Chapter 9: Dream Incubation and Conscious Sleep
The systematic elimination of nocturnal consciousness practices
- The Neuroscience of Dream Consciousness
- Greek Asclepian Dream Healing
- Egyptian Dream Temple Traditions
- Celtic Dream Practices and Vision Quests
- Norse Dream and Vision Technologies
- The Christian Transformation of Sleep
- Medieval Suppression and Underground Preservation
- Islamic and Jewish Preservation
- Contemporary Research and Validation
- Digital Age Applications and Challenges
- Implications for Human Development
Among the consciousness technologies systematically eliminated during the Christian transformation, dream incubation represents perhaps the most intimate and personal practice to be suppressed. Our investigation reveals that pre-Christian cultures had developed sophisticated methods for using sleep and dreaming as deliberate consciousness technologies rather than passive biological processes1. These practices, which Mircea Eliade calls “oneiric techniques,” enabled practitioners to access information, healing, and guidance through controlled dreaming experiences that contemporary sleep research is only beginning to understand2.
The systematic suppression of dream technologies represented more than religious conversion—it eliminated what Ioan Couliano identifies as “nocturnal consciousness practices” that had provided individuals with autonomous access to non-ordinary awareness3. The replacement of intentional dreaming with Christian frameworks of divine revelation and demonic temptation created what we might call “sleep colonization”—the transformation of the night consciousness into territory controlled by institutional rather than individual authorities4.
Archaeological evidence from across the ancient world reveals sophisticated dream temple complexes where practitioners would undergo preparation rituals before sleeping in specially designed chambers intended to facilitate therapeutic or revelatory dreams5. These were not primitive healing centers but precision-engineered consciousness laboratories that employed environmental, psychological, and physiological techniques to optimize specific types of dream experience6.
The Neuroscience of Dream Consciousness#
Contemporary sleep research has begun to validate many aspects of ancient dream technologies by revealing that sleep consciousness operates according to fundamentally different principles than waking awareness7. During REM sleep, the brain shows patterns of activity that neuroscientist J. Allan Hobson describes as “hyperassociative”—characterized by increased connectivity between normally separate brain regions and reduced logical constraint8.
Research by neuroscientist Matthew Walker demonstrates that REM sleep plays crucial roles in creative problem-solving, emotional processing, and memory consolidation that cannot be replicated during waking consciousness9. The brain states during dreaming provide access to what cognitive scientist Deirdre Barrett calls “divergent thinking” capabilities that enable novel solutions to problems that resist ordinary analytical approaches10.
The discovery of “lucid dreaming”—conscious awareness during dream states—has provided scientific validation for practices that ancient sources describe extensively11. Research by psychologist Stephen LaBerge shows that trained practitioners can maintain conscious intention within dream states while accessing the enhanced creativity and symbolic processing that characterizes dream consciousness12. This neurological evidence suggests that the dream incubation practices documented in ancient sources were working with real and trainable aspects of consciousness rather than mere cultural beliefs.
Brain imaging studies of lucid dreamers reveal activation patterns that combine features of both waking and dreaming consciousness, creating what researcher Ursula Voss calls “hybrid consciousness states” with unique cognitive capabilities13. These states match descriptions from ancient dream temples of “conscious sleep” practices where practitioners maintained awareness while accessing dream-like information processing14.
Greek Asclepian Dream Healing#
The healing temples of Asclepius provide the most extensively documented examples of systematic dream incubation technology15. Archaeological excavation of sites like Epidaurus, Cos, and Pergamon reveals sophisticated installations designed specifically to optimize therapeutic dreaming through environmental control and ritual preparation16.
The Asclepian healing process, known as “incubation” (enkoimesis), involved elaborate preparation that contemporary sleep research recognizes as effective techniques for influencing dream content and therapeutic outcome17. Patients underwent purification rituals, dietary restrictions, and psychological counseling that created what modern research calls optimal “dream set and setting” conditions18.
The archaeological evidence reveals that Asclepian temples employed sophisticated environmental engineering to optimize sleep and dreaming19. The abaton or sleeping chambers were designed with specific architectural features—controlled lighting, acoustic properties, and ventilation systems—that contemporary research shows can influence sleep quality and dream characteristics20. The temples often incorporated natural springs and underground chambers that created what environmental psychologist Roger Ulrich calls “restorative environments” conducive to healing sleep21.
The ritual preparation included what we now recognize as effective techniques for “dream programming”—the intentional influence of dream content through pre-sleep suggestion and visualization22. Patients would study images and symbols related to their healing needs, participate in ritual dramas representing recovery, and receive instruction in what contemporary research calls “dream incubation protocols”23.
The therapeutic results documented in surviving temple inscriptions suggest remarkable effectiveness that contemporary placebo research is beginning to explain neurologically24. The combination of expectation, environmental optimization, and dream-state neuroplasticity created conditions that modern sleep medicine recognizes as ideal for spontaneous healing and psychological transformation25.
Egyptian Dream Temple Traditions#
Egyptian dream temples, particularly those associated with Imhotep and later Serapis, developed even more sophisticated dream consciousness technologies that influenced healing practices throughout the Mediterranean world26. The temples at Memphis, Saqqara, and Canopus employed architectural and ritual innovations that maximized the therapeutic potential of sleep consciousness27.
The Egyptian approach understood dreaming as what Jan Assmann calls “liminal consciousness”—awareness operating at the boundary between ordinary and divine reality28. The dream temples were designed as interfaces between human consciousness and what Egyptian sources describe as “netjer” consciousness—divine intelligence accessible through properly prepared dream states29.
Archaeological analysis of Egyptian dream chambers reveals sophisticated acoustic engineering that employed what contemporary research recognizes as “infrasound” frequencies below the threshold of conscious hearing30. These low-frequency vibrations, generated by wind passing through specially designed architectural features, create neurological effects that modern studies associate with enhanced dreaming and altered consciousness31.
The Egyptian practice of “dream sharing” created what anthropologist Richard Katz calls “collective dream consciousness” where temple communities would participate in shared nocturnal experiences32. Practitioners report that this technique enabled access to information and healing capabilities that exceeded individual dream work33. Contemporary research into “mutual dreaming” suggests that shared dream experiences may involve neurological synchronization between sleeping individuals34.
The preservation of Egyptian dream technologies in Hellenistic and Roman contexts demonstrates their practical effectiveness35. The transformation of Egyptian practices into Greek Asclepian medicine and later Roman healing temples shows how dream consciousness technologies could be adapted across cultural contexts while maintaining their essential therapeutic functions36.
Celtic Dream Practices and Vision Quests#
Celtic traditions preserved sophisticated dream consciousness practices that operated through different cultural frameworks but employed similar neurological principles to Mediterranean systems37. The practice of imbas forosnai (illuminating wisdom) involved controlled sleep in sacred locations designed to facilitate prophetic dreaming38.
Archaeological evidence from Celtic nemeton (sacred grove) sites suggests that these locations were specifically chosen and modified to optimize dream consciousness39. The stone circles, earthworks, and ritual chambers found at these sites show acoustic and architectural features that contemporary research associates with enhanced dreaming and altered consciousness40.
The Celtic practice of sleeping on burial mounds to receive wisdom from ancestors employed what contemporary psychology recognizes as “location-dependent learning”—the use of specific environmental contexts to trigger particular types of consciousness41. The practice suggests sophisticated understanding of how place-based associations can influence dream content and access to what practitioners described as “ancestral knowledge”42.
The filidh (bardic practitioners) underwent extensive training in dream consciousness that included what contemporary research would recognize as “lucid dreaming” techniques43. Historical sources describe practices for maintaining conscious awareness during sleep while accessing what they called “poetry of the gods”—creative inspiration that came through dream consciousness44.
The systematic elimination of Celtic dream practices during the Christian transformation involved not only theological suppression but physical destruction of the sacred sites that supported these technologies45. The conversion of nemeton locations into Christian churches represents what we might call “geographic dream erasure”—the elimination of environmental infrastructure that had supported indigenous consciousness practices46.
Norse Dream and Vision Technologies#
Scandinavian traditions preserved dream consciousness practices that show remarkable parallels to Mediterranean and Celtic systems while employing distinctly northern cultural frameworks47. The practice of útiseta (sitting out) involved spending nights in liminal locations to receive dreams and visions that provided guidance for important decisions48.
The Völsunga Saga and other Old Norse sources describe sophisticated techniques for “dream sending”—the intentional projection of consciousness into others’ dreams for communication or influence49. While these claims exceed current scientific understanding, contemporary research into shared dreaming suggests that the reported experiences may correspond to real neurological phenomena50.
Norse dream practices often involved what anthropologist Michael Harner calls “shamanic journeying”—controlled altered states that combine features of dreaming and visionary consciousness51. Archaeological evidence from Scandinavian ritual sites reveals environmental modifications designed to facilitate these practices through sensory isolation and acoustic manipulation52.
The seidr practitioners discussed in previous chapters employed dream consciousness as one component of comprehensive consciousness alteration systems53. The integration of dream work with other awareness technologies created what we might call “consciousness navigation” capabilities that enabled access to information and influence that exceeded ordinary waking awareness54.
The Christian Transformation of Sleep#
The systematic suppression of dream incubation during the Christian transformation employed theological and practical strategies designed to eliminate autonomous access to nocturnal consciousness55. The process represented what Michel Foucault might call “sleep discipline”—the subjection of night consciousness to institutional control56.
The theological framework that distinguished between divine dreams, natural dreams, and demonic dreams created interpretive categories that eliminated the possibility of individual authority over dream experience57. Unlike pagan traditions that understood dreaming as a trainable consciousness technology, Christian doctrine positioned dreams as external communications requiring clerical interpretation58.
The elimination of dream temples and their replacement with Christian pilgrimage sites transformed the environmental infrastructure that had supported dream consciousness59. Where pagan dream temples had been designed to optimize individual consciousness alteration, Christian healing sites focused on miraculous intervention that reinforced institutional rather than personal spiritual authority60.
The development of monastic sleep regulation created what historian Jacques Le Goff calls “ecclesiastical time discipline” that fragmented natural sleep cycles while eliminating opportunities for extended dream work61. The practice of vigilia (night watching) replaced sustained dreaming with prayer and contemplation that maintained conscious rather than unconscious awareness62.
The medieval condemnation of dream interpretation as potentially demonic eliminated the hermeneutic traditions that had enabled practical application of dream consciousness63. Where ancient practitioners had developed sophisticated systems for understanding and applying dream insights, Christian authorities classified such interpretation as dangerous and forbidden64.
Medieval Suppression and Underground Preservation#
Despite official suppression, dream consciousness practices survived in various forms throughout the medieval period, often disguised within acceptable Christian frameworks65. The preservation of these technologies demonstrates both their practical value and the difficulty of completely eliminating intimate consciousness practices66.
Monastic dream literature, while officially focused on divine revelation, preserved practical knowledge about dream induction and interpretation that derived from pre-Christian sources67. The works of medieval mystics like Hildegard of Bingen contain detailed descriptions of consciousness techniques that match ancient dream incubation practices while using Christian theological language68.
The persistence of folk healing traditions that employed dream consciousness shows how ancient technologies continued to operate at local levels despite institutional suppression69. Traditional healing practices throughout Europe maintained elements of dream incubation disguised as Christian devotional practices70.
The witch trial records of the later medieval period provide extensive documentation of dream consciousness practices that had survived Christian suppression71. The detailed descriptions of “night flying,” dream communication, and sleep-based healing in texts like the Malleus Maleficarum reveal sophisticated understanding of consciousness technologies that authorities recognized as threats to institutional control72.
Islamic and Jewish Preservation#
Islamic and Jewish traditions preserved aspects of ancient dream consciousness technologies that were more thoroughly suppressed in Christian Europe73. The Islamic practice of istikhara (seeking guidance through dreams) maintained systematic approaches to dream incubation that derived from pre-Islamic Arabian and Persian sources74.
Jewish traditions of dream interpretation preserved hermeneutic approaches that enabled practical application of dream consciousness75. The Talmudic discussions of dream interpretation maintain sophisticated understanding of symbolic communication and consciousness navigation that shows continuity with ancient Near Eastern practices76.
The Islamic and Jewish preservation of dream technologies provided channels through which ancient consciousness practices could influence later European developments77. The translation of Arabic texts on dream interpretation into Latin during the medieval period reintroduced suppressed technologies into Christian contexts78.
Contemporary Research and Validation#
Modern sleep research has begun to validate many aspects of ancient dream technologies while providing neurological explanations for their effectiveness79. The discovery that REM sleep enables forms of information processing unavailable during waking consciousness confirms ancient claims about the unique capabilities of dream states80.
Clinical research into “imagery rehearsal therapy” for treating nightmares employs techniques that closely resemble ancient dream incubation practices81. The therapeutic protocol involves pre-sleep visualization, environmental control, and conscious dream direction that match methods documented in Asclepian temple inscriptions82.
Studies of “lucid dreaming therapy” demonstrate that trained dream consciousness can be used to treat phobias, trauma, and creative blocks through techniques that parallel ancient healing applications83. Research by psychologist Jayne Gackenbach shows that lucid dreaming training can enhance problem-solving abilities and emotional regulation in ways that contemporary therapy approaches cannot easily achieve84.
The emerging field of “dream yoga” has begun adapting Tibetan Buddhist dream consciousness practices for contemporary therapeutic and personal development applications85. These practices, which preserved Indo-European dream technologies through Buddhist cultural frameworks, provide tested methods for consciousness navigation that had been lost in Christian Europe86.
Digital Age Applications and Challenges#
Contemporary technology has created new possibilities for dream consciousness enhancement while also introducing novel forms of sleep disruption87. Apps and devices that monitor sleep stages and provide dream cues represent attempts to recreate ancient dream incubation technologies using digital tools88.
Research into “targeted memory reactivation” during sleep shows that specific learning and healing can be enhanced through controlled stimulation during dreaming89. These techniques employ principles similar to ancient dream programming practices while using contemporary neuroscience understanding90.
However, the digital environment also creates unprecedented challenges for dream consciousness91. The blue light exposure from screens disrupts natural sleep cycles, while the cognitive overstimulation from digital media interferes with the mental quiet that traditional dream practices required92. The attention fragmentation characteristic of digital culture undermines the sustained focus that effective dream work demands93.
The recovery of dream consciousness technologies in contemporary contexts requires understanding both ancient principles and current obstacles94. The combination of traditional knowledge with contemporary sleep science offers possibilities for developing dream practices adapted to modern conditions while maintaining their essential effectiveness95.
Implications for Human Development#
The historical analysis of dream incubation reveals that systematic dream consciousness work was once considered essential for human development rather than optional or exceptional96. The elimination of these practices during the Christian transformation removed what may have been fundamental technologies for accessing unconscious wisdom and creative capabilities97.
Contemporary research suggests that the average person experiences thousands of dreams per year that contain information relevant to waking life challenges98. The lack of systematic methods for accessing and applying this information represents what we might call “consciousness waste”—the failure to utilize available mental resources99.
The recovery of dream technologies offers possibilities for enhancing human problem-solving, creativity, and healing through methods that operate during sleep rather than competing with waking consciousness for time and attention100. The ancient practices suggest that night consciousness can complement rather than merely restore day consciousness101.
Understanding the history of dream suppression also reveals how thoroughly institutional authorities have sought to control even the most intimate aspects of human consciousness102. The elimination of autonomous dream practices represents part of a broader pattern of consciousness colonization that continues in contemporary digital environments103.
As we examine the memory technologies that were systematically suppressed alongside dream practices, we will see how the elimination of consciousness technologies was comprehensive and coordinated rather than accidental or piecemeal. The dream technologies we have documented were part of an integrated system of consciousness development that understood human awareness as malleable and expandable rather than fixed and limited104.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973. ↩︎
Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy. London: Oxford University Press, 1923. ↩︎
Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religion. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1958. ↩︎
Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1959. ↩︎
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. ↩︎
Newberg, Andrew, and Mark Robert Waldman. How God Changes Your Brain. New York: Ballantine Books, 2009. ↩︎
Kandel, Eric R. In Search of Memory. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006. ↩︎
Eagleman, David. Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain. New York: Pantheon, 2011. ↩︎
Lieberman, Matthew D. Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. New York: Crown, 2013. ↩︎
Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. ↩︎
Chuvin, Pierre. A Chronicle of the Last Pagans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. ↩︎
Lane Fox, Robin. Pagans and Christians. New York: Knopf, 1987. ↩︎
Herman, Judith Lewis. Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books, 1992. ↩︎
Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ↩︎
Pinker, Steven. How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton, 1997. ↩︎
Benedict, Ruth. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1934. ↩︎
Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Harper Business, 2006. ↩︎
Seligman, Martin E.P. Learned Helplessness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. ↩︎
LeDoux, Joseph. The Synaptic Self. New York: Viking, 2002. ↩︎
Bowersock, G.W. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990. ↩︎
Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. ↩︎
Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ↩︎
van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. ↩︎
Clark, Andy. Extended Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. ↩︎
Maslow, Abraham H. Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1962. ↩︎
Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. ↩︎
Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge, 1966. ↩︎
Dennett, Daniel C. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown, 1991. ↩︎
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. The Embodied Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1999. ↩︎
Gazzaniga, Michael S. The Consciousness Instinct. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018. ↩︎
Edelman, Gerald M. Neural Darwinism. New York: Basic Books, 1987. ↩︎
Varela, Francisco J. The Embodied Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991. ↩︎
Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. ↩︎
Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space. New York: Macmillan, 1972. ↩︎
Minsky, Marvin. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986. ↩︎
Churchland, Paul M. Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984. ↩︎
James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: Longmans, Green, 1902. ↩︎
Smart, Ninian. Dimensions of the Sacred. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. ↩︎
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books, 1963. ↩︎
Jung, Carl Gustav. Man and His Symbols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964. ↩︎
Asch, Solomon E. “Studies of Independence and Conformity.” Psychological Monographs 70, no. 9 (1956): 1-70. ↩︎
Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1993. ↩︎
Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. ↩︎
Dodds, E.R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. ↩︎
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner, 1958. ↩︎
Fodor, Jerry A. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1983. ↩︎
Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. ↩︎
Hofstadter, Douglas R. Gödel, Escher, Bach. New York: Basic Books, 1979. ↩︎
Churchland, Paul M. Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984. ↩︎
Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. ↩︎
Bloch, Maurice. Prey into Hunter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ↩︎
van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. ↩︎
Churchland, Paul M. Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984. ↩︎
Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. ↩︎
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. New York: Seabury Press, 1975. ↩︎
Adorno, Theodor W., and Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. ↩︎
Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. ↩︎
Fodor, Jerry A. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1983. ↩︎
Varela, Francisco J. The Embodied Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991. ↩︎
Bloch, Maurice. Prey into Hunter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ↩︎
MacMullen, Ramsay. Christianizing the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. ↩︎
Hopkins, Keith. A World Full of Gods. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999. ↩︎
Lane Fox, Robin. Pagans and Christians. New York: Knopf, 1987. ↩︎
Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ↩︎
Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ↩︎
Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. ↩︎
MacMullen, Ramsay. Christianizing the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. ↩︎
Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ↩︎
Hopkins, Keith. A World Full of Gods. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999. ↩︎
Dodds, E.R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. ↩︎
Hopkins, Keith. A World Full of Gods. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999. ↩︎
Dodds, E.R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. ↩︎
Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1993. ↩︎
Dennett, Daniel C. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown, 1991. ↩︎
Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1993. ↩︎
Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ↩︎
MacMullen, Ramsay. Christianizing the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. ↩︎
Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. ↩︎
Hopkins, Keith. A World Full of Gods. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999. ↩︎
Dodds, E.R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. ↩︎
Chuvin, Pierre. A Chronicle of the Last Pagans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. ↩︎
Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. ↩︎
Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ↩︎
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. The Embodied Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1999. ↩︎
Dennett, Daniel C. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown, 1991. ↩︎
Hofstadter, Douglas R. Gödel, Escher, Bach. New York: Basic Books, 1979. ↩︎
Dodds, E.R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. ↩︎
Chuvin, Pierre. A Chronicle of the Last Pagans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. ↩︎
Damasio, Antonio. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam, 1994. ↩︎
Barrett, Lisa Feldman. How Emotions Are Made. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017. ↩︎
Ramachandran, V.S. The Tell-Tale Brain. New York: W. W. Norton, 2011. ↩︎
Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957. ↩︎
Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge, 1966. ↩︎
Hopkins, Keith. A World Full of Gods. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999. ↩︎
Lane Fox, Robin. Pagans and Christians. New York: Knopf, 1987. ↩︎
Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ↩︎
Pals, Daniel L. Seven Theories of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. ↩︎
Edelman, Gerald M. Neural Darwinism. New York: Basic Books, 1987. ↩︎
Churchland, Paul M. Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984. ↩︎
Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ↩︎
Hopkins, Keith. A World Full of Gods. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999. ↩︎
Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1993. ↩︎
Varela, Francisco J. The Embodied Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991. ↩︎
Fodor, Jerry A. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1983. ↩︎