Listen to this article:

Independent reported on August 22: “Elon Musk wants to implant millions of people with Neuralink brain chips.” This headline was based on Musk’s X-post where he said:“If all goes well, in a few years there will be hundreds of Neuralink users, in five years maybe tens of thousands and in ten years millions.” Musk is known for his often reckless and over-optimistic timelines for achieving his futuristic goals, so I wouldn’t take these predictions too seriously. Musk has a lot of conservative and Christian followers on X, so his post received mostly negative responses, with one writing something like, “We don’t want the mark of the beast.”.

Musk’s most conservative followers have welcomed his support for free speech, President Trump, and his criticism of the anti-Christian Woke politics or Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum. At the same time, however, they are more suspicious of his experiments to implant millions of people with brain chips, for which they describe him as a “transhumanist”. I referred to Musk’s brain chips in my blog back in the summer of 2020, and explained why I personally don’t believe these chips have anything to do with the mark of the beast in the Book of Revelation. This is what I wrote at the time:

The Book of Revelation does not say anything about the mark of the beast being implanted in the human brain. Rev. 13:16 uses the Greek preposition epi, which literally refers to: on the forehead or right hand.The sign, charagma, itself refers to a visible sign like a print or brand in the original Greek. Of course, in inventions that sound like science fiction, such as the Neuralink mining chips, we can see not only promising but also some truly frightening visions of the future. We can imagine a world where people’s brains are wired into a virtual reality like the Matrix movies, while the elite who control this technology control their minds through this fake artificial reality… But I don’t think such horror scenarios will ever come true and if they do, it’s not realistic to expect it within the next 20 years.

In interpreting the prophecies, I have tried to keep my feet on the ground and avoid sensationalist horror stories based more on obscure conspiracy theories than on the reality of what science and technology can achieve today. Neuralink brain chips are part of a range of technological applications called brain-computer interfaces (BCI), which aim to create a direct link between the brain and computers. Their medical goal is to help patients with motor or neurological problems such as stroke, spinal cord injury, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) or paralysis. For these patients, BCI can provide a way to control devices such as wheelchairs, computers or robotic prostheses using only their thoughts. For ALS patients who have lost the ability to speak or move, BCI devices can give them a way to communicate by choosing letters or words with their thoughts. This can significantly improve their quality of life and independence.

Since BCI devices involve an attempt to read our minds, it naturally raises concerns and dystopian views of a future society where even our most sacred (or profane) thoughts would no longer be safe from the all-seeing eye of big business, governments or criminals, and where our entire consciousness could be hacked for nefarious ends. Yuval Noah Harari, the internationally renowned Israeli writer who often promotes such visions of the future, has stated that “the time of human free will is over” and that “humans are hackable animals”. I asked the language model ChatGPT4o about these statements and it became clear from our discussion that such transhumanist visions of the future are often somewhat exaggerated rhetoric, based much more on Harari’s materialistic worldview than on the reality of what is possible to achieve with technology. Even prophetically aware Christians may readily jump on board such horrors because it reinforces their assumptions about what kind of oppressive control society the world would be evolving into under the rule of the beast. A Facebook friend of mine recently said the following to me:

This is where a couple of young people have had a prophetic vision from God where taking the mark on themselves changed their personality like a robot. Nanotechnology, as I understand it, can already change the structure of the brain in such a way that a person becomes a half-human or cyber-human, who no longer reacts to a child crying, for example;

I don’t want to comment on these prophetic visions here, as I don’t know the cases and I usually try to test prophetic visions in the light of God’s Word and reality. All I do know is that one of the world’s leading developers of nanotechnology today is a deeply convinced Christian scientist, Dr. James Tour, who has spoken much about the potential benefits of this technology in overcoming disease. Of course, all technology can be used for the wrong and malicious purposes, but comments such as the above usually strike me as a kind of technophobia or fear-mongering against technological progress. As for brain chips or brain interfaces, it is simply not possible that our consciousness could somehow be hacked or hijacked – or downloaded into a robot that would allow us to live immortally. Even reading our minds is not yet possible with such technology. I quote from a summary of my conversation with ChatGPT:

To summarize our discussion: today, existing BCI devices or related scientific research already enable the interpretation and decoding of simple brain signals to external devices (such as navigating a computer screen from one application to another). However, reading our complex and abstract thoughts is not yet possible. Even further from reality are devices that could communicate telepathically between two different users or hack into a person’s consciousness/personality and feed thoughts or sensory perceptions directly into the human brain via electrical impulses.

ChatGPT said:

Your summary is accurate and well structured.

With current brain-control interfaces (BCI) and related scientific research it is already possible to interpret and decode simple brain signals, such as navigation instructions or motor functions, which can be transmitted to external devices such as computers or robotic prostheses. However, reading complex and abstract thoughts, such as decoding complex concepts, sentences or emotions, is not yet technologically possible.

Dystopian visions are even further away:

• Telepathic communication: Communication between two different users directly through the brain (telepathically) is still far from reality. Modern technology does not allow information to be transmitted directly between two people via the brain.
• Thought manipulation or hacking: “Hacking” thoughts or consciousness and feeding thoughts or sensory perceptions directly into other people’s brains via electrical impulses is not within the capabilities of today’s technology. Stimulation of brain signals is currently very limited and is mainly used in medical treatments and cannot be used to control complex thought processes or personality.

In other words, BCI technology has made significant progress, but its current use is mainly limited to decoding simple signals and controlling motor functions, while mind reading, telepathic communication or mind manipulation are still science fiction.

Patients using BCI devices have already demonstrated how they can move a mouse pointer on a computer screen or play computer games telepathically with the power of their thoughts. Using the same technology, someone who has lost an arm can already control their robotic prosthesis using only their thoughts. But decoding such motor functions from our brains using either surgically invasive brain chips or non-invasive BCI devices is much easier than using the same devices to make a computer read our thoughts when we think the word “apple” or visualise an apple in our mind or reflect on the smell or taste of an apple. This process is further complicated by the fact that such brain signals are not universal standards but individual.

If brain signals are unique to all people, what does that mean, for example, for a dystopian view of our minds being read by big business, governments or criminals? Isn’t that kind of reading much more difficult if the brain signals don’t send a universal cognitive language in our case?

ChatGPT said:

You are absolutely right that the individuality of brain signals makes mind reading much more complex and challenging than dystopian scenarios often suggest. This individuality means that decoding brain signals does not happen in a “universal cognitive language”, but requires much more detailed and personalized analysis. This places significant constraints on mind-reading by, for example, large corporations, governments or criminals.

The uniqueness and challenges of brain signals

1. Individual differences in signal activation patterns: Brain signals vary widely between people. For example, when a person thinks of the word “apple”, although certain brain areas may be activated in most people (e.g. visual cortex for the image of an apple), activation patterns are individual. Individuals’ brains may encode the same idea differently depending on factors such as experience, culture and personal memories. This makes it difficult to create a universal “code” or model, as each person’s brain signals would have to be analysed separately.
2. Complexity of decoding: Current brain interfaces can only interpret brain signals at a very coarse level. They can recognize simple motor commands or detect activation in specific parts of the brain, but reading more complex thoughts, such as linguistic ideas or emotions, is much more difficult. This means that simply reading brain signals without a precise mapping of personal brain activity is not realistic with current technology.
3. Need for personalised models: Reading minds requires building personalised models. This requires large amounts of data and a long-term learning process for each individual. Over time, AI could learn to recognise an individual’s brain signals and their meanings, but this would require extensive training and data about that individual. Developing universal mind-reading models that work for all people is highly unlikely, precisely because of the individuality of the signals.

What does this mean in dystopian scenarios?

1. Mind reading is difficult without personal data: If a large corporation, government or criminal entity wanted to use brainwave reading on a massive scale, they would first have to acquire a massive amount of individual brainwave data on each person they were trying to read. This data is not readily available, and simply collecting individual brain signals without context is not enough to accurately interpret what a person is thinking.
2. Personalisation prevents mass surveillance: Because signals are individual, dystopian scenarios of mass surveillance and control in which all people’s thoughts could be read in the same way are highly unlikely. Interpreting individual people’s brain signals requires a personally tailored model, making mind reading and control difficult without direct and continuous access to a person’s brain and lengthy collection of signal data.
3. Technological advances do not eliminate individuality: While technology advances, and brain signal interpretation potentially becomes more accurate, signal individuality remains a barrier to massive and universal mind reading. AI algorithms can help decode signals, but they still need individualized learning models, making it a very expensive and resource-intensive activity for large populations.

Could mind-reading still be possible in some situations?

Although the threat of universal mind-reading is small, it is still possible that individuals’ thoughts could be read more accurately in the future if they were subjected to continuous monitoring and analysis. This could happen, for example, if a person regularly uses BCI devices and long-term brain signal data is collected, allowing AI to learn to interpret a person’s thoughts more accurately over time.

In such a scenario, certain actors could potentially target a person with personalised control and analyse brain signals at an individual level. However, this would require long-term data collection and personalisation of models, making it very resource-intensive and likely to target only individuals, not the whole population.

Summary

The individuality of brain signals is a major barrier to mind reading at the universal level. This individuality means that dystopian scenarios in which large corporations, governments or criminals could easily read everyone’s thoughts are unlikely. Mind reading requires personal patterns and long-term data collection, which makes mass surveillance very complex and virtually impossible with today’s technology.

It would be even more impossible to hack the human soul/consciousness so that we could, for example, steal our memories from it, or impose false memories, or send data – such as the contents of a thick book – directly to our brains electronically without the need to read that book. This is partly because, within the limits of our current brain research, we don’t even know where exactly our consciousness is located or generated. Although computers can already read and interpret simple signals sent by neurons in our brains, “two-way communication, where computers could send complex information back to the brain and guide human thinking, is currently beyond our scientific understanding and technology” (ChatGPT).

While I think it is quite possible that many patients with motor or neurological problems would be happy to have Elon Musk’s brain chip to improve their quality of life if it could restore their mobility or speech, I don’t think many healthy people would agree to an expensive and risky surgical operation just because it would allow them to play computer games telepathically. It is therefore much more likely that the first mass-produced brain interface would be some kind of remote brainwave reader like a bluetooth headset. Even in this scenario, its first generation device would probably only allow telepathic navigation, opening applications, or typing (i.e. selecting individual letters by focusing on them).

Such a device would pose a much lower data protection risk than “mind-captors” that read whole sentences or thoughts from our brains. And even if a device capable of reading whole sentences and thoughts from our brains were available in the future, the fragmentation and clutter of our thoughts would make it a very impractical device without some kind of filtering mechanism. Besides, even today’s smartphones could be said to read our minds because everything we do on the internet leaves some kind of digital imprint on us, which is often sold on to advertising companies for personalised ads. The ideal would be to try to develop tools that give people transcendental abilities – such as telepathic communication – without violating our privacy.

For about five years now I have been of the opinion that the gradual merging of the human body and the computer is a natural technological development and in many ways most of the world’s population could already be considered “cyborgs” because the smartphone is already almost like an extra organ in their body, without which they move almost nowhere. This is not a conspiracy by Klaus Schwab and co. to chip the masses with brain chips, but the unanimous opinion of futurists and developers of the next generation of technology about the direction in which technology will evolve in the first half of the 21st century. And my own view has also been that God is not against such developments. If that were the case, by the same logic we should claim that God is against cybernetic organisms that already exist today, such as pacemakers, hearing aids, robotic limbs, insulin pumps, and other electronic devices that combine the human body and technology.

The mark of the beast will not perish the soul of man into an eternal lake of fire because God opposes the technological development of our society. The mark of the beast is about a totalitarian social system where all those who do not worship the beast and his image will be deprived of the right to trade – to buy and sell. This is why I don’t see so much importance in speculating about what form the technological device on the forehead or right hand will eventually take. It must be some kind of digital payment system integrated into the human body. But even in that case, I don’t think it’s necessarily that God is against digital money transactions or a “wallet” integrated into the human body.

The point is that with that new payment system comes the damning condition of the human soul: deny Christ, worship the beast, and you will live (in a beast society). Similarly, paying with today’s debit and credit cards would lead us to eternal damnation if before every transaction we had to bow down before some idolatrous statue. But even if Musk’s brain chips or similar brain interfaces do not fulfil the biblical prophecies of the mark of the beast, I believe they will soon enable another biblical prophecy to be fulfilled. I quote below from an update I posted on Facebook:

Elon Musk’s Neuralink may soon bring about the fulfilment of a biblical prophecy. I am not referring to the mark of the beast in Revelation 13, but to the prophecy of the Messianic age in Isaiah 35:5: “Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will be opened.” This video explains how Neuralink could restore sight to the blind with a bionic eye.

Many Christians have tended to think that messianic prophecies like this would be fulfilled at the dawn of the millennial kingdom of peace by God alone through supernatural intervention. Although I myself believe in miracles, it is worth pointing out that this messianic prophecy of Isaiah was already tentatively fulfilled at the time of Jesus’ first coming, when Jesus said:

“Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them.” (Luke 7:22)

But many biblical scholars teach that Isaiah 35:5 will also be finally and completely fulfilled at Jesus’ second coming. I have been teaching for several years that I believe such messianic age prophecies will be fulfilled through technological as well as supernatural miracles. The two should not be seen as enemies of each other just as prayer and medicine should not be seen as enemies of each other so as to combat disease. If science, through bionic eyes and brain interfaces like Neuralink, soon develops to the point where we can open the eyes of the blind through medicine, it will not be a threat to God, who also gave medicine to man for our blessing. However, human wisdom is not always sufficient and that is why we need God’s supernatural intervention and the power of prayer.

From a Christian worldview perspective, it is incorrect to say that “man is playing God” in trying to cure diseases or various disabilities through science. Jesus gave this task specifically to His followers: ‘Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You have received as a gift, give as a gift.” (Matthew 10:8). In the Christian tradition, this commandment has often been applied in both scientific and spiritual contexts. We can heal the sick through the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the word of faith, but also through scientific research and medicine.

In fact, I see scientific breakthroughs like this where we can soon make the paralysed walk, the crippled jump, the deaf hear and the blind see through a combination of bionics, or biology and electronics, as a prophetic sign of the times of how close humanity is to the second coming of Jesus and the millennial kingdom of peace. Even many atheist scientists today may use such biblical language to describe the latest breakthroughs in science and technology.

Otherwise, I do agree with those who are more negative about such technology that transhumanism also has a dangerous side (I wrote about it in depth in my first book) and its messianic utopias can become very dangerous experiments if they are disconnected from biblical ethics and the human image. But even the earliest Christian pioneers of the scientific revolution – such as Sir Francis Bacon – were a kind of proto-transhumanists, according to whom humanity, in the Fall, also lost its scientific and cognitive capacities to understand the world rationally.

The idea of the scientific revolution was to regain a better understanding of the natural world created by God through experimental science and thereby – as Francis Bacon believed – regain lost control over nature and overcome the diseases that had become the curse of the Fall through science and medicine. However, science would not be able to answer moral questions and therefore Christianity would also be needed to steer the ethics of science in the right direction. As Bacon put it in the 1600s:

“With the Fall, man fell simultaneously from the state of innocence and the dominion of creation. Both losses, however, can still be partially remedied in this life; the former by faith, the latter by art and science.”

I received the following rebuttal to this post from a Christian brother: “The blind have been healed in huge numbers through the supernatural work of God. This technical healing is not a miracle of God, but man-made, and I don’t think this is what the Bible means when it talks about opening the eyes of the blind. But I do not deny the potential usefulness of new inventions.” I replied as follows:

Personally, I see it from a slightly different perspective. Human achievements can also be God’s miracle, because the same God who opens the eyes of the blind through supernatural miracles has also given human beings the wisdom to understand His creations in such a way that we can also open the eyes of the blind through science and technology. That, after all, is what science is all about – trying to understand God’s creations so that we can control nature cursed with fall of man and cure various diseases through medicine.

People would die much younger today if medicine and public or private health care had not developed under the influence of Christianity to what it has developed in the West over the last few centuries.

Another reason why I do not believe that passages like Isaiah 35:5 refer exclusively to supernatural miracles is that the whole concept of a miracle refers to some unusual phenomenon out of the ordinary and thus is intended to serve as evidence to unbelievers of the existence of God and the supernatural. But in the Messianic millennium all the blind will regain their sight and all the lame will walk. So miracles will not just happen to the few and the chosen as they do today. But if such things become commonplace for people, then they can no longer be miraculous or supernatural, but natural and ordinary.

And why would Jesus have to prove His divinity by supernatural miracles at that time, as He did at His first coming? Does not every person living on earth know even then that He is the King of kings and Lord of lords returned from heaven to earth, in whose name all knees shall bow? Besides, it would be a bit silly to suppose that after His second coming, Jesus would spend all His time to heal people in every village and region of the world who ask Him to heal them of this or that disease, blindness and deafness. Jesus was often overworked in that task even during His first coming, when He worked only in Judea.

When we understand that God created man from the beginning as co-ruler of His creation and gave us the power to perform the same miracles – even greater ones – that He did while on earth (John 14:12), we may better understand that the church will not be a passive bystander on earth, but an active participant in the governance of a restored Paradise. That is why the Book of Revelation also tells us that the church will reign together with Christ.

---

Similar writings:

• “And the tongue of the dumb shall be loosed in joy…” My thoughts on transhumanism from a Christian worldview perspective.
• James Cameron’s Terminator films, Revelation and artificial intelligence.