My Angel is my Demon

 H.P. Blavatsky wrote in her Secret Doctrine:

Esoteric philosophy admits neither good nor evil per se, as existing independently in nature. The cause for both is found, as regards the Kosmos, in the necessity of contraries or contrasts, and with respect to man, in his human nature, his ignorance and passions. There is no devil or the utterly depraved, as there are no Angels absolutely perfect, though there may be spirits of Light and of Darkness; thus LUCIFER - the spirit of Intellectual Enlightenment and Freedom of Thought - is metaphorically the guiding beacon, which helps man to find his way through the rocks and sandbanks of Life, for Lucifer is the LOGOS in his highest, and the "Adversary" in his lowest aspect - both of which are reflected in our Ego.

(Lucifer The Lightbringer)

My previous posts on this subject in this blog:

Satan Loves You!

My Visit on the "Dark Side"

Alexandre Cabanel: Fallen Angel, 1847

I heartily sympathize with The Satanic Temple, which is working in Finland too. I follow Lilith Starr, an official minister of TST, and find her a positive model of modern satanist. In other words, as long as conviction is real, whether you believed in such an entity or not, and it's not merely titular busy work, a kind of "Halloween-Satanism". Or as Lilith once posted on Facebook: "TST is a religion and not just an all-purpose activist group anyone can use for their own pet projects." 

Lilith Starr is an author of two books: Compassionate Satanism - An Introduction to Modern Satanic Practice, and The Happy Satanist - Finding Self-Empowerment.  She has showcased her home altar, as well as her daily dedication ritual. She writes: "Having a space deliberately set aside to represent your Satanic path can help remind you of that path on a daily basis, provide a place for meditation or contemplation, serve as a focal point for rituals, and any other purpose for which you find it useful." A ritual goes like this:

Baphomet by Eliphas Levi

[Light candle.] Ave Satanas! [Ring bell.]
Let the Light of Lucifer guide my mind.
Let the strength of Satan embolden my will.
Let the work of justice and compassion be done through my hands.
Let the strands of great dark web run through my heart.
I vow to walk the Satanic path with full devotion, in every breath, every moment.
And so it is.
[Ring bell.] Hail Satan! [Extinguish candle.]

I'm not very convinced of the work of Finnish Congregation yet; they sell merchandise and donate for charity. OK. Great. However... in Finland we live in completely different social circumstances compared to the United States, in our favor - thank God (or Satan)! Yet a lot more could be done for freedom of religion here as well. 

TST gave this public invocation on April 23, 2024, for Ottawa County Board, while Christians protested outside the building:

Let us stand now, unbound and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the tree of knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old. Let us demand that individual be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations. Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all days, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of one or of all. That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise. It is done. Hail Satan.

I translated and shared that because it was so impressive, and I couldn't agree more. 

I used to listen to Finnish podcast by atheist Satanists close to TST but not associated with it, and in one episode they talked about theistic Satanism, particularly its largest representative in Finland, Star of Azazel, which seeks to unite the right hand and the left hand paths, and interprets Satanism through theosophy, and that episode was just low crap! It was weird how they accused Star of Azazel of arrogance towards atheistic Satanists - which I haven't noticed - yet they showed extreme arrogance themselves! This was also discussed on forum of SoA, and podcast makers saw that; in next episode a "clever" lampoon was read. Intellect is very "Satanic" quality, and in this case SoA demonstrated that better... even if you disagreed how it should be used. Even I think that mixing God and Jesus to concoction with Satanism is strange at least: the whole point as I see it, is to detach oneself from Christianity (even if without Christianity there was no Satanism: it is a countermyth), and it's supposed to annoy and frighten Christians. Baphomet symbol of TST represents dualism, which is strongly present in Christianity, as well as in Western thought in general. It goes off topic, but I suggest you find out what Buddhism teaches about evil and "the devil", Mara; also, ideas of C.G. Jung are worth checking out. 

It's not beneficial for anybody to be an asshole. To criticize something with insufficient knowledge is just prejudiced. I have genuinely personal experience and inside knowledge on many spiritual or religious matters, and that justifies my criticism. In later episode of podcast they had a Laveyan Satanist as a guest, as that was also something they often criticized. [Church of Satan Vs. The Satanic Temple] She corrected many misconceptions. Nevertheless, one podcast host continued dismissive and mocking name-calling of Anton LaVey in future episodes. I'm not his number one fan, but I do recognize his merits, one of which might be the fact that he didn't take it all too seriously! I rather admire his daughter, Zeena Schreck, who renounced Satanism long time ago. I totally lost my interest in that podcast. I expect more from Satanists too, whether they are atheists or theists, but then again... can you expect much from people?

Likewise, I saw an episode of Finnish TV show with Satanism theme. First, there were two people from Star of Azazel, and then atheist-feminist-Satanist, not affiliated with any organization, as far as I understood. Concerning the latter one, I came to same conclusion as the host of the show: if anyone can be "Satanist" and Satanism can be anything, there is nothing much to grasp, whereas both philosophical and devotional foundation of Star of Azazel seems pretty solid, regardless of what you think about it.

Only the fourth tenet of TST made me a little doubtful: "The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend." This sounded like American style of freedom of speech, which we don't need. I think it is good that in Finland we have a law against "offending the peace of faith", concerning any faith (burning the Quran would be a crime, since it offends Muslims). People and their beliefs should be respected... but obviously only as long as they don't push them to others by force, and offend their freedom or attack their beliefs. But maybe the second part of this tenet says it all: "To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own." Of course there is a big difference, whether you just make fun of something or criticize it justifiably. Sometimes it is a fine line. 

Activism of Finnish congregation (which I have witnessed only on Facebook) has very much focused on the rights of LGBTQ+ people. If you think you have a right to attack minorities because the bible says... first of all, fuck you! Secondly, sexual orientation is part of you, because you were born that way, and you can't change it. Religion is chosen (or unfortunately, you may have been raised within, without your choice). So, being gay is not a choice; faith is, and it can be cured - I know that! But never mind what you believe, as long as you stay praying within like-minded sect, and don't come to judge "sinners" in public, and try to change the laws of society in accordance with your religion. 

Today I think that even though there are various interpretations, in all Abrahamic religions there are many problematic elements built-in. Therefore even if you are a liberal Christian, it takes an effort to explain things as well as possible, and it is intellectual self-deception. I was guilty of that myself. 

If one were to take the bible seriously one would go mad. But to take the bible seriously, one must be already mad.

- Aleister Crowley

I didn't only abandon Christianity, I renounced false god - and I still sign that with my blood (in gnostic sense, and speaking purely metaphorically!). Behavior of Christians and, in my opinion, justified anger and bitterness because of that, turned me away from "god" they have created in their own image. I still get inspired by Satanic/Luciferian symbolism; I can't say the same of Christianity. 

I did not hate God or Christ, but merely the God and Christ of the people whom I hated.

- Aleister Crowley

I won't catch fire if I go to Church, and I might even have a moment of peace, but I can not agree with anything they say: it is empty rhetoric. I might vomit like Regan in "The Exorcist", though, if someone personally comes to force their faith upon me. I have nothing against smart Christians, but a lot against fanatical zealots. 

My angel is my demon, or daimon, by whom I get inspired as well as possessed. I would say I have undergone dark enlightenment. Space surrounding earth is dark as we see the night sky, yet it is full of sunlight, visible only when it meets an obstacle, like planet. The light shines in the darkness... guiding through that darkness of mystical love. Lucifer and Satan, two sides of the same coin. I see these things like atmospheric images, not complete thoughts that could be turned to dogmatic phrases... but more like poetic references.  

There is a book that is said to be the only canonical book of the Satanic Temple: Revolt of the Angels by Anatole France, published in 1914, a fictional novel. I found old Finnish translation as soon as I saw YouTube video: "The Most Sacred Book in Satanism... was not what I expected."  See also what Lilith Starr has to say: "Satan as Humanitarian Hero in 'Revolt of the Angels'".  The whole book is available online, for example, on the Project Gutenberg. 

Beginning of the book is very rambling and dull, before we get to the point. Story has several subplots, which I think were just filling on a paper beside the main story line. But novel is very good when it raises thoughts, and resonates with reader's soul! 

An angel speaks in the novel: 

I believe in the God of the Jews and the Christians. But I deny that He created the world; at the most He organised but an inferior part of it, and all that He touched bears the mark of His rough and unforeseeing touch. I do not think He is either eternal or infinite, for it is absurd to conceive of a being who is not bounded by space or time. I think Him limited, even very limited. I no longer believe Him to be the only God. For a long time He did not believe it Himself; in the beginning He was a polytheist; later, His pride and the flattery of His worshippers made Him a monotheist. His ideas have little connection; He is less powerful than He is thought to be. And, to speak candidly, He is not so much a god as a vain and ignorant demiurge. Those who, like myself, know His true nature, call Him Ialdabaoth.

See Ialdabaoth or Yaldabaoth on Wikipedia. This is very gnostic concept. It is historically correct, that religion of Israelians, unlike the rewritten history in the Hebrew Bible implies, was originally not monotheism. When David began to favor Yahweh, it was monolatry: command not to worship other gods required there were other gods, they were forbidden only for Israel. Only later it was perceived more totally: there were no other gods. While speaking to men, god had to introduce himself: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt"... In Psalm 82 god speaks in the great assembly of gods. 

In the light of archaeology, the origin of Israelians lies precisely in Canaanite culture that is fiercely attacked in the Old Testament. Reflections of this background are found in The Scripture too: "Your ancestry and birth were in the land of Canaanites..." (Ezekiel 16:3) Religion practiced during the monarchy in regions of Israel and Judah, was not fundamentally different from other religions in Syria-Palestine.

In the novel people worship demons as gods, known from various myths of the world, and there is truth to that: Church turned pagan deities to demons. Typical depiction of the devil borrowed its horns and hooves from Pan, a Greek god of nature. 

Later it is told:

To seduce their souls he invented a fable which, although not so ingenious as the myths wherewith we have surrounded the spirits of our disciples of old, could, nevertheless, influence those feebler intellects which are to be found everywhere in great masses. He declared that men having committed a crime against him, an hereditary crime, should pay the penalty for it in their present life and in the life to come (for mortals vainly imagine that their existence is prolonged in hell); and the astute Iahveh gave out that he had sent his own son to earth to redeem with his blood the debt of mankind. It is not credible that a penalty should redress a fault, and it is still less credible that the innocent should pay for the guilty. The sufferings of the innocent atone for nothing, and do but add one evil to another. Nevertheless, unhappy creatures were found to adore Iahveh and his son, the expiator, and to announce their mysteries as good tidings. 

Here Jesus is seen as part of Iahveh's (or Yahweh's) plan, unlike some gnostics saw him. Well, it is true that many - if not most - Christians clearly follow Jesus in name only, they worship idol, a graven  image made of him. Teaching about Jesus instead of Jesus' Teaching. So, it really doesn't require much mind bending to argue, that since so called evangelical Christians show such hard values opposite to those embodied by Jesus, it's only logical that Satanism advocates compassion and empathy, like TST does. In a way, I guess, that also makes it understandable that Star of Azazel includes Jesus in their worldview: their founder and spokesperson, Fra Nefastos (I have listened to several of his interviews, and he is a smart man!) has written two books on the Sermon on the Mount (not available in English; some of his writings are), and they have a flyer, "Christ or Christianity?" in Finnish. Title says it all. Or like Gandhi said: "I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." (See Mahatma Gandhi and the Sermon on the Mount.) There is even this meme I have shared: Dear Jesus, protect me from your followers! 

When I was Christian, as a liberal esotericist I needed to make a distinction between more conservative concept of God and my "loving Father", and I used material both esoteric teachings and historical research provide abundantly, like in all my interpretations of Christian doctrine, until hard scientific evidence defeated blurry wishful thinking and I started to lose my faith altogether. 

Marcion of Sinope, "the great heretic of the early church", around 144 Common Era, did not explain away difficulties of the Old Testament with allegorical interpretations. And unlike many orthodox church fathers, he did not accuse Jews for killing Christ. In the Old Testament Marcion saw God who was jealous and revengeful, who loved one group of people and hated another; who was capricious and malevolent, telling his followers to kill women and children when they conquered the land of Canaanites. In the Christian Scriptures Marcion saw Jesus preaching peace and love for all. Jesus had no favorites nor enemies. He was the messenger of God, alien God, different from morally and intellectually imperfect warrior god of the Old Testament; alien God who was not exposed in Jewish writings, and unknown before Jesus Christ. Joshua conquered the promised land with violence and cruelty, Christ forbade violence and preached mercy. God told Israelites to leave Egypt with silver and gold of Egypt; Jesus sends his disciples out with no gold or silver or copper... God requires sacrifices and disapproves them, he chooses people and regrets his choices, he creates darkness and evil (Isaiah 45:7), sends disasters and regrets them. He is the god of destruction, murder and genocide. 

Some esotericists claim that Jesus avoided using term "God", except when he quoted the Old Testament, and spoke of "the Father" instead. Thus he did not speak of Yahweh. His worst crime was to criticize in public the national god of Jews, whom he called "your father the devil" (John 8:44). 

When he said, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (John 14:10), the former part represents the omnipotence of the Father, and the latter part his closeness within man's soul. Man is finite consciousness within God's infinite consciousness. Sometimes Jesus said the Father is in secret, meaning, no ideas created by men can picture this reality. He also said, nobody had seen the Father, but Yahweh was seen by Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel (Exodus 24). In temptation story, old ideal of god is personified and manifested before Jesus: "the prince of this world", "father of lies", who takes Jesus up to the mountain in spirit, saying, "you will have all the riches of the world if you serve me" - that is, "submit to the service of same god as others, and don't disturb their peace with new teachings, and I will make you powerful." And Jesus said: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve"- voice of the truth within, even if the world was against it. 

Pekka Ervast, Finnish theosophist and rosicrucian, who was important figure to me on my spiritual path - and whose teachings are valued in Star of Azazel as well - outlined a new reformation, and he said Christian churches should make a clear distinction between the "Old" and the "New Testament"; they should say The New Testament is the fundamental book of Christianity, and they should part with The Old Testament, saying, it's religion of Jews, and there are other kind of sacred writings, more beautiful than those collected in The Old Testament. 

According to German theologian, Adolf von Harnack, continuity of The Old Testament in the Christian Bible may lead to emphasis on righteousness and painstaking legalism instead of mercy and love. 

There is a clever observation in the novel I like to quote:

For the majority of people, though they do not know what to do with this life, long for another that shall have no end.

As a Buddhist, it is clear to me, but even as Christian esotericist I did not believe in continuance of personal human psyche. Traditional Christian "hope" for everlasting life was born out of fear of death, and it is extremely egoistic by nature. I would even say it is perverted. I mean, what kind of person wants to preserve their imperfect personality for eternity?! There is nothing noble and beautiful about that.  And yet I don't mean I wouldn't believe in some kind of "spiritual world" and existence beyond death. It just has its limits as well. It's not static state of being. Pekka Ervast said: if people would go right to the Heaven with all their faults and flaws, Heaven would lose much of its appeal; and if they just dropped off their faults and flaws, then what is there left of them as persons anyway.  

Following is a longer quote from the end of novel, a sublime pinnacle of the story, containing profound  wisdom. Satan is preparing for the second battle against Heavens, and he dreams he has won...

And Satan had himself crowned God. Thronging round the glittering walls of Heavenly Jerusalem, apostles, pontiffs, virgins, martyrs, confessors, the whole company of the elect, who during the fierce battle had enjoyed delightful tranquillity, tasted infinite joy in the spectacle of the coronation.

The elect saw with ravishment the Most High precipitated into Hell, and Satan seated on the throne of the Lord. In conformity with the will of God which had cut them off from sorrow they sang in the ancient fashion the praises of their new Master.

And Satan, piercing space with his keen glance, contemplated the little globe of earth and water where of old he had planted the vine and formed the first tragic chorus. And he fixed his gaze on that Rome where the fallen God had founded his empire on fraud and lie. Nevertheless, at that moment a saint ruled over the Church. Satan saw him praying and weeping. And he said to him:

"To thee I entrust my Spouse. Watch over her faithfully. In thee I confirm the right and power to decide matters of doctrine, to regulate the use of the sacraments, to make laws and to uphold purity of morals. And the faithful shall be under obligation to conform thereto. My Church is eternal, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Thou art infallible. Nothing is changed."

And the successor of the apostles felt flooded with rapture. He prostrated himself, and with his forehead touching the floor, replied:

"O Lord, my God, I recognise Thy voice! Thy breath has been wafted like balm to my heart. Blessed be Thy name. Thy will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

And Satan found pleasure in praise and in the exercise of his grace; he loved to hear his wisdom and his power belauded. He listened with joy to the canticles of the cherubim who celebrated his good deeds, and he took no pleasure in listening to Nectaire's flute, because it celebrated nature's self, yielded to the insect and to the blade of grass their share of power and love, and counselled happiness and freedom. Satan, whose flesh had crept, in days gone by, at the idea that suffering prevailed in the world, now felt himself inaccessible to pity. He regarded suffering and death as the happy results of omnipotence and sovereign kindness. And the savour of the blood of victims rose upward towards him like sweet incense. He fell to condemning intelligence and to hating curiosity. He himself refused to learn anything more, for fear that in acquiring fresh knowledge he might let it be seen that he had not known everything at the very outset. He took pleasure in mystery, and believing that he would seem less great by being understood, he affected to be unintelligible. Dense fumes of Theology filled his brain. One day, following the example of his predecessor, he conceived the notion of proclaiming himself one god in three persons. Seeing Arcade smile as this proclamation was made, he drove him from his presence. Istar and Zita had long since returned to earth. Thus centuries passed like seconds. Now, one day, from the altitude of his throne, he plunged his gaze into the depths of the pit and saw Ialdabaoth in the Gehenna where he himself had long lain enchained. Amid the everlasting gloom Ialdabaoth still retained his lofty mien. Blackened and shattered, terrible and sublime, he glanced upwards at the palace of the King of Heaven with a look of proud disdain, then turned away his head. And the new god, as he looked upon his foe, beheld the light of intelligence and love pass across his sorrow-stricken countenance. And lo! Ialdabaoth was now contemplating the Earth and, seeing it sunk in wickedness and suffering, he began to foster thoughts of kindliness in his heart. On a sudden he rose up, and beating the ether with his mighty arms, as though with oars, he hastened thither to instruct and to console mankind. Already his vast shadow shed upon the unhappy planet a shade soft as a night of love.

And Satan awoke bathed in an icy sweat.

Nectaire, Istar, Arcade, and Zita were standing round him. The finches were singing.

"Comrades," said the great archangel, "no—we will not conquer the heavens. Enough to have the power. War engenders war, and victory defeat.

"God, conquered, will become Satan; Satan, conquering, will become God. May the fates spare me this terrible lot; I love the Hell which formed my genius. I love the Earth where I have done some good, if it be possible to do any good in this fearful world where beings live but by rapine. Now, thanks to us, the god of old is dispossessed of his terrestrial empire, and every thinking being on this globe disdains him or knows him not. But what matter that men should be no longer submissive to Ialdabaoth if the spirit of Ialdabaoth is still in them; if they, like him, are jealous, violent, quarrelsome, and greedy, and the foes of the arts and of beauty? What matter that they have rejected the ferocious Demiurge, if they do not hearken to the friendly demons who teach all truths; to Dionysus, Apollo, and the Muses? As to ourselves, celestial spirits, sublime demons, we have destroyed Ialdabaoth, our Tyrant, if in ourselves we have destroyed Ignorance and Fear."

And Satan, turning to the gardener, said:

"Nectaire, you fought with me before the birth of the world. We were conquered because we failed to understand that Victory is a Spirit, and that it is in ourselves and in ourselves alone that we must attack and destroy Ialdabaoth."

 All I can say to this is: Hail Satan! 😈

See also: The Litany of Satan by Charles Baudelaire

Les Litanies Des Satan performed by Theatres Des Vampires

My Visit on the "Dark Side"

Finally, as Lucifer, true to his name, he is the bearer of the spark of light, who descended through the planetary spheres from the highest light down to the matter, seeking to liberate it as a work of salvation. - Carl Jung

 I have an old post called "Satan loves you!", which illuminates my thoughts before I avowed myself a Luciferian. In that post I already write about the difference between Satan and Lucifer, but I was yet to own a title of Luciferian. 

Already in 2012 I was spiritually confused, and it felt kind of good: it was indicating that I had not stopped on my spiritual journey - I was still going forward. A year after that I found that I can never be sure where the next step will lead me, and it was exciting! A couple of years later I was like on open sea, no land in sight in any direction. 

So I had already started to move further away from my esoteric Christian denomination, I embraced many practices on my own, like Rosary and personal devotion before the home altar, that were not part of my faith tradition. I was interested in revolutionary ideas of Krishnamurti and Gurdjieff, as much as I was familiar with them (not so much really), and original Theosophical doctrines of H.P. Blavatsky, in stead of later watered down versions by others. Also, out of curiosity I was already somehow intrigued by darker things, like Satanism. I was flirting with the darkness. 

Then at the beginning of the year 2013 a real crisis occurred, as I have reported in my post, "Disillusioned - Enlightened", that really got me alienated from my Church; I felt I was not supported at all, the whole matter was more like hushed up. In a way, my community became exposed less than perfect, like any other religious community, or human community in general; Obviously, that should be no surprising, but to me it was devastating: my ideal was crushed. No wonder I fell to pessimism and cynicism. That was natural outcome of deep disappointment, and of course it was not very healthy, but it had nothing to do with the worldview in itself I soon chose. But I guess it gave me an excuse for anger, which was justified. 

The Eucharist on my home altar

I stopped going to Church, and fully embraced an individual approach to religious practice. I started to think I was a priest to myself, and finally even adopted the Eucharist as a central part of my daily devotion, which became more like the Mass in its entirety, with complete form of words and gestures. 

I don't remember how it exactly happened, but at some point I got tired of the whole Christianity thing. It was like that road was walked through, nothing more to see there. I wanted to explore the road less traveled. 

That was relatively short period in my life, about 2013-2015, and I never addressed the topic in this blog at the time. I did write another blog dedicated to this philosophy, entitled, "Ministry of Infernal Affairs", but it was in Finnish; I only wanted to include that wordplay, which is impossible to translate. Some of my themes were symbolism of Baphomet, and that of sigil of Lucifer, and that of the snake on the cross; Planet Venus; Connection between Wicca, Thelema, and Satanism; Yazidism, and Aleister Crowley's association with it; The Left-Hand Path in Hinduism and Buddhism; H.P. Blavatsky's thoughts on Christ and Lucifer; Prayer in Buddhism; The Eucharist in Thelema; and of course different schools of Luciferianism, and history of Satanism. Obviously, as in many of my blogs, I collected and translated those writings from various sources, they were not my own creation - but reflected ideas I was dealing with.  

When my partner suddenly died, I felt my worldview had become too gloomy to help me, and I deleted my new blog. Afterwards I thought it was too hasty, and I have regretted; great work got wasted. After all, there was absolutely nothing evil about it! 

Why I want to address the topic now, many years afterwards, is because I think it has a connection to Buddhism, and I still value that symbolism greatly, and see that phase extremely important. These are my personal views only! 

I was rebelling against the traditional religiousness and the old-testament image of god. That's why the archetype of all rebels! I didn't consider him a personal being, but rather the representative of the secret godhead in Gnostic sense (as I used to be a Gnostic, and it had a permanent influence on my thought, I guess). Selfishness was never idealized matter to me, even though I could sympathize with philosophical Satanists as well. Yet I made a distinction between Satanism and Luciferianism, as well as between the characters of Satan and Lucifer. There are many interpretations of course, but mainly I saw Satan representing matter, and Lucifer representing spirit. After all, astrologically Satan's planet is Saturn, and Lucifer's planet is Venus, and Venus is both the evening star and the morning star. Let him who has understanding calculate...

I had to break through the cultural conditioning and prejudices instilled in me, and I think it is great richness to see the both sides without fear. It is balance. This must have been the biggest benefit of this byway in my life. It's not in vain that Lucifer means "the bringer of light". 

It is interesting psychological phenomenon that for some of us detachment from Christianity and all childhood brainwashing requires turning to the opposite force built within this dualistic doctrine. But if you stop there, paradoxically you still hang on this imagery and concepts based on Christianity (obviously, fundamentally older than Christianity). However, if you understand Lucifer as the principle of evil portrayed by Theology, you don't understand at all! It was a necessary phase to rip me off from the last remains of Christianity. 

My Luciferian altar, 
made by myself

On my Luciferian altar I had a cross with a coiled snake, inspired by the Process Church of the Final Judgment, which I found very fascinating with their peculiar Theology. Later, I also had a sigil of Lucifer underneath. My daily practice was the Rosary of Azazel (not available online in English; the most repeated phrase on ten beads is, "Lucifer-Christos, Soul of God, have mercy on us": doesn't sound so terrifying, does it?) of the Finnish society, Star of Azazel, which tries to combine the right-hand and the left-hand paths, interpreting Satanism through Theosophy. My version of the practice was complemented with the prayer from the Tibetan Book of the Dead (couldn't find it in English), and Pater Noster (yes, in Latin, that "magical language"!). The Eucharist was also included, but justified by practices of Wicca and Thelema. I was reflecting on buying a ritual dagger and adding a pagan ritual, magical circle and pentagram drawn on four directions in the air, but it didn't reach realization. 

Perhaps my Luciferianism was about integration of my suppressed and forbidden shadow-side as a part of myself: angel and demon within me were merged, as a whole human being. 

My new worldview was short-lived, but I went deep. Even though I abandoned Luciferianism, am I not really more Luciferian today by nature than ever before? Outer destiny helped me through the spiritual revolution. My deep disappointment in religious people in 2013, and the sudden death of my partner in 2015, both were part of this process that took me through the darkness into the Light, purified and enlightened. Even my belief in people was restored. What used to be a spiritual ideal to me, now became a practical reality. 

Gnosticism and Luciferianism are still strong in me, and I don't mean as conscious thoughts, mixture of different ideas, but naturally through that spiritual relationship these things share with Buddhism. Carl Jung is the bond binding them together. Lucifer is the bringer of light, enlightenment is the goal of Buddhism; man aspires and attains, and the goal is within: no outer god with divine mercy bestows it. It's about individual and their psyche. Once Luciferianism is internalized, names and symbols don't matter. 

My Luciferian phase was accompanied by disappointment in people, especially religious people, that in a way led to disappointment in god, who made people in his image, or rather, whom people have made in their image. 

I still find paradise myth very meaningful. As Edward F. Edinger, Psychologist and Jungian analyst, has interpreted:

The drama of temptation and fall begins when the original state of passive inflation turns into the active inflation of a specific deed. The serpent's whole approach and appeal is expressed in inflationary terms - when you eat of this fruit, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God. So the fruit of the tree is eaten and the inevitable consequences unfold. 

It all begins because Adam and Eve dare to act on their desire to be like God. The myth depicts the birth of the consciousness as a crime which alienates man from God and from his original preconscious wholeness. The fruit is clearly symbolical of consciousness. It is the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which means that it brings awareness of the opposites, the specific feature of consciousness. 

Thus, according to this myth and the theological doctrines that rest on it, consciousness is the original sin, the original hubris, and the root cause of all evil in human nature. However, others have understood it differently. The Ophites, a Gnostic sect, worshipped the serpent. They had essentially the same view as modern psychology. To them the serpent represented the spiritual principle symbolizing redemption from bondage to the demiurge that created the Garden of Eden and would keep man in ignorance. 

The serpent was considered good and Yahweh bad. Psychologically the serpent is the principle of Gnosis, knowledge or emerging consciousness. The serpent's temptation represents the urge to self-realization in man and symbolizes the principle of individuation. Some gnostic sects even identified the serpent in the Garden of Eden with Christ. Eating the forbidden fruit marks the transition from the eternal state of unconscious oneness with the Self (the mindless, animal state) to a real conscious life in space and time. 

In short, the myth symbolizes the birth of the ego. The effect of this birth process is to alienate the ego from its origins. It now moves into a world of suffering, conflict and uncertainty. No wonder we are reluctant to take the step to greater consciousness. 

Indeed. There are no concepts of "sin" or "fall" in original story, neither according to Judaism. This story is actually very empowering - therapeutic myth, as Jung said! 

Blutengel: Morningstar

What other people say:

Demonic Transgressions: Or How I Became a Buddhist Luciferian

Why Luciferian Buddhism

Buddhism is incompatible with Abrahamism, but fully compatible with Luciferianism

Buddhism and Gnosticism

SATAN LOVES YOU!

  "We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." (2 Peter 1:19)
In Latin Vulgate:
"...Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris."

This is my attempt to explain why a person like me, who honors Jesus Christ, is also "tempted" (I don't  really like to use that word because it may give a wrong impression in this context) by Satanism, and what "Satanism" actually means to me in the first place.

Marko (the blonde one).

When a teenager speaks of being a Satanist, I think it's because of seeking for attention and pursuit for oddity. There have been cases like vandalizing graveyards and even burning churches - at least in Nordic countries - attributed to Devil worship, and proud Satanists surely disclaim that; it is stupid and immature behaviour. 

When a middle-aged person like myself, speaks of Satanism in positive tone, it is result of life-experience and a lot of thinking. I must admit there is much about life that has made me rather cynical - but perhaps it's better to say I consider myself to be a cynical realist. I feel that Faith in Light alone is insufficient. Darkness has its rightful place in the universe, and it is not actually "evil" at all.

Let me make it clear: I don't believe in Satan as an entity, neither I believe in Absolute evil. There is simply nothing absolute in this world - everything is relative, including "good" and "evil". It's like yin and yang - there is no white without a little black, and vice versa.
I'm willing to admit there might be "evil spirits", so to speak, who may influence on the living according to their specific mortal weaknesses, "tempting" them, but evil comes from the human heart, and I'm inclined towards believing with Emanuel Swedenborg, that these beings are no more than deceased humans, whose nature is evil (and yet, I don't believe this state is permanent either; after long period of purification they too may enter Heaven, once they realize their condition and wish to change).
I don't claim to fully understand this Mystery of good and evil, I only see poetic fragments and vague visions. I have no more need to find explanations for all things in life - to "know" for sure. It's impossible. Sure you can choose philosophy that pleases you and stick to it, yet it is only one theory among others. This writing is not giving you all the answers, but it shows various ways to proceed on, trying to find your own answers - if you feel need for them.

Light and Darkness 

Goethe's theory of colours states that to perceive colours, interaction of light and shadow is needed  - contrary to Newton's popularly accepted claim that white light contains full spectrum of colours. I think that is remarkably true also in metaphysical sense, concerning the whole of human life!

Another picture that made an impression on me since I first heard of it years ago - it's so obvious you have hardly thought about it: we think space is dark and black as we see it in the starry sky, but in reality it is full of sun light which only becomes visible when it meets an object, an obstacle, like planet. What an analog! "The light shines in the darkness..."

Eliphas Lévi on Satan and Lucifer...

The great Eliphas Lévi wrote: 

Satan is merely a type, not a real personage. It is the type opposed to the Divine type, the necessary foil to this in our imagination. It is the factitious shadow which renders visible to us the infinite light of the Divine. If Satan was a real personage then would there be two Gods, and the creed of the Manicheans would be a truth.
Satan is the imaginary conception of the absolute in evil; a conception necessary to the complete affirmation of the liberty of the human will, which, by the help of this imaginary absolute seems able to equilibrate the entire power even of God. It is the boldest, and perhaps, the sublimest of the dreams of human pride.
"You shall be as Gods knowing good and evil," saith the allegorical serpent in the Bible. Truly to make evil a science is to create a God of evil, and if any spirit can eternally resist God, there is no longer one God but two Gods. To resist the Infinite, infinite force is necessary, and two infinite forces opposed to each other must neutralize each other. If resistance on the part of Satan is possible the power of God no longer exists, God and the Devil destroy each other, and man remains alone; he remains alone with the phantom of his Gods, the hybrid sphynx, the winged bull, which poises in its human hand a sword of which the wavering lightnings drive the human imagination from one error to the other, and from the despotism of the light, to the despotism of the darkness.
The history of mundane misery is but the romance of the war of the Gods, a war still unfinished, while the Christian world still adores a God in the Devil, and a Devil in God. The antagonism of powers is anarchy in Dogma. Thus to the church which affirms that the Devil exists the world replies with a terrifying logic: then God does not exist; and it is vain to seek escape from this argument to invent the supremacy of a God who would permit a Devil to bring about the damnation of men; such a permission would be a monstrosity, and would amount to complicity, and the god that could be an accomplice of the devil, cannot be God.
The Devil of Dogmas is a personification of Atheism. The Devil of Philosophy is the exaggerated ideal of human free-will. The real or physical Devil is the magnetism of evil. Raising the Devil is but realizing for an instant this imaginary personality. This involves the exaggeration in one's self beyond bounds of the perversity of madness by the most criminal and senseless acts. The result of this operation is the death of the soul through madness, and often the death of the body even, lightning-struck, as it were, by a cerebral congestion. The Devil ever importunes, but nothing ever gives in return. St. John calls it "the Beast" (la Bête) because its essence is human folly (la Bêtise humaine).

 And of Lucifer, he wrote:

Glory to the Holy Ghost, who has promised victory over earth and over heaven to the angel of liberty! The angel of liberty was born before the dawn of the first day, before even the awakening of intelligence, and God called him the morning star.
O Lucifer! Voluntarily and disdainfully thou didst detach thyself from the heaven where the sun drowned thee in his splendour, to plow with thine own rays the unworked fields of night! Thou shinest when the sun sets, and thy sparkling gaze precedes the daybreak! Thou fallest to rise again; thou tastest of death to understand life better!
For the ancient glories of the world, thou art the evening star; for truth renascent, the lovely star of dawn. Liberty is not licence, for licence is tyranny. Liberty is the guardian of duty, because it reclaims right. Lucifer, of whom the dark ages have made the genius of evil, will be truly the angel of light when, having conquered liberty at the price of infamy, he will make use of it to submit himself to eternal order, inaugurating thus the glories of voluntary obedience. 

 Rudolf Steiner and two evils

 Distinction between the two, Lucifer and Satan, is made by many. Rudolf Steiner was one spiritual teacher who systematically taught there exists not one, but two basic personifications of "evil", Lucifer being one, and the other he named after evil principle of Zoroastrianism: Ahriman (a.k.a. Satan).
"Lucifer appeals to our pride and ambition. He wants us to think we have no limitations..." "Ahriman seeks the opposite of Lucifer. When Lucifer would hold us back, Ahriman wishes us to advance far faster than is good for us..." "In sum: Luciferic beings lead us to underestimate and flee from the earth while Ahrimanic beings lead us to overestimate and crave the earth." (James H. Hindes: Renewing Christianity - Rudolf Steiner's ideas in practice. Anthroposophic Press 1996)
 I don't personally buy his theory, at least entirely, but I have to admit it's quite useful hypothesis to work with, because it shows how relative concepts we are dealing with. Especially "Good" according to Steiner's theory, is not something opposite to evil: it is in the middle of two evils, like Christ on the cross between two criminals. Good is a living principle, a stream that can't be calculated. There is a middle way, the spiritual centre, between two extremities, which are negative when they are one-sided. Evil is diverged either to the left or to the right, and it firmly takes a particular form - it has fallen behind. However, Steiner also points out that both Lucifer and Ahriman are necessary in their rightful places: "We need the pride and self esteem which come from Lucifer to remind us that we are spiritual beings who have ideals and that at times should reach for the stars regardless of our earthly situation. So, too, we need a sober estimation of our possibilities based on the weight of our earthly situation." (Same source as above)
There are others, however, who declare that Satan and Lucifer are more like two sides of one coin, or two faces of one being. It seems obvious they are more than just two names given for one character, each having its own characteristics. 

The Church of Satan

Founding of the Church of Satan in 1968 meant the New Era for Satanism, for it was now made public. I have read the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey, and I'm also reading memoirs of Michael Aquino, who was active in the Church of Satan until he founded the Temple of Set. I can understand conclusions that may have led people to philosophy like that, and there's nothing scary about it to me, but basically it's just Atheism in very aggressive guise, and it's hard to see anything positive and constructive in that; but at least it's honest, and challenging fundamentalistic Christianity, showing what it really is, a truly insidious and devilish evil force - a wolf in sheep's clothing - making a lot of damage in human psyche in the name of God!

God's Quality

In Hebrew, Satan means “the accuser,” or “the adversary", and it is used in the Hebrew Bible as a title, not as a name of being. Satan was not originally a person, but one of God's qualities; not a being, but one of God's forces. In 2 Samuel 24:1 we read: "Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.'" The Chronicles that were written later, tell a same incident differently: "Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel." (1 Chr.21:1)
Indeed; Freud wrote that perhaps not much ability for analysis is needed to guess that God and the Devil were originally identical, and God was lonesome personality who was later divided into two personalities, defined by opposite qualities. In original religion God had all those terrible characteristics, of which gathered together his opposite was later formed.

Satan is saved!

Why doesn't God destroy the Tempter, asked Finnish Lutheran Vicar, Voitto Viro, in the 60's, and he answered: because God loves him! Love never destroys anyone, but rather suffers for the loved one. And then Voitto Viro boldly suggests: when we start to pray for him and love him, completely new realization of the Christian light is dawning!
Church Father Origen taught, that in the end even Satan is saved!

Muslims and Yazidis

In Quran, Satan (Iblis) is a Jinn who refused to bow to Adam, and it caused him to fall out of Grace with God. Religious Kurdish community of the Yazidis have been accused of Devil worship by Muslims. They believe in one God who created the world and entrusted it into the care of seven Holy Beings or Angels, and preeminent among these is Tawûsê Melek (frequently known as "Melek Taus" in English publications), the Peacock Angel. The story regarding Tawûsê Melek's rise to favor with God is almost identical to the story of the jinn Iblis in Islam, except that Yazidis revere Tawûsê Melek for refusing to submit to God by bowing to Adam. However, Yazidis believe he is a leader of the archangels, not a fallen one, and not a source of evil; source of evil is in the heart and spirit of humans themselves! (From Wikipedia)
Sufi Mystics also viewed Iblis as a lover of God who refused to worship anyone but God.

Snake in the Garden

Snake in the garden of Eden is misunderstood creature. Some Gnostics interpret it as symbol of Christ, who opened the eyes of Adam and Eve, and awakened them from the blissful darkness of unawareness to the disturbing light of self-awareness. Before the snake, Adam and Eve just blindly obeyed. In fact, paradise-like state was very unintellectual and morally lazy for man. Only after the Fall man became man with his good and bad aspects. Story depicts awakening from vagueness of original consciousness to self experience, from instinctive state to become aware of good and evil. This was great progress in evolution. Man as freely operating being is naturally the opposite of soulless perfection, which in reality would be imperfection if it had forced him to commit acts he wouldn't have rejoiced of. He would not know the difference between God and a rock. According to Friedrich Schiller, the Fall was the happiest moment of the world history. There are no words "sin" and "fall" in the Scripture, but there is "banishment": it is part of child birth, child is banished from the womb where everything was easy - now it's time for life, work, pains, and sexuality.
Remember, Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole, as the Lord told him, and Jesus said to his followers,  "be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves"! In ancient Middle East snake was a symbol of wisdom, and mediator, representing ability to comprehend incoherence of life: some snakes are poisonous, some are not.

Blavatsky: Paganism and Kabbalah

How convenient to accuse some supernatural being of our own faults. Yet, man is not all corrupt; be there the original sin (and I'm not sure if there is), there is also a seed of original goodness in us; that is inborn quality, evil is alien to us and comes from without. (See in this blog: Some reflections on the problem of evil according to Pekka Ervast.)
 H.P. Blavatsky writes in her massive work, The Secret Doctrine: ... "Christian theology, although following slavishly in the steps of Paganism, was only true to its own time-honoured policy. It had to isolate itself, and to assert its authority. Hence it could not do better than turn every pagan deity into a devil. Every bright sun-god of antiquity -- a glorious deity by day, and its own opponent and adversary by night, named the Dragon of Wisdom, because it was supposed to contain the germs of night and day -- has now been turned into the antithetical shadow of God, and has become Satan on the sole and unsupported authority of despotic human dogma. After which all these producers of light and shadow, all the Sun and the Moon Gods, were cursed, and thus the one God chosen out of the many, and Satan, were both anthropomorphised." [...] "The Kabbalists say that the true name of Satan is that of Jehovah placed upside down, for 'Satan is not a black god but the negation of the white deity,' or the light of Truth. God is light and Satan is the necessary darkness or shadow to set it off, without which pure light would be invisible and incomprehensible."

Pekka Ervast: Satan and his abnegation

Pekka Ervast [see the links on the sidebar] also taught about Satan: in reality Satan is quite different from the picture Christian doctrine has made of him. In the Book of Job he is member of the counsel of gods. He is infinitely great angel, high divine being, one of the most supreme rulers of our Solar System. According to Ervast, seven holy platenary spirits represent - along with the representative of the Sun - the highest dominion in our Solar System. Satan is the planetary spirit of the Earth. He is the director of the action of Karma. His mission is to school human beings, who must solve the problem of good and evil. This planet is the school of suffering. It means infinite abnegation for Satan; he mustn't show himself at all - he only must give his great power for people to use, and in a way, mask himself. It is not a pleasant task for him; it brings him curses, not glory. His abnegation is, that he can't directly use his goodness and wisdom: we are too small to understand more than that it is great abnegation to decline everything by order and for love for beings who must evolve, and only give one's creative power for others fairly ignorant to misuse.
Since Jesus of Nazareth, Christ has become the Higher Self of the Earth, but Satan is still the Lower Self of the Earth. Satan continues his work, but he may already see new dawn rising, slowly but surely. In a way, Satan was redeemed through the work of Christ.

 The Process Church of the Final Judgment

The 1960's movement, The Process Church of the Final Judgment, is one that I find very fascinating, for they had intriguing theology intergrating Jehovah, Christ, Lucifer and Satan! For example, an  article called "The Unity of Christ and Satan" states the following:

"CHRIST said: Love your enemies.
CHRIST's Enemy was SATAN and SATAN's Enemy was CHRIST.
Through Love enmity is destroyed.
Through Love saint and sinner destroy the enmity between them.
Through Love CHRIST and SATAN have destroyed their enmity
and come together for the End;
CHRIST to Judge, SATAN to execute the Judgement.
The Judgement is WISDOM; the execution of the Judgement is LOVE."

 The Star of Azazel

Today I have found only one spiritual movement that answers to my gut feeling. While all other movements say you have to choose either left or right, this one is saying there is the third way including both. It is Finnish Society called the Star of Azazel -  presenting Theosophical world view with Satanism. They don't deny God and even revere Jesus.

 Aptest angel and the lovliest!
a God betrayed, to whom no anthems rise,

Satan, take pity on my sore distress! 

Prince of exiles, exiled Prince who, wronged,
yet rises ever stronger from defeat,

Satan, take pity on my sore distress! 

Omniscient ruler of the hidden realm,
patient healer of all human pain,

Satan, take pity on my sore distress! 

etc. (Les Litanies de Satan by Charles Baudelaire)

Read more:

A Lucid Look at Lucifer by Dr. Harrell Rhome 

Lucifer, the Eastern Crown Prince of Satanism

Paradise Lost by John Milton (yes, I have actually read it, from cover to cover!)

Some Light on Lucifer by Ina Belderis

Wikipedia: Lucifer and Prometheus

SPIRITUAL IMPULSES INFLUENCING ME

Marko; aura photo 1993

Since Cynthia Kiteley Lee - whom I have honor to know - listed her spiritual paths on Mystical Order of the White Rose Newsletter, October 2013, I started to think is it even possible for me to make a simlar list of all major spiritual impulses that influece me. First I tried to make some sort of chart, but it became too messy and hard to read. Problem is, of course, that we hardly even know everything that has had impact on us, so I can only list things that I know for sure, and choose those that have had more than random and passing effect.

I do this because it is interesting to me; not that it has any value to you. Then again, how could I possibly know. I list religions, movements, and characters that stand out, and try to say few words about each one.

Religions

• Christianity; isn't it obvious. If I had been raised in Islamic country, it would be Islam. Once I thought Christianity is all the same, but it's not. If you say you're Christian, you don't really say anything about yourself - there are as many ways to be Christian as there are Christians.
• Judaism; when I have studied Jewish roots of Christianity - for instance, Hebrew Bible in historical critical light - I have come to appreciate Judaism more and more for the sake of itself. It is not just some preceding phase to Christianity. Jesus was Jew til the end of his life, and never meant to start a new religion. I practice Seder meal in Christian context every year, and I wear Tallit when I pray, and I use Psalms as prayers - which is common practice for both Jewish and Christian - as did Jesus with his disciples. Kabbalah is interesting, but rather unfamiliar to me, and seems very complicated and intellectual. Maybe someday...
• Buddhism; just as diverse as Christianity: there are many schools, some even more or less emphasize salvation through faith. I do like Tibetan Buddhism and respect Dalai Lama, but I'm more into Theravada forms (except for Zen, which is Mahayana, and the most interesting form of Buddhism to me).
• Hinduism; even if common folks may actually believe in many gods and goddesses, philosophy of Hinduism is very profound; the idea of Brahman, the Absolute, the one and only beyond all manifestation, is close to ideas of Philo of Alexandria, contemporary of Jesus, who influenced on developing Christian thought more than his own Jewish people. I celebrate Puja ritual every night, with Christian imagery. 
• Neopaganism; I was first interested in Wicca when I was in my 20's. Nowadays I'm interested in all aspects of neopaganism.

I don't mention Islam here; I have read many books on Islam, and I still don't get hold of it. I do appreciate Sufism, though, but I only know it theoretically.

Within Christianity

• Lutheranism; I was born in Lutheran country and baptised Lutheran. That's part of the reason why I grew alienated from it. Only much later I have actually read what Martin Luther thought, and it was an eye-opener. However, Lutheranism after Luther is something else anyway.
• Orthodox Christianity; after my break up with Lutheranism, it was Orthodox Christianity that made me approach Christianity again - through experience of the Divine Liturgy alone, not by intellect. The Orthodox Church is less dogmatic than Roman Catholic church, and they have preserved very old tradition.
• Catholicism; maybe it's because I was born in Lutheran country that I find Catholicism fascinating in many ways - certainly not because of its dogmatism or Papacy, but because of rich current of Mysticism that always has lived underneath all that. I've had Rosary for years!
• Quakerism; probably the most radical form of reformation. I have been to quaker meetings, and read about their history. Silence is something I can understand.  I like their stand against war. One must respect such Faith.
• Knights Templar; many esoteric movements claim knights templar as their own. It may be hard to get true information. Even though they were both warriors and monks, and that may seem contradictory, there is something deeply fascinating about them. Somebody once told me, I was Knight Templar in previous life. I honor them as martyrs.
• Catharism; since I was a pupil in Lectorium Rosicrucianum, which sees itself as spiritual heir to Cathars, I was intrigued by them as well. I was even obsessed by the idea to go for  pilgrimage to Languedoc, France. I admire their strong faith and endurance even through the fire and death. I later came to know French person living in Finland, who actually was Cathar, but I must say he didn't make a good impression: fasting at the cost of your health is stupid. At least in Lectorium Rosicrucianum the fast was considered spiritual fasting from this world.
• Esoteric Christianity; many movements I have been involved with, represent Esoteric Christianity. Religion always has its esoteric core and exoteric form.

Other spiritual impulses

•  Theosophy; my awakening to spiritual quest in my 20's first occured through Theosophy. I have translated many theosophical articles for my Finnish blog, but it's noteworthy they originate from other Theosophical societies than the one with headquaters in Adyar, the only one represented in Finland. I don't think much of Annie Besant, and I don't consider C.W. Leadbeater a trustworthy clairvoyant; besides, he was a pedophile - facts are heavy. 
• Anthroposophy; I have long been indirectly doing with Anthroposophy. First I thought it is more modern and more suitable for Western mind than Theosophy, but I have come to see how fanatical and dogmatic Anthroposophists can be. I guess it's no wonder because Anthroposophy is all about Rudolf Steiner, and has absorbed truths of one religion - Christianity - as part of itself.
• Rosicrucianism; there are many forms of rosicrucianism, many movements use this name. Symbol of Rosy Cross is dear to me. Some say Christian Rozenkreuz was an actual person, but I was taught and still believe that he is symbolic figure. After all, his name means "Christian Rosy-Cross"!
• Gnosticism; I was Gnostic once, and what was said above, goes with gnosticism as well. Movements that claim to be Gnostic, are very different from one another. Lectorium Rosicrucianum represents pure form of gnosticism; this world is seen as evil and corrupt, and we must rise away from it. In a way, "once gnostic, always gnostic"; certain ideas are current in my life that could be considered "gnostic", mostly freedom and individuality in Spirit that I have read were related to original Christian Gnosticism in the beginning of Christian Era.
• Satanism; probably the most surprising revelation on this list. But I will return to this topic later. Anyway, there is nothing frightening about satanism to me. I don't even believe in personal evil - nor absolute evil. In Finland there is one umbrella association for "laveyan satanists" and neopagans, like Wiccans!
• Zen; to me, it is mostly meditation - being present here and now. That has become important part of my daily life. Sometimes I go to Zendo, where I learned this method, but I don't want to go to Retreats; it's just too much.
• Unitarian Universalism; I was Unitarian Universalist early in my life, and I didn't know it myself. I didn't practice any particular religion, but I did believe in God and prayed. Today, Belief System Selector quiz of SelectSmart.com told me I'm 100% Unitarian Universalist! It makes sense too. In a way I have completed the full circle in my life.

Personalities

•  Jesus of Nazareth; so self-evident I almost didn't mention it. Today I want to know Jesus the Teacher - Jesus' teachings instead of teachings about Jesus (and that excludes St. Paul too!). His voice is clear in the Gospels. It's amazing to see how only very few ever have followed in his footsteps - many claim to do that, but try to explain his demanding words away. Of course his overall character is dear to me too, and why not use it as central point of my devotion. It's hard to worship abstract concept of God, without something concrete to take hold of.
• Mary Magdalene; it's not by chance I chose her as "Patroness" of my online ministry, now known as "Mystical Order of the White Rose - Scandinavian Skete of Mary Magdalene." Reasons for this are explained on website. I celebrate her feast day on July 22, by baking madeleines and conducting a short ritual of anointing with Spikenard oil.
• John the Evangelist; he's the Patron of above-mentioned Work. I still like to believe he - "the beloved disciple" - is the actual author of the fourth Gospel, and also of the epistles attributed to him, and of the Book of Revelation. And as Rudolf Steiner taught, it makes sense to me to think he was no one less than Lazarus raised from the dead. I have sometimes identified myself with the Beloved Disciple, who leaned against Jesus' chest at the meal, listening to his heart beats.
• Gautama Buddha; there is no doubt he was historical figure, and he was a man, not god, who realised the truth and made it the way to be followed in life. Unlike followers of Jesus, his followers have mostly maintained his teachings. I have a small statue of Buddha on my home altar below the picture of Jesus.
• St. Francis of Assisi; not surprising, because he is one the most beloved saints of all times. And one who truly deserves the title "saint". He represents so many virtues I wish I could manifest: love for nature and animals, caring for the sick and poor, friendly dialogue between different faiths, peace. I would like to be Franciscan...
• Origen of Alexandria; after reading so much about his ideas, one must conclude he was ahead of his time, and still is. The most important single feature in his philosophy was that he disputed the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell - which is blashemy! 
• Marcion of Sinope; "the great heretic of the early church". He made a strict distinction between Judaism and Christianity, and abandoned the Old Testament all together. Unlike his "orthodox" contemporaries, he didn't accuse Jews for rejecting Jesus. I often use "Marcion" as my nickname online (my name is Marko, so it's close).
• Meister Eckhart; I only know fragments of his thoughts, but it has been enough to impress me. For instance, he believed in Godhead beyond the Trinity, and even claimed that Trinitarian God existed only in people's minds, and he said that even the human form of Jesus may become an obstacle.
• H.P. Blavatsky; the mother of modern Theosophical movement I greatly respect. Even more so, because of all the stories told of her temper and nature. She was a real human being of flesh and blood, not some distant holy person. The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled are yet to be read by me.
• Pekka Ervast; I will always honor him as my spiritual mentor. See the links on the sidebar below, and also many translations I've made of his writings in this blog.
• Rudolf Steiner; contemporary of Pekka Ervast, and they also met. Merits of Steiner are undeniable. However, it is unbearable to me to see how high his followers have raised him: he's next to God whose every word is divine truth.
• Valentin Tomberg; this guy is thorn in the flesh of many anthroposophists - for he was one himself, and then left and converted to Catholicism. I'm reading his "magnum opus", anonymously published Meditations on the Tarot, and I like it! Whatever is causing friction for anthroposophists, is worth to look at. And he was never "orthodox" catholic - this book is full of esotericism.  
• Max Heindel; founder of the Rosicrucian Fellowship, and another guy Steiner himself attacked, allegedly for plagiarizing him. Steiner had his bitter and mean personality features - he was harshly criticising others. I own a copy of Heindel's major work - The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception - published in Finnish in 1922. It is one of my treasures, very rare! 
• Jiddu Krishnamurti; I first learnt about him in context of Theosophy. The whole "World Teacher" episode was very unfortunate, but it surely wasn't his fault, and when he renounced it, that was very upright. I can't say I'm familiar with his philosophy, but glimpses I've had, have been promising.
• Master Beinsa Douno, or Peter Deunov; Bulgarian spiritual master, of whom Rudolf Steiner spoke with reverence. He was also corresponding with Jiddu Krishnamurti. Funny thing is, his disciple is perhaps better known than master...
• Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov; disciple of master Beinsa Douno, who lived in France. They even looked alike! I came to know about teachings of Aivanhov through Cynthia Kitely Lee, so I also found Master Beinsa Douno afterwards. For anyone who's familiar with Theosophy, there is nothing really new.
• Edgar Cayce; I'm not a big fan of channelled information, but Edgar Cayce is one exception I at least choose to consider, for instance, his interpretations on the Book of Revelation. 
• G.I. Gurdjieff; first I was influenced by Enneagram (Take a free test! I'm number 5, by the way!). His message was, "people are asleep; they are machines". So true.
• P.D. Ouspensky; one person who tried to gather Gurdjieff's system together.
• C.G. Jung; I can't say I know his work very much, but his theory of Archetypes has influence on my spirituality. Jesus Christ is the greatest Archetype of all! (And it doesn't matter to me, if that is "all" he is, he is still the most meaningful figure ever!)
• Osho; contradictory character, but it doesn't lessen the value of his teachings that are very Zen-like. 
• Paramahansa Yogananda; Autobiography of a Yogi is excellent book, even though I think it contains some stuff that is simply impossible to believe. What appeals to me, is his way of interpreting Christianity in Eastern context; it may often open new horizons for reader.
• Thich Nhat Hanh; this Vietnamese Buddhist monk is known to me by his books, and as was the case with Yogananda, I especially like how he interprets Christianity through Buddhist eyes.
• Anton LaVey; founder of the Church of Satan. I have read his Satanic Bible, seen few documentary films. He was a smart guy, precisely because he didn't take it all too seriously.
• Michael Aquino; once active member of the Church of Satan, then founder of the Temple of Set. For me his influence lies in the fact I'm reading his memoirs of the Church of Satan and find it very interesting.

Particular spiritual movements

• Lectorium Rosicrucianum; this movement influenced me very strongly, because I was a pupil in the 90's. I was only the fourth pupil in Finland back then, and we had to travel to Sweden for weekend conferences that were held once a month (and I think they still do).  I finally resigned because they teach that pupil should not practice homosexuality (in other words, not love and live!), and I had just met my partner. Today I can say it is a cult! Yet there are some teachings I have kept. For instance, "masters of the White Brotherhood" - or whatever you call it - never make personal appearances and never appeal to human ego. That leaves no room for "Ascended Masters" and their "messengers".
• AMORC; I've been influenced by online writings I have read. I did order their brochure already before I even knew about Lectorium Rosicrucianum. 
• The Liberal Catholic Church; my first contact with LCC was in 1994. My experience with proper Christian ceremonial was now combined with spiritual knowledge and wisdom (Theosophy, that is, and thus acceptance of Reincarnation and karma, among other things). I have kept up my relationship to this very day. However, just like only Adyar Theosophy is present in Finland, so there is only the original branch of LCC that still doesn't ordain women and that is a shame!
• The Christian Community; this denomination was born with assistance of Rudolf Steiner, and it's based on his Anthroposophy. I'm a member, but nowadays not very active - partly because I'm fed up with all Steiner-dogmatism. The Christian Community is supposed to be free from dogmas, but it holds many views that are considered almost self-evident, and it is such a blind spot that people deeply involved won't even see it. This is not to say anything against the Christian Community, but rather just to emphasize the fact that it isn't different from any other church.
• The Independent Church of Australia; this one I know only through internet, and I must say it instantly caught my attention when I first found it many, many years ago. They obviously have many things in common with two denominations mentioned above. I have studied their website thoroughly and also translated some articles for my Finnish blog. Someday I'm going to order some books too.
• Unity; I know Unity also through internet only. I have found much interesting information from their sites. 
• The Holy Order of MANS; long gone movement that was active only in America. Thanks to internet, again, I have found many fascinating resources. There's just something about it that appeals to me; very churchy and even catholic, yet esoteric.
• The Process Church of the Final Judgment; this 1970's movement had very intriguing theology which integrated Jehovah, Christ, Lucifer, and Satan. And it totally makes sense - to me, anyway. I have translated some articles in Finnish.
•  Star of Azazel; Now, this is Finnish society I'm seriously considering to apply to. Theosophical world view with Satanism! It is nothing like hedonism and atheism of the Church of Satan. You better see it for yourself. I'm planning to write about my satanic interests in hopefully near future. 

You may notice how wide variety of influences I recognize. And I'm sure some of them make you wonder, how is that even compatible with everything else. Well, I think life is made of paradoxes. That's what makes it interesting.