Are "The Entity" and "IT" the same being?

At first glance, it may seem like a far-fetched question. After all, they originate from entirely different mythologies, penned by different authors, in separate fictional universes. But if we set aside the boundaries of intellectual property and approach this from a metaphysical or meta-narrative perspective, the idea becomes much more intriguing.

There are undeniable similarities between the two. Both feed on emotions — fear, despair, suffering. Both possess the ability to manipulate perception and warp the minds of those they encounter. But what truly makes them comparable is their shared ability to shape reality itself, and more importantly — to traverse multiverses.

And I’m not speaking of a singular "multiverse" here, but rather multiverses in the plural — an uncountable array of universal clusters, potentially nested within or parallel to each other. Whether they move within a single omniverse or leap across several, whether they span parts or the totality of multiverses contained in a higher-order structure — we cannot say for certain. But what does seem apparent is that both beings possess a scope of existence that defies local cosmology. They move freely through hundreds, thousands, perhaps even an infinite number of universes, with footprints echoing across dimensions.

Now, the common objection would be:

"But they were created by different people."

Yes, that’s technically true. But does it really change anything?

If human minds — and by extension, works of fiction — are themselves encapsulated universes within a larger omniversal structure, then why couldn’t two separate creators have glimpsed or channeled the same archetypal force? If a being exists beyond the bounds of linear time and traditional space, then multiple manifestations of it across different realities (or fictions) wouldn’t be a contradiction — it would be expected.

Perhaps these authors didn’t invent these entities at all. Perhaps they simply interpreted the same extradimensional presence through their own symbolic filters — much like prophets or dreamers describing the same vision in different words.

And that brings us to something even more uncanny — the nature of their realms.

In Stephen King's mythology, the Deadlights are not a place, but the raw, incomprehensible essence of IT. To perceive them is to come face-to-face with something that reality itself cannot render properly — a pure, alien beingness that burns through the filters of mortal perception.

Likewise, what we call the “Realm of the Entity” may not be a realm at all. It may not be a “world”, but the Entity itself. Every stone, pallet, and locker may be no more than folds in its flesh, echoes in its mind, or processes in its digestion of sentient experience. Survivors and Killers are not in the Entity — they are within it. Existing in its field of consciousness, trapped in a looping dreamstate designed to distill the most potent flavors of fear and desperation.

So in both cases — IT and the Entity — we are not looking at beings inhabiting worlds, but beings whose bodies and minds are the worlds. Beings for whom time and space are membranes to pierce or reshape at will. Beings that do not "appear" to us, but assimilate us, absorbing our narratives, our fears, our very structures of meaning.