I believe that if an animal gains a certain level of sentience that they are eligible for an afterlife
So the rainbow Bridge is plausible to me
I still can't recommend it. Look at the these Amazon reviews.
'Michael Aquino has the peculiar habit of giving laurels to LaVey with one hand, and stabbing him in the back with the other. Aquino left the CoS in 1975 to start the other leading brand of Satanism, The Temple of Set. The schism was the end of the heyday of the Church of Satan. While LaVey tried to downplay the Xodus, saying he had actually engineered to clear the CoS of the deadwood, ala Pee Wee Herman's "I meant to do that", it seemed to have demoralized LaVey. From then on, CoS was just a P.O. box selling membership cards for $100 a pop. Unlike CoS...which simplified witchcraft, and even mocked many traditional occultic things... ToS was a step backwards: a literal Devil, all the magical balderdash of other occult groups like Crowley and The Golden Dawn, etc. Worst of all was its fascination with Nazism. While CoS had dabbled in it, ToS reveled in it. In fact, when you compare ToS to Cos, you get the feeling Mikey never really got what CoS was all about it...which is weird since he was there. This book is hardly a "ReVision of The Satanic Bible" What it really is, in fact, is a cut and paste job of Aquino's Crystal Tablet of Set, complete with the boring Diablicon, and his incomprehensible ideas of what Black Magic is supposed to be. Read this book if you're interested in the Temple of Set, rather than The Satanic Bible.'
'In this rather sketchy and uneven book, Dr. Michael Aquino affirms his faith in an immortal soul modeled somewhat after what little is known about the beliefs of ancient Egyptians.
Aquino, whose background includes distinguished military service and a stint in the Church of Satan, writes here as a member of the church he established in the 1970s, the Temple of the Priesthood of Set (Set being the Egyptian nemesis of Horus and Osiris).
Ancient Egyptians held that the soul had eight parts, or “emanations” in Aquino’s words. These emanations appear to correspond roughly to: modern concepts of life and natural forces; a self-conscious ego with a reputation (or a “name soul”); and the capacity to incarnate divine beings, including one’s own divinity.
The soul’s existence is not a matter of proof, but a matter of direct experience, more precisely, the experience of “anamnesis,” the Platonic “remembering” of truth. Anamnesis is achieved by disciplining one’s self in Platonic dialectic, the exercise of reason stripping away illusion to get to underlying reality, or Platonic forms.
Aquino draws little distinction between Platonic forms and Egyptian deities, appearing to equate them in a mashup of the Platonic Dialogues and the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
In an effort to bring his theories back to earth, Aquino hypothesizes that field theory explains how an immaterial soul can interact with the material world. Life- and thought-fields mediate the soul and the physical body in a universe that is both purposeful and intelligently designed for such an undertaking. Thus can the soul and body interact within the confines of physical incarnation; but once the body is cast aside, the soul is free to create its own reality, or so Aquino seems to suggest.
While Aquino spends little time on the nature of the afterlife, one gets the sense that he views it as a sort of celestial gated community of one, wherein its sole soul occupant can spend eternity in splendid isolation, or, if so desired, invite neighboring souls over for Sunday brunch. It’s one of the many shortcomings of Aquino’s book that he has little to say about how occupancy of this otherworldly real estate is managed, by whom, and why.
This is not the book’s only shortcoming, and space does not permit a discussion of all of the shortcomings, because Aquino has literally fitted too many of them into a 200+ page book.
Stylistically, the book is riddled with irritating acronyms for phrases so clotted it fatigues one to say them outloud (e.g., the collective subjective universe, or “CSU”), and the book’s goofy MindStar logo looks less like soulstuff and more like half-hearted origami that would be more at home on the cover of a 1970s heavy metal album than a book on metaphysics.
Problematic is Aquino’s critique of the three Abrahamic faiths, which is one part analysis and nine parts caricature; the reader expects more from a PhD in political science than the same realization that must strike every soul-searching sixteen-year-old who reads the Bible: God didn’t play fair in the Garden of Eden.
Less annoying and more excruciating is Aquino’s thumbnail sketch of philosophy over the past millennia, starting with Pythagoras and Plato and ending with—Michael Aquino? Well, in the era of postmodern weirdness, if Donald Trump can declare himself the greatest President, why can’t Aquino locate himself at the pinnacle of Western thought? But perhaps the “13th Baron of Rachane, Argyllshire” (according to his bio) is just having a bit of a lark with us.
Adding to the suspicion that the author must be pulling the reader’s leg is the addition of an Afterword that Aquino apparently wrote as a sophomore in college, a kind of fictional Philosophy Department cocktail party from hell, interminable and boring, in which a sphinx and chimera discuss Plato, presumably while sharing a lit bong.
The shame of it all is that Aquino may have had something interesting and important to say about the relation of Egyptian soulcraft to contemporary views on the topic, but spends hardly a paragraph actually discussing, respectively, each of the eight parts of the Egyptian soul. If Aquino does have something interesting and important to say, he doesn’t say it here. Aquino’s MindStar registers barely a glimmer.'
His stuff on ancient Greek/Egyptian philosophy was quite good though.