Sign up for email updates!



Share this!

In his 2020 Easter address, Pope Francis mentioned his hopes that, in response to the coronavirus pandemic, a UBI would be implemented. Many quickly responded to this statement with the usual suspicion that he might, again, be indicating a desire for the establishment of a One-World Order. When the reports that the pope was pushing for a UBI started to circulate, media sources then began to cite Cardinal Michael Czerny’s clarification of the term. Quickly backpedaling, Czerny explained that the Spanish phrase is salario universal,[i] which can be translated to mean “UBI.” However, Czerny explained, in this case, it was meant to refer to a “universal basic wage.”

He continued, “This is not to be understood as…universal basic income, but to a different notion, coming from the pope’s Argentinian background and his involvement with cartoneros [residents who collect and recycle trash for compensation] in Buenos Aires.”[ii] In other words, it’s not a base income that he wants to allocate to the entire population, but rather a minimum wage he’d like to see implemented across continents. (That, considering the various economic conditions across the world alongside the aforementioned scenario outlining only a few consequences in regards to the wage-inflation ratio, has the potential to be an economic train wreck. Regardless, the pope, who seems to repeatedly promote an agenda for a single world order, has made yet another statement about his desire to see global regulation implemented.)

The Appeal of Singularity

When I (Allie Anderson) was with a team of researchers at Burning Man in 2018 collecting data for an upcoming book, the theme that year was “I, Robot.” Understandably, the trending discussion at every turn was that of singularity. (For those not clear on the meaning of this term, “singularity” here doesn’t mean the point when AI surpasses human intelligence. Nor does it mean “uniqueness”; in fact, it indicates quite the opposite, in that it refers to the time when people lose their individuality and upload their consciousness into a computer in which everyone dwells in a type of online database, a digital community.) I found myself wondering how one would market such an idea to a group of people who were so passionate about their own individuality that they even rejected all branding, down to their clothing. I was aware that the idea of singularity had been met with great interest in this crowd, and was even embraced.

Curious (and needing an answer regarding this matter for the work I was assembling at that time), I attended workshop after workshop and learned that not only did the gathering’s attendees welcome the arrival of a digital age wherein people would be uploaded into singularity with one another, but they also saw it as the solution to many of the age-old problems of humanity.

They believe the answers to world hunger, the global financial crisis, inequality, and much more come via a utopian world wherein we’re relieved of the need for employment at all. In such an existence, our “digital twin” is created by making a copy of our consciousness, which operates inside a computer. This duplicate earns our income so that we are free to live an existence of relaxation and self-expression. Should we ever manage to legislate the convoluted moral and ethical issues of this type of life, we could find ourselves in a stage of humanity wherein our digital clones actually become our virtual slaves—not too much unlike the scenario on the movie The Island, mentioned in a previous article. The salary earned by our computerized selves could easily be used to make purchases through the same digital, communal monetary system as the potential UBI.

In this proposed society, as mentioned, a “digital twin” would work and perform the jobs we currently do. (With so many of us working at computers full-time, the idea isn’t too far-fetched.) Since our current income would be supplemented to reach the same level that we ourselves could obtain (being that, virtually, we are the ones working), the “real” individuals would be free to live without being employed. This is where the idea of a perfect, harmonious world comes in. Many believe that it’s the constraints of human need that keep the world plagued with trouble. Eliminating that, they think humans would then transcend to a higher level of enlightenment, becoming more perfect beings who leave behind the previous ills of mankind’s existence. Similarly, we would live in a society where people share with one another on a new level, expressing themselves artistically and indulging in self-discovery without fear of their material needs going unmet.

Unfortunately, humans have historically persecuted and made war with one another, pursuing selfish ambitions at the expense of others’ happiness and well-being. Despite the staunch belief that removing our material problems will somehow instill within our souls the necessary growth it would take to render a more enlightened and kind creature, it’s more likely that such conditions will yield a more evolved and depraved person who believes himself or herself to be godlike (masters of convincingly real but completely powerless digital copies of men, women, and children). Thus, current problems will be elevated while additionally, deeply disturbing ethical lines would likely be crossed regarding the treatment of our digital twins. To shed further light, studies on the nature of mankind (such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, which we’ll look at later) have revealed that, when left to their own devices and with too much time on their hands (especially when some have been given an allotment of power), mankind has a greater capacity for evil than good.

In addition to concerns regarding the direction mankind may take when—literally—left to his own devices, there is the issue that singularity would offer more than just an upload into an individual’s brain. After all, it’s no secret that digital doors often allow pathways in both directions, allowing for intrusive spyware, malware, adware, or even viruses to creep into computers and other devices. For this reason, most people use extreme caution when installing any new programs or apps onto computers, phone, or other electronics. If the day were to come when an individual had the opportunity to upload his or her consciousness into a digital sphere, what might it look like? To make one’s mind as vulnerable as any laptop connected to the Internet for intrusive digital interference could have vast potential spiritual risks. People could receive “downloads” of nearly any imaginable (or unimaginable!) content—some that could even reprogram aspects of their thinking, implementing new and twisted forms of temptation, and dulling sympathetic or philanthropic veins of thought. Worse, some have made a case that, should malevolent spiritual forces infest the machine, one could even become possessed or overtaken by evil forces via this method of digital community.

If artificial intelligence (AI) technology were ever to become self-aware or even evil, this is certainly within the realm of possibility. Further, if a person is given completely over to evil at the moment of upload, would malicious influences not follow him or her into the machine? These are questions that would need to be addressed before agreeing to allow one’s consciousness to be digitally fused.

How Might This Be Implemented?

With COVID-19 (and those who seized the opportunity it provided) creating so much chaos across the globe, many have wondered if vaccinations will be mandatory. Similarly, many Christians have been afraid that they will somehow be tricked or forced into taking this or a similar vaccine, only to later learn that they have taken the Mark of the Beast.

The truth about such a quandary can be a bit convoluted, because it is two-fold. First of all, allow us to say that we don’t believe that the vaccine developed to protect recipients from the coronavirus is that. The COVID-19 inoculation is still emergent and under trial status as we write this, and for that reason we are personally wary of it. However, setting that aside for a moment, let’s explore the theological angle of this situation.

If the Mark indeed involves an injection, those who receive it, unlike those who get the COVID-19 vaccination, will be required to make some sort of denouncement of prior loyalties (especially for those who state their allegiance is to God). We know that Antichrist will demand to be worshiped as god (2 Thessalonians 2:4), so we understand that accepting his Mark requires an alignment with his power. However, we’re repeatedly warned of how very compelling—charismatic—his manner will be. Thus, many will be deceived into taking his Mark. In this way, on one hand, people cannot take the Mark without making the deliberate decision to do so, yet, the deception will mean that they’re not aware of precisely who or what they’re dealing with. Clear as mud?

The issue is that we must be wary of anything that forces us to pledge our loyalty to human, political, or religious leaders and requires that we mark that allegiance in a permanent physical way. Thus, the danger is in aligning with the Man of Sin (another name for Antichrist) and accepting his brand. The way to act preemptively against this danger is by drawing close to God and listening closely for discernment. Doing this regularly will produce what we authors call a “gut-check”—a sense of direction that comes from somewhere deep in the spirit that doesn’t go away after persistent research and prayer.

As for those who worry that the Mark will manifest as a mandatory a chip implant that will be hiding inside a syringe labeled as a vaccine, think about this: Accepting the Mark of the Beast will be an intentional act. If it is received unknowingly (as through an injection intended for another purpose, such as COVID prevention), then it’s not likely the Mark. Antichrist wants each person’s stated loyalty to accompany the sign of affiliation with his administration. (However, there are those who assert that the “stated loyalty” is presumed via the acceptance of his brand, which is a noteworthy argument. Again, discernment is key.) As for the idea that a vaccination would sneak an implantable chip into people unbeknownst to them, for now this concept is alleviated. At this time, identification chips are still about the size of a small grain of rice, so it’s unlikely such a thing could be “snuck” into a vaccine—for now. In fact, many sources report that microchips are still large enough to be considered intrusive to their host, and couldn’t go undetected by the recipient.[iii] As technology improves (and it is doing so quickly, as we all know), this possibility may soon reach new levels.

So, let’s review some of the facts we’ve discussed about the Mark: 1) It’s a gesture of loyalty to a political figure or faction; 2) Its benefits will be so appealing that many will be deceived; 3) It will be identifiable to those who are watching for it, as different from routine vaccinations and such. So why would anyone receive the Mark in the first place? If it’s not subversive enough to be implemented without our knowledge, yet is so evil that it has the power to condemn one’s soul to hell, it doesn’t seem that anyone would take it. This is where a manipulation method will likely be used to condition the crowd to ignore any warning signs and accept it. Some may, as we mentioned, have to intentionally work around a gut-check signaling them to stop, while others will be wholeheartedly deceived and welcome it.

We don’t know the specific circumstances regarding how the Mark will be implemented. That would make things much easier, wouldn’t it? However, we do know it will be extremely appealing—even essential, since no one will be able to buy or sell anything without it. We are aware only that a political figure who seems to have the answers to humanity’s problems will arise. Out of this benevolent ingenuity will spring solutions that will draw the loyalty of much of mankind. This is why so many will line up to take his Mark.

In this way, a chip-implanted means for disbursement of UBI or similar element could be considered a candidate for the coercing the masses to receive the Mark. With all the talk of mandated vaccines, without which purchases or travel could be denied, one does wonder if they could be a trial run to test the populace’s willingness to line up for the injection. Many believe that if a form of UBI isn’t the way the Mark will be ushered in, then it could be via some type of crisis, such as another pandemic. In that case, the body count could mount so quickly that people would disregard any gut-checks signaling caution, opting instead to choose the Mark because it assures survival. However it happens, as we’ve suggested, it seems reasonable to believe that a swift and fearsome crisis event could occur that prompts people to accept the Mark while ignoring any of their hesitations, because “desperate times call for desperate measures.”[iv] The idea that some type of a crisis will trigger the implementation of the Mark is reinforced by the timeline provided in prophetic Scripture, where we read that circumstances escalate just before those who refuse the Mark are martyred. This measure will be ushered in swiftly, as the entire world appears to change rapidly over a three-and-a-half-year period, giving people very little time to reflect on the long-term consequences of their decisions.

This is where our proposition of “trial runs” comes in. Consider the manipulation tactics used by Jim Jones at his Peoples Temple (Jonestown) compound in Guyana in 1977. (Now, before the reader protests that this is an entirely different type of situation, hear us out.)The phrase “drink the Kool-Aid” became a popular term following the Jonestown tragedy wherein nearly one thousand cult members lined up and willingly drank the cyanide-laced beverage.[v] However, there was much more to the story than this. For example, a few cult members did not consume the drink, and they were killed by gunshot; also, about thirty people escaped.[vi] However, the remaining nine hundred or so had been conditioned over time to drink the beverage (which, as mentioned earlier, was Flavor Aid, not Kool-Aid[vii]) without question. Over a period of time before the massacre, Jones continually presented suicide as a necessary and impending end—and completely inevitable. By fostering a herd mentality about this, he began to run “suicide drills,” wherein his followers were forced to drink the beverage suspecting it was poisoned, only to find that it was not. These exercises were tests of loyalty Jones called “white nights.”[viii] “Increasingly paranoid…Jones went to greater lengths to assert his control,” stated one article. “In staged suicide rehearsals…members were told to drink red liquid which may have contained poison [to ensure that] his followers would follow his orders unhesitatingly.”[ix] He would then tell those people: “In forty minutes, you will all be dead.”[x]

However, only during one of the “white nights” was there, indeed, cyanide in the drink. After having endured the “fake suicides” repeatedly, cult members had become desensitized to the act of drinking the beverage. In an affidavit signed by former Jim Jones follower Deborah Blakey regarding the “white night” drills, “We all went through it without a protest,” Blakey recalls. “We were exhausted. We couldn’t react to anything.”[xi]

This same behavioral response can be related to society today, despite the fact that the circumstances are entirely different. Upon repeatedly drinking the liquid—thus “facing death”—yet subsequently surviving, the perception of threat is reduced as a result of the continual internal determination to silence the gut-check that would accompany drinking poison. In this example, we see how a society that has endured repeated crises accompanying the need for “drastic measures” (think economic shutdowns, emergency vaccines, etc.) would opt for the path of least resistance, following a herd mentality in hopes that the white night drills will only be a temporary situation.

This may seem like a strange comparison, but if society is currently undergoing “trial runs” for the implementation of the Mark, then we could be undergoing conditioning for the real event. Consider this: If a politician came out of left field with talk of a mandated injection of anything, the public would likely refuse it wholeheartedly. However, if many crises necessitate cooperation from the public—and if these measures actually provide the solution they promise—then it will be much easier to rally the masses in future circumstances. This is further reinforced by the fact that, in previous times of fear, everything turned out okay, just as it was during all but the one “white night.”

The chip-implanting technology is also already in use. We see it applied in varied ways, including identification, integration with smart buildings (for opening and closing doors, etc.), and storing medical records and other information. In Sweden in 2018, “4,000 citizens…[used] microchips implanted in their hands to store emergency contacts and enable easy access to homes, offices, and gyms.”[xii] While some companies in the US offer (and likely even encourage) chipping to their employees, pushback has been successful. Many states have legislation in place that forbids requiring of chip-implanting at this time.[xiii] However, during the pandemic lockdowns, many people began to fear that not only would a vaccine be mandated, but that such measures could be a precursor to chip implantation.

Many other theorists—some within SkyWatch TV and Defender Publishing circles—have presented various concepts of Mark of the Beast requirements which, like ours, involve the vulnerability/fragility-of-human-life conundrum. Some such as Thomas Horn have even speculated that the Mark could be a chimeric, DNA-altering machination that literally and physiologically changes a human into something else, while simultaneously saving the person’s life—a price most people will pay. If a plague of apocalyptic proportions were to fall upon the human race, accompanied by news coverage of it being highly fatal and swift in contagion, the impulsive reaction of the masses—in the interest of survival—would be to get in line to “take the vaccine.” If such an inoculation did harbor the Mark, many may still blatantly ignore any implications suggesting such a notion, simply because the fear-mongering of the day (and the observation of mounting global casualties) will drive them to make a rash decision.

(Note: It bears repeating that these authors do not believe that a potential COVID-19 vaccine will “be the Mark.” It doesn’t line up with the order of events—or the cataclysmic proportions—of the scenario we’re given in the book of Revelation. However, we see the possibility that some of the motives behind this pandemic mitigation might render this a “practice round” or a grooming of the masses toward a Mark agenda, much as the “white nights” were for those in Guyana.)

UP NEXT: Will The Mark Really Be Enforceable by Execution?

If you would like more information on the topics covered in this article series, see the book Dark Covenant by Donna Howell and Allie Anderson, available below:

[i] Clarke, Kevin. “In Easter Message, Pope Francis Proposes ‘Universal Basic Wage.’” American Magazine. April 12, 2020. Accessed November 4, 2020.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Caldera, Camille. “Fact Check: Americans Won’t Have Microchips Implanted by End of 2020.” August 1, 2020. Accessed November 4, 2020.

[iv] “Desperate-times-call-for-desperate-measures.” Your Dictionary Online. 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[v] Griggs, Richard A., Psychology: A Concise Introduction: Fifth Edition (New York: Worth Publishers, 2017), 399.

[vi] Ibid., 400.

[vii] Edwards, Phil. “The Cult That Inspired “Drink the Kool-Aid” Didn’t Actually Drink Kool-Aid.” VOX. May 23, 2015.

[viii] Wunrow, Rose. “The Psychological Massacre: Jim Jones and Peoples Temple: An Investigation.” July 25, 2013. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Brinton, Maurice. “Suicide for Socialism?” July 25, 2005. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Caldera, Camille. “Fact Check: Americans Won’t Have Microchips Implanted by End of 2020.” August 1, 2020. Accessed November 4, 2020.

[xiii] Ibid.

Category: Featured, Featured Articles