George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff (1866-1949) plays a special role among the key figures of contemporary esotericism. While he always refused to be identified as “a master”, and did not particularly like the word “esotericism” either, Gurdjieff was uniquely infiuential not only on subsequent Western esotericism, but on literature, architecture, music and the arts in general as well. It is true, on the other hand, that followers, schools and independent disciples each interpreted Gurdjieff's teachings in very different ways. The article discusses Gurdjieff's infiuence on a lesser known, but quite important esoteric author, the Colombian master Samael Aun Weor (1917-1997), who established a “Gnostic Movement” which today is present in a number of different countries and has several thousands of followers. Neither Gurdjieff nor Weor left behind a single group or movement. Instead, their followers split up into a dozen different organizations, as also happened with the followers of other masters within the framework of Western esotericism, where a characteristic “genealogical hypertrophy” often leads to endless claims of legitimacy and schisms. Both Gurdjieff and Weor may also be studied in terms of the “charisma of the book”, a category Jane Williams-Hogan introduced with reference to Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), i.e. their books generated a plethora of organized movements even beyond the presumed intentions of their authors. What is perhaps new in this article is that it discusses Gurdjieff's profound infiuence on Weor. This infiuence is rarely acknowledged, and in fact the crucial element of Weor's system, i.e. sexual magic, is not a central feature in most of the movements claiming Gurdjieff's heritage. Yet, a doctrine of sexuality as a pre-eminent kind of relation with the sacred, and as a means of achieving higher states of consciousness, is far from absent in Gurdjieff's writings. In fact, several of Weor's ideas about the use and manipulation of sexual energies appear to be taken literally from Gurdjieff. A study of Weor thus may be especially significant in order to address an aspect of Gurdjieff which was never adequately discussed in the large international corpus of publications about his teachings.