Spirituality: Sex for the Soul

Recently I’ve been giving some thought to the connection between sex and spirituality and, influenced to some extent by John Michael Greer’s series of postings on ‘Sex and Occultism’ at The Well of Galabes, I’ve decided to articulate some speculations of my own.

Asexuals aside, some form of sexual fulfillment is a physical need for most of us. Hon-harmful and non-abusive expressions of sexuality are as natural as eating and drinking. Most of us are familiar with the biological purpose of sex – to bear offspring, to bond with your partner. But mystics have also held that there is also a spiritual purpose to sex and that, undertaken in such a way, it can be a means of connecting to the Divine, of transferring our consciousness to an alternate plane, or of giving a powerful boost to our psychic and magickal workings.

Many will be familiar with the creeping disconnection from our regular framework of awareness as we surge closer to orgasm, the physical and mental energies becoming more intense until, in a short moment of disassociation, we climax. The human orgasm can be thought of as a brief spiritual experience, as in both cases the individual undergoes a change in consciousness.

I make it well-known that I think spiritual fulfillment is also a fundamental human need for most people. My definition of spirituality is quite broad and includes manifestations of a non-mystical and physical nature, readily enjoyed by people who don’t believe in spiritual phenomena. In no way does a person need to be a ‘believer’ in order to get what I think are their innate spiritual desires satisfied.

Whichever way we indulge our spiritual urges – material or mystical – I think these urges are as natural a part of our being as sex. Of late, I’ve been thinking of spiritual and mystical experiences as ‘sex for the mind or soul’ or, to be even more precise, an ‘orgasm for the mind or soul’. As stated before, sex and mysticism both result in changes in consciousness, a transfer of awareness. During those moments of sexual climax, I think we are tapping into realms of psychic power to which occultists open themselves up in mystical practice. Magicians have used sex in their sorcery for good reason; the basic belief being that the force of sexual energy provides greater power to the spell and increases the chances of the ritual’s effectiveness.

Just as it is unethical to prohibit non-harmful and non-abusive forms of sexual activity, it is also unethical to prohibit non-harmful and non-abusive forms of spiritual activity. The radical pseudo-sceptic who would like to see witchcraft, psychic demonstrations and palm-readings illegalised is no different to a homophobic hate preacher who desires to see gay sex banned. 

The Actor as an Occultist

A friend of mine once told me that the paths of the actor and occultist are quite similar. With my local drama club’s auditions for ‘Neighbourhood Watch’ now upon us, this is something I’ve found myself considering.

I’ve long thought of the arts as numinous; that is, I believe that when an artist creates, they are accessing similar realms to those of the mystics. I think this is mostly done unconsciously; an artist certainly need not include concepts of spirituality as part of his belief system. In simple terms, I think that the creation of art is a spiritual enterprise, regardless of whether the creator is aware of this or believes in it.

Complexities of occultism notwithstanding, in the most basic sense, an occultist employs non-physical means – magick – to manifest physical results. The artist uses non-physical means – imagination – to produce a tangible product. To relate this to acting, a magician forms a vision of their intent and brings this to fruition via the medium of magick. An actor will work within the boundaries placed upon them by the writer and director’s vision, but will use their own creative skill to bring life to their character.

Both actors and occultists use material adornments to aid in their work. Actors will use stage props, costumes, or rather more technical apparel if they are working on a film. Many occultists will use candles, crystals, wands and costumes of their own in their spell work. But in both cases, the material items are not the main force behind the creation work. They are tools to help the process, and in the case of acting, to add realism to the project. But the essence of acting, as with the essence of occultism, is a non-material force invisible to the naked eye.

Actors and occultists both undergo changes in consciousness whilst at work. An occultist will usually meditate or use another technique to achieve the focus required for a successful magickal operation. Watching an actor is like watching someone under an enchantment. The rehearsing thespian is not so very different from the witch in a trance petitioning Aphrodite for help in their personal relationships.

As occultists shift their focus to a spiritual realm, actors shift their focus to the world in their script. Both temporarily remove themselves from the here and now, this physical portion of reality, and apply their consciousness to a separate environment. I’ve watched actors and directors ‘in the zone’; they are entirely divorced from their material homes and appear to be operating on an entirely different plane to that of the casual observer. So it is with occultists.

To me, imagination and spirituality are very much the same thing; I would even suggest that imagination is our connection to the spirit realm and the mind a tool we utilise to traverse it. It’s been a long time since I believed that imagination was mere fantasy; I think the universes and worlds and characters created by the imagination of writers each have a valid reality of their own, but on a plane that is physically inaccessible.

Looked at from this perspective, the paths of the actor and occultist are not so very different. One could propose that the creation of art is itself an act of magick. Indeed, the actor is a very fine occultist…

The Rational Explanation

Whenever mainstream newspapers cover a story about the possibility of the afterlife (for example: the subject of mediumship or NDEs) you can usually count on a materialist (i.e. non-spiritual) solution being touted as the “rational explanation.” The same is true for various other reports of paranormal phenomena, but we’ll just stick with the afterlife here.

Near-death-experiences, for example? The familiar arguments that these are hallucinations brought on by a dying brain (which, while a possibility, is hardly set in stone) are held up as the logical way of looking at the subject. With mediums, we are told that they’re either one of two things: charlatans bilking people out of their cash or well-meaning but delusional individuals. A similar array of explanations are given for poltergeist activity, ghost sightings and numerous other incidents of such kind.

There is nothing wrong with raising these arguments and giving them consideration. Indeed, in some – perhaps many – cases, they may be the correct answer to what occurred. What is irritating, however, is the media’s tendency to claim that a materialist explanation is *the* one singular rational way of looking at what happened. They don’t just say that it’s a rational explanation, they assert that it’s THE rational explanation – i.e. any view that allows for the possibility of a spiritual element is irrational and therefore wrong.

If mainstream newspapers are looking to discourage the public from being open-minded to the idea of an afterlife (or, indeed, the paranormal in general) then this is probably a useful technique. After all, who wants to think they’re irrational? Committed believers who know more than a few titbits about the subject will usually have their views unaffected by some prejudiced comments from a journalist, but those on the fence may well be shamed into rejecting the potential of an afterlife. As for the committed believers, the newspapers can just mercilessly ridicule them, and often do. In ideological conflict, ridicule is a very effective weapon – if you want as a few a number of people as possible to take a subject seriously, what better approach is there than to make fun of that subject and its supporters?

All that said, is the ridicule justified? Sometimes yes, but on many occasions, no. Is the materialist explanation the only one true rational viewpoint? In my opinion, no - it’s one of several rational viewpoints, some of which include an acceptance of spirituality.

What many mainstream newspapers are either unaware of or ignore, is that there is a rather strong body of evidence supporting the afterlife hypothesis, which stretches back to the 19^th century. The Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882, whose mission was to investigate spiritual phenomena “in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned enquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the SPR’s experiments with mediums yielded results that are not easily explainable by materialism alone. Academic parapsychology has also provided scientific data which supports the potential for survival of bodily death. As for NDEs, the “dying brain” hypothesis does not encompass every part of the experience. There are those, for example, who experience veridical NDEs, that is, NDEs in which they feel themselves leave their body and are able to accurately report on conversations which took place while they were unconscious.

These are just a few sweeping examples of some of the evidence for an afterlife. There is a lot more, but one does have to work to find it.

Given that there is fairly substantial scientific evidence for an afterlife, it seems more than a little unfair to me to consistently be reminded by news outlets that the materialist approach is the only rational one. No it’s not. It’s a rational way of looking at the situation, it’s a possibility, it deserves to be taken into account and considered – but it’s not the ONLY rational interpretation of an NDE or a clairvoyant experience or other matters of that nature. My belief in the afterlife is based upon the evidence and on a few personal experiences of my own. Since the afterlife hypothesis is supported by evidence, it is no less rational than a materialist view.

It would be nice if the mainstream media would admit that a viewpoint which allows for the afterlife is just as logical as its opposite, but it’s highly unlikely that they will do so anytime soon. For now, people like me will just have to settle for browsing the latest Guardian article on NDEs and hoping that the writer isn’t too sneering and malicious.