@BahiyaSutta, now I read your post, and it is a mixture of some accurate information and many stories you created around it. Nexus people are skeptical for a reason, as you should be. I would lay off psychedelics for a while and see how your ideas fare in a more sober state. ACRB and other barks are not advisable long term. These heart openings are very
artificial and could easily lead you astray. I feel some messiah-like vibes in your writing. Usually, this feeling that you have found a great
secret and others do not get it already shows that you went too far into your fantasy. It is your life, and you do whatever you want with it, but I would reevaluate these findings and the direction you are heading. Most likely, you would dismiss my advice, though
Medicine is not about discovering the right plant, recipe, or cleansing. It is about
you and what you
learn about yourself. I see none of it in your writing, so by inference your findings are moot. Sorry for such a direct delivery, but some people need it. I hope I am wrong, and you are just a unique character. Although, your focus on the mental side of things tells me otherwise. Anyhow, much love and light on your path. May all be well.
Thanks for your response, northape. I apologize for only now getting back to this thread. I think I understand your concern more clearly now.
What I’m presenting does combine different kinds of claims. Some can be readily checked against existing evidence; others are observations and hypotheses that require replication, structured self-observation, and meditation. I should distinguish those categories more consistently.
One concern I have about some of the responses here is that people are evaluating my conclusions without trying the preparation or accompanying practices I’m actually describing. Experiences with other Acacia preparations are relevant and valuable, but they do not directly test this protocol. A different preparation, intention, and psychological process may produce a different result.
To be concrete, I call the larger system the Haoma protocol. Loveyhuasca is only the state or resource layer. The integration layer includes inner-child reparenting and receptive, non-command self-hypnosis. The purpose is to bring the loving state into contact with ordinary human pain—not to remain in transcendence or treat the loving state as proof that healing has occurred.
I also link from the protocol back to this exact Nexus thread so that readers can see the controversy, skepticism, and strongest criticisms for themselves. I’m not trying to hide disagreement or present my interpretation as uncontested.
I agree that loving and transcendent states can facilitate spiritual bypassing. Loveyhuasca can presumably be used that way, just as romantic love, meditation, devotion, or almost any powerful spiritual experience can. Love is not integration; it is a resource that can be used for integration.
The person still has to bring that love down into contact with the frightened, ashamed, angry, or neglected parts of themselves. Loveyhuasca does not command that process or perform it for them, and neither do I. But for some people, if they cannot access any genuine warmth or safety toward themselves, reparenting remains intellectual or performative. In that context, the loving state can provide something they are otherwise unable to bring to the work.
I have also taken years away from psychedelics. My experimentation has not consisted of taking this every day for fifteen years. I remain interested in testing and refining these observations, including my recent return to a simpler olfactory form of Metta-NMT. Continuing to investigate something should not be confused with an inability to step away from it.
I also disagree with the statement that medicine is not about discovering the right plant, preparation, or cleansing. I would instead say that it is not
only about those things. The specific intervention can matter enormously, and so can the person’s intentions, psychological work, relationships, behavior, and integration afterward. I am not proposing a “substance solves everything” model.
If my previous writing blurred the line between repeated observations, working hypotheses, and established facts—or came across as overly proselytizing—that is fair criticism, and I sincerely apologize. I can be more precise.
Some of my confidence comes from having helped people across a very wide range of problems. I have worked with hundreds of people who could speak directly about their experiences, and I have retained many of their testimonials. That does not prove I can help everyone or that every interpretation I make is correct. It does mean my confidence is not based only on a private theory or a few isolated experiences.
At the same time, my tendency to believe I could help nearly anyone caused real problems when I overextended myself into situations involving severe dysregulation, persistent self-defeating patterns, or needs beyond what informal support could responsibly address. I have learned painful lessons about boundaries, responsibility, and the limits of what one person or method can do.
I would genuinely appreciate a more specific critique: which statements do you believe are factually wrong, which do you regard as plausible but untested, and which parts of the actual Haoma protocol do you think promote spiritual bypassing? Those are different criticisms. Separating them would make it much easier for me—and for anyone reading the discussion—to evaluate what is actually being disputed.
