Luiciferian conundrum

Hi all. I have been reading Michael Ford’s Apotheosis and am almost done with it. I find it very interesting and fits me very well. Kinda cool actually. I am anxious to continue on that road and see what else I can find.

My conundrum is; the seeming contradiction regarding Lucifer himself and the myths surrounding him and the use of the myths of monotheism and religion. I will explain to the best of my abilities. This is very difficult to articulate for me.

According to Michael, Lucifer is the Morning Star cast from heaven by ‘god’. Lucifer is also a pre-Christian god/goddess from Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, etc. He has many names and faces. Michael states that we are too throw off our prior beliefs in the monotheistic religions that have yoked us to these beliefs. I agree with this.

The thing is, he uses these beliefs as part of guiding you to Lucifer. He speaks of Lucifer being cast out of heaven, as if there is a place, and then speaking about there being no such place as heaven. He speaks about bringing Lucifer up from hell yet, if there is no heaven, how is there a hell? In fact, is that not buying into and using the myth of the serpent in Genesis from the bible to describe a god not associated with the bible?

Why is Lucifer the Devil if that is a “God” construct? Why are we bringing daemon/demons “up” from “hell” if there is no hell? I guess my main question is, if Lucifer is not associated with the god of the christian bible, why are we constantly hooking him up with hell and evil?

I hope that was clear and that someone has a thought on this. Thanks.


Great question. I contemplate this almost daily. Maybe someone smarter than we will answer.


I don’t like that guy. and if you neither, I recommend you the system of my balg waifu, Asenath Mason, who is more clear and her system is more productive, as I’ve known the people of the school of Ford in Mexico, Peru and in my country and they are not an example of productive people


Its language. Many of the terms they use are describing ideas. The idea of heaven. The idea of hell. They are often allegorical, and spirits use them to make us think.

I personally remember the solution to a puzzle that I’ve put thought into better than I remember step by step instructions. This is how I think of it. This way of thinking enables you to understand multiple paradigms, since you can draw parallels in the jargon, and then use that as a template to make the paradigm personal.

For example if you work with 4 spirits and want to make a circle using them, you might take inspiration from solomons circle and modify it to suit the spirits you work with and your own magick.


So, on the one hand you can trace Lucifer back historically, and Aaron Leitch does a better job than I can as far as laying that out:

And on the other hand, you have Lucifer as he started appearing in popular culture, where his mythos starts blending with that of Satan and the Devil. In the end, what you contact is determined more so by your intent than by the literal name, so if you invoke “Lucifer” with the intent to commune with Lucifer as the Light Bringer, that’s who will show up. If you invoke “Lucifer” with the idea of working with the ancient Roman deity of Venus, that’s who will show up, IMO. :grin:


I wrote a thread a while ago questioning whether the Christian variant of Lucifer was Catholicism’s way of trying to capture the flavor and effects of Darwinian evolution in human population and attempting to anthropomorphize it on its traits.

I mention that because I’m going to completely off that script and say I know that I’m going off of it for the sake of handling a different format of the story.

When I started reading Asenath and Bill’s work on the Qliphoth a few things clicked for me. If we’re to explain Lucifer as the head of the Qliphoth on Thaumiel then I think the following mythological structure might fit this angle well:

The idea would be that all the historical Christian stories of Lucifer talk about him as being head-and-shoulders above the other angels in beauty, in complexity, being able to do just about any of the things that the other angels could do better. Taking, for the sake of the story, that all of these beings were made by YHVH for deliberate purposes - this is clearly a being who doesn’t really fit in and won’t have much of a place as a servant, in fact it fits more appropriately as a son or daughter and the function of a son or daughter isn’t to dwell in their parents house forever.

There’s the view of Lucifer as a Prometheus figure, extending that farther I almost wonder if he can be seen as the leader of, if not primary, Hekatonkheire, which were the Greek deities said to be building the universe outward (ie. rendering it manually in their own right) and that they were ever Tartarus building the universe outward.

Lets think of that now in reference to the Qliphoth. God ejects Lucifer, not as a beaten rebel but as an anchor point holding a mesh, a completely self-sufficient anchor point who’s been given enough power and self-reliance to hold up the opposite end of reality. Lucifer fires off like a bullet, goes to some incomprehensible distance from Source, and skids to a stop. Skidding to a stop piled up his inverse reflection, almost like a living moraine of sorts. Lucifer is thought to be a very Venus-oriented entity, very white, silver, green, etc. and the devil is black and red, bit of a photo negative no? And thus ‘the devil’ is that reflection, Lucifer and Ha Satan could be seen as the contending forces, and the Qliphoth or Tree of Death is both forces flowing down intermingled which is how you’d find both naturalistic evil and the substance of enlightenment tangled together.

The above is just a story, obviously, and I’m sure people who’ve been practicing Luciferians for decades could pick it apart (and who knows - that could be interesting), but when you wrap up a lot of the stories and try to make something congruent of them there I’d think most versions would probably have at least some of the core concepts of the above present.


To put simply, when chains are not binding you, you are free to use them as you wish rather than simply having them restrict you.


They are both real and an allegory.

1 Like

Thank you so much for the thoughtful answer and quotes! Helps a lot. Had the thought in mind that it was always intent rather than name, guess I needed some deeper thoughts on it outside my own head.


Very interesting. I will be delving into all of that soon…Thank you for your story.

I get it, thanks for you insight and the link to your post. Good thoughts.

Here’s my personal view on these things. How you describe Lucifer depends on whether you are looking at him from within his tradition, or when comparing him to spirits in other traditions.

If you want to work practically with Lucifer, then working within the overall tradition he is in makes the most sense, in my opinion. He is a rebellious being who traverses the entire universe. He is said to have fallen from Heaven as an angel, and he is said to now rule Hell as a demon king. Heaven, here, means being close to God (or Source, if you prefer). I believe that this material plane is the furthest from God, which makes it Hell.

I do think that is important to not be shackled by assumptions and dogmas born from religious Christians, however, as you say. Lucifer is many things, and while I could describe his many facets to you at great length, I think it is best if you allow him to reveal himself to you in his own due time. The practice of magick is where the greatest truths are laid bare.

(I will say however that I generally agree with many of the points made by @MagickAndBreakz about Lucifer and the Qliphoth, though I use a different model for my own thinking)

If you ever choose to read the myths from the various near-eastern cultures, such as Mesopotamia, Canaan, Babylonia, etc, you will find pantheons and descriptions of the universe that are different than the model of angels and demons well-known today, but if you look “beneath the hood,” as it were, you can see that they are describing roughly the same thing, albeit in slightly different ways.

When undertaking this sort of comparative study, I find it best to think about the spirits archetypally or functionally. You consider which spirits have similar roles in their own respective cosmologies, and from there you further look for any notable differences. Often the spirits will be similar in personality and how they interact with the other spirits, with humanity, and with the universe itself, but sometimes they will “trade” a few minor features, or the system of how each of their functions interact will be structured differently.

I could elaborate more, but this seems like enough for now.


This is a really interesting topic indeed! As you said, Lucifer’s name was heard way before Christianity. When it comes to human history, Lucifer was first known by Sumerians as Enki (Ea by Assyrians). Enki was the son of Anu, the king of the Anunnaki. Enki was also the king of Earth. Once the Anunnaki first came to Earth, they created the garden of Eden (the garden of torture is the Sumerian translation of the word “Eden”). There, they built Eridu, the first city and many other places later on. Also, after some events they had no workers and so Enki, by direct order from Anu himself, was to create a new race in order to have new workers to mine gold, since they needed it on Nibiru.

And so Enki, along with Ningishzidda did just that. They experimented a lot and created many other failed races (that they destroyed afterwards). And then, they created humans. They used monkeys, along with their own DNA, in order to create us to look like them.

We were put to work and we were shown no mercy. However, Enki loved us like his children and he couldn’t see us being treated as slaves. And so, slowly but without the others noticing, he changed our DNA so that we would be able to think for ourselves and be able to use energies and spiritual powers better. Enlil and Anu weren’t happy about that. The plan was to use us and once the job was done, they would just destroy us and go back. But Enki and Ningishzidda changed that. They also took by their side some of the other Anunnaki and so, Enlil and Anu banished Enki from Nibiru, along with his followers. Enki, bound to stay on “hell” (which was Earth according to the Anunnaki), managed to create many amazing things, with the help of those who stayed with him of course. But I guess this is a story for another time…

Since this is the story of the most ancient civilization, from the so called “Age of Gods”, I do believe it. I don’t know, it just feels right. But don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of theories out there and each person has its own beliefs. What matters is mostly what feels right for you.


I believe that in all things the truth is in the middle, and we constantly readjust our balance. Some may say that this is wavering or unstable. But motion is life, and keeping ideas and theories in motion makes you grow - like living things do.


I really feel like this info doesn’t get talked about enough.


Second it

This makes a lot of sense as well. I think what we’re looking at when we’re dealing with beings as complex as Lucifer, Lilith, etc. are maps of force in the universe and in particular - going with any sort of panpsychism-like model - we’re relating to something that’s as complex as it’s place in the universe demands it to be which means that our religious myths might nick some of its corners, we find our relationship to it based on those nicked corners, but then we shouldn’t be surprised in the slightest when an examination of the rest of what gets unveiled about said being or entity is more like an incredibly complex root system. We’re most likely dealing with something that’s real in nature and what’s more important about things in nature than our desire to contain them into finite categories are the terms sufficient for the health and well-being of their existence, which are quite likely predicated on very different orientation to universal or even cosmic laws than is the case for the most intelligent fraction of bipedal apes such as includes many of us.


Lucifer is the Roman God of the Morning Star, the Roman version of the Greek Phosphorus. Lucifer appears once in the Latin translation of the Bible as a translation of the Hebrew word helel, which is part of a poetic description of the King of Babylon, definitively not the King of Demons :slight_smile:. Modern translations recognize this and translate helel as morning star.

The belief that Satan is a being in opposition to God and his name is Lucifer are both late Christian inventions. And for a group of individuals who are attempting to throw off the blinders that religion placed upon them, it’s interesting that it’s stuck around for so long.

Luciferianism is not a defined religion, but rather a belief system that admires the characteristics exhibited by Lucifer as represented in the literature and the various books of the Hebrew Bible. Although Luciferianism is often confused with Satanism due the fact that Satan is defined as a fallen Lucifer, in reality, Luciferians do not worship Satan in any way and instead model themselves after the original Lucifer, a character of enlightenment, independence, and progressiveness.

Now, not add to the confusion and there are many theories out there, all this really started with Lucifer: H.P. Blavatsky’s London Magazine
Lucifer, founded in 1895.

"We are about to found a magazine of our own, Lucifer. Don’t allow yourself to be frightened: it is not the devil, into which the Catholics have falsified the name of the Morning Star, sacred to all the ancient world, of the ‘bringer of light,’ Phosphoros, as the Romans often called the Mother of God and Christ.

Blavatsky in my opinion was a complete charlatan who used commercial magic tricks and held Séances to deceive and profit.


‘The morning star’ and ‘The bright and morning star’ shows up in a couple spots in the Revelation of John that make application of this phrase to Satan, ie. a gift to the overcomers at Thyatira and then the returning Christ himself, a bit awkward.