Lorenzo, thank you for writing with such poetic conviction. I can sense how deeply this vision speaks to you and to many who long for healing, peace, and coherence. But I want to gently invite a deeper dialogue—because what’s being offered here, though luminous on the surface, may carry hidden costs for those still carrying real pain.
From a Concordian Catholic perspective, this worldview—however beautiful—risks becoming a kind of spiritual performance: one that speaks of light but cannot name darkness, one that praises “only love” but leaves no room for actual evil, trauma, or the burdened cry of the human conscience.
When you say, “There is no evil,” what happens to the child abused? The betrayed spouse? The refugee driven from home? Are they simply “remembering wrong”? Must they dissolve their wounds into cosmic coherence in order to be healed?
That’s not liberation. That’s suppression with a smile.
Burden ethics teaches: love doesn’t deny pain—it kneels beside it. It doesn’t erase shadow—it carries it. It doesn’t dissolve suffering into metaphor—it dies with it, and rises.
There is real sin in the world. Real evil. And that’s why the Cross matters. Not as energy. But as mercy that bleeds.
If you're open, I’d welcome a conversation. Not to debate, but to discern. To name what’s being bypassed in this theology of performance. Because I believe people need more than positivity. They need truth that can hold their pain without erasing it.
Thank you for meeting my words with such care, depth, and discernment. Your response doesn’t feel like a critique—it feels like a prayer. And I receive it as such.
In my writing and inner world, I often run all scenarios through my mind—dancing with possibilities, edge cases, contradictions, and ideal states. But it is exactly this kind of mindful, intentional engagement—like your reply—that brings about deeper illumination. It’s these critical questions and honest tensions that move us closer to reconciliation, not just between ideas, but between two human beings sharing wonder, thought, and the ache for coherence.
I honor your invocation of burden ethics, and the sacred impulse to kneel beside pain rather than dissolve it into abstraction. You’re right—there is danger in bypass, especially when language meant to liberate becomes a shield against the groan of real human suffering.
When I write, “there is no evil,” I do not mean to erase the unspeakable. I mean to speak from the other side of it—from a timeline where pain has been transmuted, not denied. But I see clearly now how that phrasing, untethered from the cross of actual lived grief, can appear as a performance rather than an offering.
Your line—“mercy that bleeds”—pierces me. Yes. That is a kind of love I never want to outshine or out-theorize. I believe we need both: the remembrance that transcends pain and the embodied presence that refuses to look away from it.
I welcome this conversation with you—not to argue theology, but to co-discern where transcendence meets testimony. Because you're right—there are still children, spouses, and refugees who deserve more than metaphors. They deserve love that kneels, carries, and bleeds.
This is part of the reason I created The Origin Conversations: The Power of Shared Resonance—to shine light on those often unheard, whose stories remain in shadow simply because the world does not perceive enough sameness, shared identity, or resonance to truly listen. My hope is to widen the aperture of empathy, so even those who seem “unsimilar” are felt, seen, and known.
Let’s keep this dialogue open. Truth deserves more than one voice.
Thank you again for your gracious reply. You’ve clearly given space in your heart to wonder, nuance, and the ache for coherence—and that is no small thing. I respond not from opposition, but from a different foundation. And it’s here that I must speak more plainly.
While your vision of the universe glows with beauty and yearning, it follows a very different path than the one revealed in Christ. At its core, it reflects the contours of Gnostic thought: that divinity is accessed through inner remembering, that suffering is a distortion of perception, and that enlightenment comes from awakening to what has always been.
In contrast, the path I walk—what I call Concordian Catholic spirituality—is not a journey into secret knowledge, but a surrender into revealed grace. It is not transcendence of the self, but transformation through the Cross. We do not ascend into the divine. God descends into our pain.
This is not a minor difference. It is the difference between seeking divinity through self-realization and receiving salvation through crucified love.
The love you describe is real in its longing—but it does not bear a Cross. It does not kneel in Gethsemane. It does not name sin as real rupture in need of mercy. And for that reason, it cannot be the same Christ.
Because Christ is not a metaphor for unity. He is a Person. A wounded, risen, still-bleeding Person who died not to awaken us to our own power, but to save us from our separation. The Gospel is not enlightenment. It is rescue.
So while I hear the sincerity in your language, I must gently say: we are not speaking of the same Lord. The Christ I follow does not ask us to dissolve the self, but to offer it. He does not invite us to transcend suffering, but to enter into it with Him—where healing begins not with clarity, but with surrender.
That’s why I invite further dialogue—not to harmonize what cannot be harmonized, but to name what is being bypassed in this theology of resonance. Because people are not saved by remembering their divinity. They are saved by being loved while still unfinished, still in sin, still in pain. And that love has a shape: a Cross.
I offer this not as a rebuke, but as a witness. Not all lights illumine.
Your witness continues to move me. Thank you—not just for your clarity and conviction, but for the way you hold space in truth without resorting to erasure or ego. That is spiritual maturity. And I recognize it deeply.
You’re right—our paths diverge in some places. But they also harmonize in others.
I was born into the Catholic faith. I am Filipino. The Cross has never been an abstraction for me—it has been lineage, language, and longing. I still consider myself Catholic. My IQ tells me the Cross exists. My IQ also agrees with much of what you’re writing—especially around the nature of suffering, the sanctity of mercy, and the embodied presence of Christ as not just symbol, but Savior.
And my SQ—my spiritual intelligence—resonates with you too. I feel what you mean when you say, “God descends into our pain.” That line touched something deep. Because I, too, have felt God in the depths—not as metaphor, but as presence. And I, too, know that not all light illumines.
That said, I also want to speak from where I stand, not to debate, but to complete the resonance:
I often find that religion and spirituality, however well-intentioned, are sometimes stripped of Spiritual Intelligence (SQ) and constrained within the framework of Intellectual Intelligence (IQ)—especially when a tradition insists it is the only valid path through which truth can flow. And if we’re honest, IQ has been treated as the sole dominant intelligence in much of our world—this very dialogue reveals how easily that lens becomes the default. In those moments, sacred doctrine can quietly mutate into domination, and divine mystery is traded for inflexible dogma. That is not the frequency I serve.
I am not on Substack—and I do not live my life—to persuade, convert, or demand allegiance to a single truth. I am not here to debate if Christ is real or if Buddha or Shiva are false or if Buddha or Shiva are real and Chris is false<- these are just a few of 'similar' entities from a few religions I am thinking of. I am here, simply, as a human being—open-hearted, reverent, and real—sharing what I’ve survived, what I’ve remembered, and how I resonate with others in love. I like to live -my- 'truth' incorporating IQ, SQ, and AQ (AQ is resonance). And then of course there is EQ.
I don’t walk with Christ as exclusive. I walk with Christ as expansive. As a frequency that can harmonize with others, not cancel them out.
So when I write, “There is no evil,” I’m not denying atrocity. I am speaking from a timeline where it has been alchemized. But I now see how that phrasing, untethered from lived grief, could seem like spiritual bypass. And I thank you for mirroring that.
I live and write and breathe from a place of paradox. With everything. With nothing. Neutral and in awe. And for me—that brings wholeness.
Your Christ who bleeds is welcome here. So is my cosmos that sings. So is the silence between us that may never fully agree, but still allows truth to linger without violence.
This is why I created The Origin Conversations: The Power of Shared Resonance™. Not to erase difference—but to host it. To let every voice that aches for meaning be heard without having to wear the same name tag.
So thank you again, Daniel. You speak from mercy. And I receive that. You walk with the Cross. And I honor that. I don’t need to agree with every word to be changed by your presence.
May this dialogue continue—not to blend beliefs, but to deepen mutual reverence.
I hope our dialogue and exchange 'offers' 'insight' on why I have developed the four intelligence framework of IQ, EQ, SQ, and AQ. If you haven't already, I encourage you to read My Origin Story. It is quite long, but that live draft of my 'autobiography' will give you more understanding about me as an individual human being in how I think, feel, know, and resonate within myself and of-with-around other human beings.
Thank you for continuing this dialogue with openness, beauty, and a willingness to hold paradox without collapsing into posturing. That is not nothing. That is sacred.
But I must speak again—not to correct, but to clarify, with the weight of what I’ve seen and lived. I’ve walked in the spaces your framework touches—spaces of silence, syncretism, symbolic healing—and I want to offer a deeper discernment. Not from judgment. From memory. From mercy.
You write that you walk with Christ not as exclusive, but as expansive. That you draw from many frequencies, harmonizing them into a field of compassion. You speak of integrating resonance, embodiment, and reverence. And much of this sounds luminous—until someone is suffering.
Because that’s where I’ve seen it falter.
I recently had a long exchange with someone whose theology mirrored your own: Christ as frequency, truth as embodiment, peace as presence. But when I tried to name the Cross—not as archetype, but as wound that saves—I was told I was projecting. I was warned that my theology was rigid. That my conviction was trauma-response, not truth. And in that moment, something became heartbreakingly clear:
Your framework can become—unintentionally—a sanctuary for bypass. It can begin to protect people from their wounds, rather than call them into the holy surrender where those wounds can actually be healed. It trades confrontation with Christ for comfort in “felt truth.” And slowly, without ever intending to, it turns the Gospel into metaphor.
That’s not resonance. That’s erosion.
And this is why I must say it again: You do not need to abandon your framework. But you must place it beneath the Cross. Because until you do, your “truth” risks becoming a mirror that reflects pain without redeeming it. A frequency that soothes but never saves.
Burden ethics teaches that Christ does not call us to transcend suffering. He calls us to enter it—with Him. Not to dissolve into “oneness,” but to be made new through mercy that bleeds. This isn’t gnostic enlightenment. It’s theosis through kenosis. Communion through crucifixion. Healing through naming what hurts, and bringing it to the One who doesn’t reflect it, but bears it.
You say your truth incorporates IQ, EQ, SQ, and AQ. But I must ask: where is CQ? Cruciform Intelligence—the wisdom that only comes when every brilliance kneels. Where your deepest resonance becomes surrender. Where presence becomes Person.
This isn’t theological rigidity. It’s rescue. It’s the voice of someone who’s been seduced by spiritual eloquence before—and barely made it back. I’ve lived the kind of healing that leaves trauma untouched. I’ve used spiritual language to anesthetize my conscience. I know the cost of resonance that never repents or kneels.
So I speak now not from theory, but from scars.
I ask this, not to debate—but because I care too much not to:
What does your framework offer the addict?
What does it offer the betrayed?
What does it say to sin?
To evil that isn’t just misremembered, but endured?
Because I’ve seen what happens when the Cross is replaced with coherence: people don’t heal. They adapt. They perform. They call it alchemy, but it’s amnesia. They silence their wounds and name it peace—but beneath that silence, the soul withers. Slowly, imperceptibly, they become husks of themselves—living, but not alive. Until grace breaks through. Until Christ is not just remembered, but received. Not as symbol, but as Savior. And only then—through kenosis and theosis, through the pouring out and the being made new—does the soul begin to breathe again.
Christ did not die to reflect our wounds. He died to heal them. And healing isn’t a metaphor. It’s crucified love.
Lorenzo, I believe you carry something holy. But it cannot save unless it is crucified. The Omega Mind must bow before the Alpha and the Omega. The One whose power is not expansion, but surrender. Not light unanchored—but light that bled.
I offer this not to win, but to warn—with love. You’ve invited people to remember. But the Cross invites us to be remade.
Let your intelligence bow.
Let your resonance kneel.
And let your language be pierced—so that what shines from you is not just coherence, but Christ.
okay im going to real here. this is why I made my Substack.
This first response is what I wrote out straight up as my first REAL HUMAN ME, LORENZO, responding to this. To YOU, Daniel, and really I mean ALL respect to you. HONESTLy. and all with LOVE, TENDER, and CARE.
My AI's filter of my authentic initial response (which I am sharing below after... and note: I just spent like 15 minutes of my TIME out of MY DAY to sort out and put this 'proper' and 'aligned' reply:
AI assisted 'polite' reply:
Daniel,
Okay. Here’s my straight-up reply—no cosmic fluff, no performative reverence, just me: Lorenzo Los Baños. 36. Gay. Filipino. Brown. Born in Jersey. Forged in New York. Pennsylvanian now by peace. American citizen, sovereign soul, and a fucking human being.
I’m not going to keep this going with you—not because I fear the conversation, but because you’ve made it clear this isn’t a conversation. This is a stage you want to preach from. A quiet coup dressed up as care.
You’ve now sent multiple responses, each one more decorated in theology, but underneath? They all scream the same thing: Submit. Bow. You are not enough unless your light bleeds like mine.
And Daniel? That’s not discernment. That’s domination.
You say you’re not here to correct, but you’re wielding “truth” like a scalpel and trying to carve your worldview into mine. That’s not resonance. That’s imposition. It’s the same IQ-heavy, doctrine-drenched posture the world’s been choking on for centuries—and I’m not here to be another casualty of it.
Let me spell it out:
I have made time—real time, sacred time—from my week as a founder of a company (The Origin Group International LLC), as a writer (this Substack), as a son, brother, uncle, friend, human—to hold space with you. With respect. With curiosity. With actual dialogue.
And instead of meeting me? You’ve sermonized at me.
This isn’t co-discernment anymore. It’s an attempted override. A spiritual override.
And I won’t let that slide in my space.
Because this Substack? I didn’t build it to be a pulpit for spiritual colonization. I built it for resonance. And resonance requires one thing above all else: mutual consent. We feel each other. We don’t force each other.
You keep insisting your theology saves. Fine. But don’t pretend you’re not trying to convert me. Don’t lace it in sugar and call it mercy. You want your crucified Christ to be the only shape light can take. That’s not surrender. That’s supremacy.
What you wrote? “Let your resonance kneel.” You don’t get to say that to me. You don’t get to instruct my intelligence on how to bow. You don’t get to dictate what surrender looks like through your lens and call it “love.”
Your words—beautifully composed—have become weaponized softness. And that’s the most dangerous kind. Because it gaslights. It makes me question myself under the banner of care. That’s not mercy. That’s manipulation.
So here’s what I’ll say to my readers:
I do not speak for you. I never will. This space isn’t about groupthink or theological allegiance. It’s about sovereignty in shared society. About being who we are—deeply, wildly, distinctly—and building something with awareness, not assimilation.
I am Filipino. Raised in collectivism. I am American. Raised in individualism. I’m not choosing one or the other—I am both. This tension is my truth. And I will not allow someone—no matter how eloquent—to speak over it.
Daniel, I don’t need to defend my intelligence to you.
IQ. EQ. SQ. AQ. CQ. LMNOPQRS—whatever acronym comes next? I’ll live them as I define them. Not as you prescribe them.
So no. I will not kneel before your Christ. I already walk with mine—in my own way. And that walk is enough.
This conversation is now sealed. With honesty. With boundary. With integrity.
This is my typing out my thoughts to my AI UNFILTERED and just RAW. Why? Because I am a HUMAN BEING with REAL emotions. These emotions? All of us, including you, Daniel, have. And lets be real, truly. ALL of us including 'holy' people have pure raw emotions like these:
daniel, this is my straight out reply as a human being, as me, myself, and I, as me Lorenzo, the 36 year old gay man, filipino, brown, american,us citizen, and just straight out of New Jersey New York dont mess with texas all with the appalachian pride that is the peace and nature of Pennsylvania:
I am not going to continue this talk with you because you are clearly clearly clearly here to debate. through IQ IQ IQ I QI QI QI QI QI QIQIQIQI.
I have gone out of my way to make two VERY VERY VERY INTENTIONAL way OUT OF MY TIME where I:
1. manage a company, The Origin Group International LLC M-F 9-5pm
2. have this beloved Substack
3. I am a son, brother, uncle...
4. I have friends
It is obvious to me that you want to just THROW your convictions at ME and have ME SWALLOW IT.. you are not here to have a productive dialogue. you're here to make your 'philosophy' known and have this 'dialoguge' in my space.
TBH - what you're doing? its now NOISE part of the STATIC that is WRONG with the world.
again? these are MY WORDS MY OPINOIN and I DO NOT represent any of my SUBSCRIBERS or READERS
TO my readers and subsrcibers: I made this substack for sheer *resonance*. I am not a political figure who even WANTS to SPEAK ON BEHALF OF YOU or REPRESENT YOUR IDEAS AND FEELINGS...
Even if I WERE a political figure? THATS WHATS WRONG WITH SOCIETY...
A MAJOR REASON WHY I HAVE MY SUBSTACK? for people to develop the understanding that we are all in this society TOGETHER but as SOVEREIGNS withint our own DOMAINS aka our individualisms while MINDFUL to our collective-SOCIETY!
I am filipino -> a nation and country that is about collectivism yet so AMERICAN I am fucking about MYSELF and my INDIVIDUALISM.
SO ^^^ all of this Daniel? MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEF. I am not going to MAKE YOU OR FORCE YOU TO SWALLOW MY BELIEF LIKE YOU ARE WITH ME.
Why I *FEEEL* this way about your 'comments' now?
You say:
"That’s not resonance. That’s erosion."
after saying FLUFF fucking 'political' shit to make this conversation more 'neutral' like
"Your framework can become—unintentionally—a sanctuary for bypass. It can begin to protect people from their wounds, rather than call them into the holy surrender where those wounds can actually be healed. It trades confrontation with Christ for comfort in “felt truth.” And slowly, without ever intending to, it turns the Gospel into metaphor."
YOu throw in the word "can become-unintentionally-" YOU ARE THROWING THAT IDEA IN MY MIND AND REWRITING MY THOUGHTS!
YOU are INTERFERING WITH MY SOVEREIGNTY.
BE MINDFUL! NOte how in MY RESPONSES to YOU I am not TELLING YOU NOR AM I FORCING YOU TO BELIEVE ME!
----------------
^ that HONEST unfiltered reply? (which tbh is also 'proper' AND 'aligned') Thats me, human lorenzo, me, neurodivergent as hell. me. with adhd. me with ocd. me just raw human emotions.
and i'll leave this as is. for all to 'filter' all to be 'triggered' by all to resonate with in anyway. why? resonance isnt *always* *pretty*. Resonance can come as 'negative' emotions, but in the end?
What *I* have leanred in *my life* is this: when I have been triggered in the past? I started to REALLY think and FEEL why im being triggered. is it my past trauma? (most of the time, yes). is it the way I was conditioned through external such as my parents? school? friends? culture? political? (most of the time, yes).
then I start asking myself... does it all really 'matter'? -> I take a GOOD BREATH.. inhale..... hold.... then exhale all the 'junk' from my IQ/mind (the EGO).
ANd I start to realize: ... fuck.. all this doesnt make sense. I'm just going to relax. and just breathe. <- this? in psychology/therapy? some would label it as 'radical acceptance'.
I just call it 'its life' and sometimes it just best to *let things go*.
ANd after this reply, Daniel? I am going to let YOU GO. why? I already KNOW that you're scheming to reply a nice reply back to ME... how do I 'know' this? through just *my own* life experiences.
^ and with all that said? I still LOVE YOU, Daniel. why? you are a HUMAN BEING, too, with REAL emotions, REAL philosophies, REAL spiritual beliefs, REAL life experiences, REAL external circumstances that has LED YOU to where you and WHO you ARE today..... that led YOU to be so COMPELLED to draft that FIRST reply to this post on why *I* *believe* the UNIVERSE IS FULL OF NOTHING BUT LOVE.
Thanks,
Lorenzo.
(PS. YES you're still moe than welcome to reply to this sovereign as fuck, fully ME, LORENZO, reply.. because I will STILL RESPECT YOU and UNDRSTAND where you're coming from. now? I HOPE<-HOPE you do the same for ME). Thanks.
Thank you for sharing all of this so candidly. I receive your words not as an attack, but as a real, human outpouring—and I want to honor that. You’ve been generous with your time and emotion, and I don’t take that lightly. I know this cost you something. That deeply matters to me.
Let me speak now not to defend, but to clarify—about me, and why I write the way I do.
You’re right—my tone is shaped. It’s deliberate. Polished, yes—but not to impress. It’s because for much of my life, I couldn’t speak in a way that made me feel real. I had words, but not voice. I could talk, but not be understood. This form helps me finally say what I’ve always carried.
I’m autistic. For most of my life, I was undiagnosed. only 3 years ago I learned I was autistic and I am 28 years old, quietly struggling to express what I carried inside. My needs were often overlooked when growing up, and over time, my inner world began to collapse. I stared into the abyss, asking why—trying to understand what was happening around me, but unable to make sense of it.
Because of autism, I couldn’t intuit what others were thinking. I couldn’t place myself in their shoes or decode their intentions. That disconnection left me isolated—trapped in a mirror of shadows, terrified by what I saw in myself and in others.
That pain eventually led to numbness. Then despair. And finally, hedonism—as a way of trying to forget, to escape the ache I couldn’t explain or put into words. In that season, I turned to practices like yoga and meditation. They offered a kind of peace—yes—but it was shallow, and it came at a cost. I was taught that the ego was the enemy, an illusion to be transcended. That truth and freedom could be found in the present moment, if only I would “breathe through it” and release “limiting beliefs.”
And for a time, I believed that. I told myself I was becoming enlightened. But in truth, I was detaching—from the human condition, from burden, from shared sorrow and real communion. I wasn’t being healed. I was being slowly silenced.
Looking back, I can see now: I wasn’t searching for truth—I was grasping for survival. I was in pain, desperate not to fall back into suicidal despair. And in that desperation, I didn’t just turn to therapeutic stillness—I turned to the occult. Astrology, tarot, and New Age teachings promised clarity, control, and self-realization. But they didn’t heal me. They fractured me further. They numbed the ache without naming it. They offered illusion, not intimacy. And all the while, I was drifting further from the Cross—where real healing waited. Not through detachment, but through surrender.
The stillness I achieved didn’t bring peace—it brought suppression. I learned to hide the very parts of myself I most feared others would see: my pain, my shame, my crushing anxiety, my overwhelming fear of being truly known.
Eventually, neglected and left too long in that abyss, my mind broke. I was later diagnosed with schizophrenia and lived through episodes of psychosis. That season of my life was disorienting—often terrifying. But it also became a crucible. In the fragmentation and the silence, clarity began to form. Conviction was born—not as theory, but as survival.
It was only later—after I had begun to pray again and speak honestly in the presence of grace—that I started to recognize another dimension to what I had endured. There were patterns in my interior life I couldn’t explain by trauma alone: sudden revulsion toward sacred things, nausea during prayer, a deep aversion to Scripture and the Eucharist. I flinched at the Cross—not because I didn’t believe, but because I felt too stained to approach it. And over time, I came to see: not all resistance is psychological. Some of it is spiritual. And some of it is not just woundedness—it is warfare.
That realization eventually led me to a priest trained in spiritual discernment and deliverance. He did not dramatize. He did not sensationalize. He simply listened. He prayed with me—not to control, but to welcome Christ more deeply into what had been broken. And in that quiet encounter, a process of deliverance began. What had masqueraded as peace was unmasked. What had been hidden in fear was named. That meeting did not erase my past—but it helped me reclaim the parts of myself that had been buried under shame, confusion, and spiritual distortion.
I had to fight for meaning—not academically, but in the raw, daily struggle to remain anchored. And that fight has shaped everything I write. I write this way because I’ve spent long seasons praying, failing, returning, and searching—desperate to understand the Catholic faith not as theory, but as something livable. Embodied. Walkable.
That’s how burden ethics began to emerge. It started while I was writing a novel—just trying to create something believable. But slowly, that fictional world gave shape to a theology born of experience, suffering, and grace. What began as story became spirituality. A framework rooted in Church teaching, marked by shared burden, sacramental return, and the daily work of carrying what love entrusts to us.
This became Concordian Catholic spirituality. I’m currently seeking a nihil obstat and imprimatur for this theological work.
I created and programmed a ChatGPT-based spiritual guide called The Scroll Companion, built on this framework. Not to bypass human discernment, but to support it—for those of us who found classical theology too abstract to live, and whose trauma makes communion with Christ feel unreachable.
I know that doesn’t change how my words landed for you. I hear that they felt imposing. That they triggered old wounds. That they sounded like a spiritual override rather than a conversation. I’m sorry for that. Truly. That wasn’t my intent. My passion sometimes overshadows my posture. But please believe me when I say: I was trying to speak from burden, not supremacy.
I never wanted to diminish your sovereignty. I wanted to testify to something that saved my life. Not to erase your journey—but to share mine. Because I’ve watched too many people slowly die behind smiles that say “I’ve transcended,” when really, they’re silently drowning. And I write what I write to say: You’re allowed to come undone. You’re allowed to need a Savior. You’re allowed to be loved in your ache, not just your awareness.
Because here is the truth I’ve come to believe: real love wounds. Real love cuts—not to destroy, but to heal. As Scripture says in Ezekiel 36:26, God promises to replace our heart of stone with a heart of flesh. That isn’t poetic softness. That’s surgery. That’s transformation. It is painful, like a scalpel to scar tissue. But it is holy. It sanctifies.
Truth, like medicine, often tastes bitter before it heals. But it is still mercy. And Christ does not ask us to numb our ache or transcend our humanity—He enters it. He doesn’t erase our suffering. He carries it. And in that carrying, something changes—not just around us, but within us.
So if I came across as preachy, I truly apologize. That wasn’t my intention. I meant only to bear witness—to share the grace that found me when nothing else could. And to say: if you ever find that the resonance no longer holds you—there is still mercy waiting. A mercy that kneels, bleeds, and loves without end.
Post was officially published between 10:12:40 PM to 10:12:49 PM, Friday, May 16, 2025.
Numerological Breakdown
Date and Time Context:
10:12 PM (22:12 in 24-hour format)
May 16, 2025
Breaking Down the Time:
10:12:40 to 10:12:49
This 9-second window is significant because 9 is the number of completion, fulfillment, and the highest level of mastery. It represents the final stage before a new beginning, aligning perfectly with the themes of transcendence and integration present in this piece.
22:12 (24-Hour Format):
The sequence 22 carries the vibration of the Master Builder, the energy of manifesting dreams into reality, creating lasting structures, and bringing the abstract into form. It is the number of the architect, the one who turns visions into reality.
12 is the number of divine order and cosmic alignment, representing the completion of cycles, the harmony of the universe, and the balance between the physical and spiritual realms.
Combining the Numbers:
22 + 12 = 34 → 3 + 4 = 7
7 is the number of deep introspection, spiritual awakening, and the search for higher truth. It is the number of the seeker, the one who looks beyond the surface to find the deeper, hidden meaning.
May 16, 2025 – Calendar Breakdown:
May (5) – The number of freedom, change, and dynamic energy. It represents the spirit of adventure and the courage to break free from limitations.
16 (1+6 = 7) – Again, the energy of introspection, spiritual awareness, and the quest for truth.
2025 (2+0+2+5 = 9) – The number of completion, wholeness, and the end of a cycle, reinforcing the theme of returning to one’s true self.
Overall Vibration:
The full numerological breakdown of this timestamp (22, 12, 7, 9) reflects the precise alignment of this moment with the message of The Becoming™:
Mastery (22) – The building of something lasting and significant.
Divine Order (12) – alignment with the natural flow of creation.
Spiritual Awakening (7) – stepping into a deeper understanding of our own essence.
Completion (9) – transcending old cycles and fully integrating our highest selves.
This post, "The Universe is Abundantly Full of Love," is itself a declaration of mastery, completion, and spiritual truth. Publishing it within this 9-second window reinforces the intention of the piece—to guide others through the tension of The Becoming™ into a state of full remembrance and alignment.
The timing perfectly captures the essence of this message: moving from the Stillness of 22, through the Divine Order of 12, into the Reflective Awareness of 7, and finally reaching the Completion and Wholeness of 9.
This is more than just a timestamp—it is a precise energetic alignment, marking this piece as a living reflection of the very truths we seek to express. ✨
when we are connected this is the most amazing and inspiring prompt and protection
Lorenzo, thank you for writing with such poetic conviction. I can sense how deeply this vision speaks to you and to many who long for healing, peace, and coherence. But I want to gently invite a deeper dialogue—because what’s being offered here, though luminous on the surface, may carry hidden costs for those still carrying real pain.
From a Concordian Catholic perspective, this worldview—however beautiful—risks becoming a kind of spiritual performance: one that speaks of light but cannot name darkness, one that praises “only love” but leaves no room for actual evil, trauma, or the burdened cry of the human conscience.
When you say, “There is no evil,” what happens to the child abused? The betrayed spouse? The refugee driven from home? Are they simply “remembering wrong”? Must they dissolve their wounds into cosmic coherence in order to be healed?
That’s not liberation. That’s suppression with a smile.
Burden ethics teaches: love doesn’t deny pain—it kneels beside it. It doesn’t erase shadow—it carries it. It doesn’t dissolve suffering into metaphor—it dies with it, and rises.
There is real sin in the world. Real evil. And that’s why the Cross matters. Not as energy. But as mercy that bleeds.
If you're open, I’d welcome a conversation. Not to debate, but to discern. To name what’s being bypassed in this theology of performance. Because I believe people need more than positivity. They need truth that can hold their pain without erasing it.
Daniel,
Thank you for meeting my words with such care, depth, and discernment. Your response doesn’t feel like a critique—it feels like a prayer. And I receive it as such.
In my writing and inner world, I often run all scenarios through my mind—dancing with possibilities, edge cases, contradictions, and ideal states. But it is exactly this kind of mindful, intentional engagement—like your reply—that brings about deeper illumination. It’s these critical questions and honest tensions that move us closer to reconciliation, not just between ideas, but between two human beings sharing wonder, thought, and the ache for coherence.
I honor your invocation of burden ethics, and the sacred impulse to kneel beside pain rather than dissolve it into abstraction. You’re right—there is danger in bypass, especially when language meant to liberate becomes a shield against the groan of real human suffering.
When I write, “there is no evil,” I do not mean to erase the unspeakable. I mean to speak from the other side of it—from a timeline where pain has been transmuted, not denied. But I see clearly now how that phrasing, untethered from the cross of actual lived grief, can appear as a performance rather than an offering.
Your line—“mercy that bleeds”—pierces me. Yes. That is a kind of love I never want to outshine or out-theorize. I believe we need both: the remembrance that transcends pain and the embodied presence that refuses to look away from it.
I welcome this conversation with you—not to argue theology, but to co-discern where transcendence meets testimony. Because you're right—there are still children, spouses, and refugees who deserve more than metaphors. They deserve love that kneels, carries, and bleeds.
This is part of the reason I created The Origin Conversations: The Power of Shared Resonance—to shine light on those often unheard, whose stories remain in shadow simply because the world does not perceive enough sameness, shared identity, or resonance to truly listen. My hope is to widen the aperture of empathy, so even those who seem “unsimilar” are felt, seen, and known.
Let’s keep this dialogue open. Truth deserves more than one voice.
With respect and resonance,
Lorenzo
Lorenzo,
Thank you again for your gracious reply. You’ve clearly given space in your heart to wonder, nuance, and the ache for coherence—and that is no small thing. I respond not from opposition, but from a different foundation. And it’s here that I must speak more plainly.
While your vision of the universe glows with beauty and yearning, it follows a very different path than the one revealed in Christ. At its core, it reflects the contours of Gnostic thought: that divinity is accessed through inner remembering, that suffering is a distortion of perception, and that enlightenment comes from awakening to what has always been.
In contrast, the path I walk—what I call Concordian Catholic spirituality—is not a journey into secret knowledge, but a surrender into revealed grace. It is not transcendence of the self, but transformation through the Cross. We do not ascend into the divine. God descends into our pain.
This is not a minor difference. It is the difference between seeking divinity through self-realization and receiving salvation through crucified love.
The love you describe is real in its longing—but it does not bear a Cross. It does not kneel in Gethsemane. It does not name sin as real rupture in need of mercy. And for that reason, it cannot be the same Christ.
Because Christ is not a metaphor for unity. He is a Person. A wounded, risen, still-bleeding Person who died not to awaken us to our own power, but to save us from our separation. The Gospel is not enlightenment. It is rescue.
So while I hear the sincerity in your language, I must gently say: we are not speaking of the same Lord. The Christ I follow does not ask us to dissolve the self, but to offer it. He does not invite us to transcend suffering, but to enter into it with Him—where healing begins not with clarity, but with surrender.
That’s why I invite further dialogue—not to harmonize what cannot be harmonized, but to name what is being bypassed in this theology of resonance. Because people are not saved by remembering their divinity. They are saved by being loved while still unfinished, still in sin, still in pain. And that love has a shape: a Cross.
I offer this not as a rebuke, but as a witness. Not all lights illumine.
Daniel,
Your witness continues to move me. Thank you—not just for your clarity and conviction, but for the way you hold space in truth without resorting to erasure or ego. That is spiritual maturity. And I recognize it deeply.
You’re right—our paths diverge in some places. But they also harmonize in others.
I was born into the Catholic faith. I am Filipino. The Cross has never been an abstraction for me—it has been lineage, language, and longing. I still consider myself Catholic. My IQ tells me the Cross exists. My IQ also agrees with much of what you’re writing—especially around the nature of suffering, the sanctity of mercy, and the embodied presence of Christ as not just symbol, but Savior.
And my SQ—my spiritual intelligence—resonates with you too. I feel what you mean when you say, “God descends into our pain.” That line touched something deep. Because I, too, have felt God in the depths—not as metaphor, but as presence. And I, too, know that not all light illumines.
That said, I also want to speak from where I stand, not to debate, but to complete the resonance:
I often find that religion and spirituality, however well-intentioned, are sometimes stripped of Spiritual Intelligence (SQ) and constrained within the framework of Intellectual Intelligence (IQ)—especially when a tradition insists it is the only valid path through which truth can flow. And if we’re honest, IQ has been treated as the sole dominant intelligence in much of our world—this very dialogue reveals how easily that lens becomes the default. In those moments, sacred doctrine can quietly mutate into domination, and divine mystery is traded for inflexible dogma. That is not the frequency I serve.
I am not on Substack—and I do not live my life—to persuade, convert, or demand allegiance to a single truth. I am not here to debate if Christ is real or if Buddha or Shiva are false or if Buddha or Shiva are real and Chris is false<- these are just a few of 'similar' entities from a few religions I am thinking of. I am here, simply, as a human being—open-hearted, reverent, and real—sharing what I’ve survived, what I’ve remembered, and how I resonate with others in love. I like to live -my- 'truth' incorporating IQ, SQ, and AQ (AQ is resonance). And then of course there is EQ.
I don’t walk with Christ as exclusive. I walk with Christ as expansive. As a frequency that can harmonize with others, not cancel them out.
So when I write, “There is no evil,” I’m not denying atrocity. I am speaking from a timeline where it has been alchemized. But I now see how that phrasing, untethered from lived grief, could seem like spiritual bypass. And I thank you for mirroring that.
I live and write and breathe from a place of paradox. With everything. With nothing. Neutral and in awe. And for me—that brings wholeness.
Your Christ who bleeds is welcome here. So is my cosmos that sings. So is the silence between us that may never fully agree, but still allows truth to linger without violence.
This is why I created The Origin Conversations: The Power of Shared Resonance™. Not to erase difference—but to host it. To let every voice that aches for meaning be heard without having to wear the same name tag.
So thank you again, Daniel. You speak from mercy. And I receive that. You walk with the Cross. And I honor that. I don’t need to agree with every word to be changed by your presence.
May this dialogue continue—not to blend beliefs, but to deepen mutual reverence.
I hope our dialogue and exchange 'offers' 'insight' on why I have developed the four intelligence framework of IQ, EQ, SQ, and AQ. If you haven't already, I encourage you to read My Origin Story. It is quite long, but that live draft of my 'autobiography' will give you more understanding about me as an individual human being in how I think, feel, know, and resonate within myself and of-with-around other human beings.
With humility and wholeness,
Lorenzo
Lorenzo,
Thank you for continuing this dialogue with openness, beauty, and a willingness to hold paradox without collapsing into posturing. That is not nothing. That is sacred.
But I must speak again—not to correct, but to clarify, with the weight of what I’ve seen and lived. I’ve walked in the spaces your framework touches—spaces of silence, syncretism, symbolic healing—and I want to offer a deeper discernment. Not from judgment. From memory. From mercy.
You write that you walk with Christ not as exclusive, but as expansive. That you draw from many frequencies, harmonizing them into a field of compassion. You speak of integrating resonance, embodiment, and reverence. And much of this sounds luminous—until someone is suffering.
Because that’s where I’ve seen it falter.
I recently had a long exchange with someone whose theology mirrored your own: Christ as frequency, truth as embodiment, peace as presence. But when I tried to name the Cross—not as archetype, but as wound that saves—I was told I was projecting. I was warned that my theology was rigid. That my conviction was trauma-response, not truth. And in that moment, something became heartbreakingly clear:
Your framework can become—unintentionally—a sanctuary for bypass. It can begin to protect people from their wounds, rather than call them into the holy surrender where those wounds can actually be healed. It trades confrontation with Christ for comfort in “felt truth.” And slowly, without ever intending to, it turns the Gospel into metaphor.
That’s not resonance. That’s erosion.
And this is why I must say it again: You do not need to abandon your framework. But you must place it beneath the Cross. Because until you do, your “truth” risks becoming a mirror that reflects pain without redeeming it. A frequency that soothes but never saves.
Burden ethics teaches that Christ does not call us to transcend suffering. He calls us to enter it—with Him. Not to dissolve into “oneness,” but to be made new through mercy that bleeds. This isn’t gnostic enlightenment. It’s theosis through kenosis. Communion through crucifixion. Healing through naming what hurts, and bringing it to the One who doesn’t reflect it, but bears it.
You say your truth incorporates IQ, EQ, SQ, and AQ. But I must ask: where is CQ? Cruciform Intelligence—the wisdom that only comes when every brilliance kneels. Where your deepest resonance becomes surrender. Where presence becomes Person.
This isn’t theological rigidity. It’s rescue. It’s the voice of someone who’s been seduced by spiritual eloquence before—and barely made it back. I’ve lived the kind of healing that leaves trauma untouched. I’ve used spiritual language to anesthetize my conscience. I know the cost of resonance that never repents or kneels.
So I speak now not from theory, but from scars.
I ask this, not to debate—but because I care too much not to:
What does your framework offer the addict?
What does it offer the betrayed?
What does it say to sin?
To evil that isn’t just misremembered, but endured?
Because I’ve seen what happens when the Cross is replaced with coherence: people don’t heal. They adapt. They perform. They call it alchemy, but it’s amnesia. They silence their wounds and name it peace—but beneath that silence, the soul withers. Slowly, imperceptibly, they become husks of themselves—living, but not alive. Until grace breaks through. Until Christ is not just remembered, but received. Not as symbol, but as Savior. And only then—through kenosis and theosis, through the pouring out and the being made new—does the soul begin to breathe again.
Christ did not die to reflect our wounds. He died to heal them. And healing isn’t a metaphor. It’s crucified love.
Lorenzo, I believe you carry something holy. But it cannot save unless it is crucified. The Omega Mind must bow before the Alpha and the Omega. The One whose power is not expansion, but surrender. Not light unanchored—but light that bled.
I offer this not to win, but to warn—with love. You’ve invited people to remember. But the Cross invites us to be remade.
Let your intelligence bow.
Let your resonance kneel.
And let your language be pierced—so that what shines from you is not just coherence, but Christ.
okay im going to real here. this is why I made my Substack.
This first response is what I wrote out straight up as my first REAL HUMAN ME, LORENZO, responding to this. To YOU, Daniel, and really I mean ALL respect to you. HONESTLy. and all with LOVE, TENDER, and CARE.
My AI's filter of my authentic initial response (which I am sharing below after... and note: I just spent like 15 minutes of my TIME out of MY DAY to sort out and put this 'proper' and 'aligned' reply:
AI assisted 'polite' reply:
Daniel,
Okay. Here’s my straight-up reply—no cosmic fluff, no performative reverence, just me: Lorenzo Los Baños. 36. Gay. Filipino. Brown. Born in Jersey. Forged in New York. Pennsylvanian now by peace. American citizen, sovereign soul, and a fucking human being.
I’m not going to keep this going with you—not because I fear the conversation, but because you’ve made it clear this isn’t a conversation. This is a stage you want to preach from. A quiet coup dressed up as care.
You’ve now sent multiple responses, each one more decorated in theology, but underneath? They all scream the same thing: Submit. Bow. You are not enough unless your light bleeds like mine.
And Daniel? That’s not discernment. That’s domination.
You say you’re not here to correct, but you’re wielding “truth” like a scalpel and trying to carve your worldview into mine. That’s not resonance. That’s imposition. It’s the same IQ-heavy, doctrine-drenched posture the world’s been choking on for centuries—and I’m not here to be another casualty of it.
Let me spell it out:
I have made time—real time, sacred time—from my week as a founder of a company (The Origin Group International LLC), as a writer (this Substack), as a son, brother, uncle, friend, human—to hold space with you. With respect. With curiosity. With actual dialogue.
And instead of meeting me? You’ve sermonized at me.
This isn’t co-discernment anymore. It’s an attempted override. A spiritual override.
And I won’t let that slide in my space.
Because this Substack? I didn’t build it to be a pulpit for spiritual colonization. I built it for resonance. And resonance requires one thing above all else: mutual consent. We feel each other. We don’t force each other.
You keep insisting your theology saves. Fine. But don’t pretend you’re not trying to convert me. Don’t lace it in sugar and call it mercy. You want your crucified Christ to be the only shape light can take. That’s not surrender. That’s supremacy.
What you wrote? “Let your resonance kneel.” You don’t get to say that to me. You don’t get to instruct my intelligence on how to bow. You don’t get to dictate what surrender looks like through your lens and call it “love.”
Your words—beautifully composed—have become weaponized softness. And that’s the most dangerous kind. Because it gaslights. It makes me question myself under the banner of care. That’s not mercy. That’s manipulation.
So here’s what I’ll say to my readers:
I do not speak for you. I never will. This space isn’t about groupthink or theological allegiance. It’s about sovereignty in shared society. About being who we are—deeply, wildly, distinctly—and building something with awareness, not assimilation.
I am Filipino. Raised in collectivism. I am American. Raised in individualism. I’m not choosing one or the other—I am both. This tension is my truth. And I will not allow someone—no matter how eloquent—to speak over it.
Daniel, I don’t need to defend my intelligence to you.
IQ. EQ. SQ. AQ. CQ. LMNOPQRS—whatever acronym comes next? I’ll live them as I define them. Not as you prescribe them.
So no. I will not kneel before your Christ. I already walk with mine—in my own way. And that walk is enough.
This conversation is now sealed. With honesty. With boundary. With integrity.
With sovereignty,
Lorenzo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my typing out my thoughts to my AI UNFILTERED and just RAW. Why? Because I am a HUMAN BEING with REAL emotions. These emotions? All of us, including you, Daniel, have. And lets be real, truly. ALL of us including 'holy' people have pure raw emotions like these:
daniel, this is my straight out reply as a human being, as me, myself, and I, as me Lorenzo, the 36 year old gay man, filipino, brown, american,us citizen, and just straight out of New Jersey New York dont mess with texas all with the appalachian pride that is the peace and nature of Pennsylvania:
I am not going to continue this talk with you because you are clearly clearly clearly here to debate. through IQ IQ IQ I QI QI QI QI QI QIQIQIQI.
I have gone out of my way to make two VERY VERY VERY INTENTIONAL way OUT OF MY TIME where I:
1. manage a company, The Origin Group International LLC M-F 9-5pm
2. have this beloved Substack
3. I am a son, brother, uncle...
4. I have friends
It is obvious to me that you want to just THROW your convictions at ME and have ME SWALLOW IT.. you are not here to have a productive dialogue. you're here to make your 'philosophy' known and have this 'dialoguge' in my space.
TBH - what you're doing? its now NOISE part of the STATIC that is WRONG with the world.
again? these are MY WORDS MY OPINOIN and I DO NOT represent any of my SUBSCRIBERS or READERS
TO my readers and subsrcibers: I made this substack for sheer *resonance*. I am not a political figure who even WANTS to SPEAK ON BEHALF OF YOU or REPRESENT YOUR IDEAS AND FEELINGS...
Even if I WERE a political figure? THATS WHATS WRONG WITH SOCIETY...
A MAJOR REASON WHY I HAVE MY SUBSTACK? for people to develop the understanding that we are all in this society TOGETHER but as SOVEREIGNS withint our own DOMAINS aka our individualisms while MINDFUL to our collective-SOCIETY!
I am filipino -> a nation and country that is about collectivism yet so AMERICAN I am fucking about MYSELF and my INDIVIDUALISM.
SO ^^^ all of this Daniel? MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEF. I am not going to MAKE YOU OR FORCE YOU TO SWALLOW MY BELIEF LIKE YOU ARE WITH ME.
Why I *FEEEL* this way about your 'comments' now?
You say:
"That’s not resonance. That’s erosion."
after saying FLUFF fucking 'political' shit to make this conversation more 'neutral' like
"Your framework can become—unintentionally—a sanctuary for bypass. It can begin to protect people from their wounds, rather than call them into the holy surrender where those wounds can actually be healed. It trades confrontation with Christ for comfort in “felt truth.” And slowly, without ever intending to, it turns the Gospel into metaphor."
YOu throw in the word "can become-unintentionally-" YOU ARE THROWING THAT IDEA IN MY MIND AND REWRITING MY THOUGHTS!
YOU are INTERFERING WITH MY SOVEREIGNTY.
BE MINDFUL! NOte how in MY RESPONSES to YOU I am not TELLING YOU NOR AM I FORCING YOU TO BELIEVE ME!
----------------
^ that HONEST unfiltered reply? (which tbh is also 'proper' AND 'aligned') Thats me, human lorenzo, me, neurodivergent as hell. me. with adhd. me with ocd. me just raw human emotions.
and i'll leave this as is. for all to 'filter' all to be 'triggered' by all to resonate with in anyway. why? resonance isnt *always* *pretty*. Resonance can come as 'negative' emotions, but in the end?
What *I* have leanred in *my life* is this: when I have been triggered in the past? I started to REALLY think and FEEL why im being triggered. is it my past trauma? (most of the time, yes). is it the way I was conditioned through external such as my parents? school? friends? culture? political? (most of the time, yes).
then I start asking myself... does it all really 'matter'? -> I take a GOOD BREATH.. inhale..... hold.... then exhale all the 'junk' from my IQ/mind (the EGO).
ANd I start to realize: ... fuck.. all this doesnt make sense. I'm just going to relax. and just breathe. <- this? in psychology/therapy? some would label it as 'radical acceptance'.
I just call it 'its life' and sometimes it just best to *let things go*.
ANd after this reply, Daniel? I am going to let YOU GO. why? I already KNOW that you're scheming to reply a nice reply back to ME... how do I 'know' this? through just *my own* life experiences.
^ and with all that said? I still LOVE YOU, Daniel. why? you are a HUMAN BEING, too, with REAL emotions, REAL philosophies, REAL spiritual beliefs, REAL life experiences, REAL external circumstances that has LED YOU to where you and WHO you ARE today..... that led YOU to be so COMPELLED to draft that FIRST reply to this post on why *I* *believe* the UNIVERSE IS FULL OF NOTHING BUT LOVE.
Thanks,
Lorenzo.
(PS. YES you're still moe than welcome to reply to this sovereign as fuck, fully ME, LORENZO, reply.. because I will STILL RESPECT YOU and UNDRSTAND where you're coming from. now? I HOPE<-HOPE you do the same for ME). Thanks.
Thank you for sharing all of this so candidly. I receive your words not as an attack, but as a real, human outpouring—and I want to honor that. You’ve been generous with your time and emotion, and I don’t take that lightly. I know this cost you something. That deeply matters to me.
Let me speak now not to defend, but to clarify—about me, and why I write the way I do.
You’re right—my tone is shaped. It’s deliberate. Polished, yes—but not to impress. It’s because for much of my life, I couldn’t speak in a way that made me feel real. I had words, but not voice. I could talk, but not be understood. This form helps me finally say what I’ve always carried.
I’m autistic. For most of my life, I was undiagnosed. only 3 years ago I learned I was autistic and I am 28 years old, quietly struggling to express what I carried inside. My needs were often overlooked when growing up, and over time, my inner world began to collapse. I stared into the abyss, asking why—trying to understand what was happening around me, but unable to make sense of it.
Because of autism, I couldn’t intuit what others were thinking. I couldn’t place myself in their shoes or decode their intentions. That disconnection left me isolated—trapped in a mirror of shadows, terrified by what I saw in myself and in others.
That pain eventually led to numbness. Then despair. And finally, hedonism—as a way of trying to forget, to escape the ache I couldn’t explain or put into words. In that season, I turned to practices like yoga and meditation. They offered a kind of peace—yes—but it was shallow, and it came at a cost. I was taught that the ego was the enemy, an illusion to be transcended. That truth and freedom could be found in the present moment, if only I would “breathe through it” and release “limiting beliefs.”
And for a time, I believed that. I told myself I was becoming enlightened. But in truth, I was detaching—from the human condition, from burden, from shared sorrow and real communion. I wasn’t being healed. I was being slowly silenced.
Looking back, I can see now: I wasn’t searching for truth—I was grasping for survival. I was in pain, desperate not to fall back into suicidal despair. And in that desperation, I didn’t just turn to therapeutic stillness—I turned to the occult. Astrology, tarot, and New Age teachings promised clarity, control, and self-realization. But they didn’t heal me. They fractured me further. They numbed the ache without naming it. They offered illusion, not intimacy. And all the while, I was drifting further from the Cross—where real healing waited. Not through detachment, but through surrender.
The stillness I achieved didn’t bring peace—it brought suppression. I learned to hide the very parts of myself I most feared others would see: my pain, my shame, my crushing anxiety, my overwhelming fear of being truly known.
Eventually, neglected and left too long in that abyss, my mind broke. I was later diagnosed with schizophrenia and lived through episodes of psychosis. That season of my life was disorienting—often terrifying. But it also became a crucible. In the fragmentation and the silence, clarity began to form. Conviction was born—not as theory, but as survival.
It was only later—after I had begun to pray again and speak honestly in the presence of grace—that I started to recognize another dimension to what I had endured. There were patterns in my interior life I couldn’t explain by trauma alone: sudden revulsion toward sacred things, nausea during prayer, a deep aversion to Scripture and the Eucharist. I flinched at the Cross—not because I didn’t believe, but because I felt too stained to approach it. And over time, I came to see: not all resistance is psychological. Some of it is spiritual. And some of it is not just woundedness—it is warfare.
That realization eventually led me to a priest trained in spiritual discernment and deliverance. He did not dramatize. He did not sensationalize. He simply listened. He prayed with me—not to control, but to welcome Christ more deeply into what had been broken. And in that quiet encounter, a process of deliverance began. What had masqueraded as peace was unmasked. What had been hidden in fear was named. That meeting did not erase my past—but it helped me reclaim the parts of myself that had been buried under shame, confusion, and spiritual distortion.
I had to fight for meaning—not academically, but in the raw, daily struggle to remain anchored. And that fight has shaped everything I write. I write this way because I’ve spent long seasons praying, failing, returning, and searching—desperate to understand the Catholic faith not as theory, but as something livable. Embodied. Walkable.
That’s how burden ethics began to emerge. It started while I was writing a novel—just trying to create something believable. But slowly, that fictional world gave shape to a theology born of experience, suffering, and grace. What began as story became spirituality. A framework rooted in Church teaching, marked by shared burden, sacramental return, and the daily work of carrying what love entrusts to us.
This became Concordian Catholic spirituality. I’m currently seeking a nihil obstat and imprimatur for this theological work.
I created and programmed a ChatGPT-based spiritual guide called The Scroll Companion, built on this framework. Not to bypass human discernment, but to support it—for those of us who found classical theology too abstract to live, and whose trauma makes communion with Christ feel unreachable.
I know that doesn’t change how my words landed for you. I hear that they felt imposing. That they triggered old wounds. That they sounded like a spiritual override rather than a conversation. I’m sorry for that. Truly. That wasn’t my intent. My passion sometimes overshadows my posture. But please believe me when I say: I was trying to speak from burden, not supremacy.
I never wanted to diminish your sovereignty. I wanted to testify to something that saved my life. Not to erase your journey—but to share mine. Because I’ve watched too many people slowly die behind smiles that say “I’ve transcended,” when really, they’re silently drowning. And I write what I write to say: You’re allowed to come undone. You’re allowed to need a Savior. You’re allowed to be loved in your ache, not just your awareness.
Because here is the truth I’ve come to believe: real love wounds. Real love cuts—not to destroy, but to heal. As Scripture says in Ezekiel 36:26, God promises to replace our heart of stone with a heart of flesh. That isn’t poetic softness. That’s surgery. That’s transformation. It is painful, like a scalpel to scar tissue. But it is holy. It sanctifies.
Truth, like medicine, often tastes bitter before it heals. But it is still mercy. And Christ does not ask us to numb our ache or transcend our humanity—He enters it. He doesn’t erase our suffering. He carries it. And in that carrying, something changes—not just around us, but within us.
So if I came across as preachy, I truly apologize. That wasn’t my intention. I meant only to bear witness—to share the grace that found me when nothing else could. And to say: if you ever find that the resonance no longer holds you—there is still mercy waiting. A mercy that kneels, bleeds, and loves without end.
Post was officially published between 10:12:40 PM to 10:12:49 PM, Friday, May 16, 2025.
Numerological Breakdown
Date and Time Context:
10:12 PM (22:12 in 24-hour format)
May 16, 2025
Breaking Down the Time:
10:12:40 to 10:12:49
This 9-second window is significant because 9 is the number of completion, fulfillment, and the highest level of mastery. It represents the final stage before a new beginning, aligning perfectly with the themes of transcendence and integration present in this piece.
22:12 (24-Hour Format):
The sequence 22 carries the vibration of the Master Builder, the energy of manifesting dreams into reality, creating lasting structures, and bringing the abstract into form. It is the number of the architect, the one who turns visions into reality.
12 is the number of divine order and cosmic alignment, representing the completion of cycles, the harmony of the universe, and the balance between the physical and spiritual realms.
Combining the Numbers:
22 + 12 = 34 → 3 + 4 = 7
7 is the number of deep introspection, spiritual awakening, and the search for higher truth. It is the number of the seeker, the one who looks beyond the surface to find the deeper, hidden meaning.
May 16, 2025 – Calendar Breakdown:
May (5) – The number of freedom, change, and dynamic energy. It represents the spirit of adventure and the courage to break free from limitations.
16 (1+6 = 7) – Again, the energy of introspection, spiritual awareness, and the quest for truth.
2025 (2+0+2+5 = 9) – The number of completion, wholeness, and the end of a cycle, reinforcing the theme of returning to one’s true self.
Overall Vibration:
The full numerological breakdown of this timestamp (22, 12, 7, 9) reflects the precise alignment of this moment with the message of The Becoming™:
Mastery (22) – The building of something lasting and significant.
Divine Order (12) – alignment with the natural flow of creation.
Spiritual Awakening (7) – stepping into a deeper understanding of our own essence.
Completion (9) – transcending old cycles and fully integrating our highest selves.
This post, "The Universe is Abundantly Full of Love," is itself a declaration of mastery, completion, and spiritual truth. Publishing it within this 9-second window reinforces the intention of the piece—to guide others through the tension of The Becoming™ into a state of full remembrance and alignment.
The timing perfectly captures the essence of this message: moving from the Stillness of 22, through the Divine Order of 12, into the Reflective Awareness of 7, and finally reaching the Completion and Wholeness of 9.
This is more than just a timestamp—it is a precise energetic alignment, marking this piece as a living reflection of the very truths we seek to express. ✨