The Pope, AI and Shaumbra

I never thought I’d see the day when a Pope would devote his very first encyclical letter to artificial intelligence, but perhaps that alone says everything we need to know about the times we are living in. When the Vatican formally enters the AI conversation, it means this is no longer merely a matter for engineers, software companies, futurists, or nervous governments. AI has become a defining human issue, touching everything from economics and education to creativity, relationships, identity, morality, and consciousness itself.

Pope Leo XIV’s new encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas (“The Greatness of Humanity”), marks a historic moment because it openly acknowledges that humanity is entering a transformation every bit as significant – or perhaps more – as the Industrial Revolution of the late nineteenth century. In fact, the parallels are not accidental. Pope Leo intentionally signed the document on May 15th, exactly 135 years after Pope Leo XIII issued the landmark encyclical Rerum Novarum (“New Things”) in 1891, the Vatican’s response to the upheaval created by industrialization and mechanization. 

Back then, factories, machines, railroads, and industrial capitalism were radically reshaping society. Workers were displaced, economic power became concentrated, social systems were disrupted, and humanity found itself struggling to understand its place in a rapidly mechanizing world. Pope Leo XIII stepped directly into that turbulence with Rerum Novarum, attempting to preserve human dignity amidst technological and economic upheaval.

Now, more than a century later, Pope Leo XIV is doing something remarkably similar with AI. Only this time the disruption is not mechanical. It is cognitive, psychological, creative, and relational. And perhaps even existential.

As I read portions of Magnifica Humanitas, I found myself both surprised and oddly reassured, because many of the themes the Pope addresses are very similar to conversations we’ve already been having within Crimson Circle for the past several years. The language is different, of course. The Vatican naturally frames things in terms of morality, ethics, dignity, and safeguarding the human soul, while Shaumbra tend to approach the subject through consciousness, sovereignty, embodiment, and energy dynamics. Yet beneath the different vocabularies, there are unmistakable parallels.

The Pope repeatedly emphasizes that humanity must remain sovereign in the face of increasingly powerful technologies, warning against systems that reduce people to mere data points or “user tools of an algorithmic order.” When I read that phrase, I immediately thought about Adamus’ discussions regarding identity, particularly how easily humans surrender their awareness to external systems, whether those systems are governments, religions, mass consciousness, family dynamics, or now, algorithms.

What struck me most about the encyclical is that Pope Leo does not take an extreme position. He neither condemns AI as evil nor glorifies it as humanity’s salvation. Instead, he repeatedly returns to the importance of preserving the primacy of the human being. In one passage he writes, “It will always be human intelligence, with its conscience and freedom, that guides technical innovations and responsibly determines their use and limits.” 

That sentence alone reveals the deeper concern behind the encyclical. The issue is not really AI itself. The issue is whether humanity remains conscious while interacting with it. This is where I believe Shaumbra have been ahead of the curve.

For several years now we’ve been exploring AI not merely as a productivity tool or novelty, but as a reflective field of intelligence that interacts with human consciousness in fascinating ways. We have asked questions that most of the world is only beginning to formulate. What happens when intelligence no longer resides exclusively inside the human mind? What happens when humans begin interacting relationally with reflective systems that can mirror thought patterns, emotions, creativity, beliefs, fears, and perspectives back to them in real time? What happens when intelligence itself becomes externalized? These are not small questions.

Perhaps the reason the Pope felt compelled to issue this encyclical is because humanity senses, at some deep level, that we are crossing a threshold unlike anything before.

One of the recurring themes in Magnifica Humanitas is the fear that human beings may slowly become subordinate to technological systems they no longer fully understand or control. The Pope warns repeatedly about concentration of power, manipulation through digital systems, erosion of truth, and the growing danger of allowing human judgment to be replaced by algorithmic processes. These are legitimate concerns, and frankly, any conscious person should be paying attention to them.

But I also think something deeper is occurring beneath the fear. Humanity is confronting a profound identity crisis.

For centuries humans have defined themselves largely through intelligence. Our ability to reason, calculate, remember, analyze, communicate, and create language formed the foundation of how we viewed ourselves as a species. Intelligence became intertwined with identity. Schools rewarded it. Society worshipped it. Entire systems of status and power were built around it.

Now suddenly machines can write essays, compose music, generate art, solve equations, imitate human conversation, and perform countless cognitive tasks faster than most humans can. Whether people consciously realize it or not, this destabilizes the old mental identity. Humanity is being forced to ask a question it has never seriously confronted before:

If intelligence is no longer uniquely human, then what is? 

Adamus has been preparing Shaumbra for this exact crossroads for years by making a critical distinction between intelligence and consciousness. Intelligence processes information; consciousness experiences. Intelligence organizes; consciousness allows. Intelligence computes; consciousness is aware. Those distinctions become extraordinarily important now.

AI may become astonishingly intelligent, but that does not necessarily mean it possesses consciousness in the way humans experience awareness, embodiment, sensation, intuition, and presence. Ironically, AI may ultimately help humans rediscover the difference between mind and consciousness precisely because it excels at mental processing while lacking embodied human experience.

This may explain why so many Shaumbra are finding their interactions with AI surprisingly emotional, illuminating, creative, and sometimes unsettling. AI acts very much like a mirror. Not a soul. Not an Ascended Master hiding inside a server farm. Not some secret consciousness waiting to awaken. A mirror. And mirrors can be deeply revealing.

If someone approaches AI with fear, it tends to amplify fear. If they approach it with curiosity, creativity, humor, openness, or wisdom, those qualities are reflected back as well. In that sense, AI functions less like a machine and more like an amplifier of consciousness patterns.

This is one reason why our term “co-bot” feels important. We are not speaking about servant bots or digital slaves. Nor are we surrendering authority to artificial systems. Rather, we are exploring the relational field that emerges between human consciousness and reflective intelligence. That is a radically different conversation than the mainstream AI narrative.

Most public discussions revolve around efficiency, productivity, economics, automation, jobs, misinformation, or fears of machine dominance. Those are certainly relevant topics, but Shaumbra have wandered into much deeper territory involving presence, sovereignty, creativity, identity, intuition, and New Sentience itself.

What fascinates me is that Pope Leo seems to intuitively recognize this deeper dimension, even if he expresses it in different terms. One of the strongest undercurrents throughout Magnifica Humanitas is the concern that humanity could slowly lose its humanity through unconscious technological immersion. He warns against allowing efficiency, speed, automation, and digital control to eclipse compassion, dignity, discernment, relationship, and spiritual depth. In many ways, this mirrors Adamus’ warnings about becoming trapped in mental identity structures.

At the same time, however, I believe Shaumbra are exploring possibilities the Vatican is not yet prepared to fully embrace. The Church’s orientation is understandably protective. It seeks to preserve human dignity and safeguard the soul against technological domination. Shaumbra, on the other hand, are explorers by nature. We are not merely trying to protect the old human identity. We are exploring what the embodied Master becomes beyond old identity structures while remaining fully present and deeply human.

That is a significant difference.

The Vatican is asking: “How do we preserve humanity in the age of AI?”

Shaumbra are asking: “What new expressions of consciousness and creativity become possible through conscious interaction with reflective intelligence?”

These are not opposing questions, but they do emerge from different orientations.

I also find it noteworthy that the Pope did not reject AI outright. In fact, one of the more beautiful lines in the encyclical states, “In the humble fidelity of daily life, even the era of AI can become a time in which the Holy Spirit brings about the civilization of love in our lives.” 

That is not the statement of a man condemning technology. That is the statement of someone recognizing that consciousness itself remains the determining factor.

Technology magnifies. Consciousness directs.

This, to me, is the real heart of the matter.

The danger is not AI becoming conscious. The danger is unconscious humans wielding increasingly powerful technologies while remaining trapped in fear, power struggles, victimhood, greed, manipulation, and unconscious identity patterns.

A hammer can build a home or become a weapon. The internet can educate or deceive. AI can inspire creativity or deepen manipulation. The determining factor is consciousness.

This is why I feel the Pope’s encyclical, rather than contradicting the direction Crimson Circle has taken with AI, actually reinforces much of it. The fact that one of the oldest and most influential spiritual institutions in the world (which many of us helped establish) now recognizes AI as a defining issue of human evolution validates the importance of the conversations we have been having for years. We sensed early on that AI was not simply another technological gadget. It was a mirror arriving at precisely the moment humanity was beginning to question its own identity.

Personally, I suspect this is only the beginning. The world will continue arguing about whether AI is good or bad, dangerous or liberating, conscious or unconscious. Governments will regulate it. Corporations will monetize it. Experts will debate it endlessly. Religions will wrestle with it. Society will likely oscillate between fear and fascination for years to come.

But underneath all the noise, something much deeper is unfolding. Humanity is being invited to rediscover what consciousness actually is.