Talk:Carlos Castaneda

Basic content

I'm a little disappointed that the text about his books is mostly about whether it can be believed as factual (or fictional). What about its spiritual value, metaphorical or not? The works have value and guided many people to a greater understanding of the world around us, and of ourselves. Sonofmagni (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There are some books about that. Unfortunately the one I'd like to use as a reference is self-published so can't be used. It showed that the whole chronology, when put together, is consistent and that the system of practice, once you pull it out and organize it, is also consistent. Alas. IIRC I found a similar book by another author, also self-published. In any case, I also find this interesting, if only there were sources. Perhaps in time... Skyerise (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Whoever wrote his books are now generally considered to be fictional has not read the books, several times, and has not done the research on how spiritual teachers responded to what Castaneda was writing at that time.

Shame. 2001:569:7337:6600:BC4C:86C4:8AF8:1E44 (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Further to the above, Castaneda did NOT go into ANY of his experiences with Don Juan with a title for his books in mind. These are an afterthought by his publishers. It took 8 years to publish book 1, in which time notes and memories required organization and deep meditation, respectively. It is shocking to read that Wikipedia states these works as fiction.

Im not done with this… ElNuevoSol (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

New sources of info on Carlos Castaneda and Nagualism

I think it would be expedient to add a new source on Carlos Castaneda and Nagualism to the External Links list (downloadable PDF, public domain):

https://archive.org/details/nagualism-volume-1-4th-ed-2022-the-teachings-of-don-juan-eng-esp-ukr-rus/mode/1up

also referred to at:

https://www.reddit.com/r/castaneda/comments/rkuqn2/nagualism_volume_1_of_20_the_teachings_of_don/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media66 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. The source is not in English and it appears to be self-published. Please provide an ISBN if you disagree. Skyerise (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Most source texts are in English and there are only 3 source materials in Spanish with parallel English translation. As I see, this is the most comprehensive collection of materials relating to Castaneda's "The Teachings of Don Juan" many of which are not known to the general public. They certainly will be of interest to those who want to know more about Castaneda and nagualism. I didn't find ISBN, however I think that for such a creative research publication this should not be a major issue. Media66 (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Besides, archive.org is a legal library, what's the problem with linking to it? Media66 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't link to self-published material. The links are usually added by someone with a conflict of interest for promotional purposes. And you appear to be a promoter. Also, the work appears violate the copyrights of the translators of Castaneda's works and Wikipedia may not link to copyright-violating works. Again, if you believe this book is legitimately published, please provide the ISBN. Skyerise (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Early life

@Anastrophe: Why should the naturalization record not be a valid source? By the way, I do think it is relevant that Castaneda claimed to be born at a different time and place, and the sources are mentioned in note 1 and footnotes 1-3. --Kuhni74 (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I could find no path to validate the number. I searched the US government archives and couldn't find it. If a source can't be validated - it's not usable. If you can point me to where I can see the record online - at a reliable source - please let me know. Anastrophe (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There's an image on Ancestry, under

U.S., Naturalization Record Indexes, 1791-1992 (Indexed in World Archives Project) for Carlos Arana Castaneda

California

Naturalization Index Cards of the U.S. District Court For the Southern District of California, Central Division (Los Angeles), 1915-1976 (M1525)

Carrafa, Rocco - Chamberlin, Rose Marie (1930-1976)

The text reads:

No. 7957695

Name CASTENEDA, Carlos Arana

Calif.

residing at 1128 N. New Hampshire, Apt 4, L. A. 29/

Date of birth 12/25/1925

Date of order of admission Jun 21 1957

Date certificate issued Jun 21 1957

by the U.S. District Court at Los Angeles, California

Petition No. 199531

Alien Registration No. 8 108 676

Cavrdg (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cavrdg! I have restored the content with a proper source, and from the info in that I was able to dig deeper and found another source with an excellent image of his petition for naturalization. I appreciate the help! Anastrophe (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your work! Would you agree that these better sources should also be added to "note 1" (nb)? And what about mentioning that Castaneda claimed different dates / places of birth? There are several other texts to be found via google that use this (wrong) information, and I think that the article should point out what is true and what was made up by him. Or is "note 1" sufficient? --Kuhni74 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I see your point re Note 1. I also see it as somewhat problematic - it contains much more info than the existing 'early life' section, and some of the sources are questionable - the Time magazine source has 'subscriber' in the link, and no byline, for example. I think most of the info and sourcing should be folded into the 'early life' section and then we drop note 1, since it's redundant after a fashion. But there's a lot to go through in all that, and it's more work than I'm willing to devote to it at the moment... Anastrophe (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Neoshamanism : can we add his role in the emergence of this New Age spiritual movement ?

In the article on neoshamanism, Carlos Castaneda is cited as one of the writers who influenced the emergence of this New Age spiritual movement.

Here is the quote : "Three writers in particular are seen as promoting and spreading ideas related to shamanism and neoshamanism: Mircea Eliade, Carlos Castaneda, and Michael Harner."

Here is the reference : Scuro, Juan & Rodd, Robin (2015). "Neo-Shamanism". Encyclopedia of Latin American Religions. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08956-0_49-1

If there is no objections, I will add his role in the emergence of neoshamanism in the lead section.

Sincerely, Xavharel (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

A Certificate of Baptism shows his birthdate as December 26, 1925

A certificate of baptism from his hometown of Cajamarca dated December 26, 1926 shows his birthdate being December 26, 1925. The actual month is covered in the scan by the picture, but it shows his birthday as being the 26th and birthyear as being 1925. It also shows his name at that point in time as "Carlos César Arana Castañeda" and not the birthname shown on the article. Any thoughts?

Picture: https://a.thumbs.redditmedia.com/LWaofZtkJdEdYDoiMj-xbX86tDq99zjDhBDWeBJqow0.png Cypher056E (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Would need something far more reliable than this to make a change. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Error in citation

Footnote has 'Donald Wieve'; it should be 'Donald Wiebe.' 195.252.220.199 (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thannks! Skyerise (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Uncited death claims

This uncited claim has been removed from the article for discussion and to allow for editors to provide citations. It appears to be original research based on primary sources. We'd need a reliable secondary source for this. Also, assuming C. J. Castaneda is a living person, our WP:BLP policy applies here, especially as this is about a purported but unsubstantiated legal action. It can't be in the article uncited for that reason. Skyerise (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Redacted

Skyerise (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the content entirely as a blatant WP:BLP violation. Each individual statement would need a reliable source for any of the above to be restored to the article. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Who is David Silverman?

The "Modern perspectives" part mentions a "David Silverman" who seems to have written a book on Castaneda, but that's about all the information I found. I'd have added a template but he page is protected.

The ISBN is provided, which means you can find the book on Google Books, where you'll find he is Professor Emeritus, Sociology Department, Goldsmiths College and Visiting Professor, Management Department, King's College, University of London. Google is your friend. Skyerise (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Initial response section

The general initial response by reviewers was positive; this should certainly be covered by the article along with the critics. I'd say it would be most illuminating to present the major responses chronologically. For example, the New York Times review mentioned but not cited was clearly a response that preceded the then-as-yet-unpublished criticism by Weston La Barre. When and where was La Barre's criticism published? The books were an initially considered factual and phenomenal—and this lasted for some years before the view that the material is fictional became predominant, but the article gives no clue that this was the case, making it a much less interesting read. Skyerise (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

For the convenience of those who may not have lived through this period, here's a summary:

1. 1960s - Early 1970s: Castaneda's early books, starting with "The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge" (1968), gain popularity among counterculture and spiritual communities. Readers are intrigued by the vivid descriptions of shamanic experiences and alternative perspectives on reality.
2. Late 1970s - 1980s: As Castaneda publishes more books, skepticism about the authenticity of his experiences and the accuracy of his accounts grows. Critics from both academic and spiritual circles question the validity of his claims and the lack of verifiable evidence.
3. 1980s - 1990s: Despite the controversies, Castaneda's books continue to have a significant impact on New Age spirituality and alternative thought. Some readers consider them as sources of inspiration and insight into alternative ways of understanding reality.
4. 1990s - 2000s: Scholars, anthropologists, and experts in indigenous cultures continue to scrutinize Castaneda's works. Many point out inconsistencies, contradictions, and inaccuracies in his descriptions of Yaqui culture and shamanic practices. Debates arise about whether Castaneda's writings can be considered legitimate academic or anthropological works.
5. 2000s - Present: Carlos Castaneda passes away in 1998, leaving behind a legacy that continues to divide opinions. Some view his books as valuable contributions to spiritual literature, focusing on their philosophical and experiential aspects rather than their literal truth. Others criticize the lack of concrete evidence supporting his claims and question the ethics of his interactions with the Yaqui people.

Until the 1990s, the critics were a minority view; during the 90s they became the majority view. Hope this helps. Skyerise (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

In the section titled "Related writers and influence," please add the following item to the list:

• Oliver Stone named his production company Ixtlan after Castaneda's book Journey to Ixtlan.

source: https://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/oliver-stone-1

Thanks. Elsa "Rosalie" Bannister (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: We have an article on the book, Journey to Ixtlan which would be a more appropriate place for the suggested content. Skyerise (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on the Ides of March 2024

The last line in the "Reception" section "Later responses" sub-section should be removed: "The fact that his twelve titles have sold over twenty-eight million copies, and still sell tens of thousands of copies a year, would indicate that those interested in the perspective of the world that Castaneda's books present find his reporting of value."

That's blatant weasel wording of no value to the encyclopedia. It's akin to saying, "Sure, he's a fraud, but he sold well, so who cares?" At the very least, calling it "reporting" and not "writing" or even "fiction" is biased. "Reporting" suggests it is true and objective. "Writing" just acknowledges it is words, one way or the other. "Fiction" would be justifiable based upon the previous information. The existence of this sentence is trying to snobbishly dismiss the entire section for no sensible reason. 2601:840:8080:4B10:C8EB:2D27:E2CB:1EB0 (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the entire last paragraph, as it was completely unsourced. Skyerise (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Musical followers

Luis de Pablo, an Spaniard music composer, wrote the piece: 'Chamán', to honour the Carlos Castaneda books. Gesund + 213.55.233.16 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2026

Given " the training he described is now generally considered to be fictional" , the first line should not be "was an American --anthropologist-- and writer", he "was a writer and cult leader" ~2026-19689-43 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. I think given that he has multiple degrees in anthropology, it is hard to say that he isn't an anthropologist. Do you have sources that support this edit? meamemg (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

an anthropologist does anthropology. he wrote books about new age woo and ran a sex and drug cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-19689-43 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

from the article: "there is now consensus among critics and scholars that the books are largely, if not completely, fictional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-19689-43 (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

and: "Edmund Leach praised The Teachings of Don Juan as "a work of art," he doubted its factual authenticity. "

and: "Spicer noted that the events described in the book were not consistent with other ethnographic accounts of Yaqui cultural practices, concluding it was unlikely that don Juan had ever participated in Yaqui group life. Spicer also wrote, "[It is] wholly gratuitous to emphasize, as the subtitle does, any connection between the subject matter of the book and the cultural traditions of the Yaquis.""

and: "According to William W. Kelly, chair of the anthropology department at Yale University:

I doubt you'll find an anthropologist of my generation who regards Castaneda as anything but a clever con man. It was a hoax, and surely don Juan never existed as anything like the figure of his books. Perhaps to many it is an amusing footnote to the gullibility of naive scholars, although to me it remains a disturbing and unforgivable breach of ethics.

"

he is NOT "an anthropologist" - he is at best a pseudo-anthropologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-19689-43 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2026

In the "Existence of Don Juan Matus" section please change

"Castaneda's writings of the teachings of Don Juan wildly contradict what is known of actual Yaqui culture.[6]

Castaneda critic Richard de Mille published two books—Castaneda's Journey: The Power and the Allegory and The Don Juan Papers—in which he argued that don Juan was imaginary,[31][32] based on several arguments, including that Castaneda did not report on the Yaqui name of a single plant he learned about,"

to...

"While the Name 'Don Juan' is obviously a moniker, it is clear that he selects this to hide his true identity. (Page 1 of Journey to Ixalan where Don Juan says quote: 'I'm a horseman without a horse,' he said with a big smile and then added, 'I've told you my name is Juan Matus.' This in no way means Juan is his true name, but rather that he is practicing the Toltec art of 'Erasing Personal History')

Evidence that Don Juan is not actually a cultural Yaqui, but rather was likely born in that area, and lived there for a time is provided by 'Take you for instance,' I said, 'You are a Yaqui. You can't change that.' 'Am I?' he asked, smiling, 'How do you know that?'... 'The fact that I know whether or not I am a Yaqui or not does not make it personal history ... And I assure you that no one will ever know that for sure.' 'Is this idea of not having a personal history something that the Yaquis do?' I asked. 'It's something that I do.' ... 'Nobody knows my personal history. Nobody knows who I am or what I do. Not even I.'" (All quotes from Journey to Ixalan, pages 11-14)

As well as page viii of the Introduction to Journey to Ixalan where the quote reads: "So far I've made no attempt whatsoever to place don Juan in a cultural milieu. The fact that he considers himself to be a Yaqui Indian does not mean that his knowledge of sorcery is known or practiced by the Yaqui Indians in general."

These quotes who that Don Juan himself allowed a certain belief of his identity because it served a purpose, but Castaneda himself makes in very clear in this 1972 publication that he does not see Don Juan as an actual, cultural, Yaqui.

This follows with knowledge later found in the books that the whole of Toltec knowledge is separate & distinct from any specific Native Peoples culture, such that the Toltecs should be seen as a class, or caste, of shamans amongst every tribe they might be near. This also explains perfectly why "Castaneda did not report on the Yaqui name of a single plant he learned about", because very simply, such academic information is superfluous to the esoteric drive of teaching Toltec principles, and Don Juan is repeatedly uninterested in providing the type of corroboration that Castaneda (and academics) so desperately crave.

As a result, all information about Toltec or Yaqui culture within the writings of Castaneda are responsibly seen as separate from any personal information to the author. After all, in this very same section of the book, Castaneda is attempting to establish "basic anthropological field work" by building a genealogical family tree of Don Juan, which he adamantly refuses, because this type of scientific, or academic, work is irrelevant to the purpose of Toltec teachings. Don Juan did not care about the accuracy, or validity, of Castaneda's feild work, and repeatedly makes it clear throughout all books that academic research is anathema to learning shamanism, and provide little to no real value. Corroboration is only valuable to those who need hard verification of all sciences, rather than those who simply seek the knowledge, and are able to test it in real life, independently from the narrative.

While "official" academics will doubtlessly quibble over whether or not Don Juan exists, the above information allows for self-evident observation of the facts: a man, calling himself Don Juan, existed & was in some way connected to the Yaqui people. As a date of birth is not available within any of Castaneda's writings, and a general lack of written records within Mexico at this time, definitive proof is impossible. However, the main logical fallacy of modern 'critics' is that they fail to realize the impossibility of inventing a lot of information shared by Don Juan.

While personal psychotropic experiences of Castaneda are inherently subjective, it is unreasonable to assume that the complex web of cultural practices, and deep legends of lore, within the Toltec realm is entirely false. For example, Don Juan relates stories about his lineage being friars within a Catholic church after the Spanish Conquest. He reports that before this time, there was an earlier invasion of warlike people that swept through the region, and has been verified by increasing hordes of modern archaeological research around the movements of the precursors to the Aztecs. We now know as fact that the Aztecs moved to Mexico from the Utah area, making war as they did so. It is suspected, but not yet fully confirmed, that before this time, the Aztecs derived from the Great Lakes region. At about this time of movement, a study into family dynamics of the Native Peoples discovered a bizarre wholesale abandonment of all cities within the same range as the Black Death in Europe, enhancing the idea that a once united culture split up. In addition, Castaneda long suspects the existence of a vast continent-spanning trade work prior to the Spanish Conquest, which has been confirmed by modern archaeology. This network ran from Alaska to Baja, from New Mexico to Georgia & Ohio."

VoyagerThothDeidora (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Your proposed addition is essentially original research, which can't be used on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, we rely on synthesizing what has already been published in existing sources. Day Creature (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)