Apart from *Lisp (https://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.bitsavers.org/pdf/th...), BaLinda Lisp (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00960...) and probably quite a few others I'm unaware of.

Lisp as a language is particularly well suited for parallelization, e.g. function arguments can be evaluated in parallel, and functions can be mapped in parallel over lists. This would be MIMD parallelization.

Lisp isn't semantically different from other languages, only syntactically - sure things are expressed as `map` instead of a for loop[0], but what's important is the memory layout of your data and whether or not it'd actually be faster to parallelize it, rather than if you can force it to work that way. So as long as the program works the same way it still can't/shouldn't be parallelized.

[0] except when Lisp programmers brag about how cool their complicated `loop` macro is

I take it that you're unaware that there are already Lisps running on Erlang, like LFE [0]?

[0] https://lfe.io/

Sssh, this is clearly a religious flamewar -- don't go inserting facts into it!