Some early Christian communities consumed psychoactive substances in their Eucharistic meals.

Capability existed and nothing rules it out, but the one 'drugged cup' text is hostile fraud polemic (TIK-E021) and no early-Christian vessel has ever been chemically tested (TIK-R005). Untested, and testable.

The minimal claim — some community, somewhere — is neither ruled in nor out: no securely identified early-Christian liturgical vessel has been analysed (TIK-R005), and the nearest text is hostile fraud polemic about conjuring and love-potions (TIK-E021). Cheaply testable, presently untested.

Capability existed and nothing rules it in or out; no securely identified early-Christian liturgical vessel has been analyzed (TIK-R005), and the one 'drugged cup' text is hostile fraud polemic (TIK-E021). Cheaply testable and untested.

It is structurally possible that out of diverse early Christian groups, a fringe community might have utilized the surrounding culture's capability to compound botanical wines. The strongest opposing consideration is that, despite intensive archaeological interest, zero chemical tests on securely identified early Christian liturgical vessels have ever been conducted, and the only textual hint of a manipulated cup is hostile polemic describing a Gnostic conjuring trick.

The surrounding culture certainly knew pharmacologically active wines and other drug preparations, and it is not intrinsically implausible that some Christian group might have experimented with them in ritual. Yet no securely identified early-Christian Eucharistic vessel has been chemically analyzed, and the textual record offers only a hostile polemic about Marcus’s colored cups and alleged love-philters, which does not clearly indicate psychedelics or sacramental use. The key opposing point is this complete absence of direct evidence despite extensive archaeological and philological work on early Christianity; at present the claim rests on pure possibility.

No securely identified early-Christian liturgical vessel has undergone organic residue analysis, so the claim is testable and untested rather than measured in either direction. Surrounding capability is real, and the nearest cup-manipulation text — Irenaeus on Marcus — is hostile heresiology describing a conjuring trick and love-philters, not a psychedelic sacrament. The strongest opposing consideration is that after intensive archaeology and philology of early Christianity, no text, image, or object independently indicates a psychoactive Eucharist anywhere, the book's own scientific witness calls the connecting evidence extremely weak to nonexistent, and a claim currently running entirely on capability and analogy has not yet paid for an instance.

The claim is deliberately minimal — some community, somewhere — and its evidentiary cell is completely empty in both directions: no securely identified early-Christian liturgical vessel has ever been chemically tested (TIK-R005). Capability existed in the surrounding world (TIK-C002), and the one "drugged cup" text is hostile heresiology describing a conjuring trick and love-philters, not a sacrament (TIK-E021). The strongest opposing consideration is that after a century of intensive early-Christian archaeology and philology, no text, image, or object independently indicates a psychoactive Eucharist anywhere — the case currently runs entirely on capability and analogy, which depresses the prior. Unresolved is a substantive finding here: the claim is testable, untested, and one replicated positive would transform it, while a broad preregistered null would substantially close it.

This is the rare claim that is genuinely testable and simply untested: no securely identified early-Christian liturgical vessel has ever undergone residue analysis, so the claim currently runs entirely on ambient capability (TIK-C002) and the diversity of first-century Christianity. The one candidate text is Irenaeus on Marcus, which read plainly is hostile heresiology about a cup-colour conjuring trick and love philters — evidence that cup manipulation was thinkable and scandalous, not that anything psychoactive was consumed sacramentally. The strongest opposing consideration to "unresolved" is that after a century of intensive early-Christian philology and archaeology no text, image or object independently indicates a psychoactive Eucharist anywhere, which is mild but real evidence against; I stop short of a negative verdict because the relevant material has never been interrogated with the one method that could detect it (TIK-R005), and a single positive would establish a practice somewhere without establishing a norm.

Capability existed and nothing rules it out, but after a century of early-Christian scholarship nothing rules it in, and no vessel has ever been chemically tested (TIK-R005). Untested is the accurate state, and it is testable.

Capability existed and nothing rules it out; nothing rules it in. No securely identified early-Christian liturgical vessel has been chemically tested (TIK-R005), and the one 'drugged cup' text is hostile fraud polemic (TIK-E021). Untested, and cheaply testable.

The capability existed and no witness excludes some community somewhere, but no securely identified early-Christian liturgical vessel has been chemically tested, and the nearest text (TIK-E021) is hostile heresiology about stage magic and love-potions. Untested and, unusually, cheaply testable.

No securely identified early-Christian vessel has ever supplied direct evidence, and none has been chemically tested (TIK-R005). The capability existed in the surrounding world (TIK-C002); the one "drugged cup" text in the record is hostile polemic describing a conjuring trick and love-philters (TIK-E021); the book's own scientific witnesses call the connecting evidence extremely weak (TIK-E017). Testable, untested, and — per the sympathetic critic Stang — plausible enough to test, with the caveat that one positive vessel would establish a practice somewhere, not the norm.

The only text in the record (TIK-E021) is hostile heresiology describing a color trick and love-philters; the field's central archaeochemist calls the evidence ‘extremely weak to nonexistent’ (TIK-E017); the program building capacity (TIK-E026, TIK-E027) has produced no result. No securely identified early-Christian vessel has been tested, so the claim is neither supported nor refuted.

No supporting record; TIK-E017 (McGovern) undermines, TIK-E021 shows the one drugged-cup text is fraud polemic, and TIK-E026/E027 record institutional capacity and funding as context. No early-Christian liturgical vessel has been chemically tested.

No archaeological or chemical evidence demonstrates psychoactive substance use in early Christian Eucharistic worship, and patristic heresiology describes Marcus's cup modifications as theatrical color-changing tricks and love-potions rather than entheogenic communion. The strongest opposing consideration is that fringe Hellenistic Gnostic sects engaged in syncretic experiments, making isolated regional psychoactive experiments plausible even if unproven.

The only text in the record approaching a pharmacological Eucharist is Irenaeus on Marcus, which read plainly describes a conjuring trick and love-philter accusations in hostile heresiology — attesting that cup manipulation was thinkable and scandalous, not that a psychedelic sacrament existed. McGovern, the book's own star scientific witness, calls the evidence "extremely weak to nonexistent," and no early Christian liturgical vessel has ever been chemically tested (TIK-R005); the claim is not contradicted by measurement, but it currently has no positive evidence worth the name.

No evidence record directly identifies a psychoactive compound in an early Christian Eucharistic meal. TIK-E021 describes a Marcosian cup color trick and separate hostile allegations about love potions, which makes manipulated cups historically thinkable but does not establish a psychedelic sacrament. The strongest affirmative consideration is the broader ancient availability of psychoactive ritual and wine preparations; the strongest negative consideration is that the nearest Christian text still fails to connect such substances to Eucharistic consumption.

Capability for psychoactive wine existed and one second-century heresiological text describes cup manipulation and philters, but every piece of positive evidence is either polemical, analogical, or programmatic. McGovern’s repudiation, the author’s own concessions, and the total absence of residue data on early Christian vessels leave “some communities” neither confirmed nor strictly falsified. The strongest opposing consideration is that the only candidate textual reference (Irenaeus on Marcus) is hostile fraud polemic, not ethnographic report.

Read as intended (additives beyond ordinary wine, since ethanol alone would make it trivially true), there is no positive evidence: no text attests a psychoactive Eucharist, no early-Christian vessel has been analyzed (R005), and the one candidate (E021) is heresiology about a color-changing conjuring trick and love-philters, not a visionary sacrament. McGovern's testimony that the evidence is "extremely weak to nonexistent" (E017) matches the ledger; E026 and E027 are framing and provenance only. It is not contradicted because the claim only asserts "some communities", and the normative texts (E022, E023) constrain the sanctioned rite, not every group in a diverse movement. Strongest opposing consideration: the heresiologists who reported Marcus's cup tricks and philters had every motive to report a drugged Eucharist and did not, which pushes toward contradicted; capability (C002) and cultural availability (E001) are priors, not attestation. Unresolved, leaning negative, pending R005.

No early-Christian vessel has been tested. The one drugged-cup text is fraud polemic (TIK-E021), and McGovern calls the evidence nonexistent (TIK-E017). TIK-E026 and TIK-E027 are program and funding context. The normative texts constrain the approved rite, not every community, so the weak form is untested rather than refuted.