Aeons, Archons, Angels, or Aliens? A Gnostic Interpretation of Ancient Aliens Theory

During the long months of the 2020 shutdown, I spent a surprising amount of time watching the History Channel series Ancient Aliens. I began as a skeptic, but the sheer variety of evidence presented gradually challenged my assumptions.

Many years earlier I had read Erich von Däniken’s Chariots of the Gods?, so I was already familiar with the basic outline of ancient alien theory. I had also read Whitley Strieber’s Communion when it was first published, giving me a passing familiarity with the subject of alien abductions. But the evidence presented on Ancient Aliens goes far beyond those early books. At this point, only the most dedicated naysayer could remain completely unmoved by the questions the series raises.

For those unfamiliar with the theory, the basic claim is that various extraterrestrial civilizations have been visiting Earth for thousands, perhaps even millions, of years. The stories told around the world of gods descending from the sky and living among ancient peoples are interpreted not as myths, but as historical accounts. According to the theory, these visitors shared knowledge with humanity, particularly technological knowledge, helping advance civilization.

Some theorists go even further. They propose that extraterrestrials may have altered human DNA, contributing to the emergence of modern humanity, and that they may continue to influence our evolution through the phenomenon of alien abduction. Others suggest that Earth’s entire ecosystem was seeded from elsewhere (panspermia), including the possibility that our moon was deliberately positioned to stabilize Earth’s axis and create the tides necessary for life.

I eventually persuaded my brother Bill to watch the series with me. Over the past several years we have viewed and discussed virtually every episode in its fifteen-season run, some more than once. Yes, many of the stories overlap. The same evidence often appears repeatedly, accompanied by familiar commentary. Yet we found the repetition useful. It allowed us to compare claims, identify recurring themes, and test the internal consistency of the arguments being made.

Bill and I pride ourselves on being open-minded, but we also anchor that openness in logic and critical thinking. As you know, we are both PhDs, with backgrounds in philosophy and rhetoric, and we have both taught critical thinking at the university level. So don’t come away with the notion that we accepted every claim hook, line, and sinker.

One question in partic