I liked this book a bit but not enough for 3 stars. The author sounds sincere about his experiences and gets 2 stars for this and the extensive resource list he provides for those who would want to follow up on his research. I may do but I don't intend to try and duplicate his experience with Tryptamines. He admits near the end of the text that the chances are very poor that you can expect to have a similar experience. Therein lies my knock on the thesis of this book and premise of the author.
Thesis: (I believe) that DMT [a tryptamine drug] is effectively a "gateway" to another dimension [p.84]
Oroc says that he was a confirmed rationalist, materialist of the scientific tradition; agnostic or atheist, he doesn't distinguish but supposedly he didn't believe in a god. Whether he intends for this to add weight to his ultimate "conversion" or not is unclear. But it is clear from his writing that he never had a clue in the first place about what science is and is not. To be fair, I never felt that his ignorance was a deliberate ploy but I will say that there are lots of charlatans that use this ploy. They can get away with it because so many people who think that they are "scientific" or rationalists are as ill-informed as Oroc. I know many individuals, supposedly educated in a science from university that either never intended to embrace science (religious deniers) or simply never grasped the essence of the method.
In Oroc's case, he demonstrates his lack of grasp in Chapter 5, where he provides his understanding of the Quantum Realm. He doesn't understand that physics is an inquiry into the unknown just as much as the less reductionist disciplines. His world view is crushed by the notion that Newtonian physics wasn't 100% correct. But perfect knowledge does not exist, Mr. Oroc! He regurgitates the well-founded distrust for University/Industrial science. Blah-blah-blah. Like mystical inquiry, it is a human undertaking and subject to all the foibles we bring to the table.
In Chapter 6 he takes the Zero point field as the 100% proven replacement paradigm (see above re: perfect knowledge). The problem for his interpretations is that he takes the noodlings of theoretical physicists (Feynman, Bohr and others) as facts. His faith in the new zero-point field paradigm stems entirely from a mathematical resolution (Reuda, Haisch and Puthoff=RHP) of their zero-point math with Newton's formulation. Theories are not proofs! Ignoring that proofs don't exist, the kinds of work that Oroc takes as proof, are not even theories but rather hypotheses, awaiting tests. To my knowledge, the experimental tests remain to be done. Even if a few tests have, or do eventually, confirm the RHP hypothesis perfect knowledge doesn't exist. Repeated confirmations of all aspects of their new paradigm are a long way off. It would be premature to class RHP as theory.
To conclude, the author decides to take on the skeptics. His distaste for Dawkins in particular is a bit sophomoric. Most of all he demonstrates that he is not intellectually up to the challenge. He states (p. 220) "There is no way of proving any of this [this being his thesis above] one way or the other." This statement is the essence of intellectual childhood; hiding behind an unprovable straw man. A good or great practitioner of inquiry would never hide behind such a statement. The goal is to ask useful questions...questions posed in a way that a test is possible, however rudimentary the answer might be. Anything else is just not useful-navel gazing, time-wasting. Oroc then solidly nails himself on the cross (from my perspective and to use a lovely analogy ;-) with statement that confirms he is an intellectual infant. "These are just my ideas and my experiences, and the 'hypothesis that best fits the given evidence' for me." The method is simple and it doesn't work that way. You don't fit an hypothesis to evidence. Evidence is sought to test a specific hypothesis. If evidence "fits" an hypothesis, you haven't proven it (again, no perfect knowledge).
Ultimately, his experiment has an unknown sample size that is more than one (probably about a dozen) and only one confirming result. The rest falsify his thesis. How can that make any sense?
In the end Oroc (or whatever his real name is) relies too much on words of wisdom? from others to make his argument. This is a common "research" strategy among the folks that need to have revered or sacred texts to make their world. I remain unconvinced by the argument (such as it is) and not compelled to abandon all reality. The more I think about it the more I become convinced that he really only erected the "I was once an atheist just like you" façade to try and add weight to a pretty light argument.