Written & published by Linden Alexander Pentecost, also published on the 24th of August 2026, after I published an unrelated blog post on this website earlier today (not much earlier today). The blog post on this page is unrelated to and separate from any and all of my other publications, no AI was used, and the blog post contains 3379 words.
Polyamory, or polyfidelity, when discussed between a couple, can lead to some big "wow" moments and alterations in consciousness. In a sense, it can push us outside of the normal definitions of what is culturally human, and what is humanly and emotionally possible. But when it comes to polyamory in a general sense, I do not think it is better than monogamy. And fundamentally, as I have discussed elsewhere with different details, the concepts of "polyamory" and "twin-flame" are an interesting two things to try and make sense of together, and I feel that, despite how the "twin-flame" phenomena has become unhealthy and a mask for real love and intimacy, I think at its core, the twin-flame love is still something holy, something that cannot be replaced by anything.
Everything after Covid changed. It was like our consciousness and reality was somehow re-set. New Age Spirituality was going on a certain constant trajectory, where twin-flames were absolute truth, so were angels and starseeds, Atlantis, and a relatively accurate way of making sense of this according to our known history.
I feel that after Covid, something globally changed in our consciousness. The strange, things that we might call alien or nephilim, forgotten Cthulhonic things, seem to have seeped further into our consciousness, and whilst not in a spiritual sense normally, the concept of polyamory is becoming more popular.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are things like the Tartaria Theory, the "Nephilim Looked like Clowns Theory", and other theories, that seem on some levels to enable us to understand how a lot of these things might actually fit together, and what these Cthulhonic archetypes actually are, even though I do not agree with all of any of these theories.
I have written a lot about love and polyamory before in different ways, contexts and with different examples and things discussed. But I will say here, I do think there are I think a lot of reasons why monogamy can be "more spiritual" than polyamory. Some might see this as a regressive form of knowledge, and both the "exciting polyamory" form of knowledge, and this "other" form of knowledge, relate in some way to reunderstanding our past, and also our future direction. In a sense there are two lines of spectrum, which often cross-over, which can be seen as extensions of our already-extant collective knowledge of spirituality:
Type one: Polyamorous awakening, witches, embracing entropy, understanding of ancient past:
1 .The definition of love is altered to no-longer have the same meaning in our reality, it can apply to an infinite number of things and people and does not imply a specific kind of commitment.
2 . Being "pure" sexually, or only allowing certain energies and forces into one's own energy, is to some degree discarded as an idea, with the idea that all beings are spiritual and so by opening oneself in this way, one is just opening themselves to a different expression of sexuality and of love.
3. That witches historically reputedly took part in more promiscuous sexual relations, which some can interpret as polyamorous, whilst modern witchcraft often embraces polyamory more readily than other communities. Historic peoples like the Attecotti in Scotland and Majos in Lanzarote were also said to practice polyamory.
4. What we might describe as what could be fertility-related, promiscuous accounts of witchcraft - and polyamory, both in a sense embrace more entripic aspects of the universe. Polyamory can in a sense be seen as a willing form of ego-disillusion or even a consensual form of soul-splitting, processes which naturally I think bring human consciousness closer to something alien, something that we might associate with the giants of Norse mythology, and of the witches of old. Witches also were sometimes said to be unable to die in a strict sense, whilst vampires and this idea of unnaturally prolonged life are also connected to these phenomena. One might argue that things like vampires are not inherently evil, but are just another form of God's creation, and that their strangeness is a part of the beautiful tapestry of our world. But nevertheless, I do feel all of these things result in a form of non-humanness.
5. Polyamory can be connected to facets of the ancient past, that teach us of an ancient world, where perhaps the human ego was less distinct from the collective, connected for example to Neolithic and Bronze-Age burial practices, and to the idea of polyamory, which naturally involves a very different, and to some of us "non-human" idea of the ego. It can also be argued that hungry goddess figures, sometimes taking the forms of serpents of wyrms, and of beings like the Kraken and its many tentacles in Norse mythology, also pertain to this idea of beings that in a sense "suck life" from humans, merge us into them, but in doing so transform us into something else, not necessary evil. If such beliefs were indeed a part of our most ancient beliefs, then it makes sense why they are being payed closer attention to now. The idea that these things are not necessarily negative or unnatural is in a sense a complete reversal of our conventional spiritual wisdom.
Type two: monogamy's sacredness, Christ-consciousness, historic fabrications, and a different understanding of the ancient past:
1. Despite that in many respects, the world would seem to be going towards non-monogamy and non-conventional relationships (which was not the case when I first began writing about these topics) - there is in a sense more respect that I give, to good, kind individuals who, despite the current worldviews, feel something like "nah, I don't disagree with polyamory or think it's bad, but I still don't feel it's the answer". Polyamory is not just about sex, but sex is often a big part of it, and of monogamy. But ultimately sex isn't everything, and we come back to these arguments of how having a twin-flame is still so special, precisely because of the unique intimacy of having less, but yet having so much love that fills our entire being, from that less. Also fundamentally we only have one brain, one set of eyes, one set of genitals, etc, so in a sense we are naturally attuned to being with just one other, and also, anything other than that must involve some kind of alteration in, or splitting of our consciousness and attention - or a recalibration of it.
2. There is this popular idea now that Christianity is awful, pointless, a waste of time. I had an ex-girlfriend who shouted "Hail-Satan" on the streets to a missionary, because she found it funny, I guess it kinda was, as it was not done in an insulting way. But - it is popular to dismiss the Bible completely. It's either science or forms of progressive New Age spirituality, Christianity and this older, literary stuff is often discarded. And one can see why. But despite this, I still meet individuals, who say things to me like: "I am spiritual, but actually I'm feeling more Christian nowadays". And I get this. I know people who have called upon Christ, and they have felt or experienced something so holy that they broke down and cried. Something in this, exists. Whether it's Christ, or Krishna, whatever he, they are, there is something to it, and it happened for a reason I think. I don't think our ancestors were stupid and entirely adopted Christianity because they knew no different and because it was forced, but rather that despite it being forced in many cases, there is indication that in some cases it was far, far more than that. It really meant something, changed something.
- I remember once having a dream in which I was being chased around a dark house by some dark entity. I found myself in an eerie room. On a table, in the room, was what I can only describe as a blue lightsaber, like from Star Wars. No matter how hard I tried to grab it and to reach it, the dark entity had a hold of my physical body. I could barely move in this dream. I felt somehow, that if i could grasp that lightsaber, I could defend myself. The colour blue being also representative of the light of Archangel Michael for example. I could not reach it, but when I spoke the name "Jesus", something for sure occurred in me. I felt like I was being taken out of the control of the dark being.
3. When one goes deeper and deeper down the spiritual rabbit hole, one comes across the theory of Tartaria. This theory is something so "out-there" in a sense, and is again, a kind of complete reversal of our spiritual understanding, but in a totally different way. The theory of Tartaria, in my opinion, provides a fascinating and invoking concept, that essentially:
- The inconsistencies and strangeness of our past is not something that just happened over thousands of years, and which the coming of Christianity was a part of. Rather, the inconsistencies of our past in a greater sense happened much, much more recently, and this is why in a sense we have both a pagan past, and a Christian past, both holy, but both seemingly at odds. The Tartaria theory implies that these things are not "at odds" because of historical repression or the replacement of old gods, but rather that they are at odds because our understanding of time and reality itself has been altered more recently.
4. When we take the possibility into account, that historic writers knew what they spoke of, that Christ was a real individual, that Christianity had an important purpose and taught important truths, alongside the idea that our perception of time and space might have been altered to deliberately suppress these truths, it creates an interesting cocktail for possibilities, some of them mind-blowing. From this perspective, humanity is much more important than it thinks. From some versions of this perspective, the final battle between good and evil is not coming, it has already happened.
5. If our ideas about the Old Gods and their original meaning have been altered, it is possible that the idea of polyamory having existed in the past, has also been altered. Perhaps the beings we see in folklore as supernatural witches, vampires, giants, the Kraken etc, are not ancient truths as much as they are in a sense more like "glitches" in creation, a result of the final battle having already happened. That is not to say that such things are not real, nor that they are inherently bad, but that we might be looking at them totally wrong - that they might appear nightmarish and strange, not because of their inherent truth, but because of a phenomena that twists and warps their true form and story, the same phenomena that has warped our sense of time. Is polyamory then just the "warped" version of something else, that we are misunderstanding? Is the answer not in that polyamory is in any way wrong, but that if we truly understood our world, we just wouldn't care for it?
-Note that I personally do not see different expressions of consciousness as "glitches", I think that mythological beings encountered, in their form, at least in some way often show us something of their true form, or how it would appear to us anyway (also taking non-euclidian geometry into account)
I experienced an example of Type 1 relatively recently, in a polyamorous sense, albeit conversational and virtual, and not physical. There were indeed very exciting moments, but their intensity was reflected with fear too. The idea of sharing someone I feel a lot of love for, when discussed and involving another person as well as the woman, was profoundly intimate. It felt high, hyper-sexual, intense, boundary-breaking and at the same time, it brought up a lot of fear, and caused me to face things I had not come to terms with properly, traumas and what not. And this isn't bad. Our modern world is obsessed with healing trauma, and actually healing it is of course good - when it works.
But the most profound thing about Type 2 in my opinion, is that it doesn't actually require us to have to face trauma in the same way. This is not to say that facing trauma and overcoming it is bad, rather that often I feel modern "trauma help" and also polyamory for example, don't actually solve or avoid the trauma so much as they embrace experiencing it and enforcing its power and influence.
Type 2 is different, in that it doesn't seem to bring me to a mental state of feeling as though there is something to face, more influence that must be faced - it puts me into a state of mind that is more like an immediate awakening into the meaning of my human experience. And, without saying with any definiteness that Type 2 is somehow more true, I find the simple affect of it upon my being to be very profound.
At the same time, I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between these two things. For one, I do think that there are important truths connected to the ancient things in Type 1, but again, the status of these things as truth, for me, may also have been warped. Warping is perhaps not bad, and is a part of creation, but again, do we not see it for what it truly is? And does in a sense Type 2 veer towards a more general and consistent understanding of truth? Truth, after all, is not just the thing that provides us with knowledge and feelings of enlightenment. I would say that fundamentally, the real truth is that which enables a movement towards what is truly real, whatever that may be. But fundamentally the movement itself is accessible and real. Whereas polyamory in many ways gives us a sense of movement that requires great introspection and work across time, the Type 2 possibilities veer more towards truths that are accessible to anyone, right now, and which give a consistent understanding that enables one to move, whatever that truth may be - the two types are more about moving towards that truth, than any attempt to define them. These two types of associations are also not opposites, but rather two perspectives. At this moment in time, I lean more towards the latter, Type 2. - not in terms of specifics, but because something feels profound about it, which causes a gentle sense of "aha" in my being.
Some say that polyamory is more natural than monogamy. But is it? To me, sometimes, it feels like the opposite. On a biological level, when we look at our world, polyamory or rather, detached sexual interactions, seem like the norm, which for one, is not polyamory. But also somehow, polyamory doesn't feel entirely natural on another level, on the level of our spirit perhaps. Or at least, I feel that to the spirit it is unimportant, as the awakened spirit perhaps nolonger desires the cycle, it desires to live in truth. I have also written elsewhere how I think to be truly polyamorous involves an alteration in our human consciousness, and a kind of fragmentation of it, wherein we becoming something more than human, in part possessed by a more holy but potentially volatile energy, that one might associate with giants and trolls for example.
Imagine if most spiritualism had it all wrong. That we are not here to experience and to grow in long term cycles. Imagine if the universe has already done that, that we have already done that, and that we are special as humans - in our ability to recognise its truth. Our life purpose then becomes not about experiencing love and experiencing life, but in the realisation of our own wisdom is already within us, a wisdom which does not require us to further grow and change through painful cycles. There is something to that, I think. As they say, only the truth can set you free. But I would add, only the real truth can set us truly free. And very often "real" freedom seems not to be about having the ability to choose, and have whatever we want. Rather it is about the ability to have what we most truly want. Can you feel the difference, as I can?
Do we really want a reality, a future, that makes itself important, by being more efficient, better, more successful, more data centres, more indoctrinated adults, more division, more hatred?
Or do we want a reality, a future, that recognises that everything already present in our world, and in our humanity, even in things like our human feelings of jealousy, is actually just as it is meant to be? This is not to say that "jealousy" cannot be bad, but rather that whereas polyamory can sometimes be about overcoming jealously, one could also argue that jealousy is an intended, natural part of our human experience, and that if we understood it through empathy and understood it for what it really is, and if could truly see our own divinity, we wouldn't feel the need to become polyamorous in order to "overcome" jealousy, nor to understand nor classify it, as though treating it as some kind of "glitch". Perhaps the real "glitch" in our reality is constantly being misidentified, and perhaps the modern world is designed in some way to benefit from that misidentification.
Our world encourages more therapy, more pills, more work, more success. How boring really. Do these things give us a glimpse into something closer to the real identity of the "glitch"? Does it constantly make us feel the need to have "more" of something, whilst often failing to truly solve anything?
It is entirely possible that when I next write about polyamory, my perspective on some of these things will be different. Note also that I am philosophically discussing quite vast things here, which has no play on judging the nature of people who practice polyamory and monogamy as individuals. I myself have dabbled in polyamory on various partial occasions, although have never experienced it in a truly "real" sense (although actually, maybe the most recent thing does count), which is not to say that I won't experience it more thoroughly in the future, although I maybe I will not "count" the last time as a true first time. I also think it is possible to have the "twin-flame" love, but for that love to then be shared with a third person, and if the third person is truly right, it wouldn't involve a change in the energy. But at the same time, it's three people, so in some way it surely would involve some kind of change or split. Or would it not?. Regardless, in essence I have my doubts about polyamory being "all that". (In the sense of, all that glitters is not gold). And I think that there might be much more profound things about our divine truth that, if anything, polyamory might distract us from.
It will be interesting to see which of my perceptions change, and which remain, over time. A lot of people think the idea of Tartaria is silly and pointless, and "unfit for our present day awareness and intelligence", and that's fine, and I'm also not saying that I personally subscribe to it as a singular thing. I just wish that more people thought that things like AI data centres, and wars, were silly and pointless, and unfit for our present day awareness and intelligence.
I think that that is a good note to leave this article on. I hope that this article was an interesting read. It is dedicated to humanity and to all spirits, with love:)
Add comment
Comments