I’m thinking more lately about telluric currents, and I’m remembering about the distinction you made between telluric currents and ley lines. That being, telluric currents flow vertically up and down within the earth, from core to surface, as opposed to ley lines which flow horizontally across the earth’s crust. I really liked that distinction and I really (no, REALLY!) want that to be true, but, alas, both Wikipedia and Britannica say otherwise:

· “natural electric current flowing on and beneath the surface of the Earth and generally following a direction parallel to the Earth’s surface.” (Britannica.com)

· “(telluric) currents are extremely low frequency and travel over large areas at or near the surface of Earth. …flow in the surface layers of the earth. …move between each half of the terrestrial globe… equator-ward (daytime) and pole-ward (nighttime). (Wikipedia.com)

At the same time, I’m perfectly willing to believe that there are such currents which flow vertically up and down within the earth. In fact, I want these to exist because their existence would lend credence to a personal pet theory of mine (which I’m sure you’ve already surmise). And, I would infer from your statement, that from personal experience/research/dowsing, you know them to exist. Nevertheless, for sake of clarity and to avoid obfuscation within scientific/engineering circles, you’d probably have to call them something other than “telluric” currents since that word is already taken for currents running horizontally just below the surface. As I write this sentence, the more ancient and mythic “chthonic” comes to mind. As telluric, from the Latin, tellūs, for earth; so chthonic from the Greek, khthōn, also earth, but more specifically the interior of the soil, distinct from Gaia, the surface of the land. Moreover, khthonios, meaning “in, under, or beneath the earth”, referring to earthy and subterranean, and designating deities or spirits of the underworld in Greek religion. [Sure, I know you know all this, I just had to get it out.]

Now, as to the electrical nature of telluric currents… I was skeptical reading Robert Neil Boyd (largely because most of what RNB writes is largely unintelligible). Nevertheless…

“The earth energies observed by the engineers of telegraphy and telephony in the mid-1800s behaved exactly like the powerfully surging earth currents… The engineers observed earth power so enormous it could not be attributed to electrostatic accumulations, nor to the weak electrical strains induced in ground systems by auroral discharges….

There’s obvious hyperbole here, but some core of it is borne out by Wikipedia:

“Telluric currents can be harnessed to produce a useful low voltage current by means of ‘earth batteries.’ Such devices were used for telegraph systems in the United States as far back as 1859.”

Are you kidding me?!? A century and a half ago they’d figured out how to power telegraphs across the western wastelands from telluric currents??? Who knew?!?! So RNB isn’t completely unreliable. Which gives me just a tiny bit of hope regarding his grander, more mythic claims:

“These currents were fiery and potent. World-connecting energies of vast, mysterious, and intelligent content. According to the alchemists, Kirchner, and many of the engineers of the mid 1800s, these energetic flows were direct representatives of Creation, direct evidence of the Divine in operation. …contained in these energies were the awesome secrets of the processes of Creation, the Power by which the real world was both constantly generated, and sustained. Those enterprising engineers who endeavored to draw their communicative power from the Telluric currents, found themselves engaged in surpassing technologies, empowered by the world-generative Source.

Okay, so now we’re talking the creation of worlds and the sustaining of reality. Pretty big stuff. But if we go back, and accept the notion that telluric currents are spiritual in nature, in addition to being legitimately electrical, then their “world-generative” nature is not too far afield. And this is where water comes in, specifically the waters of Genesis, of the uncreated world, and how separating water is what creates and perpetuates the world. Compare the Hebrew elements…

verse 1: God created shamayim and ‘erets.

verse 2: ’erets was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep; Spirit of God hovers over the mayim.

verse 6: God said, “Let there be an expanse between the mayim to separate mayim from mayim.”

verse 7: God made the expanse and separated the mayim under the expanse from the mayim above it.

verse 8: God called the expanse shamayim.

verse 9: God said, “Let the mayim under the shamayim be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”

with the Heliopolitan cosmology of Egyptian Old Kingdom…

The pre-creational world was depicted as a deep, boundless, uncreated, watery mass. This is Nun, the abyss or chaos. The primordial waters are beyond turmoil because no opposition or movement occurs in this undifferentiated inertia. Nun is the passive, inert, undifferentiated set of all possibilities, which is not the same thing as an absolute non-existence, emptiness or void. For in Nun (water) lies the capacity to create eternal repetition, the foundation of order and creation as a whole.

Nun existed before the world was created. It was a body of water that contained divine entities whose potential (and form) had not yet been realized. There was darkness, inertia, and chaos. The appearance of a solid area on the surface of Nun, the primordial mound or egg, begins transition from a formless state to a structured one. This phenomenon triggered a dynamic that culminates in the construction of the Universe… at which point the primordial waters receded to the edge of perceptible reality. These waters continued to surround the created world, threatening to overwhelm it and return it to an inert state. The material and immaterial structure of the Universe thus served as a rampart to prevent this apocalyptic cataclysm. …Gods, kings and men worked jointly to insure the perpetuity of (the) realms, of everything found in them…. Egyptian imagery thus functioned as one vector of the necessary and sufficient task of perpetuating the Universe.

So RNB/Kirchner seem to be writing from the same mythic source as both Egyptian and Hebrew creation myth when he speaks of telluric (or perhaps more to our point “chthonic”) currents as

· “direct representatives of Creation”

· “evidence of the Divine in operation”.

· containing “the awesome secrets of the processes of Creation”

· “the Power by which the real world was both constantly generated and sustained”

· “empowered by the world-generative Source”

It’s a curious side note that “…these specific Creative energies could only be summoned by direct contact with the ground at special sites, which were held to be Sacred Land. The Victorians prized locations deep within the Earth… numerous arcane grottos, and magical caverns…” to which we might add enchanted pools and sacred wells. All places of water.

Ultimately, if you pull all these threads together, you come to the preposterous question: “Is the world/creation somehow sustained because the energy found telluric/chthonic currents continues keep the firmament in place (i.e.: maintains the structure of universe), thus holding back the waters of chaos/inertia from overwhelming us all into itself?“

What really compels me is the pattern of behavior. These worms, asserted to be Tuberficidae, are normally soil-dwelling; but being in the sewer, without an intuitive habitat, they mass together – they treat each other as the most home-like element.

It may be a ‘bigger picture’ model of tumors and other growths – they are tissues / etc that are displaced, with volition to thrive, they act together to survive in a relatively-alien environment.  They amass together because they are more home-like than the raw stratum of their environment – and they lack the motility to go to their right place.  Their predicament is created by excess, spilling over into places that are ill-equipped to carry such things to their right place.

No environment being completely alien, these worms feed on something in the crevasses, just as body tumors find veins and other other fluid channels upon which to survive.

Forward must come models for returning things to their home.

Renfu Shao, Ewen F. Kirkness and Stephen C. Barker. “The single mitochondrial chromosome typical of animals has evolved into 18 minichromosomes in the human body louse, Pediculus humanus.” Genome Resaerch. published online March 31, 2009. doi: 10.1101/gr.08318

The presence of such chromosomal diversity, particularly with respect to mitochondria, in such an ideally-simple organism is certainly worth all the more note given that said organism primarily nurtures itself on human blood.  The authors report on a specialized technique for genomic compilation, different than standard Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Rolling Circle Amplification (RCA), so observation is duly made for the differentiation.

The mt genome of P. humanus, however, consists of 18 minicircular chromosomes.

Casually, it would seem that the louse sanguine digestion of ‘the human code’ led to a refraction of its own genetic structure.  The ‘facets’ created may reveal nuances about the most essential system-generating elements of our own genetic structure.  The non-coding region of each of the 18 louse chromosomes is quite large, comparatively, and may windfall an opportunity to see the role of resonance in the stabilization of coding.

The phlogiston is the essential energy / character expressed in the combustion process.  It is independent from the substance(s) flowing through the combustion.  Water may be said to have no inherent phlogiston.  However, the resonant RF devices that make HHO devise a way to phlogisticate water.  

If science had retained the concept that things could be phlogisticated then someone may have thought ‘hey perhaps we can phlogisticate water’ i.e. make it burn.

With due and agreeable respect to the OED, from who I cite:

phlogisticate Chem. Now hist. and rare.[< PHLOGISTIC adj. + -ATE suffix3. Cf. French phlogistiquer(1788; earlier as phlogistiqué (see PHLOGISTICATED adj.). Cf. slightly earlier PHLOGISTICATED adj.]     trans. To make phlogistic; to cause to combine with phlogiston.

phlogiston [< post classical Latin phlogiston (see quot. 1702) < ancient Greek φλογιστόν, neuter of  φλογιστός burnt up, inflammable <  φλογιζειν to set on fire (<  φλογ-,  φλοξ flame (see PHLOX n.) + -φλογ-IZE suffix) + -ιζειν, suffix forming verbal adjectives.  

The use of the term in sense 1 and the theory connected with it were introduce by Stahl i 1702, in his edition of Beccher’s Physica Subterranea of 1669:  
 1702 G. E. STAHL Spec. Beccherianum I. I. xvi. 19 in B.’s Phys. Subterr. (1732), Ad substantiam ipsam mixti, ut ingrediens..ut materiale principium, et pars totius compositi constitutiva, concurrit, materia et principium ignis, non ipse ignis: Ego Phlogiston appellare cpi.   
 The phrase ‘esse φλογιστόν’ had been used by Sennert in the sense ‘the being flammable’, i.e. flammability or combustibility as a quality of some substances, but not regarded as a substance or principle: 
 1619 D. SENNERTUS De Chym. Consensu ac Dissensu 283 At Colores, Odores, Sapores, esse φλογιστόν & similia alia, mineralibus, metallis, gemmis lapidibus, plantis, animalibus insunt. 
 The existence of phlogiston was denied by Lavoisier in 1775, and though stoutly maintained by Priestley, the belief in it was generally abandoned by 1800.

1. Chem. A hypothetical substance formerly supposed to exist in combination in all combustible bodies, and to be released in the process of combustion (by some identified with the element fire, conceived as being fixed in flammable substances). Now hist.