Perhaps this is good work from within the context of Gnosticism, but it seems to be a litany of interpretations, with little Truth. Is this Matter not the body of God? Surely the real gnostic would be the first to say that there is no division, that all is all and that is that? I believe that one could not be considered to "know" (to have achieved gnosis) before recognising the Self. In doing so, it becomes nonsensical to talk about "Creator" apart from "Creation"; what divides the two?
This appears simply to be ruminations from within a certain system, rather than anything of objective worth (not that it couldn't be of use to many). The second he starts talking about how the "Creator" might "modify teleologically his Plan", it becomes clear that this author has absolutely no understanding of what such a "Creator" must be in order to be the "Creator". The Plan is not altered; if the Plan were to be altered, that would have been the fucking Plan!
He also shows a lack of understanding of the Identity of Indiscernibles, which is not necessarily saying "God didn't make two identical things" (that's Leibniz's conjecture), but is simply saying that any two things with equal attributes in all respects are the same thing. This cannot be disputed; if all intrinsic and extrinsic qualities are the same between what are seen to be two obects, they cannot be two objects, but must be one, though it may appear to rest apart from itself in whatever way (sensation is an odd thing, and prone to hallucinations). So, then, it is not that an archetypal quantum was never repeated, but that any instance of such an archetypal quantum is actually exactly the same as any other; this ties in with "quantum entanglement", whereby, given that all matter was once contained within an unextended point (a singularity), all matter is principally entangled, effectively being multiple renditions of one thing (the quantum). Criticisms to Big Bang theory notwithstanding, there is nothing within contemporary physics which can't be reconciled with the simplest (and, thus, most eloquent) metaphysics: tat tvam asi, "that thou art". Everything is "I", in essence; anything else is circumstantial.
This "Gnostic" is too influenced by a bastardised Christianity to see beyond his own conceptual confines. Why does he hold this world to be fundamentally one of conflict, and not of reconciliation? Either view is supported by reality as it is. I have seen the eyes in all things (upon shutting my own, there is always one before my "vision"), I have made friends with whatever entities might be dredged out of reality (and there are many demons and devils in the human mind, though none wishes ill of itself), and I am continuously aware of this "living cosmos" as being the organic, conscious entity described by the author: none of this is terrible, or horrifying, or anything of the sort, because none of it is any other than "I". Why should I fear to see myself watching myself? Rather, I experienced an immense joy, to know that all around me was well aware of me, as I had become aware of it. Indeed, the greatest wonders arise when one communes with the World, rather than "fighting" against it, as this strange man seems to suggest is the way to go. There is absolutely no danger in interfacing with oneself unless one believes there to be danger in doing so! This man shoots himself in the foot and begs that we follow him.
The part on levitation was interesting, and I wonder how much his ontology is designed to facilitate the notion that such a thing is physically possible (which I don't deny, since it can't be falsified). Even so, there are much simpler explanations: there is, in reality, no division between this body and that, nor any division between thought and matter, intention and substance; feeling this, one becomes as Christ, or Buddha, and it can be a perfectly normal thing to manipulate one's own or another body in whatever way.