We inherit stories – ancient narratives passed down as truth. But what if some of these stories were altered? What if the archetypes we’ve been taught to emulate or condemn were deliberately switched to preserve systems of power, profit, and sacrifice?
The sixth commandment is “thou shalt not kill” and intuitively, we know this applies not only to man, but to animals, too. If your first impulse is to say, ‘But it’s natural to kill animals for food and it even says so in the Bible’ – give it a moment, and you will likely discover that your own intuition says otherwise.
Ancient Spiritual Wisdom
Across numerous ancient spiritual traditions, the act of killing animals for food was not only discouraged – it was seen as the origin of humanity’s descent from divine order. The Essenes, a mystical Jewish sect associated with natural law and spiritual purity, taught that flesh-eating defiles both body and soul, describing it as the first step onto the “path of death” (Szekely, The Essene Gospel of Peace, Book One). Their teachings emphasize a return to harmony through non-violence toward all life forms, including animals. This is the path I emphasize, from both a scientific and spiritual context, in the free document:
In the Essene Gospel of Peace, translated and compiled by Edmond Bordeaux Szekely from what he claimed were ancient Aramaic scrolls found in the Vatican archives, flesh is explicitly called “the body of death”, and those who consume it are said to “eat of the same,” thereby joining themselves to death itself (Szekely, 1981). These texts frame flesh consumption not merely as a physical act but as a spiritual betrayal – polluting the body-temple and clouding the soul’s light.
Among the early Christian Gnostics, a similar view was upheld. The Church Father Origen, although not Gnostic himself, recorded prevailing spiritual beliefs of his time in which animal blood was referred to as “the food of demons” (Against Celsus, Book VIII, Chapter 30). He warned that consuming blood – and, by extension, the flesh that contains it – invites defilement, both spiritual and psychological. In a future document, I will describe how this defilement is also physical. In the ancient scriptures, for those seeking higher wisdom or divine communion, the consumption of slain animals was viewed as an obstacle to purity and perception. In my writings I will demonstrate how the blocks to enlightenment due to consuming flesh are also physically expressed.
The Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry, in his treatise On Abstinence from Killing Animals, argued that the killing of animals disrupted cosmic harmony and diminished the moral and spiritual capacity of the soul. He wrote, “The degeneration of mankind began with the shedding of blood,” and he urged abstention not only for ethical reasons but for metaphysical integrity (Porphyry, On Abstinence, Book II). He also noted (as I will elaborate on in a future document) that flesh food “clogs and weighs the body” and fosters susceptibility to “malefic spirits” (ibid.). In his system, meat-eating was linked directly to the hardening of the self – both physically and spiritually – and to the loss of attunement with divine order.
The biblical tale of Cain and Abel is one such story that may have been altered.
The Official Version of Cain & Abel: A Familiar Frame
In the book of Genesis, we read that Cain, a tiller of the soil, and Abel, a keeper of flocks, each brought offerings to God. God favored Abel’s offering – “fat portions from the firstborn of his flock” – but not Cain’s “fruit of the ground.” In anger, Cain kills Abel. As punishment, Cain is marked and cast out- a wanderer cursed to labor on unyielding ground.
This version has been used for centuries to justify sacrifice – particularly the killing of animals as “pleasing to God”. In some interpretations, Abel’s offering is praised because it involved blood, while Cain’s is rejected because it was plant-based.
But what if the roles were reversed?
The Inversion Hypothesis: Cain as the First Killer
Sacred Inversion: Cain and Abel, and the False Justification for Blood
Cain and Abel – two brothers, two offerings, and not one, but TWO tragic murders. In the standard telling, God accepts Abel’s animal sacrifice and rejects Cain’s offering of fruits of the ground, leading Cain to murder Abel out of jealousy. But what if this narrative was inverted – flipping divine law upside down in order to justify a future of animal slaughter and temple sacrifice?
What if, in truth, it was Cain’s animal sacrifice that was rejected, and Abel’s plant-based offering that was accepted – and the story was altered to suit those who stood to profit from killing animals?
This theory aligns with a mystical and intuitive understanding of divine law: that God is Love, and Love does not require blood. Throughout many ancient spiritual traditions, God (or the divine) is “pleased” only by offerings of peace and life, not violence and death. The Self, being One with God, cannot be pleased by ingesting the blood and flesh of murder.
In Hinduism, this is seen in the concept of prasadam – offerings of plant-based food, made with devotion and love, that are then blessed by God. The Bhagavad Gita (9:26) states:
“If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water, I will accept it.”
There is no mention of blood, flesh, or death in offerings to God – only living gifts of nature imbued with devotion.
If we apply this same understanding to the Cain and Abel story, the true spiritual logic is restored: God would naturally accept the offering that preserves life and reflects gratitude for abundance – not one soaked in suffering and death. By inverting the story, ancient priesthoods could:
Justify and normalize animal sacrifice as divinely sanctioned. Mask the truth that God is aligned with life, not death. Silence those who lived by a plant-based, peaceful ethic. Establish control over food, worship, and power through blood-based ritual.
This inversion, whether intentional or mythically evolved, became a cornerstone of domination culture – used to endorse both the subjugation of animals and, by association, the subjugation of women, whose life-giving nature was similarly repressed in favor of patriarchal control.
As stated above many mystics from the Essenes and Gnostics have long claimed that the first sin was the killing of animals for food or sacrifice. If this is true, then the character in Genesis who was aligned with death was not the one who offered plants, but the one who spilled blood.
In this light, the official version of Cain and Abel may have been reversed or rewritten by priestly editors, particularly those affiliated with temple systems that profited from ritual animal sacrifice. In ancient Israel, the temple economy revolved around the slaughter of animals – thousands per festival. Sacrifice was business. And it served the priesthood well to canonize killing as holy.
Why Would the Story Be Changed?
Control.
If people believed that God prefers blood, then those who mediate that blood – priests, institutions – become indispensable. If animal killing is framed as sacred, then the deep moral instinct to live in peace with other creatures is dulled. We become complicit in systems that normalize violence – both externally (toward animals) and internally (toward our own light).
This inversion helps justify not just sacrifice, but war, colonization, slavery, and all forms of domination. It begins with the belief that some lives must be taken to please God, to sustain man, or to maintain order.
A Mystical Reinterpretation: Abel as the Light-Bearer
Let us imagine a restored version of the story:
Abel represents the soul aligned with light – a gardener, reverent of nature, and her bounty produced in sync and in alignment with the natural order of universal law. Cain represents the choice to kill – whether animals, his brother, or his own inner truth. The “offering” that is accepted by God is not flesh, but Love extended without harm.
From this perspective, Abel becomes the pure being who is destroyed by the rising ego, and our current society is one in which the ego reigns sovereign.
The Biological Mirror: Killing for Food Hardens the Body
This isn’t just symbolic.
Modern research, which is based on the cornerstone that “eating meat is natural” – so is presently only qualified by studies related to type of meat and amount consumed – shows that eating some types of meat, especially when it’s heavily processed or consumed in large quantities, contributes to:
Acid buildup in the body.
Calcium leaching from bones.
Tissue calcification – including glands like the pineal, which is essential to spiritual sight.
Stiffness, inflammation, and premature aging.
Dr. D.C. Jarvis wrote that a diet high in meat produces guanidine toxicity, which mobilizes calcium from the bones and deposits it into soft tissues, hardening the vessel. When we kill for food, we make our bodies more clay-like – dense, brittle, and further removed from the flowing essence of the Creator.
The Spiritual Path: Reversing the Inversion
If killing for food hardens the body and clouds the soul, then choosing kindness, plant-based nourishment, and reverence for all life begins to reverse that trend. Our bodies become lighter. Less bound, more free. Less Cain, more Abel.
Resolving the First Lie Exposes the First Truth
If the first lie was that God prefers blood, then the first truth to reclaim is that God is Love, and Love never kills.
1. The Essene Gospel of Peace
A text associated with the Essenes, it states emphatically:
“Who so eats of the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death… and in his bones their bones to chalk…”
It clearly declares that flesh‐eating defiles the body and aligns one with a “path of sufferings.” This teaching frames animal killing as spiritually corrupting and the true first sin.
2. Other Essene Writings
One version warns:
“They who partake of benefits gotten by wronging one of God’s creatures… whose hands are stained with blood… cannot be righteous.”
Here, flesh-eating is directly linked to spiritual impurity and an unworthy status in spiritual community.
3. Early Christian Gnostics & Origen’s Interpretation
Origen (3rd c.) records Gnostic and early Christian objections to meat:
“The blood… is said to be the food of demons.”
This reflects widespread early rejection of flesh as spiritually contaminating.
4. Porphyry’s “On Abstinence from Eating Animals” (3rd c.)
Porphyry, in Neoplatonic philosophy, famously asserted that killing and eating animals destroys spiritual purity and harmony. This is arguably one of the most detailed early philosophical arguments that flesh consumption is morally and spiritually corruptive.
Plant-Based Rituals Across Ancient Wisdom Traditions
Far from being an anomaly, the offering of plant-based foods to the Divine has deep roots in sacred traditions around the world. These practices reflect a common understanding: God, or the divine force, delights in life – not death. The offering is meant to honor creation, not destroy it.
Hinduism: Prasadam and Ahimsa
As mentioned, the Bhagavad Gita (9:26) declares:
“If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water, I will accept it.”
This verse is foundational to the practice of prasadam – plant-based food lovingly prepared and offered to God, then shared among devotees. The sacred principle of ahimsa (non-violence) underscores the idea that violence – even in the name of worship – is not divine.
Jainism: Radical Non-Violence
Jainism takes this even further. At the heart of Jain spiritual practice is the absolute refusal to harm any living being. Jains eat only plant-based food that causes the least disturbance to life – even avoiding root vegetables to preserve the entire plant organism. For Jains, sacrifice is not holy – non-violence is. Worship is offered through quietude, self-discipline, and reverence for life.
Zoroastrianism: Fire and Purity
In ancient Persia, Zoroastrians revered fire as the divine element. Their offerings were symbolic – fruits, grains, and flowers laid before the sacred flame. The purity of intent and the innocence of the gift were what made it acceptable to Ahura Mazda, not its physical substance. No blood was shed. In fact, Zoroastrians believed the killing of animals polluted both body and soul.
Early Christianity: The Peaceful Eucharist
The earliest followers of Christ practiced spiritualized offerings, modeled on the example of Jesus who, in many early writings and apocryphal texts, was vegetarian and spoke against animal sacrifice. The Eucharist – originally a symbolic sharing of bread and wine – reflects the sacredness of non-violent communion. Later institutionalized churches introduced sacrificial themes, but many early Christian sects rejected them.
Essenes: Living Peacefully with Creation
The Essenes, possibly the community behind the Dead Sea Scrolls, taught strict plant-based diets and non-violence. The Essene Gospel of Peace condemns flesh-eating as the first fall from grace, warning that “he who kills, kills himself.”
A Global Echo
When viewed together, these traditions reveal a consistent sacred logic:
Offerings should come from abundance, not violence Life is to be protected, not destroyed in the name of worship. The Divine accepts what is given with Love, peace, and humility and it is through this acceptance that Love is regiven.
This global echo reinforces the intuition that the inversion of stories like Cain and Abel was not just theological manipulation—it was a pivot away from divine harmony into sanctioned violence, shaping millennia of suffering for animals, humans, and the Earth.
The Doorway to The Age of Light
The doorway to the Age of Light and Cosmic Man cannot be opened by a humanity that is lead by lies that cover the truth.
True “waking up” involves recognition of how we have deviated from the path of Light, and therefore, what we have to “undo” to get back on it. The killing of animals for food and profit is the number one deviation that must be undone.
References: Szekely, Edmond Bordeaux. The Essene Gospel of Peace, Book One. International Biogenic Society, 1981.
Origen. Against Celsus, Book VIII, Chapter 30.
Porphyry. On Abstinence from Killing Animals, trans. Thomas Taylor.
Darcie French June 21, 2025
Darcie French 