I've known the Mark is not a chip for years - I was "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd", as El Rushbo would say. Amen, I strive to not get ahead of Scripture, but there is the other problem of making Scripture wait to catch up with us - namely taking a revelation which itself claims to be given in signs and symbols (Revelation 1:1 says Jesus "signified it") and failing to Biblically interpret the symbolism.
Think about this for a second: if the Mark were a literal mark, then by Jesus' own testimony He would have referred to it in symbolism, right or wrong? He would have said something like:
"...and causeth the scribe to be in the hand or the forehead..."
...which anyone would immediately discern was a
symbolic reference to a
literal mark - no scribe would ever fit in either place. In a highly symbolic book, an immense issue such as the Mark would definitely be among the symbolism. Actually, if your literal mark idea and the chip idea were in a race, the chip would be way out ahead for at least attempting to interpret the symbolism, while your idea would never leave the starting line.