OCCULT ENTHUSIASTS: From OccultCom (Available by Subscription) to Lucian’s Grand Grimoire (Coming Soon)

This is where you can find my models: https://www.lucianseraphis.com/

When it comes to the Occult, magical traditions, and dealing with supernatural entities such as Orishas or demons, respect is very important. Casual arrogance and ego-driven experimentation, without discipline or the proper knowledge base, pollute the art, and occult practice is an art. It has accumulated over centuries through religious traditions, magical systems, grimoires, oral transmission, folklore, experimentation, and the experiences of practitioners who frequently disagreed with one another but nevertheless understood that certain things were not approached casually.

Lucian's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Occultism has never suffered from a shortage of people claiming knowledge and power. Every generation has produced its masters, adepts, secret initiates, prophets, demonologists, chosen vessels, and self-appointed authorities. Today they simply have a larger audience. Social media allows someone to read three books, purchase the appropriate clothing and ritual implements, memorize a few names and correspondences, and present himself to thousands of people as an authority on traditions that take years, and sometimes a lifetime, to understand properly.

Some of these people are knowledgeable. Others are harmless enthusiasts who are still learning. The ones who concern me are those who no longer recognize how much they do not know. Confidence begins to substitute for competence, personal revelation becomes unquestionable evidence, and eventually every warning inherited from the tradition is dismissed as superstition left behind by people supposedly less sophisticated than ourselves.

Perhaps they were superstitious. Perhaps the circle really is nothing more than a symbol, the offering an unnecessary remnant of an earlier religious culture, the prescribed opening and closing merely theatrical conventions, and the entity itself nothing more than a psychological archetype given a name by people who did not understand their own minds. Those are legitimate possibilities. The problem begins when someone assumes those possibilities have already been proven and proceeds accordingly.

If the old practitioners were wrong, the precautions may be unnecessary.

If they were right, however, the mistake is discovered only after the door has already been opened.

For practitioners who accept the supernatural premises of these traditions, that possibility is not metaphorical. They understand certain entities as independent intelligences with their own motives, relationships, expectations, and capacities. From within that worldview, a summoning is not cosplay and an offering is not a theatrical prop. Protections, permissions, prohibitions, containment procedures, methods of dismissal, and ritual closure exist because generations of practitioners believed there could be consequences when those things were handled carelessly.

Someone is perfectly free to conclude that none of these entities exists. What makes considerably less sense is accepting the existence of the entity while simultaneously dismissing everything the tradition says about approaching it. If you believe demons are real, for example, then treating an intelligence described for centuries as deceptive, manipulative, dangerous, or adversarial as though it were a supernatural customer-service representative is an extraordinary act of confidence.

The same principle applies when dealing with traditions outside Western ceremonial magic. An Orisha is not a Goetic demon with a different cultural costume. Haitian Vodou is not Santería/Lukumí. Santería is not Hoodoo. Hoodoo is not ceremonial magic. Jewish Kabbalah is not automatically Hermetic Qabalah. Similarities may exist and historical relationships may exist, but similarity is not identity. Respect begins by understanding what something is before deciding what you would like it to become.

History contains enough wreckage to make that humility worthwhile.

Jack Parsons and the Seduction of Certainty

Jack Parsons is particularly interesting because he cannot easily be dismissed as an ignorant man playing with things he did not understand. He was brilliant, technically accomplished, and one of the important pioneers of American rocketry. His scientific work helped lay foundations for what eventually became the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. At the same time, he was deeply involved in Thelema and became one of the most remarkable figures in twentieth-century American occultism.

In 1946, Parsons and L. Ron Hubbard undertook the series of magical operations that became known as the Babalon Working. Parsons believed the operation had produced significant results and interpreted subsequent events through that magical framework. Aleister Crowley, observing the situation from a distance, was considerably less confident in Parsons’s judgment and expressed serious concerns about what Parsons and Hubbard were doing.

Six years later, Parsons was dead at thirty-seven after an explosion involving volatile chemicals in his home laboratory. There is a perfectly physical historical explanation for his death, and there is no evidence establishing that the Babalon Working caused it. To claim otherwise would be exactly the kind of unsupported conclusion I wanted OccultCom to prevent.

Yet Parsons remains an important cautionary figure for another reason. Here was an exceptionally intelligent man who understood, perhaps better than most people, that dangerous materials require precision. In the laboratory, a brilliant theory did not excuse careless handling of explosives. In his occult life, however, he became convinced that his magical operations had reached beyond ordinary experience and produced something extraordinary. Whether Parsons contacted anything beyond himself is a metaphysical question that history cannot answer, but his story illustrates something history can demonstrate quite well: intelligence does not protect a person from certainty, and expertise in one field does not automatically confer infallibility in another.

That is worth remembering before laughing at the warnings contained in old magical literature.

Why I Built OccultCom

The modern information environment creates a different kind of danger. Never before has so much occult material been available to so many people so quickly. Manuscripts that once required travel to a special collection can be examined online. Translations, academic studies, grimoires, religious texts, historical records, correspondence tables, magical orders, folklore, and modern interpretations can all be encountered within hours.

In theory, this should produce extraordinarily well-informed practitioners.

In practice, it also produces an extraordinary amount of confusion.

Jewish Kabbalah becomes blended with Christian Cabala and Hermetic Qabalah without anyone explaining when the transition occurred. Vodou becomes Voodoo, which becomes Hoodoo, until three different historical and religious phenomena are treated as spelling variations. Orishas become generic spirits. Medieval demons acquire modern correspondences that are subsequently presented as ancient attributes. Someone notices a similarity between two traditions and concludes that both must secretly describe the same thing, another person repeats the claim, a website copies it, and eventually repetition itself begins masquerading as provenance.

Artificial intelligence introduces another complication. I use general-purpose AI extensively and find it extraordinarily useful, but generative systems are designed to establish relationships among information and construct answers. Usually that ability is exactly what makes them useful. In specialized occult research, however, a plausible relationship can become a serious problem when it crosses a boundary that should have remained intact.

The most dangerous answer is rarely the obviously ridiculous one. Those are easy to reject. The dangerous answer is the one that is almost entirely correct. It cites the right historical period, identifies the correct figure, explains the larger tradition accurately, and then quietly inserts one relationship that the evidence never established. The falsehood walks through the door wearing the credibility of everything surrounding it.

OccultCom grew out of my frustration with that problem.

OccultCom is not AI. It is a specialized occult research system constructed around controlled source material and deliberately defined relationships. Its limitation is intentional. I did not want a system whose principal virtue was knowing as much as possible about everything. I wanted one that could distinguish what its information actually established from what someone might reasonably imagine from it.

That means sources have to retain their identities. Historical periods have to remain distinguishable. Primary traditions cannot silently become later adaptations. An accusation cannot automatically become evidence that the accused person actually performed what was alleged. A nineteenth-century occult correspondence cannot travel backward several centuries simply because it fits nicely into an earlier magical system.

And when the controlled material does not establish an answer, OccultCom can return “No reliable match found.”

I would rather receive that than two pages of beautifully written fiction pretending to be research.

Even Adepts Can Be Deceived

The history of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn contains a particularly unpleasant example of why claims of occult authority deserve scrutiny.

S. L. MacGregor Mathers was not a casual student. He was one of the founders of the Golden Dawn and became one of the most influential figures in the development of modern ceremonial magic. Whatever one thinks of his supernatural claims, his importance to the history of Western occultism is difficult to dispute.

Yet around the turn of the twentieth century, Mathers became entangled with a couple known as Theo and Laura Horos, who presented themselves with impressive occult credentials and claims of esoteric authority. Those claims were not what they appeared to be. The Horoses were confidence operators who obtained Golden Dawn material and incorporated occult claims and appropriated ritual material into their own organization. Their activities eventually became the subject of a notorious 1901 criminal prosecution involving fraud and sexual abuse. Golden Dawn material surfaced publicly during the scandal, adding another humiliation to an organization already suffering serious internal divisions.

There is nothing supernatural required to understand what happened. That is precisely why the episode is useful. People surrounded by secret grades, initiations, magical names, hidden authorities, ritual knowledge, and claims of contact with higher intelligences encountered people claiming still greater secret authority and were vulnerable to deception.

The occult does not eliminate ordinary human weakness. Sometimes it gives ordinary human weakness an impressive title, a robe, and a secret name.

The lesson remains relevant because occult communities still contain people who claim initiations that cannot be checked, teachers who claim secret lineages, practitioners who insist that particular spirits have personally confirmed their authority, and individuals whose ultimate evidence is that questioning them proves the questioner is spiritually incapable of understanding. None of that means the claim must be false. It does mean the claim has not become true merely because it was delivered with confidence.

That concern eventually became embedded in OccultCom itself. Provenance matters. Sources matter. A claim about a tradition is not transformed into evidence merely because enough later writers repeat it.

Building OccultCom Meant Trying to Break It

OccultCom was never built once and declared finished. Most of its development occurred after it already appeared to work.

I tested it repeatedly, often with questions deliberately designed to expose weaknesses. When an answer failed, the failure itself became useful information. Sometimes the necessary source material was missing and had to be added. At other times the correct information was already present, but OccultCom failed to recognize the relationship between two names or concepts. Occasionally the opposite happened: the system found a relationship where none should have existed.

That process produced hundreds of tests and repairs.

Historical witchcraft became one of the most difficult areas because the evidence consists of very different kinds of material. There are accusations, confessions, demonological theories, ecclesiastical writings, descriptions of supposed sabbaths, evidence of popular magical practices, legal records, and skeptical writers challenging the claims of their contemporaries. All of these belong to the history of witchcraft, but they do not all tell us the same thing.

The Malleus Maleficarum is historically important, but the demonological worldview represented by the text cannot simply be converted into neutral evidence of what accused witches actually practiced. Confessions survive, but the circumstances under which many were produced matter enormously. Reginald Scot belongs to the historical picture, as do earlier materials associated with the Canon Episcopi and Burchard of Worms. The problem was not finding material. The problem was preventing fundamentally different categories of evidence from collapsing into one another.

That became a recurring theme throughout the development of OccultCom.

A Death at Cefalù

Aleister Crowley’s Abbey of Thelema provides another example of how quickly occult history becomes entangled with legend.

In 1923, a young follower named Raoul Loveday died while staying at the Abbey in Cefalù, Sicily. His wife, Betty May, subsequently described disturbing conditions and made sensational allegations about ritual practices there, including a story involving the blood of a sacrificed cat. Crowley denied the accusation. What is much more securely established is considerably less supernatural: Loveday became seriously ill after drinking contaminated water despite warnings concerning the local supply, and enteric illness was identified as the cause of his death.

The British press seized upon the story. Crowley’s already notorious reputation provided everything required for a sensational narrative, and the distinction between documented events, Betty May’s accusations, newspaper embellishment, and the mythology surrounding Crowley became increasingly difficult for later readers to untangle.

This is one of the peculiar hazards of researching occult history. A young man dies in an occult community, allegations of bizarre ritual practices circulate, newspapers discover the story, and before long several different categories of information have fused into a single legend. Decades later, someone encounters the legend without realizing that its individual components have very different evidentiary foundations.

There is also a grim little irony in Loveday’s story that I have always found instructive. People naturally look toward the occult setting when something terrible happens at an occult community. They imagine curses, rituals, entities, magical retaliation, or forces that should not have been disturbed. Yet sometimes the thing that kills the occultist is contaminated water.

A serious research system has to preserve both sides of that story. The occult allegation belongs in the historical record because people actually made it. The mundane medical explanation belongs there because the evidence supports it. What OccultCom should never do is silently transform one into the other.

The Zohar and the Problem of Time

The Zohar presented a quieter version of the same difficulty.

Its imagery of the rose among thorns, the Assembly of Israel, Malkhut, Shekhinah, judgment, mercy, and the thirteen petals belongs within a Jewish Kabbalistic environment. Later Christian and Western esoteric traditions borrowed, translated, reorganized, and transformed Kabbalistic concepts extensively. Those later developments are historically important, but they do not travel backward through time and become the original meaning of the earlier material.

That sounds obvious until a research system begins working across hundreds or thousands of interconnected records. The more information it possesses, the easier it becomes to construct relationships. Unfortunately, the ability to construct a relationship does not prove that the relationship historically existed.

The same difficulty appeared as OccultCom expanded into Éliphas Lévi, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, H. P. Blavatsky, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Aleister Crowley, the pentagram, the ouroboros, ceremonial magic, grimoires, and the complicated lines of influence connecting them.

OccultCom became better as its information increased, but it became trustworthy only when the boundaries improved with it.

The Blind Spot

Eventually I reached the point where OccultCom performed remarkably well across the areas in which I had concentrated most heavily. That success created another danger: it was easy to assume that because the system knew a great deal about Western esotericism, it possessed equivalent depth elsewhere.

Testing exposed the problem.

Its knowledge of Haitian Vodou, Louisiana Voodoo, Santería/Lukumí, and Hoodoo/Conjure was inadequate.

The answer was not simply to collect material containing those words and add it to an undifferentiated database. That would have made the underlying problem worse. These traditions needed to enter the system with their identities intact.

Haitian Vodou could not become a generic category called Voodoo. Lukumí could not become interchangeable with Vodou because both preserve important African religious inheritances. Hoodoo could not be treated as another variation of either tradition, nor could any of them simply be absorbed into the framework of European ceremonial magic.

This became one of the most important lessons in OccultCom’s development. Bringing information together does not require erasing the boundaries between it. In fact, the larger the collection becomes, the more important those boundaries are.

Respecting a tradition means allowing it to remain itself.

That realization eventually changed the direction of the project.

When Research Was No Longer Enough

OccultCom had become a way of asking questions about occult material, but its development had also produced increasingly structured bodies of information: spirits, correspondences, historical associations, spell material, summonings, workings, ritual tools, artifacts, incantations, and instructions.

At some point I realized that I did not always want to ask a research question about this material.

Sometimes I simply wanted to open it.

If I wanted to examine one of the seventy-two spirits of the Ars Goetia, why should a system reconstruct the information every time? Why regenerate a description, infer the correspondences, reconstruct the tools, and risk filling an absence with something plausible? If the material had already been researched and organized, the more sensible approach was to preserve the record and retrieve it directly.

The same principle applied elsewhere. A Hoodoo working should not need to be recreated each time someone wants to examine it. A summoning belonging to one tradition should not be reconstructed from fragments scattered across unrelated material. Correspondences should not change because a generative system decided another association looked appropriate.

Some knowledge should not be improvised.

That realization became the Grand Grimoire.

The Grand Grimoire

The Grand Grimoire is not AI. It is a structured interactive occult compendium designed to allow the user to navigate material that has already been organized.

Its major divisions preserve the bodies of material from which the records come: Vodou summonings, Santería/Lukumí summonings, Ars Goetia summonings, Hoodoo workings, and the organized categories of spells. From those larger divisions, the user can move into individual categories and eventually to the particular spell, working, spirit, or summoning being sought.

Opening the individual record reveals the information belonging to it. Depending upon the material, that can include correspondences, tools and artifacts, incantations, instructions, and the other elements associated with the record.

The important point is that the Grand Grimoire does not have to decide what probably belongs there each time someone opens it.

The material has already been structured.

That changes the relationship between the user and the information. There is no need for an intermediary to invent connective tissue simply because a field is empty. If something is absent from the record, the absence remains visible. That is preferable to filling the silence with a convincing guess.

The Seventy-Two

Nowhere does that principle matter more to me than with the seventy-two spirits of the Ars Goetia.

Within the Grand Grimoire they exist as individual records rather than as an interchangeable collection labeled “demons.” Their names, ranks, attributed offices or influences, appearances, seals, and related information belong to the Goetic material and should remain there.

There is also a larger issue here that goes beyond database architecture.

If someone believes these demons are historical literary constructions, then the records can be approached as historical and occult documents. Nothing requires the reader to accept the metaphysical claims of the grimoire tradition.

If, however, someone genuinely believes that these entities exist, the situation becomes rather different. The literature surrounding demonic intelligences repeatedly describes them as dangerous, deceptive, manipulative, adversarial, or at the very least possessed of motives that are not identical to those of the practitioner. In that worldview, the fact that an entity appears cooperative is not proof that the practitioner has mastered it. Receiving exactly what was requested does not necessarily mean the person understood the transaction.

That is why the old systems contain so much apparatus surrounding the encounter. Preparation, authority, protection, containment, dismissal, and closure were not added merely because somebody wanted the ritual to look impressive by candlelight. The people who developed and transmitted these practices believed those precautions mattered.

A modern practitioner may reject their explanation.

What is difficult to justify is accepting their demons while dismissing their warnings.

Ego Has Always Been in the Temple

The history of the Golden Dawn returns us to a less supernatural but equally persistent danger.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, one of the most influential magical organizations of the modern era was being torn apart by disputes over authority, legitimacy, grades, documents, personalities, secret chiefs, and magical claims. Mathers’s increasingly strained relationship with the London adepts, the dispute surrounding Westcott, and the later conflicts involving Crowley helped fracture an organization whose influence would nevertheless continue through much of modern Western occultism.

These were not unintelligent people. Many were educated, serious students of esotericism who produced writings and magical systems still studied more than a century later. Their learning did not make them immune to ego, factionalism, personal grievance, secrecy, or the intoxicating belief that possessing hidden knowledge made one’s own judgment unusually reliable.

That is perhaps one of occultism’s oldest traps. The further someone travels into a system built around hidden knowledge, initiation, secret names, invisible hierarchies, and extraordinary experiences, the easier it can become to believe that ordinary standards of skepticism no longer apply.

Occult practice does not remove ordinary human weakness. Sometimes it merely gives that weakness a ceremonial vocabulary.

What I Wanted These Systems to Preserve

After hundreds of tests, failures, additions, repairs, and retests, the philosophy behind OccultCom and the Grand Grimoire became much simpler than the machinery required to produce them.

I wanted to know what the evidence actually said. I wanted to know where it came from. I wanted historical claims separated from later interpretation and one tradition prevented from quietly colonizing another. I wanted uncertainty to remain uncertainty instead of being treated as an inconvenience that had to be filled with prose.

Most of all, I wanted the systems to recognize that there are things we simply do not know.

Not every manuscript survived. Not every ritual possesses the antiquity later practitioners claim for it. Not every spirit story can be historically verified. Not every coincidence is an omen. Not every tragedy surrounding an occultist was caused by occult practice, and not every person claiming secret knowledge actually possesses it.

History gives us documents and events. Traditions provide interpretations of those events. Practitioners leave testimony about what they believed they experienced. Sometimes those things support one another beautifully. Sometimes they contradict one another so completely that any honest researcher has to leave the contradiction unresolved.

That uncertainty should not be repaired simply because uncertainty makes people uncomfortable.

Once you begin inventing the missing pieces, you are no longer preserving the tradition.

You are writing a new one.

Why Build Any of This?

I built OccultCom because I wanted to ask difficult occult questions without constantly wondering whether the answer had quietly borrowed something from an unrelated tradition, projected a modern interpretation into an older text, or invented a relationship because the relationship sounded plausible.

OccultCom became the research utility.

The Grand Grimoire emerged because eventually I realized that some of the material did not need to be generated, interpreted, or reconstructed every time I wanted to use it. It needed to be organized carefully and opened directly.

The Grand Grimoire became the compendium.

Neither is another general-purpose AI, and neither exists to tell anyone what they must believe about the supernatural. OccultCom cannot prove that a demon exists. The Grand Grimoire cannot prove that an Orisha exists. Neither can settle whether Jack Parsons contacted Babalon, whether the intelligences described in old grimoires are objective beings, or whether centuries of ritual warnings describe supernatural dangers, psychological dangers, accumulated practical wisdom, or some combination that we still do not fully understand.

Those questions are much older than the software, and I have no intention of pretending I solved them.

What I do believe is that access to information should never be confused with mastery of what that information describes. Knowing a name is not mastery. Possessing a seal is not mastery. Copying a ritual from a book is not mastery, and confidence certainly is not mastery.

The old grimoires contain a great many doors. Some are historical, some religious, some magical, and some may exist only in the minds of the people who approach them. OccultCom was built to help determine where those doors came from and what the surviving evidence actually says about them. The Grand Grimoire is being built to organize what is found behind their labels without casually mixing one chamber with another.

Whether someone chooses to knock on one of those doors is a different matter.

Before doing so, however, it is probably worth knowing who wrote the instructions, what tradition the door belongs to, why the warnings were placed beside it, and whether you actually know how to close it again.