Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Terell Kirby]

@Leo Gura how much of your shitting on science is fun/entertainment vs. changing society? You’ve carved out quite a niche for yourself as a teacher and influencer. one of a kind 

[Yimpa]

On 7/15/2026 at 3:39 PM, TheEnigma said:

I feel taken advantage of, gaslit and scammed by Christianity growing up. How can I make it so that others don't suffer from what I have in the future?

I highly recommend referring back to old post, it is really potent:

 

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Terell Kirby said:

how much of your shitting on science is fun/entertainment vs. changing society?

It is not really shitting. It is pointing out things that have been arrogantly denied.

Our goal is to take science to a new stage of its development. Not to destroy it.

But in the meantime a bit of fun will be had along the way, since they will resist like a stubborn mule.

Don't take my poking science too seriously. There are some good scientists.

Edited Saturday at 12:05 AM by Leo Gura

[Joseph Maynor]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is not really shitting. It is pointing out things that have been arrogantly denied.

Our goal is to take science to a new stage of its development. Not to destroy it.

But in the meantime a bit of fun will be had along the way, since they will resist like a stubborn mule.

Don't take my poking science too seriously. There are some good scientists.

What is a good scientist in your opinion?

[r0ckyreed]

9 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What is a good scientist in your opinion?

One who has deconstructed science. Until then, the scientist is a rat in the maze chasing cheese.

[Joseph Maynor]

6 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

One who has deconstructed science. Until then, the scientist is a rat in the maze chasing cheese.

Seems like the goal is an attempt to help scientists by transforming them into something different.

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What is a good scientist in your opinion?

One who is openminded to mysticism and takes philosophy seriously.

[Yimpa]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Seems like the goal is an attempt to help scientists by transforming them into something different.

Majority of scientists used to be religious. Now they non-religious. Now we gotta evolve them to be spiritual without the dogma. They need psychedelics to open the minds. Less MIT and more 5-MeO-DMT.

[Joseph Maynor]

People are nasty when they can operate behind the scenes.  

[Jirh]

I think science is in its best forms right now. It just has so much corruption on the inside.

Just like religion; the shell looks so idealistic, but the core is rotten.

That's not a failure of science. That's just human corruption.

[Uddi]

@Jirh True because the ego always has a survival bias. Ironically science does not understand the ego enough because IT is being controlled by the very ego it cannot understand or prove.

[Jirh]

52 minutes ago, Uddi said:

@Jirh True because the ego always has a survival bias. Ironically science does not understand the ego enough because IT is being controlled by the very ego it cannot understand or prove.

Exactly! 💯 

And this is not exclusive to science or religion.

Spirituality suffers the same problem. Spiritual ego is a corruption of spirituality.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Jirh said:

That's not a failure of science.

Sure it is.

The ideology behind science is flawed. Science is responsible for thinking about Reality in wrong ways. They keep insisting on it.

Edited Saturday at 08:34 AM by Leo Gura

[Jirh]

@Leo Gura

Hey Leo! 👋🏻

I appreciate your insights and love your enthusiasm, especially about this topic.

And I know you're advanced, so I don't suppose that you're missing the distinction between science and scientism. And so, I'll assume that you're speaking purely about science, or to be more accurate about the metaphysics of science. Scientists in this case are mostly by-products of poor metaphysics. You're saying science is not a humble method, but an arrogant set of metaphysics, used by smart chimps. You're criticizing the structure of science and claiming that it can be developed to embrace spirituality, or even more radically that science should submit to spirituality.

But I don't agree that that's the case. I think it's okay for science and spirituality to co-exist separately as two separate entities, each with its own sets of metaphysics that may or may not contradict with its counterpart. Each of these domains has its unique value and cannot replace or dominate the other.

I also think that ego/corruption is more dangerous than metaphysics. Be it in science or spirituality or any other domain.

Edited Saturday at 12:55 PM by Jirh

[Yimpa]

On 5/22/2026 at 10:08 PM, Beans said:

You are Life. You are Creation.

[LordFall]

Why would the supernatural be outside of the scientific method? If one experiences something supernatural they should be able to replicate it otherwise it's an insight that can't exist outisde of their mind and basically delusion.

I think perhaps some insights are true and unique to an individual and God won't let it happen in real life yet but even that I'm not really sure of and eventually it would still be able to exist in reality, no?

Most non-dual insights can be tested against reality. Like your video on guided meditation to realize that you are God, that is a method that you found used for yourself and that you correctly guessed would work for your viewers as well. 

@Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, LordFall said:

Why would the supernatural be outside of the scientific method?

It doen't have to be. But scientific method is defined to exclude it a priori.

But also, you are not going to comprehend the supernatural with scientific analysis and peer review.

Edited 11 hours ago by Leo Gura

[LordFall]

That's fair, makes sense. So the method is great but most people using it are foolish! 

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, LordFall said:

So the method is great

No, I didn't say that.

The method is not great.

[Elliott]

On 7/18/2026 at 8:47 AM, Jirh said:

@Leo Gura

Hey Leo! 👋🏻

I appreciate your insights and love your enthusiasm, especially about this topic.

And I know you're advanced, so I don't suppose that you're missing the distinction between science and scientism. And so, I'll assume that you're speaking purely about science, or to be more accurate about the metaphysics of science. Scientists in this case are mostly by-products of poor metaphysics. You're saying science is not a humble method, but an arrogant set of metaphysics, used by smart chimps. You're criticizing the structure of science and claiming that it can be developed to embrace spirituality, or even more radically that science should submit to spirituality.

But I don't agree that that's the case. I think it's okay for science and spirituality to co-exist separately as two separate entities, each with its own sets of metaphysics that may or may not contradict with its counterpart. Each of these domains has its unique value and cannot replace or dominate the other.

I also think that ego/corruption is more dangerous than metaphysics. Be it in science or spirituality or any other domain.

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Elliott