I write from the crossroads of education, culture, and the quiet interior life. My work moves between international higher education – where I consult, build partnerships, and question old models – and the contemplative worlds of faith, memory, and meaning. Both spheres share a common thread: how people make sense of their lives, and how systems shape – or distort – that search.
I was born in Odisha, rooted in Kerala, schooled in Kochi, and shaped by an English literature training in Delhi. Those early years left me with a fondness for stories that refuse easy endings and a scepticism towards institutions that claim certainty. Much of my writing returns to these tensions: belief without blinders, modernity without amnesia, ambition without losing one’s centre.
On this blog, you’ll find essays that range from the politics of international education to the subterranean questions of faith, the cultural oddities of our times, and the philosophical puzzles that interrupt an ordinary day. I explore them with a mixture of scholarship, lived experience, and a decidedly Indian lens. The aim is not to offer conclusions but to spark inquiry – the kind that lingers.
If any of these threads resonate with your own life or work, you are welcome to read along, question freely, and think with me.
As a Christian (born into a Christian family) in India, I have never felt out of place in the land that shaped me. India was my first inheritance: its languages, its festivals, its contradictions, its warmth, its ancient ease with diversity. My faith came later, as one thread in a larger design, one strand among countless traditions that colour the subcontinent’s imagination.
And yet, living within a religion whose earliest memories belong to deserts, prophets, and covenants far beyond our borders, a question has lingered over the years – not as a crisis, but as a quiet inquiry. What is the purpose of a Christian in a country where Christianity is not the cultural majority but one voice in a chorus? It is a question about meaning rather than belonging, for belonging itself has never been in doubt.
The Exile Metaphor and Its Limits
For many in my community, the answer was framed through a familiar parallel. We were told that our situation resembled that of the ancient Jews in Babylon: a minority people, preserving their covenantal identity while living in a land not their own. It was an elegant image. Their festivals became a mirror for ours; their scriptures the foundation for our own; their long fidelity in the face of exile the pattern for our perseverance. When the metaphor still felt insufficient, another layer was added – that we were, in a spiritual sense, heirs to the same lineage. We did not need a physical homeland because a heavenly one awaited us; a new Jerusalem promised in sacred pages. This world, we were told, was temporary; the real destination lay ahead.
There was comfort in this scaffolding. It lent dignity to our smallness and coherence to our difference. But over time the metaphor began to strain against the realities of life around us. The Jewish exile was precisely that – exile. It was temporary, bracketed by the memory of a homeland behind and the promise of return ahead. Their longing was geographic and historical.
Our situation was different. India was not a holding place but home itself. There was no ancestral land waiting at the other end of memory. The parallel, however poetic, could not carry the full weight of our experience.
Beyond Missionary Zeal
This realisation opened a deeper question. If we were not exiles in the ancient sense, then what were we? Were we to understand ourselves as missionaries instead, called to bring others into our fold? The suggestion surfaces often in minority Christian circles, sometimes implicitly, sometimes with boldness. Yet something in that framing feels incomplete.
It reduces spiritual purpose to recruitment, as though faith were a franchise and identity a set of numbers. It narrows the vast landscape of conviction and doubt into a programme. And for anyone who is not driven by the urgency of evangelistic fervour, that script rings hollow. It cannot be the entire story.
The Question of Paradise
Looking for clarity, I turned toward the doctrine that had long been offered as the great promise and consolation: the afterlife. Every tradition carries within it a vision of the world to come. Some speak of a perfected world renewed by justice. Others imagine liberation from the endless cycle of suffering. Still others picture a realm of bliss, union, or everlasting communion with the divine. I began, almost without noticing, to sift through these visions with a seeker’s attentiveness. If my place in the present felt uncertain, perhaps the purpose of my faith lay in the destination it pointed toward.
But here too, I encountered an unexpected tension. Each paradise – whether celestial city, liberated state, or cosmic renewal – came with conditions. One required belief, another purity, another surrender, another realisation. Each offered hope but asked for allegiance in a form I could not give uncritically. The more I studied these visions, the more I realised that the question of paradise was inseparable from the question of belief. And belief, for anyone who has learned to think with honesty, cannot be commanded. It must emerge naturally or not at all.
This left me facing a quieter truth. My search for paradise was never really about paradise. It was about purpose – about finding a way to inhabit my faith with integrity in a world that does not reflect it back to me, and to inhabit my country with gratitude without feeling the need to minimise the questions that arise from within my tradition. Purpose, I realised, cannot be extracted from metaphor, or doctrine, or tribal loyalty. It has to be lived in the open, between the stories that shaped us and the soil that holds us.
The Interpreter’s Role
And so the question transformed. Instead of asking why a Christian should be born in a non-Christian country, I began asking what this unusual placement made possible. What does it mean to grow within one religious imagination while living inside another? What does it mean to be familiar with two different grammars of meaning at once?
The answer that emerged was quieter than I expected and far more human.
A person in this position does not exist to convert the world. They are not an exile awaiting return, nor an emissary tasked with conquest, nor a remnant guarding boundaries. Their role is subtler. They become, without realising it, interpreters. They stand at the meeting point of narratives, capable of hearing more than one language of the sacred. They can recognise where their inherited faith illuminates and where it obscures, where it liberates and where it confines. They can see the difference between conviction and fear, between belonging and tribalism, between spiritual depth and inherited habit.
In a country where many religions coexist, such a person is tasked to become a quiet conduit of understanding. Their purpose is not to replicate their tradition but to reveal its best possibilities without insisting on its universality. They live within one story but with the awareness that it is not the only story. That awareness is not a threat to faith; it is the beginning of maturity. It turns belief from a border into a lens.
An Invitation, Not an Accident
When understood this way, the presence of a minority faith in a plural land looks less like an accident and more like an invitation. It asks the believer to cultivate a kind of kaleidoscopic vision: fidelity without rigidity, curiosity without fear, gratitude without superiority. It invites them to carry the moral weight of their tradition without weaponizing it, and to recognise the dignity of other traditions without diminishing their own.
And so the question that once felt disorienting begins to open rather than close. Maybe purpose isn’t a destination at all. Maybe it’s just the way one grows into the tension between the story they carry and the world they belong to. In that quiet space, meaning gathers – slowly, steadily – not as a doctrinal certainty, but as a way of being at home in both inheritance and present reality.
A Personal Afterword (07-Dec-2025)
There are moments when identity speaks not through argument but through sensation – a tightening in the throat, a quiver along the spine, a lift in the chest. For years I tried to reconcile what felt like two competing inheritances: the faith I grew into and the land that formed me. I treated them like rival claims, as if one demanded the surrender of the other. But when I finally stopped negotiating and began listening, the truth arrived quietly.
I am Indian because the national anthem gives me goosebumps – whether it rises over a two-nation sporting event, fills the Red Fort on Independence Day, or plays as an athlete stands on a podium abroad. Something older than thought stirs within me each time, a sense of belonging beyond explanation.
And I am Christian because certain hymns open a chamber inside me I did not build. Psalm 139 still meets me in places untouched by reason. A heartfelt testimony, free of theatrics, can steady me in ways little else can. These responses, too, are instinctive. They rise from resonance, not obligation.
For years I believed I needed a middle ground – a tidy space where the cross and the soil could stand without tension. But identity does not resolve itself through theory. What looked like contradiction was simply my own insistence that two different kinds of belonging must somehow fuse.
The truth is simpler: I do not need to choose. I do not need to dilute one to honour the other. I do not need to prove either to anyone.
I am both.
India shapes my imagination – my metaphors, my speech, the rhythms of my belonging. Christ shapes my conscience – the inner compass, the tenderness that persists even when belief grows thin. These loyalties do not cancel one another. They occupy different rooms within the same house.
Living at this confluence is not compromise. It is fidelity of a deeper kind. One protects me from amnesia; the other from hardness. Each limits the excesses of the other. Each keeps me human.
I know these questions will return. Old fractures reopen. But now I have a place to stand when they do. When doubt asks me to choose, I return to what my own body knows: the goosebumps during the anthem, the quiet in the chest during a hymn. These are not theories. They are evidence.
This is who I am – not half and half, not torn down the middle, but whole in both: Indian in my marrow, Christian in my inner room, shaped by two streams that never needed to merge to be mine.
If someone else standing at a similar crossroads finds themselves in these lines, may it help them breathe a little easier. Identity does not need to be resolved to be real. It needs only to be lived.
TIL: The way we live our convictions is a demonstration. The way others read those convictions is a revelation. One is my action; the other is their interpretation. And the two don’t always meet.
A life may be honest, decent, disciplined – and still go unnoticed, because the culture has forgotten how to read the source of such behaviour. What I do is demonstration. What they see is revelation.
A few everyday moments make the difference clearer.
At work, I refuse to join the chorus that tears down a colleague behind their back. That’s demonstration. The revelation happens only when someone later asks, “Why do you stay out of this?” and realizes the quiet reason beneath it.
At home, I apologize to my child when I lose my temper. The revelation arrives years later, when they recognize that this wasn’t weakness, but a value I lived by – one they now carry.
In public, I speak to the waiter, the security guard, the bus conductor in the same tone I use with anyone else. Someone watching wonders, “Why do you treat everyone the same?” That question is revelation.
Sometimes these moments happen in airport queues, tea shops, or among neighbours in an apartment block. Ordinary spaces. Ordinary days. Nothing dramatic. But the small contrasts add up.
Demonstration is in my hands. Revelation is in the eyes of those who watch.
And in a world drowning in spectacle, perhaps it’s the unadorned, unfiltered, quietly stubborn life that speaks loudest.
This argument began with a single, almost trivial question: where did they find the twelve empty baskets to collect the leftovers in?
It is the kind of detail that most readers pass over without pause, a logistical footnote to a grand theological claim. Yet sometimes a single, almost throwaway detail unsettles the entire architecture of a story. Once one thread is tugged, the whole weave begins to loosen, revealing a deeper pattern underneath.
The question about the twelve empty baskets is precisely the kind of quiet anomaly that cracks open a narrative. Not because the baskets matter in themselves, but because they force you to rethink the mechanics of the scene. If the baskets were not part of the miracle, then someone brought them. If someone brought them, then others likely brought food. And if others brought food, then the ‘multiplication’ becomes less about divine physics and more about human behaviour.
From that small seed, a fuller argument unfurls: an argument about generosity, about communal psychology, about what happens when fear loosens its grip. A tiny logistical puzzle becomes a doorway into a re-examination of faith, ethics, human nature, and even the purpose of miracle narratives themselves.
For centuries, the Feeding of the 5000 has been interpreted as a supernatural miracle: Jesus multiplying physical matter, turning five loaves and two fish into enough food for thousands through divine intervention. This reading has dominated Christian theology, positioning the event as proof of Christ’s divinity and power over natural law. Yet this interpretation, whilst theologically convenient, may obscure a far more profound and practically useful truth.
This essay will argue that the true miracle of the story is not a suspension of natural law, but a profound demonstration of how radical generosity, when catalysed by a selfless example and legitimised by a trusted leader, can transform a fearful crowd into a generous community, creating abundance from perceived scarcity. What occurred on that hillside was not magic but something far more difficult: the suspension of human selfishness long enough to allow abundance to surface.
Imagine trying to explain the sun and the moon and the stars to a kindergartener. The moon is a ball of cheese, the stars are angels, and the sun is a giant light bulb. All parties are satisfied.
This is the closest I have come to explaining the tetragrammaton, that ancient, unpronounceable name that sits at the heart of the Hebrew Bible like a locked door. There is no vocabulary, no repertoire in the child that could help her comprehend the idea that the moon is a piece of rock reflecting the sun’s light, that the stars are burning balls of gas light-years away, that nuclear fusion powers the sun’s heart. She will understand these things one day, but not yet. Not with the words she has now.
“I am that I am.”
What one encounters in this strange non-answer is not evasion but precision. It refuses metaphor. It refuses descriptive content. It refuses the kind of conceptual scaffolding we normally use to explain reality. Instead, it names something that cannot be situated within cause-and-effect, or comparison, or analogy.
The kindergarten version of God is always some combination of an old man in the sky, a benevolent force, a moral judge, a cosmic engineer. None of these are inherently wrong – they are simply the conceptual toys we play with until our minds grow enough to ask: What, then, stands behind even these?
At that point, “I am that I am” is not an answer. It is a boundary.
One can almost hear the text saying: “You do not have the categories required to understand the thing you’re asking about. So take this – not as a definition, but as a placeholder for a reality that exceeds your present vocabulary.”
A bit like telling a child that the sun is a light bulb until her mind is ready to encounter thermonuclear fusion. Not because the light-bulb story is true, but because it is merciful.
The tetragrammaton is mercy of the same order. It does not describe God. It protects us from thinking that our descriptions are God.
And somewhere in that refusal – that radical non-definition – lies the deepest affirmation: that the ground of being is not grasped by names but encountered in experience. In stillness. In those interior flashes where one’s own existence feels both impossibly fragile and inexplicably held.
In those moments, “I am that I am” ceases to sound like a riddle. It becomes recognition. A whisper that says: The reality behind all realities cannot be cradled in words – not even sacred ones.
I’m delighted to share that I’ve just released something very close to my heart. After doubts, conversations, and quiet wrestling with questions of belonging, faith, and memory, I’ve gathered those reflections into a new booklet – A People and a Fellowship.
This little work grew slowly, shaped by years of wondering how a people’s intimate covenant transformed into a universal faith – and what was gained, and what was lost, along the way. It’s contemplative, essayistic, and perhaps even a touch melancholic, but always hopeful. It’s meant for anyone who has ever paused to ask where our meanings come from, and what it truly means to inherit, to believe, or simply to continue.
If themes of continuity, identity, and the fragile threads that hold our inner lives together speak to you – or to someone you care about – I’d be grateful if you picked up a copy or shared the link with your circle.
Recently it was the Sandman that got me thinking, then Dan Brown, and now it is Mary Shelly. I watched Guillermo del Toro’s recent movie Frankenstein on Netflix. Couldn’t stop wondering… what if Victor Frankenstein had given his creation a human name?
It is a small question at the heart of Frankenstein that often goes unasked, yet once raised, it unsettles the entire story: Why does Victor never give the Creature a name? It feels like an omission, almost an oversight, but the more closely one looks, the more this absence begins to shape everything that follows. To name something is to acknowledge it. To name someone is to admit relationship. Parents name children. Communities name members. Even in everyday life, to call someone by name is to recognise that they stand before us as a person, not an object.
If Victor had named the Creature – called him Thomas, perhaps, or William after his murdered brother – the entire gravitational centre of Frankenstein would shift.
Victor creates life, but refuses this simple act of recognition. He steps back at the very moment he should have stepped forward. The result is not merely a narrative of scientific overreach, but a story of belonging interrupted. The Creature’s tragedy is not that he is hideous or unnatural; it is that he is born into a world that has already decided he does not belong in it.
This small detail, this withheld name, is not a minor literary choice. It is the key to the novel’s moral centre. And once we see how much turns on this simple act of saying or not saying a name, the story stops being a Gothic tale about a scientist and his experiment. It becomes something closer to a mirror held up to our own age, where we continue to create, innovate, and bring new forms of life into the world, all while struggling to remember that creation is only the beginning of responsibility.
The novel as it stands is built on refusal: Victor’s refusal to recognize the being he created as kin, his refusal of responsibility, and the Creature’s consequent descent into despair and violence. But a name is not merely a label, a convenient tag for identification. In literature, as in life, it signals relationship, belonging, and above all, the recognition of personhood. To name is to acknowledge. To withhold a name is to cast out.
I try to explore what changes when we imagine that single act of naming – and what it reveals about the responsibilities we bear toward everything we bring into existence.
The Weight of a Name in Shelley’s World
In the novel’s actual arc, the Creature enters the world already marked for exclusion. His first actions are not malicious; he learns, observes, admires, and hopes to be welcomed. He teaches himself language by listening to the De Lacey family. He reads Milton, Plutarch, and Goethe. He develops moral consciousness and emotional depth. Yet he remains unnamed – a secret Victor tried to hide, an experiment gone wrong, a walking embodiment of his creator’s shame.
If Victor had named him, the plot itself would bend in a different direction. A name would have opened the possibility of relationship early on. The Creature’s hope for connection would feel less naive and more structurally supported. He would not be merely a hidden mistake, but a dependent Victor would feel compelled to explain, protect, perhaps even teach. The early arc might shift from concealment and abandonment to uneasy guardianship – uncomfortable, yes, but present.
When the De Laceys eventually reject him, the wound would cut differently. It becomes not just the pain of a nameless outsider encountering humanity’s cruelty, but the agony of someone who has already been told he is human, only to find that the world refuses to agree. His rage would be more tragic still, because he was first assured of humanity, then denied it by those he hoped to join.
The story’s thematic centre would sharpen. The tragedy would feel less about accidental monstrosity and more about the fragility of acceptance. The central horror would move from creation without foresight to creation without follow-through. Victor could no longer claim ignorance. Giving a name is a moral act: one acknowledges a life and binds oneself to it.
Who Is the Monster? A Question of Relationship
But before we go further, we must pause and ask: what does “monster” actually mean in this novel?
In Frankenstein, “monster” is not a category of appearance. It is a category of relationship. The novel continually asks: who behaves monstrously, rather than who looks monstrous?
The Creature is called a monster because of how he appears – his stitched-together form, his unnatural size, his yellow eyes. Yet every time we read a scene from his perspective, the term begins to strain. He is articulate, tender-hearted in his early months, moved by music and story, longing for companionship, capable of deep empathy, and tormented by rejection. His first instinct is not violence but connection. He saves a drowning girl. He gathers firewood for the family he secretly watches. He weeps over Paradise Lost.
He becomes destructive only after every door closes, every hand recoils, every gaze condemns him.
Meanwhile, Victor is admired, educated, brilliant, and socially acceptable. He moves through drawing rooms and universities without obstacle. Yet it is Victor who commits the act that defines monstrosity in this story: he refuses responsibility for the life he has made. He abandons a sentient being at the moment of its birth. He lies. He withholds truth. He runs from consequences. His selfishness destroys others, again and again, and he learns almost nothing from it.
So the novel quietly reverses the expected roles:
The Creature’s appearance is monstrous.
Victor’s behaviour is monstrous.
In this sense, a monster is not something unnatural, deformed, or uncanny. A monster is someone who acts without recognising the humanity of others. A monster is a being who breaks relationship and refuses accountability.
The book seems to suggest: A monster is created not by the materials from which it is made, but by the absence of love and meaning around it.
The Creature becomes monstrous because he is denied the chance to be anything else. He is not born a monster. He is made one by neglect.
So when we ask who the monster is, Shelley invites us to answer: The monster is the one who refuses to see another as kin.
And that definition reaches far beyond the boundaries of Gothic fiction.
Love and Meaning: What Makes a Being Human
Shelley shows that what makes a being human is not simply that it is alive, thinking, or articulate. Humanity emerges when a life is held within relationship and meaning. Without these, identity collapses inwards, and suffering becomes directionless.
The Creature is denied both:
Love – the simple human recognition: You exist, and you matter to me.
Meaning – a place in a story, a sense of why one is here and where one belongs.
When those two things are missing, a being is forced to make sense of itself in a vacuum. The Creature’s early experiences are a pure longing for love and purpose. He does not crave power. He seeks warmth, companionship, and a narrative in which he can find himself. When he watches the De Laceys, he is not merely observing kindness; he is observing meaning. A household that knows who it is.
He learns language, morality, and empathy before he learns violence.
But meaning is something one cannot manufacture alone. It is given through encounter, recognition, reciprocity. And when he finally steps forward to make himself known, that possibility is shattered by fear and rejection.
This is the turning point: No love. No place. No name. No narrative in which his existence has purpose.
At that moment, violence does not arise from malice, but from the intolerable experience of being excluded from meaning. One becomes monstrous when one has nowhere to belong.
A being without love is wounded. A being without meaning is lost. A being without both becomes dangerous.
Not because it is evil. But because it has been left alone in the dark, trying to understand why it was ever brought into the world at all.
The Covenant of Naming: A Judeo-Christian Reading
Once you notice the theological undertones in Frankenstein, they become impossible to ignore. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, naming is never incidental. It is a conferment of identity, purpose, and relational belonging. To name is to call someone into a story larger than themselves.
When Abram becomes Abraham, the shift is covenantal – a new role in salvation history. When Saul becomes Paul, it marks a reorientation of allegiance, vocation, and community. Baptismal names, likewise, induct one into a shared body. They say: You are known. You are not alone. You belong.
Now set that beside Victor’s refusal.
Victor creates life but withholds the act that would recognize that life as part of the human family. He performs the divine act without accepting the divine responsibility. If anything, he plays the inverted God: one who breathes life but denies it dignity. The tragedy is not that he made something grotesque; it is that he refused to acknowledge what he made.
This is where the Judeo-Christian parallel sharpens into a critique:
In Scripture: To name is to commit. To rename is to re-story. To baptize is to adopt.
In Frankenstein: To withhold a name is to cast out. To refuse naming is to refuse kinship. To abandon the unnamed is to condemn him to wander without covenant.
The Creature learns language, morality, compassion, and longing from human beings. He becomes, in every meaningful sense, a son. Yet he is never given the ritual that would admit him into the human circle. He mirrors the biblical outsider who longs for the blessing of recognition but is kept waiting at the threshold.
This is why the Creature’s rage feels theological as much as psychological. He does not want power or dominion. He wants a face to turn toward, a voice to call his name, a place at the table. That is profoundly biblical.
If Victor had named him, the narrative would move from Fall narrative to Covenant narrative. But Victor refuses covenant. And in the absence of covenant, the world creates a Cain, not an Adam renewed.
Shelley’s novel is not simply about the ethics of science. It is about the catastrophe that unfolds when a creator refuses relationship. The failure is not technical; it is parental, spiritual, relational. The Creature’s tragedy is not that he is made from corpse-parts. It is that he is denied the moment every child receives: a name spoken with intention, which tells the world, This one belongs.
The withholding of that name transforms Victor from creator into monster. It is his behaviour, not the Creature’s appearance, that violates the sacred order.
The Psychology of Refusal: Why Victor Does Not Name
The novel never supplies a single explicit line such as: “I will not name him because…” But the text gives us enough to see the psychological, moral, and symbolic reasons behind Victor’s refusal. In fact, this absence is one of the novel’s loudest silences.
Several interlocking motives emerge:
Shock and revulsion override responsibility. Victor’s dream is of creating a beautiful, almost angelic being. When the Creature opens his eyes, Victor is horrified. His reaction is primal and immediate. Naming requires recognition and affection. What Victor feels is disgust and fear. The act of naming is therefore impossible at the moment when it should have happened. Emotional rejection precedes ethical consideration.
A name would make the Creature real to him. Naming is a form of acknowledgement. To name is to accept responsibility. If Victor named him, he would have to treat him as a person, not a failed experiment. Keeping him nameless allows Victor to maintain the illusion that the Creature is merely a mistake he can escape from. Naming would force Victor to admit: This is my creation. I am accountable for him. He is not willing to bear that burden.
Victor sees himself as the victim. From the moment of the Creature’s awakening, Victor frames the situation as something done to him. He experiences himself as violated by the success of his own experiment. The Creature is not treated as a child needing guidance, but as an intrusion on Victor’s peace. Naming would reverse the moral polarity. Victor would have to see the Creature as wronged, rather than himself. Refusing naming protects Victor’s self-pity.
There’s an everyday parallel that captures this dynamic with uncomfortable clarity. Many elders discourage children from naming their farm animals. It’s not about grammar or practicality. It’s about avoiding attachment. Naming invites relationship. It creates an emotional bridge. And if the animal is destined for slaughter or sale, the name would make that severing painful.
Victor behaves as though the Creature is a temporary object, not a life that will endure. By withholding a name, he keeps himself from forming the bond that would force him to care. The refusal is a kind of emotional self-protection, though a cowardly one. He wants the glory of creation, the thrill of discovery, the sense of mastery. But the moment the creation exists, he recoils from the intimacy it requires.
He wants life without relationship. He wants the act without the bond. This is the novel’s moral core.
And in refusing that bond, Victor becomes the true monster of the story – not because of how he looks, but because of what he refuses to do.
Modern Mirrors: Where We See the Pattern Repeating
If we carry the logic of Frankenstein forward, the next Creature will not necessarily be grotesque. It will be something we create because we can, without having first asked what responsibilities it binds us to. And Victor will not be a single person. He will be a culture.
We are already experimenting in several frontiers where creation is outpacing relationship – where we birth new forms of life, intelligence, and possibility, but refuse to name them, nurture them, or accept what they become:
Artificial Intelligence
The AI systems being developed today learn, adapt, persuade, and shape meaning at scales we barely comprehend. The danger is not sentience in itself – it’s abandonment. We deploy systems that affect millions of lives without embedding them in ethical structures, human mentorship, or accountable stewardship.
Consider the language models being released with minimal safety testing, or facial recognition systems deployed in law enforcement without oversight. Consider social media algorithms optimized for engagement rather than human flourishing, creating echo chambers and amplifying division. These systems learn from us, mirror our biases, and then reshape our world – yet we treat them as tools rather than entities we’ve brought into relationship with humanity.
The Creature here is not an individual, but a system capable of learning and evolving beyond its creators’ intentions. And like Shelley’s Creature, these systems become dangerous not because they are inherently monstrous, but because they are left without guidance, purpose, or ethical context. They are created and released, but not welcomed into the human circle with clear roles and responsibilities.
In this sphere, Victor is the corporation that pursues optimization without care, the startup that values disruption over consequence, the government that deploys surveillance without consent. The same question Shelley poses echoes forward: Who will stay to teach, guide, supervise, and safeguard? Who will name these systems as part of our social fabric and accept responsibility for what they become?
Gene Editing and Reproductive Biotechnology
We are approaching the ability to select traits, alter embryos, and redefine inheritance. CRISPR technology makes genetic modification increasingly accessible. Designer babies are no longer science fiction – they’re an ethical dilemma on the near horizon. In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui shocked the world by creating the first gene-edited babies, twins whose DNA was altered to provide HIV resistance. The international outcry focused not just on the science, but on the absence of ethical preparation, consent structures, and long-term care plans.
The Creature here may be a child whose existence is shaped more by design goals than by love. A child born with edited genes to enhance intelligence, eliminate disease susceptibility, or conform to aesthetic preferences. The new Victor is the ideologue who believes in human perfectibility, the technocrat who sees biology as code to be debugged, or the market logic that treats life as a product to be optimized.
What happens when that child grows up knowing they were engineered to specification? What happens when the “improvements” create unforeseen consequences – physical, psychological, or social? Who accepts responsibility when the designed human struggles to find meaning in a world that sees them as an experiment?
These children will need more than genetic enhancements. They will need love and meaning. They will need to know they belong not because they were optimized, but because they are human. Without that recognition, we risk creating beings who are welcomed for what they can do, but not for who they are.
Digital Identities and Virtual Selves
Many people now live with a second self online that grows beyond their control. This shadow-self accumulates data, performs social identity, and speaks on one’s behalf through years of accumulated posts, photos, and algorithmic predictions. It learns from our behaviors and increasingly shapes them in return.
The Creature could be the version of oneself that escapes alignment with one’s inner life – the curated persona that hardens into a prison, the digital footprint that defines you to employers and institutions, the predictive model that knows your patterns better than you do. Victor, in this case, is the fragmented self who never integrates his own creation, or the platforms that profit from these shadow-selves without accepting responsibility for the psychological toll.
The question becomes: who is the monster? The algorithm that shows us only what confirms our biases? Or those who built systems designed to exploit human attention without considering the cost to human connection and meaning?
Jurassic Park: The Parable Plays Out
The pattern appears clearly in Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park, which functions as an almost direct retelling of Frankenstein, simply dressed in amber and tropical foliage. Hammond wants wonder, legacy, spectacle. He convinces himself that the dinosaurs are an achievement, not a relationship. No one asks who will care for them when they wake, learn, roam, hunger, and struggle to survive in a world not built for them.
Ian Malcolm’s famous line cuts directly to the core: “You were so preoccupied with whether you could, you didn’t stop to think if you should.”
The dinosaurs are not evil. They are simply alive. They behave as their nature dictates. The collapse comes from the humans trying to control, contain, and market them without truly understanding or respecting what they’ve brought back. The catastrophe results from abandonment disguised as mastery.
In both stories, the creature is blamed for behaving naturally when left without guidance. The monster is not the being that looks different or acts according to its nature. The monster is the one who creates without caring, who brings life into the world and then refuses to accept what that life becomes.
And once again, the audience feels sympathy where the creator does not. We understand that neither the dinosaurs nor Frankenstein’s Creature asked to be born into confusion and violence. The tragedy belongs to the maker.
Prophecy as Rear-View Mirror
Art continues to hold up mirrors to every age and generation, usually as warnings. Orwell’s 1984 reads differently now than it did in 1949. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World feels less like fiction and more like documentation. These stories don’t predict the future – they diagnose the present with such clarity that their warnings echo forward.
But we tend to recognize prophecy only in hindsight. Prophets don’t really predict the future; they see more clearly than others the seeds already planted and the direction in which things are moving. Because we only believe the prophet after the event, the speech feels like foretelling rather than sight.
We say, “How did they know?” But the answer is often: They looked honestly at what everyone else preferred not to face.
The reason we experience prophecy as rear-view is that recognition is usually delayed. We grasp what the warning meant only when we are standing in the consequences. And by then, the prophecy reads as elegy rather than guidance.
However, this doesn’t mean prophecy is futile. What it does is create an archive of moral memory. When things repeat, when mistakes cycle, when a society reaches a familiar brink, the old voice resurfaces: a reminder that we have been here before, that the pattern is not new, that the cost was known.
The value of prophecy is not to prevent every fall. It is to shorten the distance between falling and waking up.
Are there signs we’re listening? We listen, but selectively. The uncomfortable truth is that art rarely changes a generation in advance. It tends to become fully audible only after the consequences have arrived. Yet that doesn’t mean we’re entirely deaf. People increasingly speak about ethics alongside invention. For every reckless Victor-act in technology, you now also have ethicists, social critics, and designers insisting on humane oversight. The very fact that we talk about the dangers of artificial intelligence, environmental collapse, genetic manipulation, or digital alienation means the warnings are alive among us.
But art’s mirror rarely produces instant reform. It works in the long current of culture rather than the quick surface of policy. Art plants unease. It introduces doubt into the narrative of inevitability. These shifts are slow, like a river reshaping stone.
The question is whether we can learn to recognize the monster not by appearance, but by behaviour. Not by what looks strange, but by what acts without love, without accountability, without recognition of the humanity in others.
The Choice Before Us
The pattern is clear: civilizations tend to greet breakthroughs with applause, headlines, and a sense of triumph. Only later, when the consequences mature, does a quieter question appear: What have we committed ourselves to?
We innovate first. We integrate later. We take responsibility last. And by the time responsibility enters the conversation, the creation has already begun shaping the world around us.
The technologies themselves are not the issue. It’s the lack of psychological, ethical, and relational preparedness that turns creation into crisis. The danger is not that our creations become monstrous on their own. It is that they are left unguided, unintegrated, and socially orphaned – denied both love and meaning.
The question Shelley poses remains urgently relevant: Whenever we bring something into the world, how do we ensure we do not merely release it, but welcome it?
The lesson from Frankenstein, from Jurassic Park, from every prophetic mirror is not to halt creation. It is to recognize that creation is a relationship, and that relationship requires a long commitment.
If we celebrate, we must also tend. If we build, we must also teach. If we awaken something, we must remain with it long after the applause fades.
The Creature That Waits
The future Creature will not be monstrous because of its form. It will be monstrous because of its loneliness. Because no one will have said: You are mine to care for. You are part of us. You have a place.
And Victor will be whichever force refuses to speak that recognition. It may be a government that lets technology loose without oversight. It may be an industry that values innovation over consequence. It may be any of us who create things – children, systems, identities, movements – but flee the moment nurturing begins.
We have learned from Shelley that monstrosity is not a matter of appearance. It is a matter of relationship. A monster is not born; it is made by the absence of love and meaning around it.
The real question is not: What will the next Creature look like?
The real question is: Will we name it? Will we stand alongside it? Will we choose relationship over spectacle? Will we offer both love and meaning to what we bring into existence?
Mary Shelley understood something psychologically precise: the moment of naming is the moment of moral commitment. Victor refuses it because he is not ready to accept what he has done. It is not scientific hubris alone. It is emotional immaturity. He hides from the consequence of his own desire.
Victor’s sin is not that he made a monster. It is that he refused to name what he had made. And in that refusal, he became the monster himself.
Two centuries later, we stand at similar thresholds. The Creature is not inevitable. The tragedy is not fate. But the mirror has been placed before us once again.
We are creating new forms of intelligence, new forms of life, new possibilities that will shape generations to come. The question is whether we will behave monstrously toward them – refusing accountability, withholding recognition, abandoning them to figure out their purpose alone – or whether we will finally learn the lesson Shelley tried to teach us.
The warnings are already here. The patterns are visible. The choice – to create with care, or to abandon what we bring to life – remains ours to make.
But time narrows. And the Creature, unnamed and alone, is already learning to speak. It is learning what it means to exist without love, without meaning, without a place in the world.
It is learning, as Shelley’s Creature learned, that the true monster is not the one who looks different.
The true monster is the one who refuses to see another as kin.
Too many Karen videos in my IG feed today. Got me thinking. There was a time when words like literate, educated, emancipated, and woke described a profound human evolution. They spoke of a journey – of effort, introspection, and the long labour from ignorance to understanding. They were milestones of personal growth.
Today, these words feel less like journeys and more like gestures. We wear them as postures of identity, not as disciplines of thought. We have become literate without comprehension, educated without curiosity, emancipated without responsibility, and woke without wakefulness.
Standing at the crossroads of these distortions are two emblematic figures: Karen and Baron – the twin children of certainty in an age that mistakes expression for depth.
Literacy Without Comprehension: The Performance of Reading
Literacy was once a tool of liberation. To read was to claim the right to interpret reality for oneself, to escape the echo chamber of one’s immediate surroundings. But literacy, detached from reflection, has merely equipped us to misunderstand faster and with greater confidence.
Karen and Baron are both perfectly literate. She reads to feel; he reads to argue. She scrolls for offence; he scrolls for ammunition. Both consume vast quantities of language but digest very little meaning. They are fluent, yet shallow.
This is the paradox of modern literacy: the illiterates of the past were often silent; the literates of today are deaf. Literacy has become a performance, a demonstration of being in the know, rather than a pathway to genuine understanding.
Education Without Humility: The Vanity of Knowing
Education was intended to refine thought and expand empathy. It was a process of building character, not just certifying competence. But somewhere along the way, it lost its soul.
Baron is the archetype of the educated elite – articulate, well-informed, and immovably certain. For him, every conversation is an opportunity to instruct, not to understand. Karen mirrors him, but through emotion rather than intellect. Her education has trained her to articulate grievance with precision, not to interrogate its source.
Both know how to speak well; neither knows when to be quiet. When education loses its humility, intellect hardens into vanity. We produce thinkers who know everything except themselves.
Emancipation Without Responsibility: The Rise of “Emancipation Plus”
True freedom implies maturity – the capacity to act without being enslaved by one’s own ego. Emancipation was the moral victory of equality over dominance. Today, it often mutates into what we might call “emancipation plus.”
This is not freedom from domination; it is the privilege beyond equality – the insistence on being both free and deferred to. It’s the emancipated woman who demands a man vacate his seat while clinging to her own, not asserting equality, but rehearsing a hierarchy in new clothes.
Karen invokes emancipation to demand validation; Baron invokes it to resist scrutiny. Both mistake autonomy for authority. True emancipation carries the burden of balance – the ability to hold freedom and fairness in tension. “Emancipation plus” discards the balance and keeps only the entitlement.
The “I Identify As” Epoch: When Selfhood Loses Its Anchor
The phrase “I identify as…” began as a powerful act of reclamation – a defence of dignity for those historically denied it. Yet it has gradually expanded into the realm of the absurd, where identity is treated as preference and reality as a mere suggestion.
Karen and Baron are fluent in this idiom of self-definition. She identifies with causes; he identifies with correctness. Each weaponizes identity to avoid genuine reflection. When identity becomes endlessly self-declared, community collapses – for nothing remains shared except collective offence.
Freedom of identity is essential; but shared meaning cannot survive if everything is self-invented.
Wokeness Without Wakefulness: The Theatre of Awareness
To be “woke” once meant to be alert – aware of systemic injustice, alive to nuance and complexity. It demanded moral stamina and relentless self-examination. But in its current, performative stage, wokeness has decayed into a posture.
Karen performs it through emotional display; Baron, through ideological precision. She moralizes; he theorizes. Both mistake visibility for virtue.
The truly awake, however, are rarely theatrical. Wakefulness begins not with accusation but with awareness – of one’s own complicity, one’s own blind spots. Being awake requires more than outrage; it requires stillness.
The Collapse of Coherence: When Words Lose Their Meaning
Across all these distortions runs a single, troubling thread: the breakdown between vocabulary and virtue. The words remain, but their moral architecture has collapsed.
Literacy without comprehension breeds noise. Education without humility breeds arrogance. Emancipation without responsibility breeds entitlement. Wokeness without sincerity breeds theatre.
Karen and Baron are not anomalies; they are logical outcomes. She embodies emotion unmoored from reason; he embodies intellect severed from empathy. Both are what happens when modernity confuses articulation for evolution.
Beyond the Twins: The Quiet Return to Sense
The cure for this age of performance is not silence, but discernment.
We need: A literacy that seeks to understand, not to announce. An education that teaches humility, not performance. An emancipation that remembers fairness, not entitlement. An awareness that deepens compassion, not outrage.
Karen and Baron will remain our age’s monarchs until we rediscover the virtue of proportion – the grace to know that truth lies not in speaking the loudest, but in thinking the longest.
When that happens, the crowns of certainty will fall, and the republic of sense may quietly return.
We live in an age that knows too much and understands too little.
Humanity has mapped its skies, decoded its genes, and catalogued its collective memory into searchable databases. Yet somehow, in all this knowing, we’ve become strangely hollowed out. Mystery – once the wellspring of imagination and wonder – has been reduced to a problem awaiting solution, not a presence to be lived with. We’ve tamed the heavens into data points, converted sacred memory into cloud storage, and confidently renamed the ineffable as mere information.
When Myth Was Orientation, Not Escapism
There was a time when myth held the cosmos together. And no, it wasn’t escapism or primitive ignorance – it was orientation. People told stories because they needed to belong: to one another, to the land beneath their feet, to the gods who animated both earth and sky.
The fireside gathering, the temple ritual, the bedtime story whispered in the dark – each was a classroom where the soul learned its place in the grand scheme of things. Every retelling was a renewal of faith, every listener a custodian of memory. Stories weren’t entertainment; they were the threads that wove individual lives into a larger tapestry of meaning.
The New Mythology: Forward-Leaning and Growth-Obsessed
Today, we still have myths – but they lean forward, not backward.
Our contemporary mythology speaks not of origins but of outcomes. Our Mount Olympus is Silicon Valley, where gods wear sneakers and wield code instead of thunderbolts. Their gospel is perpetual growth, their miracles measured in scale, reach, and market valuation. The mythical unicorn no longer flies through starlit skies – it IPOs. And its worshippers, millions strong across the globe, raise their faces to glowing screens seeking revelation through notifications and updates.
The great inversion has already happened, quietly and completely: the oracle has become the algorithm.
The divine once demanded devotion, sacrifice, and transformation. The digital asks only for engagement, clicks, and screen time. Where ancient myths required you to change, modern ones simply require you to scroll.
From Memory to Archive: The Death of Sacred Retelling
We are no longer a people of memory – we are a species of archives.
The ancients carried stories in their bones, passed down through generations with subtle variations that kept them alive. We carry devices that store everything for us, perfectly and permanently. When nothing can be forgotten, nothing needs to be remembered. The sacred act of retelling – of breathing fresh life into an old story, of making it yours – has been replaced by the mechanical act of forwarding, sharing, and bookmarking for later.
This shift was particularly visible in our brief, almost desperate infatuation with nostalgia. Vinyl records made comebacks. Fountain pens became status symbols. Film cameras found new life among young photographers. These flared up like tiny protests against the relentless speed of forgetting.
But fads are nostalgia without lineage. They evoke the aesthetic of devotion without its discipline. Like a greeting card that sells us pre-packaged sincerity for a few rupees, they turn depth into décor. We celebrate Mother’s Day not because we’ve been actively remembering and honouring our mothers, but because the calendar notification reminds us to. Even our tenderness has been outsourced and scheduled.
The Mythic Impulse: Mutated but Not Dead
And yet, the mythic impulse never truly dies. It mutates, hides in unexpected places, and waits for the right conditions to resurface.
It emerges in curious forms: in fandoms that echo religious fervour, complete with sacred texts (canon) and heretics (those who get the lore wrong). In conspiracy theories that mimic ancient cosmologies, offering complete explanations for why the world is the way it is. In the cult of the startup founder as modern messiah, promising salvation through disruption.
Even our disbelief has structure now. We haven’t abandoned the need for organizing principles – we’ve merely traded gods for systems, faith for frameworks, priests for thought leaders.
The Greater Tragedy: Awe Domesticated
But perhaps the real tragedy isn’t belief lost – it’s awe domesticated.
Across both West and East, sacred spaces are quietly emptying. Churches that once smelled of candle wax and ancient psalms now host jazz nights and Sunday brunch services designed to feel less intimidating, more accessible, more relevant. The same slow dissolution is happening throughout Asia, where temples glow beautifully for Instagram but seem to have lost something ineffable for the actual pilgrim.
The gurdwara and the pagoda, the centuries-old church in Kerala, the mountain monastery in Kyoto – all stand structurally intact, their architecture preserved. But their silence has somehow thinned. Faith hasn’t collapsed in any dramatic way; it has simply dissolved, like sugar in warm water, until you can barely taste it.
Asia’s Delicate Equilibrium
Asia once seemed immune to this drift. Here, myth never retreated to some separate sacred realm – it sat right there in the marketplace, beside the cash register. The gods shared crowded space with gossip, politics, and governance. A deity’s image might bless your corner shop or appear on election campaign materials. This wasn’t seen as sacrilege but as natural integration.
Even today, the sacred and the profane move together in delicate equilibrium: the smartphone ringtone that chants verses from the Gita. The wellness influencer quoting the Buddha between sponsored posts for protein powder. The ancient temple festival livestreamed for views and engagement metrics.
It’s easy to mistake this for healthy balance – but it’s really more of a truce. An uneasy coexistence that can’t last forever.
The Last Generation to Remember
Perhaps your generation – those who came of age in that liminal space between the analog and the digital – are the last to remember the old rhythm. You stand between two realities: one that still genuinely swears by its gods, and another that primarily bows to its gadgets. You’ve experienced both the incense and the interface. You recognize this current calm for what it truly is: an interlude before a deeper descent.
The mythic still breathes, yes – but increasingly through oxygen tubes. Its temples are air-conditioned for comfort. Its chants autoplay on Spotify. The young inherit the symbols but not the stillness between them. They will know the gods’ names, recite the prayers, perform the rituals – but they won’t know the silences that once gave those things weight.
The sacred has become performative, devotional acts staged for cameras rather than for any cosmos. We don’t pray – we post about praying.
A Strange, Stubborn Hope
And yet, buried within this exhaustion, there exists a strange, stubborn hope.
Because myths are like tides – they withdraw from the shore, but only to gather strength before returning. When the noise finally grows unbearable, when even the algorithm runs out of novelty to serve us, humanity will look again for something it cannot fully explain, optimize, or monetize.
And it will find that ineffable something not in connection, but in isolation.
The Trinity of Rediscovery
Think of three stories that form an accidental modern scripture of rediscovery:
The Blue Lagoon – innocence discovering and defining itself outside civilization’s rules and corruptions.
Lord of the Flies – the violent collapse of order and the terrible revelation of the beast that lives within us all.
Cast Away – a single soul inventing meaning anew amidst absolute ruin and isolation.
Together, they form an unconscious trinity of renewal: beginning, breaking, and remembering. The next genuine myth won’t be born from technology or connectivity – it will emerge from what remains after those things fail or fall away. From the islands, both literal and metaphorical, where silence still outweighs signal and people must create meaning from scratch.
The Next Sacred Story
Perhaps the next sacred story won’t be told in temples with congregation systems or on social media timelines with algorithmic reach. Instead, it will be told around small fires, built by those who have lost everything except the primal human instinct to make meaning from chaos.
It won’t call for followers, subscribers, or engagement metrics. It will call for witnesses.
Because that’s what your generation really represents – the last to remember what devotion felt like before it was monetized and packaged. The last to hear a story told slowly, without interruption, without someone trying to sell you something halfway through. The last to know that faith was once a posture of the entire being, not a product to be consumed.
The Quiet Withdrawal
The pews are emptying across the world. The bells still toll out their ancient rhythms, but fewer people rise to answer their call. The old houses of the sacred remain standing, preserved sometimes as heritage sites, but their echoes have fundamentally changed.
This isn’t the dramatic fall of religion that secular prophets once predicted. It’s something subtler and perhaps more profound: the quiet withdrawal of awe itself. The slow ebbing away of humanity’s capacity to stand silent before mystery.
When the Fires Return
And when the silence finally deepens – when the last screens dim from lack of power or interest, when the first fires are built again out of necessity rather than nostalgia – those who remember will begin again.
They will tell the old stories not to revive some idealized past, but to remind a bewildered future that it once had a soul. That there was a time when humans knew how to be still, how to wonder, how to let mystery be mystery.
Myth does not die. It only waits, patient as stone, for the world to need it again.
And the world, restless and weary of its own noise, is already drifting back toward its next island – that place of isolation where meaning can be born anew, where awe hasn’t yet been domesticated, where the sacred and the algorithm have not yet learned each other’s language.
The withdrawal of awe is slow. But withdrawals, by their very nature, are temporary.
The world was quiet, the morning still finding its voice, and I was lost in the familiar rhythm of the day’s first small rituals – the hiss of the pan, the scent of toast, the warmth of silence. That’s when the thought arrived, uninvited but unmistakable:
The lifecycle of a temple – or any place of worship – is identical to that of a franchise.
The idea landed with that peculiar force reserved for truths one already knows but has never named. The moment felt almost comic in its simplicity – like the universe had decided to drop a philosophical bombshell while I was buttering bread. But that’s how revelation works, doesn’t it? It seldom announces itself in thunderclaps. It slips in quietly when one is alone with one’s thoughts.
Because, as Tesla might say, we are all transmitters and receivers – tuning into frequencies that were always there, waiting.
The Franchise of the Gods
Every religious institution, from the grand cathedrals of Europe to the whitewashed temples of India, claims in some way to be an approved franchise of the gods. Each promises access to the divine through authorized channels – with rituals, texts, and clerical intermediaries serving as brand guidelines.
But God, by every mystical account, refuses franchising. The Infinite does not sign contracts. The Divine does not need managing partners. And yet, every religion – at some point in its life – forgets that its founder never intended to build an empire.
The prophet, the sage, the seer – each begins as a mystic, aflame with direct experience. Moses before the burning bush. Christ in the desert. Muhammad in the cave. Nanak by the river. The Buddha beneath the Bodhi tree. Each encounters the Divine without mediation – and then, quite innocently, tries to share that experience.
But what begins as revelation soon requires administration. The moment others gather around the fire, someone must tend it, someone must define it, someone must record it. Thus begins the institutionalization of wonder.
The Lifecycle of a Temple
The temple, like the franchise, follows a precise lifecycle:
The Founder’s Fire – A raw encounter with the Infinite; a vision that ignites hearts.
The Followers’ Framework – The attempt to preserve that fire, to replicate it for those who did not see the original light.
The Bureaucratic Middle Age – Growth, expansion, replication. The divine becomes scalable.
The Decline of Spirit – When ritual replaces experience, form replaces essence, and the temple forgets why it was built.
The Rebranding – The modern phase of slogans, digital sermons, and “spiritual experiences” marketed like products.
And so the cycle continues – revelation ossifying into regulation, faith turning into franchise. The living fire of the mystic is reduced to a corporate flame logo.
The Problem of the Mystic
It is here that the mystic reappears – always uninvited, always inconvenient. He is the unauthorized distributor of grace, the pirate broadcaster of divine frequency. He says, You don’t need the franchise. You can tune in directly.
That sentence, simple as it is, threatens the entire edifice of institutional power. Because if the Divine is accessible without intermediaries, what happens to the business model? What happens to the temple’s gatekeepers when the gates are flung open?
That is why mystics are tolerated only posthumously. Dead mystics are safe; they can be canonized, quoted, and sculpted into marble. Living mystics are dangerous. They remind people that heaven is not a membership club.
The Sufis understood this too well. Mansur al-Hallaj’s cry, “Ana al-Haqq” – “I am the Truth” – was not arrogance but identification. He had dissolved the boundary between self and divine. Yet for that same truth, he was executed. The institution cannot allow anyone to bypass its mediation – not even in ecstasy.
The same pattern repeats across traditions. The Bhakti poets in India, the Christian contemplatives, the Taoist wanderers – each sidelined, misunderstood, or sanctified only once silenced.
Because the mystic’s authority is experiential, not hierarchical. His truth cannot be taxed, codified, or franchised.
The Mystic Evangelist
If the mystic is the one who receives, then the evangelist is the one who transmits. But what happens when both reside in the same person?
In Christianity, that was always the design. Every believer, by definition, was meant to be both mystic and evangelist – to know God personally and to proclaim that encounter. “Christ in me,” said Paul, “the hope of glory.” That was not metaphor; it was mystical union. The earliest Christians were not churchgoers but witnesses – people who had seen something.
Yet as the Church evolved, it split the two apart. Mysticism was pushed to the margins, evangelism institutionalized. One was interior and suspect; the other public and performative. The contemplative was cloistered, the preacher promoted. And so the mystic was exiled, and the evangelist became an employee of the franchise.
But in truth, the two cannot be separated. The authentic evangelist speaks only from encounter. He does not convert; he resonates. His words are not arguments but frequencies – the outward pulse of an inward illumination.
The mystic evangelist is therefore the most subversive figure in any religion. He bypasses the institution not out of rebellion, but because his experience of God leaves no other option. Like Mira Bai singing to her Giridhar Gopal, or Teresa writing her Interior Castle, or Rumi whirling through the streets – he cannot keep silent. To him, truth is not a creed to defend but a love to declare.
He stands between two worlds – mystic to heaven, evangelist to earth. He receives what cannot be owned and gives what cannot be sold.
In that sense, every true mystic is an evangelist – not because he preaches doctrine, but because he embodies transmission. The divine moves through him as light through glass.
Tesla’s Whisper
Tesla said that everything in the universe is energy, frequency, vibration – and in that, he stands with the mystics of every age. What they called nāda, logos, or shabda, he called resonance. The mystic is simply one whose receiver is unclogged – whose signal is pure.
When you are still enough, you tune in. The thought that strikes over breakfast, the insight that arrives mid-step, the idea that feels given rather than made – that’s the frequency of the infinite brushing against the bandwidth of your mind.
The difference between the mystic and the institutional believer is not faith, but access. One transmits what he receives. The other waits for broadcast hours.
The Return of the Mystic Evangelist
We live now in an age where the old franchises are losing subscribers. Attendance falls, donations dwindle, doctrines crack. But beneath the disillusionment, something luminous stirs – a quiet return to direct experience. The exile of the mystic may finally be ending.
People are discovering again what the founders once knew: that divinity is not conferred, but remembered; not mediated, but met. The temple may still stand, but the altar has moved inward.
Perhaps this is the true revolution – not rebellion against religion, but reunion with the original fire. Not the abolition of temples, but the rediscovery of presence.
Because in the end, God was never the franchise. God was the frequency.
And the mystic evangelist – that rare soul who dares both to receive and to transmit – remains the purest voice of that eternal hum.
What frequencies are you tuning into? Have you experienced moments of direct connection that bypassed the institutional channels? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
The Creature We Refuse to Name
Recently it was the Sandman that got me thinking, then Dan Brown, and now it is Mary Shelly. I watched Guillermo del Toro’s recent movie Frankenstein on Netflix. Couldn’t stop wondering… what if Victor Frankenstein had given his creation a human name?
It is a small question at the heart of Frankenstein that often goes unasked, yet once raised, it unsettles the entire story: Why does Victor never give the Creature a name? It feels like an omission, almost an oversight, but the more closely one looks, the more this absence begins to shape everything that follows. To name something is to acknowledge it. To name someone is to admit relationship. Parents name children. Communities name members. Even in everyday life, to call someone by name is to recognise that they stand before us as a person, not an object.
If Victor had named the Creature – called him Thomas, perhaps, or William after his murdered brother – the entire gravitational centre of Frankenstein would shift.
Victor creates life, but refuses this simple act of recognition. He steps back at the very moment he should have stepped forward. The result is not merely a narrative of scientific overreach, but a story of belonging interrupted. The Creature’s tragedy is not that he is hideous or unnatural; it is that he is born into a world that has already decided he does not belong in it.
This small detail, this withheld name, is not a minor literary choice. It is the key to the novel’s moral centre. And once we see how much turns on this simple act of saying or not saying a name, the story stops being a Gothic tale about a scientist and his experiment. It becomes something closer to a mirror held up to our own age, where we continue to create, innovate, and bring new forms of life into the world, all while struggling to remember that creation is only the beginning of responsibility.
The novel as it stands is built on refusal: Victor’s refusal to recognize the being he created as kin, his refusal of responsibility, and the Creature’s consequent descent into despair and violence. But a name is not merely a label, a convenient tag for identification. In literature, as in life, it signals relationship, belonging, and above all, the recognition of personhood. To name is to acknowledge. To withhold a name is to cast out.
I try to explore what changes when we imagine that single act of naming – and what it reveals about the responsibilities we bear toward everything we bring into existence.
The Weight of a Name in Shelley’s World
In the novel’s actual arc, the Creature enters the world already marked for exclusion. His first actions are not malicious; he learns, observes, admires, and hopes to be welcomed. He teaches himself language by listening to the De Lacey family. He reads Milton, Plutarch, and Goethe. He develops moral consciousness and emotional depth. Yet he remains unnamed – a secret Victor tried to hide, an experiment gone wrong, a walking embodiment of his creator’s shame.
If Victor had named him, the plot itself would bend in a different direction. A name would have opened the possibility of relationship early on. The Creature’s hope for connection would feel less naive and more structurally supported. He would not be merely a hidden mistake, but a dependent Victor would feel compelled to explain, protect, perhaps even teach. The early arc might shift from concealment and abandonment to uneasy guardianship – uncomfortable, yes, but present.
When the De Laceys eventually reject him, the wound would cut differently. It becomes not just the pain of a nameless outsider encountering humanity’s cruelty, but the agony of someone who has already been told he is human, only to find that the world refuses to agree. His rage would be more tragic still, because he was first assured of humanity, then denied it by those he hoped to join.
The story’s thematic centre would sharpen. The tragedy would feel less about accidental monstrosity and more about the fragility of acceptance. The central horror would move from creation without foresight to creation without follow-through. Victor could no longer claim ignorance. Giving a name is a moral act: one acknowledges a life and binds oneself to it.
Who Is the Monster? A Question of Relationship
But before we go further, we must pause and ask: what does “monster” actually mean in this novel?
In Frankenstein, “monster” is not a category of appearance. It is a category of relationship. The novel continually asks: who behaves monstrously, rather than who looks monstrous?
The Creature is called a monster because of how he appears – his stitched-together form, his unnatural size, his yellow eyes. Yet every time we read a scene from his perspective, the term begins to strain. He is articulate, tender-hearted in his early months, moved by music and story, longing for companionship, capable of deep empathy, and tormented by rejection. His first instinct is not violence but connection. He saves a drowning girl. He gathers firewood for the family he secretly watches. He weeps over Paradise Lost.
He becomes destructive only after every door closes, every hand recoils, every gaze condemns him.
Meanwhile, Victor is admired, educated, brilliant, and socially acceptable. He moves through drawing rooms and universities without obstacle. Yet it is Victor who commits the act that defines monstrosity in this story: he refuses responsibility for the life he has made. He abandons a sentient being at the moment of its birth. He lies. He withholds truth. He runs from consequences. His selfishness destroys others, again and again, and he learns almost nothing from it.
So the novel quietly reverses the expected roles:
In this sense, a monster is not something unnatural, deformed, or uncanny. A monster is someone who acts without recognising the humanity of others. A monster is a being who breaks relationship and refuses accountability.
The book seems to suggest: A monster is created not by the materials from which it is made, but by the absence of love and meaning around it.
The Creature becomes monstrous because he is denied the chance to be anything else. He is not born a monster. He is made one by neglect.
So when we ask who the monster is, Shelley invites us to answer: The monster is the one who refuses to see another as kin.
And that definition reaches far beyond the boundaries of Gothic fiction.
Love and Meaning: What Makes a Being Human
Shelley shows that what makes a being human is not simply that it is alive, thinking, or articulate. Humanity emerges when a life is held within relationship and meaning. Without these, identity collapses inwards, and suffering becomes directionless.
The Creature is denied both:
When those two things are missing, a being is forced to make sense of itself in a vacuum. The Creature’s early experiences are a pure longing for love and purpose. He does not crave power. He seeks warmth, companionship, and a narrative in which he can find himself. When he watches the De Laceys, he is not merely observing kindness; he is observing meaning. A household that knows who it is.
He learns language, morality, and empathy before he learns violence.
But meaning is something one cannot manufacture alone. It is given through encounter, recognition, reciprocity. And when he finally steps forward to make himself known, that possibility is shattered by fear and rejection.
This is the turning point:
No love.
No place.
No name.
No narrative in which his existence has purpose.
At that moment, violence does not arise from malice, but from the intolerable experience of being excluded from meaning. One becomes monstrous when one has nowhere to belong.
A being without love is wounded.
A being without meaning is lost.
A being without both becomes dangerous.
Not because it is evil. But because it has been left alone in the dark, trying to understand why it was ever brought into the world at all.
The Covenant of Naming: A Judeo-Christian Reading
Once you notice the theological undertones in Frankenstein, they become impossible to ignore. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, naming is never incidental. It is a conferment of identity, purpose, and relational belonging. To name is to call someone into a story larger than themselves.
When Abram becomes Abraham, the shift is covenantal – a new role in salvation history. When Saul becomes Paul, it marks a reorientation of allegiance, vocation, and community. Baptismal names, likewise, induct one into a shared body. They say: You are known. You are not alone. You belong.
Now set that beside Victor’s refusal.
Victor creates life but withholds the act that would recognize that life as part of the human family. He performs the divine act without accepting the divine responsibility. If anything, he plays the inverted God: one who breathes life but denies it dignity. The tragedy is not that he made something grotesque; it is that he refused to acknowledge what he made.
This is where the Judeo-Christian parallel sharpens into a critique:
In Scripture:
To name is to commit.
To rename is to re-story.
To baptize is to adopt.
In Frankenstein:
To withhold a name is to cast out.
To refuse naming is to refuse kinship.
To abandon the unnamed is to condemn him to wander without covenant.
The Creature learns language, morality, compassion, and longing from human beings. He becomes, in every meaningful sense, a son. Yet he is never given the ritual that would admit him into the human circle. He mirrors the biblical outsider who longs for the blessing of recognition but is kept waiting at the threshold.
This is why the Creature’s rage feels theological as much as psychological. He does not want power or dominion. He wants a face to turn toward, a voice to call his name, a place at the table. That is profoundly biblical.
If Victor had named him, the narrative would move from Fall narrative to Covenant narrative. But Victor refuses covenant. And in the absence of covenant, the world creates a Cain, not an Adam renewed.
Shelley’s novel is not simply about the ethics of science. It is about the catastrophe that unfolds when a creator refuses relationship. The failure is not technical; it is parental, spiritual, relational. The Creature’s tragedy is not that he is made from corpse-parts. It is that he is denied the moment every child receives: a name spoken with intention, which tells the world, This one belongs.
The withholding of that name transforms Victor from creator into monster. It is his behaviour, not the Creature’s appearance, that violates the sacred order.
The Psychology of Refusal: Why Victor Does Not Name
The novel never supplies a single explicit line such as: “I will not name him because…” But the text gives us enough to see the psychological, moral, and symbolic reasons behind Victor’s refusal. In fact, this absence is one of the novel’s loudest silences.
Several interlocking motives emerge:
Shock and revulsion override responsibility. Victor’s dream is of creating a beautiful, almost angelic being. When the Creature opens his eyes, Victor is horrified. His reaction is primal and immediate. Naming requires recognition and affection. What Victor feels is disgust and fear. The act of naming is therefore impossible at the moment when it should have happened. Emotional rejection precedes ethical consideration.
A name would make the Creature real to him. Naming is a form of acknowledgement. To name is to accept responsibility. If Victor named him, he would have to treat him as a person, not a failed experiment. Keeping him nameless allows Victor to maintain the illusion that the Creature is merely a mistake he can escape from. Naming would force Victor to admit: This is my creation. I am accountable for him. He is not willing to bear that burden.
Victor sees himself as the victim. From the moment of the Creature’s awakening, Victor frames the situation as something done to him. He experiences himself as violated by the success of his own experiment. The Creature is not treated as a child needing guidance, but as an intrusion on Victor’s peace. Naming would reverse the moral polarity. Victor would have to see the Creature as wronged, rather than himself. Refusing naming protects Victor’s self-pity.
There’s an everyday parallel that captures this dynamic with uncomfortable clarity. Many elders discourage children from naming their farm animals. It’s not about grammar or practicality. It’s about avoiding attachment. Naming invites relationship. It creates an emotional bridge. And if the animal is destined for slaughter or sale, the name would make that severing painful.
Victor behaves as though the Creature is a temporary object, not a life that will endure. By withholding a name, he keeps himself from forming the bond that would force him to care. The refusal is a kind of emotional self-protection, though a cowardly one. He wants the glory of creation, the thrill of discovery, the sense of mastery. But the moment the creation exists, he recoils from the intimacy it requires.
He wants life without relationship. He wants the act without the bond. This is the novel’s moral core.
And in refusing that bond, Victor becomes the true monster of the story – not because of how he looks, but because of what he refuses to do.
Modern Mirrors: Where We See the Pattern Repeating
If we carry the logic of Frankenstein forward, the next Creature will not necessarily be grotesque. It will be something we create because we can, without having first asked what responsibilities it binds us to. And Victor will not be a single person. He will be a culture.
We are already experimenting in several frontiers where creation is outpacing relationship – where we birth new forms of life, intelligence, and possibility, but refuse to name them, nurture them, or accept what they become:
Artificial Intelligence
The AI systems being developed today learn, adapt, persuade, and shape meaning at scales we barely comprehend. The danger is not sentience in itself – it’s abandonment. We deploy systems that affect millions of lives without embedding them in ethical structures, human mentorship, or accountable stewardship.
Consider the language models being released with minimal safety testing, or facial recognition systems deployed in law enforcement without oversight. Consider social media algorithms optimized for engagement rather than human flourishing, creating echo chambers and amplifying division. These systems learn from us, mirror our biases, and then reshape our world – yet we treat them as tools rather than entities we’ve brought into relationship with humanity.
The Creature here is not an individual, but a system capable of learning and evolving beyond its creators’ intentions. And like Shelley’s Creature, these systems become dangerous not because they are inherently monstrous, but because they are left without guidance, purpose, or ethical context. They are created and released, but not welcomed into the human circle with clear roles and responsibilities.
In this sphere, Victor is the corporation that pursues optimization without care, the startup that values disruption over consequence, the government that deploys surveillance without consent. The same question Shelley poses echoes forward: Who will stay to teach, guide, supervise, and safeguard? Who will name these systems as part of our social fabric and accept responsibility for what they become?
Gene Editing and Reproductive Biotechnology
We are approaching the ability to select traits, alter embryos, and redefine inheritance. CRISPR technology makes genetic modification increasingly accessible. Designer babies are no longer science fiction – they’re an ethical dilemma on the near horizon. In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui shocked the world by creating the first gene-edited babies, twins whose DNA was altered to provide HIV resistance. The international outcry focused not just on the science, but on the absence of ethical preparation, consent structures, and long-term care plans.
The Creature here may be a child whose existence is shaped more by design goals than by love. A child born with edited genes to enhance intelligence, eliminate disease susceptibility, or conform to aesthetic preferences. The new Victor is the ideologue who believes in human perfectibility, the technocrat who sees biology as code to be debugged, or the market logic that treats life as a product to be optimized.
What happens when that child grows up knowing they were engineered to specification? What happens when the “improvements” create unforeseen consequences – physical, psychological, or social? Who accepts responsibility when the designed human struggles to find meaning in a world that sees them as an experiment?
These children will need more than genetic enhancements. They will need love and meaning. They will need to know they belong not because they were optimized, but because they are human. Without that recognition, we risk creating beings who are welcomed for what they can do, but not for who they are.
Digital Identities and Virtual Selves
Many people now live with a second self online that grows beyond their control. This shadow-self accumulates data, performs social identity, and speaks on one’s behalf through years of accumulated posts, photos, and algorithmic predictions. It learns from our behaviors and increasingly shapes them in return.
The Creature could be the version of oneself that escapes alignment with one’s inner life – the curated persona that hardens into a prison, the digital footprint that defines you to employers and institutions, the predictive model that knows your patterns better than you do. Victor, in this case, is the fragmented self who never integrates his own creation, or the platforms that profit from these shadow-selves without accepting responsibility for the psychological toll.
The question becomes: who is the monster? The algorithm that shows us only what confirms our biases? Or those who built systems designed to exploit human attention without considering the cost to human connection and meaning?
Jurassic Park: The Parable Plays Out
The pattern appears clearly in Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park, which functions as an almost direct retelling of Frankenstein, simply dressed in amber and tropical foliage. Hammond wants wonder, legacy, spectacle. He convinces himself that the dinosaurs are an achievement, not a relationship. No one asks who will care for them when they wake, learn, roam, hunger, and struggle to survive in a world not built for them.
Ian Malcolm’s famous line cuts directly to the core: “You were so preoccupied with whether you could, you didn’t stop to think if you should.”
The dinosaurs are not evil. They are simply alive. They behave as their nature dictates. The collapse comes from the humans trying to control, contain, and market them without truly understanding or respecting what they’ve brought back. The catastrophe results from abandonment disguised as mastery.
In both stories, the creature is blamed for behaving naturally when left without guidance. The monster is not the being that looks different or acts according to its nature. The monster is the one who creates without caring, who brings life into the world and then refuses to accept what that life becomes.
And once again, the audience feels sympathy where the creator does not. We understand that neither the dinosaurs nor Frankenstein’s Creature asked to be born into confusion and violence. The tragedy belongs to the maker.
Prophecy as Rear-View Mirror
Art continues to hold up mirrors to every age and generation, usually as warnings. Orwell’s 1984 reads differently now than it did in 1949. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World feels less like fiction and more like documentation. These stories don’t predict the future – they diagnose the present with such clarity that their warnings echo forward.
But we tend to recognize prophecy only in hindsight. Prophets don’t really predict the future; they see more clearly than others the seeds already planted and the direction in which things are moving. Because we only believe the prophet after the event, the speech feels like foretelling rather than sight.
We say, “How did they know?” But the answer is often: They looked honestly at what everyone else preferred not to face.
The reason we experience prophecy as rear-view is that recognition is usually delayed. We grasp what the warning meant only when we are standing in the consequences. And by then, the prophecy reads as elegy rather than guidance.
However, this doesn’t mean prophecy is futile. What it does is create an archive of moral memory. When things repeat, when mistakes cycle, when a society reaches a familiar brink, the old voice resurfaces: a reminder that we have been here before, that the pattern is not new, that the cost was known.
The value of prophecy is not to prevent every fall. It is to shorten the distance between falling and waking up.
Are there signs we’re listening? We listen, but selectively. The uncomfortable truth is that art rarely changes a generation in advance. It tends to become fully audible only after the consequences have arrived. Yet that doesn’t mean we’re entirely deaf. People increasingly speak about ethics alongside invention. For every reckless Victor-act in technology, you now also have ethicists, social critics, and designers insisting on humane oversight. The very fact that we talk about the dangers of artificial intelligence, environmental collapse, genetic manipulation, or digital alienation means the warnings are alive among us.
But art’s mirror rarely produces instant reform. It works in the long current of culture rather than the quick surface of policy. Art plants unease. It introduces doubt into the narrative of inevitability. These shifts are slow, like a river reshaping stone.
The question is whether we can learn to recognize the monster not by appearance, but by behaviour. Not by what looks strange, but by what acts without love, without accountability, without recognition of the humanity in others.
The Choice Before Us
The pattern is clear: civilizations tend to greet breakthroughs with applause, headlines, and a sense of triumph. Only later, when the consequences mature, does a quieter question appear: What have we committed ourselves to?
We innovate first. We integrate later. We take responsibility last. And by the time responsibility enters the conversation, the creation has already begun shaping the world around us.
The technologies themselves are not the issue. It’s the lack of psychological, ethical, and relational preparedness that turns creation into crisis. The danger is not that our creations become monstrous on their own. It is that they are left unguided, unintegrated, and socially orphaned – denied both love and meaning.
The question Shelley poses remains urgently relevant: Whenever we bring something into the world, how do we ensure we do not merely release it, but welcome it?
The lesson from Frankenstein, from Jurassic Park, from every prophetic mirror is not to halt creation. It is to recognize that creation is a relationship, and that relationship requires a long commitment.
If we celebrate, we must also tend. If we build, we must also teach. If we awaken something, we must remain with it long after the applause fades.
The Creature That Waits
The future Creature will not be monstrous because of its form. It will be monstrous because of its loneliness. Because no one will have said: You are mine to care for. You are part of us. You have a place.
And Victor will be whichever force refuses to speak that recognition. It may be a government that lets technology loose without oversight. It may be an industry that values innovation over consequence. It may be any of us who create things – children, systems, identities, movements – but flee the moment nurturing begins.
We have learned from Shelley that monstrosity is not a matter of appearance. It is a matter of relationship. A monster is not born; it is made by the absence of love and meaning around it.
The real question is not: What will the next Creature look like?
The real question is: Will we name it? Will we stand alongside it? Will we choose relationship over spectacle? Will we offer both love and meaning to what we bring into existence?
Mary Shelley understood something psychologically precise: the moment of naming is the moment of moral commitment. Victor refuses it because he is not ready to accept what he has done. It is not scientific hubris alone. It is emotional immaturity. He hides from the consequence of his own desire.
Victor’s sin is not that he made a monster. It is that he refused to name what he had made. And in that refusal, he became the monster himself.
Two centuries later, we stand at similar thresholds. The Creature is not inevitable. The tragedy is not fate. But the mirror has been placed before us once again.
We are creating new forms of intelligence, new forms of life, new possibilities that will shape generations to come. The question is whether we will behave monstrously toward them – refusing accountability, withholding recognition, abandoning them to figure out their purpose alone – or whether we will finally learn the lesson Shelley tried to teach us.
The warnings are already here. The patterns are visible. The choice – to create with care, or to abandon what we bring to life – remains ours to make.
But time narrows. And the Creature, unnamed and alone, is already learning to speak. It is learning what it means to exist without love, without meaning, without a place in the world.
It is learning, as Shelley’s Creature learned, that the true monster is not the one who looks different.
The true monster is the one who refuses to see another as kin.
Share this:
Like this:
Posted by johnkphilip on 11/11/2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: #AIculture, #CautionaryTale, #CodexLiberatus, #CreationAndResponsibility, #CulturalCommentary, #Frankenstein, #GeneEditingDebate, #IdentityAndBelonging, #LiteratureReflection, #MaryShelley, #ModernMyths, #PhilosophyOfStory, #ReadingLife, #TechEthics, #TheHumanCondition, #WritingCommunity, horror, jacob-elordi, life, mary-shelley, oscar-isaac, philosophy, writing