I believe that there is divinity and truth in all religions and in all indigenous belief systems. In some ways, my personal spirituality aligns with Christianity; but it’s not a Christianity of churches or hierarchy, but akin to how ancient Irish monks (I have published before how their religion may not have been “Christian” but something far older) - meditated in nature, and knew God through in that are not different, or even contradictory to more pagan beliefs in terms the divinity of nature and of creation. I have also become particularly drawn to Uralic belief systems, and to the spiritual beliefs of many other cultures. Contrary to popular belief, not all pagans or indigenous peoples are entirely polytheistic; as I have mentioned elsewhere and will again (including in my next publication for Silly Linguistics), many Uralic peoples believed in many gods, but at the same time, they often acknowledged a single deity as “the” deity and original creator. 

For me personally, the aim of spirituality is in part to transcend illusion, most specifically, the illusions that stop one from knowing their true, divine self. For I am like the clouds and sea, and my spirit remembers that. I have always remembered it, that there exists a divinity in all things, and in me. But spirituality can be deceptive, particularly when it’s misunderstood, and I feel that, unlike our ancestors, spiritual belief systems nowadays, when practiced on a collective level, can be very deceptive and cult-like. This process, I believe, often slows down one’s ability to authentically recognise what their heart most truly needs (in a way that is truly positive for them and for people, the world and its living things), and to pursue that love. Many New Age individuals I have met, are people I vibe well with, and I totally get their beliefs, and have respect for them. But I do not see spirituality in the same way as they do, oftentimes. If somebody channelled an “ascended master”, who told them particular facts about Atlantis, crystal DNA and 5D reality, that is all very interesting and cool, and I’m not saying that it doesn’t mean something. 

But without the ancient, indigenous and ancestral knowledge to guide us, we might often totally misinterpret what is happening. Rather than seeing these “ascended masters” and their knowledge in terms of factual knowledge, let us consider instead, what this knowledge does to one’s perception. At the end of the day, fundamentally, most information in “channellings” seems to not be factually correct, at all, but instead its true effect and meaning can be observed in how it affects human consciousness - and I’ve got to be honest, that is what it is about, and not everyone needs or will connect to certain messages that change their consciousness; which makes it kind of difficult for individuals like me to find a spiritual “tribe”, because essentially, New Age religions can be just as indoctrinated and limiting as the outdated belief systems they claim to be moving away from.
And again it comes down to consciousness - and our own ability to see and recognise ourselves for who we truly are. And indigenous beliefs, fundamentally, by and large, achieve this far better than any New Age belief system in my opinion. And my indigenous friends also feel that New Age belief systems, whilst claiming to be connected to nature and divinity, sometimes seem to ignore the very basics and fundamentals of this dynamic. New Age spirituality can also attract some truly pretentious and egocentric ways of thinking. For some, New Age spirituality even becomes a deceptive money scheme, or a deceptive hierarchy scheme, promising personal enlightenment and spiritual growth. And sure, it can happen, but that entirely depends on the dynamic and intentions of those involved, and upon whether or not a laid-out spiritual path in a New Age religion, actually feels like the "right" or correct way for them.
My own spirituality is, essentially indigenous, although culturally diverse and, unrefined, in respect to me not being initiated into any indigenous culture myself. I believe in the fairy folk, and in elves and other ancestral beings and spirits, with no doubt whatsoever in my mind that these things exist, even if I cannot claim to fully grasp what and who these spirits are - but that’s not the point. My spirituality is tied into the idea that nature is conscious, that rivers, mountains, trees, rocks and even the mist itself, are living and divine, and that within that divinity of God’s creation, we are not alone - there are a myriad of spirits and ancestors that we can potentially work with and have a good relationship with, and help to heal our world in the process - and often, fundamentally, this comes down to simply having empathy for nature and for life, acknowledging the presence of ancient sites, of living things and of the divinity of the world around us - this is my spirituality at its core.

Which brings me to the subject of romance - for what does it mean to be “romantic”? I would consider myself a romantic person, even though, the essence of this is only superficially connected to our more physical and black and white explanations of “romance”, many of which revolve around rituals like marriage, engagement, gestures of gifts and certain words spoken. I have realised, slowly but surely, that none of these things are truly the essence of “romance” for me. Fundamentally, for me, romance has often meant feeling alone, being in love or having romantic feelings for somebody, but it being unrequited or in a situation where love is not possible. This leads of course to a lack of romantic gestures and rituals, but it “is” romantic in the sense that it causes a sometimes dramatic unveiling of one’s own true spiritual self, which comes with a sheer sense of vulnerability, exposure, and often, connection to the divine and to God. 

Sure, I seek romance with another. But if I project that and think of it in terms of those rituals and gifts - these things do not mean much to me, if the true essence of romance is not experienced or known. And what is that essence? In my opinion, the true essence of romance is to know God, or, to know one's true purpose and spiritual self as an expression and facet of the whole creation. Because when a person falls in love, deeply and beautifully, with the right person, it feels, or has for me felt, like the entire world is unveiled. The beauty of God and of the ancestors becomes visible and felt around me, in all of my interactions. One knows their connection to God and to the divine, because to be truly loved, and to truly love romantically, breaks that barrier between the ego and God, and causes a huge change in our consciousness, self-perception and in how we see the world. This is at least my experience.
But as I mentioned, this for me has often come with a sense of loss. And sometimes, this divine connection, and loss, are so interwoven into each other, that a person loses somebody they truly love, which causes this change in consciousness, a connection to the divine, and knowing one's true spiritual nature - and this is the flip side of that connection, the connection with God is beautiful, but the journey to it, and to releasing those layers of ourselves which hide our true feelings and wishes, can involve loss and be very difficult, but ultimately, love, leads us towards the divine.

But this is not to say that romantic love is meant to be about loss. There is this idea that one cannot truly love another, until they truly love themselves. And on a superficial level I agree with this. But on the other hand, I would not say this is the essence of love. And sometimes, when people say things like this about loving oneself, I feel that they misunderstand love. Because love, to me anyway, does not mean gifts, or following a certain path or a certain set of rituals - things that we can do for ourselves. Love is I think, something that only another spirit can truly give us, and which we can only give away. This contradicts greatly with many New Age ideas of divine love, but I am confident about this. That love was never intended by the Great Spirit to be something that we keep and use for personal growth. I believe that love is something that can only be shared. And that even though, romantic love can be painful, and involve feelings of loss and sadness, this does not take away that romantic love truly can be a connection to the divine and to the Great Spirit. Love, I believe, was meant to be shared, and given. I do not think that love was intended to heal us as individuals (without us also giving love to others and to nature), as this contradicts with the nature of love, for it to be wielded in such a way that means we as individual egos are the only benefactors. No, true love, is something we can only give away. And without giving, without feeling love and empathy for the world outside of us, love cannot be true. Love is something greater than our mind and ego, and if thinking in terms of mind and ego, and isolation, we cannot self sustain. Everything in our essence and world comes from somewhere, bigger than us, what I would term God or The Great Spirit or Great Mystery. So for me, the essence of true romantic love is recognising how powerless we are in many respects, but that the power of love, empathy and kindness, opens the door to our true spiritual being. 

And no, I do not believe it is a matter of “one must suffer in love for so many years before they are worthy, one will find a less intense but more long term, less exciting and less spiritual, and that is true love”. This is an idea perpetuated a lot in Western Society, but, I think, in essence, it is not true, and that it is not a question of not being worthy, and not a question of needing to choose a less spiritual love, is it is rather a question of - when do we recognise that we are like the clouds and the ocean, and like the moon and the stars? That the essence of divinity already exists within us, and that The Great Spirit, I believe, urges us to pay attention to this.

Note, I also updated the description of this site and its author today, in which I also touch upon a few of the concepts above a tiny bit, but in different words and in a different context.