The link is here. I used to know a magician from Toronto who was into Aleister Crowley. He married a witch and then his wife became a 'reborn' evangelist. Needless to say the marriage ended shortly thereafter.
The question I have for Piovenelli is why should the contents of Secret Mark be treated any different that the Jerusalem liturgy known to Cyril or Jerome's interest in the naked disciple following the naked Christ. Is this all the product of a repressed homosexual imagination?
People have been accusing Christians of being gay since Hypomnema of Hegesippus. I grew up hearing the Jewish version of this kind of vitriol. All of these rumors and gossip come from some ancient starting point (sort of life the academic equivalent of the 'Rod Stewart went to the hospital and doctors pumped ___ ounces of sperm from his stomach' rumor that went around when I was growing up).
None of it is historical. None of it should be taken seriously but at the same time the 'Jesus is gay' tradition is older than Morton Smith and doesn't need the help of Aleister Crowley, an understanding of homosexual practices in 1950s America or the like to have gotten off the ground.
I don't know why any of this gets taken seriously by anyone but it does. A needed distraction from actually demonstrating any real reason for believing the work is a fake.
Let's find evidence to demonstrate the work is a fake. But it doesn't makes any sense to me to dwell on this nonsense, but then again I am not in the scholarship business (i.e. developing hot air into academic papers).
Stephan Huller has had a life long interest in religion and spirituality 
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."