On the Show — Oberon Zell

[Gene Steinberg]

Oberon Zell, called “The Father of Modern Paganism,” in 1967 was the first to claim the identity of “Pagan,” incorporating the Church of All Worlds in 1968 and publishing Green Egg magazine for 57 years. An initiate in several different magickal Traditions, Oberon was instrumental in the coalescence of the Neo-Pagan movement, co-founding the earliest alliances.

In 1970, Oberon had a profound Vision of the Living Earth which he published as the earliest version of “The Gaea Thesis”—that our entire planetary biosphere comprises the body of a single vast super-organism universally identified as “Mother Earth.”

Oberon has traveled throughout the world, conferred with indigenous shamans, celebrated solar eclipses at ancient stone circles, raised living Unicorns, and swam with Mermaids in the Coral Sea. He also designs jewelry, T-shirts, and altar figurines of Gods and Goddesses. His signature sculpture is Mother Earth as “The Millennial Gaia.”

On Jan. 28, 2025, Oberon reached out to over 250 respected Pagan Elders, leaders and visionaries to form the Pagan Solidarity Alliance in response to the potential threat to religious freedom and diversity posed by the current Administration and the agenda of Christian Nationalism to reshape the United States into an authoritarian theocracy.

Oberon is Founder of the Grey School of Wizardry (2004) and author of 24 books, including GaeaGenesis: Conception & Birth of the Living Earth (2022). Currently living in western North Carolina, Oberon is married to Lady Rhiannon of Serpentstone.

Our cohost will be Geneva.

Recording Date (including After The Paracast):
Monday September 28th at 1:00 Pacific (3:00 PM Central)

Post your questions or comments for discussion below:

To Download After The Paracast: Please Subscribe to The Paracast Plus

Choose Your Membership Upgrade​

Choose account type

www.theparacast.plus

Broadcast and Streaming Date:
October 4, 2026

 

[Randall]

Comment ( no need to air )

Ha ! Oberon Zel. What a character !

In 2021, Oberon approved a refinement to the definition of the word "polyamory", which I had published on a website about the subject.
In the updated ( and current ) definition ( seen below ), Oberon suggested that the word "among" rather than "between" would be better.
My impression was that Oberon felt that the word "among" was a more precise expression of the shared experience ( and I agreed ).

Here it is . . .

1. polyamory ( noun ) An ethical romantic interrelationship among multiple partners.
2. polyamorous ( adjective ) Having an innate capacity for polyamory.

On May 26, 2021 I received his blessing in an email. To Quote:

You offer updated definitions: I think these are excellent, for all the reasons you give. I support them, and I know MG would too. NT-OZ

Why did I seek out Oberon's approval? Because "MG" is of course a reference to one of the loves in Oberon's life — Morning Glory, who introduced readers to polyamory in her article, A bouquet of Lovers, which appeared in the May 1990 edition of Green Egg, a periodical published by the Church of All Worlds. So if anyone actually had the authority to approve — my thought was that Oberon is as close as anyone can get to the source!

I very much appreciated Oberon's kind response, because in my exploration of the topic, it seemed that people were misusing polyamory to excuse themselves for their dishonesty in traditional mono relationships, or they were conflating it with other substantially different alt relationships. To me this was a disservice ( and dishonor ) to the polyamory community and it's founders. So again, I extend my gratitude for helping to preserve its original values.

Now — not to dwell on the topic — I'm sure there's lot's of other magical stuff to muse over

 

[Red]

I very much appreciated Oberon's kind response, because in my exploration of the topic, it seemed that people were misusing polyamory to excuse themselves for their dishonesty in traditional mono relationships, or they were conflating it with other substantially different alt relationships. To me this was a disservice ( and dishonor ) to the polyamory community and it's founders. So again, I extend my gratitude for helping to preserve its original values.

Oh yeah, polyamory requires communication, empathy, and consent. It's not for me, but if it works for other people that's great. People post their "opening up the marriage" stories on Reddit all the time. And it usually ends badly for the person who wanted to do the opening up. It's quite hilarious.

 

[Randall]

Oh yeah, polyamory requires communication, empathy, and consent. It's not for me, but if it works for other people that's great. People post their "opening up the marriage" stories on Reddit all the time. And it usually ends badly for the person who wanted to do the opening up. It's quite hilarious.

Yep — Polyamory can ( and did ) work for the originating community, and apparently thrives in certain places today — like Portland. However, my investigations into online communities and in-person meet-ups, revealed extensive self-serving hypocrisy and a lack of appreciation for the core values, which is what led me to create the website I spoke of in my previous post.

For example, you mentioned open marriages. Open legal marriages based on traditional legal monogamous definitions, are probably the biggest hypocrisy of all. In those marriages, exchanging partners isn't polyamory — it's wife-swapping. There's no way to ethically reconcile it — and those involved don't care either. So polyamory is often misused and misunderstood — even by those who claim to practice it.

Even calling it a "practice" is somewhat erroneous. When it comes right down to it, being polyamorous is a natural human trait that has been repressed by socialization — often referred to as "mononormative programming". People can and do naturally develop a whole range of concurrent feelings for different people, including romantic ones. It's only our socialization that sees that as a "bad thing".

There could actually be a whole discussion thread about this.

 

[Red]

Yep — Polyamory can ( and did ) work for the originating community, and apparently thrives in certain places today — like Portland. However, my investigations into online communities and in-person meet-ups, revealed extensive self-serving hypocrisy and a lack of appreciation for the core values, which is what led me to create the website I spoke of in my previous post.

For example, you mentioned open marriages. Open legal marriages based on traditional legal monogamous definitions, are probably the biggest hypocrisy of all. In those marriages, exchanging partners isn't polyamory — it's wife-swapping. There's no way to ethically reconcile it — and those involved don't care either. So polyamory is often misused and misunderstood — even by those who claim to practice it.

Even calling it a "practice" is somewhat erroneous. When it comes right down to it, being polyamorous is a natural human trait that has been repressed by socialization — often referred to as "mononormative programming". People can and do naturally develop a whole range of concurrent feelings for different people, including romantic ones. It's only our socialization that sees that as a "bad thing".

There could actually be a whole discussion thread about this.

Pretty much. I knew of a couple who were "polyamorous". They were friends of friends, but the male partner pissed off a lot of people because he treated certain spaces as his own personal hunting grounds and ended up hurting and using a lot of women. His partner thankfully fell in love with someone else and left the marriage. I don't think any of us felt much pity for the male partner when his wife left him.