The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Which side of the Vampire myth do you prefer and why??

What characteristics unite and divide the two perspectives????

How were you introduced to the Vampire myth and why/ how do you relate to it???

Wow, SG88... what far-reaching questions! Love 'em!

Which side of the Vampire myth do I prefer?

Why, the side that most helps to reveal the truth behind the fictions. And some of that is ancient while other aspects are more contemporary... as all truly historical endeavors into myth origins are.

To my view, the only way to accurately investigate Vampirism is to first seek out the origins of the word, itself, so as to best understand what the word meant at the time and place in which it was first coined. Only then can we hope to arrive at the actual traits and other defining characteristics of what the original "Vampire" was. Once this is accomplished, then and only then can we know what to look for in ancient history that meets those same defining characteristics to see how far back in history "Vampires" existed.

I was introduced to the Vampire myth originally through fiction... never knowing just how different fiction was from the actual historical perspective. It wasn't until I began preparing to speak at an international sex research conference in 1996, however, that... while looking for a specific sexual anomaly in ancient Humankind... I came across the initial historical facts that eventually, over the next few years of continued dedicated investigation, resulted in the discoveries that led to the amazing realization of exactly who and what the historical "Vampire" actually was .. and still is.

How I relate to that reality... is well documented in my profile.


- Upir'

I personally prefer the traditional lore, as the Monster while being an entity of remarkable potential, the monster has built-in weaknesses. as opposed to the contemporary vampire that is made to be ambiguously all powerful, so much so that only the once former monster can do battle with said vampire.

" It wasn't until I began preparing to speak at an international sex research conference in 1996, however, that... while looking for a specific sexual anomaly in ancient Humankind... I came across the initial historical facts that eventually, over the next few years of continued dedicated investigation, resulted in the discoveries that led to the amazing realization of exactly who and what the historical "Vampire" actually was .. and still is. "

Can you elaborate more on that??

I found most people that i talk to about this only seem to relate to Vampires in a romantic/ Sexual way. They are the ultimate ideal of a seduction fantasy.

Other than that a lot of people might refer to the power, mystery, intrigue, intelligence, immortality as their main personal connections to the myth but don't know of any origins in regards to it. Or how humans at that time related to the Vampire. Also how society and it's views cause an inevitable evolution to the myth.

When I found Upirs Article, and research I was most compelled to pursue indeed, and it just kept becoming more and more evident, I suspect that Vampire is coming full circle, much to the detriment of those who align themselves with the blood write of Vampire.

im very interested in the ancient "demonic" side of it. doing alot of research on sekmet of late...
most interesting indeed.

~W~

Demonic side? from what I have read and given the correct conditions, it seems human beings can become hosts to something from another plane. Probably entities existing on different frequencies we cannot yet measure, such as dark energy.
Question is who is their boss? Hee hee.

To answer your question, I'd say I'm caught between both. I can elaborate more about that at another time.

But as I was reading your question and some of the replies, I was struck by a strange analogy which is, our modern vampires are now much like bad weather.

We (meaning pop culture) find them exciting and alluring in the same way we do bad weather. It's something 'untamed' and could do us harm when in reality, we're generally much safer and shielded from its effects than our ancestors could have dreamed. (E.G. Imagine Hurricane Katrina's impact 150+ years ago).

So with the venom removed so to speak, we CAN cavort with them rather than fear and be repelled by them.

Justin,

That last bit, is exactly why I sense that the vampire (as originated) has come full circle, yet this time around, society is more uninhibited sexually. Meaning the original, ancient vampire has been leaking into the thrill kill monster that the church so long ago tainted vampire with.

What is actually a good question for another thread is why subcultures got so drawn into the arc-typical vampire to such a degree that they would have others think they are vampire themselves.

Restructuring what I had always thought a vampire was had no personal impact on me. Learning the Origin of the term, and how it was so desperately refaced continues to to become more rational.

Fear, is still a motivating factor, there are those who declare themselves vampires that want others to fear them, their are still others who want others to believe they have overcome their fear, and realized "who/what they are". They need the arc type vampire, or an interpretable variation of an arc typical vampire to maintain the esteem.

I like traditional lore... but there is lore from MANY MANY differnt countries so to say tradition vs modern is a bit open ended as all civilizations have their view of the vampyre... but i do enjoy reading about a time period in East Europe where they held "vampyre trials" in the 1600-1700s.

I agree that the traditional folklore renditions vary from culture to culture, even modern vampire myths do as well. Howver I was primarily focussing on the Western idea of the vampire, as that's what most of the VR community are familiar with it seems.

Very few people seem to go to the origins of a myth. In my opinion I think if you were to go to the very beginning the Vampire's 'story' you would find a much less romantic and mysterious, magnetic creature. It would no longer appeal to the majority of Vampire Fans, and that is why i think most people do not delve deeper and investigate past what they already know, or what is readily available in mass media.

But thats why i like the originals... they were portrayed as monsters... and I am a fan of monsters... They were people that the others did not understand and they feared... and that, I feel was an amazing strength that the vampyre held, then...

Today vampires are associated with romance and seduction when not all vampyres are seductive at all... I know some people who call themselves vampyre who are quite eyesores... I doubt they can ever seduce me or anyone else in that manner...

But if this s the vampire that you like, then so be it... I would rather be feared then flocked by women and girls begging me to bite them... but I've never been one to like so much attention in the first place... But hey... if the old guy wants to seduce you and ur into that... have at it!

To each his own.

I prefer the ancient, though not neccesarily traditional.
The ancient roots of the vampire myths are fine, yet I like to envision them with a different and/or common sense approach. In any case, the older the history, the more cache and mystery.

To me, it does not make sense that a person who is bitten by a vampire becomes one. At that rate, the whole planet would be overrun by vampires (and just plain ol' dead people). Who/what is left to feed upon? Rather, it would make more sense if a person became a vampire by drinking the blood of a vampire (This would keep the numbers down and make vampirism exclusive for the chosen few).
My spin on it anyway.

I would have to say the ancient, I grew up with the old stories and trying to keep up with the modern stories just confuse me.

I am not a fan of the Seduction or mystery of the Myth, more so I am interested in the Evolution of the myth.

Even though it has changed through the years what characterstics about rhe Vampire have persevered throughout literary and mythilogical history??

How much has the myth changed???

Is it just the "villain" aspect of the myth that you identify with from the original folklore, or something else???

What does the modern vampire represent to you OTHER than seduction, sex and ignorance?

The fact that the vampire is an outsider, on the fringes of society. That can be with or without the sex and glamour.

Might I suggest the Vampire of hisory was an outsider of the most extreme kind... but not by choice. And the sexual component existed both historically and in the mythos several centuries and even millennia before fiction falsely added the glamour.

When first the New Testament condemned them and made them outsiders for the first time since they were originally condemned, hunted down and slaughtered in Old Testament times (see the Books of Genesis, Judges, Enoch and Jubilees, to name but a few), they were described therein as "...wandering stars" (Book of Jude 1:13) and all Christian congregations ordered to expell them and keep them outside their communities:

These men are blemishes at your love feasts, feasting with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

- Jude 1:12-13

I prefer the ancient vampires. It`s very simple.They are more closer to the Mystery.
And this for a myth is more important then the sexual component that Upir just emphasis.

The term vampire isn't really that old and in ancient times other names were used for what some identify as vampires now but were goddesses and demons and things identified as of this nature. It is used very loosely. There were sex cults that had blood rituals and the like but it doesn't make them vampires as such. There are a lot of theories and many coming from experts (so-called) degreed as well and none of them agree. A degree doesn't mean that the research someone does isn't fallible.

The ancient Greeks did not believe in vampires yet in their folklore there are those that are identified as vampire-like now or in more modern times. There are far more from what I can tell, werewolf legends and from some of these spring vampire legends. Just because blood drinking is involved doesn't make a person or entity a vampire unless that is your definition of a vampire...something or someone who is a blood drinker. As for the entities possessing someone I have only heard that theory from one person and that is Winged-Wolf and no one believes in that for the most part except her followers. Obviously this idea has been shown in books and movies such as those written by Anne Rice but these are works of fiction.

I was introduced to vampires from watching Vampira on tv in the 50s. I would have been around 7 or so. I didn't go to the library then so I didn't really read that type of book until much later. That is probably the first place I saw Dracula with Bela Lugosi. I felt a affinity and hated when they always killed the vampires and I watched almost every movie made about them except some more recent. Most of the stories are just made up and embellished upon by Hollywood. Most of the folklore is mere superstiton and sketchy at best. It has been passed down and as such it changes and gets exaggerated over time. A lot of the stories come out of India really via the Gypsies (Roma) and spread across Eastern Europe and cultures there added their own twists upon it. Some of it is just from a misunderstanding of the death process and disease.

I like the fact that writers aren't copying each other anymore as they did in Stoker's day and writing things on the fictional vampire that is much more creative. I just wish people would get off the stereotype so they could enjoy when someone comes up with a different idea on the fictional vampire. You have factions that consider them revenants and those that obviously consider them more of a human that has been transformed because there are stories of them mating with non vampires in folklore. They have names for the offspring so where does one start? Most researchers start with their own premise and find things that support whatever they may believe.

I prefer the modern vampire stories, it is now starting to become really interesting with the gamut of types.

I do prefer the Ancient, the one where the Vampire love to hunt for "food". Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the portrait of today Vampire as a Loving creature, but, a real Vampire need blood to survive and the only way to get it is Killing.

(Bows in utmost reverence)

Well I am very thrilled with the case of Lord Byron Byron.

What Azuredark said:

I like the fact that writers aren't copying each other anymore as they did in Stoker's day and writing things on the fictional vampire that is much more creative. I just wish people would get off the stereotype so they could enjoy when someone comes up with a different idea on the fictional vampire.

My sentiments exactly! While I appreciate the tradition, it's nice to see changes/twists made to it.

I share that school of thought as well Isis.

Modern,I was introduced when I started searching about blood suckers.I love the taste of my own blood and it just got me wondering...

The only problem with this trend is that now almost every author seems to try to deliberately make ever-increasingly greater changes to what is the "Vampire."

Within a few decades, given the frequency of changes being made with each new re-definition by each new author trying to set his/her mark on the "Vampire" legend, will we even recognize him anymore? So, no, I don't feel that constantly re-inventing the vampire each time a new book or movie or cable-tv series comes out is such a good thing. Already we have vampires with Swiss Army knife-style snap-and-click fangs (TrueBlood) and sparkly-in-the-sun skin (Twilight). What's next? What will we find in 10 years... in 20? Will we even recognize the "Vampire" then?

Before, authors created their "Vampires" in accordance to a large degree with the traditional views and definitions of what the "Vampire" was. However with this latest glut of new vampire fictions, authors seem to go out of their way now to change some core aspect of the "Vampire" legend, to claim that change as their own, and thereby attempt to rise above all the other authors out there given the current unprecedented popularity of vampire fiction. And I, for one, do not like this trend or where it is headed. But... that's just me.


- Upir'

Dread.. Dread the day those who today seek to amend what a Vampire is based on collective sources, and interjection.. the "We are just like everyone else" vampires, Imagine when screen plays are adapted from that lot.

True, Upir. Going off in any extreme does leave one wondering what a vampire is or isn't; many of the modern interpretations are absolutely ridiculous.
For me, sticking to the old lore on vampires gives a story more weight while creating whatever new slants
one has in mind.
My opinion, anyway.

I have a Sci-fi Vamp-ish Character in one of my scratch tales. But I wouldn't develop the character to be arc type vampire.

I was never into the whole vampire thing honestly until i had a certain dream encounter which sparked my interest into finding out more. I have learned a lot over the years because of it. I have been learning more about why people pin the ancient old gods such as Set and Anubis as possible reasons for how vampyrs came into existance. So for now, my interests lie there. :)

It is interesting how things have changed and evolved over the generations. There was a time that vampires were simply restless souls who were ostrized from society and buried in "unhollow" ground. Where it was not the body that left the grave but it was the soul that would exit and feed on victims and then bring the sustance back to allow the body to remain strong. It developed into where the whole body would rise from the grave and then return shortly before dawn. And as the views of vampires evolved so did the way they took their victims blood and the power and sensuality of the vampire developed and has became the fantisity of many. I am one that believes that there is shredd of truth in every myth, which many would call me naive for. But just as religons have lived and died through the ages, entities have grown and developed as well. While society woul like to say that it has evolved from the fears of later generations, it is not true. If there was a vampire or werewolf that would show their true side, there would be fear across society. When society fears what it does not truely understand it tends to terminate those that do not fully conform.

I wouldnt say that the vampire has evolved from the 'fears of past generations' but more so the myth has become more of a reflection of the changes in society.

For many the vampiric myth told in story form or as a movie or even legend.. is away of escaping. Maybe it's a way to escape the fears of their own inadequecies, as more modern vampires tend to be such idealic characters.

In the past they were maybe blamed for unknown deseases spreading throughout villages.

Even in carmilla, there is an explicit theme of sexuality. Carmilla falls for Laura and slowly drains out Laura's blood, hoping that she will agree to be with her. But the men see this as a sickness and vanquish the evil inductions of Laura's awakening sexuality.

I think the Vampire myth is really just something we project every day fears and uncertainties onto.

I think the beauty of vampire mythos lies in it's immortality, much like vampires themselves. Legends repeat themselves, change with every retelling, inspire new and original stories and characters.

I was really introduced to the romanticized vampire by Anne Rice was I was about 14. Probably the same way alot of people here were. I think they're very much a symbol of the mystery and animalistic primalism we see in ourselves. They're very much the distilled essence of beautiful darkness.

The vampire as depicted in the 19th century fictional works are based on little research. However they remain as most peoples concept of vampires today. Would anyone even know about vampires if they were not the subject matter of fiction? Perhaps those who are scholars, and would be scholars, may have a research project going on the ancient myths of the Balkans and Eastern Europe in regard to the "undead", but "Dracula" would have never become the seminal vampire of the genre.
I prefer the vampires of the 20th and 21st century. It is a literary manouver to
present characters who may readers feel akin to them. Since the publication of "Interview with a Vampire" the fictional undead have become a growth industry of literature. And the jump to prime time television has exponentionaly increased the interest in vampires. The actors in the most watched TV show of the times appear on the cover of Rolling Stone, beautiful and naked. I believe that Charlaine Harris never imagined her characters would transition from the pages of her Sookie Stackhouse novels to become among the most celebated vampires of modern times.

Don't Shoot the Messenger,The Ancient:
The Royal Austrian Scwartzenburg family rejected Eleonore as she drank wolves milk and kept wolves at her castle, she resided in Bohemia (hence Bohemian practices).
Shew was known to be heavily involved in witchcraft.
Then she became pale and ill and was given 2000 Gilders a month to live on; Rumours said she had been turned.
When she died 5 doctors (including Van Sweden)performed the autopsy to find the cause of death.They said it was Cancer of the Ovary.
Her will was altered the week before her death so she was the only Royal NOT to be buried in the Austrian capital.
They found the fees paid to the Doctors for the Post Mortem 140, thousand gilders....way too much for such a simple procedure that was 1/4 million each.
They have now opened her tomb and she WAS given a full vampire burial held in brick tomb with a large stone upon her severed body under soil that had been blessed.
Clearly the authorities and Royals were worried about something so they quite literally covered it up.
It would have been very bad P.R. if a Royal could be turned. Hence the Silence not so easy nowadays;Mwauhahahahhaaa....

I prefer the ancient because it is less bollywooded up and there were no misforgivings with that. In the modern they have prettied every thing up to make it not so scary.

I perfer the historical facts of ancient civilizations, especially "The Order of Aset Ka".

Can you elborate on "The Order of Aset Ka." ???

"The Kemetic Order of Aset Ka is a spiritual society and metaphysical order of mysteries that was founded in Kemet by Her Highness Aset, during a time the ancients know as the Sep Tepy. The word Kemet means Black Land in Ancient Egyptian, referring to the lands of the Asetian Empire in the shores of the Nile; while Sep Tepy means First Time, a Kemetic terminology to the golden era of the Gods, an ancient primordial timeframe that predates Dynastic Egypt."

From the following link:

http://www.asetka.org/order.shtml

Apparently, "Aset" is the more ancient name of the Egyptian goddess "Isis." Thus... whoever Luis Marques is has decided to name his modern "Asetian Bible" and this "Kemitic Order" after her.

This, of course, doesn't change the fact that Luis Marques admits to writing this "bible" himself "...from scratch" in 2007, thus making it no more ancient than would anyone else's "bible" written "...from scratch" in modern times.


- Upir'

Your words will suffice, "With granted access to the classified texts, inner knowledge and practices, internal to the Order of Aset Ka, Luis Marques developed this book from scratch..."

Luis Marques is merely translating what has already been established.

~Doru~

Established by whom, Doru? By what actual evidences? Again... what is the provenance of Mr. Marques' 21st Century claims of ancient knowledge and wisdom that only he has written about?

Ancient Egyptians.

And how do you know that, Doru? That remains my question to you.

As Mr. Marques states in his own words that his "Asetian Bible" was written "...from scratch" by himself, alone, we only have his word that he somehow acquired ancient Egyptian texts and/or knowledge not evident anywhere else in the archaeological record.

So... as he has admitted all of the above... how is it that you know all of this came, instead, from "Ancient Egyptians"?

Because he said so?

Ancient people did write text to record history. Not every ancient text is available for inspection, nor should it be. Do you understand ancient egyptian writtings Upir?

Sacred literature

"Even though most of the order's own documents are inaccesible to general public, was adopted the Egyptian Book of the Dead (The Book of Going Forth by Day, ancient Egyptian text from the Papyrus of Ani) as their ancient sacred literature.
Being also used Aleister Crowley's Book of the Law - Liber AL vel Legis - as part of the order's liturgy, among other occult texts.

Many of the Aset Ka's spiritual advance is accomplished through the study of occult arts, philosophy and psychology, as well as comparative religious study, so literature represents a central backbone for the initiate. The knowledge and culture are essential aspects for an Aset Ka member, who is expected to be able to talk and discuss with anyone, virtually any subject."

From the following link:

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/a/as/aset_ka.htm

No, Doru, I do not read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs nor do I read Demotic or Coptic.

Does Luis Marques?

I am waiting for my copy to arrive so I can research what is in the Asetian Bible. I cannot say what he can or cannot do because I am not him. That question will have to be addressed to the proper individual.

Mr. Marques is not the founder of the group, he is only a member and has written the Asetain Bible under the direction of the Order of Aset Ka.

"After millennia of elitist secrecy, a tradition old as time itself, built before the very foundations of mankind, escapes the void of eternity to be seen throughout the mist. The first dark mystical path in history, a profound system of predatory spirituality, Asetianism echoes the saga of the first-born vampires, the immortal Children of the Gods. After wars of ancient empires, quests from the priests of old and long researches from uncountable watchers over the centuries, the holy knowledge of Egypt is now revealed within the cryptic Asetian theology in a volume of sacred words."

From the following link:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Asetian-Bible/Luis-Marques/e/9789899569409

"International author Luis Marques, one of the world's leading specialists in Asetian spirituality, is a renowned expert in metaphysics, vampirism and Ancient Egyptian knowledge within the Order of Aset Ka. This work, developed between Portugal and Egypt, was finished in 2007 as a result from years of research, experience and growth.
With granted access to the classified texts, inner knowledge and practices, internal to the Order of Aset Ka, Luis Marques developed this book from scratch in a way to be accessible for the general public, presenting a solid reference on vampirism, Kemetic spirituality and magick. An authority in religion and ancient symbolism, the author presents us with the inner secrets of the Elders hidden behind the beauty of his words and cryptically inspiring text..."

From the following link:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Asetian-Bible/Luis-Marques/e/9789899569409#TABS

Doru... why would you purchase a book from an unknown author with unknown (if any) credentials claiming to possess "ancient" Egyptian documents from unknown provenance with unknown information kept hidden away from anyone able to verify their authenticity?! Why would you also pay over $25 for it, as well? (It is only available through Barnes & Noble at that price given that Amazon has already discontinued it.)

When I finish my book ... that I'll call the "Anunnaki Bible" written from ancient Sumerian texts only I possess and won't reveal to anyone else outside the "order" I have created... you gonna buy my book, too so as to "research" it?

Or would you be smart enough to realize that if I won't divulge my sources, my bonafides, my experience and education or anything else that helps to validate my claims or that of my book... I'm far too likely to be just another charlatan trying to make a buck on the same recycled regurgitated occultic schlock that "Luis Marques" is?


- Upir'

Upir,

I purchase many books to do research. Some are worthy and others just take up space in my library. If you write a book that inspires my interests, I would buy the book. Not everything is life can be grand and exciting, yet that is what keeps me researching, the thought of the next answer.

~Doru~

My point was not to question how you spend your money, of course. My point was to ask why you defend this Luis Marques, as man who only has his own marketing copy (as already pasted in a few of your previous entries here) about himself as credentials, and his (yes... his) website?

A whois search on asetka.org reveals that it is based in Porto, Portugal where both Luis Marques and Tania Fonseca, the co-author of the only other book he has written, "Kemet-The Year of Revelation" (a book of photography, btw), both live.

These two books are the only online references that can be found for "Luis Marques," despite his vaunted claims to being "...a renowned expert in Metaphysics and Ancient Egyptian knowledge..."

If this is the best that "Aset Ka" can come up with, why is it you believe so completely in this particular website's views on what they call "Ancient" Vampirism... even before having received and read their "Asetian Bible"?

I guess what I'm asking is: As neither Marques nor Fonseca bother to list any credentials or provide any provenance for their "Bible" and have only one previous book on photography to their names... what is it about their philosophy or their views that has you already so "sold" (literally and otherwise) on their views and interpretations?


- Upir'

Upir, I am not defending anyone, especially since I have not fully researched everything, yet I am not as cynical as you seem to be. The Kemetic Order of Aset Ka has ancient roots that warrant further examination.

It is not being cynical to ask for evidence, which is all I have asked for... and shall again:

What has you stating that Mr. Marques' interpretations are ancient in origin?

Many individuals have written reviews and have recommended the book. Therefore, that is enough for me to want to further research the book.

Of course, good reviews are wonderful and certainly help all of us better choose which books or other products and services to try. And I certainly can appreciate and understand your interest in Mr. Marques' book from that standpoint.

I hope for your part that you might understand that It was to your expressed strong conviction that Mr. Marques' words and "Order" were absolutely of ancient origin that I responded and asked for evidence supporting same.

Thank you for clarifying that it was not from actual evidences but instead from others' opinions that you arrived at such expressed certainty.


- Upir'

Do not try to put words in my mouth. I have stated nothing with certainty, only interest in the Asetian Bible and The Kemetic Order of the Aset Ka.

Further, Luis Marques (John Hopkins University) has two Co-Authors: Eva de Fancisco (Towson University - Baltimore Hebrew University) and Rui Albuquerque (University of de Evora). Therefore, their education with the reviews has me believing their crediblilty and has spawned my interest.

My book has just arrived. Soon I will be able to judge for myself.

Doru - Do not try to put words in my mouth. I have stated nothing with certainty, only interest in the Asetian Bible and The Kemetic Order of the Aset Ka.


Here are your words, Doru, as spoken verbatim by you throughout this thread and as found above in it:

Doru - I perfer the historical facts of ancient civilizations, especially "The Order of Aset Ka".

Doru - Luis Marques is merely translating what has already been established.

When I then asked, "Established by whom?" you replied: Ancient Egyptians.

This is stating with certainty that Marques is, indeed, "translating" "the historical facts of ancient civilizations" as "already...established" by "Ancient Egyptians." And it was only to such declared "certainty" that I responded.

And you're welcome for all the online work I performed on your behalf to reveal this man's lie to being "renowned" as well as his complete lack of bonafides or past publications so as to assist you in not being further deceived by him.


- Upir'

Doru, Barnes & Noble lists only one author for the "Asetian Bible"... as also does the book cover, itself (as found at Barnes & Noble's website), on which only Luis Marques' name appears. As nothing online lists any such pretended credentials for this Luis Marques or the other two people you claim as co-authors, could you please provide what, if any, actual information is found ... or, rather, claimed... in the book, itself for him and his "co-authors"?

Thanks in advance!


- Upir'

Upir, The information that I provided can be accessed by anyone, if they choose to do the research. Further, the Asetian Bible has many words from the Egyptian Book of the Dead as well as many other books. The choice to accept or reject what is divulged in the book is a personal choice, regardless, I am forming my own perception and will not be influenced by anyone other than what "I" perceive to be truth.

Doru, as I have been unsuccessful in finding any such information as you allege regarding Luis Marques' credentials, as well as those you claim to be his co-authors, I sure we all would very much appreciate you sharing your source(s) with us.

As mentioned in the "knowledge retained...." forum topic here, historically it has usually been those whose "knowledge" does not withstand scrutiny who refuse to reveal their sources. I hope this is not your motivation for refusing, as well. If it is not, then I'm sure you would have no reason to withhold such from all of us here. Would you?


- Upir'

The educational information and co-authors are on this website:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?ean=9789899569409&

This is a better site:

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/9254382.aspx

If you click on "two authors" you will be directed to this site:

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/VisualExplorer.aspx#9254382

I hope that answers your questions.

Doru, thank you for your sources and for having the courage to provide them. Just have one question for you:

How do you know that "Luis Marques," the author of "The Asetian Bible" and who lists no actual credentials, is the same person as that listed on the webpage you provided who is "Luis B Marques," Assistant Professor of International Economics at John Hopkins University in Washington, DC?

Doru, never mind... I have investigated and answered the question, myself.

I first wrote "Luis B. Marques" at his email address at the aforementioned university. Turns out, he no longer works there. Instead, he now works for the IMF (International Monetary Fund). I then found and wrote him at his new email address there. His reply came in just a few minutes ago in which he stated that I had the wrong person.


However, I do believe I have found the correct "Luis Marques." He lives in Matosinhos, Portugal, a few miles north of Porto (the location of the asetka.org server) and expresses an interest in the occult. And if this is the right person, he has no ancient language training or any other relevant credentials. His only education after high school is that he is currently a student at a local hospitality vocational school.

You can find his information and a photo here.

If the "Asetian Bible" you now have provides better identifying information for its author, please share such with us.


- Upir'

I have already provided the information, use it as you will, the choice is always yours.

'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'
English Proverb

Information about the Asetian Bible and Luis Marques can be obtained from:

Aset Ka
Apartado 52230
4202-803 Porto, Portugal

"To contact the author, mail can be sent to the plublisher's address using the author's name, as a recipient, and the contents will be forwarded. The Aset Ka will not guarantee that every letter written to the author will be answered, but all will be forwarded."

-From the Asetian Bible-

Is that any different than your Koolaid? Didn't think so.

Oh? And which kool-aid is that, Doru?

I think we are getting off of the topic. Everyone is entitled to their view, no matter how different it may be from another. I am enjoying reading the Asetian Bible and find many interesting comments credible.

Oh... agreed! This only became off topic with the continued refusal to acknowledge from the beginning that the "Order of Aset-Ka" does not at all, in fact, offer any actual provenance or validating evidence beyond its own marketing copy for possessing, as you claimed, "...historical facts of ancient civilizations..."

Now that this has finally been pretty well established with the demonstrated inability of the author to provide any such evidences anywhere, including... apparently... in the "Asetian Bible," itself, I agree with you... let's move on.

Upir, I do not agree with your misconstrued comments yet I understand your cynical nature and feel you have an agenda for the words you post. I hope they serve you well, yet do not see how.

It seems fairly obvious to me the only point being completely missed in this conversation is the lack of veracity pertaining to this so-called "bible." Before I would read something and assume it an entitlement of spiritual enlightenment I held in my hands, I would certainly obtain copies of the books that it is proclaimed to be based upon.

Perhaps you have your own copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead for reference and comparison to assure the author is not influencing the texts with his own singular belief system that may or may not coincide with your own?

I believe what Upir is driving at here, Doru, is to be assured that you or anyone else reading this will blatantly fall off the cliff of "I believe everything" with all the other lemurs out there that will cling to books asthenically proclaimed "gospel truth."

Enjoy the book and read it, but also be aware that many of the books this one is based upon are also available to the reader for comparison and enable those interested in verifying the texts being quoted and assimilated in such a tome and determine whether or not the "truths" collected therein are there or rehashed, revived and rewritten doctrines already exhausted upon the world.

...correction there...that those who read this will "not" fall off the cliff..;)

Silverhawk, you have well articulated my concerns. Thank you.

:) Thank you...and I hope it helps in bringing that point across.

I personally think it is important for each individual to read and study their own by-laws and belief systems, no matter what they are...so many who follow and believe in what other say, do so without questioning the foundation upon such Truths are established.

Questioning the veracity of one's faith is not being unfaithful or arrogant, it is being of sound mind inquiring for the facts behind the statements and knowing if something is truly right for you or not. Without the quality of seeking the truth and never knocking on the door...one would never find anything out..;)

As for which side of the vampire myth I prefer and why...I've always loved the historical aspects behind the mythology but in the mythos itself, I have always loved Anne Rice's Lestat character best...in reading the series, I don't find him as narcasistic as he is portrayed by the media and the films...I simply love his ferocious appetite for life and living it....even if he is the immortal dead..;)

Regardless of one's motives, it would be wise to read the Asetian Bible before condemning the book without a foundation of understanding.

"What man does not understand, he fears; and what he fears, he tends to destroy."
~Unknown Author~

Doru... you are twisting my words. I have not "condemned" the book. I dared to question its claims and the claims of its author... questions neither your or the author have been able to begin to answer. Questions are not condemnations, despite how badly you have tried to portray them as such.

As for the quote... your words here, not mine, bespeak a lack of understanding.

Can we get this back on topic now... as you initially suggested and as I agreed?

Ancient civilizations practiced vampirism but unlike what the world describes to us today, yet they share the lore of medieval vampires, predators.

what side of the vampire myth do i prefer?
that depends because i like both sides. i love the books of today and movies ect. but i love the stories of old to. so u see i am sitting on the fence and not willing to move right now. i love gore and such but i also love the the fact that u can go all mushy over it to.

what unites and divides my point of view?
Me i am the one that sets the standards of what i watch and what i believe in. i have always loved my mermaids. fairies, dragons, witches, vampires, werewolves, ect.

how was i introduced to the vampire myth and how or why do i relate to it.
not really sure how to answer this one, because i always watched tv as a child and it was a great way to escape from my reality of being hurt and getting hurt. so i guess you could say it was my world where nothing bad could happen to me.

Which side do I prefer?

Ancient.... I grew up seeped in myth I am a Romani of the old way and my grandmother used to tell me stories and the like... As well as growing up in Old World Poland...the actual history of the beliefs whether myth or in fact still makes me lean to the Ancient ways.



What characteristics unite/Divide?

Well people unite or divide them....the newer beliefs of the vampire are of mystery and of an outsider doing what they needed to survive..It puts almost a romantic quality to the vampire... where as Vampires of old were made to be feared and there was mystery but of a fear of the unknown..... So I think that people not really characteristics unite or divide them


How was I introduced?

My Grand Mother Anastasia is the one who introduced me to the the thought and ideas of the Vampire and to my family history.

"Well people unite or divide them."

I agree. however I have a slightly different opinion. I think the Vampire myth survives so well because people change it to suit the changes that go on in the world around them. The myth adapts to changes in society and it's rules, or perspectives. Or to explain or bring light to a taboo subject.