I am giving my opinion that not everything that looks like a mushroom is a mushroom.

I am relating my first hand experience of having lived and travelled in India, lived with "Aghoris" and amongst tribal people (namely Dongaria Khond in the Eastern Ghats), and having got, for want of a better word, fucked up with everybody from rickshaw pullers to temple pandits, in every way possible, and never heard of any mushrooms.

And it's not like Indians, again, in my experience, have "big secrets". The have high-level techniques and expertise, which they might hold secret, but not generally the materials themselves. Go find a traditional Indian Ayurvedicist. They will tell about all the crazy medicines that can do weird and wonderful things to you, but they will not tell you how.

Or ask a Tantric about a specific Yantra or Mantra, they will show you what one looks like, but will not tell you how to use it. India is a land of marvels and the unexpected, but not generally a land of secrets. That is more of "mysteries of the East" Orientalist type nonsense aimed at selling perfume or pantyhose.

But- I'm still not saying mushrooms are not or were not used. I'm just saying that there is as yet no evidence, apart from the similarity between the psychedelic experience and, from my point of view, many aspects of higher Hindu, specifically Tantric, teachings.

Hokey pictures from the internet of small objects that might look a bit like mushrooms, from disparate cultures thousands of miles and many centuries in distance, do not cut the mustard. If this is all the evidence you need to believe something to be true, then your standards are not very high. If you want to cite credible sources of the various analysts who looked at two Scythian men passing a cup between them and said "Yup! Mushroom!", go ahead. I'd especially be interested if the identified it as P. Cubensis, which does not grow in Central Asia!

Re; Wasson's book, read it again. It is weak. Wasson was not a Sanskritist or an Indologist. He was not even a mycologist. He takes as evidence single occurrences of a number of ambiguous words, words that he did not translate himself, but had someone "translate to order". He was a wealthy hobbyist who did not rely on peer review of any kind. I personally factor these things into whose word I take seriously, as should you.

Please don't be offended if I am direct; I have been interested in Hinduism since my teens, travelled extensively in the Subcontinent, and wrote a BA thesis specifically on Soma. It's an area of great interest to me, and frankly I find it a shame that more people who are also interested do not make more effort in at least accessing the many primary texts that have been translated into English.