Carnal, Chthonian, Complicated
THE MATTER OF MODERN SATANISM
Jesper Aa. Petersen
. . . just when Scientology seemed the peak of the celebrity-endorsed religious craze, now we’re introduced to OTO, an even more bizarre sex-based religion favored by the rich and famous, according to The Daily Mail. It’s kind of . . . well, it’s, uh, Satanism. John Travolta and his hairplugs aren’t looking so weird now, huh?
ANNA BRESLAW, “The New Celebrity Religious Fad Is, Uhh, a Satanist Sex Cult”
THE RUMORS ABOUT Peaches Geldof started swirling in the spring of 2013. As reported by several newspapers and European celebrity websites, the wild daughter of renowned British rock star Bob Geldof had allegedly involved herself with a satanic sex cult called “OTO.” Fueled by a heady mix of celebrity involvement, conspiracy, sexual rituals, and black magic, speculation quickly caught on, gradually turning darker when the initial dismissal of the young debutante’s lack of proper taste and judgment became the threat of cult crime and damnation to young fashion fans. What started off as a “cult” steadily became a “sex-cult,” a “satanic sex-cult,” and finally a “sado-masochistic satanic sex-cult.”
Two inoffensive Internet posts on the image networking sites Twicsy and Instagram formed the basis of this brief media frenzy. In the summer of 2011, Peaches Geldof posted a picture of a heart-shaped tattoo with the initials O.T.O. inscribed within. Yet nothing really happened until two years later, when she made another post linking to a picture; this time the seven-pointed seal of the thelemic order A.A. (Astron Argon or Silver Star) with the text “#93 #Thelema #o.t.o for all my fellow Thelemites on instagram!”1 As the celebrity tabloids quickly uncovered, the O.T.O., the A.A., and the religion of Thelema are all connected to the notorious twentieth-century magician Aleister Crowley, whose life of sexual experiments, drug use, and radical magical practice has made him the perennial stereotypical Satanist in the press. As the story went, the Ordo Templi Orientis (Order of Oriental Templars) was the most recent stage of Peaches’s crazy journey of sex, drugs, and odd religion, including previous visits to Scientology and Kabbalah. Now, she had settled with “the OTO religion” doing “red-hot kinky rituals” with the “legion of show-biz fans” while “urging” her fans to buy Crowley’s books in an attempt to promote her newfound beliefs (Dunkerly 2013).
Not surprisingly the satanic connection was replaced by rosy-red news about childbirth after a month of moral panic, proving the ephemeral nature of celebrity journalism. However, it is more relevant to note that the story of Peaches Geldof and the “satanic” O.T.O. is both drawing upon and reinforcing established connections in popular culture linking Satanism, obscenity, and danger. Behind the relativism and rationality of late modern Western society, an instinctive morality built on recognizable Christian elements provokes us into stereotyping Satanism and Satanists as at worst inherently and radically evil or at best utterly shallow and absurd. This popular discourse on Satanism thus propagates specific understandings tied to the underlying Christian frame of reference, with clear-cut boxes delimiting good and evil.
Taking the implications of the story of Peaches Geldof as my starting point, the following chapter is a discussion of self-declared Satanism as a religious worldview in its own right. If we are to understand the people involved, it is important to bracket the Christian worldview and rid ourselves of the instinctive categorization that underlies the popular understanding of Satanism. The chapter begins with a discussion of location and ownership of the “satanic,” which provides a framework for the study as a whole. Next, a short historical outline of the “satanic milieu” and a presentation of some groups and spokespersons within it are provided. This is followed by a discussion of connecting themes, beliefs, and practices to synthesize the form and contents of “satanic discourse.” Finally, some suggestions for future research are formulated.
The case of Peaches Geldof’s apparent involvement in a satanic sex cult highlights a complicated entanglement that needs to be addressed before moving on: the misattribution of Satanism to comparable phenomena exactly because of the implied understanding of Satanism in Western culture. From a sociological perspective, the Ordo Templi Orientis is neither satanic nor representative of modern Satanism. This is not to say that the organization’s beliefs and practices are devoid of ideas deliberately targeting what they consider Christian hypocrisy or material hardline Christians have judged to be diabolical, as even a cursory look at Crowley’s books and sanctioned rituals will attest. Nevertheless the entire O.T.O. “complex” is as satanic as contemporary Paganism, New Age groups, or self-help spirituality. Certain doctrinal and structural similarities with contemporary Satanism certainly exist; in essence, however, these are separate currents with common ancestors, occasionally borrowing from each other.2
Modern Satanism is a conglomerate of ideas and practices expressed in distinctive ways by groups and individuals within a broader satanic milieu.3 Although both the groups and the underlying ideas may be difficult to press into a unified mold, they nonetheless display characteristic philosophical and indeed religious aspirations. As a starting point for discussion, modern Satanism can be understood as a heterogeneous, yet distinct product of the meeting between modern rationality and Western esotericism.4 In this sense, religious Satanism is a special variant of the self-spirituality or self-religion widespread in secular societies in late modernity, characterized by an emphasis on the individual, a tendency for world affirmation, and a rejection of religious dogma and institutions (Petersen 2009b: 1–4). In the words of Paul Heelas, the self-spirituality found in the New Age movement is built on “the monistic assumption that the Self itself is sacred,” which results in a “general agreement that it is essential to shift from our contaminated mode of being—what we are by virtue of socialization—to that realm which constitutes our authentic nature” (1996: 2). This resonates with the founder of the Church of Satan, who declares that:
Man needs ritual and dogma, but no law states that an externalized god is necessary in order to engage in ritual and ceremony performed in a god’s name! Could it be that when he closes the gap between himself and his “God” he sees the demon of pride creeping forth [?] . . . He no longer can view himself in two parts, the carnal and the spiritual, but sees them merge as one, and then to his abysmal horror, discovers that they are only the carnal—AND ALWAYS WERE! Then he either hates himself to death, day by day—or rejoices that he is what he is! (LaVey 1969: 45)
Consequently, even though the definition of “authentic nature” might be very different, modern Satanism shares an orientation toward the realization of that authentic nature of the individual in opposition to the repression of modern society with many occult and alternative currents. For Satanists, this nature is symbolically expressed in the dual nature of Satan as Adversary and Ruler of Earth—the prototypical nonconformist, hedonist, and individualist—without necessarily subscribing to the overarching cultural Christian framework of the Devil. Hence, Satanism becomes a combination of positive and negative elements, mixing constructive religious aspirations centered on the individual with critical anti-authoritarian and transgressive convictions, neither of which can be reduced to nihilism, generic counterculture, or inverse Christianity.5
But this is not the whole story. In a wider cultural perspective, the Christian framework affects the way we engage with the antinomian and unusual. There seems to be an unstated premise in mainstream media that by using the adjective “satanic,” something good becomes bad and something bad becomes worse. A “sex cult” might be horrible, but a “satanic sex cult” is monstrous. On the one hand, this is a natural consequence of the largely imaginary cultural narratives of Satanists and witches, connected to the theology of Christianity and to a lesser extent Islam and Judaism (Medway 2001).6 On the other hand, it is important to acknowledge that these narratives are actively appropriated and reinterpreted over time by Satanists and non-Satanists alike; historical metaphors become mythical realities, to paraphrase Marshall Sahlins.7 Thus, the cultural discourse on alleged Devil worship and the mythical function of medieval atrocity stories in the Western world must be distinguished from the actual discourse and practice of Satanists found today. The latter uses the same figure in a different sociological context, that of the oppressed minority, and with a different mythological goal, that of identity and legitimation.
I have found that modern Satanism is best described inclusively when viewed as a social and cultural phenomenon, and exclusively when viewed as a religious and philosophical one. To the majority, the cultural discourse on the satanic implies a certain set of anti-values, practices, and associations connected to enemies of the faithful. The attribution of atrocity stories and diabolical adjectives is an especially poignant way of “othering” in an ultimate sense, promoting the virtues of society by highlighting someone else as “evil” or even “the wholly Other” (Frankfurter 2006). Whether it is Satanism in popular culture (as when some heavy metal groups, role-playing games, movies, or television series use “occult” or even overtly satanic iconography, references, or plotlines to sell material) or it is Satanism as popular culture (found in subcultures dabbling with forbidden emotions and desires), it is based on society’s fears and prohibitions. As a result, this discourse is a pervasive, socially enforced, and culturally amplified “Satan code” about dark forces, rooted in religious conceptions of evil yet integrating popular mythology, psychology, and history in a diffuse blend (Partridge 2005: ch. 6).
Satanists offer an alternative interpretation of this state of affairs. Although they relate to the “Satan code,” it is actively redefined in satanic discourse into positive images of self. We are thus dealing with interpretations combining old and new discourses on the satanic with satanic meaning-making and identity. This is possible because the “satanic” holds a certain allure, even outside satanic circles, due to an intensifying process of sanitization. Simply speaking, countercultural currents of the past three centuries have actively used Satan as a symbol of opposition in political, religious, and cultural contexts, thus gradually separating the antinomian and antiauthoritarian from the obscene and destructive.8 Satan might be dark and terrible, but he also signifies autonomy, sexuality, creativity, and rebellion, all of which are positive traits in the modern world. Reinterpreted, Satan implies humanity, both good and bad—a somewhat darker manifestation of the human, to be sure, but not inherently evil.
That said, heterogeneity and disagreement far outweighs commonality in contemporary Satanism as a whole. Some satanic groups focus on philosophical issues, using thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Ayn Rand as well as the natural and social sciences to formulate a coherent materialistic and atheistic worldview with morals to match. As human beings composed of flesh and gifted with consciousness as well as emotion, we must embrace our individuality and devote ourselves to the cultivation of our unique creative instincts and carnal desires. This is the philosophy of the outsider, the free-thinker, and the rebel, ever aspiring to break free from the bounds of conventionality and the slave morality embodied in the Christian Church and “liberal” society. Here, Satan is both the rebel and the life force or vitality of the self, interpreted as a symbol that expresses the continuing thread of defiance against common norms and rigid dogma. Followers close to this composite type could be called rationalist Satanists.
Other groups highlight the spiritual side, drawing upon Eastern and Western traditions with a mystical angle, such as Tantric Hinduism and Buddhism, Chaos Magick, and the writings of Kenneth Grant, Aleister Crowley, and Austin Osman Spare. This complex of ideas and practices is commonly referred to as the Left-Hand Path of ritual magic, in contrast to the Right-Hand Path of ceremonial magic and “white light” witches.9 The Left-Hand Path is described as more intuitive and chthonian in scope, focusing on the darker, corporal, and feminine aspects of reality. The aim of this path, according to Richard Sutcliffe, is a “liberation of the individual through deconditioning and, ultimately, gnosis.” He continues: “while there is undoubtedly an antinomian ethos in the Left Hand Path magick, the transgression of mores and taboos has more to do with the overcoming of one’s own inhibitions and limitations, which are seen to be bound up with socialization, than with any ill-conceived anarchism. . . . [I]t is aimed at self-transmutation through the experience of the totality of being” (1995: 111). Satanists drawing on these currents employ Satan as a real or archetypical manifestation of our path toward total, authentic being, a mystical project achieved through the desensitization to social norms and values best understood as a part of Western esotericism. Thus, they could be called esoteric Satanists.
Categories such as rationalist and esoteric are of course ideal types, challenged by the reality of modern Satanism as a plurality of interpretations which are often crossing the neat borders of academic classification by including some and excluding others from their specific view of Satanism proper.10 I shall return to these matters later; the preceding comments are, on the one hand, key concepts intended to help readers grasp the subject in its totality, and, on the other, a warning that a study in modern Satanism is in many ways a study of Satanisms conjoined not so much in surface manifestations but rather in a discursive depth structure of individuality, rebellion, and Otherness symbolized in the figure of Satan.
The history of modern Satanism is comparable with the history of most new religious movements that mushroomed on the North American continent in the 1960s and 1970s. The problem, as stated above, is that Satanism lacks organizational and even doctrinal coherence, making it a milieu with many faces rather than a unified subculture or movement. The satanic milieu should be understood as a broader environment or landscape upheld by partly overlapping activities and networks, such as books, magazines, websites, spokespersons, media products, and so on (Campbell 1972; Petersen 2009c). These activities predate the individual or group and will exist after they are gone, yet they encourage an abstract commonality through common references and tastes which bind them together. The satanic milieu is both local and global, as it is anchored in specific activities and scenes, on the one hand, and international trends, on the other. Similarly, the boundaries to analogous currents mentioned earlier, such as the thelemic or neo-pagan milieu, are not definite, but are constantly renegotiated. This section will describe the development of modern Satanism in brief and provide a sociological profile on some major formations that have significantly affected the development of the milieu as a whole.
The vast majority of the stories of Satanism and Satanists before the twentieth century amount to mythological constructions based on doubtful testimonies and theological speculation (Medway 2001). Of course, this has also provided a template for people interested in challenging this order and thus appropriating the dominant Christian discourse on the satanic for religious or transgressive purposes. For example, Mikael Häll (2013) has examined Swedish material from the early modern period to demonstrate that folk appropriations of Satan often ran counter to theological imaginations, yet took surprisingly sincere forms, barring any blanket rejection of individual “Satanists” before the modern era.
There are also many early reinterpretations of the Christian template in literature and countercultural activities of the past couple of centuries. These can have an esoteric, political, and aesthetic character. Notable examples include the Romantic literary Satanism of Lord Byron and Percy B. Shelley (van Luijk 2013); the literature and activities of the Polish decadent Stanislaw Przybyszewski (Faxneld 2013b); the revolutionary thought of nineteenth-century Socialists (Faxneld, forthcoming); the occult speculations of Maria de Naglowska and her “satanic temple” (Introvigne 2010: 228–238); and the German Fraternitas Saturni in the early twentieth century (Flowers 1997: 147–152). Even Theosophy’s H. P. Blavatsky and aforementioned Aleister Crowley can be said to harbor a certain sympathy for the Devil, although it is marginal when taken in the context of their system as a whole.
Nevertheless, modern religious Satanism is a surprisingly recent phenomenon whose history can be divided into three phases.11 In the first phase, from 1966 to 1975, organized Satanism emerged out of the broader occult milieu with the formation of the Church of Satan (CoS). Thus, the birth of modern Satanism can be traced to the actions of Anton Szandor LaVey (born Howard Stanton Levey in 1930), whose informal “Magic Circle” was transformed into the (in)famous CoS on Walpurgisnacht, April 30, 1966, in San Francisco. Quickly reacting to the enormous amount of media attention, he conducted a satanic wedding, funeral, and baptism, as well as weekly satanic rituals and courses on various occult topics, thereby gaining a solid membership. In 1969, LaVey published The Satanic Bible, the most influential satanic manifesto to date, followed by The Compleat Witch (1971) and The Satanic Rituals (1972). This first phase can be subdivided into a first half epitomized by the carnivalesque showmanship of LaVey and the elitist counterculture of the CoS (1966–1970), and a second half characterized by routinization resulting in mounting internal conflict in the church (1970–1975) (Petersen 2009c).
The second phase, from 1975 to around 1997, is demarcated on one side by the dramatic schism in 1975 that resulted in the formation of the Temple of Set, and on the other side by the Internet boom of the mid-1990s and the death of LaVey in 1997. In the early 1970s, LaVey commenced a revision of the degree system, began chartering “grottos” (local organizations) for independent activities and withdrew from public appearances. This was a result of dissatisfaction with the side show of characters involved in the growing congregation resulting in an increase in church management and negative media attention. Other members were dissatisfied for different reasons: the increasingly atheistic ideology of the CoS and/or LaVey’s somewhat fickle administration of titles. Lead by Michael Aquino, a substantial group eventually split to form the esoteric and highly structured Temple of Set (ToS).
The 1970s and 1980s saw the birth and decline of a huge number of smaller churches, temples, and orders that emerged in the wake of LaVey’s initial success, often simulating some aspects of the CoS while differing on others.12 The CoS itself made a turn toward Nazi-chic and “apocalypse culture” in the 1980s in an attempt to rejuvenate the conflict with the norms and values of Western society, but this was discontinued when LaVey resumed active control of the church in the early 1990s (Baddeley 2000: 212–213).13 The conflict was real enough, though, as a massive moral panic influenced public opinion in the 1980s and early 1990s; this affected not only self-declared satanic groups and individuals but also innocent victims of the satanic ritual abuse scare.14
The third phase, from 1997 to the present, is dominated by the upsurge of activity stimulated by the democratization of the Internet around 1995, which has increased the visibility of and communication between satanic groups and solitary practitioners. Encouraging creativity and discord simultaneously, the Internet radically altered the structure of the satanic milieu, as small minorities of one could construct an outlet potentially inspiring many. The result was, and is, a huge amount of virtual groups, message boards, websites, and Facebook pages, which prompted the larger organizations to protect their material and members by asserting their authority.15 Another important event was the death of Anton Szandor LaVey in 1997, which almost immediately caused unrest in the CoS. This was short-lived, though, as high-ranking members such as Blanche Barton, Peter H. Gilmore, and Peggy Nadramia assumed leadership, with Peter Gilmore as High Priest from 2001. Events like the forty-year anniversary High Mass held by the CoS at the Steve Allen theater on June 6, 2006, shows an increased interest in public presence; taken together with numerous contributions to documentaries and media stories by Gilmore and other members, the CoS seems intent on reclaiming the role as first and only representative of modern Satanism in the twenty-first century. Again, this has alienated some individuals from the church, further motivating the creation of new groups and networks, mainly online. This third phase could therefore be characterized by increased differentiation of satanic ideology as a whole and in the power structures of the milieu as information becomes available through virtual platforms, paralleled by an increased rhetoric of legitimation from the larger organizations (Petersen 2013b).
To supplement this short historical presentation of the satanic milieu it is important to examine some central outlets in depth. I have selected the CoS and the ToS, as they constitute the major, stable organizations with doctrinal stability and official presence, and the Satanic Reds, as this group is a good illustration of how low-cost online Satanism revolves around a few spokespersons and core texts today.
Much has been written on the charismatic high priest and his organization.16 From its humble beginnings in San Francisco in 1966, the CoS has attracted many interested in magic and the occult and has survived numerous schisms, exposés, and attacks from within and without. The history of the organization has already been outlined. Today the CoS is essentially a decentralized, cell-like structure where passive (registered) membership is attained by filling out a registration statement and paying two hundred dollars to the central administration. Individual members have as much contact with the organization as needed, and most members have little to do with the church, special interest groups, or social activities. The grotto system, reactivated in the 1990s, is again discontinued. First-level (active) membership and higher levels of involvement (titles such as Agent, or the degrees of Priest/Priestess, Magister/Magistra, and Magus/Maga) are very rare (see “Affiliation with the Church of Satan” on the church website). No exact membership figures are available, as the distributed structure and one-time registration fee makes it impossible to draw the line between active and inactive involvement. Active members probably number in the thousands worldwide, but many more may be registered and nearly one million have purchased The Satanic Bible (Baddeley 2000: 72).17
The CoS is officially governed by the Council of Nine, of which the High Priest, Peter H. Gilmore, the High Priestess, Peggy Nadramia, and the Magistra Templi Rex, Blanche Barton, are presumably members. Practically speaking, the members and associations are self-sufficient, and the council concentrates on matters of doctrine, general guidelines, and administration of Anton LaVey’s estate (through the Order of the Trapezoid). As such, the council is engaged in protecting the authority of LaVey’s writings and is only concerned with individual members’ beliefs and practices when they run counter to the interests of the church (warnings and even excommunications are not unheard of). In that respect the CoS manifests a top-down doctrinal rigidity.18
Philosophically, the CoS can be classified as pragmatic and egoistic, a self-religion focused on empowerment and self-realization for the “Alien Elite.” The central convictions of the CoS are formulated in short statements and rules found in LaVey’s books and articles that are constantly reproduced in articles and communiques: The Nine Satanic Statements, The Eleven Rules of the Earth, The Nine Satanic Sins, and the Pentagonal Revisionism program. Free will, carnal existence, and the unbridled creativity of the individual are lauded as central aspects of the human nature; the teachings are frequently clothed in arguments that are simultaneously materialistic, Darwinist, and atheistic, yet appealing to occult tradition as well (Dyrendal 2012; Faxneld 2013a; Petersen 2011b). The use of Satan is symbolic and points to the central doctrines of opposition to given norms and values, nonconformity, and Epicureanism in order to realize one’s self-interest. In “Satanism: The Feared Religion,” Peter H. Gilmore states:
[W]e do not believe in the supernatural. To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. Some Satanists extend this symbol to encompass the evolutionary “force” of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things. To the Satanist, Satan is not a conscious entity to be worshiped, rather it is a name for the reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will. (Gilmore 2007: 31)
Rituals, called Greater Magic, are “intellectual decompression chambers” used to invoke “change in situations or events in accordance with one’s will” (LaVey 1969: 110). Many rituals can thus be characterized as “psychodramas,” where heightened emotion is used to alter reality (LaVey 1969: 109–128; LaVey 1972; cf. Petersen 2012). Both Greater Magic and manipulation, called Lesser Magic, are used as each individual Satanist sees fit, as they are conceived of as pragmatic techniques that work, not spiritual dogma.19
The source material itself can be categorized in “official” documents and interpretations. The official documents include The Satanic Bible, The Satanic Rituals, and The Satanic Witch (LaVey 1969, 1972, [1971] 1989), as well as the documents mentioned above, all written by Anton Szandor LaVey. It is important to bear in mind that these sources are manifestations of satanic philosophy, not scripture, even though the CoS sometimes treats them as such (Lewis 2002; Gallagher 2013).20 They are not transcendental truths, but statements of the satanic worldview and the satanic ethos. Semi-official documents include the anthologies The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks! by Anton LaVey (1992, 1998) and Blanche Barton’s The Church of Satan and The Secret Life of a Satanist (1990, 1992).
Interpretations of the party line could be classified as orthodox or unorthodox. Clearly orthodox documents include most of the material found on the official website and the websites of active members, articles in The Cloven Hoof and The Black Flame, and books by vocal high-ranking members such as Matt Paradise (2007) and James D. Sass (2007).21 Unorthodox interpretations, such as non-sanctioned comments by individuals pretending to be spokespersons of the church, or material by apostates, are regularly removed from the CoS’s sphere of influence, but after the advent of the Internet they have proven to be increasingly difficult to suppress. Thus, many orthodox documents deal with these unorthodox sources.22
Academic interest in the CoS goes back to the early 1970s, when this new group of “black urban witches” caught the eye of anthropologists and sociologists. Both Edward Moody (1971, 1974) and Marcello Truzzi (1972, 1974a, 1974b) had first-hand acquaintance with LaVey and the first years of the church, in Moody’s case through extensive participant observation. Both researchers couple the emergence of Satanism with the witchcraft revival and the occult explosion of the late 1960s, significantly coloring their analytic perspective; while Moody sees magic as a pragmatic solution to problems of self-esteem and anxiety, using social psychology to unfold how Satanists are reconditioned through inversion of Christian dogma and practice, Truzzi sees black and white witchcraft as both a continuation and break with previous incarnations. Both, however, stress how symbolic inversion is a means to an end, namely the liberation and empowerment of the individual, not the central aspect of Satanism (Moody 1974: 366; Truzzi 1974a: 644–645).23 Although neither the therapeutic carnival of Moody nor the witchcraft aspect of Truzzi is as strong today as it was at the outset, both studies provide valuable insights into the first phase of modern Satanism.
Randall Alfred (1976) builds his analysis on protracted participant observation in the early phases of the CoS, but the theoretical angle is Weberian, analyzing the complex motivations underlying the church, its founder, and its members. He argues that the ambivalence of the founder toward play and seriousness, authority and rebellion, is reflected in the church itself (Alfred 1976: 197). The CoS might best be described as evolving toward the position of Protestant sect,24 as the conflict between the individualistic philosophy of “hedonism” and the discipline and authority needed to perform magic—and indeed be a Church of Satan—is resolved “eventually in favor of the long-dominant traditional value systems of post-Reformation Western culture” (199). On a sociological level the CoS is thus deeply embedded in the Christian culture of which it is a part, even though it cannot be said to be “an inversionary sect, a topsy-turvy Christianity” (189). Alfred is the first to note that the CoS (and indeed most modern Satanists) repeatedly reorients itself along a scale of respectability and outrage, thus continually emphasizing the nonconformist attitude that is at odds with Western society while basically affirming a secular, scientific, and even capitalist ethos of rationality (Petersen 2009c, 2011a, b, 2013a).
This line of reasoning is picked up and expanded in the influential work of James R. Lewis (2002). Continuing the Weberian perspective, he is particularly interested in the complex relations between LaVey’s charismatic authority, his rational legitimation strategies, and some followers’ appeal to traditional modes of legitimation. For example, many Satanists consider The Satanic Bible authoritative in matters of satanic philosophy and practice, while simultaneously adhering to LaVey’s explicit appeal to independent, rational thought. Although it can be found throughout the satanic milieu, this strategy is especially successful within the CoS, both in order to ensure the doctrinal rigidity mentioned above and to manifest the “real” Satanism of the church when confronted with heterodox interpretations from non-CoS Satanists. In the same vein, science and esotericism, or respectability and outrage, is invoked as needed. In effect, the “routinization of charisma” has created a tradition, “orthodox LaVeyans” and “unorthodox pseudo-Satanists.”
Recent studies continue in this direction and have focused on neglected dimensions of LaVey’s work and the modern CoS, such as his ambivalent appropriation of conspiracy theory (Dyrendal 2012), his use of esotericism (Faxneld 2013a; Petersen 2012) and psychology (Lap 2013), and the complications of gender (Holt, 2013; Faxneld and Petersen, forthcoming), as well as fleshing out the complicated relations between organizational discourse and everyday practice, including online and offline dynamics (Petersen 2013b).
As with the CoS, the history of the ToS is intimately bound up with the biography of its founder, Michael Aquino. He joined the CoS in 1969 and rose rapidly in the church’s hierarchy. After falling out with Anton LaVey over matters of structure and direction of the church, he led a group of dissenters to form an initiatory esoteric organization in 1975. He was affirmed in this decision through a Working of Greater Black Magic where he communicated with the Prince of Darkness in his original form of the Egyptian god Set, who charged Aquino to found a temple and become its High Priest (Petersen 2009c).25
The ToS is led by High Priestess Patty A. Hardy and is a closely knit organization of individual ranks, pylons (local groups), and orders (divisions of interest) topped by The Council of Nine, the Executive Director, and the High Priestess. Membership is by application and contact with a priest/priestess, followed by an evaluation period; the focus is on the individual Setian’s (first degree member’s) development and creativity on the road to becoming a second-degree Adept. As with the CoS, the higher ranks are reserved for administrative offices only and are bestowed upon competent individuals.26 Unlike the CoS, each member must be affiliated with a Pylon and, eventually, an Order, even though the practical interaction with the ToS resembles that of the CoS, as the self-realization of the individual is more important than the temple as such. All in all, the ToS resembles an individualistic rendition of the magical orders of nineteenth-century Europe, like masonic lodges, the Ordo Templi Orientis, or the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
Membership figures are difficult to come by due to temple policy; older estimates are in the hundreds, with about fifty in Britain (La Fontaine 1999: 104–105). Zeena Schreck, daughter of Anton LaVey, joined the temple in 1995, but led a schism in 2002 to form The Storm; it is likely that this affected the ToS in terms of membership, at least in the short term. On the other hand, the temple has never been keen on massive growth due to its nature as initiatory school.
Philosophically, the ToS is an intellectual wing of esoteric Satanism and leans heavily on elements of Western Esotericism in general (such as ceremonial magic(k), mysticism, and the Left-Hand Path; see Dyrendal 2012; Granholm 2013a). Compared to the CoS, a greater focus is laid on magical Workings and studies aiding the process of “becoming” (Xeper or “kheffer”), that is, realizing the true nature of the individual Satanist. In Black Magic, Aquino lays out the basic tenets. Setians are walking the Left-Hand Path which “involves the conscious attempt to preserve and strengthen one’s isolate, psychecentric existence against the OU [objective universe] while creating, apprehending, comprehending, and influencing a varying number of SUs [subjective universes]” (Aquino [1975] 2010: 31). Central here is the uniqueness of the individual, the importance of emancipatory knowledge, and the practice of Greater Black Magic to strengthen individual existence and influence subjective universes (which in turn affects the objective universe).27 The transcendence of the individual psyche is also proposed—in effect, the ToS believes in the immortality of a true self that is, and Xeper is the ability to align your consciousness with that authentic self (Aquino [1975] 2010: 58–73). That is achieved through knowledge understood as a conjunction of intellect and intuition, akin to gnosis and described as self-deification (28–34).
These doctrines are summed up in the figure of Set/Satan and the Black Flame. Set, as the true semblance of the Prince of Darkness, is real—ToS is theistic. But he is neither related to the Judeo-Christian context nor worshiped as a god. He is what every adept aspires to become—fully self-conscious, knowledgeable, and true to his inner essence, totally apart. Presumably he is “becoming” as well, but that is unclear. His gift to humanity is that which sets us apart from nature: The questioning intellect identified as the Black Flame of Set “which brought isolate self-consciousness to higher life” (Aquino [1975] 2010: 120; it is also described as the Gift of Intellect, Gift of Set, and Gift of Knowledge). This evolutionary leap was thus brought to us by Set and obliges us to “become.” As noted above, magic—both Greater and Lesser—is used to aid the magician’s “becoming” by staging alterations in consciousness and the world. It is thus a very personal endeavor, deeply rooted in the individual worldviews of the temple’s adherents.28
The source material is sparse, as the Temple restricts access to documents of central importance and does not permit participation in rituals by non-Initiates. It is not that it regards temple literature as esoteric secrets as such, but the truth is dangerous to the wrong minds: “There are no penalties for revealing ‘esoteric secrets’ in the Temple. We exist to promote knowledge of truth, not to conceal it. Setians should understand, however, that some of the truths known to the Priesthood of Set can be dangerous to oneself or others if misapplied, just as a loaded gun in the hands of a child is dangerous” (Aquino [1975] 2010: 30).
Official documents include the “channeled” The Book of Coming Forth by Night, comparable to Aleister Crowley’s Book of the Law and imparted with similar legitimacy (Aquino [1975] 1985). In it the intelligence of Set speaks directly. The entire series Jeweled Tablets of Set, of which only the introduction to the first part (the Crystal Tablet of Set) called Black Magic is publicly available (Aquino [1975] 2010), is an encyclopedia of knowledge comprising Tablets keyed to specific degrees in the temple hierarchy. Another previous high priest, Don Webb, has published several “how-to” manuals directly related to ToS philosophy and practice (Webb 1999, 2004). Finally I should mention the huge e-books The Church of Satan (Aquino 2013) and The Temple of Set (Aquino 2010), both of which are the personal, yet meticulously documented, analysis of the emergence of the church and temple from the 1960s onward by the founder.
Academic interest in the temple is meager. The first extended treatment of which I am familiar is Gini Graham Scott’s The Magicians (Scott [1983] 2007). Through ethnographic methods she tracked the early temple (under the name the Church of Hu) to understand the appeal of magic to modern life. Although the book is criticized by Setians and scholars alike (see, e.g., Granholm 2013a: 216–217), it gives a clue to life in the temple at one, particularly tumultuous point in time. That said, the esoteric Satanism of the temple is constructed within a “problems discourse” that is primarily normative and not analytical. In recent years, Kennet Granholm and Asbjørn Dyrendal have given the ToS a more balanced examination, although updated ethnographical perspectives are sorely lacking given the dependence on written material (Dyrendal 2009, 2012; Granholm 2009, 2013a).
The basis for the present study is that modern religious Satanism exists as various voices in a fragmented satanic milieu. In fact, it has always been the case; the major quantitative change is the increased visibility and accessibility of Satanism (and esoteric and occult material in general) on the Internet, a medium which is valuable in terms of information exchange and retrieval as well as general communication and contact, but detrimental to authority and inter-group community building. Sociologically speaking, as Satanism is set free from the closed circles that have maintained doctrinal integrity, individualism and eclecticism are amplified.
This is not all new, as satanic literature such as The Satanic Bible has had an independent life outside the CoS for decades (Lewis 2002); what is new is that Satanists who previously worked alone can now participate openly, freely, even anonymously in the development and articulation of Modern Satanism by maintaining a homepage or blog, engaging in debate on message boards, twittering important links and events, or even commenting on pages with a satanic content on Facebook and other social media sites. The paradox is that this increase in personal expression ultimately increases fragmentation rather than global community, as the undermining of doctrinal homogeneity and organizational hierarchy is met with demarcation strategies to separate “us” from “them,” which causes new, local groups to develop, using the Internet to establish a network which might affect off-line power relations.29
The larger organizations have a presence on the Web, but they cannot (and often will not) control the information present online. That does not mean that they do not care. Assertions of “real” Satanism and allegations of “pseudo”-Satanism signal borders in virtual space. To investigate the electronic abyss outside the safe harbors of CoS and ToS, I have selected one illustrative example of Satanism in the Internet age: a loose affiliation called Satanic Reds (SR). This group was founded in 1997 as an outlet for the prolific writer Tani Jantsang and associates such as Philip Marsh. Jantsang describes herself as a “generational Satanist,” born into the “Dark Doctrines” that are put forward on the website and in various articles.30 She worked with the CoS and other satanic organizations in the 1980s and 1990s, even gaining honorary degrees, but mounting disagreement after Anton LaVey’s death resulted in disassociation from the CoS in 2000. As such, her philosophical standpoints and practices precede her relationship with the CoS through groups such as the Starry Wisdom Sect and the Kishites in the 1960s and 1970s (Jantsang and Marsh, n.d.), and all association with other groups (mainly from 1989 on) seems to revolve around publicizing the doctrines.
The website itself is organized as a huge archive of articles, spells, rituals, links, and an IRC chat, and is operated by the People’s Commissar (Jantsang). People join by filling out a registration form. Apparently anyone can join, and members are free to join other groups as well—it is an association of Satanists on the Left-Hand Path with radical sympathies.31 The membership count is unknown, but given the low cost of affiliation, Jantsang’s estimate of 800 members might not be excessive.32 Active members amount to a whole lot less, and the website seems to have gone into hiatus in recent years. In any case, numbers and activity are less important than the fact that the online articles and printed essays have been read and republished from 1989 onward in many formats, reaching Satanists interested in something deeper than The Satanic Bible.
On the basis of the material, it is clear that SR should be classified as highly esoteric Satanism, as it advocates a radically syncretistic and eclectic version of various Left-Hand Path religious traditions combined with modern-day political philosophy. The articles describe the unified “dark tradition,” the Dark Doctrines, found around the globe in many cultures, including those of Christianity and Islam. The main influences seem to be Hinduism, especially Advaita Vedanta and Tantric traditions; Buddhism, again mainly the Abhidharma school and Tantra; Daoism; and various mystical traditions, including Jewish Kabbalah.
The main principles are the Boundless Darkness and the Flame, and the emanation doctrine of Being and Becoming. Combined they describe a mystical cosmogenesis which re-evaluates the figure of Satan and integrates it in a monistic emanation complex. It is a doctrine of Darkness and Light-in-Darkness, stages of being and becoming, and a Dark Flame infused in our universe of matter and energy. Satan is thus both a concept describing the ceaseless dynamics of the universe and a reality, a dark force suffused through the entire emanated universe. In reality, all is one with the Dark Presence or Boundless Darkness (that is “none”):
1. Satan is the “dark force” that permeates all of nature and motivates all things to act according to their inner nature. The Boundless Darkness Itself is SAT. The ACTION of emanating out of, unfolding out of, springing forth, is TAN. The motivator and the act of motivating all things are together: Satan. Satan is that which is the origin of all and the unmoved mover, and it is described by both the unfolding and the thing unfolded: Satan. (SR, Nine: number 1)
The Satanist resonates with this gnosis, a knowledge that is also an intuitive practice, and strives to become what is already his or her inner core through a participation in the unending change of the physical universe: “And all this is the esoteric meaning of ‘Do as Thou Wilt’ for that truly is the whole of the Law, Cosmic Law and SAT-TAN-ic Law. . . . Man is just another animal: Self-inner-truth-Wisdom is knowing what kind of animal a human is.” (SR, Nine: number 9)
These doctrines form the backbone of an understanding of the Left-Hand Path, which combines the mystical and practical, the esoteric and dialectical materialist. Again, the point is unity. In practice a Satanic Red is doing pretty much what other Satanists are doing: “What They Will.” Their rituals are as eclectic as their doctrines, often adopting the fiction of H. P. Lovecraft (the Cthulhu mythos) and other appropriate material to heighten the effect. In this regard they resemble modern Wicca movements and the postmodern Chaos Magick, and even the pragmatic appropriations of the CoS and ToS (which incidentally included Lovecraft as well, see LaVey 1972).33 On the issue of distinctness, Satanic Reds argues:
Satanic Reds exists as an alternative to the “Satanism” that is so tied up with Christianity. It is, in fact, a Left Hand Path organization as far as occult doctrines go. The doctrines are wholly outside of the Christian world view. The concepts of becoming (xeper) and Inner Will (thelema) are in these Doctrines, and always were from ancient times. But the wailing angst of people rebelling against their own Christian backgrounds is wholly left out. (SR, FAQ. “Why do we call ourselves Satanic Reds?”)
This is “true” Satanism, ancient and wholly outside the Christian framework. It is working with the perennial wisdom within esoteric traditions of East and West (note the discreet nods to Egyptian religion and the ToS in the use of “xeper” and to Aleister Crowley with “thelema”) rather than the “wailing angst” of the more secular, rational Satanism of the CoS. Even Satan, as noted before, is SaTan, Sat and Tan, and not a Hebrew fiend.
Satanic Reds is of course only one example of modern Satanism online; honorable mentions for further study include the 600 club, a community site launched around 1996–1997 by Rick Rinker, which is still active and quite populated (http://www.the600club.com). The goal seems to be mainly communicative, and the site utilizes the structural aspects of the Internet, namely visibility, accessibility, and interaction to reach newcomers and dabblers on the fringe of the satanic milieu as well as old-time contacts to improve dialogue and virtual community with varying rates of success. Another example is the various modern offshoots of the British Order of the Nine Angles such as the Temple ov Blood, the Temple of THEM, and the White Star Acception (Senholt 2013; Sieg 2013). This radical current has gained traction in the online environment with a large number of weblogs, websites, and online articles presenting the “Sinister Current,” a recognizable new interpretation of Satanism and the Left-Hand Path. Again, the Internet has worked as an explicit recruitment tool in a larger strategy to reach suitable individuals responsive to the heady blend of right-wing radicalism, crime, and occultism proposed by the network (Sieg 2013). On the other hand, increased exposure has dampened some of the more extreme elements in the ideology, although it is unclear whether this is a double move or a serious change in direction. In addition, the underground nature of these groups highlights issues of membership and authenticity relevant to both Internet and Satanism studies, as it is impossible to ascertain the numbers involved and the truthfulness of the claims.
As mentioned earlier, a systematic attempt to delineate beliefs and practices is difficult due to the disparities between different groups. The evolution of modern Satanism has been unplanned as a whole, and the groups often develop as offshoots from earlier, now “obsolete” or “wrong” attempts to demarcate Satanism, frequently both starting anew and drawing upon older material at the same time (e.g., Faxneld 2013a; Petersen 2011b).
I previously described two broad lines of thought: Rationalist (materialist and/or atheistic) Satanism, now visible in the writings of Anton LaVey and the CoS, which usually underscores Satanism as a lifestyle and philosophy, and esoteric (idealistic and/or theistic) Satanism found in the Temple of Set and the Satanic Reds, which are less antithetical to religious rhetoric of a mystical bend. Many variations and hybrids exist, focusing on either the philosophical or the religious side of these lines. One might find a mystic in the CoS, or a more atheistically inclined Setian in the ToS—these are general outlines, not rigid dogma. Nevertheless, both the human-oriented and Satan-oriented Satanists are opposed to the traditional Devil-worshiper, the Christian variety of imaginary Satanist, and the reactive Satanist frequently encountered among black metal enthusiasts, young adolescents, and some mentally disturbed criminals. Consequently, a certain amount of consensus is found in the satanic milieu at large pertaining to a core tradition, a few generally accepted rules, a shared iconography, and opposition to the ordinary worldview of the Western world.
Let me start with the iconography. The “material” pentagram (five-pointed star), often customized with a goat’s head, lightning bolt, sickle, colors, or letters, is in widespread use among the Satanic groups.34 The history of this sign and modern usage does not necessarily correspond, but the community-building aspect, as well as the indication of special significance of the wearer to the larger society, is clear. Thus, the pentagram or Baphomet-sigil, as it is commonly called when inscribed with a goat’s head and Hebrew letters spelling “Leviathan,” demonstrates the philosophical and religious stance to insiders as well as outsiders, and the personal views of the individual Satanist. It is a powerful symbol that stirs feelings of dread, uneasiness, or contempt in the average American or European because of the association with black magic, Satanism, and other occult practices. There is some truth to this, as it is a design with an impressive lineage, associated with Pythagoras and Renaissance Hermeticism and found in German grimoires, Eliphas Levi’s The History of Magic and The Key to the Mysteries, and Anton LaVey’s Satanic Bible.35 That said, feelings of dread might also come from the symbols’ use in Hammer Horror movies and occult thrillers, as it is widespread in popular culture.
Today most Wiccans utilize the “spiritual” pentagram, while Satanists use the “material” pentagram to denote carnality and this-worldly materialism. Most satanic groups have detailed interpretations, while many solitary Satanists just use it as the time-worn emblem for the Adversary, black magic, or the physical aspect (that is, earth, pleasure, carnality). Combined with a goat’s head (in itself a symbol of earth), a torch (reason), or lightning bolts (the Black Flame), it is a potent symbol of modern Satanism.
Regarding the penchant for black clothes and a “gothic” style, there are enormous differences between Satanists within and across groups, although a purely impressionistic survey in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom confirmed an affinity for the unique and striking, often black, in young and old. This might be coincidence, or it might be put in context through the theory forwarded in The Satanic Bible:
Learning to effectively utilize the command to LOOK, is an integral part of a witch’s or warlock’s training. To manipulate a person, you must first be able to attract and hold his attention. The three methods by which the command to look can be accomplished are the utilization of sex, sentiment, or wonder, or any combination of these. . . . Visual imagery utilized for emotional reaction is certainly the most important device incorporated in the practice of lesser magic. Anyone who is foolish enough to say “looks don’t mean a thing” is indeed deluded. Good looks are unnecessary, but “looks” certainly are needed!” (LaVey 1969: 111–113)
Bear in mind that The Satanic Bible was followed by The Compleat Witch (now The Satanic Witch), a handbook in lesser magic or manipulative techniques where Erving Goffman meets William Mortensen. This might explain the black garments and sinister appearance, at least in the rationalist crowd. It might also explain the somewhat popular shaven head and goatee, a look popularized by LaVey himself. Then again, even the “Alien elite” needs a common ground, and similar clothes and aesthetic choices, often of a marginal nature, work toward community-building within a group of ultimate individualists (cf. Dyrendal 2008).
The common ideological and philosophical core can be summed up by the rough definition I proposed in the introduction: Satanism is a combination of positive religious and philosophical aspirations centered on the individual and antinomian convictions used to decondition cultural normativity and hegemony, all of which is expressed in a certain, satanic way. If taken as a whole, satanic discourse is a coherent statement of eclecticism around the multivocal symbol of Satan, with a core of individualism and self-realization and an amorphous periphery of construction and usage of tradition. As such, modern religious Satanism taps into the cultic milieu, which reinforces the similarities with other alternative or “countercultural” currents in late modern societies (Petersen 2009c). It is also a solid statement of secularization; as Peter Berger notes:
[I]nasmuch as secularization is a global trend, there is a global tendency for religious contents to be modified in a secularizing direction. In the extreme cases . . . this may lead to the deliberate excision of all or nearly all ‘supernatural’ elements from the religious tradition, and a legitimation of the continued existence of the institution that once embodied the tradition in purely secular terms. In other cases it may just mean that the ‘supernatural’ elements are de-emphasized or pushed into the background, while the institution is ‘sold’ under the label of values congenial to secularized consciousness. (Berger 1967: 146)
As I discussed at length in the section on the satanic above, the satanic discourse of modern religious Satanism found in the satanic milieu, including the specific articulations expressed by the three groups I have been discussing, is both a consequence of and a reaction to this secularizing trend.
Anton LaVey used a number of acknowledged and unacknowledged sources for his work: traditional folklore, the romantic idea of the Promethean Satan, Western esotericism (like Enochian lore and ceremonial magic), and modern philosophies (e.g., Ayn Rand, Ragnar Redbeard, Charles Darwin, and Friedrich Nietzsche) (Faxneld 2013a; Petersen 2011b). This body of “tradition” is augmented by other groups in a continuous process of addition and subtraction: Eastern traditions of Tantric Hinduism and the Buddhism of Nagarjuna, Egyptian myths and imagery, modern sociology, biology, and physics, all of which are enmeshed in organizational strategies of legitimation and individual appropriations of material. As illustrated in the discussion of the CoS above, many Satanists have an ambivalent relationship with The Satanic Bible. On the one hand, it is a primer, the “wake-up call” for beginners, but, on the other, it represents the doctrinal rigidity of a church. However, it is clear that Anton LaVey laid the ground rules for a satanic organization, and that the simple statements are taken as good guidelines by the majority of CoS and non-CoS Satanists alike.
Even though the CoS was founded during the psychedelic revolution and in the hippie capital of the world, LaVey deplored the use of drugs and was generally a man of law and order (Alfred 1976: 186–187). These are still generally accepted as pragmatic rules of survival in a world that has major issues with Satanists—controlled outrage is good, but there is no need to provoke needlessly (Lewis 2001a; Petersen 2011a, 2013a). Members of public organizations and networks uphold the laws of the country and do not engage in illegal acts; if they do, they are thrown out. In addition, members exercise control and are aware of the image they are projecting. This is a doctrine of self-preservation: Moral relativism aside, no Satanist should openly advocate aberrations such as Nazism or the abuse of children in public, as this image has a detrimental effect on all Satanists. In addition, both classical Devil worship and destructive reactive behavior (such as church burnings and graveyard desecration) is frowned upon as a Christian-dependent behavior unsuited for a true individualist.
Modern religious Satanism adapts to the society of which it is a part; therefore, the specific manifestation of opposition to authority structures varies from country to country (see Søderlind and Dyrendal 2009 for an amusing discussion). All Satanists have a problem with Western secular Christianity and fundamentalists, but the reactions take different shapes according to time, place, and circumstance. Whether Satanism is clothed in the garbs of elitism, immanent gnosis, ritual magic, or rational science, it has two horns: an anti-repressive ideology attacking all perceived hypocrisy and a human-oriented religion of self-realization. Most of all, this two-horned beast is a product of and answer to modernity, to secularization, detraditionalization, fragmentation, reflexivity, and individualization.
In the last decade, the academic study of Satanism has undergone a significant increase in membership and sophistication. Beginning with James R. Lewis’s seminal demographic study “Who Serves Satan?” (Lewis 2001a), the field has witnessed a development similar to the neighboring fields of paganism and esotericism studies on a smaller scale, thus strengthening both the scholarly debate between Satanism studies and other disciplines and the academic status for the field as a whole (Petersen 2013c). The sheer number of dedicated publications including journal articles, chapters in anthologies, and conference papers being published from 2001 to the present is astounding, especially when considering that “Satanism studies” is the province of around two dozen scholars worldwide.
The most notable landmarks include the two Satanism conferences in Trondheim, Norway, in 2009 and Stockholm, Sweden, in 2011 (with another being planned for Denmark in 2014); the anthologies Contemporary Religious Satanism and The Devil’s Party (Petersen 2009a; Faxneld and Petersen 2013), with more books in the planning stage; and of course the many doctoral dissertations submitted on historical and contemporary issues in modern Satanism (e.g., Dagmar Fügmann, Jesper Aa. Petersen, Ruben van Luijk, and Per Faxneld have or will soon finish their research, and Cimminnee Holt has just begun). Also of note is the more theoretical debate between proponents of different conceptualizations of Satanism (e.g., Petersen 2011c; Granholm 2009, 2013a) and the wide variety of research methodology being used (e.g., quantitative studies by J. R. Lewis, ethnography by Per Faxneld and Cimminnee Holt, historiography by Ruben van Luijk, discourse analysis by Jesper Aa. Petersen and Kennet Granholm), further proving the gradual maturation of the field.
So what is needed to continue this development? First of all studies of individual Satanists and groups based on ethnography, such as extended online fieldwork, interviews, and participant observation. Edward Moody and Randall Alfred conducted (covert) participant observation in the CoS in the late 1960s (Moody 1974; Alfred 1976), but since then the majority of studies have focused on textual material (exceptions include Faxneld, 2013c; Fügmann 2009; Lewis 2010, 2013; Möller 2007; and Cimminnee Holts doctoral work). “Thick description” is a feasible way to empirically substantiate the field and further understand identity construction within the satanic milieu. Geography also plays a role: the United States and United Kingdom are well represented, with the Scandinavian countries, Germany, France, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Italy covered as well (see Fügmann 2009; Hjelm 2009; Petersen 2009a for examples). But that leaves entire continents, with different cultural presuppositions, as well as neighboring countries with different developments, still waiting for scholarly attention.
Online fieldwork is another way of securing new data; the Internet is a goldmine of groups and material that needs systematization and analysis (see Petersen 2013b for an example). Here, message boards, Facebook pages, Wikipedia entries, and websites constitute an interesting cluster of empirical material which is both fixed in text and image and reflecting dynamic group processes. In both cases, a combination of traditional ethnography and “netnography” on nascent groups is a good way of improving our knowledge of the sheer breadth of satanic worldviews within the milieu, including cross-over into other, related milieus (see, e.g., Gregorius 2013; Senholt 2013; Sieg 2013).
Related to that, we also need broader sociological, historical, and comparative monographs on the satanic milieu, currents within it, or established groups and key texts, as almost no cases except the CoS have been examined thoroughly. Whether focusing on gender, ritual practices, legitimation strategies, constructions of tradition, the heterogeneity of identity, or the production of texts and practices, it is very useful to update theme- and case-based knowledge in relation to the identity work of individual Satanists to understand the conflicts inherent in a subculture based on individuality and the performance of “Otherness.” Per Faxneld’s study of satanic feminism, Cimminnee Holt’s analysis of embodiment, and Asbjørn Dyrendal’s examination of conspiracy theory all uncover previously hidden dimensions and are good starting points for further work (Dyrendal 2013; Faxneld 2013c; Holt 2013).
Relevant here are also in-depth analyses of unstudied documents like Michael Aquino’s The Book of Coming Forth by Night (1975), Matt Paradise’s Bearing the Devil’s Mark (2007), or N.A-A 218’s Liber Falxifer (2008) to supplement LaVey-centric scholarship based on The Satanic Bible and related books (see, e.g., Faxneld 2013a; Holt 2013; Lap 2013; Gallagher 2013; Petersen 2009c, 2011b, 2012). Again, we should also engage with material on the periphery of Satanism proper. For example, Fredrik Gregorius’s (2013) study of Luciferian Witchcraft reads a range of books unknown to most scholars, further deepening our understanding of satanic appropriation.
Finally, almost nothing has been done on Satanism and wider culture. Satanic aesthetics—taken in both senses, as style and as theory—is an important neglected topic, as style and creativity seem to be core issues within the satanic milieu. This is particularly interesting because of the magical thrust inherited from Crowley through LaVey and Aquino, which precisely puts artistic and aesthetic pursuits center stage in ritual work (Dyrendal 2012; Petersen 2012). Studies of satanic production, distribution and consumption of popular culture, the arts, and music, to name a few, could give us important clues to the relative particularity and commonality of satanic “culture” (e.g., Dyrendal 2008; Granholm 2013b; Mørk 2009; Olson 2013; Petersen 2013a). The same goes for satanic politics, if such a thing actually exists. Contrary to expectation, Satanists do seem to be politically and ideologically diverse (Lewis 2001a, with follow-up 2013; Søderlind and Dyrendal 2009). New research is needed to examine the easy conflation of Satanism and black metal, Satanism and fascism, and Satanism and transgression, all of which are used by critics to condemn, and insiders to play with gray areas (Petersen 2011a, 2013a).
1. See http://twicsy.com/i/zeXKM for the heart-shaped tattoo and http://twicsy.com/i/wNDpqd for the sigil and quote.
2. Just to be clear from the outset: O.T.O. is not a “sex cult” either. As with many other magical groups, sexuality does play a part in the symbolic teachings of the order. But what is implied by “sex cult” is something else: uninhibited orgies, sacred prostitution, sadomasochism, and obscenity. People looking for a sex cult would be sorely disappointed with the gender-equal fraternity they find.
3. Neither “subculture,” “community,” nor “movement” are satisfying or analytically clear as descriptive terms. As I have argued extensively elsewhere, I find the concept of “satanic milieu” most useful to characterize a fragmented network of shared outlook and aesthetics with little organization, ideology, or practice in common (Petersen 2009b: 4–6, 2009c, 2011c: 74–95, 2013b; see also Lewis 2002: n. 2). The concept is based on Colin Campbell’s “cultic milieu” and Christopher Partridge’s “occulture” (Campbell 1972; Partridge 2004: ch. 4).
4. This angle is inspired by seminal research by Wouter Hanegraaff, Olav Hammer, and Christopher Partridge on the New Age Movement and other contemporary esoteric currents in Western Europe, all of which exhibit a tendency to combine the old and new, the “secular” and the “sacred,” the “rational” and the “spiritual” to satisfy (late) modern sensibilities through alternative rationalities. See, e.g., Asprem 2012 and Petersen 2011b for thorough discussions of this background.
5. This is shorthand for my complicated academic definition of religious Satanism: It is a project and a language (Petersen 2011c: 62–67; cf. Petersen 2009b: 1–4). The general project consists of a self-religious orientation toward personal realization and authentic nature, whether framed as a carnal or esoteric truth, and an antinomian deconditioning from external authorities. A second couplet of traits, self-designation and subcultural ancestry, describes the specific language through which Satanism is articulated as an antinomian self-religion. Here, the individual or collective self-designation as “Satanist,” including the use of Satan and a host of related mythological beings, is a way of declaring and practicing a specific stance on adversarial self-religion by framing it as satanic. The final trait of subcultural ancestry dictates a calling on established satanic groups and movement texts or actively tapping into a common pool of literature, practices, social circles, aesthetics, and so on. For more on definitions of Satanism, including Satanism as self-religion, see Dyrendal 2009; Granholm 2009; Harvey 1995, 2009; Lap 2013; Petersen 2009b, 2011c.
6. Solid studies of historical Satanism as a Christian discourse include Frankfurter 2006; Introvigne 2010; La Fontaine 1999; Medway 2001; and Murchembled 2003. Jeffrey B. Russell’s impressive study of the Devil in history is marred by a Christian bias, a strange theory of history, and an unsightly arrogance toward modern religion (see Russell, 1977, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1989; brief synopsis in Russell 1991).
7. In Islands of History, Marshall Sahlins convincingly argues that “[e]vents . . . cannot be understood apart from the values attributed to them” (1985: 154). Historical narrative is thus infused with mythical meaning, making history a metaphor for the reality of the myth, whether it is Hawaiian, Christian, or Satanist.
8. On this process of appropriation and sanitization, see, e.g., Faxneld 2013a; van Luijk 2013; Petersen 2009b: 10–16, 2011c: 78–85.
9. On the Left-Hand Path as a broad current within Western esotericism relevant for understanding contemporary Satanism, see, e.g., Drury 2011; Evans 2007; Flowers 1997; Granholm 2005, 2009, 2013a; Petersen 2012; Schreck and Schreck 2002; Senholt 2013; Sieg 2013; Sutcliffe 1995; and Urban 2006.
10. I usually work with a third category of reactive Satanism to include the individuals and groups “living out” the mythical frame in a more or less reflected “ostension” of popular narratives (see, e.g., Fine and Victor 1994; Lowney 1995; Moynihan and Søderlind 1998; Schmidt 1992). While reactive Satanism can be very sincere and is deeply meaningful for the persons involved, it reflects common concerns and anxieties of adolescents and outsiders, not religious Satanism per se. By “playing evil,” a symbolic resistance can be voiced against dominant society, and problems can be negotiated. This is inverted Christianity as rebellion rather than a new, coherent belief system with philosophical, mythical, and practical aspects. Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish between reactive Satanism and variants of modern, religious Satanism proper, even though an interest in adolescent Satanism could eventually lead to a serious involvement with the established groups outlined here (see Lewis 2001a; Petersen 2011a, 2013a).
11. Overviews of the history of modern Satanism include Introvigne 2010 and Schmidt 1992. Useful non-scholarly histories, more or less partisan to specific views, include Aquino 2013; Baddeley 2000; Barton 1990; Flowers 1997; and Lyons 1988. Chris Mathews’s “anatomy” (2009) is highly negative toward religious Satanism as a whole, making it almost worthless as an introduction.
12. See, e.g., Baddeley 2000: 100 ff., 148 ff.; and Lewis 2001b: 285 ff. for a summary of names and short descriptions; very few have been the subject of a detailed study.
13. For examples of apocalypse culture, see Parfrey [1987] 1990 and Petros 2007. CoS members involved included Boyd Rice, Nikolas Schreck, and Zeena LaVey.
14. See standard reference works like Ellis 2000; Richardson, Best, and Bromley 1991; and Victor 1993. Many relevant articles on the moral panic are collected in Lewis and Petersen 2008.
15. On Satanism and the Internet, see Petersen 2013b; Smoczynski 2009, 2013.
16. Relevant studies of the CoS and LaVey include Alfred 1976; Dyrendal 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013; Gallagher 2013; Faxneld 2013a; Harvey 1995, 2009; Henricks 1977; Holt 2013; La Fontaine 1999; Lap 2013; Lewis 2002; Moody 1971, 1974; Petersen 2009c, 2011b, 2012; Truzzi 1972, 1974a, 1974b. Important sources include Baddeley 2000; Barton 1990, 1992; Fritscher [1973] 2004; Gausten 2009; Gilmore 2007; LaVey 1969, 1972, [1971] 1989, 1992, 1998; Paradise 2007; Sass 2007; Shankbone 2007, as well as critical accounts like Aquino 2013; Mathews 2009; Wolfe 2008; and Wright 1991. See also the magazines The Cloven Hoof (official bulletin of the CoS), The Black Flame (international forum of the CoS), and Old Nick (a satanic gentleman’s magazine), the huge amounts of material found on the official website, http://www.churchofsatan.com, the affiliated message boards Letters to the Devil and the Undercroft (both found on http://www.satannet.com), and documentaries like Satanis: The Devil’s Mass (Ray Laurent, 1970), Speak of the Devil (Bougas and Parfrey, 1995), and Inside the Church of Satan (Warren, 2008).
17. Marcello Truzzi and Randall Alfred accept the CoS claim of 7,000 registered members in the mid-1970s (see Truzzi 1972: 27 and Alfred 1976: 193). Of course, only a fraction of that constitute active members, as Alfred notes. In addition, the CoS has undergone serious changes since then. Recently, Gilmore intimated a membership “in the thousands,” presumably worldwide (Burke 2013).
18. Two related aspects are important here: The “LaVey Myth” and the purity of the doctrine. For a discussion of the first, see, e.g., Lewis 2002; Petersen 2009c; and Wright 1991. Doctrinal authority is discussed in Dyrendal 2008; Lewis 2002; and Petersen 2009c, 2011b, as well as below.
19. All can be found of the church website and in Gilmore 2007: 25–40.
20. On the genesis of and sources for The Satanic Bible and other books, see also Faxneld 2013a; Holt 2013; Lap 2013.
21. James D. Sass has since left the group.
22. See, e.g., the “Satanic Bunco Sheet,” “Church of Satan Chat Room Policies,” and “Sycophants Unite!” on the official website.
23. This is important, as this redefinition makes it clear that LaVey’s brand of Satanism is not “about” Christianity—it is anti-hegemonic and countercultural, but not anti-Christian or left wing.
24. Specifically, he adopts Bryan Wilson’s term “manipulationist sect” (Alfred 1976: 199–200).
25. Relevant studies of the ToS include Dyrendal 2009, 2012; Granholm 2009, 2013a; Harvey 1995; La Fontaine 1999; Petersen 2009c, 2012; and Scott [1983] 2007. Important sources include Aquino [1975] 1985, [1975] 2002, 2010; Flowers 1997; Webb 1999, 2004, as well as the entire Jeweled Tablets of Set, if they can be obtained. See also the magazine The Scroll of Set, the material on the official homepage at http://www.xeper.org, and the personal podcast archive KHPRVOD at http://www.khpr.org.
26. For more information, visit the homepage or see Aquino [1975] 2010: ch. 3; Granholm 2013a: 219–223; and La Fontaine 1999: 103 ff.
27. On magic in the ToS, see Aquino [1975] 2010; Webb 1999, 2004; Flowers 1997. Scholarly treatments include Dyrendal 2009, 2012; Granholm 2013a; Petersen 2012.
28. In practice, however, the example of a Greater Magic Working provided by Aquino resembles rituals of the CoS (compare Aquino [1975] 2010: 108–125 with LaVey 1969: 107–152).
29. For studies addressing the status of modern Satanism online, see, e.g., Lewis 2001a; Petersen 2013b; Smoczynski 2009, 2013. Research dependent upon online material and thus illustrating the variety of Satanism online include Dyrendal 2008; Faxneld 2013c; Petersen 2012; Sieg 2013.
30. See the website at http://www.satanicreds.org, where a huge amount of material can be obtained, including a series of copied monographs on various aspects of the Dark Doctrines. I have found Jantsang 1990; Marsh 1990; and Marsh, Hill, and Jantsang 1990 to be helpful along with introductions such as the FAQ sheet (SR, FAQ), “The Nine Satanic Postulates” (SR, Nine), and “The Roots of Satanic Reds Organization” (Jantsang and Marsh, n.d.) from the website.
31. The group is at pains to explain that it is not “red” in a political sense, nor “left-wing,” but rather “communist” understood as social realist and radical (SR, FAQ). Nevertheless, they discuss soft socialist issues and proudly use the sickle within a pentagram as their logo.
32. This figure was given in personal communication with the author March 20, 2008.
33. On Chaos Magick and appropriations of cultural material, see, e.g., Evans 2007; Faxneld 2013a; Petersen 2011b, 2012; Sutcliffe 1995; Urban 2006.
34. The pentagram or pentacle with two points up and one down is often called an “inverted” pentagram, while the one with one point up and two down is not adjectivized. I have decided to use the less value-laden terms “material” and “spiritual,” as they seem to be accepted by Satanists, Wiccans, and magicians without the baggage of a particular interpretation.
35. See Aquino [1975] 2010: 48–54; “The History of the Origin of the Sigil of Baphomet and its Use in the Church of Satan” at http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/BaphometSigil.html; and Satanic Reds’ “Symbols of Satan?—Baphomet—Four articles” at http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/baph.html for insider explanations of the history and function of this sign.
218, N.A-A. 2008. Liber Falxifer: The Book of the Left-Handed Reaper. n.p.: Ixaxaar Publishing.
Alfred, Randall. 1976. “The Church of Satan.” In The New Religious Consciousness, edited by Charles Glock and Robert Bellah, 180–202. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Aquino, Michael. [1975] 1985. The Book of Coming Forth by Night. San Francisco: Temple of Set.
Aquino, Michael. [1975] 2010. Black Magic. Crystal Tablet of Set. San Francisco: Temple of Set. https://xeper.org/maquino/.
———. 2010. The Temple of Set. 11th ed. San Francisco: Temple of Set. https://xeper.org/maquino/.
———. 2013. The Church of Satan. 7th ed. San Francisco: Temple of Set. https://xeper.org/maquino/.
Asprem, Egil. 2012. Arguing with Angels: Enochian Magic and Modern Occulture. New York: SUNY Press.
Baddeley, Gavin. 2000. Lucifer Rising: Sin, Devil Worship and Rock ‘n’ Roll. London: Plexus.
Barton, Blanche. 1990. The Church of Satan. New York: Hell’s Kitchen Prod.
———. 1992. The Secret Life of a Satanist: The Authorized Biography of Anton LaVey. Los Angeles: Feral House.
Berger, Peter. 1967. The Sacred Canopy. New York: Anchor Books.
Breslaw, Anna. 2013. “The New Celebrity Religious Fad Is, Uhh, a Satanist Sex Cult.” Cosmopolitan online, April 22, 2013. http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/peaches-geldof-jay-z-oto.
Burke, Daniel. 2013. “Satanists Square Off on Abortion (Yes, Really).” CNN Belief Blog, published July 9, 2013. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/09/satanists-square-off-on-abortion-yes-really/.
Campbell, Colin. 1972. “The Cult, the Cultic Milieu, and Secularization.” A Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain 5: 119–136.
Drury, N. 2011. Stealing Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Modern Western Magic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunkerly, Jennifer. 2013. “Sex Cult that has Celebs under its Spell.” The Daily Star, April 24. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/310851/sex-cult-that-has-celebs-under-its-spell/.
Dyrendal, Asbjørn. 2008. “Devilish Consumption: Popular Culture in Satanic Socialization.” Numen 55, no. 1: 68–98.
———. 2009. “Darkness Within: Satanism as a Self-Religion.” In Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology, edited by J. Aa. Petersen, 59–74. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
———. 2012. “Satan and the Beast: The Influence of Aleister Crowley on Modern Satanism.” In Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism, edited by H. Bogdan and M. P. Starr, 369–395. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2013. “Hidden Persuaders and Invisible Wars: Anton LaVey and Conspiracy Culture.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 123–140. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, Bill. 2000. Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions and the Media. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Evans, Dave. 2007. The History of British Magick after Crowley. n.p.: Hidden Publishing.
Faxneld, Per. 2013a. “Secret Lineages and de Facto Satanists: Anton LaVey’s Use of Esoteric Tradition.” In Contemporary Esotericism, edited by E. Asprem and K. Granholm, 72–91. London: Equinox.
———. 2013b. “Witches, Nihilist Anarchism, and Social Darwinism: St. Przybyszewski’s Satanism and the Demonic Feminine.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 53–77. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
———. 2013c. “‘Intuitive, receptive, dark’: Negotiations of Femininity in the Contemporary Satanic and Left-hand Path Milieu.” International Journal for the Study of New Religions 4, no. 2: 201–231.
———. Forthcoming. “The Devil Is Red: Socialist Satanism in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Europe.” Numen.
Faxneld, Per, and Jesper Aa. Petersen, eds. 2013. The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. Forthcoming. “Cult of Carnality: Sexuality, Eroticism, and Gender in Contemporary Satanism.” In Sexuality and New Religions, edited by H. Bogdan and J. R. Lewis. Houndsmills: Palgrave McMillan.
Fine, Gary Alan, and Jeffrey S. Victor. 1994. “Satanic Tourism: Adolescent Dabblers and Identity Work.” Phi Delta Kappan 76, no. 1: 70–72.
Flowers, Stephen E. 1997. Lords of the Left-Hand Path. Smithville, TX: Rûna-Raven Press.
Frankfurter, David. 2006. Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Satanic Abuse in History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fritscher, Jack. [1973] 2004. Popular Witchcraft: Straight from the Witch’s Mouth. 2nd ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Fügmann, Dagmar. 2009. Zeitgenössischer Satanismus in Deutschland: Weltbilder Und Wertvorstellungen Im Satanismus. Marburg: Tectum Verlag.
Gallagher, Eugene V. 2013. “Sources, Sects and Scripture: The ‘Book of Satan’ in the Satanic Bible.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 103–123. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gausten, Joel. 2009. Words from the Third Side: Essays on Sex, Satan & Success. n.p.: Gausten Books/lulu.com.
Gilmore, Peter. 2007. The Satanic Scriptures. Baltimore, MD: Scapegoat Publ.
Granholm, Kennet. 2005. Embracing the Dark: The Magic Order of Dragon Rouge—Its Practice in Dark Magic and Meaning Making. Åbo: Åbo Akadami University Press.
———. 2009. “Embracing Others than Satan: The Multiple Princes of Darkness in the Left-Hand Path Milieu.” In Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology, edited by J. Aa. Petersen, 85–102. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
———. 2013a. “The Left-Hand Path and Post-Satanism: The Temple of Set and the Evolution of Satanism.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 229–250. New York: Oxford University Press.
Granholm, Kennet. 2013b. “Ritual Black Metal: Popular Music as Occult Mediation and Practice.” Correspondences 1, no. 1: 5–33.
Gregorius, Fredrik. 2013. “Luciferian Witchcraft: At the Crossroads between Paganism and Satanism.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 229–250. New York: Oxford University Press.
Häll, Mikael. 2013. “‘It Is Better to Believe in the Devil’: Conceptions of Satanists and Sympathies for the Devil in Early Modern Sweden.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 23–41. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 2013. Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury.
Harvey, Graham. 1995. “Satanism in Britain Today.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 10, no. 3: 283–296.
———. 2009. “Satanism: Performing Alterity and Othering.” In Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology, edited by J. Aa. Petersen, 27–41. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Heelas, Paul. 1996. The New Age Movement. Oxford: Blackwell.
Henricks, John Ludwig. 1977. “Satanism in the Post-Industrial Society: A Critical Analysis of the Religious Renaissance in Contemporary Society.” PhD dissertation. The Graduate Faculty, University of Missouri, Columbia.
Hjelm, Titus. 2009. “Satanism and Satanism Scares in the Contemporary World.” Special Issue. Social Compass 56, no. 4: 499–576.
Holt, Cimminnee. 2013. “Blood, Sweat, and Urine: The Scent of Feminine Fluids in Anton Szandor LaVey’s The Satanic Witch.” International Journal for the Study of New Religions 4, 2: 177–201.
Introvigne, Massimo. 2010. I Satanisti: Storia, Riti E Miti Del Satanismo. Milano: Sugarco.
Jantsang, Tani. 1990. Package of Doctrines. Self-published.
Jantsang, Tani, and Philip Marsh. n.d. “The Roots of Satanic Reds.” Online. http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/unity-dt.html.
La Fontaine, Jean S. 1999. “Satanism and Satanic Mythology.” In Witchcraft and Magic in Europe, vol. 6: The Twentieth Century, edited by B. Ankerloo and S. Clark, 81–140. London: Athlone Press.
Lap, Amina Olander. 2013. “Categorizing Modern Satanism: An Analysis of Lavey’s Early Writings.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 83–103. New York: Oxford University Press.
LaVey, Anton S. 1969. The Satanic Bible. New York: Avon Books.
———. 1972. The Satanic Rituals. New York: Avon Books.
———. [ 1971] 1989. The Satanic Witch. Venice: Feral House (first published as The Compleat Witch by Lancer Books).
———. 1992. The Devils Notebook. Venice: Feral House.
LaVey, Anton S. 1998. Satan Speaks! Venice: Feral House.
Lewis, James R. 2001a. “Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile.” Marburg Journal of Religion 6 (2). Online. Retrieved from http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/past_issues/1999-2001.
———. 2001b. Satanism Today: An Encyclopedia of Religion, Folklore, and Popular Culture. ABC-Clio.
———. 2002. “Diabolical Authority: Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible and the Satanist ‘Tradition.’” Marburg Journal of Religion 7 (1). Online. Retrieved from http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/past_issues/2002-2004.
———. 2010. “Fit for the Devil: Toward an Understanding of ‘Conversion’ to Satanism.” International Journal for the Study of New Religions 1, no.1: 117–138.
———. 2013. “Conversion to Satanism: Constructing Diabolical Identities.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 145–167. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, James R., and Jesper Aagaard Petersen, eds. 2008. The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of Satanism. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Lowney, Kathleen S. 1995. “Teenage Satanism as Oppositional Youth Subculture.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 23: 453–484.
Luijk, Ruben van. 2013. “Sex, Science, and Liberty: The Resurrection of Satan in 19th Century (Counter) Culture.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 41–53. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lyons, Arthur. [1970] 1988. Satan Wants You: The Cult of Devil Worship in America. New York: Mysterious Press (first published as The Second Coming: Satanism in America by Dodd).
Marsh, Phillip. 1990. Western Roots, Part One: Pythagoras, Plato and the Hellenes. Self-published.
Marsh, Phillip, Wayne Hill, and Tani Jantsang. 1990. Western Roots, Part Two. Self-published.
Mathews, Chris. 2009. Modern Satanism: Anatomy of a Radical Subculture. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Medway, Gareth J. 2001. Lure of the Sinister: The Unnatural History of Satanism. New York: New York University Press.
Möller, Melanie. 2007. Satanismus Als Religion Der Überschreitung: Transgression under Stereotype Darstellung in Erfahrungs- Und Aussteigerberichten. Marburg: diagonal-Verlag.
Moody, Edward J. [1971] 1974. “Urban Witches.” In On the Margins of the Visible: Sociology, the Esoteric and the Occult, edited by E. Tiryakian, 223–234. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
———. 1974. “Magical Therapy: An Anthropological Investigation of Contemporary Satanism.” In Religious Movements in Contemporary America, edited by I. I. Zaretsky and M. P. Leone, 355–382. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mørk, Gry. 2009. “’With My Art I Am the Fist in the Face of God’: On Old-School Black Metal.” In Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology, edited by J. Aa. Petersen, 171–198. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Moynihan, Michael, and Søderlind, Didrik. 1998. Lords of Chaos: The Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground. Venice: Feral House.
Murchembled, Robert. [2000] 2003. A History of the Devil: From the Middle Ages to the Present. Translated by Jean Birell. Oxford: Polity Press.
Olson, Benjamin H. 2013. “At the Threshold of the Inverted Womb: Anti-Cosmic Satanism and Radical Freedom.” International Journal for the Study of New Religions 4, no. 2: 231–251.
Paradise, Matt G. 2007. Bearing the Devil’s Mark. n.p.: Purging Talon.
Parfrey, Adam, ed. [1987] 1990. Apocalypse Culture. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Feral House.
Partridge, Christopher. 2004. The Re-Enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralization, Popular Culture and Occulture. Vol. 1. London: T & T Clark.
———. 2005. The Re-Enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralization, Popular Culture and Occulture. Vol. 2. London: T & T Clark.
Petersen, Jesper Aa., ed. 2009a. Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
———. 2009b. “Introduction: Embracing Satan.” In Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology, edited by J. Aa. Petersen, 1–25. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
———. 2009c. “Satanists and Nuts: Schisms in Modern Satanism.” In Sacred Schisms: How Religions Divide, edited by S. Lewis and J. R. Lewis, 218–247. New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2011a. “’Smite Him Hip and Thigh’: Satanism, Violence, and Transgression.” In Violence and New Religious Movements, edited by J. R. Lewis, 351–376. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2011b. “‘We Demand Bedrock Knowledge’: Modern Satanism between Secularized Esotericism and ‘Esotericized’ Secularism.” In Handbook of Religion and the Authority of Science, edited by O. Hammer and J. R. Lewis, 67–114. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2011c. Between Darwin and the Devil: Modern Satanism as Discourse, Milieu, and Self. PhD dissertation. Dept. of Archaeology and Religious Studies, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
———. 2012. “The Seeds of Satan: Conceptions of Magic in Contemporary Satanism.” Aries 12 (1): 91–129.
———. 2013a. “The Carnival of Dr. LaVey: Articulations of Transgression in Modern Satanism.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 167–189. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2013b. “From Book to Bit: Enacting Satanism Online.” In Contemporary Esotericism, edited by E. Asprem and K. Granholm, 134–159. London: Equinox.
Petersen, Jesper Aa. 2013c. “Bracketing Beelzebub: Introducing the academic study of Satanism.” International Journal for the Study of New Religions 4, no. 2: 161–177.
Petros, George. 2007. Art that Kills: A Panoramic Portrait of Aesthetic Terrorism 1984–2001. n.p.: Creation Books.
Richardson, James, Joel Best and David Bromley, eds. 1991. The Satanism Scare. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Russell, Jeffrey Burton. 1977. The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
———. 1981. Satan: The Early Christian Tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
———. 1984. Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
———. 1986. Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
———. 1989. The Prince of Darkness. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
———. 1991. “The Historical Satan.” In The Satanism Scare, edited by J. Richardson, J. Best, and D. Bromley, 41–49. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Sass, James D. 2007. Essays in Satanism. Daytona Beach, FL: The Devil’s Bookshelf/lulu.com.
Schmidt, Joachim. 1992. Satanismus—Mythos und Wirklichkeit. Marburg: Diagonal Verlag.
Schreck, Nikolas, and Zeena Schreck. 2002. Demons of the Flesh: The Complete Guide to Left Hand Path Sex Magic. n.p.: Creation Books.
Scott, Gini Graham. [1983] 2007. The Magicians. New York: Irvington.
Senholt, Jacob C. 2013. “Secret Identities in the Sinister Tradition: Political Esotericism and the Convergence of Radical Islam, Satanism, and National Socialism in the Order of the Nine Angles.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 250–274. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shankbone, David. 2007. “Satanism: An Interview with Church of Satan High Priest Peter Gilmore.” Online. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Satanism:_An_interview_with_Church_of_Satan_High_Priest_Peter_Gilmore.
Sieg, George. 2013. “Angular Momentum: From Traditional to Progressive Satanism in the Order of the Nine Angles.” International Journal for the Study of New Religions 4, no. 2: 251–282.
Smoczynski, Rafal. 2009. “Cyber-Satanism and Imagined Satanism: Dark Symptoms of Late Modernity.” In Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology, edited by J. Aa. Petersen, 141–152. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
———. 2013. “The Making of Satanic Collective Identities in Poland: From Mechanic to Organic Solidarity.” In The Devil’s Party: Satanism and Modernity, edited by P. Faxneld and J. Aa. Petersen, 189–203. New York: Oxford University Press.
Søderlind, Didrik, and Asbjørn Dyrendal. 2009. “Social Democratic Satanism? Some Examples of Satanism in Scandinavia.” In Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology, edited by J. Aa. Petersen, 154–170. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
SR, FAQ. N.d. “FAQ for Satanic Reds.” No Author. Online. http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html.
SR, Nine. N.d. “The Nine Satanic Postulates – Statements of Satano-COMMUNE-ist Reality, Satanic Comm-UNITY.” No author. Online. http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/9-sat-tan.html.
Sutcliffe, Richard. 1995. “Left Hand Path Ritual Magic: A Historical and Philosophical Overview.” In Paganism Today, edited by G. Harvey and C. Hardman, 109–138. London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Truzzi, Marcello. 1972. “The Occult Revival as Popular Culture: Some Random Observations on the Old and the Nouveau Witch.” Sociological Quarterly 13 (Winter): 16–36.
———. 1974a. “Towards a Sociology of the Occult: Notes on Modern Witchcraft.” In Religious Movements in Contemporary America, edited by I. I. Zaretsky and M. P. Leone, 628–645. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 1974b. “Definitions and Dimensions of the Occult: Towards a Sociological Perspective.” In On the Margins of the Visible: Sociology, the Esoteric and the Occult, edited by E. Tiryakian, 243–255. New York: John Wiles and Sons.
Urban, H. B. 2006. Magia Sexualis: Sex, Magic, and Liberation in Modern Western Esotericism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Victor, Jeffrey S. 1993. Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend. Chicago: Open Court.
Webb, Don. 1999. Uncle Setnakt’s Essential Guide to the Left Hand Path. Smithville, TX: Rûna-Raven Press.
———. 2004. Mysteries of the Temple of Set: Inner Teachings of the Left Hand Path. Smithville, TX: Rûna-Raven Press, 2004.
Wolfe, Burton H. 2008. The Black Pope: The Authentic Biography of Anton Szandor Lavey. n.p.: Self-published pdf-file.
Wright, Lawrence. 1991. “Sympathy for the Devil.” Rolling Stone, September 5.