I read about the subject recently(mostly from wikipedia), but I think that it is crazy. Aleister Crowley had his role in it too, I have learned. But I honestly don't think that I would want to go through a series of rituals in order to conceive an incarnation of a deity.
Aleister Crowley was a dying old man in England at the time, he had absolutely nothing to do with it. In a letter to one of his friends (I believe Karl Germer) he clearly calls Parsons an idiot for attempting such a thing- he was doing a ritual based on a work of fiction.
My opinion- a ritual based on imagination, Crowley didn't think it would work. If you read the book of babalon which arose out of it, it is nothing like the book of the Law and even contradicts it in places.
Hubbard was just a con man who swindled parsons out of a wife and money.
Universia it does draw on several days of rituals January 4 1946 to January 18 1946 according to parsons which manefested phenomenon during that time and that was only to get an elemental partner. Hadit93 i had thought this was something from crowleys efforts trying to create a moonchild so out of curiosity whats the work of fiction you mentioned?
This working was based upon Crowley's novel, "Moonchild" originally called "The Butterfly Net". The rites used were probably based off of Crowley's sexual magick techniques, however they were trying to accomplish a feat mentioned only in fiction. The reason people take them seriously is due to Kenneth Grant, but he was a little obsessive and mentally unstable, he most certainly was not a follower of Crowley's brand of Thelema.
Crowley said the following to a letter to Karl Germer (His successor of the OTO) about Jack Parsons and his Babalon working-
"Apparently Parsons or Hubbard or somebody is producing a Moonchild. I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts."
Crowley was getting to the end of his life and was worried his order and his life's work was going to be inherited by a bunch of idiots!
