Unveiling the Core Principles of Modern Satanism

Beyond the Stereotypes

Modern Satanism represents a complex and often profoundly misunderstood phenomenon in contemporary religious and philosophical discourse. Far from the sensationalized imagery of devil worship and malevolent rituals frequently perpetuated in popular culture, it encompasses a diverse array of spiritual and philosophical movements that have primarily emerged in the 20th century.¹ This intricate landscape is not monolithic; rather, it comprises a spectrum of beliefs and practices, with adherents openly identifying as Satanists or Luciferians, though their interpretations of these figures vary radically.² Broadly, modern Satanism can be categorized into atheistic and theistic branches, each underpinned by distinct philosophical foundations and approaches to the world.²

Distinguishing Modern Movements from Historical Accusations

A critical first step in understanding modern Satanism is to delineate it from the historical accusations that have long preceded its self-identified emergence. For centuries, the label “Satanism” was predominantly an externally imposed accusation, not a chosen identity.¹ Throughout Christian history, accusations of deliberate Devil worship were largely spurious, lacking any real basis.³ During the High Middle Ages, as non-Abrahamic religions waned in influence, Christians began to commonly accuse other groups of actively venerating the Devil.³ This practice intensified in the early modern period, fueling widespread witch trials where tens of thousands were tortured and executed under the belief they pledged allegiance to the Devil.³ Fears persisted, integrating into 19th-century conspiracy theories, notably surrounding Freemasonry, and were further sensationalized through influential fiction, such as Joris-Karl Huysmans’ Là-bas, which solidified the connection between Satanism and the “black mass” in the public imagination.³

The historical weaponization of the term “Satanism” for religious persecution directly necessitated a clear and explicit self-definition for modern groups. The consistent historical pattern reveals that “Satanism” was a convenient label applied to “heretical or undesirable” groups, often without justification.¹ Therefore, for contemporary movements to choose to identify with this historically charged term is a deliberate act of reappropriation and defiance. This act of self-identification, particularly from the 20th century onwards, is not merely descriptive; it is performative, compelling these groups to actively articulate their identity in direct opposition to centuries of negative, externally imposed stereotypes. This fundamental shift underscores why distinguishing historical accusations from modern self-identification is not just an academic point, but a foundational aspect of modern Satanic identity itself.

Purpose and Scope of the Article

This article aims to transcend common misconceptions and provide a comprehensive, nuanced understanding of modern Satanism. It will explore its historical evolution, delve into the core philosophical principles of its prominent movements, and analyze its contemporary societal impact, including its role in challenging religious dogma and advocating for individual autonomy and civil liberties. The persistent public misunderstanding and mischaracterization of modern Satanism as medieval superstition or cult-like behavior ¹ reflect a broader societal discomfort with challenging established religious narratives. This tendency to project collective fears onto “the Other” is evident in the recurring “Satanic Panics” throughout history.³ The continued misrepresentation, even when groups like The Satanic Temple explicitly promote compassion and scientific understanding ¹, suggests that the stereotype serves to reinforce existing moral boundaries and power structures, rather than simply being a factual error. This indicates a systemic difficulty within mainstream society to engage with and integrate truly non-conformist religious identities.

Historical Roots and the Evolution of Satan

The figure of Satan, an inescapable presence in the popular imagination and central to the understanding of modern Satanism, has undergone a profound and complex evolution throughout history. His portrayal has shifted dramatically, from a relatively undefined biblical adversary to the embodiment of absolute evil, and more recently, to a symbol of heroic rebellion.

Satan in Abrahamic Traditions: From Adversary to Arch-Evil

Initially, biblical texts provide little in the way of a comprehensive backstory for Satan.³ However, by the 3rd or 4th century CE, a general biography of the character had gained broad acceptance within Christian communities. During this period, Satan began to be presented as an angel who had rebelled against God, subsequently becoming the chief of demons.³ These demons, Christians often maintained, were the entities behind the gods and goddesses worshipped by non-Abrahamic religions.⁵

Through the gradual accretion of folklore, art, theological treatises, and morality tales, the early Christian concept of the Devil expanded significantly, acquiring a rich tapestry of extra-Biblical associations.⁴ By the early Middle Ages, Satan had solidified his position as the “archrepresentative of evil” within Christian theology, a malign mirror image of the good Christian.⁴ This dualistic understanding, dividing the world into clear forces of good and evil, became a contributing factor to the idea of Satanism itself.⁴

Medieval Accusations and the Witch Hunts

As non-Abrahamic religions ceased to pose a serious rivalry to Christianity by the High Middle Ages, a significant shift occurred: it became common for Christians to accuse other groups of actively worshipping the Devil.³ This marked a departure from earlier periods where followers of “pagan” traditions were rarely thought to deliberately venerate Satan.³

The early modern period witnessed an escalation of these fears, particularly concerning witches. While medieval witches had primarily been regarded as practitioners of maleficium (supernaturally induced harm), the early modern imagination transformed them into individuals believed to attend witches’ sabbaths, where they proclaimed allegiance to the Devil and engaged in horrific acts, including cannibalistic infanticide.³ This pervasive belief fueled widespread witch trials across Christendom, leading to the torture and execution of tens of thousands of people, predominantly women, between 1560 and 1630.³

Even after the decline of witch trials in the 18th century, fears about Devil worship persisted in new forms. Accusations of Satanism were integrated into conspiracy theories, notably surrounding Freemasonry from the 19th century onward.³ Ideas about active Satanist groups were also popularized through influential fiction, with Joris-Karl Huysmans’ 1891 novel Là-bas being a particularly impactful example. This work helped to cement the connection between Satanism and the “black mass,” a ritual often depicted as deliberately inverting the Roman Catholic mass, sometimes involving a naked woman serving as an altar.³

The Romantic Reimagining of Satan: A Heroic Rebel

A pivotal and transformative shift in the perception of Satan occurred in the early 19th century, driven by Romantic writers and artists. Figures such as Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Byron, and Victor Hugo began to sympathetically reassess Satan, portraying him not as an embodiment of absolute evil, but as a heroic rebel who challenged arbitrary authority.³ John Milton’s Paradise Lost, in particular, played a significant role in this re-evaluation, with Romantics viewing Satan as a flawed anti-hero, a charismatic and brave leader defying God’s tyranny.¹¹

This Romantic redefinition was not merely an intellectual curiosity; it directly provided the symbolic and philosophical foundation for the emergence of modern, self-identified Satanic movements, shifting the figure from an object of fear to an archetype of defiance and individualism.¹³ Prior to the Romantics, Satan was firmly entrenched as the “archrepresentative of evil,” a figure used to demonize and persecute “heretical” groups.¹ The Romantic movement, however, began to portray Satan as a “heroic rebel who challenged arbitrary authority,” embodying resistance against oppressive systems.³ This profound cultural re-contextualization was indispensable for Anton LaVey and subsequent Satanic groups. It allowed them to adopt the name and iconography of “Satan” not as an endorsement of evil, but as a powerful symbol of individualism, self-assertion, and rebellion against perceived tyranny.¹¹ Without this intellectual antecedent, the very concept of a self-identified “Modern Satanism” that is not about literal evil worship would have lacked a coherent symbolic framework. This redefinition was crucial, transforming Satan from a purely religious antagonist into a potent symbol of humanist philosophy and individualism.¹³ In this vein, Satan was sometimes adopted as an emblem by leftist and anticlerical groups, laying symbolic groundwork for future self-identified Satanic movements.³

The “Satanic Panic” of the 20th Century: A Moral Hysteria Debunked

Despite the Romantic re-evaluation, the 20th century witnessed a resurgence of widespread fear concerning Satanism, culminating in the “Satanic Panic” of the 1980s and early 1990s. Fears of a widespread conspiracy involving Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) of children dramatically flared, initially in the United States.³ This moral panic was largely triggered by the 1980 book Michelle Remembers, co-written by Canadian psychiatrist Lawrence Pazder and his patient Michelle Smith. The book, now widely debunked, utilized the controversial and discredited “recovered-memory therapy” to make unsubstantiated claims of child abuse linked to Satanic rituals.³

The panic gained significant traction, leading to thousands of documented accusations across the United States. However, extensive investigations by law enforcement, including a 1992 monograph by the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, found no evidence to substantiate allegations of organized cult abuse.³ High-profile cases, such as the McMartin preschool trial in California, which featured SRA allegations, ultimately resulted in no convictions, highlighting the lack of credible evidence.⁸ The panic was fueled by a confluence of factors, including a broader societal fear of religious cults and a decline in mainline Christianity, which created a vacuum that evangelical Christianity sought to fill.⁷

Academic studies have since concluded that the phenomenon was a moral panic, not a reflection of actual widespread Satanic ritual abuse.⁸ Modern Satanic groups, such as Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan, were often misrepresented by Christian groups seeking to fabricate a real-world villain for media consumption, despite the fact that LaVey’s group was never involved in anything illegal and posed no threat.⁷

The recurring “Satanic Panics” throughout history—from medieval witch hunts to the 20th-century SRA hysteria—serve as a powerful societal mechanism for externalizing collective anxieties and scapegoating non-conformist groups, rather than reflecting actual widespread “devil worship.” The consistent historical pattern reveals that accusations of Satanism emerge during periods of social disruption or heightened fear.³ Crucially, these panics are consistently found to be “spurious, with little or no basis in reality”.³ The persistence of these panics, despite being debunked by investigators, suggests they fulfill a deeper societal function. They enable the scapegoating of certain individuals for various social problems and serve to uphold social norms by defining and punishing “the Other”.⁴ This implies that the “Satanic” label functions as a culturally potent symbol onto which collective fears (e.g., societal decline, child safety) can be projected, thereby reinforcing existing power structures and moral boundaries, regardless of the actual beliefs or practices of the accused.

The Dawn of Organized Modern Satanism: The Church of Satan

The mid-20th century marked a pivotal moment in the history of Satanism, witnessing the emergence of self-identified and organized movements. Foremost among these was the Church of Satan, founded by Anton Szandor LaVey, who laid the groundwork for what would become the most influential and enduring form of modern Satanism.

Anton LaVey: Founder and Visionary

Anton Szandor LaVey, born Howard Stanton Levey, was a charismatic and controversial figure whose diverse background significantly shaped his philosophical outlook. His early life included work as a carnival performer and musician, experiences that exposed him to various facets of human nature and theatricality. Concurrently, he engaged in extensive study of magic and the occult.¹ These experiences, coupled with his observations, led him to a profound disillusionment with traditional Christian churches, which he perceived as hypocritical and restrictive.¹ This conviction prompted him to seek, and ultimately forge, a new path to human fulfillment that embraced carnal desires and individual potential rather than suppressing them.

LaVey began holding informal night classes on the occult, attracting a dedicated following who resonated with his unconventional views. These sessions, initially discussion-based, gradually incorporated more ritualistic elements, laying the groundwork for what would become the first publicly organized Satanic religion.¹²

The Founding of the Church of Satan (CoS) in 1966

On Walpurgisnacht, April 30, 1966, LaVey formally established the Church of Satan (CoS) in San Francisco, California, at his black-painted home known as the Black House.³ This event is widely recognized as the genesis of modern, self-identified Satanism, marking a clear departure from historical accusations of Devil worship. The CoS is considered the “oldest Satanic religion in continual existence” and has been profoundly influential, inspiring numerous splinter and imitator groups.¹⁴

LaVey served as the Church’s High Priest until his death in 1997.¹⁴ Under his leadership, the CoS systematically “codified” Satanism as a distinct religion and philosophy, primarily through his seminal work, The Satanic Bible (1969).⁵ The Church quickly gained significant public attention during its early years, capitalizing on a widespread public interest in the occult, witchcraft, and Satanism that characterized the 1960s and 1970s. This period saw celebrities associating with the church, and LaVey himself was invited on talk shows, contributing to the sale of nearly a million copies of The Satanic Bible.⁵ LaVey further publicized his movement through publicly performed Satanic weddings, baptisms for his daughter Zeena, and funerals, which garnered worldwide publicity.¹⁰ He even introduced a new calendar, “Anno Satanas” (Year of Satan), making the year of the Church’s founding “Year 1,” a symbolic act akin to other religious traditions marking the beginning of a new era.¹⁰

Satan as Symbol: Individualism, Carnality, and Self-Deification

A cornerstone of LaVeyan Satanism is its formally atheistic stance, a crucial distinction from traditional understandings of “devil worship.” In this philosophy, Satan is not regarded as a literal, supernatural being or an external deity to be worshipped.³ Instead, Satan functions as a powerful, positive archetype and a symbol.³

Satan, in this context, embodies humanity’s inherent animal nature, natural instincts of pride, and carnality.³ He serves as a defiant counter-symbol against the perceived suppression of these traits by Abrahamic religions, which LaVey believed wrongly condemned natural human desires.¹¹ For LaVeyan Satanists, Satan represents personal freedom, indulgence, and the journey of self-discovery.¹ He is seen as a symbol of the individual’s own vitality and an autonomous power residing within each person, a “reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will”.¹¹

The concept of “God” for a LaVeyan Satanist is described as their true “self”—a projection of their own personality, not an external deity.⁵ LaVey even used the terms “God” and “Satan” interchangeably at times, viewing both as personifications of human nature.¹¹ The provocative name “Satanism” was deliberately chosen for its shock value, its accuracy in representing defiance, and its productivity in challenging societal norms.¹¹

LaVey’s profound disillusionment with Christian hypocrisy ¹ and his strategic embrace of Romantic and Nietzschean ideals ³ directly led to the formation of a “codified” Satanism that fundamentally inverted traditional religious values, emphasizing human potential and earthly gratification over spiritual asceticism.¹⁴ LaVey’s personal conviction that Christian churches were “hypocritical” served as a primary catalyst for his quest for an alternative. This personal rejection found fertile ground in the intellectual shift initiated by Romantic writers, who had already begun to portray Satan as a heroic, anti-authoritarian figure.³ LaVey then synthesized this symbolic re-evaluation with Nietzsche’s philosophical critique of traditional morality, particularly the concept of a “slave’s morality” that repressed human vitality.¹⁰ This synthesis allowed LaVey to construct a new religious philosophy that explicitly valorized indulgence, vital existence, and self-assertion as direct antitheses to Christian doctrines.¹ The “Anno Satanas” calendar further illustrates this deliberate break and the establishment of a new, self-defined era, causally linking his personal insights and chosen philosophical influences to the concrete establishment and principles of the Church of Satan.

The Church of Satan’s core philosophy, centered on “Satan as self” and the explicit rejection of external deities ⁵, represents a radical form of secular humanism. This philosophy, deliberately cloaked in provocative religious imagery, fundamentally challenges the conventional definition of “religion” in a predominantly theistic society. LaVey’s assertion that “Satanists view themselves as their own ‘Gods'” and that Satan is merely “a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates” ⁵ fundamentally reorients the concept of divinity from an external, supernatural entity to an internal, human potential. This is a profound departure from theistic religions. By explicitly rejecting the supernatural while simultaneously identifying as a “religion,” the Church of Satan pushes the boundaries of what society and legal systems consider a legitimate religion. This has significant implications for discussions on religious freedom, the separation of church and state, and the broader understanding of belief systems that operate outside traditional supernatural frameworks, forcing a re-evaluation of how secularism and humanism can manifest in symbolically charged forms.

Philosophical Underpinnings: Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, and Social Darwinism

LaVey’s philosophy was significantly influenced by prominent thinkers who championed individualism and a critique of traditional morality. He deeply integrated Friedrich Nietzsche’s worldview, particularly Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity for diminishing human potential.¹⁰ Nietzsche’s concept of a “slave’s morality,” which valued mercy and charity, was seen by LaVey as limiting humanity’s capacity for self-realization by repressing natural instincts.¹⁰ Instead, LaVey embraced Nietzsche’s “master’s morality,” which championed basking in life’s pleasures, domination, non-repressed vitality, and creativity as paths to self-realization.¹⁰

LaVey also adopted a Social Darwinist position, asserting that life is a struggle where individuals must cultivate their potential to achieve success.¹ He famously characterized his church as “Ayn Rand with trappings” ¹, reflecting a strong emphasis on individualism, egoism, and anti-egalitarianism.¹¹ LaVey explicitly opposed the “myth of equality,” arguing that it “supports the weak at the expense of the strong” and promoted social stratification.¹¹ He prioritized success and self-fulfillment, explicitly stating that he did not value “evil for its own sake”.¹¹ The Church’s doctrines are rooted in materialism and philosophical naturalism, rejecting the existence of the supernatural, body-soul dualism, and any notion of an afterlife.¹¹

Core Principles of LaVeyan Satanism

The philosophical framework of LaVeyan Satanism is comprehensively articulated in Anton LaVey’s writings, particularly The Satanic Bible. These principles serve as a manifesto for self-empowerment, a guide for conduct, and a critique of conventional morality, all while challenging common misconceptions about Satanic practice.

The Nine Satanic Statements: A Manifesto of Self-Empowerment

The nine foundational tenets, published in The Satanic Bible, serve as the philosophical manifesto of the Church of Satan.¹ They represent a direct inversion of traditional Christian virtues, promoting a philosophy centered on self-indulgence, vital existence, and personal power. These statements explicitly challenge Abrahamic moral codes by advocating for gratification, self-interest, and a naturalistic view of humanity.

The Nine Satanic Statements are:

1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence! This statement champions the pursuit of pleasure and the satisfaction of natural desires, contrasting with ascetic religious doctrines.¹
2. Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams! This emphasizes living fully in the present, embracing earthly life rather than focusing on a hypothetical afterlife or abstract spiritual goals.³
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit! This promotes honesty, self-awareness, and a rejection of self-deception often associated with religious dogma.¹
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates! This advocates for a discerning approach to compassion, reserving it for those who reciprocate or are worthy, rather than indiscriminate, unconditional love.¹
5. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek! This is a direct rejection of passive forgiveness, promoting a proactive and assertive response to injustice or harm.¹
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires! This emphasizes accountability and self-reliance, disavowing support for those who drain others’ energy or resources without contributing.³
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his ‘divine spiritual and intellectual development’, has becomes the most vicious animal of all! This statement posits a naturalistic view of humanity, acknowledging human capacity for both greatness and cruelty, free from divine imposition.³
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification! This redefines “sin” as a means to personal fulfillment and pleasure, challenging traditional moral condemnation of natural human desires.¹
9. Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years! This cynical observation highlights the perceived symbiotic relationship between religious institutions and the concept of evil, suggesting that the existence of “Satan” provides a necessary antagonist to maintain religious authority and control.³

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth: Practical Guidelines for Conduct

Penned by LaVey in 1967, these rules provide practical guidelines for behavior and interaction, emphasizing self-preservation, respect for boundaries, and measured responses.²⁰ They reflect a pragmatic approach to social conduct rather than a divinely ordained moral code. The detailed ethical framework provided by these rules, along with the Nine Satanic Statements and Nine Satanic Sins, reveals that LaVeyan Satanism, despite its anti-establishment rhetoric, aims to cultivate a highly structured and disciplined form of individual conduct. This directly challenges the common misconception of Satanism as promoting chaos, amorality, or indiscriminate evil. Popular stereotypes often depict Satanism as promoting anarchy or immoral behavior. However, the existence of explicit, prescriptive guidelines directly refutes this. This demonstrates that LaVeyan Satanism is not about indiscriminate chaos but about cultivating a specific, disciplined ethical stance centered on the empowered, self-reliant individual. This framework, while rejecting external divine authority, establishes an internal, pragmatic order, thereby providing a counter-narrative to the simplistic “evil” stereotype and highlighting the internal coherence of the philosophy.

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth are:

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. This rule emphasizes the importance of respecting others’ autonomy and avoiding unsolicited interference, promoting direct and intentional communication.²⁰
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. Similar to the first rule, this highlights consideration for others’ time and emotional capacity, encouraging discernment in sharing personal burdens.²⁰
3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there. This speaks to respecting boundaries and personal spaces, dictating deference to a host’s environment or choosing not to enter.²⁰
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. This stark rule reflects a principle of self-defense and intolerance for disrespect within one’s own domain, suggesting an unyielding response to boundary violations.²⁰
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. This clearly advocates for consensual interaction in sexual matters, underscoring the importance of explicit consent.¹⁴
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved. This rule addresses property and ownership, generally prohibiting theft but allowing for taking something if it is clearly unwanted and burdensome to the owner.²⁰
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained. This delves into the philosophical and psychological aspects of belief and personal power, asserting that acknowledging the efficacy of one’s methods is crucial for retaining benefits gained.¹⁴
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. This rule promotes personal responsibility and agency, encouraging individuals to avoid complaining about situations they can change or remove themselves from.²⁰
9. Do not harm little children. This is a straightforward and unambiguous rule establishing a clear moral boundary regarding the protection of the innocent and vulnerable.¹⁴
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. This outlines a pragmatic and utilitarian approach to animals, permitting killing for self-defense or sustenance but discouraging wanton harm.²⁰
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him. This rule emphasizes personal space, non-aggression, and a strong right to self-defense, advocating for peaceful coexistence but asserting a decisive response if one’s peace is persistently violated.²⁰ The term “destroy him” can be interpreted metaphorically as eliminating the source of the bother, or literally, depending on the severity of the threat and context.

The Nine Satanic Sins: Behaviors to Avoid

LaVey identified nine behaviors considered detrimental to a Satanist’s self-actualization, serving as a counterpoint to the positive statements and rules.¹ These “sins” are not about moral transgression in a traditional sense, but about actions or attitudes that hinder personal growth and effectiveness. They implicitly challenge blind faith, unquestioning obedience, and societal pressures that diminish individual critical thought and self-awareness.²²

The Nine Satanic Sins are:

1. Stupidity: Considered the cardinal sin, as society often promotes it, hindering critical thought.³
2. Pretentiousness: Empty posturing that fails to apply “Lesser Magic” (psychological manipulation) and irritates.³
3. Solipsism: Projecting one’s own sensibilities onto others, expecting them to be as attuned or considerate.³
4. Self-deceit: Blindly accepting “sacred cows” or expected roles, unless done consciously for amusement.³
5. Herd Conformity: Foolishly following the masses or allowing impersonal entities to dictate actions, rather than choosing a master wisely.³
6. Lack of Perspective: Forgetting one’s true nature and potential, hindering understanding of broader historical and social contexts.³
7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies: Being brainwashed by repackaged old ideas, contributing to a disposable society.³
8. Counterproductive Pride: Pride that hinders progress; if something stops working and requires apology or compromise, one should do so.³
9. Lack of Aesthetics: Neglecting an eye for beauty and balance, which is essential for “Lesser Magic” and maximum effectiveness.³

Ritual and “Magic” in LaVeyan Practice: Psychodrama for Self-Transformation

Despite its atheistic foundation, LaVeyan Satanism incorporates rituals and a belief in “magic”.³ However, this magic is generally understood not as supernatural intervention but as a means of psychological manipulation and emotional catharsis.¹¹ While LaVeyan Satanism explicitly positions itself as atheistic and materialistic ³, its embrace of “magic” and ritual ³ introduces a subtle tension. This suggests either a recognition of forces beyond conventional scientific understanding or a deliberate, sophisticated use of symbolic action and psychological manipulation for self-transformation. The core tenets of LaVeyan Satanism clearly state a rejection of the supernatural and a foundation in materialism.³ Yet, the practice includes “rituals with magical intent” ³ and discussions of “occult forces” that are “thus far undiscovered by science”.¹⁷ LaVey himself was ambiguous, insisting on materialism while talking of magic.¹⁴ This apparent contradiction is crucial. It compels a deeper interpretation: is “magic” a literal belief in unknown energies, or is it a metaphor for the psychological power of focused will and theatricality (psychodrama⁵)? The nuance lies in this dual interpretation, indicating that LaVeyan Satanism is not simply a straightforward atheism, but a philosophy that leverages the power of ritual and symbolism to effect internal and external change, even if the underlying mechanics are explained through a naturalistic lens. This complexity prevents a simplistic categorization and highlights its unique blend of rationalism and the esoteric.

Rituals, often described as “psychodramas,” are designed to help members develop their egos, shed submissive behaviors, and focus their emotional energy for specific purposes.⁵ This “greater magic” is likened to psychotherapy, while “lesser magic” refers to applied psychology and glamour used to influence others.¹¹ The Satanic Bible suggests that occult forces are not supernatural but rather undiscovered scientific phenomena that can be manipulated by practitioners.¹⁷ Early rituals were known for their theatricality, costumes, and music ¹², designed to create a powerful psychological impact and reinforce the Satanist’s self-interest.¹¹

Theistic Dimensions: The Temple of Set

While the Church of Satan established a prominent atheistic form of modern Satanism, another significant movement emerged that embraced a literal, theistic interpretation of Satan: the Temple of Set. This organization represents a distinct philosophical path within the broader Satanic landscape.

Origins and Schism from the Church of Satan

The Temple of Set (ToS) emerged in 1975 as a significant schism from Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan.¹ This split was reportedly “vicious,” with Michael Aquino, a key lieutenant in the CoS, leading a faction out. Aquino and his followers claimed that LaVey had “gone astray” and lost what they perceived as the true Satanic mandate.¹

A fundamental divergence from LaVeyan Satanism is ToS’s stance on Satan. Unlike the CoS’s atheistic, symbolic interpretation, the Temple of Set regards Satan or Lucifer as having a literal existence.³ Aquino specifically identified Satan’s true identity as Set, a god drawn from the pantheon of ancient Egypt, thereby shifting the organization’s focus away from its direct Satanic origins and towards a form of modern Paganism.³ This group is considered more rooted in esoteric ideas than the Church of Satan, leading to its categorization as “Esoteric Satanism” in contrast to LaVey’s “Rational Satanism”.¹¹

The schism between the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set highlights a fundamental philosophical divide within modern Satanism regarding the ontological nature of “Satan”—whether a purely symbolic representation of human potential or a literal, albeit non-worshipped, external deity.¹ The departure of Michael Aquino and the formation of the Temple of Set from the Church of Satan was driven by a core disagreement. While LaVey’s CoS is explicitly atheistic, viewing Satan as a symbol of the self ³, Aquino’s ToS posits Satan (identified as Set) as a literal, existing entity.³ This is not a minor point of contention but a foundational difference in worldview. It demonstrates that “Modern Satanism” is not a singular, unified belief system but contains deep internal debates about the nature of reality, divinity, and the path to self-realization. This divergence is crucial for understanding the diversity within modern Satanism, moving beyond a simplistic “devil worship” versus “atheism” dichotomy to acknowledge the spectrum of beliefs held by self-identified Satanists.

Setian Philosophy: The “Black Flame” and Xeper

Setian philosophy centers on the belief that Set is the one true god, a being who has uniquely aided humanity by bestowing upon them a “questioning intellect,” referred to as the “Black Flame”.²³ This “Black Flame” is seen as the distinguishing characteristic that elevates humans above other animal species, granting them “isolate intelligence”.²³ While Set is held in high esteem as a teacher whose example is to be emulated, he is generally not worshipped as a deity in the traditional sense.²³ The core of Setian individualism is the concept of “isolate intelligence”—the spiritual, immaterial, and immortal part of the soul that grants individuals power over the natural world and the ability to control their own transformation.²⁴

A central tenet is “Xeper,” an Egyptian term meaning “To Come Into Being.” Setians strive to willfully and consciously control their personal evolution and transformation, including who they are, how they interact with the world, and their self-presentation.²⁴ The ultimate goal for practitioners is self-deification and the attainment of an immortality of consciousness.¹ Setianism also posits the literal existence of a “Prince/Princess of Darkness” responsible for bringing consciousness to mindless matter.²⁴ Philosophically, Setianism is dualistic, viewing consciousness and matter as distinct entities, and is incompatible with materialism, which holds that only matter exists.²⁴

The Temple of Set’s emphasis on “Xeper” and “isolate intelligence” ²⁴ suggests a highly intellectualized and elitist path to self-transformation. This contrasts with the more pragmatic, carnal individualism of LaVeyan Satanism, indicating different existential goals and methods for achieving self-actualization within the broader Satanic landscape. Both the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set emphasize individualism, but the nature of that individualism differs significantly. LaVeyan Satanism focuses on embracing natural instincts and vital existence ¹⁸, often characterized by a pragmatic hedonism.¹¹ In contrast, Setianism’s concepts of “isolate intelligence” as an “immortal” soul component and “Xeper” as a conscious, willful process of “coming into being” ²⁴ point towards a more spiritual and intellectual cultivation of the self, aiming for “immortality of consciousness”.¹ The invitation-only membership and secrecy surrounding practices ¹ further reinforce this elitist, transformative journey, implying a more profound and potentially arduous path of self-creation than simply embracing one’s carnal nature. This distinction highlights the varied interpretations of “self-deification” and the diverse existential pursuits within modern Satanism.

Belief in a Literal Deity and Esoteric Practices

Membership in the Temple of Set is exclusive, typically by invitation only, and new members undergo structured teaching and training to advance through a hierarchical system of degrees.¹ Much of the group’s practices and literature are kept secret, with only members permitted to observe and participate in rituals.¹ Setians believe in the existence of magic as a force that can be manipulated through ritual, though their definition of “black magic” is idiosyncratic.²³ Their philosophy and teachings are primarily conveyed through occult writings, such as the Jeweled Tablets of Set, with access to these texts restricted based on one’s degree within the Temple.²³

Modern Activism and Social Justice: The Satanic Temple

In the 21st century, a new and highly visible form of modern Satanism has emerged, distinct in its focus on social justice and political activism: The Satanic Temple (TST). This organization has rapidly gained prominence through its strategic and often provocative engagement with public affairs.

Founding and Mission: Responding to Christian Dominance

The Satanic Temple (TST) was founded in Salem, Massachusetts, in 2013 by Lucien Greaves (pseudonym for Douglas Mesner) and Malcolm Jarry.¹ Its inception was a direct response to the perceived “intrusion of Christian values on American politics”.⁹ TST’s stated mission is to “Encourage Benevolence And Empathy, Reject Tyrannical Authority, Advocate Practical Common Sense, Oppose Injustice, And Undertake Noble Pursuits”.⁹ This mission explicitly positions TST as a politically engaged organization, contrasting sharply with the primarily aesthetic and self-actualizing orientation of groups like the Church of Satan.²⁶

In 2019, TST achieved significant recognition when it was granted tax-exempt status as a religion by the U.S. government.¹² This recognition has facilitated its rapid growth, making it “the largest Satanic organization in history,” with congregations established internationally across Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, and the United Kingdom.¹

Satan as the “Eternal Rebel”: A Metaphor for Anti-Authoritarianism

TST is a non-theistic new religious movement; it does not view Satan as a supernatural being or a symbol of evil.¹ Instead, TST leverages the literary figure of Satan as a powerful symbol representing “the eternal rebel” against arbitrary authority and oppressive social norms.¹ This interpretation aligns with the Romantic Satanism found in works by John Milton, William Blake, and Percy Bysshe Shelley, and particularly draws inspiration from Anatole France’s Revolt of the Angels.²⁵ For TST, Satan symbolizes anti-authoritarianism, liberation, and the pursuit of rational, egalitarian ideals, rooted in a historical and literary tradition that champions freedom and critical thought against oppressive systems.²⁵ The mythological backdrop, even if not interpreted literally, is considered profoundly important for existential grounding, empowering TST members through their chosen myths.²⁵

The Seven Fundamental Tenets: A Framework for Compassionate Action

TST’s ethical framework is codified in its Seven Fundamental Tenets, described as guiding principles designed to inspire nobility in action and thought, prioritizing compassion, wisdom, and justice.⁹ These tenets are explicitly inspired by 18th-century Enlightenment values.²⁵ TST promotes “rational inquiry” and “reasonable agnosticism” as core to its philosophy.¹

The Seven Fundamental Tenets are:

1. Compassion and Empathy: One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.⁹
2. Justice: The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.⁹
3. Bodily Inviolability: One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.⁹
4. Freedom and Respect: The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.⁹
5. Scientific Understanding: Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.⁹
6. Fallibility and Rectification: People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one’s best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.⁹
7. Guiding Principles: Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.⁹

High-Profile Campaigns: Religious Freedom, Reproductive Rights, and Secularism

TST actively uses Satanic imagery and its status as a recognized religion to promote civil rights, egalitarianism, religious skepticism, social justice, bodily integrity, secularism, and the separation of church and state.² They often employ religious satire, theatrical ploys, humor, and legal challenges to achieve their aims.²

Notable campaigns include publicly confronting hate groups, advocating for the abolition of corporal punishment in public schools, and applying for equal representation when religious installations are placed on public property.⁹ TST views restrictions on abortion, such as mandatory waiting periods, as an infringement on Satanists’ religious rights, asserting bodily autonomy as a fundamental tenet.² They notably opened the “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic” to offer medication abortion services, guided by a TST minister and incorporating tenets about bodily autonomy and science.⁹

The organization gained notoriety through its attempts to have a statue of Baphomet legally placed on state capitol grounds in Oklahoma (2015) and Arkansas (2018) as a counterpoint to government-sanctioned Ten Commandments monuments.¹² TST’s “Grey Faction” project is dedicated to exposing malpractice and pseudoscience associated with Satanic ritual abuse conspiracy theories, protesting medical conferences, and initiating legal action against discredited practices like recovered-memory therapy.⁹ TST actively encourages its members to engage in effective and artful protest and noble causes.²⁵

TST’s use of Satanic imagery and its assertion of religious claims in legal and political activism ² is not merely provocative but a deliberate “poison pill activism” strategy.²⁶ This strategy aims to expose hypocrisy and defend secular principles by demanding equal religious accommodation for all groups, thereby challenging the preferential treatment often afforded to dominant religions. TST’s high-profile actions, such as attempting to erect Baphomet statues alongside Ten Commandments monuments ¹² or challenging abortion restrictions based on religious freedom ⁹, appear controversial on the surface. However, their motivation is explicitly to counter the “intrusion of Christian values on American politics” ⁹ and to “intervene in church/state conflicts with insider leverage by claiming standing as a religion”.²⁶ This reveals a sophisticated legal and political strategy: by asserting their own religious rights, TST forces the state to either extend equal accommodation to all religions (including Satanism) or remove the privileges granted to the dominant religion. This effectively upholds the principle of secularism and the separation of church and state, demonstrating a causal link between their identity and their unique form of activism.

The Satanic Temple’s rapid growth and legal recognition ¹² represent a significant shift in the public discourse surrounding religious liberty. This forces a critical re-evaluation of what constitutes a “legitimate” religion in a pluralistic society and highlights the inherent challenges of maintaining secular governance in the face of diverse and sometimes provocative religious claims. TST’s recognition as a tax-exempt religion by the U.S. government ¹² and its expansion into “the largest Satanic organization in history” ⁹ are not merely internal organizational successes. These developments have actively “shifted religious liberty debates”.²⁵ By successfully navigating and leveraging the legal framework of religious freedom, TST has exposed potential biases and limitations within existing laws that implicitly favor Abrahamic religions. This compels society and legal systems to confront the practical implications of true religious pluralism and the separation of church and state, pushing the boundaries of what is considered acceptable religious expression. This broader ripple effect extends beyond Satanism itself, influencing the ongoing national conversation about religious freedom and secular governance.

A Comparative Analysis of Modern Satanic Movements

Modern Satanism, while sharing a common conceptual ancestor in the figure of Satan, is far from a monolithic belief system. A comparative analysis of its most prominent organizations—the Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, and The Satanic Temple—reveals significant philosophical divergences, distinct approaches to activism, and complex internal dynamics that shape their public perception.

Philosophical Divergences: Atheism vs. Theism, Individualism vs. Community Engagement

The core philosophical differences among these groups are fundamental to their identities:

• Church of Satan (CoS): Founded by Anton LaVey, the CoS is fundamentally atheistic. It views Satan not as a literal deity but as a symbolic representation of the self—humanity’s natural instincts, pride, and individualism.³ Its philosophy emphasizes egoism, self-realization, and is often characterized as a “self-religion for productive misfits”.¹ The CoS explicitly opposes egalitarianism and supports social stratification based on individual merit and achievement, rather than engaging in broader social or political causes.¹¹ It maintains a purist approach to LaVey’s codified Satanism, often dismissing other Satanic groups as “reverse-Christians” or “pseudo-Satanists” who misunderstand the true principles.¹¹
• Temple of Set (ToS): Diverging sharply from LaVey’s atheism, the Temple of Set is a theistic organization that regards Satan (identified as the ancient Egyptian god Set) as a literal, existing deity.³ Its core focus is on “isolate intelligence” and “Xeper”—the esoteric process of self-deification and conscious self-creation, aiming for an immortality of consciousness.¹ Practices within ToS are typically secretive and membership is often by invitation only, reflecting an emphasis on internal spiritual progression and an elitist path.¹
• The Satanic Temple (TST): TST is non-theistic, similar to CoS in not worshipping a literal Satan. However, it interprets Satan as a symbol of the “eternal rebel” against arbitrary authority and social norms, rather than solely the individual self.¹ Its philosophy is characterized by compassion, empathy, justice, and a strong commitment to social activism.⁹ TST explicitly rejects LaVey’s ideas on hierarchy and self-centeredness in favor of a “left-wing,” “socially engaged” Satanism, which prioritizes community and collective action.¹¹ It views the Church of Satan as “irrelevant and inactive” due to its perceived lack of real-world engagement.²⁵

The significant internal conflicts and mutual dismissals between major Satanic organizations like the Church of Satan and The Satanic Temple ²⁵ reveal that “Modern Satanism” is not a unified movement but a highly contested ideological space. Different interpretations of Satan’s symbolism lead to vastly different ethical frameworks, organizational priorities, and approaches to societal engagement. The research clearly demonstrates that the Church of Satan “expresses vehement opposition to the campaigns and activities of The Satanic Temple” ²⁵, while TST “dismisses the Church of Satan as irrelevant and inactive”.²⁵ This is not merely a superficial rivalry; it stems from fundamental disagreements on core principles: CoS is apolitical and individualistic ¹⁴, whereas TST is explicitly political and community-oriented.²⁶ This tension is critical because it illustrates that the “core principles of Modern Satanism” are not universally agreed upon even by self-identified Satanists. Instead, the term acts as an umbrella for diverse philosophies that, while sharing a common symbolic ancestor (Satan as rebel), diverge significantly in their practical application and ethical priorities, a complexity often overlooked in public perception.

Approaches to Activism and Societal Engagement

The distinct philosophical underpinnings translate into vastly different modes of engagement with the wider world:

• Church of Satan (CoS): The Church of Satan is largely apolitical, focusing on individual aesthetic and self-actualization through psychodrama-like rituals.⁵ It generally remains indifferent to broader social and political concerns, asserting that “true Satanism” is apolitical.¹⁴
• Temple of Set (ToS): The Temple of Set’s engagement is primarily focused on individual esoteric development and internal spiritual progression, with less emphasis on public activism or societal reform. Its secretive nature and invitation-only membership further limit its outward-facing activities.¹
• The Satanic Temple (TST): In stark contrast, The Satanic Temple is explicitly activist-oriented and highly political.²⁶ It engages in high-profile public campaigns aimed at promoting secularism, individual liberties, civil rights, and social justice, often utilizing satire and legal challenges to achieve its goals.² TST seeks to leverage its religious status to challenge Christian dominance in public spaces and advocate for religious equality.²⁶

Internal Dynamics and Public Perception

The history of modern Satanism is marked by internal schisms and the emergence of splinter groups, reflecting ongoing ideological debates and personality conflicts.¹ The CoS and TST, despite sharing the “Satanic” label, are in direct opposition, with CoS accusing TST of “misappropriating” their brand and beliefs, while TST dismisses CoS as inactive and irrelevant.²⁵ This internal friction underscores the diversity and contested nature of modern Satanic identity.

Public perception often conflates all Satanic groups with historical stereotypes of “devil worship” and the discredited narratives of the “Satanic Panic”.¹ This persistent misunderstanding is striking. Interestingly, recent polls suggest Americans are more confident about the existence of Satan than God, yet their understanding of modern Satanism remains largely superficial and distorted by fear-mongering narratives.¹

The persistent public conflation of diverse modern Satanic groups with historical “devil worship” ¹ and the discredited narratives of the “Satanic Panic” ⁷ highlights the enduring power of ingrained cultural narratives and the profound difficulty of challenging deeply held religious prejudices, even in the face of contradictory evidence and explicit ethical statements from the groups themselves. Despite academic debunking of the Satanic Panic ⁷ and the clear ethical principles articulated by groups like TST ²⁵ and CoS ³, the public continues to largely associate “Satanism” with “obscure rituals, perverse hedonism, cult-like behavior, and tales of ritual abuse and murder”.¹ The fact that Americans are “more confident about the existence of Satan than they are of God” ³² yet misunderstand modern Satanism ¹ points to a powerful cultural inertia. This implies that the negative stereotype is not easily dislodged by factual information or the groups’ actual ethical stances. This resistance to acknowledging modern Satanism’s nuanced philosophies or positive contributions serves as a mirror reflecting broader societal challenges in achieving genuine religious pluralism and overcoming deeply embedded biases against non-normative belief systems.

To further illustrate these distinctions, the following table summarizes key aspects of the three primary modern Satanic organizations:

Table 1: Key Modern Satanic Organizations: Founding, Orientation, and Core Symbolic Meaning of Satan

VIII. Conclusion

The exploration of modern Satanism reveals a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that defies simplistic categorization and popular stereotypes. Far from being a monolithic movement dedicated to the worship of an evil entity, modern Satanism encompasses diverse philosophies, primarily emerging in the 20th century as self-identified religious and philosophical systems. The historical narrative demonstrates a crucial distinction between centuries of accusations of “devil worship” used for persecution and the deliberate self-identification of contemporary groups. This reappropriation of the “Satanic” label, particularly influenced by the Romantic re-evaluation of Satan as a heroic rebel, underscores a fundamental shift from being an object of fear to an archetype of defiance and individualism.

The Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey, established the most influential atheistic form of modern Satanism. Its core principles, articulated in the Nine Satanic Statements, Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, and Nine Satanic Sins, champion individualism, self-indulgence, and a pragmatic approach to life, rooted in a naturalistic view of humanity. LaVeyan Satanism’s emphasis on “Satan as self” and the rejection of external deities represents a radical form of secular humanism, challenging conventional definitions of religion. While incorporating rituals and “magic,” these practices are largely understood as psychodramas and psychological tools for self-transformation, rather than supernatural interventions.

In contrast, the Temple of Set represents a theistic dimension of modern Satanism, viewing Satan as a literal, existing deity identified with the ancient Egyptian god Set. This movement emphasizes “isolate intelligence” and “Xeper,” an esoteric path to self-deification and conscious self-creation, often characterized by a secretive and hierarchical structure. This philosophical divergence highlights the internal debates within modern Satanism regarding the ontological nature of Satan and the varied paths to self-actualization.

The Satanic Temple, a more recent and highly visible movement, distinguishes itself through its explicit focus on social justice and political activism. Non-theistic, TST interprets Satan as the “eternal rebel” against arbitrary authority, leveraging this symbolism to advocate for civil rights, secularism, and individual liberties. Its Seven Fundamental Tenets provide an ethical framework grounded in compassion, empathy, and scientific understanding. TST’s strategic “poison pill activism,” particularly in challenging Christian dominance in public spaces and advocating for reproductive rights, has significantly impacted discourse on religious freedom, compelling a re-evaluation of what constitutes a legitimate religion in a pluralistic society.

Despite the nuanced philosophies and ethical frameworks presented by these diverse movements, public perception often continues to conflate modern Satanism with historical “devil worship” and the discredited narratives of the “Satanic Panic.” This persistent misunderstanding reflects the enduring power of ingrained cultural narratives and the profound difficulty of challenging deeply held religious prejudices. The ongoing mischaracterization, even in the face of contradictory evidence, suggests that the “Satanic” label functions as a powerful societal mechanism for externalizing collective anxieties and reinforcing existing moral boundaries.

In conclusion, modern Satanism is a dynamic and evolving landscape of beliefs that, while provocative in its symbolism, fundamentally centers on themes of self-empowerment, autonomy, and a critical engagement with established authority. Understanding its core principles requires moving beyond sensationalism to appreciate its diverse philosophical underpinnings, its strategic engagement with societal issues, and its ongoing challenge to conventional notions of religion, morality, and identity in the contemporary world.

Works cited

1. Satanism | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/satanism
2. Satanism and Political Activism: The Complex Nexus – Politics and Rights Review, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://politicsrights.com/satanism-and-political-activism/
3. Satanism | Definition, Beliefs, Symbols, & Anton LaVey | Britannica, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Satanism
4. Satanism – Wikipedia, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism
5. Church of Satan | Anton LaVey, Founder, Rituals, Beliefs, & Leader …, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Church-of-Satan
6. Modern Satanism: Anatomy of a Radical Subculture – ResearchGate, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375106874_Modern_Satanism_Anatomy_of_a_Radical_Subculture
7. The origins and lessons of the ‘Satanic Panic’ of the 1980s – Competitive Enterprise Institute, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://cei.org/blog/the-origins-and-lessons-of-satanic-panic-of-the-1980s/
8. Satanic panic – Wikipedia, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic
9. The Satanic Temple – Wikipedia, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple
10. Anton Lavey’s Satanic Philosophy: An Analysis – DigitalCommons@USU, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=imwjournal
11. LaVeyan Satanism – Wikipedia, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism
12. Satanism – Founders, Philosophies & Branches | HISTORY, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.history.com/articles/satanism
13. Satanic Symbolism: Reshaping Norms and Culture – Politics and Rights Review, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://politicsrights.com/satanic-symbolism-reshaping-norms-and-culture/
14. Church of Satan – Wikipedia, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan
15. Satanism: Psychiatric and Legal Views | American Journal of Psychiatry, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.6.981
16. Conviction of Things Not Seen: The Uniquely American Myth of Satanic Cults, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://psmag.com/social-justice/make-a-cross-with-your-fingers-its-the-satanic-panic/
17. The Satanic Bible – Wikipedia, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible
18. Quote by Anton Szandor LaVey: “THE NINE SATANIC STATEMENTS 1. Satan represent…” – Goodreads, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/11267922-the-nine-satanic-statements-1-satan-represents-indulgence-instead-of
19. The Nine Satanic Statements – Church of Satan, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://churchofsatan.com/nine-satanic-statements/
20. The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth – Church of Satan, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://churchofsatan.com/eleven-rules-of-earth/
21. The Nine Satanic Sins – Church of Satan, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://churchofsatan.com/nine-satanic-sins/
22. Theory / Practice – Church of Satan, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://churchofsatan.com/theory-practice/
23. Temple of Set – Wikipedia, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Set
24. Setianism / Theistic Satanism AMA : r/religion – Reddit, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/bag5xo/setianism_theistic_satanism_ama/
25. About us – TST – The Satanic Temple, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us
26. Religiously Nonreligious in: Religion and Society Volume 14 Issue 1 (2023) – Berghahn Journals, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/religion-and-society/14/1/arrs140113.xml
27. Satanic Temple Tenets – Pinterest, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.pinterest.com/ideas/satanic-temple-tenets/955042998551/
28. THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS – TST – The Satanic Temple, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets
29. Religiously Nonreligious – The Secular Activism of The Satanic Temple – Berghahn Journals, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/religion-and-society/14/1/arrs140113.pdf
30. CHURCH OF SATAN VS. SATANIC TEMPLE – TST, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/church-of-satan-vs-satanic-temple
31. A Cabal of Outsiders: Negotiating the (Virtual) Boundaries of the Church of Satan., accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371959301_A_Cabal_of_Outsiders_Negotiating_the_Virtual_Boundaries_of_the_Church_of_Satan
32. American Worldview Inventory 2020 – At a Glance Americans Continue to Redefine – and Reject – God – Arizona Christian University, accessed on May 22, 2025, https://www.arizonachristian.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CRC-AWVI-2020-Release-03_Perceptions-of-God.pdf