Scientology Has Secret Alien-Themed Doomsday Compound In The New Mexico Desert

A science fiction movie sprung to life — the vast bunker is where Scientology’s elite will hide out when civilization breaks down, and the gigantic etched symbols, visible from above, likely are messages intended for the extraterrestrials who created humanity. Via Live Science:

A secret bunker hidden deep within the deserts of New Mexico is reported to be the “alien space cathedral” of the Church of Scientology, according to a BBC reporter. The site is marked by a large symbol etched onto the desert floor: two diamonds surrounded by a pair of overlapping circles, according to the British newspaper The Sun. A private airstrip, built to serve the controversial church’s leaders, is within walking distance of the symbol.

Journalist John Sweeney claims the church designed the underground site to withstand a nuclear holocaust. Hidden within the complex’s vaults are titanium caskets that hold gold disks inscribed with the original texts of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. The symbols seen on the desert floor are reportedly there to help guide Scientologists returning to Earth after fleeing the planet to escape a future “Armageddon.”

8 Comments on "Scientology Has Secret Alien-Themed Doomsday Compound In The New Mexico Desert"

  1. Their business is alien-themed, so why not?

  2. Or, “Rude Man” of Cerne glasses found.

  3. Yes, they are bat-shit crazy. The question is, how is this substantially different from the rest of the religions? Imaginary friends in the sky who love you and hate anyone who doesn’t agree with you are still imaginary friends, whether they are aliens or “gods”.

    • I suppose one difference is that we know it is all made up by Mr. Hubbard, within living memory, which doesn’t stop people giving them lots of money. Another difference is their “bible” is copyright, which they enforce to stifle criticism. It annoys me when people call them a church or a religion: they are more like Microsoft.

      • As opposed to the King James Bible that was created specifically for him…and the gold encrusted principality of the Vatican, paid for by the “offerings” of their masses? Religion has always been about power – and money, because money IS power. Are there occasional examples of good things that are done by religion? Sure – but a stopped clock is right twice a day, too…and still has no overall useful purpose. I see no evidence that religion has advanced humanity an inch beyond what it could have obtained without religion – and myriad instances where religion has held back that advancement – often deliberately and forcefully.

        • Matt Staggs | Jan 3, 2013 at 11:52 am |

          I think the major difference most people point out is that other religions don’t out and out charge you for their rites and lessons. They pass the collection plate and there’s some pressure to tithe, but nobody is going to come out with a credit card swipe machine at mass. You can attend most churches for life without ever dropping a dime. There’s also the myriad stories of Scientology terrorizing “suppressive persons” through the use of private eyes and myriad black bag operations. Sure, the Jehovah’s Witnesses will shun you, and that’s horrid, but they’re not going to sort through your trash, sabotage your job and terrify your friends and neighbors. I’m not arguing for the essential goodness of one faith over – all of them have done some horrible things of one sort or the other historically – just pointing out what I see as litigious, coercive behavior on behalf of an organization that has farm more in common with Amway than any of the mainstream religions.

          • Look…I’m not defending Scientology – like I said, they’re bat shit crazy. I believe Hubbard might have started the thing as a kind of joke, to show people how easy it would be to create a new “religion”…then found that it had way more advantages than having to keep coming up with new books for a living…when the old one could keep selling and then creating additional income with each sale.

            The fact is, though, that all religions milk their followers for money – so I fail to see any significant difference between them, though I guess you can say that some are bat-shit crazy “Lite”. Some are upfront about it like the Mormon Church and Scientology and make it a central part of the “faith”. Some threaten to have their followers “burn in hell” if they don’t “repent”…and give some cash. The Catholic church sold “indulgences” to the rich to absolve them of their sins. The televangelists prey on old people with diminished critical thinking skills and suck their retirement money from them through televised programming. One of them even went so far as to tell his followers that “God will take me home unless you raise enough money to save me”.
            Like I said, religion has always been about power and money – because money IS power. Arguing about which one is worst is simply ignoring the fact that they are all the same, except for slight degrees of difference in their approach.

            As for how they treat their “opponents” – seems to me you’re forgetting a lot of history. Just look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, Cromwell’s revolution and rule of England and the Salem Witch Trials – just to name a few off the top of my head. Like I said, there is no essential difference in attitude between any of them…they all believe in an imaginary sky dweller that loves them and has given the “truth” to ONLY THEM – and hates anyone who disagrees with them – which justifies anything they choose to do in the name of their “god”…which (more often than not) benefits them through acquisition of property, money and power.

          • One more thing. It’s important to remember that ALL religions at one point in time were created “within living memory”. Using that type of argument is essentially basing the validity of a belief by it’s age. Using that critera, Christianity would be low on the list – in fact, if that were the criteria, we’d all recognize Paganism as the only “true” religion.

            Expanding on that thought – I find it amusing that people can so easily point out the flaws and abuses in a new competing religion, while remaining steadfastly blind to the same exact flaws and abuses in their own, established religion. I expect it was the same throughout history. The Romans ridiculed the new Christian religion as an obvious fraud and deception of their followers, while remaining loyal to their old religions, which were ridiculed by the adherents of the previous religions.

            It’s clear that everyone disbelieves in far more gods (all of which had large numbers of ardent and faithful followers in their day) than they believe in – which proves the point of the quote “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
            Stephen Roberts

Comments are closed.