Blavatsky' Foreknowledge of
The Wave/Particle Duality of Light
Brief History of Scientific Views on Nature
Blavatsky's Views on Nature of Light
Some Polemical Points
Deeper into Blavatsky's View
Blavatsky's comments on the nature of light appear to reveal an insight
that is decades ahead of the physicists of her day, showing a foreknowledge
of the wave/particle duality of light, one of the important elements in
the quantum mechanics of the twentieth century. She heads a section of her
Secret Doctrine as "AND CAN IT BE THAT LIGHT IS ALSO SUBSTANCE?".
To ask such a question was quite contrary to the established science of
her day and quite compatible with the science of this century. The following
article reviews the history of scientific thinking on this subject to give
necessary perspective and then analyses her statements on this issue in
detail in an attempt to ferret out exactly what she thinks.
Brief History of Scientific Views on Nature of
In the 17th century Sir Issac Newton declared that light was corpuscular,
that is, made of particles. Though there were some outstanding questions,
this view was accepted for over 100 years. Then in 1803 Thomas Young proved
that light produced an interference pattern after it passed through a narrow
slit. Such an interference pattern is a distinctive indicator of a wave.
His experiment, along with subsequent work by Fresnel, soon persuaded scientists
that light must be a wave. In the 1860's James Clerk Maxwell produced some
brilliant mathematics, today known as Maxwell's equations, and proved that
electricity and magnetism were integrally related as one phenomenon. As
a byproduct, his equations showed that there should exist a certain kind
of wave, consisting of a special interlocked pattern of oscillating electric
and magnetic waves, an electromagnetic wave. Based on other empirically
known constants associated with electricity and magnetism, his equations
yielded a calculated value for the speed of this electromagnetic wave. The
speed was exactly the same as the velocity of light that had been calculated
by other experiments. This remarkable discovery demonstrated that not only
were electrify and magnetism one phenomena, but light, a phenomena seemingly
quite unrelated, was also an aspect of the same electromagnetic phenomena.
After these developments, and for a some time thereafter, scientists understandably
had thorough confidence that light was indeed a wave.
Against the background of this solid conclusion of science, Blavatsky,
writing in 1888, gave her readers an intimation of the future when she hinted
with a question.
True, the corpuscular theory of old is rejected, and the undulatory
theory has taken its place. But the question is, whether the latter is
so firmly established as not to be liable to be dethroned as was its predecessor?
This hint shows astonishing prescience. She is suggesting that the wave
theory of light will be dethroned as the corpuscular theory had been. The
italics, as usual, are hers and indicate in her style, through typographical
emphasis, that they carry extra weight. With hindsight we see has here dropped
one more hint of her foreknowledge of the rude shocks coming in the next
century's science. One authority summarized the subsequent events:
As the 20th century opened, it seemed that optical theory had attained
a completeness and perfection which hardly left room for further development.
But this complacent view faced a series of rude shocks as previously unknown
phenomena concerned with the interaction of light and matter were discovered.
These apparently could not be reconciled with the theory of electromagnetic
waves, but required a modified corpuscular theory. [Encyclopedia Britanica]
We can easily understand if scientists of 1888 reading the various passages
of Blavatsky on the corpuscular nature of light, would conclude that the
SD was, at least on this point, nonsense, since the wave nature of light
was well established and based on solid evidence. The process of her vindication,
however, began in the year she published the SD and was completed, after
due wrenching of established views, twenty six years later.
In 1888 the photoelectric effect was discovered by several different
workers. If light shines on the surface of a metal, negatively charged particles
are ejected from the surface of the metal. The details of this phenomena
cannot be reconciled with Maxwell's electromagnetic explanation of light.
In 1899 Philip Lenard was able to explain this phenomena as ejected electrons
since J. J. Thompson had conclusively identified the existence of an electron
in 1897, but the final explanation required two more major developments
in quantum mechanics. In 1900 Max Planck had suggested a form of quantization
that properly predicted the results found in the black body problem. But
Planck felt the mathematics he had introduced for the first time into science
were only that, just a mathematical trick to make the answers come out right.
In 1905 Einstein took the audacious step of explaining the photoelectric
effect using the principle of quantization introduced by Max Planck. Einstein
suggested that the quantization of Planck is more than a mathematical trick,
it reflects a fundamental aspect of the true description of reality. Einstein's
interpretation required that light, in some real fundamental sense, acts
as a particle and not as a wave. He named his new particle a photon.
Understandably, scientists did not race to embrace the radical new view
of Einstein on the quantization of light. For more than a decade, Einstein
stood alone in his view. In 1913 Einstein was recommended for membership
in the Prussian Academy of Sciences and the letter of recommendation prepared
by Max Planck himself read:
In sum, one can hardly say that there is not one among the great problems,
in which modern physics is so rich, to which Einstein has not made a remarkable
contribution. That he may have missed the target in his speculations, as,
for example, in his hypothesis of the light quanta, cannot really be held
too much against him, for it is not possible to introduce really new ideas
even in the exact sciences without taking a risk. [The Cosmic Code
by Heinz Pagels p. 15]
Einstein's "really new idea", already intimated (even asserted)
by Blavatsky, received some experimental confirmation in 1914 by the U.S.
physicist Robert A. Millikan who established that radiation exhibits some
properties normally associated with particles. Nevertheless, Millikan, in
Despite ... the apparent complete success of the Einstein equation,
the physical theory of which it was designed to be the symbolic expression
is found so untenable that Einstein himself, I believe, no longer holds
to it." [The Cosmic Code, by Heinz Pagels, p. 15]
Despite the doubts of others, Einstein did hold to his theory and in
the following decade was vindicated. In 1921 Einstein received the Nobel
Prize in Physics for his services to physics and especially for his explanation
of this photoelectric effect. Despite the accolade, there was still opposition
to his theory. Finally, in 1923-1924 the American atomic physicist Compton
and Debye, a Dutch physicist, made independent theoretical predictions for
the scattering of photons from another particle, the electron. Their predictions
assumed that light consisted of actual particles with definite energy and
directed momentum as though they were small bullets. Compton performed the
necessary experiments and the experiments did indeed confirm the particle
assumption. After this result Einstein's proposal of the particle nature
of light was quickly accepted.
Blavatsky's Views on Nature of Light
To understand Blavatsky's views on the nature of light, it is necessary
to compile and analyse a variety of assertions, challenges, hints, arguments,
analogies, and explanations scattered on various pages in the SD. To the
scientist of her day her views on light would have seemed to contradict
well-proven scientific knowledge. To a non-scientific reader her views could
easily have seemed contradictory or even incomprehensible. A reader, relying
more on intuition, may have sensed from the totality of her statements that
these statements on light were indeed made by someone who knew. To us, with
the advantage of hindsight, we can see the clear meaning of her basic statements
on light; understand how the apparently paradoxical element in them directly
reflects the seemingly paradoxical views of science of this century; and
further, notice the esoteric direction in which she points for a still deeper
Many of Blavatsky's statements on light appear in the early part of the
third section of volume I of the Secret Doctrine, called "Science
and the Secret Doctrine Contrasted". After giving some introduction,
the next subsection begins with the outrageous heading "MODERN PHYSICISTS
ARE PLAYING AT BLIND MAN'S BUFF" (SDi482). This is a reference, presumably,
to the game of "pin the tail on the donkey" as executed by a blindfolded
player. We must ask, even at the risk of digression, what possible thought
could warrant such an insulting heading? Then, as now, scientists were certainly
thoughtful, careful, even meticulously careful observers. We consider such
characteristics implicit in the definition of "scientist".
One recurring theme of Blavatsky's - perhaps implied by such a heading
- is that science uses the inductive method, reasoning from particulars
to general conclusions, while esoteric science uses the deductive method,
reasoning from general principles to detailed particular cases. Without
entering a lengthy debate on this issue we can note that the distinction
is not absolute and exclusive. Blavatsky does admit to the adepts "checking,
testing and verifying" each other's observations so "as to stand
as independent evidence" (SDi273) thereby granting some aspect of the
exoteric scientific method. Science, for its part, operates deductively
when it uses the technique of mathematical derivations to reach new conclusions
from other established conclusions. Though, even here, such conclusions
are not considered strictly verified until checked empirically. And certainly
many a time, a scientist, struggling over a mass of details, has received,
as a hunch, a broad explanatory principle and then proceeded to check it
against the data.
But how is it even possible for there to exist a thoroughly deductive
method or even an essentially deductive method? Wherefrom would come the
original truths, who or what would know first broad principles? Blavatsky
does propose an answer to this question and her answer is, of necessity,
as fundamental as her conception of the universe. In her explanations, the
fundamental "intelligence" required to "know" such original
laws exists prior to the emergence of this cosmos, and indeed that "intelligence"
is the cause that establishes such laws. Through a hierarchy of "intelligences"
and "beings" the broad principles are passed down and then checked
and verified by "countless generations of subsequent adepts".
She explains this in part in Is Theosophy a Religion:
The just published "Secret Doctrine" will show what
were the ideas of all antiquity with regard to the primeval instructors
of primitive man and his three earlier races. The genesis of that WISDOM-RELIGION,
in which all Theosophists believe, dates from that period. So-called "Occultism,"
or rather Esoteric Science, has to be traced in its origin to those Beings
who, led by Karma, have incarnated in our humanity, and thus struck the
key-note of that secret Science which countless generations of subsequent
adepts have expanded since then in every age, while they checked its doctrines
by personal observation and experience. The bulk of this knowledge - which
no man is able to possess in its fullness - constitutes that which we now
call Theosophy or "divine knowledge." Beings from other and higher
worlds may have it entire; we can have it only approximately. (HPB Theo.
Art. Vol 1, p 61-2)
While we justifiably value the results achieved by science with the inductive
method, we can perhaps appreciate the position of Blavatsky. With the knowledge
in hand of this cosmic process and the efforts of such adepts and the magnitude
of their knowledge, the results achieved by the scientists of her day would
understandably seem like the results of playing "Blind Man's Buff".
The contrast to her of the inductive and deductive methods would be most
There is perhaps one other sense behind her charge of "Blind Man's
Buff". In this century Thomas Kuhn, in his The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, has demonstrated that scientists, while pursuing what he
calls "normal science", follow an established paradigm or model
that describes what are the constituents of reality, what kinds of questions
should be asked, and what kinds of conclusions can be true. Normal science,
he claims, is interrupted by occasional "revolutions" which alter
the fundamental paradigm. This is the "paradigm shift" which he
has brought to our attention. At one point Kuhn illustrates the persuasive
power of a paradigm to rule against an explanation by citing the example
of Maxwell's equations for light.
Clerk Maxwell shared with other nineteenth-century proponents of the
wave theory of light the conviction that light waves must be propagated
through a material ether. Designing a mechanical medium to support such
waves was a standard problem for many of his ablest contemporaries. His
own theory, however, the electromagnetic theory of light, gave no account
at all of a medium able to support light waves, and it clearly made such
an account harder to provide than it had seemed before. Initially, Maxwell's
theory was widely rejected for those reasons. But, like Newton's theory,
Maxwell's proved difficult to dispense with, and as it achieved the status
of a paradigm, the community's attitude toward it changed. [Thomas S. Kuhn,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, second edition 1970, p. 107]
The issue of underlying paradigm as developed by Kuhn is quite relevant
to Blavatsky's view of science and perhaps contributes to her charge of
scientists playing "Blind Man's Buff". The standard paradigm of
science restricts the investigations of science to this material world and
excludes non-material planes of reality - though there are, of course, constant
signs of softening of this restriction. Blavatsky holds an opposing view,
that other planes of reality are more significant, with occurrences in this
material world fairly described as "illusory projections". With
her different paradigm she says:
It [science] merely traces the sequence of phenomena on a plane of effects,
illusory projections from the region that Occultism has long since penetrated."
In these two senses, then, Blavatsky is warranted in describing scientists
as playing Blind Man's Buff, namely, science focuses on the inductive method,
and science operates under a standard paradigm excluding other more important
regions of reality.
But what extraordinary claims! How should a writer in her position proceed
to defend or support such claims? It was not her intent to reveal all of
the philosophy of occult science and that could not be the method to defend
her position. She explains that many of the facts in the SD were included
to correct misunderstandings rather than to present the teaching in its
The publication of many of the facts herein stated has been rendered
necessary by the wild and fanciful speculations in which many Theosophists
and students of mysticism have indulged, during the last few years, in
their endeavour to, as they imagined, work out a complete system of thought
from the few facts previously communicated to them. It is needless to explain
that this book is not the Secret Doctrine in its entirety, but a select
number of fragments of its fundamental tenets, special attention being
paid to some facts which have been seized upon by various writers, and
distorted out of all resemblance to the truth. (SD viii)
One of the techniques she did use to defend her position was to include
many statements that were contrary to the science of her time and to await
justification in the halls of the future as her statements would one by
one become vindicated. She reveals this approach, for example, in her article
The Tidal Wave.
Instead of deriding our doctrines and aspirations the men of the XXth,
if not the XIXth century will see clearer, and judge with knowledge and
according to facts instead of prejudging agreeably to rooted misconceptions.
Then and not till then will the world find itself forced to acknowledge
that it was wrong, and that Theosophy alone can gradually create a mankind
as harmonious and as simple-souled as Kosmos itself. (HPB Theo. Art. Vol
1 p 105)
So how does she begin the section referring to Blind Man's Buff knowing
what she knows - with the fling of a gauntlet, of course. The first sentence
And now Occultism puts to Science the question: "is light a body,
or is it not?" (SDi482)
But the opinion of science was established on this point; light was not
a body it was a wave. Why choose this as the opening gauntlet? With the
advantage of twentieth century science the answer is obvious. Despite the
confirmed opinion of science of her day, in fact that science did not
know whether light was a body or not. She knew which gauntlet to pick
- and why. From the choice of this gauntlet alone, we see that she knew
science was in error in its view of light.
The next section is entitled in Latin: "AN LUMEN SIT CORPUS, NEC
NON?" (SDi483) The grammatical construction involved in this sentence
suggests a translation such as: "AND CAN IT BE THAT LIGHT IS ALSO SUBSTANCE?"
Who would entitle a section this way without some knowledge that light has
a particle nature?
While she conveys the tone of someone distinctly hinting at the particle
nature of light there is a curious ambiguity, a seeming unwillingness to
fully pronounce for one side or the other, that is conveyed in her initial
challenge and in this Latin section heading. This same ambiguity is echoed
Physicists know neither one way nor the other ... whether it is an actual
substance or a mere undulation?" (SDi482)
In light of twentieth century science this ambiguity has a most natural
interpretation. We know that nineteenth century science was wrong to insist
that light was fully explained as a wave. It would also be incorrect to
claim light is fully explained as a particle. Rather it has a dual nature
possessing the properties of both wave and particle. In general, electromagnetic
radiation acts more like waves in the radio wave end of the spectrum, more
like particles in the x-ray end of the spectrum, and usually (but not always)
like a wave in the "middle" light area of the spectrum in our
everyday experience. Her ambiguity, then, reflects a fact in nature, the
wave/particle duality of nature.
But have we attributed too much in her favor? Does she know that in fact
both the particle and the wave nature of light both represent aspects of
light's true nature? A study of more passages reveals the answer in the
affirmative. She does admit that the "vibratory wave" model does
explain obvious known facts of light but asserts this does not cover all
that is to be known about light.
In no way - as stated more than once before now - do the Occultists
dispute the explanations of Science, as affording a solution of the immediate
objective agencies at work. Science only errs in believing that, because
it has detected in vibratory waves the proximate cause of these phenomena,
it has, therefore, revealed ALL that lies beyond the threshold of Sense.
Having found her admission of the limited truth of the wave theory, we
can also find specific indications of her support for the particle nature
of light? Her introductory gauntlet and section headings certainly imply
she knows of the particle nature of light. In one case she is completely
Light, in one sense, is certainly as material as electricity itself
This statement is definitive. Today, science would agree completely with
her assertion. Light is material in one sense but not in all senses.
Throughout the SD and in particular in the section entitled Science and
the Secret Doctrine Contrasted, Blavatsky attempts to gather together whatever
vestiges of support in the field of science that there may be in order to
support her views. This is a difficult task by its very nature. If her view
were not unusual it would not need supporting; if it were too unusual there
may not be any available support at all. Ironically, it is just those cases
in which there was no support all for her view - - for a view latter vindicated
-- that present the strongest case of her foreknowledge of this century's
The SD and Isis Unveiled do both search for support from science for
the material nature of light. The evidences brought forward from the science
of her day do not have the immediate logical weight that they may seem to
have, because there are other available scientific explanations for the
phenomena cited. The first definitive phenomenon displaying the material
nature of light, the photoelectric effect, was discovered in 1888, the very
year the SD was published. As will be discussed at length in another article
this was the year that Blavatsky had prophesied would mark the beginning
of a "rent" in the veil of nature. The second significant phenomenon
was the Compton photon scattering effect that was not developed until the
1920's. As a result there was a dearth of contemporary scientific evidence
to support her view - just the most interesting case to support her foreknowledge.
Given this dearth of contemporary scientific support, there are three
such quotations that do present seeming evidence from science that are included
here, not because the reasoning still holds, but because the citations show
what Blavatsky's view was on this question of the material nature of light
and just what she was trying to demonstrate.
Isis Unveiled, published in 1877, tended to give only the most general
statements and hints on science, serving rather as an opening wedge into
the complacency of the established views of her time. One such statement,
aiming to elevate the view of the ancients, drops an early hint that light
really is "ponderable".
About all they [scientists] can do on any one day is to correct the
errors of the preceding day. Nearly three thousand years ago, earlier than
the days of Pythagoras, the ancient philosophers claimed that light was
ponderable - hence matter, and that light was force. The corpuscular theory,
owing to certain Newtonian failures to account for it, was laughed down,
and the undulatory theory, which proclaimed light imponderable, accepted.
And now the world is startled by Mr. Crookes weighing light with his radiometer!
(Isis Unveiled i281)
In the next passage she specifically argues that light is a substance
and implies that occultists generally have taken this position.
The Occultists are taken to task for calling the Cause of light, heat,
sound, cohesion, magnetism, etc., etc.., a substance. Mr. Clerk Maxwell
has stated that the pressure of strong sunlight on a square mile is about
3.25 lbs. It is, they are told, 'the energy of the myriad ether waves;'
and when they [the occultist] call it a 'substance' impinging on that area,
their explanation is proclaimed unscientific. (SDi514)
Another passage occurs first in Isis Unveiled and is repeated in the
The undulatory theory does not account for the results of his experiments.
... And he is forced, he says, 'by this class of facts, to reason as if
light was material(?).' Professor Josiah P. Cooke, of Harvard University,
says that he 'cannot agree .... with those who regard the wave-theory of
light as an established principle of science.' Herschell's doctrine, that
the intensity of light, in effect of each undulation, 'is inversely as
the square of the distance from the luminous body,' if correct, damages
a good deal, if it does not kill the undulatory theory. (SDi580)
Today we do not need to assert that light is a particle in order to explain
pressure from light. We can explain it from a wave. But if one weighs this
fairly one must ask how she came to know the correct general statement on
light and with such certainty even though these minor points of alleged
proof are not a compelling as she thought. The conclusion is that the apparent
weakness of the her immediate argument lends still more support to her larger
argument - the reality of those who have already penetrated the mysteries
of nature and who were her teachers. She had been taught the right answer
to the larger question of the nature of light.
Some Polemical Points
While the case for Blavatsky's foreknowledge has been successfully show
above, there are some possibly unclear passages that may be cleared up here.
(This section is only here for those who would like to consider every detail
on this issue. It may be passed over by most.)
On page 483 she says
Most decidedly Light is not a body, we are told. Physical Sciences say
Light is a force, a vibration, the undulation of ether. It is the property
or quality of matter, or even an affection thereof - never a body! Just
so. For this discovery, the knowledge - whatever it may be worth - that
light or caloric is not a motion of material particles, Science is chiefly
indebted, if not solely, to Sir W. Grove. (SDi483)
She appears to be speaking in contradictions. The tone suggests very
clearly she thinks light is a particle. But just when we think we understand
where she is going she says "Just so" and seems to confirm the
wave view. What does she really think? Why is this so contradictory and
We should note that what she is actually confirming is that light is
an "affection" of matter. She hasn't said what she means by "affection"
and she hasn't said what kind of matter she agrees with and what kind she
disagrees with in this passage!
Deeper into Blavatsky's View
We can do better than the Latin title to understand her meaning. Blavatsky
does not always give all of her answers straight out. But SDi514 gives a
clearer insight into her view. She says
If they [men of science] would fathom the ultimate nature of these Forces
[light and heat], they have first to admit their substantial nature,
however supersensuous. Neither do the Occultists deny the correctness
of the vibratory theory. (SDi514)
Here she directly admits the wave theory while insisting on the substantiality
of light - at least on some plane. If this sentence of hers is read with
emphasis on the italicized words "substantial" and "supersensuous",
it makes clear a higher meaning to her assertion that light is 'never a
body' and 'not a motion of material particles'. She means light is corpuscular
and substantial but the substance of those corpuscles is not matter on this
physical plane but matter on a supersensuous plane. According to her, then,
light is not a body in the sense that it is not composed of physical particles
and is not a motion of material particles of the earthly physical kind of
But doesn't the wave/particle theory of physics today assert that, in
its particle aspect, light is made of matter? Not exactly. According to
physics the photon is a particle but it has zero mass. So to speak, the
zero mass permits it to travel at the speed of light. We conclude that not
only did Blavatsky know the wave/particle duality of light, she also understood
that in its particle nature it was not like our normal matter. The zero
mass of the photon is another confirmation of the science of the SD.
This takes us back to SDi482. In between the sentences just analyzed
on that and the next page, she makes a certain point. She says that for
our explanations to be valid we should not have one model for reality in
one context and another model in another context. Now why did she sandwich
this thought between the other statements analyzed above? We answer, because
she knew the wave/particle duality of light. Even for our science of today
we use one model (wave) in some circumstance and another (particle) in other
circumstances. She not only knew the wave/particle duality, and the zero
mass of the photon, she also foresaw that science would discover this duality
and not be able to go any further. She is now chiding the science of our
Now science has a paradox - this duality. (And matter has now been shown
to have wave properties to make the duality symmetrical.) A paradox suggests
an incomplete understanding. "Paradox" comes from "para"
beyond, and "dox" teaching. One must go beyond the teaching or
current understanding in order to resolve and understand a paradox. Blavatsky
intimated this on SDi482 and gave the necessary teaching as an introductory
comment on SDi481 (not by coincidence, placed just one page before). She
"For the occultists it [light] is both Spirit and Matter."
She seems to suggest that the wave/particle duality is a reflection of
the spirit/matter duality!
Then, for science to find the ultimate unity to explain the wave/particle
duality, they must be led to the unity behind the spirit/matter duality
- or to some aspect of the First Logos of Theosophy. Blavatsky must have
understood this. No wonder she put this as the first subject in "Science
and the Secret Doctrine Contrasted".
Later on, on page SDi515, she gives a still fuller explanation. First
she explains the region of agreement and disagreement between science and
occultism. She then gives more of the Occultist's view and comments on what
kind of matter she has in mind.
"And the latter [Occultism] maintains that those etheric tremors,
are not, as asserted by Science, set up by the vibrations of the molecules
of known bodies, - the matter of our terrestrial objective consciousness,
- but that we must seek for the ultimate causes of light, heat, etc., etc.,
in MATTER existing in super-sensuous states - states, however as fully
objective to the spiritual eye of man, as a horse or a tree is to the ordinary
mortal. Light and heat are the ghost or shadow of matter in motion."
Here we have the answer. Light is the ghost or shadow of super-sensuous
matter in motion on another plane. To resolve the wave/particle paradox
requires considering the next plane. That plane is unavoidably metaphysical.
She expresses this still another way on SDi493.
"The Occultist sees in the manifestation of every force in Nature,
the action of the quality, or the special characteristic of its noumenon;
which noumenon is a distinct and intelligent Individuality on the other
side of the manifested mechanical Universe. Now the Occultist does not
deny - on the contrary he will support the claim - that light, heat, electricity
and so on are affections (not properties or qualities) of matter. To put
it more clearly: matter is the condition - the necessary basis or vehicle,
a sine qua non - for the manifestation of these forces, or agents, on this
Here also is the explanation of how she meant the term "affection"
used earlier. (One might notice the parallels to Plato's famous cave analogy.
He may hereby receive some indirect vindication along with proof that he
was an initiate as Blavatsky asserted.)
Blavatsky knew a) the wave/particle duality of light (a major finding
of this century's physics), b) the zero mass of the photon, c) light pressure
on a surface from the momentum of photons, and d) the paradox remaining
with this century's physics. She knew the electron would be discovered in
1897 (to be shown in another article). She knew it would lead to the particle
nature of light. She knew this paradox in turn would ultimately force us
to the supersensuous level and to the teachings of occultism to understand
this paradox. Knowing all this, imagine her view of the science of her day.
By Reed Carson December 1, 1997