny face and in the New Age movement where it is expressed by a happy face:
The SS Ahnenerbe made a trip to Iceland and studied the ancient ruins and the Nordic Edda with a fine-tooth comb. The purpose was to discover the entrance to “Thule” (Mythical Aryan capital of the inner earth). This led them to an expedition to Tibet led by Dr. Ernst Schafer in 1934-36 and again in 1936-39.
The Buddhist Monks received the Nazis with great joy. They saw the Nazis as a prophetic fulfillment of the ones possessing the Shamballa power to complete the Dharma or cycle of the fifth root race, The Aryan. The monks accommodated them in every way.
They gave the Nazi expedition a 108 volume sacred text and allowed entrance into the cavernous systems sealed off from the rest of civilization for ages. This produced scientific studies in earth magnetism, and other geophysical experiments, as well as ethnological studies.
In their zeal to help fulfill the Nazi destiny over 200 monks were made SS officers and assigned to Himmler’s staff as advisors at the Wewelsburg Castle. This was Himmler’s occult center and think tank.
This was acceptable to Nazi ideology as they viewed the Hindu Indians and Tibetan Asians to be “spiritual Aryans”. They believed that both groups were a connecting link to their own Aryan bloodline and descendants of the subterranean supermen. Their religions of Hinduism and Buddhism were a reflection of the religion of the Subterranean culture….
Just as Hitler described in “Mein Kamph”, there is in a sense a Hierarchy of leadership within the New Age. They are all Globalist’s as this is part of the Agenda. According to Alice Bailey’s writings,
“The Plan is the organized program of the spiritual Hierarchy to get a selected portion of mankind to the next evolutionary level. Since quality is vital for starting the next “root- race”, only selected “star seed” people are designated to make the quantum leap into the next level of human transformation, but even these need careful preparation by more advanced spirits lest they “burnout” in the transition.”
—Jim Wilhelmsen, Beyond Science Fiction! (iUniverse, 2004 AD), pp. 89, 147 (see my review of this book here)

Christopher Partridge refers to the fact that the occultist, psychotherapist and psychiatrist Carl Jung referred to “aliens” as “technological angel” (Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies, Signet Books, New York, first ed. 1959 AD). Based on this concept he states:

The alien as technological demon is popular because it seems plausible, seems plausible because it seems familiar, and seems familiar because it has been constructed from Western demonology.

Note that he implies that it is all a matter of interpretation and we just so happen to be interpreting via a Judeo-Christian worldview “Western demonology.” However, the question is: has it been “constructed from” or, rather, actually “identified by” or “via” Western demonology?

Some interesting stats are presented by first setting a date of June 24, 1947 AD which is when Kenneth Arnold “reported sighting ten shining discs flying over the Cascade Mountains when flying his private plane near Mount Rainier in Western Washington”:
‘A Gallup poll taken on 19 August 1947, revealed that…nine out of ten had heard about the saucers’…By the end of that year 850 UFO sightings had been reported in America alone….
Beginning in the early 1970s there was an exponential rise in reports of abductions.
The following is noted in relation to the 1487 AD text, Malleus Maleficarum which, or so it is claimed:
focused increasingly on obsession, possession and demonic alliances with humans…By the Middle Ages, learned magicians were suspected of summoning and using demons by their magic in order to exchange their souls for magical powers…it was only in the Middle Ages that…‘a new element was added to the European concept of witchcraft…This was the notion that the witch owed her powers to having made a deliberate pact with the Devil.’

It may, perhaps be accurate that in 1487 AD, by the Middle Ages, such pacts were “focused” upon. It may, perhaps also be true that it was “only in the Middle Ages” that this concept was added to (note the qualifier) European concept of witchcraft.
However, the concept itself, in general, has been known, noted, and understood since at least the time of the events recorded in the Bible’s book 2 Kings (3:26-27) wherein the following is noted:
When the king of Moab saw that the battle was too fierce for him, he took with him 700 men who drew swords, to break through to the king of Edom; but they could not. Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land.

In other words, when the battle was going against him, the king of Moab conducted the ritual human sacrifice of his son as a burnt offering to his false gods (true demons) who responded by giving him the power “great wrath” to prevail—for the time being.

Let us now get to some specific points about angels, demons, the Genesis 6 Nephilim, etc.
The article noted the “relatively common narratives that deal with the sexual union of deities and humans.” Historically what the article terms deities have been viewed as angels, demons, fallen angles, aliens, etc.

Christopher Partridge notes the following with regards to the Nephilim:
Justin Martyr, for example, is very clear that they were in fact ‘fallen angels’ and that demons are the product of their unnatural union with human women….
Martin Luther reiterates the early Christian belief that the ‘sons of the gods’ are fallen angels and the nephilim demons.

Much could be said regarding the specifics here. For example, note that the referenced text is:
that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose…
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 

There are, perhaps, three options about whom the Nephilim were/are:
1) They are unrelated to Genesis 6 as they were already on the Earth in those days.
2) They were the Sons of God who fell.
3) They were the offspring.

One must also ask whether the “Those” (or in some translations “these”) mighty men of renown were themselves the Nephilim offspring or both, as per 3).
Another issue to consider is that it appears that the “product of their unnatural union” were the demons but they did not become demons until after they died—as it would have been then that their bodies would decay and their spirits would be left to roam the Earth.

Partridge notes that, “Where in Genesis it is not clear that these beings are particularly evil, in the apocalyptic literature they reveal their evil nature.” He references 1 Enoch aka Ethiopic Enoch which notes that the:
archangels—Michael, Uriel, Raphael and Gabrielslay the giants, although their malign spirits remain to ‘afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on earth’ (1 En.15:1). Raphael is also instructed to bind Azazel and to cast him into an outer darkness, where he is to remain until the day of judgment, when he shall be ‘sent into the fire’ (1 En 10:5e7).

Note that the term archangel is based on the concept of a hierarchy of angels. The term appears in perhaps only one text namely Dan 10:13 where Michael is referred to as one of the chief princes which are aka archangels in this context. In Hebrew this reads, “Miyka’el ‘echad ri’shown sar” with ri’shown (Strong’s H7223) being first, primary, etc. and sar (Strong’s H8269) being prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain, etc.
Gabriel is referred to as “an angel of the Lord” (Luke 1:11). Uriel and Raphael are unknown in the Bible.

In any case, Biblically the offspring of the Sons of God and daughters of men likely drowned in the great flood, the deluge (which was likely the reason for the flood in the first place).
If 1 Enoch is to be taken as accurate in this regard; it may be referring to those who lives not only “on the earth in those days” but those who lived “also afterward.”

As to the reference to Aza’zel; 1 Enoch personalizes this being as a condemned fallen angel. In the Bible the term appears in Leviticus 16:8-10 which notes:

Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat. Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the LORD fell, and make it a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat.

Where is this being in the text? Well, azazel is or means scapegoat, one of the two goats referenced. Azazel (Strong’s H5799) means, “1) entire removal, scapegoat a) refers to the goat used for sacrifice for the sins of the people b) meaning dubious” and comes from `ez (Strong’s H5795) meaning “1) female goat, she-goat, goat, kid” which itself comes from the primitive root `azaz (Strong’s H5810) meaning “1) to be strong a) (Qal) to be strong, prevail b) (Hiphil) to make firm, strengthen” and also comes from the primitive root ‘azal (Strong’s H235) meaning “1) to go, to go away, to go about a) (Qal) 1) to go away 2) to go about 3) to be used up, be exhausted, be gone, evaporated b) (Pual) to go to and fro.”

So, according to the Leviticus azazel is not a fallen angel, demon or anything other than a goat. Yet, it is not uncommon for an animal to come to be personified as a being of some sort. Consider that heylel (aka lucifer) is referred to a serpent and a dragon (see Revelation 12:9 and 20:2). Also, in Job 41 leviathan is a water dwelling animal and yet later becomes symbolic of a more general judgment:

the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea (Isaiah 27:1).

Christopher Partridge makes the following statement (citing the other works) that show who confusing some people make a non-issue:
Certainly, in the Hebrew Bible Satan is not the demonic figure that he becomes in apocalyptic literature (see Kluger, 1967). Indeed, Satan is one of the ‘members of the court of heaven’, one of the bene ‘elohim, a ‘son of God’ (Job 1:6). The Book of Job in particular describes Satan as a being who works closely with Yahweh as his agent in the testing of Job (see Nielson, 1998, pp. 59e105).
According to Russell, Satan as a son of God has his origins in Canaanite religion:
In Canaan these ‘sons’ are gods, manifestations of the divine principle. Clearly, the original idea in Hebrew religion was that Yahweh was surrounded by a pantheon comparable to that of Zeus or Wotan. The idea of a pantheon was displeasing to strict monotheism, and the banim (bene ha’elohim) became shadowy figures. Yet they retained an important function of separating the evil aspect of the divine nature from the good. (Russell, 1977, p. 184)
Kirsten Nielsen explains the relationship between God and Satan more literally in terms of father and son:
At the beginning father and son are together, but at a certain time their paths separate. Satan in the book of Job [is] the son of God who for some time roamed the earth. He lived among the other sons of God, close to his father. There is nothing to indicate that he was denied this position after he had tested Job, neither was there a revolt against his father or any fall from the heavenly to the earthly. (Nielsen, 1998, p. 156)
Only in later Jewish legend do we find Satan banished from heaven.

This all revolves around the Job text wherein, or so we are told, “Satan is one of the ‘members of the court of heaven’, one of the bene ‘elohim, a ‘son of God.’” He may very well be able to be described as “a being who works closely with Yahweh as his agent in the testing of Job” because otherwise, satan would have authority over YHVH to do as he pleases. The claim was that satan is one of the bene ‘elohim/sons of God but let us see what Job actually states:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

So, the “sons of God” (one category of being) came to the LORD and (besides them) satan (another category of being) came also among them. So the sons of God came and satan came with them. In other words, he is not necessarily identified as being a son of God but as tagging along, as it were, with them.
If you take the view that the sons of God here are “angles” then you will further note the difference as satan is not an “angel” but a cherub (angles and cherubim are different categories of beings).
But perhaps some will argue that all who came to God were sons of God and satan just happens to be mentioned by name. In any case, it is inaccurate to state that “Satan is not the demonic figure” in the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh aka Old Testament) especially when we note that satan is aka serpent aka heylel aka accuser aka adversary (the literal meaning of satan), etc.

Kirsten Nielsen seems to be, not surprisingly, elucidating a satanic doctrine (found in Mormonism) which is that satan (and not Jesus?) is God the Father’s son. He even singled out satan as being “the son of God” in Job; this excludes the plural sons of God or includes satan as being one of them (see above).
Jeffrey Burton Russell takes the satanic doctrine up (or is it down?) a notch by having “argued that Satan is ‘the malignant, destructive aspect of Yahweh…subtracted from him and ascribed to a different spiritual power.’” So on this view; satan is Yahweh but merely turned into another “person” to avoid theological embarrassment—or, something.
Even if we were to grant that satan is “the son of God” (meaning something like a creation of His, which satan, or rather heylel, is) the Hebrew Bible may not state that he “was denied this position after he had tested Job” but that something occurred before that which turned the ministering cherub heylel into satan (see Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28). This was the time of his “revolt against his father” and is why in “later Jewish legend [historical records]…we find Satan banished from heaven.”

Recall how above it was noted that David Icke’s thesis is, both, “highly critical of Christianity” even while “its fundamental ideas demonstrate a dependence on Christian demonology.” Well, the article also notes that, in short, many modern day views on aliens and UFOs are that:
The space gods may be Theosophical, but the space demons are Christian.

Here is one such example as Christopher Partridge refers to “Theologically positive, Theosophical streams of the Ashtar Command” such as the “Ashtar Lightwork Centre” which reported, “conscious contact with a so-called Alien…Greys…a silver gray coloured lady stood at the entrance, and asked politely if she could please come in.”
Beings who stand at doorways asking permission to come in is typical of the litigious nature of demonic activity; which must be allowed in by human permission (conscious such as in a pact or unconscious such as in messing around with a ouija board). This seen above with regards to the Greys pertaining to a gray colored lady and more recently with regards to reports of black eyed children (you can listen to a radio show on this topic with L.A. Marzulli at this link).

Note that:
the Ashtar movement explained a series of failed prophecies regarding alien intervention as well as the proliferation of extraterrestrial messages that conflicted with the earlier communications of Ashtar, in terms spiritual warfare. As Christopher Helland notes, ‘messages and practices from a previous generation, which were thought not to be consistent with current cosmology and communications, were attributed to the interference of negative space beings in the upper atmosphere of the planet’ (Helland, 2003, p. 174). This led to the development of a demonology in which ‘several young members of Ashtar’s training forces had defected and become evil beings’. This, we are told,
occurred decades ago when a group of cadets rebelled from the Ashtar Command and formed their own negative extraterrestrial government. These beings made alliances with ‘others of a similar rebellious nature’ and began operating upon the ‘lowest planes closest to the Earth’. Any messages that had been channelled in the past that contained overly negative information or erroneous dates for landing events were blamed upon these beings. (Helland, 2003, p. 174)
This is basically the “satanic verses” of the Theosophical Ashtar movement. You may be aware that in Islam there is the concept of the satanic verses which is a way to explain (explain away or, rather, excuse) heretical statements made by Muhammad. They are said to have been satanic deceptions which Allah then had to correct and replace (see here for much info about this issue).
In the case of the Ashtar movement we have the negative space beings verses excuse. The fact that the activities of “fallen angels” (as they are known in common parlance) and/or demons are the very same as those of “aliens” makes one wonder about the being who brought revelation to Muhammad (it was not Allah but “Gabriel”).

From this concept of negative space beings who defected and become evil beings comes elucidations such as that, “some aliens fell by allying themselves with the reptilians and ‘functioning like the Borg in Star Trek.’” The Borg are actually more akin to transhumans—biological organisms melded with technology—but are likely referenced due to their hive mind; common consciousness or literal group-think.

It is also noted that:
some of the things that happened during that war’[“a great battle between good and evil aliens”], things that ‘were ten times worse than Roddenberry was allowed to show’…suggests that Star Trek is understood to have been used by extraterrestrials to reveal truth.

These references to science “fiction” are interesting for various reasons and actually come from the Ashtar Command claim that that “aliens” stated that:
We will enter into a campaign of spreading our imagery through your media. So-called fictional sci-fi books, which will gain mass popularity, will actually be truth disguised as fiction. This will gently accustom humans to the concept.

Note that Phyllis Schlemmer was a trance medium who channeled a cosmic being named Tom who, in turn, claimed to be part of “the Nine” who were a group of beings from “Deep Space.” One person associated with Schlemmer was Gene Roddenberry:

the legendary creator of Star Trek, who, Schlemmer’s website claims, was visiting the medium as part of his research for the sci-fi series. Hence Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Maybe. The truth, as usual, appears to be even stranger.

Roddenberry, a humanist who was deeply critical of religion but who was fascinated by psi phenomena and altered states of consciousness (possibly stemming from a childhood out-of-body experience) and who accepted some measure of the “latent abilities” of telepathy, clairvoyance and psychokinesis, appears to have been recruited by a paranormal organization called Lab Nine to help prepare the public, via a film-script that he would write, for an impending first contact event.
Toward this end, he was given tours of parapsychological labs and introduced to Schlemmer and, through her, to Tom and the Nine. Neither the film nor the first contact panned out although the script was written.
Film or no film, landing or no landing, Roddenberry conversed with Tom through Schlemmer. It was Roddenberry, for example who got the entity to affirm that some of us are “of Altean blood” and possess Altean “genetic features . . . mixed with our basic Earth features.” Human-alien hybrids again.
—Jeffrey J. Kripal, Mutants and Mystics (University of Chicago Press, 2011 AD), p. 227 [see my review of this book here]

Thus, overall, we find that Judeo-Christians demonology has correctly identified “aliens” as being the very same being who in previous times and in various places have pretended to be gods, fairies, gnomes, elves, etc., etc., etc. and are today most popularly pretending to be extra-terrestrial aliens.

Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14)


A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.