This is a cold-blooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years.

This is useful knowledge. With it the bond again see, the lame walk, the ill recover, the insane become sane and the sane become saner. By its use the thousand abilities Man has sought to recover become his once more.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Scientology: A History of Man is a book by L. Ron Hubbard, first published in 1952 under the title What to Audit by the Scientific Press of Phoenix. According to the author, it provides “a coldblooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years.” It has gone through many editions since its first publication and is a key text of the Church of Scientology. The book has been ridiculed by critics of Scientology for its unusual writing style and pseudoscientific claims; it has been described as “a slim pretense at scientific method … blended with a strange amalgam of psychotherapy, mysticism and pure science fiction; mainly the latter.”

According to Christopher Evans (citing auditor Perry Chapdelaine), the book originated in Scientology auditing sessions held in Wichita, Kansas in early 1952. Chapdelaine said that Hubbard would “settle himself on a couch with a tape recorder handy and an ‘auditor’ who would be expected to provide appropriate feedback. In no time a flow of introspection – like the free association characteristic of a psychoanalytic session – would begin.”

In a different account, Hubbard’s son, L. Ron Hubbard Jr. (otherwise known as “Nibs,” or Ronald DeWolf) and Hubbard senior’s medical officer, Jim Dincalci, have both stated that the book’s content originated when Hubbard fed his son amphetamines:

[Hubbard] gave his son Nibs some amphetamines, and Nibs started talking, he said, started really going talking fast, from the speed. And he kept talking, he kept talking, and his dad kept giving him speed and all of a sudden he was talking about his history, when he was a clam and all these different situations in early Earth. And out of that came History of Man.

The book describes numerous incidents that, according to Hubbard, occurred to the thetan or the genetic entity in past lives. Although commonly misinterpreted as an alternative theory of evolution, the purpose of the incidents list is that individuals have subconscious memories of past lives as clams, sloths, and cavemen, and that those memories result in neuroses, known as ‘engrams’. These stages of biological history, some typified by an animal and others typified by other items, were marked by traumatic incidents which have to be “run out” using an E-meter.

A History of Man has attracted a good deal of comment from critical reviewers and analysts of Scientology. As Marco Frenschkowski notes, it is a “very strange book easily ridiculed”. Ex-Scientologist Jon Atack describes it as “among the most bizarre of Hubbard’s works, [which] deserves the cult status that some truly dreadful science fiction movies have achieved”. The Anderson Report of 1965 comments that “To say it is an astonishing document does not adequately convey the peculiar qualities or contents of “The History of Man … For compressed nonsense and fantasy it must surpass anything theretofore written.” Hubbard’s unofficial biographer Russell Miller describes it in similar terms as “one of Hubbard’s most bizarre works and possibly the most absurd book ever written”, which “invited the derision which was inevitably forthcoming.”[14] Bent Corydon, a former Scientologist, criticises A History of Man on Scientological grounds, pointing out that Hubbard’s “imaginings, opinions, or observations” are presented as established facts – in effect, instructing the Scientologist in what he should remember, rather than letting him find out for himself. 

Jon Atack and Mike Rinder on Scientology’s wackiest book: ‘A History of Man’

Perhaps a little background is pertinent. In 1952, down on his luck after the collapse and bankruptcy of the Dianetic Foundations, Hubbard set about creating Scientology. To escape prosecution for practicing medicine without a license and to side-step the massive debts his princely lifestyle had generated, Hubbard had signed over all of his rights in Dianetics to oil man Don Purcell. He had to find a new name and a new technique, which took only a few days.

Hubbard College started out across town from the bankrupt Dianetic Foundation in Wichita, Kansas. After “inadvertently” acquiring the address printing plates from the latter organization (about 40 pounds weight), Hubbard bombarded the mailing list with more than 30 letters complaining about Purcell (a “monied montebank”, sic) and his own debilitated state – “My bank account is $0.02”. Nonetheless, he boasted new and infinitely superior techniques that, as ever, would fulfill all needs. He started to air a mixture of ideas from science fiction and his prime guru Aleister Crowley (my “Possible Origins of Dianetics and Scientology” expands on Jeff Jacobsen’s excellent work) and picked up the word Scientology – used forty years earlier to mean “pseudo-science” and twenty years earlier to mean Nazi Aryan race craziness. The first mention of indwelling “entities” and a fixation with electronics characterize this period.

Hubbard hit the ground running on 25 February with the “whole track lectures” where he expanded his ideas into what both he and Crowley before him called “past lives,” giving a “Summary of Aberrative Incidents (before time begins…).” A few days later, he first used the word “Scientology” and gave the first demonstration of the Mathison electrometer, which would soon become the Hubbard electrometer.

As part of the sales promotion for the E-meter, Hubbard wrote, “With the advent of the 1952 dianetic techniques, your electropsychometer became a tool so vital in processing that I actually do not know how an auditor can work without one; and know certainly that an auditor who does try to work without one sacrifices the reality of his preclear [client], and at the very minimum quadruples the amount of time he should put on the case.” (How to “sacrifice the reality” of a preclear is not explained.)

Hubbard worked fervently, ignoring the Dianetic debacle. In May, John Campbell Jr, the man who two years before had been Hubbard’s chief publicist, complained, “In a healthy and growing science, there are many men who are recognized as being competent in the field, and no one man dominates the work…. To the extent Dianetics is dependent on one man, it is a cult. To the extent it is built on many minds and many workers it is a science.”

Despite a barrage of publicity, many followers had been shaken by the scandal of Hubbard’s divorce and the antagonism he had roused in many of those who’d helped him (and the barrels of cash he’d managed to squander). From 150,000 book sales in 1950, Hubbard was only able to persuade 38 people to fork out the $500 for the Philadelphia “Doctorate” Course, in December of 1952.

Although Hubbard would assert that people leave because of guilt at their transgressions (“overts”), he frequently “blew.” He rarely stayed in one place for any length of time, such were his “overts.” May found the Hubbard College in Phoenix, Arizona. This is where, his abandoned but doting firstborn, Ron Jr or “Nibs” turned up.

Nibs would be his father’s right-hand man – and enforcer – for seven years. In a few weeks, the eighteen-year-old was Director of Training and Chief Instructor. He was also enlisted in the latest research program – to write a “factual and cold-blooded account” of our “last sixty trillion years” (or “seventy-six trillion” in the Miscavige edition of 2007 – the text does veer into “70-74 trillion” and “76 trillion”).

Nibs, his dad and his newly married stepmom, Mary Sue (who was only three years his senior) took handfuls of amphetamines and examined their “whole track” – the complete history of their existence since the beginning of time.

This awesome project took a mere two weeks. An 89-page mimeographed (old school photocopied) book called What to Audit began the printed outpourings of Scientology. The book would later be
restyled, Scientology: A History of Man.

The following interaction with ChatGPt on various quotes from Hubbard’s book is designed to get an unbiased reaction from an artificial intelligence program on claims that he wrote.:

Here is the first prompt:

Examine the following text and explain any flaws in the logic or claims that are made: “In the first place, there was something wrong with Man. An animal such as a cat, even a reptile, a lizard, had habit patterns which carried him through his early days. Not Man. Why not? As usual, a lot of vagueness answered this. The very schools of ‘thought’ that said Man was just another animal bogged utterly on why it was that babies, the young of this very intelligent animal, are much more stupid than kittens. That was only one thing wrong with Man that wasn’t explained.

The further one investigated, the more one came to understand that here, in this creature Homo Sapiens, were entirely too many unknowns. People who suddenly, out of no observable training, begin to speak foreign tongues, men who ‘seem to remember having been here before,’ strange yearnings in people for various parts of the country or the world or the stars of which they have no actual knowledge, such things are routine puzzles.”

The text you provided raises several points and observations, but it does not present solid evidence or logical reasoning to support its claims fully. Here are some flaws in the logic and claims made in the text:

1. Generalization: The text makes a sweeping generalization about all of humanity by stating, “There was something wrong with Man.” This is a broad and unsupported claim. It is not accurate or fair to make such a sweeping judgment about an entire species without clear evidence or data.

2. Lack of Evidence: The text mentions that babies are “much more stupid than kittens,” but it fails to provide concrete evidence to back up this statement. It is essential to rely on scientific research and data to support claims about intelligence or cognitive abilities.

3. Undefined “Unknowns”: The text mentions that there are “entirely too many unknowns” in Homo Sapiens. However, it does not specify what these “unknowns” are or provide any evidence for this assertion. Without defining the unknowns, it is challenging to evaluate their impact or significance.

4. Anecdotal Evidence: The text uses anecdotes (people speaking foreign languages, memories of past lives, strange yearnings) as evidence of unknowns or unexplained phenomena. While anecdotes can be intriguing, they do not constitute robust evidence and can be subject to biases and misinterpretations.

5. Lack of Causal Explanation: The text points out observed phenomena (e.g., babies being less developed than kittens) but fails to provide a causal explanation or a thorough analysis of potential factors contributing to these differences. Without causal explanations, it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.

6. Overreliance on Vagueness: The text criticizes others for being vague in explaining certain phenomena, but it falls into vagueness itself by using terms like “something wrong with Man” without clear definitions or supporting evidence.

7. Absence of Context: The text lacks context for the claims made, such as historical or cultural considerations. Human behavior and development are influenced by a wide range of factors, including social, environmental, and biological ones, which should be taken into account when discussing intelligence or behaviors.

In conclusion, the text raises intriguing observations about human behavior and development but fails to provide solid evidence or logical reasoning to support its claims fully. It relies on generalizations, anecdotes, and vague statements, which weaken the overall strength of its argument. To make credible claims about complex human behaviors, it is essential to rely on rigorous scientific research and critical analysis.

To provide a comparison of AI models, the same prompt was issued to Google’s Bard AI site with the following response:

The text makes several claims, but there are flaws in the logic of each one.

First, the text claims that there is something wrong with humans because they do not have the same habit patterns as other animals. However, this is not necessarily true. Humans do have habit patterns, but they are more complex than those of other animals. For example, humans learn from their experiences and can adapt their behavior accordingly. This is why humans are able to survive in a variety of environments, while other animals are more limited in their range.

Second, the text claims that babies are more stupid than kittens. This is also not necessarily true. Babies are born with a limited amount of knowledge, but they learn very quickly. By the time they are toddlers, they have learned to walk, talk, and interact with the world around them. Kittens, on the other hand, take much longer to develop these skills.

Third, the text claims that there are too many unknowns about humans. This is true, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. The fact that humans are complex creatures means that there is always more to learn about them. This is what makes humans so fascinating.

The text also makes the claim that people who suddenly speak foreign languages or seem to remember having been here before are routine puzzles. However, there are scientific explanations for these phenomena. For example, people who suddenly speak foreign languages may have been exposed to the language in their early childhood and forgotten about it. People who seem to remember having been here before may be experiencing déjà vu, which is a common phenomenon that is caused by the brain’s faulty memory system.

In conclusion, the text makes several claims about humans, but the logic of these claims is flawed. There is nothing wrong with humans, and there are many things that we do not know about them. However, this does not mean that there is something wrong with humans. It simply means that there is more to learn about them.


One must be very impartial, even brutal, in investigation.
~L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology: A History of Man

The next prompt examines text from Chapter 4:

Examine the following text and attempt to simplify what the writer is trying to convey. Also comment on any observed factual inaccuracies:

“Man’s first real Manhood is found in the PILTDOWN, a creature not an ape, yet not entirely a Man. It is so named not because it is accurately the real Piltdown Man but because it has some similarity.

The PILTDOWN contains freakish acts of strange “logic,” of demonstrating dangerous on one’s fellows, of eating one’s wife and other somewhat illogical activities. The PILTDOWN teeth were ENORMOUS and he was quite careless as to whom and what he bit and often very much surprised at the resulting damage.

Obsessions about biting, efforts to hide the mouth and early familial troubles can be found in the PILTDOWN. It is a wonderful area in which to locate GE overt acts.”


The writer is describing a stage of human development referred to as “Man’s first real Manhood,” which they refer to as “PILTDOWN.” PILTDOWN is not an ape, but it is not entirely human either. It exhibits peculiar behaviors, including strange logic, demonstrating danger to others, eating one’s wife, and engaging in illogical activities. The creature has enormous teeth and is careless about whom or what it bites, causing significant damage. PILTDOWN is associated with obsessions about biting, attempts to hide the mouth, and early familial issues. The writer suggests that studying PILTDOWN can be beneficial in understanding overt acts in individuals referred to as “GE.”

In simpler terms, the writer is describing a transitional stage of human development that they refer to as PILTDOWN, which exhibits odd behaviors and obsessions, including a tendency to bite and harm others. The writer believes that studying PILTDOWN can help in understanding certain actions observed in individuals labeled as “GE.”

As for factual inaccuracies, it’s important to note that the concept of “PILTDOWN” as described by the writer does not correspond to any established scientific or anthropological understanding of human development. The actual Piltdown Man was a famous paleontological hoax involving the fraudulent construction of a supposed early human ancestor. The description provided by the writer seems to be based on metaphorical or speculative terms rather than any scientifically recognized developmental stage. As such, it does not represent factual information about human evolution or behavior.

This work is honest research, done with considerable care. And it will bear up under survey by any competent auditor or investigator.
~L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology: A History of Man

As a fitting conclusion to our investigation, we present a discussion by Jon Atack and Mike Rinder: Scientology: A history of man –– TRUTH REVEALED.