Yes, right. So when Eisler, who is not trained as a psychologist, says something about human psychology, I can ignore her, and quote Pinker instead, and you'll believe him over her without a fuss? (Ooh! Can I quote Peterson on psychology? He's a psychologist too!) How about Lynn Meskell? Is she authoritative enough on archaeology?

I don't personally put much stock in authority figures. Their expertise ought to give them the ability to marshal compelling evidence in support of their claims. (The part of The Chalice and the Blade that I read was full of evidence; no need for me to defer to the expert's expertise instead of the evidence!)

But if you do put stock in authority figures, I wonder what the bounds are.

Anyway, I have been meaning to get to all the angels, better and darker. Haven't read either yet. I probably should.

As per the rest of what you've said, I offered to answer your claims with direct quotes from Eisler (I assume Eisler and Fry will do?), and I think I would not be honoring that if I answered directly. I'm happy to answer once I'm in a position to.