Serious Talk About Fluffy Bunnies

I've been active in the Neo-Pagan community since 1984. Over the years, I've been aware of a number of slang terms that people have used, "fair weather Pagans," "cup-cakie magic [makers]," "white-lighters," "worshipers of the Barbie Goddess," "Pagans who are all strawberries and elves," as well as "fluffy bunnies." These terms are not all synonymous. However, there is a blending and leak-over between them.

In the Wiccan and Neo-Pagan communities, a "fluffy bunny" is often defined as someone who either "plays" at spiritual practices, or wallows in bland, harmless, uniform niceness, or focuses more on fantasy, art, and fiction, rather than factual information or "genuine spiritual development." The "fluffy bunnies" are also frequently viewed as engaging in "fadish" or "superficial" behavior. They are often seen as being willfully naive or willfully ignorant.

After some thought I decided to assemble a list of things that people more or less agreed the term "fluffy bunny" is associated with. I'm going to comment on each of these. You can find this list without commentary at: "Warning Signs of Fluffy Bunny Tendencies."

Commentary on "Warning Signs
of Unchecked Fluffy Bunny Tendancies"
(working copy 4.0)

Establishing whether someone is truly a "fluffy bunny" can be difficult. There is a set of tendancies that are considered characteristic of fluffy bunnyism. For those who fear they may have fluffy bunny tendancies, here are 19 warning signs (plus 1 more alleged warning sign) collected from sundry sources.

1. You look for the good in everyone.

One of the big charges against fluffy bunnies is that they are naive.

Assuming that humanity is composed of people, who each have their good points and valuable abilities, and who ultimately would like to work together, smile on one another, and play in harmony together on the grand universal keyboard in order that all are happy and fulfilled is naive. This assumption is not quite born out by history. Humans have been and, according to the daily 21st century newspaper, continue to be rather nasty to each other--sometimes for rather petty reasons.

I've seen folks--not only in the Neo-Pagan community--but in any type of club, social organization, or collection of humans, behave in ways that are less than gracious, kind, or acting for a united common good.

Yet, fluffy bunnies have a naive desire to find the good in everyone and sometimes stubbornly cling to this desire.

2. You ignore anything dark or threatening, even if working with dark deities.

Since fluffy bunnies desire to look for the good in everyone they often likewise desire to focus upon beautiful, sweet, or comforting images: baby birds in the spring, delicate wild roses, etc. So called "dark deities" are usually re-envisioned by fuffy bunnies as loving, beautiful, or comforting.

Actually this leaks over to the idea of the "worshippers of the Barbie Goddess." Whatever female deity is venerated, she is described as "beautiful," "gracious," "gentle," "kind," and "loving." The reference to Barbie refers to Matel's line of pretty Barbie dolls. Ah, yes, I remember jokes about high priestesses invoking or channeling the Barbie Goddess.

Returning to revisioning dark deities as "loving," "kind," or "beautiful," I've learned that if one searches through mythology/folk religion long enough, one may find reference to more gentle aspects in almost any deity. For example, Kali is definetly a "Dark Goddess;" she will dance at the end of Time, we are in the Age of Kali; Kali was worshiped by thuggees, Kali inhabits the cremation grounds, Kali was the fanged destroyer of demons, she has dishevelled hair, she drinks blood, dances on Shiva, she wears a necklace of human skulls and earrings of two corpses of young boys, she allows her followers to eat meat, etc, etc.

In the Kulachudamani Tantra a series of phrases were provided to offer after a devotee sees a sign and bows to the Goddess:

"O you with terrible fangs, cruel eyed one, roaring like a raging sow! Destroyer of life! O mother of sweet and terrifying sound, I bow to you, dweller in the cremation ground."

"O Origin of all, greatly terrifying one, with dishevelled hair, fond of flesh offering, charming one of Kulachara, I bow to you, Shankara's beloved!"

"O destructress of terrifying obstacles! Grace giver of the path of Kula! I bow to you, boon giver adorned with a garland of skulls! O red clothed one! One praised by all! All obstacle destroying Devi! I bow to you, the beloved of Hara."

"Tripura, destroyer of fear, coloured red as a bandhuka blossom! Supremely beautiful one, hail to you, giver of boons."

"Jaya Devi! Support of the universe! Mother Tripura! Triple divinity!"¹

I attended a Kali Puja run by Black Lotus and Alexei Kondratiev at Chesapeake Pagan Community's 2008 Summer Gathering, which involved reciting names of Kali from the hymn, ADYA-KALI-SUVARUPA.

There were a lot of names, including "Who wearest a garland of bones, OM KAM-KAALAMAALYA-DHARINIYAI NAMAH" and "And Whose cup is a skull, OM KAPAALA-PAATRA-NIRATAAYAI NAMAN."

There were also a bunch of less fearsome titles:

"Kring, Thou Who art beneficent, KRING KALYAANIYAI NAMAH"

"Possessor of all the Arts, OM KALAAVATIYAI NAMAH"

"Ocean of the nectar of compassion, OM KARUNAAMRITA SAAGARAAYAI NAMAH"

"Merciful, OM KRIPAAMAYIYAI NAMAH"

"Who abidest in the centre of the Lotus, OM KAMALAALAYA-MADHYASHTHAYAI NAMAH"

"Destroyer of fear, OM KLAIBYANAASINIYAI NAMAH"

"O beautiful One, OM KAMANIYAYAI NAMAH"

"Bestower of good fortune, OM KALYANIYAI NAMAH"

"Forgiving mother, OM KARUNA-MATAYAI NAMAH"

"Whose girdle bells sweetly tinkle, OM KVANAT-KAANCHI-VIBHUSHANAAYAI NAMAH"

"Who art like a Moon-beam on the mountain of gold, OM KAANCHAA-CHALA-KAUMUDIYAI NAMAH"

"Allayer of sufferings, OM KARTAHARTRIYAI NAMAH"

"Who art a Mother to those who burn musk as incense, OM KASTURI-DAHA-JANANIYAI NAMAH"

"And Whose body is smeared with camphor and sandal paste, OM KARPURA-CHANDANAA-KSHITAAYAI NAMAH"

"Whose voice is sweet as the cry of a Chakravaka bird, OM KALANAADAN-MAADINIYAI NAMAH"

"Who hast a soft low voice, OM KAALA-KANTHAAYAI NAMAH"

Some USA Neo-Pagan feminists have been accused idealizing Kali, invoking her as a protective Mother Goddess. Certainly, this could labeled a naive, fluffy bunny, revisionist attitude, espoused by some Westerners who have an imperfect understanding of another religion. Perhaps the understanding of Kali by these feminists is indeed naive.

Yet, Dr. Rachel Fell McDermott explained in an interview discussing Kali worship in India that Kali is a Goddess of transformation. "To many people in Bengal, she does that by being the compassionate mother. To some tantrikas, who worship her as the sexual partner of Shiva, she does it through meditation experiences and a deeply sexualized realization of her. To some people here she may do that by giving them the courage to get out of an oppressive relationship. ...Kali is central in various parts of India, particularly in the East. In Bengal, Kali has been viewed increasingly through a very maternal, sweet lens. The people there say 'she's our mother, she would never send us anything bad.'"

So, it seems some of the folks in India now view Kali as a sweet, affectionate, and protective mother. Anyone who truly disapproves of this fluffy bunny tendancy, I suggest you be certain to let some of those Bengal natives in India know that they have been perceiving Kali Ma all wrong.

Personally, I don't have problem with it.

3. You embrace the positive energy of the white light.

Long before the term "fluffy bunny" was around, those occultists who focused on the "positive" and the "white light" were derisively called "white-lighters."

Sundry occult books and New Age teachings are filled with references to the "white light."

Dion Fortune talked about the white light. Edgar Cayce talked about the white light. Elizabeth Clare Prophet refered to kundalini as white light. Heck, maybe Madame Blavatsky talked about the white light, but actually I think her references were to the Great White Lodge.

Historically, there are different religious representations and/or descriptions of holy people surrounded by white light or emanating a white light.

Numerous occultists, New Agers, mediums, psychics, as well as some Wiccans and Neo-Pagans, have employed visualizations of "white light." For protections, practitioners visualize a shield of white light, a ring of white light, or a sphere of white light. For healings, practitioners visualize projections of white light. Some channel pure, white light.

Yes, some declare:

The pure and positive energy of the white light is all that we need to make our life full of joy, happiness, and endless health. It is an energy field created by all living things, it surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together. The force of white light is not selfish, not materialistic, not focused on oppression, rage, or control of others.

In truth, some of this white light imagery relates to the old concept of Manichean dualism involving opposition of good vs. bad, as whiteness vs. blackness. This dualism is also known as white magic vs. black magic, white lodge vs. black lodge, and right-hand-path vs. left-hand path. Isaac Bonewits has been sharply critical of this imagery and concept as used in occultism. Bonewits has a point.

For one thing, there is no light without shadow, no day without night, no full moon without dark moon--and vice versa. Indeed, what we call "white" light is actually full of color. Hold a prisim under sunlight. The white light fragments into colors. Take all the paint in a box and mix the colors. The paint creates a sort of dark grey blob--not quite true black, but still rather dark.

Some witty practitioners have stated that, "Magic has no color." Yet, magic is full of color. In his 1971 book Real Magic, Bonewits discussed the properties of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet, and magenta magic. According to Bonewits, these different colors could be used to relate to, increase, or enhance physical health, business, science, horticulture, agriculture, medicine, spiritual service, philosophy, high spirituality/theurgy, thaumaturgy, and art.

It is a very fluffy bunny tendency to naively assume the "white light" is only "white" or somehow better, simply because it is "white." Beauty is found in the diversity of all the colors of the rainbow.

Still, if a fluffy bunny focuses on white light visualization, s/he has the option of drawing on the energies of the other colors within the white light.

4. You dress in purple or black, with lots of jewelry. You wear silly hats. You wear glitter and faery wings, especially at places where it would be socially appropriate--SF cons, Anime cons, Faerie Festivals, Renaissance Fairs, Faerie cons, Otherkin cons, costume parties, etc.

Fluffy bunnies do engage in frivolous behavior that is purely for personal pleasure and ornamentation. I find it odd, however, that tattoos never seem to be added to the list of silly hats, purple or black clothing, jewelry, glitter, or faery wings. Honestly, I've never heard/read of anyone complaining about how tattoos--depicting either a faery, unicorn, bat, moon, or owl--are just not "serious."

Seriously, should people with lots of tattoos be considered "fluffy"? (Admittedly, articles calling tatooed Neo-Pagans "fluffy" for indulging in frivolous body ornamentation could exist, and I might have missed reading them.)

I have noticed this serious thread in occultism. It is the constant complaint that not everyone is as serious about the "magicae arets," "the Great Work," the "mysteries," or "true spiritual development" as they should be. People are often accused of lacking commitment to their "spiritual path," "their religion," or "their spiritual development" because they are not serious enough.

The great unspoken concern here is we might be "playing at our religion(s)." Apparently, we each need to demonstrate our dedication, fortitude, perseverance, and commitment, in spite of adverse circumstancesm, which allows to grow spiritually. To whom are we demonstating it? To each other? To the Gods? To outsiders? Why?

I care not one squat about impressing some unknown fellow practitioner with my sincerity, hard work, dedication, fortitude, perseverance, or commitment. As for me pleasing or impressing the Gods, that is my concern, not yours. You are certainly welcome to please, honor, or impress the Gods however you wish. Allow me the same courtsey.

I suspect this concept, as used in occultism, is a hang over from that old chesnut, the doctrine of suffering. Not only is hard work is necessary to achieve anything worthwhile, some insist hard work and suffering alone are the only worthwhile path. If we waist our time in frivolous behavior and play, we might end up "failing."

Again, who would we be "failing" by indulging in mirth as well as reverence? Why?

One must also remember fluffy bunnies can be social animals (see Domesticated Bunnies) and, thus, might actually have more than one social network they interact with. I've met Neo-Pagans and Wiccans who are historical recreationists, martial artists, professional musicians, professional costumers, computer geeks, sports fans, opera supporters, Fanasty genre fans, SF fans, horror aficionados, Faerie enthusiasts, and Japanese anime fans. (Do you think Neo-Pagans only sit in a box labled "Neo-Pagan?") Every social group I've mentioned above has people who dress in frivious clothing and ornaments for social events. Frequently, a great deal of planning and effort was employeed in puting it together.

I wonder if a professional costumer who spent many hours hand-creating an outfit for her/himself to wear with lots of ornamentation, including wings, black and purple cloth, jewelry, glitter, and a hat should be considered "fluffy" for doing so.

I also wonder why what an individual wears to a social event (with many other people similarly dressed in unusal outfits) somehow negates any commitment to her/his religion, whether Wicca or some other branch of Neo-Paganism.

Don't worry. The fluffy bunnies will get out of their religion just as much as they put into their religion--however they dress.

If one perseveres on the path, the perseverance will finish its work, so that one may become mature and complete.

5. You read Llewellyn books which are "those books that have the crescent moon on the spine."

I've bought numerous books from various publishers on spirituality, religion, mythology, history, psychic phenomina, tarot, herbs, candles, and spiritual healing that are utter crap. Why the singling out just the publisher of "those books that have the crescent moon on the spine?"

Llewellyn Worldwide, formerly Llewellyn Publications, is a publishing company focusing on astrology, psychic development, the New Age, alternative spirituality, Wicca, etc. The company was formed in 1901 by Llewellyn George. One of its early successful publications was The Llewellyn Moon Sign Book and Gardening Guide (1906).

Some of the Llewellyn publications do contain shoddy scholarship, such as Edain McCoy's Witta: An Irish Pagan Tradition,1998. (Screamingly bad error: the word "witta" in the title is not Old Irish, it's Old English.) Some folks likewise complain that certain books contained genuine "watered down" practices and traditions so that the finished product would appeal to the larger "New Age market."

Yet, Llewellyn also published some classics like Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft by Raymond Buckland (1988), The Tree: The Complete Book of Saxon Witchcraft by Raymond Buckland (1974), The Book of Shadows by Lady Sheba (1971), etc.

The fact is a book with "the crescent moon on the spine" might be a piece of crap, or it might be a useful source of information. Caveat emptor, applies.

Any consumer of any commercially sold items should be consumer-savey. Anyone who reads information in a book ought to cross check the information in other sources. If any seeker, neophyte, or fluffy bunny does that, it won't matter if s/he reads some of "those books that have the crescent moon on the spine."

Aside from cross checking and reading different viewpoints on a subject, I think anyone ought to jolly well purchace, borrow from the library, and read any books s/he wants on any given subject-- allowing for personal contraints of time and money--and then form her/his own opinion.

6. You insist that few things in the world are more powerful than a positive thought. Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement.

At its most basic the power of positive thought can be summed up in a quote by someone named Wendy Mitchell, "Thoughts become things. Think good thoughts." Serious practitioners counter that this concept is far too simplistic. In truth, there is a great deal of naivety--that can be annoying--in professing that "good thoughts" or the "power of positive thought" will alone bring change in the world. One must do a great deal more than simply thinking about things in order to cause them to manifest.

Fluffy bunnies, who look for the good in everyone, who try to envision their deities as loving, beautiful, and comforting, who focus on the "positive," do also visualize their magical goals becoming reality though the power of positive thought.

Mitch Horowitz in Occult America: The Secret History of How Mysticism Shaped Our Nation (2009) drew a link between the power of positive thought, self-help books, the American way of seeking to improve oneself, and magical thinking. Christine Wicker in her Not In Kansas Anymore: A Curious Tale of How Magic Is Transforming America (2005) wrote, "They [magical people] just decide what they want, and they go after it. ...I never met anyone in the magical community who felt powerless or hopeless. Some were in quite a fix, and they weren't dealing it with it in the way I thought they ought to, but they weren't feeling overly sorry for themselves. No matter what had happened to them, they were sustained by hope."

7. You show enthusiasm about the Old Religion, embracing the path with joy!

Fluffy bunnies are extreemly enthusiastic about their religion. Like the animal companions, domestic rabbits or house rabbits--which where this metaphor orginated--fluffy bunnies frolic. House rabbits love to run, jump, and play. Thus, true to the metaphor, fluffy bunnies frolic in their religion. The fluffist of fluffy bunnies can dance quite giddlily in an outdoor ritual circle or around the bonfire--sometimes ornamented in yellow body paint and glitter.

Fluffy bunnies likewise can be quite enthusiastic about decorating an indoor shrine/altar with little flowers, pretty crystals, and stones. They cheerfully set little faery-spirit houses with garden gnome statues in their garden areas.

This bubbly enthusiasm has been frequently inspired by their delight at having found their own path to the deities and spirits. You doubtless know that the term, "enthusiasm," derived from Greek enthousiasmos, from enthousiazein "be inspired," from entheos, meaning "inspired by a deity" or "possessed by a deity."

Gerald Gardner in Witchcraft Today (1954) described a religion that is rich and joyous.

8. You call and bid farewell to the quarters by blowing kisses. You primarily practice "cupcakie magic," which has nothing to do with baking cupcakes, but everything to do with "sweet little magics."

I first heard the terms "cupcake magic" and "cupcakie magic" way back in 1984. (It was possible that this was a term only used in the Maryland Neo-Pagan community.) There were some folks who would sometimes call and bid farewell to the four directions of the magic circle by blowing kisses. It was only done at some eclectic celebratory circles. (I seem to remember this method might have orginated from something written in Magical Rites from The Crystal Well.)

In any case, this sort of magic work became known as "cupcake magic" and often involved attendees blessing chocolate candy kisses to draw love, planting flower seeds in paper cups for growth, visualizing healing energy for a violent geographical area by sending love to a local deva, etc. Those "folks who practiced cupcake magic" were even sweeter and more benign that the infamous "white-lighters."

Interestingly, the term "fluffy bunny" has completely eclipsed the term "cupcake magic." Anything that might have been called "cupcake magic" is now called "fluffy bunny magic."

9. You spell the word "magic" in an archaic or unusal way like "magick," "magik," "majick,"or "majik."

Apparently, several people find these alternative spellings very annoying and view such spellings as silly or extremely naive. In the 1980's, many folks in the Neo-Pagan community began spelling "magic" as "magick." Perhaps some did it because Aleister Crowley spelled it that way. Aside from expressing a desire to separate stage "magic" from real "magick," Crowley had some purpose involving the number of letters. In any case, the practice of "magick" did not involve not parlor tricks or slight of hand, it was focused thought by use of sundry items (symbols, candles, herbs, and incense). Historically, "magick" was a perfectly correct spelling. Throughout the 80's, I remember a number of archaic or unusal spellings cropped up "magik," "majick,"or "majik."

I've recently spotted the spelling "magick" in Rootwork: Using the Folk Magick of Black America for Love, Money and Success (2003) by Tayannah Lee McQuillar. McQuillar wrote:

For many years I found nothing substantial on Rootwork because it isn't a religion, and when it was mentioned it was simply disreguarded as 'Negro superstition' and not a serious form of magick (The word magic refers to an illusion and indicates charlatanry. Magick spelled with a 'k' refers to something real that cannot be scientifically proven).

I have seen the term "white light magick" spelled with a "k" used in reference to "visualized white light," the popular visualization technique of sheilding one's self with white light and purity. However, many "white-lighters" avoid the spelling due to its connection with Aleister Crowley. I have never seen the terms, "cupcake magic," "cup-cakie magic," or "fluffy bunny magic," spelled with a "k."

To be honest, Isaac Bonewits, who was described as many things, but never "fluffy," did not approve of spelling with a "k." Yes, he did think it was silly. However, he mostly objected because is made it difficult to use the word in other forms such as "magician"--which he demonstated by pronouncing as "magic-K-ian" in the documentary, Mondo Pagan (1999).

It should also be said that Starhawk always spelled "magic" without a "k"; likewise Gerald Gardner, the Grand Old Man of Wicca spelled "magic" without a "k."

To "K," or not to "K," that is the fluffy bunny question.

10. You accept that feelings do matter--not just your feelings, but the feelings of others as well.

Acting as though feelings really matter is a very fuffy bunny sort of trait. Return to the metaphor, domesitic rabbits, aka house rabbits, groom themselves and other rabbits in their group around them. This groomming is a social behavior and might be nothing more than a couple of licks--apparently to make the rabbit getting the grooming to feel sence of social well being in the group.

Those members of the community who argue against the importance of feelings apparently think formal group practices, seasonal rituals, sacred-stories, certain magical activities, religious theology, etc. ought not to derive solely from an emotional response.

There are entire fields of study of human emotional feelings, thoughts, and behaviors and that the human emotional feelings effect and are effected by groups of people, including social psychology, psychological sociology, and group dynamics. There is a reason for it. Humans are animals with emotions. Failure to understand, satisfy, work with, sooth, control emotions, etc. can cause unpleasant results in any social interaction.

11. You insist you have the right to be the final judge of your feelings. You insist you have the right to have your own convictions and opinions.

It is true fuffly bunnies will cling tenaciously their convictions and opinions, claiming they have a right to them. Fluffy bunnies may insist they have a right know how they already feel about some issue.

Many enlightened masters have explained that if we abandon our fears, our egos, our self-esteem, our attachment to outcomes, our eronous hangups, we will finally realize our true selves and true wills--as long as we just trust those who assure us they know better.

Strangely numerous western pychologists, therapists, etc. back up the fluffy bunnies.

Apparently, it is healthy for someone to know her/his own attitudes and feelings as well as likes and dislikes--rather than unquestionly following the dictates of an enlightened master, guru, or other spiritual leader..

12. You disregard what other's arguments have to say if they don't affirm what you already believe.

Disregarding all the points of other people's arguments if they don't affirm what individual already believes to be true does seem to be a fluffy bunny trait. It relates to that natural wide-eyed wonder and naivete possessed by fluffy bunnies. Just as they are optimistic that they can find the good in everyone and everything, they loath to believe that someone might have misled them with misinformation. Fluffy bunnies assume that certainly no one would have published/said anything that was absolutely wrong.

Yet the be honest, most people, fluffy bunny Neo-Pagans or not, do not want to give up the cornerstones of cherished conclusions. A skeptic will explain that it is part of the true-believer syndrome.

Pull back the curtain, reveal a man operating the fraud. No amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it can convince the genuine true-believer to the contrary. If anything, a true believer can be even more adamant that the fraud is real. A genuine true-believer can run around Jack's barn twice counterclockwise and once sunwise to rationalize a cherished belief. This particular behavior can be found in all religious and ideological organizations--that a few might be found in Neo-Paganism, and several more the New Age movement, is not odd or unique. Faith is a very common human condition.

The naive fluffy bunny beliefs cause me to quickly address the terms "true-believer syndrome," "true-believer," and "believer."

The terms "true-believer syndrome" and "true-believer" are used by skeptics to explain behaviors and convictions which skeptics do not understand. These terms are not used professionally by psychologists, psychiatrists, or medical professionals. "True-believer syndrome" and "true-believer" are not listed in any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

According to The Skeptic's Dictionary, an example of classic "true-believer syndrome" was evidenced in an event in 1988. Stage magician and advowed skeptic, James Randi, was contacted by a Australian news TV program to illustrate that channeling could be fraudulent. The Amazing Randi asked performance artist José Alvarez to pretend he was channelling a two-thousand-year-old spirit named "Carlos". This hoax was intended liberate viewers of the news show from uncritical acceptance of paranormal claims. To the surprise of those involved in the experiment, it failed to demontrate to everyone that channeling could be believably faked. Even after "Carlos" was revealed on the Australian Sixty Minutes TV show to be a fictional character created by Alvarez and Randi, many people continued to believe that "Carlos" was a genuine entity that had been channeled. ⁵

According to skeptics, there are at least three different types of "true-believers."⁶

1) There are the kind that most recently have been found in certain Islamic sects; suside bombers and those who flew air planes in to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. These "true-believers" are willing to commit violent acts and willingly die and kill for the cause. Often they are disaffected, unhappy with their past and present, and willing to embrace any cause that changes the future.

2) There are true-believers who are members of "high pressure groups" ⁷ who choose to bow unquestioning to an authority figure. Members of "high pressure groups" will sometimes engage in behavior that is dangerously dysfunctional, harmful, and sometimes illegal.

For example, Ria Ramkissoon, 22, member of the now-defunct religious group known as 1 Mind Ministries, denied food and water to her 16-month-old son Javon Thompson due to such an authority figure. After a meal in the group household, Javon refused to say "Amen" The 1 Mind Ministries leader, 40-year-old Toni Sloan, also known as "Queen Antoinette," declared Javon had a "spirit of rebellion" and he shouldn't be fed until he complied. Javon staved to death somewhere between December 2006 and February 2007 in Baltimore, Maryland. After his death, members attemped to resurrect the boy with prayer for over a week. After the failed resurection attempt, the suitcase with the body was eventually left in a shed in Philadelphia. Law enforcement authorities eventually located the child's body stuffed in a suitcase with mothballs in April 2008. Ria Ramkissoon agreed to plead guilty and testify against other members of 1 Mind Ministries if all charges were dropped when her son finally resurrected from the dead as the 1 Mind Ministries leader promised that he would be.⁸

Another prime example involved members of another "high pressure group" Consegrity (Consilience Energy Mirrors). Debra Harrison, a massage therapist, and Dr. Mary A. Lynch, a retired physician co-founded Consegrity, a type of energy medicine, aka faith healing. Debra Harrison's adult daughter, Emily Harrison, also was a student of Consegrity. Debra Harrison died of diabetes and did not seek medical attention, even though her slow steady illness resulting in death showed all the signs of diabetes. Members of the Harrison family, who were not students of Consegrity, urged Debra Harrison to seek medical treatment. Lynch and other members of the group, including Emily Harrison, repeatedly used Consegrity "healing energy" techniques on Debra Harrison. They tried to clear away the "negative energy" that they believed was causing Debra Harrison's illness.

It is true that Dr. Mary Lynch, as a retired M.D., certainly should have been able to spot a Type 2 diabetic that she was living under the same roof with. Debra Harrison (5'4") had rappidly dropped weight from a healthy 150 lbs to 95 lbs, as she quickly depleted her fat reserves. She was weak and began to look aged as her muscle mass dropped. As Debra Harrison lay dying, Mary Lynch spoon-fed her orange juice.

At some point, Emily Harrison (Debra Harrison's adult daughter) also probably ought to have realized the Consegrity "healing energy" techniques were not healing her mother, Debra Harrison. Certainly, Emily Harrison or Mary Lynch probably ought to have also urged Debra Harrison to seek some sort of mainstream medical help.

It must be stated that Debra Harrison's case is legally different than Javon Thompson's case. Javon Thompson was a child (16 months) who was denied the basic necessities of food and water by the adults in whose care he was in. Not one of the adults living in this 1 Mind Ministries group household contacted social services or police about this criminal act of child abuse that resulted in his death.

On the other hand, Debra Harrison, as an adult, had a legal right to refuse medical treatment if she wanted to. Debra Harrison also had the right to drink that orange juice which would have been toxic to her system.

According to Mary Lynch, the constant urging from other Harrison family members to go to a hospital was toxic, as it caused more "negative energy." It is clear Debra Harrison and her adult daughter, Emily Harrison, were both "true-believers" who agreed with Mary Lynch. After the death of her mother, Emily Harrison maintained that it was the "negative energy" projected by other family members that killed her mother--not diabetes that could have been controlled by modern medical treatment. Emily Harrison followed Mary Lynch when she left town.⁹

3) Then, there are the "true-believers" whose defense in what they perceive is the cornerstone of cherished belief is unshakable. These "true-believers" are frequently annoying when they voice their opinions, some may even engage in some counter-productive behaviors or dysfunctional behaviors. Yet, these type of "true-believers" will never engage in violent, harmful, or illegal activites, and then use their belief to justify that behavior.

An example of these types of "true-believers" can be found among some Christians who steadfastly maintain that legalizing same sex marriage will destroy "traditional marriage" (monogamous female-male), in spite of the fact that "traditional marriage" is functioning just as well in those USA states, having legal same sex marriages, as the "traditional marriage" had functioned before same sex marriage was legalized.

Another example would be Christian fundalmentalists that deny that dinsoaurs once trod the earth thousands of years before humanity, even in the face of overwhelming fossil evidence to the contrary. Some fundamentalist Christians explain that as the bible stated God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, Satan, the Adversary of God and Father of All Lies, must have put the fake bones into the ground to destroy humanities' faith in the one true God. According to skeptics, "true-believers" continue to profess belief in miraculous/paranormal/magical activity or events, contrary to the evidence.

Examples provided by skeptic, M. Lamar Keene, of 3# type "true-believers" are mostly of the "true-believers" who continue to believe in spiritualism/channeling in spite of exposure of numerous fraudulent mediums/channelers. No matter how many frauds are exposed, "true-believers" rationalize at least one of the experiences of miraculous/paranormal/magical activity certainly could have been genuine. This rationalization relates to a cornerstone of a belief system that accepts the existence of a spirit world inhabited by angles and/or the spirits of deceased loved ones.

There is a difference, incidentally, between the terms "true-believer" and "believer." Below is a simple definition of a "believer."

A "believer" is a person who believes--s/he accepts with faith a religious or philosophical construct as true. All practicing adherents of religions are "believers." For example, all practicing adherents of Christianity, who genuinely accept "Jesus Christ" as their Savior, are "believers." All practicing adherents of Shinto, who genuinely accept kami as the spirits dwelling in mountains, rivers, trees, etc, are "believers." All practicing adherents of Islam, who genuinely accept that there is no God (Allah), but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet, are "believers." Adherents of a faith genuinely believe it is true.¹⁰ Furthermore, a "believer" can espouse their beliefs--without engaging in violent, harmful, or dysfunctional behavior. Faith, itself, is not a form of insanity.

Fluffy bunnies who are adhearents of Wicca/Neo-Paganism are likewise "believers."

In their naive fluffy bunny attitudes, they may cling to something percieved as the cornerstone of cherished belief. Is that so surprising?

Yes, some fluffy bunnies can be most annoying by seeming to be so "willfully naive" or "willfully ignorant." Indeed, some fluffy bunnies could even be 3# type "true-believers"--especially if they persistantly use their fluffy bunny beliefs as justification for engaging in dysfunctional behaviors.

I suppose I also ought to clairify 1# type "true-believers" and 2# type "true-believers" are not fluffy bunnies, because of the nature of their behaviors and the consequences of that behavior.

13. You try to get others to refrain from using profanity, offensive language, or stop talking about a subject because it annoys people or makes others uncomfortable.

Many Neo-Pagans agree that fluffy bunnies persist in the optimistism that adult humans can and ought to "play nicely" and interact with each other in a civilized and reasonable manner. As such, a fluffy bunny might ask others not to use language that could be construed as insulting, rude, or vulgar. S/he might explain the need for mutually respectful communication for peaceful coexistence and the active avoidance of offensive language. A fluffy bunny wants no one to be uncomfortable or frightened. In the most extreme cases, s/he will suggest redirecting topics of discussion simply because it was annoying and could be explosive.

Why? Return to the source of the metaphor again. Domestic rabbits are beloved house pets and animal companions; however, they can be timid creatures, easily startled. Originally domestic rabbits were prey animals. Rabbits get understandably nervous if a toothy canine in the same room growls or starts snapping at the other dogs.

I've seen human social groups explode from constant snipping and snapping of members at each other. Maybe the fluffy bunnies do have something to be concerned about?

Quite frankly, a little common courtesy can go along way to heading off problems.

14. You attempt to avoid conflict and unpleasant conversations at all costs. You politely "agree to disagree" with other people just to smooth things over. You interupt arguments, restate both sides of the conflict, and try to get the factions to stop repeating the same thing over and over. You lecture people on how they should just get along. You explain that this discussion has become a waste of time: annoying a pig by trying to teach it to sing, and all.

There are those Neo-Pagans who provoke "lively" or "spirited" discussions in chatrooms and lists on the grounds that those conversations were more interesting than simply a daily exchange of pleasantries and bits of topical news.

Yet, the same sort of situation with folks snapping at each other can develop on e-listserves, discussion groups, and in other social networks that also takes place in covens/groves/circles and larger organizations.

Constant petty bickering on the same subjects can drive many members off a e-list who just tire of it. I--as a person with known fluffy bunny tendencies--would remind people that constant strife can be as banal as boring peace.

15. You encourage others to accept other Neo-Pagans, and respect their paths. You have a "coexist" bumpersticker on your car. You frequently repeat the phrase, "There are many paths to the Divine."

In the commentary under the very first trait in this list, I explained that fluffy bunnies have a naive desire to accept others and be accepted by others.

16. You are aware that not all Neo-Pagans, witches, magical practitioners, etc. embrace the Wiccan Rede, but you assume they have other codes of honor which covers most of the same stuff as the Rede, so you quote the Rede to them.

One of the most annoying fluffy bunny type attributes or tendencies is to insist that all magical practitioners really do follow the 8 word Wiccan Rede, or really ought to follow the Rede: "If it harm none, do as you will."¹⁰

There are sundry Neo-Pagan groups spun out the Pagan Way teachings, and some other Neo-Pagans, particularly eclectic Neo-Pagans, who will also recognize the 8 word Wiccan Rede as an ethical precept.

As a neophyte in the Wiccan and Neo-Pagan communities in the 1980's, I was a little surprised to learn that there were several different contemporary occult/magical/mystical/religious groups that do not recognize the Wiccan Rede, including adherents of Asatru, Stregheria, Vodou, Santeria, hoodoo, AMORC, OTO, etc. All have their own ethics, codes of morals, mores, etc, which are NOT quite the same as Wiccan Rede.

Quoting the Wiccan Rede, to any of the folks who do not espouse it, may produce a reaction from anything from puzzlement, polite bemusement, or total exasperation. Indeed, Wiccans have often been accused by others of trying to ram the Wiccan Rede down everyone's throat. Lately, Wiccans who quote the Wiccan Rede to non-Wiccans, particularly on non-Wiccan forums, tend to be chastised and bashed as "fluffy bunnies." They are frequently chided for mindlessly quoting an impossible religious dictate/command, one which is altogether pointless and stupid in the context of magical practice.

Sorry, I don't think the Wiccan Rede is stupid. The term, rede, is an archaic English word which means "advice" or "counsel." Hence, "If it harm none, do as you will," represents good council or advice. I treat it as an ideal, a goal, which causes those who follow it to think about the consequences and responsibility of their actions. Of course, Wiccans tend to debate the meaning of Rede and the nature of ethics, ethical behavior, etc., amongst themselves all the time.

However, I can understand why adherents of Asatru, Stregheria, Vodou, Santeria, hoodoo, AMORC, OTO, etc. don't want to be involved in debates about "Ethics and the Wiccan Rede." They are not Wiccan. The Wiccan Rede has no relevancy for them. They have their own magical systems and rules. They should follow them.

The Wiccan Rede belongs to Wicca! (And possibly any other Neo-Pagans who choose to embrace it.)

A kind and considerate fluffy bunny would truly respect that another "believer's" path may be different in many ways. Whatever magics, spirits, karma, energies, fate, or what-have-you that they bring to themselves from that path, it is not for someone else to stand in judgement. It is not for someone else to command that others abide by the precept of the Wiccan Rede.

17. You realize your path is what you make it. You have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. If you say one thing and do another, you will look like a "stupid bunny," not just a fluffy one.

There are some who complain that fluffy bunnies don't actually do any of what they talk about doing. I have to admit that is a valid complaint against anyone who says one thing and then does another.

However, it seems to me that there are way more complaints that the fluffy bunnies want to discuss non-serious stuff or non-magical stuff--like "organic gardening tips" and "how to compost" which the fluffy bunnies represent as a core part of their Neo-Pagan path. Then, the fluffy bunnies are accused of trying to force everyone to "go green," "use natural fertilizer and not too much," "compost," "set the lawn mower higher," and "recycle, reduce, and reuse."

Simlar complaints have been leveled at the fluffy bunnies who dwell on the value of a Neo-Pagan being involved in charity work, vegetarianism, backyard bird habitats, rain gardens, women's health issues, women's rights, family health issues, safety issues, sundry political issues which are "liberal," etc.

Two important fluffy bunny traits seem to be that unbridled fluffy bunny enthusiasm and naive hope. I tend to believe it is really a more fluffy bunny tendency to chatter with endless enthusiasm about a bunch of activites in which they are personally involved with. In other words, they like to "talk" about what they "walk."

Since I specifically brought up that some fluffy bunnies are apparently obsessed with organic gardening, I will say something more about these "organic gardening fluffy bunnies."

I am sure the topic of "organic gardening" is very annoying to those who don't garden, either for lack of space, time, or interest.

Still, there are other Neo-Pagans who insist on obsessing about how fertilizer is unrelated to any genuine ancient Pagan practice. These anti-fertilizer Neo-Pagans are obviously unfamilar with Sterculinus, the Roman God presiding over the spreading of manure. The practical Romans had a deity for almost everything and Sterculinus¹¹ was honored by ancient Roman farmers who utililized manure to fertilize the crops.

So, "organic gardening fluffy bunnies," spread your manure with pride and invoke Sterculinus!

I have introduced the term "stupid bunny" for a reason. I do think the term, "stupid bunny," would be an appropriate label to describe any individual who persistently insists that all Neo-Pagans must do a certain activity--either organic gardening, charity work, women's rights, backyard bird habitats, whatever. This would be especially true if the stupid bunny who suggests the activity does not perform that activity, or "walk the walk."

The fact is there is more than one path in Neo-Paganism and Wicca, and certainly more than one way to walk those paths. I would think fluffy bunnies would know this. It is a very fluffy bunny tendency to value diversity.

18. You don't cross check sources. You don't read historical source material to check on statements and claims by your favorite authors.

Actually, this fluffy bunny trait has been a complaint against "fluffy bunnies" since I first heard the term used. Yes, it's big problem when people naively accept whatever is written on a page.

I suspect because people are not taught to cross check sources or to check in other sorts of acedemic sources for information on the same subject from different perpectives, many do not develop this simple research skill.

For example, anyone interested in the Egyptian Godesses and Gods ought to read up on archaeological finds about ancient Upper and Lower Egypt, as well as ancient Egyptian mythology, temple rites, etc. S/he should also look up information on ancient and contemporary Egyptian food, agriculture, hieroglyphs, animals (dung beetles, ostriges, cattle, cats, snakes, crocodiles), etc. Illumination can be found in many different sources.

19. You defend Margaret Murray's books as definitive proof of an ancient matriarchal stone age religion, which Wicca is directly decended from.

Defending the ancient matriarchal golden age as the source of Wicca and/or Goddess worship is considered extremely fluffy behavior. Using Margaret Murray's books about witchcraft, The Witch-cult in Western Europe (1921) and God of the Witches (1933), The Divine King in England (1954) as proof that Wicca survived throught the middle ages in to the mid-20th century, is also extremely fluffy behavior.

Those who combine the thesis of Murray's books with the therory of the ancient matriarchal age to spin a story of a time of peace and prosperity are dwelling in the "Fluffy Bunny Golden Age."

The "Fluffy Bunny Golden Age" was an age of innocence and happiness. The forests brought forth all things necessary for humankind, without labor in ploughing, sowing, or pruning. Diease was healed by fresh leaves, roots, and tree bark. Though not enforced by legal punishment, truth and right prevailed. Humans had not built fortifications around their villages, which consisted of interconnected dwellings. There were no such things as spears, shields, swords, or helmets. Humans did not hunt for meat, and neither did they fear the beasts of the forest.

The concept of a matriarchal "golden age" in the Neolithic has now been denounced by numerous academicians on the grounds that there is not a lot of solid evidence to support it. True, over a hundred different Palaeolithic Venus figurines or human female statuettes have been found in Europe and into Asia. They may represent local Goddesses, or they may be part of some sympathetic magic, or serve another purpose entirely. However, they alone do not provide proof for univeral worship of a Great Mother among all the tribes.

First, a quick look at history. Numerous books published from the late 19th century and the early 20th century speculated that medieval and Renaissance witchcraft in the British Isles and Europe represented survivals of pre-Christian religion from pagan antiquity. This speculation is now called the "Murrayite theory" and is named after Margaret Murray. In the 1960's, Robert Grave's promoted a version of the Murrayite theory which supposed a matriarchal rule in Europe, which preceeded patriarchal rule.

Gerald Gardner "created" or "re-created" the Old Religion, and called it by several names: the "witchcraft cult," "the brethren," and the "Wica" (sometimes capitalized, sometimes not), among other names. Gardner repeatedly refered to what he was doing as a "joyous religion." Eventially, the term "Wica" stuck, but somebody noticed the Anglo-Saxon term had been misspelled, and so it began to be called "wicca" or capitalized "Wicca." Although people argue if Gardner did or did not find a group of people practicing magic or mysticism, it's fairly clear that the ritual system Gardner taught his coveners was adapted from a variety of sources. It is the same system that the Pagan Way promoted, and it is the same system that that many Wiccans and electic Neo-Pagans use today. It is a coherent and workable system and a valid religion.

I must emphasize that there were numerous folks practicing magic prior to Gardner's appearance on the scene, some called themselves witches, magicians, and some had other terms.¹² Yet, Gardner's Wicca did not exist as a coherent and distinct form of spiritual expression, prior to the 1940s. Hence, Gardner is often acknowledged as the "Grand Old Man of Wicca."

Books published up through the 1980's and 1990's promoted the "Murrayite theory" in various mutations. (For example, Robert Graves also promoted a version of the Murrayite theory in the 1960's which supposed a Goddess-oriented matriarchal rule in Europe, which preceeded patriarchal rule.) During the 1980's and 1990's, sundry pieces of it were speculated about, argued over, verified, and disproven. In 1991, Aidan Kelly published Crafting the Art of Magic through Llewellyn Publications, now known as Llewellyn Worldwide. It was written in a more scholarly manner than most Neo-Pagan books. Kelly studied and compared Gardner's writtings, published and unpublished, and tracked down sources for many passages, demonstating how and where Gardner got his source materials, rather than inheriting the whole system from an eariler coven in New Forest. (Incidentally, Kelly's book was re-published in 2008 by Thoth Publications with more material as Inventing Witchcraft: A Case Study in the Creation of a new Religion.) Kelly's book confirmed what many other Neo-Pagans and Wiccans were begining to realize. Wicca is not directly descended from an ancient matriarchal neolithic religion which survived intact in the British Isles and Europe through medieval and Renaissance as "witchcraft."

In any case, any neophyte to Wicca or Neo-Paganism could still pick up a book that promotes part of, or all, of the "Murrayite theory"--particularly if the book is older. Therefore, "newbies" or "neophytes" may accept the Murrayite theory or one of the many versions of it as unquestionable fact simply because they haven't read in any depth the criticism debunking the Murrayite theory points. As such, neophytes may defend with a doey eyed faith the Murrayite theory as factual, or mostly factual, to others in the Neo-Pagan community, explaining that they know it is true because they read it in a great book.

Others in the community discuss the different points in the Murrayite theory and suggest other "great books."

I should also add that sundry folks, in and out of the Neo-Pagan community, continue to argue about snips and pieces of this history involving Gardner, Dafo, Valiente, Charles Leland, James Frazer, the witch hunt craze, medieval folk magic, Renassaince folk magic, 19th century folk magic, pre-Christian Greco-Roman practices, Celtic practices, Aleister Crowley, etc, etc. (If you know anything about historians, you will understand they passionately quibble endlessly about details.)

Some neophytes do resist any information debunking the Murrayite theory. In particular, some love the story about the ancient, pacifist, sexually unrestriced matriarchal society/ies dedicated to worship of a gentle Goddess who manifests as "maid," "nymph," and "crone." At which point, they are often dubbed "fluffy bunnies"--particulaly if they insist that the matriarchal society was a golden age of vegentarianism and organic gardening without war, hunger, or women struggling for child support aid until the partiarchal marauders from a more aggressive society showed up and broke their altars and cut down the sacred groves. They sometimes seem to cling to the matriarchal peaceful society tale almost obtusely. If so, they do prefer "fluff" to "facts" to the point that they insist their "fluff" is genuine history. Yes, this is a warning sign of classic fluffy bunnyism.

20. You create your own practices, while implying that the practice is ancient.

This is not one of the most common charges against fluffy bunnies. Usually fluffy bunnies are accused of defending how old Wiccan is and how certain aspects and practices have been passed down from a neolithic religion--even when someone clearly demonstrates Practice X came from Source Y.

I was surprised that some fluffy bunny bashing accused the fluffy bunnies of creating something, putting it in a ritual, and saying it was old. Oh, I've heard numerous Wiccans and Neo-Pagans say, "I read about the old practice of scrying with an egg white, so we incorporated it into our ritual," or "I learned about an ancient practice that involved touching the earth with the knucklebones of one's hands to honor Bona Dea, so I created this spell." Or, "I dreamed this, and so I got it from the spirit/deity of ..."

Rarely have I heard that someone was accused of being a fluffy bunny because s/he made up something and specifically said it was ancient. In fact, I did not put it on the list at Warning Signs of Unchecked Fluffy Bunny Tendencies.

Interestingly, a frequent charge by outsiders is "Wicca is an invalid religion because Gerald Gardner made it all up." Frankly, I believe that Gardner had an epiphany. I have no proof of this belief. However, Gardner once said he became involved with the Old Religion because he fell in love with a witch at a fire. I've wondered if that was a reference to a vision of the Gracious Goddess.

Though I cannot say if the above event was the moment of his epiphany, I think he had one--at some point--because it seemed he was trying to re-create what he assumed was a very old religion from lore, speculation, fragments, ideas, and dreams. He saw the statue inside the stone, just like Michaelangelo.

Be that as it may, Gardner initially claimed certain practices had been passed down intact when they most clearly were not.

Does this mean Gerald Gardner was fluffy? Interesting question.

Aside from all that--though Gerald Gardner got away with such fibbery, we in the 21st century will not. Engaging in practices like spinning grandmother stories requires that someone be purposely involved in deceptions. My interpretation is 21st century fluffy bunnies are naive. They may continue to promote deception, due to their naivety, but they do not create it.

If someone persists in such an activity as creating her/his own practices, while implying that those practices are ancient, s/he will most certainly be chided as being ridiculous and being an embarassment.

Be fluffy--if you will--embrace your true nature, but don't claim something goes back generations if it does not.

copyright 2010 Myth Woodling

Other links: Fluffy Bunnies Thoughts on Bashing Fluffy Bunnies, Fluff Bunny vs. Hardcore Pagan, Wisdom Making Fauna Pagans, THE Fluffy Bunny Pagan Test, Fluffy Behavior 101.

End notes

1.The Kali Yantra www.ShivaShakti.com

2. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, a Catholic nun beatified by Pope John Paul II

3. The Two Faces of Kali www.Beliefnet.com/Faiths/Hinduism/2003/09

4. Isaac Bonewits, Real Magic, 1971.

5. Robert T. Carroll, "Carlos" hoax, The Skeptic's Dictionary,, 1994-2009, accessed May 2010.

6. Robert T. Carroll, true-believer syndrome, The Skeptic's Dictionary, 1994-2009, accessed May 2010.

7. Robert T. Carroll, Consegrity (Consilience Energy Mirrors), The Skeptic's Dictionary, 1994-2009, accessed May 2010.

8. Emily Friedman, Charged Sect Mom Believes Son Will Come Back From Dead, ABC News, April 1, 2009, accessed May 2010.

9. Robert T. Carroll, Consegrity (Consilience Energy Mirrors), The Skeptic's Dictionary, 1994-2009, accessed May 2010.

10. As a member of the religion of Wicca, I believe in the Gods--even though I know I cannot prove via scientific evidence that they exist. Thus, I also am a believer.

11. "Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill:

'An it harm none, do what you will.'"

Ethics: The Wiccan Rede
Ethics: Codes of Conduct
Ethics: The Rhyming Wiccan Rede
Ethics: Your Personal Rights

12. Different types of folk magick all over the world have different terms for their practitioners. In England, they were often called the cunning folk.

Humor: DEFEND THE FLUFFY BUNNIES!
Real Domesticated Bunny Rabbits
Fluffy Bunnies Index
"Yet Another Wicca..." home page