The Ancient Hunger Beneath Modern Life

Flow Arts, Festival Ritual, and the Lost Wisdom of Participation

Hey hey, welcome back to Taste of Truth, this essay is much different than what I normally write, I hope you enjoy this trip down memory lane with me.


For years, strangers would see me walking through an airport, across a college campus, or into a music venue carrying an enormous circle of plastic and ask the same question:

“Is that a hula hoop? What do you do with that thing?”

I usually smiled.

There was no quick way to explain what the hoop had already done with me.

By then, it had bruised my hips, taken over my living room, earned me the nickname “hula-hoop girl” around my college campus, and sent me driving and flying across the country in search of music, teachers, festivals, and other people who understood why it was impossible to put the thing down.

It had carried me onto stages I was terrified to enter. It had introduced me to women I first knew only by their YouTube names and later came to know as teachers, collaborators, friends, and soul sisters. It had given me a language for my body at a time when I was still deeply self-conscious inside it.

At the time, I thought I was learning tricks.

I was learning how to float the hoop from my waist above my head. How to reverse its current. How to move in both directions. How to toss, pause, break, roll, and recover. How to follow a drum solo until movement and music stopped feeling like separate things.

All of that was true.

But something much deeper was happening


This is the first part of a series I have been circling around for a long time, though I didn’t fully realize it at first.

I thought I was writing about hoop dance, festival culture and the importance of ritual.

Then philosophy.

Then paganism.

Then neuroscience.

The deeper I followed the thread, the more I realized they were all pointing toward the same question:

What happens to human beings when participation is replaced by spectatorship?

I keep returning to the difference between knowing about life and actually participating in life.

Modern people are drowning in information about health, spirituality, community, nervous system regulation, trauma, meaning, embodiment, and connection. We have the podcasts, the books, the frameworks, and an ever-expanding vocabulary. We can analyze our attachment styles, map our trauma responses, name our nervous system states, and explain exactly why we feel disconnected.

And yet, so many of us are still lonely….

Still disembodied.

Still watching life through glass.

Still trying to think our way into something the body may only truly recover through embodiment, through rhythm, movement, expression, shared presence, and practice.

This piece is about that hunger.

The ancient hunger beneath modern life.

Not merely the hunger to believe something, but the hunger to belong to a living world again.

For a long time, I thought my years in flow arts were simply a chapter of my life—a beautiful one, but ultimately behind me. Looking back now, I see something different.

Long before I studied philosophy, mythology, neuroscience, religion, or ancestral traditions, my body was already being introduced to a way of knowing that none of those books could have given me.

It had to be practiced. Repeated. Failed. Felt. Shared.

It had to be participated in.

Before philosophy gave me language for participation, my body had already spent years practicing it.

Long before I studied mythology, ritual, paganism, or the neuroscience of embodiment, I had already encountered something those traditions were trying to describe.

I knew it through music. Through movement. Through repetition. And most importantly through community.

By the simple act of showing up, again and again, until something inside me changed.

I no longer interpret every part of those years the way I did in my twenties.

But I trust the experience more than I trust all the language I once wrapped around it.

And that is where this story really begins.

Long before I studied heathenry/paganism,

I danced it.


The First Forms of Participation

Before there was a circle of plastic spinning around my waist, there were trees to climb, horses to ride, ponds to swim in, and twenty-six acres that gave my body somewhere to go. Some of my earliest memories are not of sitting still and thinking about the world, but of moving through it—crossing the dam, wandering the property, climbing high enough to see everything differently.

There was one enormous oak tree that had fallen and become something like a fort. I would retreat there after arguments with my mother, disappearing into its branches and hollows until I felt like myself again. I would not have called that nervous-system regulation. I would not have called it ritual, grounding, or communion with place. I only knew that the tree could hold something I did not yet know how to carry.

Movement was also part of my life in more formal ways. I took ballet, tap, and jazz, although jazz was the form I loved most. Ballet often made me painfully aware of my body—how tall I was, how much space I occupied, how unlike the smaller girls I sometimes felt. Jazz gave me more room. There was something about the music, the costumes, and the freedom of the movement that allowed me to step outside that self-consciousness for a while.

Music offered another kind of participation. I played piano and violin, but orchestra was where something larger began to reveal itself. Practicing alone mattered, but it was never the whole point. The real experience happened when everyone entered together: dozens of separate parts becoming one piece of music that none of us could have made alone.

I did not have words for why that felt so powerful. I only knew the difference between playing a part by myself and feeling it take its place inside a living whole.

The tree was not merely scenery.

The orchestra was not merely a collection of individuals.

Movement was not merely exercise.

Each required me to enter into a relationship—with a place, a rhythm, a group of people, or the limits of my own body. I could not understand any of them from the outside. I had to climb the branches, learn the music, miss the step, lose my place, and begin again.

Looking back, I can see that I was learning the same lesson in different forms: the world became more alive when I participated in it.

I did not yet know that this was a kind of knowledge. I only knew that I felt most like myself when I was moving, making, playing, or contributing one small part to something larger.

The hoop would eventually gather all of this into a single practice—movement, rhythm, repetition, music, play, place, and community.

It did not create the longing.

It gave the longing a shape.


The Circle Opens

One of my roommates and I, playing around with those rinky-dink store-bought hula hoops.

That shape arrived rather unceremoniously in the winter of 2005: a cheap, store-bought hula hoop that I could barely keep spinning around my waist.

At first, it was mostly frustrating. The hoop fell almost as quickly as I could lift it, clattering against the floor while I tried again. Eventually, though, my body found the rhythm. I carried it back to college, where I practiced in the living room while my roommates laughed, none of us realizing what had begun.

That first hoop was a toy. The real initiation came the following summer at Smilefest, a music festival held at Deerfields in North Carolina.

There, I picked up what hoopers called a “real” hoop—large, heavy, handmade, and nothing like the lightweight plastic circle I had been struggling with. I could feel the difference immediately. Its weight slowed the movement enough for my body to follow. For the first time, the hoop did not seem like an object I was trying to control. It felt like something I could enter into conversation with.

I practiced until dark bruises spread across both hips.

Then I strapped the enormous hoop to the roof of the car and brought it home.

Something had taken hold of me.

I began carrying the hoop everywhere. I practiced alone in backyards and parking lots, using my car stereo for music. I watched early YouTube videos of hoopers like Hoopalicious, Spiral, Christabel Zamor, and the Hoopnotica dancers, calling my roommates into the room whenever someone performed a movement I could not imagine being possible.

“Look at this. How does she do that?”

There were tutorials, but no explanation could place the movement inside my body. I could watch someone perform a trick dozens of times. I could study the position of her hands, the angle of the hoop, and the direction of its current. None of that meant I could do it. The knowledge had to travel another route.

I had to pick up the hoop.

I had to drop it.

I had to feel where the movement broke down, make some tiny adjustment I could barely name, and try again.

One of the clearest memories I have from that period is standing in the front yard during my junior year of college, listening to the same music over and over while trying to raise the hoop from my knees back toward my waist. I had watched other people do it. I understood, in theory, what was supposed to happen.

But my body did not know yet.

Then, after what felt like endless repetition, something shifted. The hoop caught. My knees and hips found the pulse. The circle began to rise.

I could not have explained what I had done differently.

My body simply understood.

That moment opened a door. Once I felt the movement happen, I knew the other tricks were possible too because I had experienced the difference between knowing what a movement looked like and then knowing it from within.


The Circle Widens

That question did not remain private for long.

In March 2007, only about a year after I first began seriously hooping, I found myself waiting beside a stage in Boulder, Colorado, preparing to perform with EOTO for the first time.

For weeks, I had told everyone how excited I was. I was going to hoop onstage with Jason Hann and Micheal Travis—two musicians from String Cheese Incident (the jam band I had spent the previous summer following across the country.) Until that moment, the whole thing had felt thrilling and almost unreal.

Then it was time to walk onto the stage.

The excitement dropped straight into the pit of my stomach.

Holy shit. I’m really getting up there.

At that very moment, Jamie Janover, one of the other musicians came over, he had noticed how nervous I was and gave me a piece of advice I have never forgotten:

“Just go up there when you’re feeling the groove and get off when you’re done. It’s simple.”

He was right, although it did not feel simple while I was standing there.

There was no choreography to memorize and no fixed sequence waiting for me. EOTO was an improv jam band. The musicians were listening and responding to one another in real time. The audience was responding to the music. To join them, I had to stop thinking about how I looked, listen with my entire body, and enter the moment already unfolding.

I could not calculate my way into it.

I had to feel when to step forward.

For the first time, I was no longer simply hooping to music.

I was moving inside it.


Inside the Music

Once I crossed that threshold, the road opened quickly.

Music was not something playing quietly in the background while life happened elsewhere. It organized our movements, our travel, our friendships, and our sense of time. We planned entire summers around gathering beneath stages and temporary tents. We drove for days to arrive somewhere that would exist for only a weekend, then disappear almost as quickly as it had formed.

For those few days, however, we were not merely an audience.

People danced, cooked, camped, taught, performed, built installations, traded food, shared supplies, carried one another’s equipment, and stayed awake until sunrise. Musicians improvised with one another onstage while dancers responded from the crowd. The boundary between performer and participant was more porous than it appeared.

Symbiosis Music Festival 2007

When there was room, I stepped onto the stage with my hoop. Other times, I danced in the field among everyone else. Both experiences were deeply impactful in my dance practice. Whether hundreds of people were watching me or no one was, I was learning to respond to rhythm rather than impose myself upon it.

The music moved, so I moved.

The hoop changed direction, so I followed.

The crowd surged, softened, shouted, or fell quiet, and the whole atmosphere changed with it.

At its best, it felt less like a performance than a conversation occurring through bodies.

Over time, the women I had once watched with awe became people I practiced beside. Some became teachers, troupe members, collaborators, and friends. I moved to Portland at the end of 2007 and joined Kaivalya Hoop Dancers, entering a community that took the practice seriously while still preserving its sense of play.

I spent Portland’s rainy season obsessively practicing reverse currents. I wanted to move comfortably in both directions, even though one side initially felt completely unnatural. I repeated barrel rolls, breaks, pauses, and reversals until the awkward side slowly became less foreign.

Then severe back pain forced the practice to change again.

At twenty-three, there were days when preparing food or standing for longer than twenty minutes felt nearly impossible. I worried that I would lose the thing that had given my life so much momentum. I could no longer rely on constant waist hooping or the larger, more physically demanding movements that had once filled my practice.

But limitation created another kind of education.

I began exploring pauses, tosses, reversals, off-body movement, and smaller gestures that did not aggravate my back as severely. What initially felt like an interruption became a new creative vocabulary. The hoop was still teaching me, but now the lesson was adaptation.

Participation did not mean forcing myself through pain. It meant listening closely enough to remain in relationship with the practice as my body changed.

Hoop Dance Workshops from all over the country

Eventually, I began teaching more.

At festivals and community gatherings, I watched people pick up hoops with the same awkward uncertainty I had once felt. Some were convinced they could not do it. Others laughed the moment the hoop dropped. I learned that teaching movement required more than explaining where to place the feet or how to push the hips.

Sometimes I demonstrated.

Sometimes I offered a small correction.

Sometimes the most useful thing I could do was give someone enough room to fail without feeling embarrassed.

The moment when a movement finally entered another person’s body was unmistakable. Their face changed. The effort briefly disappeared. What had seemed impossible became available to them from the inside.

At EmergNsee Music Gathering (2008) in Oregon, I taught a HoopYoga and hoop-dance workshop attended by Meghan the Kat, one of the performers who had inspired me during my earliest years following String Cheese Incident. There was something beautifully disorienting about teaching a person I had once watched from a distance.

The hierarchy I had imagined between teacher and student dissolved.

She had given something to me through her movement. I had taken it into my own body, practiced it, altered it, combined it with what I had learned elsewhere, and now I was returning something to her.

Knowledge moved in a circle.

As I wrote at the time:

“It’s so beautiful how we all learn from each other, one hooper heart to the next.”

That sentence is covered in the earnestness of my early twenties, but I still believe what I was trying to say.

The practice did not belong to any one teacher, performer, or school. It passed between us. We learned through watching, imitating, experimenting, teaching, and being corrected. Every person carried the movement differently because every body was different. What one person offered was never reproduced perfectly; it was received, transformed, and passed onward.

By the time I attended Hoop Camp in California in 2008, that circulating exchange had become a culture of its own.

Hoop Camp Retreat 2008

For years, I had known many hoopers primarily through grainy online videos, usernames, festival sightings, and brief encounters on tour. (I can’t help but to hear “This one time…at Band Camp”, if you grew up in the early 2000s, you’ll get this. )

The people I had admired from across the country were suddenly gathered in one place. We practiced together during the day, exchanged ideas in workshops, ate together, laughed together, and filled the darkness with glowing hoops at night.

I was surrounded by women who had shaped my imagination before they ever knew my name, alongside childhood friends, college friends, troupe members, and the people who had become my chosen family on the road.

I described myself afterward as channeling “true Unicorn energy”—nonstop hooping, smiling, laughing, and learning. The language makes me laugh now, but the joy was real.

So was the sense that something larger than individual skill was taking place.

During the opening ceremony, we gathered around a prayer hoop and placed our intentions inside it. One by one, people spoke about what the hoop had done in their lives: the confidence it had restored, the friendships it had created, the grief it had carried, the joy it had unlocked, and the selves it had allowed them to discover.

In my blog afterward, I wrote:

“All of us have been changed by the hoop. It’s impacted our lives, brought us together, shown us ourselves, given us bliss, given us confidence…”

I would describe some of those experiences differently today. I no longer interpret every ecstatic weekend, meaningful coincidence, or intense connection through the same spiritual vocabulary I used then.

But I do not dismiss what happened simply because my language has changed.

We gathered around a shared practice.

We moved together.

We taught one another.

We placed hopes and prayers inside a circle.

And through repetition, rhythm, attention, and communal presence, many of us experienced real transformation.

What had begun as a cheap plastic toy had become a language through which we recognized one another.

A movement became a practice.

A practice became a community.

And somewhere along the way, community began to resemble ritual.


The Hunger We Keep Trying to Name

A movement became a practice.

A practice became a community.

And somewhere along the way, community began to resemble ritual.

I did not yet know the language of moral psychology or sociology. I had never heard Émile Durkheim’s phrase collective effervescence: the strange charge that can arise when people gather, move, sing, mourn, celebrate, and direct their attention toward something together.

I did not know Jonathan Haidt’s idea of the “hive switch”—the human capacity to loosen, temporarily, the boundaries of the individual self and become part of an emergent whole. Haidt has suggested that people sometimes need precisely these experiences of self-transcendence, and that music, dancing, communal worship, and local festivals can offer places where isolated individuals become participants in something larger.

I only knew what it felt like.

I knew the sensation of entering a field where hundreds of people were responding to the same rhythm. I knew what happened when musicians improvised, dancers answered, and the distance between performer and audience became briefly porous. I knew the feeling of looking across a dark campground and seeing circles of light moving through the trees.

I knew what it was to become less preoccupied with myself without disappearing entirely.

The experience was not one of erasing the individual. It was the experience of becoming an individual in relationship—one moving body inside a larger pattern.

Research on communal music and movement suggests that this feeling is not merely sentimental. Singing together can accelerate feelings of closeness among people who begin as strangers, while synchronized and physically demanding dance can deepen social bonding.

None of that proves that every festival is sacred, every crowd is healthy, or every ecstatic experience is transformative. Collective energy can be commercialized, manipulated, and turned toward destructive ends just as easily as generous ones. The same human capacity that allows people to lose themselves in music can also make groups tribal, conformist, or cruel.

But the possibility of misuse does not erase the underlying need.

We are creatures shaped for more than private thought.

We learn through imitation. We regulate one another through voice, expression, touch, and presence. We create attachment through repeated encounters. We remember through songs, meals, places, stories, gestures, and practices carried from one body into another.

And yet modern life increasingly offers us the image of these things without requiring our participation in them.

We can stream concerts without entering a crowd.

Watch other people dance without moving.

Order food without cooking or eating with anyone.

Read about ritual without belonging to a ritual community.

Listen to conversations about friendship while sitting alone.

Learn the vocabulary of embodiment while barely inhabiting our bodies.

We are connected to more people than previous generations could have imagined, yet much of that connection asks almost nothing of us beyond attention.

And attention is not the same as belonging.

Recognition is not reciprocity.

Watching is not participating.

A feed is not a feast.

The distinction matters because loneliness is not simply the absence of people. It can also be the absence of roles, obligations, shared places, repeated practices, and the experience of being meaningfully woven into other lives.

We have become very skilled at diagnosing the resulting ache.

We speak of trauma responses, dopamine, attachment styles, nervous-system dysregulation, depression, social anxiety, and burnout. These frameworks can be genuinely helpful. Naming an experience can make it less frightening and give us a place to begin.

But sometimes I wonder whether we are still trying to think our way out of conditions that cannot be changed through thought alone.

A widely shared passage attributed to Jay LeSoleil puts the mismatch much more sharply:

“You feel depressed and crazy because in every historical human culture known to anthropology, people sang together, danced together, and ate food together—and you don’t sing, you don’t dance, and you eat alone in the dark.

You are a singing ape, and you are meant to know fifty dances by heart, which hilltops are sacred, and the names of every plant it is possible to eat.”

The passage is deliberately sweeping. Depression cannot be reduced to a lack of communal dancing, and no single poetic statement can represent every historical culture.

But it lands because it names something our clinical language often misses.

The problem may not be only what is happening inside the isolated individual.

The problem may also be the world in which the individual is being asked to live.

A world where community has become optional, ritual has become content, food has become fuel, music has become background noise, and places are valued primarily for what can be extracted or built upon them.

A world in which we are encouraged to construct an identity but given fewer durable ways to belong.

Perhaps that is why our hunger attaches itself so easily to substitutes.

We mistake stimulation for aliveness.

Visibility for intimacy.

Agreement for community.

Intermittent attention for belonging.

We search for the feeling of being carried beyond ourselves through fandoms, online movements, romantic fixation, political tribes, spiritual consumerism, and endless streams of other people’s lives. Some of these can produce real relationships and genuine meaning. But they can also leave the body sitting in the same room, staring through the same glass, still longing to be somewhere it is needed.

When I look back now, I do not think I miss only the performances, the festivals, or the person I was at twenty-three.

I miss having a practice that placed me inside a living network of people, music, places, responsibilities, and shared memory.

I knew which songs could shift the energy of an entire field.

I knew who would help me carry my hoops.

I knew where people gathered after the music ended.

I had teachers, students, collaborators, and friends.

I had something to offer the gathering, and the gathering had something to ask of me.

That is different from being observed.

It is different from being liked.

It is different from being included in a group chat.

It is participation.

In 2014, I tried to describe this in a short poem:

Grateful for Dance

Portal to divine connection
A form of sacred expression
Of outward shining expansion
Here I am, calling to attention

It’s time to move
It’s time to be free
It’s time to prove
Your non-complacency

So please follow me
Down this path of dance divinity
It’s time we realize
It’s not you and me, it’s we.

Some of the language makes me smile now. But that final line contains an intuition I still trust. It was never only about what happened to me inside the hoop.

It was about what became possible between us.

This does not mean we need to recreate the past, abandon technology, or spend our lives at music festivals. Nor does it mean every older community was nurturing. Communities can constrain, exclude, punish, and demand conformity. Nostalgia can make us forget that belonging has often come at a cost.

The question is not how to return to an imaginary golden age.

The question is what forms of participation human beings still need—and how we might create them honestly now.

Where can we sing without needing to be singers?

Dance without needing to perform?

Prepare food that will be eaten by more than one person?

Learn the names of the plants and animals around us?

Create rituals that give grief, gratitude, transition, and memory somewhere to live outside our private minds?

Practice something regularly enough that it changes us?

Modern people are drowning in information about how to become healthier, happier, more regulated, more spiritual, and more connected. But information cannot substitute for the meal, the chorus, the dance, the garden, the ceremony, the friendship, or the repeated practice.

Some wisdom can only be received through participation.

And perhaps some forms of loneliness cannot be solved by understanding ourselves more perfectly. Perhaps they require becoming part of something that does not begin and end with the self.

That is the ancient hunger beneath modern life.

Not merely the hunger to believe something.

The hunger to belong to a living world again.

And we may not be able to think our way back into that world.

We may have to participate our way home.


Subscribe now

Articles that influenced this series:

The Way of the Gods: Clarifying Paganism

Power Through Truth

Mediation, Myth and Mystery

the World of GroovinMeGzz: Is That a Hula-HoOp?? (A story of a hooper…)

When the Iron Becomes an Altar

Strength and devotion with Primal Druidry

Hey Hey, Welcome back to Taste of Truth Tuesdays!

What if strength training wasn’t simply about building muscle?

What if stepping beneath a barbell could become an act of devotion?

In this episode, I sit down with Awen of Primal Druidry, whose approach to physical training challenges many of our modern assumptions about both fitness and spirituality.

For her, the gym isn’t merely a place to improve health or appearance. It becomes sacred space—a place where discipline becomes ritual, physical hardship becomes offering, and strength training becomes a way of cultivating relationship with the divine.

Throughout our conversation, we explore questions like:

  • What is Primal Druidry, and what makes it a living tradition rather than an attempt to recreate the ancient past?
  • Why has strength training become such a central part of her spiritual practice?
  • What changes when exercise becomes ritual instead of self-improvement?
  • How does physical discipline shape character, devotion, and spiritual life?
  • What does she mean when she describes receiving guidance through training?
  • How do we think carefully about deeply personal spiritual experiences without dismissing them…or accepting them uncritically?

One aspect of our discussion that I found especially compelling is the challenge it poses to a very modern assumption: that the body is simply a vehicle for the mind. Throughout history, many religious and philosophical traditions have understood bodily practices (whether fasting, pilgrimage, martial arts, dance, or manual labor) as capable of shaping the soul.

This conversation asks whether lifting weights might belong in that lineage.

Even if you don’t share her theology or spiritual framework, I think the deeper questions are worth exploring.

Can repeated physical practice become a form of prayer?

Can discipline become devotion?

Can the body become a place where meaning is discovered rather than simply performed?

Those are the questions at the heart of this conversation.

As always, the goal isn’t to tell you what to believe. It’s to explore ideas with curiosity, ask better questions, and think more deeply about the relationship between body, mind, and the search for the sacred.

Thank you for taking the time to listen/watch, comment and share. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Links:

Druidic Discipline: Physicality as Spiritual Practice

https://substack.com/@primaldruidryInsta

“Pagan LARP” – Idolizing the Image

Your Metabolism Keeps the Score

A conversation with Jay Feldman on bioenergetic health, stress physiology, and what mainstream fitness culture misses

This week I have a really exciting interview for you with Jay Feldman of Jay Feldman Wellness, and this conversation felt like such a natural continuation of everything we’ve been unpacking lately around calories, metabolism, stress, food, fitness culture, and what happens when the body finally says, enough.

If you listened to the episode I dropped a couple weeks ago, Calories In, Common Sense Out, this conversation with Jay is the perfect next step.

That episode laid the groundwork for something I keep coming back to: the body is not a calculator. Yes, calories matter. But the way modern fitness culture talks about calories often strips the body of important context: stress, hormones, thyroid function, energy production, sleep, recovery, nervous system load, and years of restriction.

Jay and I both come from backgrounds where we have done restrictive dieting, pushed hard, and learned the hard way that the body eventually keeps the score. That shared history is part of what made this conversation so good. We’re not talking about metabolism from a detached, abstract place. We’re talking about what happens when people spend years under-eating, overtraining, living on caffeine, pushing through exhaustion, and then wondering why their body no longer responds the way it used to.

In this episode, we talk about Jay’s approach to bioenergetic health, which starts with cellular energy rather than just calories, macros, or “discipline.” Instead of asking only, “How do I lose weight?” we ask a deeper question:

Does the body have enough energy to do what we keep demanding from it?

A lot of my audience includes current or former athletes, military and veteran types, fitness-minded people, chronic dieters, and folks who are used to pushing through pain. Many have spent years being praised for discipline while quietly feeling cold, exhausted, anxious, inflamed, underfed, over-caffeinated, and metabolically stuck.

We get into the difference between looking fit and actually being healthy. Can someone look lean, disciplined, or high-performing while internally running on stress hormones? How can you tell the difference between real energy and survival energy? Are cold hands and feet, waking at night, cravings, low libido, anxiety, or needing caffeine just to function clues that something deeper is going on?

We also talk about one of the most frustrating places people end up:

“If I eat more than 1,500 calories, I gain weight.”

That is such a common fear, especially for people who have dieted for years. And this is where the conversation gets really practical. We talk about metabolic adaptation, why the body may resist weight loss after long periods of restriction, and why eating more can feel terrifying even when it may be part of the long-term solution.

This also ties into something I’ve talked about before in my Earn Your Right to Diet episode: sometimes the next step is not another fat-loss phase. Sometimes the next step is rebuilding. That can mean a slow, strategic reverse diet—gradually adding calories back in, supporting thyroid and metabolic function, reducing stress load, and spending time at maintenance before asking the body to diet again.

Reverse dieting is not “just eat everything and hope for the best.” It is a methodical process of giving the body more energy while watching biofeedback: temperature, sleep, digestion, mood, training recovery, hunger, cravings, cycle health, libido, and overall energy.

Toward the end of the episode, Jay gives tangible advice on how people can start making sure they are eating enough food.

We talk about using basic calorie-needs charts as a starting point, especially because many adults are eating amounts that are closer to what a child or sedentary teenager might need… then wondering why they feel awful.

I also share some visuals during the episode, including examples of what 1,800, 2,000, and 2,200 calories can actually look like across three meals and two snacks. Because sometimes people hear those numbers and assume it means massive amounts of food, when in reality it can look pretty normal, nourishing, and manageable.


This episode is for anyone who feels like their body is betraying them after years of trying to do everything “right.”

We talk about:

  • bioenergetic health and cellular energy
  • the limits of “eat less, move more” advice
  • chronic dieting and weight-loss resistance
  • stress physiology and caffeine-driven energy
  • the difference between discipline and health
  • former athletes, veterans, and burned-out high-achievers
  • reverse dieting and rebuilding metabolic capacity
  • why the body may need more food before it can safely lose fat again

This is not a conversation about abandoning personal responsibility or pretending calories do not matter. It is a conversation about restoring much needed nuance and context.

Because sometimes the problem is not that you need more willpower.

Sometimes the problem is that your body has been running on fumes for far too long.

LINKS:

Jay Feldman Wellness Website for free food guide

Jay’s YouTube

Jay’s Blog It All Comes Down to Energy


And that’s all I have for you folks, I’d love to hear your thoughts, leave me a comment or shoot me a private message to share them. If you appreciate this kind of work, please share and subscribe—that would mean a lot to me!

Calories In, Common Sense Out

On metabolism, nourishment, food reverence, and the systems that shape what feeds us

Welcome back to Taste0fTruth Tuesdays. Today, we are mixing things up with a subject that is very near and dear to my heart: nutrition, metabolism, and our increasingly distorted relationship with food in our modern world.

This episode covers a lot of ground. We are moving from diet culture and my own history with restriction into metabolism, morality, industrial food, local agriculture, and the growing technological control of our food systems. It may sound like several different conversations, but they are all part of the same story.

This episode will also lay some of the groundwork for an upcoming interview at the end of the month with Jay Feldman Wellness.

Jay is a health coach, independent health researcher, and host of The Energy Balance Podcast. His work explores bioenergetic health and nutrition, including ideas influenced by biologist Ray Peat—principles I have found myself returning to, on and off, for the last several years.

But before we get there, I need to explain why this conversation is so personal for me.

As many of you know, I have spent more than 20 years in the health and fitness world. I have also written openly about how intense and complicated that journey has been.

I came of age during the late 1990s and early 2000s, an era saturated with diet magazines, celebrity weight-loss stories, low-fat everything, Special K commercials, “bikini body” workouts, and television programs that treated shrinking the body as both entertainment and moral achievement.

And those cultural messages did not exist in isolation.

I grew up in a household where my body was not simply noticed. It was scrutinized, compared, and commented on.

Those kinds of comments do not disappear with time. They become part of the architecture of how you see yourself. They follow you into mirrors, fitting rooms, photographs, swimming pools, doctors’ offices, and every room where you become aware that other people can see your body.

They teach you that the body must be managed and monitored.

They plant the belief that remaining small is the price of safety.

I grew up believing that if I could control my body well enough, I could avoid humiliation. I could avoid becoming the punchline. I could avoid being seen in the wrong way.

For a while, I turned that fear into something our culture rewards: discipline.

But fear does not stop being fear simply because it learns the vocabulary of health and fitness.

In high school, I followed plans like the Special K diet. I relied on Carnation Instant Breakfast instead of complete meals. I skipped classes to work out before heading to my afterschool job. My protein intake was low. My fear of gaining weight was high.

Restriction became familiar.

And because restriction was praised as willpower, I did not always recognize it as deprivation.

That is the background I bring into this conversation. I am not critiquing calorie culture because I have never understood its appeal. I understand it intimately.

Numbers can feel safe.

Numbers feel objective. They offer the illusion that if you calculate carefully enough, track consistently enough, and exert enough control, the body will become predictable. Calories give food a score. The scale gives the body a verdict. And when you have learned to fear your own appetite, arithmetic can feel more trustworthy than sensation.

I have lived through periods in which weight loss looked like success from the outside while my body was becoming increasingly undernourished, stressed, depleted, and disconnected from its own signals.

So when I say that weight loss and health are not synonymous, trust me: I learned that lesson the hard way.

When Discipline Stops Working

When Discipline Stops Working

Taste0ftruth

·

Jan 20

Listen now

That is why I am interested in the bioenergetic perspective. Rather than asking only, “How little can I eat to make the number on the scale decrease?” it asks a more useful question:

How well is the body actually producing and using energy?

This episode is not intended to settle every claim made within bioenergetic nutrition. That is part of what I want to explore with Jay during our upcoming conversation.

Today, I want to lay the groundwork by examining the difference between consuming calories and producing usable cellular energy; between losing weight and becoming healthy; and between treating food as a number and understanding it as biological information, ecological relationship, and participation in a living system.

Because the body is not simply a furnace. Food is not merely a number.

And losing weight is definitely not proof that a person is nourished or healthy while doing so.

Modern nutrition has flattened food into arithmetic while removing almost everything that makes it meaningful.

SAD is the perfect acronym for the Standard American Diet because, whew, it really is sad what modern food culture has become.

And I do not just mean sad in the obvious “everyone is eating ultra-processed food and wondering why they feel terrible” kind of way. I mean sad in the deeper sense.

Sad as in spiritually impoverished.

Sad as in disconnected from land, animals, seasons, labor, gratitude, death, and actual nourishment.

Sad as in we have managed to turn food (one of the most intimate relationships a human being has with the living world) into a bland, plastic-wrapped transaction between a lonely person and a microwave, or a vehicle going to a fast food drive thru window.

That sounds dramatic.

But is it really?

We live in a culture that calls ultra-processed food “good enough,” celebrates weight loss regardless of how it was achieved, and then treats anyone who questions that framework as judgmental, elitist, or unnecessarily intense.

But that is exactly the problem.

Our culture has reduced food to numbers while stripping it of meaning. Calories. Macros. Points. Deficits. Cheat meals. Protein hacks. Low-cal swaps. “If It Fits Your Macros.” (I lived and breathed that lifestyle) We talk about food like it is accounting, not relationship. Like the human body is a calculator.

Of course, calories matter. I am not pretending energy balance is fake. But if your entire health philosophy begins and ends with calorie math, you are missing the human being attached to the equation.

Food is not only fuel. Food is information. Food sends a signal. Food affects insulin, thyroid output, leptin, ghrelin, cortisol, digestion, gut signaling, inflammation, mitochondrial function, cell communication, mood, cravings, satiety, sleep, fertility, and gene expression. A Hot Pocket and a grass-fed steak may both contain calories, but they do not speak the same biological language once they enter the body.

The lie of “calories in, calories out” must die.

Not because energy does not matter. It does. But because reducing food to calorie math is one of the dumbest things modern nutrition culture has done to the human body.

A calorie is a unit of energy, but the number printed on a label cannot tell us how effectively a food will be digested, absorbed, converted into ATP, or allocated among the body’s competing demands. That process requires minerals, vitamins, enzymes, hormones, functioning mitochondria, adequate protein, and a body that is not constantly underfed, inflamed, stressed, or depleted.

This is where the “just eat less” crowd loses the plot.

Most people are not building truly nutrient-dense meals, even when they think they are. They may be tracking protein, counting calories, or hitting some macro target, while still missing the deeper nourishment their body needs to actually turn food into energy. If someone is living on refined grains, muscle meats only, no seafood, low mineral intake, low variety, and almost no traditional foods, they can be “hitting their calories” while still undersupplying some of the micronutrients and cofactors involved in energy metabolism, tissue repair, and hormonal function.

But producing energy is only part of the story.

The body must also decide where that energy goes.

Mitochondrial psychobiologist Martin Picard and his colleagues have proposed an emerging framework called the Energy Constraint model. Their central idea is that the body operates with a limited but dynamic energy budget that must continually be allocated across cells, organs, systems, and behaviors.

Everything costs energy.

Neurons firing costs energy. Producing proteins costs energy. Mounting an immune response costs energy. Digestion, movement, cognition, reproduction, tissue repair, and communication between cells all carry energetic costs.

Nothing is free in biology.

Hierarchy of Energy Needs. From @martinpicard, “Energy Constraint on Health,” based on the Energy Constraint framework developed by Alexander Behnke, Evan Shaulson, Herman Pontzer, Chris Kempes, Martin Picard, and colleagues. Reproduced with permission from Martin Picard. Original article and primary paper linked here.

In their framework, the body’s energetic demands can be divided into three broad categories: vital functions; stress responses; and growth, maintenance, and repair.

At the base are the vital functions necessary to sustain life in the immediate term: breathing, heart activity, brain function, membrane potential, ion exchange, and basic metabolism. These processes receive priority because they are necessary for survival over minutes, hours, and days.

The next category includes stress-related demands. Exercise is a stressor. So are infection, inflammation, toxins, psychological distress, injury, sleep loss, and activation of the sympathetic nervous system. All of these require the body to spend energy responding and adapting.

At the top are growth, maintenance, and repair. These processes may not be essential for surviving the next several minutes, but they are essential for healing, resilience, muscle maintenance, reproduction, cognition, motivation, vitality, and long-term health.

When the body’s total demands become difficult to sustain, energy is not distributed evenly. More urgent vital and stress-related processes may be prioritized while investment in growth, maintenance, and repair becomes compressed.

In other words, the body may preserve what is necessary to keep you alive while reducing what is available to help you recover, reproduce, think clearly, maintain muscle, and feel fully alive.

This does not mean these higher functions simply switch off in a rigid order. It means the body makes trade-offs.

And duration matters.

Not every stressor is harmful. Exercise itself temporarily redirects energy, but when it is appropriately dosed and followed by sufficient nourishment, sleep, and recovery, the body can adapt and become more resilient.

The deeper problem is stress that becomes excessive, chronic, or inescapable.

When energetic demands continue for weeks, months, or years—whether from illness, infection, psychological stress, overtraining, sleep disruption, undernourishment, or some combination of pressures—the body may repeatedly postpone the repair work that was supposed to happen later.

This framework helps explain how someone can technically be eating enough calories (or even losing weight successfully) while experiencing fatigue, poor recovery, low libido, disrupted cycles, reduced motivation, brain fog, loss of muscle, or declining resilience.

It does not mean every one of those symptoms has a single energetic cause. But it gives us a much richer way of understanding health than simply asking whether someone stayed within a calorie target.

The body is not failing to obey an equation.

It is adapting to competing demands.

Nutrient status is only one part of this energetic landscape, but it is an important one. The body’s ability to produce, allocate, and use energy is also shaped by sleep, illness, stress, activity, mitochondrial function, recovery, and the cumulative demands being placed upon it.

This is why vitamins and minerals matter so much. They are not little bonus points sprinkled on top of a diet. They are part of the machinery that turns food into usable energy. They help build hormones and neurotransmitters, repair tissue, maintain immune function, support the liver, regulate the nervous system, and keep the organs doing their jobs.

Or said more simply: macronutrients burn on the flame of micronutrients.

That is the part calorie math misses. A Hot Pocket and a mineral-rich, protein-rich, whole-food meal may both contain calories, but they do not offer the body the same tools. One delivers energy potential wrapped in industrial convenience. The other provides the raw materials the body needs to actually build, repair, signal, regulate, and produce real cellular energy.

So when people say “it’s just calories in, calories out,” what I hear is a worldview that has confused potential with function.

A body is not helped by potential alone. It needs conversion. It needs nourishment. It needs signal. It needs minerals, protein, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, salt, sunlight, rest, and rhythm.

Food is not just a number entering a furnace. Food is a set of instructions entering a living system. And if the instructions are poor, incomplete, synthetic, depleted, or chaotic, the body will respond accordingly.

This is where the lazy appeal to “thermodynamics” becomes almost comical. Yes, the laws of thermodynamics exist. Congratulations. But the human body is not a closed metal box in a lab. It is a living, adaptive, self-regulating organism. Inputs change outputs. Food changes appetite, energy expenditure, hormones, cravings, sleep, mood, metabolic rate, and behavior. The “calories out” side is not fixed. It responds to the quality, timing, and composition of what we eat.

Rupert Sheldrake has criticized the way modern science can harden living systems into dead-mechanistic models, and that critique fits here. The calorie model treats the body like a machine. But we are not machines. We are organisms. Food is not merely burned. It is received, interpreted, metabolized, stored, signaled, and woven into the body.

So yes, calories matter. But “calories in, calories out” as a complete theory of health is basically nutritional kindergarten, and it’s time to grow out of that.


But calorie reductionism is only one way modern food culture disconnects us from the complexity of nourishment.

We also have a tendency to turn eating into a moral identity. Foods become clean or dirty, virtuous or shameful. Diets promise not only better health, but innocence: a way to eat without exploitation, suffering, contradiction, or death.

I understand the appeal of that promise because I lived inside it.

I was vegetarian for years. At the time, I genuinely believed it was both the healthier and more ethical choice. I cared about animals. I still do—deeply. I did not want to participate in harm if I could avoid it.

But eventually, health-wise, vegetarianism stopped working for me. My body was not thriving. Practitioners I trusted encouraged me to reconsider whether I was receiving enough protein and nourishment, and over time I began incorporating animal foods again. That transition gradually led me toward a more pro-metabolic, ancestral approach to food.

I am not as critical of vegetarianism as I am of veganism because vegetarian diets can still include many traditional, deeply nourishing foods: eggs, butter, cheese, milk, yogurt, cream, and honey. These foods can still connect us to animals, farms, fermentation, older foodways, and the forms of nourishment on which human communities have relied for generations.

Veganism is different. I understand the moral impulse behind it. But modern veganism often depends heavily on the very industrial food system it imagines itself resisting.

It often depends upon global supply chains, fortified products, industrial monocrops, protein isolates, seed oils, and laboratory-like replacements for foods that once came directly from local land, animals, kitchens, and communities.

That does not describe every vegan meal or every person who avoids animal foods. But veganism as a widely accessible modern lifestyle has been made possible, in large part, by the industrialization and globalization of food. It became easier to imagine a diet detached from local ecology only after the modern food system detached nearly everyone from local ecology.

Before supermarket abundance, refrigerated transport, synthetic supplementation, and year-round imports, diets were far more directly shaped by region, climate, labor, animals, seasons, preservation, and survival.

This is what troubles me about the moral certainty that can surround veganism. Morality can bind us around compassion, but it can also blind us to costs outside the frame we have chosen. A person may avoid animal foods while remaining dependent upon monocropping, habitat loss, exploited labor, heavily processed substitutes, and corporations with no meaningful relationship to the land being depleted.

The suffering has not necessarily disappeared.

It has moved out of sight.

An ethical identity can become so focused on the visible animal that it loses sight of soil, insects, wildlife, farmers, rural communities, and the ecological relationships required to sustain human life.

This is why I keep thinking about survival programs like Alone. You do not typically see people in genuine survival conditions adhering to rigid dietary identities made possible by modern abundance. They eat the carbohydrates they can gather. They fish, hunt, forage, trap, and preserve whatever food the environment makes available.

A television program does not settle the ethical debate. But it does expose how much our modern food identities depend upon stability, infrastructure, supplements, supermarkets, and global abundance.

Most of us have no idea what we would actually eat if supermarkets, refrigeration, restaurants, and global supply chains disappeared.

It is easy to construct an identity around dietary purity while standing beneath fluorescent lights in a store containing food from every climate on Earth.

Survival has a way of stripping ideology down to appetite, ecology, and availability.

The point I’m trying to make here, is the deeper problem is not simply meat. It is our total disconnection from food itself.

The Standard American Diet is not built around reverence. It is built around convenience, profit, shelf life, hyper-palatability, and perpetual consumption. It is often high in refined carbohydrates and industrial fats, low in nutrient density, easy to overeat, and engineered to override the body’s natural signals.

It keeps people fed but not nourished.

Full but not satisfied. Stimulated but depleted.

I do not blame meat itself for the sickness of modern food culture. I blame the collapse of small and local food systems. I blame industrial agriculture and the consolidation of food production. I blame ultra-processed convenience food. I blame the severing of people from land, seasons, animals, kitchens, skills, and community.

I blame a culture in which people no longer know where their food comes from, what it took to produce it, or what kind of life and death made it possible.

Because that is the uncomfortable truth: death is always involved in food.

Neither vegetarianism nor veganism remove death from the food system. Fields are cleared. Habitats are displaced. Soil life is disrupted. Insects, birds, rodents, snakes, rabbits, and countless unseen creatures are killed through large-scale crop production. Farm workers are exploited. Water is diverted. Communities are transformed to serve distant markets.

Even a plate composed entirely of plants carries a cost.

That does not mean all dietary choices are morally equivalent. It means purity is not available to us. The moral task is not to imagine that we have escaped the web of life and death. It is to become more conscious of how we participate in it.

Nature is a total system, and within that totality it is not morally tidy.

We often use the word “natural” as if it means good, pure, balanced, or morally clean. But nature does not produce constant perfection. Nature produces totality. Beauty and monstrosity. Strength and weakness. Flourishing and failure. Healthy forms, botched forms, failed adaptations, extinction, decay, renewal.

Food belongs to that same uncomfortable order. There is no pure way to eat outside of life, death, appetite, cost, and consequence. The fantasy of a morally spotless diet is just another modern escape hatch from reality.

Morality works in a similar way. It is not merely a list of rules imposed from above. It is an energy-management system. It curbs violence, lust, greed, vengeance, ambition, and appetite so a group can maintain some version of peace. Morality contains the passions so they do not destroy the social body.

At both the personal and social level, morality determines which appetites may be expressed, which must be restrained, and which costs remain visible.

And maybe this is why modern food culture feels so spiritually sick. It has stopped containing appetite. It does not discipline desire. It engineers it. It stimulates it. It tells us we can eat industrially manufactured, hyper-palatable food and reduce the whole thing to calorie math, as if the body is not receiving signals, adapting, craving, storing, resisting, inflaming, and remembering.

Food is energy, yes. But not in the dead mechanical sense. Food is energy moving through a living moral and biological system.

That is why “calories in, calories out” feels so thin. It treats food as if it enters a furnace. But food enters a body. And bodies are not furnaces. Bodies are fields of signal, memory, hunger, restraint, ancestry, hormone, and meaning.

I completely understand the discomfort around eating conscious animals. I have read so many stories from first-time farmers who raise animals with love and then struggle deeply when it is time for slaughter. That pain means something. I respect it. Honestly, I trust that pain more than the numbness of the average grocery store shopper tossing factory-farmed meat into a cart with no thought at all.

The pain shows there is still reverence there.

And maybe that is what we have lost most.

We have been removed from the reality of food for so long that we tend to swing between two false extremes. On one side, we sentimentalize animals from a distance and pretend we can opt out of the death cycle entirely. On the other hand, we consume without thought, without gratitude, without responsibility, without even a pause. Both are forms of disconnection.

The more honest path, at least for me, is not pretending death can be removed from food. It is learning to approach food with more gratitude, humility, and responsibility.

That means caring about how animals are raised. It means caring about soil. It means caring about farmers. It means caring about local food systems. It means asking whether our food builds health or slowly drains it from us. It means understanding that “cheap” food often has hidden costs paid somewhere else, by animals, by land, by farm workers, by our own bodies, by our children, and by our communities.

And yes, it also means having higher standards.

I am tired of the cultural pressure to pretend that all food choices are basically the same as long as the calories work out. They are not. A calorie deficit may lead to weight loss, but weight loss is not the same as nourishment. You can lose weight while eating foods that do very little to support your metabolism, hormones, digestion, mood, or long-term health. You can shrink a body while starving it of what it actually needs.


Real nourishment asks more of us.

It asks us to pay attention. It asks us to recover old skills. It asks us to cook, to preserve, to source better when we can, and to know the difference between food shaped by land, animals, microbes, seasons, and human hands—and food assembled in a factory to survive for months in a freezer.

This is where food becomes spiritual for me.

Not spiritual in the vague influencer sense. Not “raise your vibes with an açai smoothie bowl” nonsense.

I mean spiritual in the older, more connected to earth sense: eating is an act of dependence, participation, and transformation.

Rudolf Steiner once approached nutrition through the idea that eating is never merely mechanical. Whatever one makes of his more esoteric language, I think there is something valuable in the underlying insight: food does not simply enter the body and disappear into a calorie ledger. The body must meet it, break it down, transform it, and incorporate it into the self.

What was once sunlight, soil, rain, grass, grain, fruit, milk, muscle, mineral, or microbial life becomes blood, tissue, hormone, neurotransmitter, heat, thought, movement, and memory.

Eating is one of the most literal ways the world becomes us.

That alone should make the act feel less trivial.

We are not floating minds temporarily renting bodies. We are dependent creatures. We require soil, water, sunlight, animals, plants, microbes, farmers, bees, rain, death, decay, and renewal. Every meal places us inside a web of relationships whether we acknowledge them or not.

And this means that food may shape more than our body weight.

What we eat can influence energy, mood, cognition, resilience, inflammation, digestion, and the clarity with which we move through the world. I do not mean that one perfect diet produces spiritual enlightenment, or that illness reflects moral or spiritual failure. Food is not a purity test.

But neither is it neutral.

The quality of what we repeatedly take into the body helps shape the material conditions through which we think, feel, recover, create, and relate to others.

Modern food culture wants us to forget all of this.

It wants food to be easy, cheap, fast, addictive, and morally weightless. It wants us to believe that a frozen pocket of refined flour, industrial oils, modified starches, sodium, flavoring agents, and processed ham is simply another option.

Just calories.

Just convenience.

Just people doing their best.

But I do not believe “doing our best” means lowering our standards until nothing matters. Nor do I believe the answer is to shame ordinary people for choosing the foods that our economic and agricultural systems have made cheap, available, familiar, and nearly effortless.

It is easy to preach ancestral nourishment from a well-stocked kitchen.

A serious food ethic must also account for price, time, disability, geography, cooking knowledge, working conditions, and access. Reverence that only the wealthy can afford is not reverence.

That does not mean pretending a Hot Pocket and a nutrient-dense meal are biologically or spiritually interchangeable. They are not.

It means directing our anger beyond the individual shopper and toward a system that has made industrial convenience easier to obtain than genuine nourishment—and then taught us to call that arrangement freedom.

But reverence cannot remain an individual lifestyle choice.

Our relationship with food is shaped by the systems surrounding us: what is affordable, what is available, what is subsidized, what is processed, what is imported, and what people realistically have the time and energy to prepare.

It is one thing to tell people to eat closer to the land. It is another to live inside an economy that has made industrial food cheaper, faster, and more accessible than the local, nutrient-dense food we claim to value.

So, this is not only a question of personal responsibility.

It is also a question of access, power, and who controls the conditions under which nourishment is produced and distributed.

As of May 2026, grocery prices were 2.7 percent higher than they had been one year earlier. Fruits and vegetables were up 6.1 percent. Food away from home was up 3.5 percent. Meanwhile, overall energy prices had risen 23.5 percent over the same period. These increases are layered on top of years of cumulative inflation, and they shape what families can realistically put on the table. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index Summary—May 2026.” June 10, 2026.

At the same time, the infrastructure surrounding American agriculture is becoming increasingly centralized and digitized.

In February 2026, the USDA announced its “One Farmer, One File” initiative, which is intended to create a single record following each farmer across the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Risk Management Agency. The department says the system will reduce duplicated paperwork, retire outdated technology, improve program delivery, and be completed in 2028.

Then, on April 22, the USDA and Palantir Technologies announced a $300 million multi-year blanket purchase agreement supporting that initiative and the National Farm Security Action Plan.

Protecting America’s farmland ​is protecting America itself, ​and ⁠this work gives USDA the visibility and speed needed to safeguard our ⁠food ​supply,” said USDA ​Chief Information Officer Sam Berry.

The government presents this as modernization: faster services, stronger cybersecurity, reduced fraud, better disaster response, and greater protection of American farmland and the food supply. Some of those goals are understandable. Farmers should not have to enter the same information into a dozen broken government systems. Disaster assistance should not be trapped behind obsolete technology. Modernization is not inherently sinister.

But neither is it irrational to ask questions when enormous amounts of agricultural information are consolidated through a company deeply involved in defense, intelligence, surveillance, and government analytics.

Who controls the data? Who is permitted to access it? How is that access audited?

Can information gathered for one purpose later be used for another?

What happens when one private contractor becomes embedded deeply enough in public infrastructure that removing it becomes nearly impossible?

How are farmers protected from political misuse, commercial exploitation, cybersecurity failures, or policies imposed by people who understand data models far better than they understand soil, weather, livestock, and living ecosystems?

Food is not merely another sector to be optimized.

Agriculture is biological, regional, unpredictable, and rooted in relationships that cannot be fully represented on a dashboard. Technology may assist farmers. Data may make government programs more efficient. But efficiency and resilience are not the same thing, and greater visibility from the top does not automatically create greater security on the ground.

A resilient food system requires more than centralized information.

It requires independent farmers, healthy soil, regional processing facilities, seed diversity, local knowledge, accessible markets, functioning supply chains, and communities that retain some capacity to feed themselves. It requires people who know how to grow something, preserve something, cook something, and recognize nourishment before a corporation packages and markets it back to them.

That is why the spiritual, biological, economic, and political dimensions of food cannot be separated.

The same reductionist worldview that treats the body as a furnace can treat the farm as a data point.

The same culture that reduces nourishment to calories can reduce agriculture to output.

The same system that tells us a calorie is a calorie can tell us that control is merely efficiency and dependence is merely convenience.

I reject both forms of reductionism.

A body is not a furnace to be calculated.

A farm is not a monocrop to be optimized or a data file to be controlled.

Food is not merely fuel, inventory, content, or data.

It is soil transformed by sunlight. It is water, labor, death, digestion, memory, culture, and life passing into life. To control food is to touch the most intimate point of contact between the individual body, the community, and the living world.

So, the question is no longer only whether we can eat without forgetting.

It is whether we can remember soon enough to reclaim some agency over what feeds us.

Our Hügelkultur keyhole garden beds 2026

When Discipline Stops Working

What Women Were Never Told About Weight, Aging, and Control

The Science They Never Told Us

This is the first episode of 2026, and I wanted to start the year by slowing things down, getting a bit personal instead of chasing the latest talking points.

At the end of last year, I spent time reading a few books that genuinely stopped me in my tracks. Not because they offered a new diet or a new protocol, but because they challenged something much deeper: the story we’ve been told about discipline, control, and women’s bodies.

There is a reason women’s bodies change across the lifespan. And it has very little to do with willpower, discipline, or personal failure.

In Why Women Need Fat, evolutionary biologists William Lassek and Steven Gaulin make the case that most modern conversations about women’s weight are fundamentally misinformed. Not because women are doing something wrong, but because we’ve built our expectations on a misunderstanding of what female bodies are actually designed to do.

A major part of their argument focuses on how industrialization radically altered the balance of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids in the modern food supply, particularly through seed oils and ultra-processed foods. They make a compelling case that this shift plays a role in rising obesity and metabolic dysfunction at the population level.

I agree that this imbalance matters, and it’s a topic that deserves its own full episode. At the same time, it does not explain every woman’s story. Diet composition can influence metabolism, but it cannot override prolonged stress, illness, hormonal disruption, nervous system dysregulation, or years of restriction. In my own case, omega-6 intake outside of naturally occurring sources is relatively low and does not account for the changes I’ve experienced. That matters, because it reminds us that biology is layered. No single variable explains a complex adaptive system.

One of the most important ideas in the book is that fat distribution matters more than fat quantity.

Women do not store fat the same way men do. A significant portion of female body fat is stored in the hips and thighs, known as gluteofemoral fat. This fat is metabolically distinct from abdominal or visceral fat. It is more stable, less inflammatory, and relatively enriched in long-chain fatty acids, including DHA, which plays a key role in fetal brain development.

From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense. Human infants are born with unusually large, energy-hungry brains. Women evolved to carry nutritional reserves that could support pregnancy and lactation, even during times of scarcity. In that context, having fat on your lower body was not a flaw or a failure. It was insurance.

From this perspective, fat is not excess energy. It is deferred intelligence, stored in anticipation of future need. This is where waist-to-hip ratio enters the conversation.

Across cultures and historical periods, a lower waist-to-hip ratio in women has been associated with reproductive health, metabolic resilience, and successful pregnancies. This is not about thinness, aesthetics, or moral worth. It is about fat function, not fat fear, and about how different tissues behave metabolically inside the body. It is about where fat is stored and how it functions.

And in today’s modern culture we have lost that distinction.

Instead of asking what kind of fat a woman carries, we became obsessed with how much. Instead of understanding fat as tissue with purpose, we turned it into a moral scoreboard. Hips became a problem. Thighs became something to shrink. Curves became something to discipline.

Another central idea in Why Women Need Fat is biological set point.

The authors argue that women’s bodies tend to defend a natural weight range when adequately nourished and not under chronic stress. When women remain below that range through restriction, over-exercise, or prolonged under-fueling, the body does not interpret that as success. It interprets it as threat.

Over time, the body adapts, not out of defiance, but out of protection.

Metabolism slows. Hunger and fullness cues become unreliable. Hormonal systems compensate. When the pressure finally eases, weight often rebounds, sometimes beyond where it started, because the body is trying to restore safety.

From this perspective, midlife weight gain, post-illness weight gain, or weight gain after years of restriction is not mysterious. It is not rebellion. It is regulation.

None of this is taught to women.

Instead, we are told that if our bodies change, we failed. That aging is optional. That discipline and botox should override biology. That the number on the scale tells the whole story.

So, before we talk about culture, family, trauma, or personal experience, this matters:

Women’s bodies are not designed to stay static.
They are designed to adapt.

Once you understand that, everything else in this conversation changes.


Why the Body Became the Battlefield

This is where historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg’s work in The Body Project: An Intimate History of American Girls, provides essential context, but it requires some precision.

Girls have not always been free from shame. Shame itself is not new. What has changed is what women are taught to be ashamed of, and how that shame operates in daily life.

Brumberg asks a question that still feels unresolved today:
Why is the body still a girl’s nemesis? Shouldn’t sexually liberated girls feel better about themselves than their corseted counterparts a century ago?

Based on extensive historical research, including diaries written by American girls from the 1830s through the 1990s, Brumberg shows that although girls today enjoy more formal freedoms and opportunities, they are also under more pressure and at greater psychological risk. This is due to a unique convergence of biological vulnerability and cultural forces that turned the adolescent female body into a central site of social meaning during the twentieth century.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, girls did not typically grow up fixated on thinness, calorie control, or constant appearance monitoring. Their diaries were not filled with measurements or food rules. Instead, they wrote primarily about character, self-restraint, moral development, relationships, and their roles within family and community.

One 1892 diary entry reads:

“Resolved, not to talk about myself or feelings. To think before speaking. To work seriously. To be self-restrained in conversation and in actions. Not to let my thoughts wander. To be dignified. Interest myself more in others.”

In earlier eras, female shame was more often tied to behavior, sexuality, obedience, and virtue. The body mattered, but primarily as a moral symbol rather than an aesthetic project requiring constant surveillance and correction.

That changed dramatically in the twentieth century.

Brumberg documents how the mother-daughter connection loosened, particularly around menstruation, sexuality, and bodily knowledge. Where female relatives and mentors once guided girls through these transitions, doctors, advertisers, popular media, and scientific authority increasingly stepped in to fill that role.

At the same time, mass media, advertising, film, and medicalized beauty standards created a new and increasingly exacting ideal of physical perfection. Changing norms around intimacy and sexuality also shifted the meaning of virginity, turning it from a central moral value into an outdated or irrelevant one. What replaced it was not freedom from scrutiny, but a different kind of pressure altogether.

By the late twentieth century, girls were increasingly taught that their bodies were not merely something they inhabited, but something they were responsible for perfecting.

A 1982 diary entry captures this shift starkly:

“I will try to make myself better in any way I possibly can with the help of my budget and baby-sitting money. I will lose weight, get new lenses, already got a new haircut, good makeup, new clothes and accessories.”

What changed was not the presence of shame, but its location. Shame moved inward.

Rather than being externally enforced through rules and prohibitions, it became self-policed. Girls were taught to monitor themselves constantly, to evaluate their bodies from the outside, and to treat appearance as the primary expression of identity and worth.

Brumberg is explicit on this point. The fact that American girls now make their bodies their central project is not an accident or a cultural curiosity. It is a symptom of historical changes that are only beginning to be fully understood.

This is where more recent work, such as Louise Perry’s The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, helps extend Brumberg’s analysis into the present moment. Perry argues that while sexual liberation promised autonomy and empowerment, it often left young women navigating powerful biological and emotional realities without the social structures that once offered protection, guidance, or meaning. In that vacuum, the body became one of the few remaining sites where control still seemed possible.

The result is a paradox. Girls are freer in theory, yet more burdened in practice. The body, once shaped by communal norms and shared female knowledge, becomes a solitary project, managed under intense cultural pressure and constant comparison.

For many girls, this self-surveillance does not begin with magazines or social media. It begins at home, absorbed through tone, comments, and modeling from the women closest to them.

Brumberg argues that body dissatisfaction is often transmitted from mother to daughter, not out of cruelty, but because those mothers inherited the same aesthetic anxieties. Over time, body shame becomes a family inheritance, passed down quietly and persistently.

Some mothers transmit it subtly.

Others do it bluntly.

This matters not because my experience is unique, but because it illustrates what happens when a body shaped by restriction, stress, and cultural pressure is asked to perform indefinitely. Personal stories are often dismissed as anecdotal, but they are where biological theory meets lived reality.

If you want to dive deeper into this topic:


Where It All Began: The Messages That Shape Us

I grew up in a household where my body was not simply noticed. It was scrutinized, compared, and commented on. Comments like that do not fade with time. They shape how you see yourself in mirrors and photographs. They teach you that your body must be managed and monitored. They plant the belief that staying small is the price of safety.

So, I grew up believing that if I could control my body well enough, I could avoid humiliation. I could avoid becoming the punchline. I could avoid being seen in the wrong way.

For a while, I turned that fear into discipline.


The Years Before the Collapse: A Lifetime of Restriction and Survival

Food never felt simple for me. Long before bodybuilding, chronic pain, or COVID, I carried a strained relationship with eating. Growing up in a near constant state of anxiety meant that hunger cues often felt unpredictable. Eating was something to plan around or push through. It rarely felt intuitive or easy.

Because of this, I experimented with diets that replaced real meals with cereal or shakes. I followed plans like the Special K diet. I relied on Carnation Instant Breakfast instead of full meals. My protein intake was low. My fear of gaining weight was high. Restriction became familiar.

Top left is when I started working out obsessively at age 16, top right and bottom photo are from middle school when I was at my “heaviest” that drove the disordered behaviors.

In college, I became a strict vegetarian out of compassion for animals, but I did not understand how to meet my nutritional needs. I was studying dietetics and earning personal training certifications while running frequently and using exercise as a way to maintain control. From the outside, I looked disciplined. Internally, my relationship with food and exercise remained tense and inconsistent.

Later, I became involved in a meal-replacement program through an MLM. I replaced two meals a day with shakes and practiced intermittent fasting framed as “cleanse days.” In hindsight, this was structured under-eating presented as wellness. It fit seamlessly into patterns I had lived in for years.

Eating often felt overwhelming. Cooking felt like a hurdle. Certain textures bothered me. My appetite felt fragile and unreliable. This sensory sensitivity existed long before the parosmia that would come years later. From early on, food was shaped by stress rather than nourishment.

During this entire period, I was also on hormonal birth control, first the NuvaRing and later the Mirena IUD, for nearly a decade. Long-term hormonal modulation can influence mood, inflammation, appetite, and weight distribution. It added another layer of complexity to a system already under strain.

Looking back, I can see that my teens and twenties were marked by near constant restriction. Restriction felt normal. Thriving did not.

The book Why Women Need Fat discusses the idea of a biological weight “set point,” the range a body tends to return to when conditions are stable and adequately nourished. I now understand that I remained below my natural set point for years through force rather than balance. My biology never experienced consistency or safety.

This was the landscape I carried into my thirties.


The Body I Built and the Body That Broke

By the time I entered the bodybuilding world in 2017 and 2018, I already had years of chronic under-eating, over-exercising, and nutrient gaps behind me. Bodybuilding did not create my issues. It amplified them.

I competed in four shows. People admired the discipline and the physique. Internally, my body was weakening. I was overtraining and undereating. By 2019, my immune system began to fail. I developed severe canker sores, sometimes twenty or more at once. I started noticing weight-loss resistance. Everything I had done in the past, was no longer working. On my thirty-fifth birthday, I got shingles. My energy crashed. My emotional bandwidth narrowed. My body was asking for rest, but I did not know how to slow down.

Dive deeper into my body building journey here:

Around this time, I was also navigating eating disorder recovery. Learning how to eat without panic or rigid control was emotionally exhausting even under ideal circumstances… but little did I know things were about to take a massive turn for the worst.


COVID, Sensory Loss, and the Unraveling of Appetite

After getting sick with the ‘vid late 2020, everything shifted again. I developed parosmia, a smell and taste distortion that made many foods taste rotten or chemical. Protein and cooked foods often tasted spoiled. Herbs smelled like artificial chemical. Eating became distressing and, at times, impossible.

My appetite dropped significantly. There were periods where my intake was very low, yet my weight continued to rise. This is not uncommon following illness or prolonged stress. The body often shifts into energy conservation, prioritizing survival overweight regulation.

Weight gain became another source of grief. Roughly thirty pounds over the next five years. I feel embarrassed and avoid photographs. I often worry about how others will perceive me.

If this experience resonates, it is important to say this clearly: your body is not betraying you. It is responding to stress, illness, and prolonged strain in the way bodies are designed to respond.


Why Women’s Bodies Adapt Instead of “Bounce Back”

When years of restriction, intense exercise, chronic stress, illness, hormonal shifts, and emotional trauma accumulate, the body often enters a protective state. Metabolism slows. Hormonal signaling shifts. Hunger cues become unreliable. Weight gain or resistance to weight loss can occur even during periods of low intake, because energy regulation is being driven by survival physiology rather than simple calorie balance.

This is not failure. It is physiology.

The calories-in, calories-out model does not account for thyroid suppression, nervous system activation, sleep disruption, pain, trauma, or metabolic adaptation. It reduces a complex biological system to arithmetic.

Women are not machines. We are adaptive systems built for survival. Sometimes resilience looks like holding onto energy when the body does not feel safe.


The Systems That Reinforce Shame

Despite this biological reality, we live in a culture that ties women’s value to discipline and appearance. When women gain weight, even under extreme circumstances, we blame ourselves before questioning the system.

Diet culture frames shrinking as virtue.

Toxic positivity encourages acceptance without context.

Industrial food environments differ radically from those our ancestors evolved in.

Medical systems often dismiss women’s pain and metabolic complexity.

Social media amplifies comparison and moralizes body size.

None of this is your fault. And all of it shapes your experience.

This is why understanding the science matters. This is why telling the truth matters. This is why sharing stories matters.


In the book, More Than a Body, Lindsay and Lexie Kite describe how women are taught to relate to themselves through constant self-monitoring. Instead of living inside our bodies, we learn to watch ourselves from the outside. We assess how we look, how we are perceived, and whether our bodies are acceptable in a given moment.

This constant self-surveillance does real harm. It pulls attention away from hunger, pain, fatigue, and intuition. It trains women to override bodily signals in favor of appearance management. And over time, it creates a split where the body is treated as a project to control rather than a system to understand or care for.

When you layer this kind of self-objectification on top of chronic stress, restriction, illness, and trauma, the result is not empowerment. It is disconnection. And disconnection makes it even harder to hear what the body needs when something is wrong.

Weight gain is not just a biological response. It becomes a moral verdict. And that is how women end up fighting bodies that are already struggling to keep them alive.

The Inheritance Ends Here

For a long time, I believed that breaking generational cycles only applied to mothers and daughters. I do not have children, so I assumed what I inherited would simply end with me, unchanged.

Brumberg’s work helped me see this differently.

What we inherit is not passed down only through parenting. It moves through tone, silence, and self-talk. It appears in how women speak about their bodies in front of others. It lives in the way shame is normalized.

I inherited a legacy of body shame. Even on the days when I still feel its weight, I am choosing not to repeat it.

For me, the inheritance ends with telling the truth about this journey and refusing to speak to my body with the same cruelty I absorbed growing up. It ends here.


Closing the Circle: Your Body Is Not Broken

I wish I could end this with a simple story of resolution. I cannot. I am still in the middle of this. I still grieve. I still struggle with eating and movement. I am still learning how to inhabit a body that feels unfamiliar.

But I know this: my body is not my enemy. She is not malfunctioning. She is adapting to a lifetime of stress, illness, restriction, and emotional weight.

If you are in a similar place, I hope this offers permission to stop fighting yourself and start understanding the patterns your body is following. Not because everything will suddenly improve, but because clarity is often the first form of compassion.

Your body is not betraying you. She is trying to keep you here.

And sometimes the most honest thing we can do is admit that we are still finding our way.


References

  1. Brumberg, J. J. (1997). The Body Project: An Intimate History of American Girls. Random House.
  2. Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2011). Why Women Need Fat: How “Healthy” Food Makes Us Gain Excess Weight and the Surprising Solution to Losing It Forever. Hudson Street Press.
  3. Kite, L., & Kite, L. (2020). More Than a Body: Your Body Is an Instrument, Not an Ornament. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Scientific and academic sources

  1. Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2006). Changes in body fat distribution in relation to parity in American women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(3), 173–185.
  2. Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2008). Waist–hip ratio and cognitive ability. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 275(1644), 193–199.
  3. Dulloo, A. G., Jacquet, J., & Montani, J. P. (2015). Adaptive thermogenesis in human body-weight regulation. Obesity Reviews, 16(S1), 33–43.
  4. Fothergill, E., et al. (2016). Persistent metabolic adaptation after weight loss. Obesity, 24(8), 1612–1619.
  5. Kyle, U. G., et al. (2004). Body composition interpretation. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79(6), 955–962.
  6. Simopoulos, A. P. (2016). Omega-6/omega-3 balance and obesity risk. Nutrients, 8(3), 128.

Trauma, stress, and nervous system context

  1. Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. Henry Holt and Company.
  2. Walker, P. (2013). Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving. Azure Coyote Books.

The Older Story Beneath Christmas

A History of Yule and Cultural Amnesia

Every December, the same argument erupts like clockwork.

“Christmas is pagan.”
“No it isn’t, stop lying.”
“Actually, it’s Saturnalia.”
“Actually, it’s Jesus’ birthday.”

Christian Calling others out 😮

And honestly, the argument itself is the least interesting part.

Because Christmas didn’t replace older solstice traditions.
It grew out of them.

Long before doctrine, people were already gathering at midwinter. Lighting fires. Sharing food. Hanging evergreens. Leaving offerings. Watching the sun closely. Trying to survive the longest night of the year.

Most of what we now call “Christmas spirit” (the lights, the feasting, the greenery, the warmth, even the winter gift-giver) is older than Christian theology by centuries.

And yet, when I converted to Christianity in 2022, none of that felt magical.

It felt dangerous.


My First Christian Christmas: Panic, Purging, and Fear

I was only a few months into my short-lived Christian phase when December arrived, and I suddenly found myself terrified that Christmas was pagan, demonic, or spiritually contaminated.

I burned books.
I threw away crystals.
I cleaned my home like I was preparing for divine inspection.
I interrogated every decoration like it might open a portal.

I’m not exaggerating. I recently found an old document I wrote during that time, and reading it now is unsettling. It reads like I took an entire bucket of fundamentalist talking points, sprinkled in some Wikipedia conspiracies, and shook it like a snow globe.

Here are real lines I wrote in 2022:

“Christmas is a religious holiday. But it’s not Christian.”
“Christmas is the birthday of the sun god Tammuz.”
“Mistletoe came from druids who used it for demonic occult powers.”
“Santa Claus is based on Odin and meant to deceive children.”
“Jesus does not want you to celebrate Christmas.”

I believed every word of it.

Because fear-based Christianity works by shrinking your imagination.
It makes symbols dangerous.
History suspicious.
The world a spiritual minefield.

That was my first clue this wasn’t JUST about theology. It was about fear.
And the inability to hold layered meaning.


Why Winter Was Sacred Long Before Religion

For pre-industrial people, winter wasn’t cozy.

It wasn’t aesthetic. It wasn’t symbolic. It was dangerous.

Food stores ran low. Animals died. Illness spread. Darkness swallowed the day.

When the sun disappeared, it wasn’t metaphorical. It was existential.

That’s why midwinter mattered everywhere, not because cultures shared gods, but because they shared bodies, seasons, and risk.

Homes were built from thick logs, stone, and earth. Materials with thermal mass that held heat long after the fire dimmed. Hearths weren’t decorative. They were survival technology. Families and animals gathered together because warmth meant life.

This wasn’t primitive living. It was skilled living. And it shaped belief.

Seasonal rites weren’t abstract spirituality.
They were instructions for how to endure.


This Isn’t Just Capitalism — It’s Cultural Amnesia

It’s tempting to blame modern capitalism for the way winter has been flattened into noise, urgency, and forced cheer. And capitalism absolutely accelerated the problem.

But that explanation skips a much older rupture.

Pre-Christian seasonal traditions already honored limits. Rest. Darkness. Slowness. Winter was understood as a time of contraction, not productivity. You didn’t push harder in December. You pulled inward. You conserved. You waited.

Those rhythms were disrupted long before department stores and advertising campaigns.

First came religious overwrite… seasonal intelligence reframed into theological narratives that demanded certainty and transcendence over embodiment. Then came industrialization, which severed daily life from land, daylight, and season entirely. Artificial light erased night. Clocks replaced the sun. Productivity became moral.

By the time capitalism arrived in its modern form, much of the damage was already done. Capitalism didn’t invent our disconnection from seasonal limits. It inherited it.

What we’re really dealing with isn’t just exploitation.

It’s amnesia.

We forgot how winter works. We forgot how rest works. We forgot how darkness functions as part of a healthy cycle. And once that memory was gone, it became easy to sell us endless brightness in the darkest part of the year.


What Yule Actually Was. Before Christianity Rewrote It

This is where the history gets interesting….

The earliest surviving written reference to Yule comes from the 8th century, recorded by the Christian monk Bede. Like much of what we know about pre-Christian traditions, it was documented after conversion had already begun. The traditions themselves are older, but the written record is fragmentary and filtered.

The Venerable Bede, an English monk and missionary, was among the earliest writers to record the existence of Yule.

That timing matters.

Like much of what we know about pre-Christian Europe, Yule was documented after conversion had already begun. Earlier traditions were primarily oral, and many were actively suppressed or destroyed, which means the written record is incomplete and filtered through Christian authors.

That does not mean the traditions were new.

It means Christianity arrived late to write them down.

Later sources, such as Snorri Sturluson in Heimskringla (12th–13th century), describe Yule as a midwinter feast involving communal drinking, oath-making, ceremonial meals, ancestor honoring, and celebrations lasting multiple days, often twelve. By the time Snorri was writing, Christianity had already reshaped much of Nordic life, yet the seasonal patterns he records remain strikingly consistent.

The record is not pristine. But it is consistent enough to tell us this:
Yule was a land-based, seasonal response to winter, practiced long before Christianity and remembered imperfectly afterward.

So, when people talk about the “Twelve Days of Christmas,” they’re unintentionally echoing Yule, not the Gospels.


Yule Was Never One Thing — or One Date

There was never a single Yule and never a single calendar.

Some communities marked the solstice itself. Others observed the days before it.
Others celebrated after, once the sun’s return was perceptible.

Yule could last days or weeks, depending on latitude, climate, and local conditions. This diversity wasn’t confusion. It was responsiveness.

Seasonal traditions bent to land, not doctrine.
And that flexibility is one reason they survived so long.


Ancestors, Offerings, and the Household

Yule wasn’t only about gods. It was about the dead.

Midwinter was understood as a liminal time when ancestors drew near. The boundary between worlds thinned. Homes became places of hospitality not just for the living, but for those who came before.

Offerings were left. Food. Drink. Light. We still do this…. even if we pretend it’s just for children.

Milk and cookies for Santa didn’t come out of nowhere.
They echo something far older: leaving nourishment overnight, acknowledging unseen visitors, participating in reciprocity.

The modern story makes it cute.
The older story makes it sacred.


Before Santa, the Sky Was Crowded

Across Northern and Eastern Europe, winter solstice was associated with feminine figures of light, fertility, and renewal— many of whom traveled the sky.

In Baltic traditions, Saule carried the sun across the heavens. Among the Sámi, Beiwe rode through the winter sky in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, restoring fertility to the frozen land.

Darkness wasn’t evil. It was gestational.

The womb is dark. Seeds germinate underground.
Transformation happens unseen. That imagery didn’t disappear.

It migrated.


When Christmas Was Once Illegal

Here’s a part of the story that tends to surprise people.

Christmas was not always embraced by Christianity in America.
In fact, it was once illegal.

In the mid-1600s, Puritan leaders in New England viewed Christmas as pagan, Catholic, and morally corrupt. Everything associated with it raised suspicion.

Evergreens were considered pagan.
Feasting was considered pagan.
Dancing, games, and excess were condemned.
Even taking the day off work was seen as spiritually dangerous.

In 1659, the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law banning the celebration of Christmas outright. The statute read:

“Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing labour, feasting, or any other way… every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shillings.”

Celebrating Christmas was a finable offense.

The ban remained in effect until 1681. And even after it was repealed, many New England towns treated December 25th as an ordinary workday well into the 1700s.

Early American Christianity didn’t preserve Christmas.

It rejected it.

And yet, winter rituals have a way of surviving rejection.


How Christmas Quietly Returned

Christmas didn’t re-enter American life through theology or church decree.

It returned through households.

Throughout the 1700s and early 1800s, winter customs persisted in small, domestic ways. Evergreen branches were brought indoors. Candles were lit in windows. Food was shared. Stories of winter figures and gift-givers circulated quietly within families.

These practices weren’t organized or ideological. They were inherited.

Passed down the way people pass down recipes, songs, and seasonal habits, especially in communities tied to land, season, and home.

They survived because they worked.

They made winter bearable.
They gave rhythm to darkness.
They anchored people to memory and place.

Over time, these household customs accumulated. By the mid-1800s, Christmas re-emerged into public culture, not as a restored Christian holy day, but as a reassembled seasonal festival shaped by folklore, family practice, and winter necessity.

Only later was it fully absorbed, standardized, and commercialized.

That shift, from household memory to mass reproduction…. changed everything.


Santa Claus, Commercialism, and My Mom’s Coca-Cola Bathroom

Santa is one of the clearest examples of what happens when household tradition gives way to mass culture. Early versions of Santa look nothing like the modern mascot. Long robes. Staffs. Hoods. Sometimes thin. Sometimes eerie. Often dressed in green, brown, or deep red.

These figures echo older winter travelers. Odin riding the sky, spirits roaming during Yule, ancestors moving close. This transformation accelerated in the 1800s, when American illustrators and writers began merging European folklore with newly invented holiday imagery.

By then, Santa took shape again.

My husband and I recently found a reproduction Santa figure based on an 1897 illustration. He’s dressed in a long green robe with a staff in hand. This style was common in the 1800s, especially in Germanic and Scandinavian traditions where the winter gift-giver was closer to a folkloric spirit than a cozy grandfather. Seeing him in that deep forest green, with that hooded, old-world posture, makes it obvious how far the modern Santa has drifted from his roots.


By the 1900s, Coca-Cola standardized him. Red suit. White trim. Jolly. Brand-safe. Growing up, this wasn’t abstract for me.

My mom worked for Coca-Cola when the company was based in Richmond, Virginia, in the early 1980s. My first word was “Coke.” Coca-Cola wasn’t just a brand in our house, it was part of the atmosphere.

My mom loved Coca-Cola décor. We had Coca-Cola signs, collectibles, and even a full Coca-Cola bathroom. At the time, it just felt normal. Cozy, even. Americana. Tradition.

I didn’t realize until much later how completely my sense of “holiday spirit” had been shaped by corporate nostalgia rather than ancestral memory. What I thought of as timeless wasn’t old at all. It was manufactured, standardized, and sold back to us as heritage.

That doesn’t make it evil. But it does matter.

Because when branding replaces ritual, something gets flattened. The symbols remain, but the relationship is gone. What was once seasonal, local, and embodied becomes aesthetic. Consumable. Safe.

And for many of us, that’s the only version of winter we were ever given.

That’s not a judgment. It’s just reality. Most of us weren’t raised with ritual.
We were raised with branding.

What was lost in that transformation wasn’t belief. It was relationship— to land, to season, to memory.

And the people who held onto that relationship longest were already labeled for it.


Why “Heathen” Never Meant Godless

The word heathen never originally meant immoral or evil.

It meant rural.

Its earliest known form, haithno, is feminine and means “woman of the heath” — the open, uncultivated land beyond cities and roads. From there it spread through Germanic languages: Anglo-Saxon hǣþen, Old Norse heidinn, Old High German heidan.

Clergy used heathen to describe those who kept ancestral customs while cities converted. The 8th-century monk Paulus Diaconus wrote of heidenin commane (the rural people) calling them “the wild heathen.”

Offerings to trees, springs, and stones were condemned as sacrilege. Over time, heathen merged with Latin paganus, meaning “rural dweller,” and gentilis, meaning “of another tribe.”

What began as a description of people who would not leave the wild became a moral accusation.

Later, the same language was exported outward… applied to colonized lands as uncivilized or heathen.

The fear was never really about gods. It was about land that refused to be controlled.

What Actually Happened, and Why the Old Ways Are Calling Back

The same patterns repeat across centuries: suppression, survival, absorption, and forgetting.

But we need to be honest about what that suppression looked like.

This was not a gentle handoff.
It was not mutual exchange.
It was not respectful evolution.

Christianity did not simply reinterpret older traditions.
It destroyed them where it could.

This is not rhetoric. It is history.

Historian Catherine Nixey documents this process in The Darkening Age. Early Christianity treated pagan traditions not as ancestors, but as enemies. Temples were smashed. Statues were defaced. Sacred groves were cut down. Libraries were burned. Seasonal rites that had structured life for centuries were criminalized.

This destruction was not hidden or accidental. It was celebrated.

Christian writers praised the demolition of temples. They mocked the old gods as demons. Beauty, pleasure, ritual, and joy were reframed as moral danger. Festivals became obscene. Feasting became gluttony. The body itself became suspect.

What could not be eradicated outright was stripped, renamed, and absorbed, while its origins were denied.

The solstice became Christ’s birth.
The returning sun became metaphor.
Evergreens became safe symbols.
Ancestor offerings were reduced to children’s fantasy.

This was not borrowing. It was conquest, followed by selective inheritance.

When that conquest met resistance in rural places, in households, and in women’s hands, it adapted. It waited. It layered itself over what remained.

That is why the seams still show. That is why Christmas has always felt haunted.
Layered. Conflicted. Unstable.

What survived did so despite institutional Christianity, not because of it.

It survived in kitchens and hearths. In fields and forests.
In winter nights and quiet ritual.
In land-based people who refused to forget how the seasons worked.

Centuries later, capitalism finished what religion began. What remained was flattened into nostalgia, branding, and spectacle.

Not because the old ways were weak.
But because they were powerful.


Why the Call Feels Loud Again

The pull people feel now toward solstice, ancestors, darkness, rest, and land is not aesthetic.

It is memory.

It is the body remembering rhythms it was trained to forget.
It is the psyche rejecting constant light, constant productivity, constant cheer.
It is old intelligence resurfacing after centuries of suppression.

The old gods were never gone. They were buried. Winter has a way of thawing buried things.

If something in you responds to the fire, the darkness, the offering, or the pause, that does not mean you are rejecting modern life or indulging fantasy.

It means you are responding to a pattern older than doctrine.
Older than empire. Older than the fear that tried to erase it.

What was destroyed is stirring. What was taken is being remembered.

In a few days, I’ll be sitting down with Universal Pagan Temple for a conversation on pagan culture, ritual, history, and lived practice, with Sigrún Gregerson, Pagan priestess and educator. If this piece brought up questions for you, about Yule, Mother’s Night, ancestor work, or what reclaiming these traditions actually looks like, I’d love to carry them into that conversation. Feel free to leave your questions in the comments or send them my way.

This is how the old ways return.
Quietly. Carefully. Through memory, practice, and conversation.

My Mother’s Night Altar 12.20.25

Social Miasm Theory: The Biology of a Sick Society

How Suppression Shapes Our Bodies, Minds, and the World We Live In

Hey hey, Welcome back! Today’s episode connects beautifully to something many of you resonated with in my earlier show, Science or Stagnation? The Risk of Unquestioned Paradigms. In that episode, we talked about scientism… not science itself, but the dogma that forms around certain scientific ideas.

That’s why voices like Rupert Sheldrake have always fascinated me. Sheldrake, for those unfamiliar, isn’t a fringe crank. He’s a Cambridge-trained biologist who dared to question what he calls the “ten dogmas of modern science”: that nature is mechanical, that the mind is only the brain, that the laws of nature are fixed, that free will is an illusion, and so on.

When he presented these questions in a TED Talk, it struck such a nerve that the talk was quietly taken down. And that raised an obvious question: If the ideas are so wrong… why not let them stand and fall on their own? Why censor them unless they hit something tender? All of this sets the stage for today’s conversation.

Because the theory we’re exploring, Social Miasm Theory, fits right inside that tension between mainstream assumptions and the alternative frameworks we often dismiss too quickly.

My friend Stephinity Salazar just published a fascinating piece of research arguing that suppression  (of toxins, trauma, emotion, and truth) is the root pattern underlying both chronic illness and our wider social dysfunction. It’s a theory that steps outside the materialist worldview and challenges the mechanistic lens we’ve all been taught to see through.

You don’t have to agree with everything…that’s not the goal here.

What I love is the chance to explore, to ask good questions, and to stay grounded while examining ideas that stretch our understanding.

This blog is your guide to the episode, so you can track the concepts, explore the references, and dive deeper while you listen.

So, with that, let’s dive into Social Miasm Theory: what it is, where it comes from, why it matters, and what it might reveal about the world we’re living in today.


What Are Miasms, Anyway?

To anchor our conversation, Stephinity starts by grounding the concept of “miasms” in its homeopathic roots. Historically, Samuel Hahnemann (founder of homeopathy) described three primary miasms:

  • Psora, linked to scabies or skin conditions
  • Syphilis, associated with destructive disease
  • Sycosis, with overgrowth and tissue proliferation

Since then, the theory has expanded. Many modern homeopaths now talk about five chronic miasms, adding:

These aren’t diseases…they’re patterns. A kind of “constitutional operating system.”

Stephinity’s work takes this a step further:
If individuals can have miasms, societies can too.

It’s an ambitious idea. And honestly? A compelling one when you consider what’s happening globally.


Why Social Miasm Theory Matters

Suppression doesn’t stay in the body. It echoes outward into culture, politics, ecosystems, and collective behavior.

She breaks suppression into four types:

  • Toxic suppression: chemicals, pollutants, EMFs, pathogens
  • Emotional suppression: trauma, grief, stress, unprocessed feelings
  • Psychological suppression: denial, cognitive dissonance, fear-driven attachment to ideology
  • Truth suppression: propaganda, censorship, disinformation, scientific dogma

When these forms of suppression accumulate, she argues, they create a “social miasm”: a pathological field that shapes everything from public health to political polarization.

Even if you don’t buy every mechanism she proposes, the metaphor works. And the patterns are hard to ignore.

Evidence, Epistemology, and Skeptics: What Counts as “Real”?

This is the part my skeptical listeners will perk up for.

In the interview, I asked her the question I knew many of you were thinking:
“How do you define evidence within this framework? What would you want skeptical listeners to understand before judging it?”

Stephinity argues that the modern scientific lens is too narrow. Not wrong—but incomplete. She sees value in:

  • case studies
  • pattern recognition
  • field effects
  • resonance models
  • historical cycles
  • experiential knowledge

Whether or not you agree, her challenge to mechanistic materialism echoes thinkers like Rupert Sheldrake, IONS researchers, and even physicists questioning entropic cosmology.

And she’s not claiming this replaces science. She’s asking what science misses when it refuses to look beyond the physical.


Suppression: What It Looks Like in Real Life

Stephinity’s paper covers how suppression shows up on multiple levels. Here are a few examples she explores:

  • Overuse of symptom-suppressive medications
  • Emotional avoidance that pushes trauma deeper
  • Social pressure to conform
  • Institutional censorship
  • Environmental toxins that overwhelm the microbiome
  • Radiation and electromagnetic exposures

She frames suppression as a terrain problem: when the body or society becomes too acidic, stressed, toxic, or disconnected, the miasm takes root.

This is where we start to cross into the biological, psychological, and social layers—which brings us to one of my favorite parts of her theory.


Neuroparasitology: When Parasites Change Behavior

The concept of a new branch of science of neuroparasitology. Study of the influence of parasites on the activity of the brain.

This is the section I teased in the podcast because it’s both wild and backed by real research.

Stephinity references studies showing that parasites can alter host behavior not just in insects or rodents, but potentially in humans too. Her paper cites examples like helminths, nematodes, mycotoxins, and other microorganisms (McAuliffe, 2016; Colaiacovo, 2021). These organisms are everywhere, not just in “developing countries” (Yu, 2010).

Researchers have documented parasites that:

  • influence mood
  • shift risk-taking
  • modify sexual attraction
  • impair impulse control
  • change social patterns

This is what Dawkins called the extended phenotype (1982): the parasite’s genes expressing themselves through the host’s behavior. Neuroparasitologists Hughes & Libersat (2019) and Johnson (2020) have shown how certain infections can shift personality traits in specific, predictable ways.

Stephinity ties this into terrain: parasites tend to thrive in acidic, low-oxygen, stressed, radiative environments (Clark, 1995; Tennant, 2013; Cerecedes, 2015). In her view, chronic suppression creates exactly that kind of internal ecosystem.

But there’s another layer here. One that isn’t biological at all.

This is where philosopher Daniel Dennett enters the chat.

In Breaking the Spell, Dennett describes “parasites of the mind”: ideas that spread not because they’re true, but because they’re incredibly good at hijacking human psychology. These mental parasites latch onto our cognitive wiring the same way biological one’s latch onto the nervous system. They survive by exploiting:

  • fear
  • moral impulses
  • tribal loyalty
  • the desire for certainty
  • social pressure
  • existential insecurity

According to Dennett, religious dogmas, conspiracy theories, and ideological extremes act like memetic parasites: they replicate by using us, encouraging us to host them and then pass them on.

In other words: not all parasites live in the gut. Some live in the mind.

And…..we even discussed how billionaire Les Wexner once publicly described having a “dybbuk spirit” a kind of parasitic entity in Jewish folklore known for influencing personality. Whether symbolic or literal, the analogy fits. 🫨😮

Her point is simple:
When the terrain is weak, something else will fill the space.

Whether that “something” is trauma, ideology, toxicity, or a literal parasite… the mechanism rhymes.


Collective Delusion and Mass Psychosis

Drawing on Jung and Dostoevsky, Stephinity explores the idea that societies can enter “psychic epidemics.”

You’ve seen this. We all have…

The last decade has been a masterclass in how fear, propaganda, and emotional suppression create predictable patterns:

  • polarization
  • tribal thinking
  • moral panics
  • ideological possession
  • scapegoating
  • censorship
  • intolerance of nuance

She argues these are symptoms of a cultural miasm—not failures of individual character.

Whether you lean left, right, or somewhere out in the wilderness, you’ve likely felt this rising tension. And it’s hard not to see how unresolved collective trauma feeds it.


COVID as a Catalyst: What the Pandemic Revealed

Another part of her paper dives into how the pandemic brought hidden patterns to the surface.

Some of her claims are controversial, especially around EMFs and environmental co-factors. In the episode, we unpack these with curiosity, not blind acceptance.

Her larger point is that COVID exposed:

  • institutional fragility
  • scientific gatekeeping
  • public distrust
  • trauma-based responses
  • authoritarian overreach
  • the psychological toll of suppression

Whether you agree with the specific mechanisms or not, the last decade made one thing undeniable: something in our social terrain is deeply dysregulated.


8. Healing Forward: What Do We Do With All This?

If suppression drives miasms, then healing means unsuppressing. Gently, not chaotically.

Stephinity suggests practices like:

  • emotional honesty
  • reconnecting with nature
  • releasing stored trauma
  • nutritional and detoxification support
  • reducing exposure to chronic stressors
  • restoring community and meaning
  • opening space for spiritual or intuitive insight

She’s not prescribing a protocol. She’s offering a map.

The destination is what the Greeks called sophrosyne: a state of balance between wisdom and sanity. Not blissful ignorance, not paranoid awakening. Just grounded clarity.

And I think we could all use a bit more of that.


Key Evidence and Arguments

  • Stephinity critiques materialist science, calling out what she terms “entropic cosmology.” She argues that by assuming nature is strictly mechanistic, mainstream science misses field-based phenomena, non-local consciousness, and deeper systemic patterns.
  • She draws on historical and homeopathic sources (Hahnemann, Kent) to build her theoretical foundation but also argues for newer forms of evidence: resonance, case studies, and pattern detection in social systems.
  • On the environmental front, she explores links between toxins, EMF / 5G, biotech, and chronic disease, not just as correlation, but as evidence of suppression dynamics.
  • Psychologically, she invokes mass delusion or collective repression (drawing from Jung, Dostoevsky) seeing societal crises as expressions of buried collective shadow.
  • Ultimately, her call to action isn’t just for individual healing, but for systemic awakening: more transparency, alternative medical paradigms, and restored connection with nature.

Why This Matters for You

Even if homeopathy isn’t your jam, Social Miasm Theory offers a metaphor (and potentially a map) for understanding how inner repression becomes external crisis. If this episode does anything, I hope it gives you permission to look a little closer and question the stuff we’re told not to touch.


📚 Want to Dig Deeper?

Stephinity’s website: YOUR BODY ELECTRIC YOUR BODY ELECTRIC | FULL SPECTRUM FREQUENCY MEDICINE Find her on Linkden , Instagram and Substack

Social Miasm Theory: Revisiting Chronic Illness from a Meta-Perspective of Suppression [truncated version, pre-JSE publishing]

Official published paper

Miasms

https://www.unifiedfield.info/

https://corbettreport.com/how-the-government-manufactured-covid-consent

Use of fear to control behavior in Covid crisis was ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists

Ponzinomics & Predatory Business Models

When “Trust the Process” Isn’t What It Seems

A Deep Dive into MLMs with Robert L. FitzPatrick

When I first joined a multi-level marketing company, it felt like destiny. Freedom. Empowerment. Community. So much so that I tattooed “trust the process” on my body as a daily reminder. But the deeper I got, the more I noticed the cracks: emotional manipulation, magical thinking, and an almost religious silencing of doubts.

If you missed last week’s episode here is the deep dive of my own experience.

That’s why I’m thrilled to share this week’s podcast interview with Robert L. FitzPatrick. Robert has been sounding the alarm on MLMs for decades, long before it was common to describe them as cult-like. He’s the author of Ponzinomics: The Untold Story of Multi-Level Marketing, co-author of False Profits, and a respected expert cited by the BBC, The New York Times, and courts alike. For years, he’s been giving people the tools (language, data, and perspective) to recognize MLMs for what they truly are: predatory business models, not opportunities.

Here is the image of the “Airplane Game” we reference in the interview

In this episode, we cover:

  • The Spark: Robert’s first encounter with a scam-like business in the 1980s, which pushed him into decades of research on MLMs and fraud—mirroring the way my own personal MLM experience prompted deep self-examination.
  • Why “Not All MLMs” Is a Myth: The business model itself is designed to funnel money upward, making it impossible for the vast majority to succeed, regardless of the company or product.
  • Puritan Theology & Prosperity: How old ideas linking wealth to virtue evolved into the prosperity gospel, and how MLMs exploit that mindset.
  • Cultural Hooks: From hustle culture to self-improvement mantras and spiritual undertones, MLMs borrow heavily from mainstream culture to recruit and retain followers.
  • Narrative Control: How pre-scripted objections, emotional manipulation, and silencing tactics maintain loyalty and block critical thinking—something I’ve noticed both in MLMs and high-control religious groups.
  • The Hard Numbers: Realistic odds of success are brutal—most recruits lose money, almost all quit within a year, and mandatory purchases like “Healthy Mind and Body” programs or the Isabody Challenge trap participants financially and emotionally.
  • Legality & Political Protection: If MLMs are fundamentally unfair, how are they still legal? And what protects them politically?
  • Beyond the MLM Mindset: MLMs don’t just drain your wallet—they reshape identities, fracture communities, and erode trust in yourself and others.

This conversation is essential for anyone curious about MLMs, whether you’ve been drawn into one, have friends or family involved, or are simply interested in understanding how these systems work under the surface. Robert’s insights give us not just the numbers, but the language and tools to recognize the scam and the courage to break free from it.

Tune in for an eye-opening conversation that goes beyond the hype and digs into the real human cost of MLMs.

Links 

rfitzpatrick@pyramidschemealert.org

www.pyramidschemealert.org

Twitter: @pyramidalert

FB: @ponzinomicsthebook

Further reading: 

Goodbye FTC 

Quiz: How Many MLMs Are There? 

Institutional Support for Multi-Level Marketing in America Is Cracking

Taste0ftruth Tuesdays Previous blogs on MLMs

The MLM Illusion: Selling a Dream or a Trap?

Why MLMs Exploit Magical Thinking

Uncover how MLMs and high-control religions exploit narratives to control and isolate you

Lottery Odds vs MLM: Which Poses a Higher Financial Risk?

Previous Interviews:

Deconstructing Deception: MLMs, Exploitation & Online Influencers

From Serendipity to Scrutiny: The Truth Behind MLMs and Coercive Control

The Dark Side of Manifestation and MLMs

✨Let’s talk Manifestation & MLMs✨

In recent decades, the Law of Attraction has become one of the most influential belief systems in wellness, self-help, and multilevel marketing (MLM) circles. Its premise is seductively simple: your thoughts shape your reality. Think positively, and abundance will flow; dwell on negativity, and you’ll attract misfortune.

We have discussed the pitfalls of Law of attraction in a previous episode, you can find here.

🎙️ Another throwback episode is linked below, where I unpack my journey from wellness fanatic within MLM into a high-control religion. Together, we explore the wild “crunchy hippie to alt-right pipeline.” 🌿➡️🛑 social media, influencers, and wellness hype quietly nudge people toward extreme ideas, and in this episode, we break down exactly how. 🎧🔥

This modern doctrine of “mind over matter” is often traced to The Secret (2006) by Rhonda Byrne, but its genealogy is much older. It reaches back to New Thought philosophy of the 19th century, where figures like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Phineas Quimby, and later Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science) claimed that divine thought itself was the engine of reality. These Mind Cure and faith healing movements linked spirt and matter together. Disease, poverty, and suffering were seen as products of “wrong or stinking thinking.” Salvation was not just spiritual but cognitive: change your thinking, change your life.

and so again I say: It is shockingly right instead of shockingly wrong of you to be prosperous. Obviously, you cannot be very happy if you are poor and you need not be poor. It is a sin. –Catherine Ponder (The Dynamic Laws of Prosperity)

In fact, it is the search for spiritual healing of the body that led to what is known today as prosperity consciousness or in Christian evangelism, it’s prosperity theology.

That intellectual lineage matters because it shows how the Law of Attraction has always been more than a harmless pep talk. It represents a cosmology of control, one that locates all responsibility (and blame) within the individual mind. As we have discussed many times before, Jonathan Haidt observes in The Righteous Mind, belief systems serve a dual function: they bind communities together and blind them to alternative explanations.

In this sense, the Law of Attraction doesn’t just inspire positive thinking; it narrows. By framing success and failure as purely mental vibrations, it obscures structural realities like economic inequality, physical health and genetic limitations, racism, or corporate exploitation.

And that narrowing is precisely what makes it the perfect handmaiden to MLM culture.


When Positive Thinking Becomes a Business Model

Robert L. FitzPatrick, in False Profits and Ponzinomics, describes MLMs as “endless chain” recruitment schemes. What sustains them isn’t product sales but the constant influx of hopeful recruits. Yet these schemes require something more than numbers: they require belief.

Here, the Law of Attraction becomes the MLM’s best salesman. Distributors are told:

  • Failure isn’t about the structure of the business; it’s about your mindset.
  • Doubt is “negative energy” that will block your success.
  • Quitting is not just a business choice but a moral failing.

In the Amway training program, the “ABCs of Success” are “Attitude, Belief and Commitment.” Attitude was the key which must be guarded. Don’t let anyone steal your attitude. Negative was defined as “whatever influence weakens your belief and commitment in the business” -False Profits

This is where Norman Vincent Peale’s “positive thinking” gospel dovetails with MLM. In his 1948 book Positive Thinking for a Time Like This, Peale popularized the phrase

“Let go and let God. Let Him take over your life and run it. He knows how.”

While originally a call to spiritual surrender, the phrase has since been weaponized in countless contexts from Holiness movements to Alcoholics Anonymous to prosperity preaching. At its worst, it functions as a silencer: don’t question, don’t resist, don’t think critically. Just “let go,” and trust that outcomes (or uplines) will provide.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity has a word for this: prelest. It’s the belief that human beings are so easily deceived that any private sense of spiritual progress — a feeling of clarity, joy, empowerment, even a mystical experience — can’t be trusted on its own. Without humility and the guidance of a spiritual father, you’re told it may just be pride, delusion, or the devil in disguise.

That’s the trap: you can’t trust your own mind, heart, or gut. The only “safe” option is obedience to the system. Which is exactly how MLMs and other high-control groups operate — undermining self-trust to keep you dependent.

Nietzsche would have called this a kind of slave morality, a belief system that encourages resignation to suffering rather than rebellion against unjust structures. The Law of Attraction, framed in this way, doesn’t challenge MLM exploitation; it sanctifies it.

More powerful than any product, charismatic leader, or compensation plan, the MLM mindset materials (the tapes, courses, and “personal development” kits) are the prime tools used to recruit and control distributors. Once you’re in the system, you’re encouraged to buy these materials week after week, keeping you invested emotionally and financially while feeding the company’s bottom line.

I went back through my Facebook to find some goodies for you! 😜This photo says “My energy creates my reality. What I focus on is what I will Manifest.” Here is the original caption so you can hear how brainwashed I was. “💥🙌🏼Belief is a feeling of certainty about something, driven by emotion. Feeling certain means that it feels true to you and therefore it is your reality. 💥🙌🏼 💪🏼 What you focus on you find 💪🏼 👀 You’ve got to believe it, to see it 👀”

Flashback to my first corporate event Aug 2016. My upline purchased my flight basically forcing me to go.

My caption at the time: 🤮

🔥IGNITE YOUR VISION! 🔥
⚡Attended an event that changed my life. Showed me the massive vision of this company.
🤗Join our passionate, growing team of 18-35-year-olds striving for extraordinary lives and ownership of health, dreams, and contributions.
🤩Returning to this LIFE CHANGING event soon! Nashville, TN—let’s learn, grow, and celebrate!

Sounds inspiring, right? Except what they’re really selling is mandatory product purchases, endless hype, and a community that keeps you chasing the next status milestone. That “massive vision” isn’t about your health or dreams—it’s about the company’s bottom line.

Words like passionate, extraordinary, innovators, ownership are carefully chosen psychological nudges, making you feel like life itself is on the line if you’re not on board. And the countdown to the next “life-changing” event? Keeps you spending, attending, and emotionally hooked.

This is exactly what FitzPatrick calls out in Ponzinomics: the sales rep is the best customer. Only a tiny fraction of participants earn anything; the rest are paying to stay inspired.

More flashback images from my cult days….


The Psychological Toll

When these elements collide the New Thought inheritance of “mind over matter,” Peale’s positive thinking, religious community networks and MLM compensation plans… the result is a high-control environment dressed in empowerment language.

The outcomes are rarely empowering:

  • Blame and guilt when inevitable losses occur.
  • Anxiety from the demand to maintain “high vibrations.”
  • Suppression of doubt, lest skepticism be mistaken for weakness.
  • Financial harm disguised as personal failure.

In wellness communities, this logic extends beyond money. If essential oils don’t heal your illness, it’s because your mindset was wrong. If the diet doesn’t work, it’s because you didn’t “believe” enough. Structural realities (biology, medicine, inequality) are flattened into personal responsibility.

As Haidt warns, morality (and by extension ideology) can both bind and blind. The Law of Attraction, when paired with MLM, binds participants into a shared culture of hope and positivity while blinding them to exploitation.


Connecting the Dots: Bodybuilding, Metabolism & Team Isagenix

A couple weeks ago on the podcast, I shared about my bodybuilding years and the metabolic fallout I still live with today. I had forgotten how much of that season was actually entangled with my Isagenix obsession. My upline (the couple who enrolled me) were a part of Team Isagenix®, and I craved the validation of being “seen” as a successful athlete inside that community.

The requirements were brutal: placing in the top three of multiple competitions in a short span of time. So, between May 2017 and October 2018, I crammed in four shows in just 18 months. No off-season. No recovery. Just constant prep cycles. My metabolism never had a chance to stabilize, and I pushed myself past healthy limits. I wrecked my body and I’m still paying the price.

This is why I push back so hard when people insist that success is all about having a “positive enough” attitude to manifest it. My mindset was ironclad. What I lacked the conscious awareness that valued human health over recruitment and body image. That drive wasn’t just about stage lights and trophies. It was about proving my worth to an MLM culture that dangled prestige as the price of belonging. Team Isagenix® made the bar steep, and I was determined to clear it, no matter the cost.

And if you need proof of how deep this “mindset over matter” indoctrination goes, look no further than my old upline…now rebranded as a Manifestation Coach. Picture the classic boss-babe felt hat, paired with a website promising “signature mindset tools for rapid results.” According to her, if fear or doubt was “shrinking your dreams,” this was your moment to “flip it.” She name-drops 8-figure companies, influencers, and visionaries (the usual credibility glitter) while selling memberships, live events, and 7-day challenges.

It’s the same pitch recycled: your struggle isn’t systemic, it’s your mindset. If you’re not living your “life you truly love,” it’s because you haven’t invested enough in flipping the script (with her paid framework, of course). The MLM grind culture just got a new coat of “manifesting” paint.


🧠 Isagenix Programs & Their Psychological Impact

  • Healthy Mind and Body Program: A 60-day “mindset” initiative framed as holistic wellness. In practice, it ties product use to personal development, creating behavioral conditioning and binding members into a sense of shared identity and belonging. 🚩
  • IsaBody Challenge: A 16-week transformation contest requiring regular Isagenix product purchases. Completion comes with swag and vouchers; finalists are paraded as “success stories,” gamifying loyalty and dangling prestige as bait. The grand prize winner earns $25,000 but most participants earn only deeper entanglement. 🚩
  • Team Isagenix: Marketed as a prestige group for elite athletes with current national certifications, offering exclusivity and aspirational branding. This elevates certain members as “proof” of the products’ legitimacy, fueling both loyalty and recruitment. 🚩
  • Product Consumption: Isagenix requires 100 PV every 30 days just to remain “active.” This equates to about $150/month you HAVE to spend. On paper, bonuses and ranks promise unlimited potential. In reality, most associates struggle to recoup even their monthly product costs. Personal development rhetoric and community belonging often eclipse these financial realities, keeping participants cycling through hope, debt, and blame. 🚩

🤮🐦‍🔥 “Transform Your Life with Isagenix | Empowering Wellness and Wealth” 🐦‍🔥 🤮

Watch closely, because this is where the magic happens: the company paints a picture of limitless opportunity, but as Robert L. FitzPatrick lays out in Ponzinomics, the secret is that the sales rep is the best customer. That’s right… the real profits aren’t coming from your vague dreams of financial freedom; they’re coming from the people who are already buying the products and trying to climb the ranks.

The numbers don’t lie. According to Isagenix’s own disclosure: the overall average annual income for associates is $892. Among those who actually earned anything, the average jumps to $3,994. Do the math: $892 ÷ $3,994 ≈ 0.223 — meaning only about 22% of associates earn anything at all. The other 78%? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

And before you start fantasizing about that $3,994, remember: that’s before expenses. Let’s run a realistic scenario based on actual product spend:

  • $150/month on products or promotional materials = $1,800/year → net ≈ $2,194 − $1,800 = $1,194 before other costs.
  • Factor in travel, events, or socials? That $1,194 could easily drop to near zero…or negative.

The point: the so-called “income potential” evaporates fast when you account for the mandatory spending MLMs require. The only thing truly transformed is the company’s bottom line, not yours.

No wonder the comments are turned off.

Apparently, nobody actually crunches the numbers while the marketing spiel promises energy, strength, and vitality as if a shake could fix financial exploitation, metabolic burnout, and guilt-tripping at the same time.

My story is just one case study of how these tactics play out in real lives: I was recruited through trusted connections, emotionally manipulated with promises of transformation, pressured into relentless product use, and left with financial strain and long-lasting health consequences. That’s the “empowerment” MLMs sell and it’s why scrutiny matters.


Cultural Ecosystems That Enable MLMs


MLMs don’t operate in a vacuum. They flourish where belief structures already normalize submission to authority, truth-claims, and tightly networked communities. Evangelicals and the LDS Church provide striking examples: tight-knit congregations, missionary training in persuasion, and a cultural emphasis on self-reliance and communal obligation create fertile ground for recruitment.

Companies like Nu Skin, Young Living, doTERRA, and Melaleuca have disproportionately strong followings in Utah and among Mormon communities. FitzPatrick notes that MLMs thrive where trust networks and shared values make persuasion easier. The kind of environment where aspirational marketing and “prestige” teams can latch onto pre-existing social structures.

In short, it’s not just the products or the promises of positive thinking; it’s where belief, community, and culture all collide… that allows MLMs to hook people and keep them chasing elusive success.


Beyond Magical Thinking

The critique, then, is not of hope or positivity per se, but of weaponized optimism. When mantras like let go and let God or just thinking positive to manifest it are used to shut down discernment, discourage action, or excuse exploitation, they cease to be spiritual tools and become instruments of control.

Nietzsche challenged us to look beyond systems that sanctify passivity, urging instead a confrontation with reality even when it is brutal. FitzPatrick’s work extends this challenge to the world of commerce: if we truly care about empowerment, we must be willing to see how belief systems can be manipulated for profit.

That’s why MLMs and the Law of Attraction deserve scrutiny. Not because they promise too much, but because they redirect responsibility away from unjust structures and onto the very people they exploit.


Coming Up: A Deeper Dive

Next week on the podcast, I’ll be speaking with Robert L. FitzPatrick, author of False Profits and one of the world’s leading experts on MLMs. With decades of research, FitzPatrick has testified in court cases exposing fraudulent MLM schemes and helped unravel the mechanisms behind these multi-billion-dollar operations. He’s seen firsthand how MLMs manipulate culture, co-opt spirituality, and turn belief itself into a product.

Stay tuned. This is a conversation about more than scams, it’s about the machinery of belief, and how it shapes our lives in ways we rarely see.

Taste0ftruth Tuesdays Previous blogs on MLMs

The MLM Illusion: Selling a Dream or a Trap?

Why MLMs Exploit Magical Thinking

Uncover how MLMs and high-control religions exploit narratives to control and isolate you

Lottery Odds vs MLM: Which Poses a Higher Financial Risk?

Previous Interviews:

Deconstructing Deception: MLMs, Exploitation & Online Influencers

From Serendipity to Scrutiny: The Truth Behind MLMs and Coercive Control

References/Suggested Reading

  • Byrne, Rhonda. The Secret. New York: Atria Books, 2006.
  • Eddy, Mary Baker. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Boston: The Christian Science Publishing Society, 1875.
  • Emerson, Ralph Waldo. The Essential Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Edited by Brooks Atkinson. New York: Modern Library, 2000.
  • FitzPatrick, Robert L. False Profits: Seeking Financial and Spiritual Deliverance in Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid Schemes. Charlotte, NC: Herald Press, 1997.
  • FitzPatrick, Robert L. Ponzinomics: The Untold Story of Multi-Level Marketing. Charlotte, NC: Skyhorse Publishing, 2020.
  • Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Vintage Books, 2012.
  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. Edited by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books, 1989 (originally published 1887).
  • Peale, Norman Vincent. Positive Thinking for a Time Like This. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1948.
  • Quimby, Phineas P. The Quimby Manuscripts. Edited by Horatio W. Dresser. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1921.
  • Wallace, David Foster. “Consider the Lobster.” In Consider the Lobster and Other Essays. New York: Little, Brown, 2005. (Useful on consumer culture critique, if you want a modern edge.)

Fit for TV: How Screens, Diet Culture, and Reality Shows Rewire Our Bodies and Minds

When Willpower Isn’t Enough: Media, Metabolism, and the Myth of Transformation

You’re listening to Taste Test Thursdays–a space for the deep dives, the passion projects, and the stories that didn’t quite fit the main course. Today, we’re hitting pause on the intense spiritual and political conversations we usually have to focus on something just as powerful: how technology shapes our bodies, minds, and behaviors. We’ll be unpacking a recent Netflix documentary that highlights research and concepts we’ve explored before, shining a light on the subtle ways screens and media program us and why it matters more than ever.

I have a confession: I watched The Biggest Loser. Yep. Cringe, right? Back in 2008, when I was just starting to seriously focus on personal training (I got my first certification in 2006 but really leaned in around 2008), this show was everywhere. It was intense, dramatic, and promised transformation—a visual fairy tale of sweat, willpower, and discipline.

Looking back now, it’s so painfully cringe, but I wasn’t alone. Millions of people were glued to the screens, absorbing what the show told us about health, fat loss, and success. And the new Netflix documentary Fit for TV doesn’t hold back. It exposes the extreme, sometimes illegal methods used to push contestants: caffeine pills given by Jillian Michaels, emotional manipulation, extreme exercise protocols, and food as a weapon. Watching it now, I can see how this programming shaped not just contestants, but an entire generation of viewers—including me.


Screens Aren’t Just Entertainment

Laura Dodsworth nails it in Free Your Mind:

“Television is relaxing, but it also is a source of direct and indirect propaganda. It shapes your perception of reality. What’s more, you’re more likely to be ‘programmed’ by the programming when you are relaxed.”

This is key. Television isn’t just a casual distraction. It teaches, it socializes, and it normalizes behavior. A study by Lowery & DeFleur (Milestones in Mass Communication Research, 1988) called TV a “major source of observational learning.” Millions of people aren’t just entertained—they’re learning what’s normal, acceptable, and desirable.

Dodsworth also warns:

“Screens do not show the world; they obscure. The television screen erects visual screens in our mind and constructs a fake reality that obscures the truth.”

And that’s exactly what reality diet shows did. They created a distorted narrative: extreme restriction and punishment equals success. If you just try harder, work longer, and push further, your body will cooperate. Except, biology doesn’t work like that.


The Metabolic Reality

Let’s dig into the science. The Netflix documentary Fit for TV references the infamous Biggest Loser study, which tracked contestants years after the show ended. Here’s what happened:

  • Contestants followed extreme protocols: ~1,200 calories a day, 90–120 minutes of intense daily exercise (sometimes up to 5–8 hours), and “Franken-foods” like fat-free cheese or energy drinks.
  • They lost massive amounts of weight on TV. Dramatic, visible transformations. Ratings gold.
  • Six years later, researchers checked back: most regained ~70% of the weight. But the real kicker? Their resting metabolic rate (RMR) was still burning 700 fewer calories per day than baseline—500 calories less than expected based on regained body weight.
  • In everyday terms? Imagine you used to burn 2,000 calories a day just by living. After extreme dieting, your body was burning only 1,300–1,500 calories a day, even though you weighed almost the same. That’s like your body suddenly deciding it needs to hold on to every calorie, making it much harder to lose weight—or even maintain it—no matter how “good” you eat or how much you exercise.

This is huge. It shows extreme dieting doesn’t just fail long-term; it fundamentally rewires your metabolism.

Why?

  • Leptin crash: The hormone that tells your brain you’re full plummeted during the show. After weight regain, leptin rebounded, but RMR didn’t. Normally, these rise and fall together—but the link was broken.
  • Loss of lean mass: Contestants lost ~25 pounds of muscle. Regaining some of it didn’t restore metabolic function.
  • Hormonal havoc: Chronic calorie deficits and overtraining disrupted thyroid, reproductive, and adrenal hormones. Weight loss resistance, missed periods, hair loss, and constant cold are all part of the aftermath.

Put bluntly: your body is not passive. Extreme dieting triggers survival mode, conserving energy, increasing hunger, and slowing metabolism.

Read more:


Personal Lessons: Living It

I know this from my own experience. Between May 2017 and October 2018, I competed in four bodybuilding competitions. I didn’t prioritize recovery or hormone balance, and I pushed my body way too hard. The metabolic consequences? Echoes of the Biggest Loser study:

  • Slowed metabolism after prep phases.
  • Hormonal swings that made maintaining progress harder.
  • Mental fatigue and burnout from extreme restriction and exercise.

Diet culture and TV had me convinced that suffering = transformation. But biology doesn’t care about your willpower. Extreme restriction is coercion, not empowerment.

Read more:


From Digital Screens to Unrealistic Bodies

This isn’t just a TV problem. The same mechanisms appear in social media fitness culture, or “fitspiration.” In a previous podcast and blog, From Diary Entries to Digital Screens: How Beauty Ideals and Sexualization Have Transformed Over Time, we discussed the dangerous myth: hard work guarantees results.

Fitness influencers, trainers, and the “no excuses” culture sell the illusion that discipline alone equals success. Consistency and proper nutrition matter—but genetics set the foundation. Ignoring this truth fuels:

  • Unrealistic expectations: People blame themselves when they don’t achieve Instagram-worthy physiques.
  • Overtraining & injury: Chasing impossible ideals leads to chronic injuries and burnout.
  • Disordered eating & supplement abuse: Extreme diets, excessive protein, or PEDs are often used to push past natural limits.

The industry keeps genetics under wraps because the truth doesn’t sell. Expensive programs, supplement stacks, and influencer promises rely on people believing they can “buy” someone else’s results. Many extreme physiques are genetically gifted and often enhanced, yet presented as sheer willpower. The result? A culture of self-blame and impossible standards.


Fitspiration and Self-Objectification

The 2023 study in Computers in Human Behavior found that exposure to fitspiration content increases body dissatisfaction, especially among women who already struggle with self-image. Fitspo encourages the internalized gaze that John Berger described in Ways of Seeing:

“A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself… she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman.”

One part of a woman is constantly judging her body; the other exists as a reflection of an ideal. Fitness becomes performative, not functional. Anxiety, depression, disordered eating, and self-objectification follow. Fitness culture no longer focuses on strength or health—it’s about performing an idealized body for an audience.


The Dangerous Pipeline: Fitspo to Porn Culture

This extends further. Fitspiration primes women to see themselves as objects, which feeds directly into broader sexualization. Porn culture and the sex industry reinforce the same dynamic: self-worth tied to appearance, desire, and external validation. Consider these stats:

  • Over 134,000 porn site visits per minute globally.
  • 88% of porn scenes contain physical aggression, 49% verbal aggression, with women overwhelmingly targeted (Bridges et al., 2010).
  • Most youth are exposed to pornography between ages 11–13 (Wright et al., 2021).
  • 91.5% of men and 60.2% of women report watching porn monthly (Solano, Eaton, & O’Leary, 2020).

Fitspiration teaches the same objectification: value is appearance-dependent. Social media and reality TV prime us to obsess over performance and image, extending beyond fitness into sexualization and body commodification.

Read more:

Netflix Documentary: The Dark Side

Fit for TV exposes just how far the show went:

  • Contestants were given illegal caffeine pills to keep energy up.
  • Trainers manipulated emotions for drama—heightened stress, shame, and competitiveness.
  • Food was weaponized—rationed, withheld, or turned into rewards/punishments.
  • Exercise protocols weren’t just intense—they were unsafe, designed to produce dramatic visuals for the camera.

The documentary also makes it clear: these methods weren’t isolated incidents. They were systemic, part of a machine that broadcasts propaganda as entertainment.


The Bigger Picture: Propaganda, Screens, and Social Conditioning

Dodsworth again:

“Watching TV encourages normative behavior.”

Shows like The Biggest Loser don’t just affect contestants—they socialize an audience. Millions of viewers internalize: “Success = willpower + suffering + restriction.” Social media amplifies this further, nudging us constantly toward behaviors dictated by advertisers, algorithms, and curated narratives.

George Orwell imagined a world of compulsory screens in 1984. We aren’t there yet—but screens still shape behavior, expectations, and self-perception.

The good news? Unlike Orwell’s telescreens, we can turn off our TVs. We can watch critically. We can question the values being sold to us. Dodsworth reminds us:

“Fortunately for us, we can turn off our television and we should.”


Breaking Free

Here’s the takeaway for me—and for anyone navigating diet culture and fitness media:

  1. Watch critically: Ask, “What is this really teaching me?”
  2. Respect biology: Your body fights extreme restriction—it’s not lazy or weak.
  3. Pause before you absorb: Screens are powerful teachers, but you have the final say.

The bigger question isn’t just “What should I eat?” or “How should I train?” It’s:

Who’s controlling the story my mind is telling me, and who benefits from it?

Reality shows like The Biggest Loser and even social media feeds are not neutral. They are propaganda machines—wrapped in entertainment, designed to manipulate perception, reward suffering, and sell ideals that are biologically unsafe.

I’ve lived some of those lessons firsthand. The scars aren’t just physical—they’re mental, hormonal, and metabolic. But the first step to freedom is seeing the screen for what it really is, turning it off, and reclaiming control over your body, mind, and reality.

Thank you for taking the time to read/listen!

🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to edify & encourage others! To do so: leave a 5⭐️ review and send it to a friend! Thank you for listening! I’d love to hear from you, find me on Instagram!⁠⁠⁠ @taste0ftruth⁠⁠⁠ , @megan_mefit , ⁠⁠⁠ Pinterest! ⁠⁠ ⁠ Substack and on X! 

Until then, maintain your curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in! 🎙️🔒

🆕🆕This collection includes books that have deeply influenced my thinking, challenged my assumptions, and shaped my content. ⁠Book Recommendations – Taste0ftruth Tuesdays