Are there references to Gilgamesh and his immortal chamber in the Epstein files?

Checked on February 6, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

The newly released Jeffrey Epstein files include at least one documented reference to an ancient Gilgamesh artefact—the so‑called Gilgamesh Dream Tablet—which US authorities later seized as part of investigations tied to Epstein [1]; however, none of the provided reporting or official summaries cites an “immortal chamber” connected to Gilgamesh in those files, and no source here supports that specific phrase or concept appearing in the release [2] [3].

1. What the files actually contain about Gilgamesh

Reporting tied to the government’s document release makes a clear, narrow claim: an exchange among Epstein‑related materials referenced the Gilgamesh Dream Tablet, a 3,500‑year‑old cuneiform artefact bearing passages of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and US authorities later validated that the tablet was legally seized in connection with the broader probe [1]; mainstream coverage of the DOJ’s large tranche—described as millions of pages, thousands of images and videos—notes many such peripheral items and emails among the mass of material [2] [3].

2. What the phrase “immortal chamber” would mean — and why it’s not found in the reporting

“Immortal chamber” reads like a mythic or conspiratorial construct rather than a catalogued archaeological term, and none of the supplied sources — including the BBC’s direct reporting on the Gilgamesh tablet and multiple mainstream summaries of the DOJ dump — report that phrase or describe a chamber tied to Gilgamesh within Epstein’s documents [1] [2] [3]; the available evidence shows references to the tablet itself and to correspondence about the artefact, not to an esoteric location promising immortality.

3. Why conspiracy narratives have proliferated around marginal mentions

The torrent of files and the presence of ancient, evocative items like a Gilgamesh tablet create fertile ground for speculative narratives; fringe coverage and social posts have leapt from a documented artefact to claims about occult rituals, “Baal” references and even child‑sacrifice conspiracies, reporting which mainstream outlets flag as unverified and speculative [4] [2]. The files’ scale—described in reports as millions of pages and thousands of media items—means obscure, out‑of‑context phrases can be amplified beyond what the documents substantively show [3] [5].

4. Responsible read of the public record and its limits

The DOJ release is vast and contains email chains, messages and attachments that mention many people and items [3] [2], and the BBC explicitly links one artefact exchange to the files [1]; however, the supplied reporting does not show primary document text invoking an “immortal chamber” or any proven occult facility, and this analysis cannot assert absence beyond the scope of the extracts provided—only that none of these sources supports that specific claim [1] [2] [3].

5. How to interpret next steps and open questions

Given the confirmed mention of the Gilgamesh Dream Tablet in Epstein‑related material and subsequent federal seizure [1], the sensible journalistic posture is to treat the tablet reference as factual while treating any claims about chambers, immortality or ritualistic meaning as unproven until primary documents are cited directly; readers should demand direct quotations or document IDs from the released files before accepting extraordinary inferences, because mainstream outlets covering the release focus on verifiable links and notable names rather than occult narratives [2] [3] [5].

Want to dive deeper?
Which exact DOJ documents or exhibit numbers reference the Gilgamesh Dream Tablet in the Epstein files?
Have researchers published transcriptions or images of the EEG‑dated Gilgamesh Dream Tablet seized in connection with Epstein?
Where have conspiracy narratives about ‘Baal’ or occult chambers in the Epstein files originated and how have mainstream outlets fact‑checked them?