Satanism: An Emic Approach
Since April 30, 1966, when Satanism was unleashed upon the world, we Satanists have seen the pendulum of public opinion swing in a multitude of directions. From the mixture of curiosity and fear of the 1960s to the hatred and rage of the Satanic Panic in the 1980s, Satanists have spent over half a century navigating uncharted waters to ensure our survival. And yet after decades of being treated with fear and hostility, we have reached a new and possibly more unsettling state: perceived tolerance. Satanism has been in the public eye long enough to gain a foothold of public acceptance, and when coupled with the cornucopia of misrepresentation that is available at the speed of a Google search, it is no surprise that the world of academia has decided to step into the ring.
This new contender brings with it a form of assumed expertise. People tend to rely on scholars and, in many cases, that’s not a bad idea. The real problem arises when reliance embraces the fallacious, as is the case with the logical flaw known as the “argument from authority.” People are not right simply because they are scholars, which makes citing them a slippery slope. Experts regularly disagree on many different subjects, and when that is the case, there is a natural tendency for people to simply pick the scholar that aligns with their preconceived notions. We see this in politics, history, economics, and every other subject imaginable.
So, where does this leave Satanism? Who are these self-proclaimed experts? Satanists understand that there were no fully realized examples of Satanism as a codified religion before LaVey. In We Are Satanists, Magistra Blanche Barton recalls how LaVey once addressed this subject while discussing accusations of Satanic abuse during the “Satanic Panic” when he stated that,
“There was no modern, organized Satanic movement until the Church of Satan, and here are all these middle-aged women telling how they were raped and tortured as children, when their parents belonged to a Satanic cult? That would have been in the 1940s. There were none! Lord knows, I looked.”
Times have changed. In sixty years, we have gone from “no scholars of Satanism” to them crawling out of the woodwork, many of whom are thought to be experts that can be trusted by the unwary beginning research into this topic. One scholar who has been lauded as an “expert on Satanism” is Dr. Per Faxneld, an associate professor in the Study of Religions at Södertörn University in Stockholm. He has written several books, given many lectures and interviews about Satanism and is widely regarded to be qualified. But, I wonder, what makes a person an expert on Satanism? It’s not “having a degree,” as there is no degree on Satanism. Even if there were, it would still be fallacious if it was not presented by actual practitioners of Satanism.
It is with this question in mind that I want to examine one interview with Dr. Faxneld. However, for this exercise, we Satanists are holding the magnifying glass up to the so-called experts to see if THEY can rise to OUR standards. Lex Talionis. You’ve judged us, now let us return the favor.
On July 17, 2022, Dr. Angela Puca hosted Dr. Faxneld on her podcast titled “Angela’s Symposium.” Dr. Puca is a scholar with a degree in Philosophy who hosts a podcast that features experts on a variety of topics in the esoteric world. So, we have two supposed scholars in a position of “expertise,” poised to discuss Satanism with seeming authority.
I felt it was important for the sake of accuracy to transcribe the entire 48-minute interview, which will allow us to properly evaluate their own words as-stated. There is so much that can be lost in the speed of conversation for the listener that I wanted to make sure we can pause and evaluate every claim properly. Before we begin, I will define two important terms that must remain at the forefront of the interview: “emic” and “etic.” Simply put, “emic” is the study of a demographic from within the point of view of members in that demographic, while an “etic” approach is an examination from an outsider’s view. As Satanists, we know that Satanism began in 1966 with Anton LaVey. We know that before LaVey, there was no codified religion by the name of “Satanism.” We know that almost every use of the word “Satanism” before 1966 was an accusation rather than a declaration. The rare times where Satanism was used as a declaration, it was used in a Christian context rather than a stand-alone, fully realized religion. That is our understanding but what will the experts reveal?
Presenting an emic review of “What is Satanism? Interview with Dr. Per Faxneld” dated July 17, 2022. Link: https://youtu.be/s3R9PgHbf4U
Note: “AP” is Dr. Angela Puca. “PF” is Dr. Per Faxneld. This is a direct transcription of their conversation.
AP: “So the first thing I’d like to ask you is, what is Satanism and when did it start?”
PF: That’s a pretty, pretty big and broad question…there are of course multiple academic attempts to define what is Satanism. But the definition that I tend to operate with is that Satanism is the, shall we say, reverence or adoration or positive reinterpretation of the figure of the Devil or Satan or Lucifer. The figure, of course, has many names, formulated as a more or less coherent system of thought. So that’s a pretty basic definition for you. And of course, there’s a lot that could be subsumed under this heading. And there are also groups that might not be too keen, themselves, on being labelled “Satanic,” that could also fit with this definition.”
We have a problem here immediately. This is the definition Faxneld operates with, but does that make his definition correct? Satanism had been defined before he was born, let alone a scholar, so what makes his view the appropriate one to go with? As a Satanist, I reject his definition without exception. As a scholar, so should he.
Scholars of Judaism and Christianity know that “Satan” as The Devil is not a Jewish doctrine, it’s a Christian creation. The problem is that Faxneld is apparently not a scholar of Judaism or Christianity. If he was, he would know that Lucifer is also not the same as the Devil or Satan. Lucifer was a standalone figure that has a simple, limited background only being mentioned three times in the entire Hebrew Bible. He’s a minor character. In the same way a person who gets too cocky might be told they’re “Flying too close to the sun,” as is embodied in the ancient Greek myth of Icarus, so is Lucifer’s impact on Judaic literature. He is nothing more than a one-liner warning about pride. “Don’t get too proud! Remember what happened to Lucifer!” It is important to note that Lucifer is not equivalent to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe the serpent is “nachash” which means serpent. The Hebrew word for Lucifer is “helel.” The serpent is unequivocally not Lucifer.
Jews did not develop a concept of the devil until much later in time, around 200 BCE, and even then, this devil had no name. There are also no instances where this devil was thought to be the serpent, Lucifer, or Satan, and not every Jewish sect thought this devil even existed! For the Apocalyptic Jews who did believe, this devil was an unnamed and unseen force of evil, very similar to what we see in real Satanism. LaVey clearly did his homework. Did Faxneld? LaVey defines Satanism in The Satanic Bible and cites the Hebrew origin of the word. While he proudly takes on the image associated with the Christian ‘Satan,’ he very clearly defines Satanism using the Hebrew word, which we know means ‘adversary,’ ‘opponent,’ ‘accuser,’ and ‘obstacle.’ And consider that with the serpent, Satan, the Devil, and Lucifer all being different characters, why would Faxneld define them in such a way that lumps them all together? This melding of these characters is a post-Christian concept, a sort of historical pop-culture distortion of characters whose origins stem from Judaic writings. Viewing Satanism from a Christian lens is intellectually dishonest, and worse, rather than taking a scholarly approach to the topic, which one might expect from a credentialled academic, we get an imprecise gloss.
In a discussion with Church of Satan High Priest, Peter H. Gilmore, he explained to me that he opposes “using the term ‘Satanism’ for all these various disjointed points of view. They aren’t always necessarily “adversarial,” hence Satanic may not be the proper adjective, especially when Lucifer is brought in. I prefer ‘Diabolism’ as a superior catch-all definition, and Demonolatry when groups or individuals select certain alternative demonic entities to be the focus of concentration. And ‘Devil worship’ for those who believe in Satan as an entity, either as a solo being or as part of a Christian framework.”
PF: “So, we have to bear in mind that this is what we would call an ‘etic’ definition as opposed to an ‘emic’ definition. So, it’s not necessarily the insider definition but rather a scholarly construct that we, as scholars, work with to delimit a phenomenon that we want to study. Now in my book “Satanic Feminism,” I further divide Satanism into two categories, where one is Satanism in the strict sense, which would be a system of thought primarily focusing on a positive reinterpretation of Satan. And the second one would be Satanism in a more broad sense, where the positive interpretation is just employed strategically as part of a much larger system which may encompass other Gods or entities and where Satan is not the primary one. Or it could be part of a political strategy, for example, and that was the first part of your question.”
Right away, Faxneld admits that his view is that of an outsider’s. You might ask what grants his outsider’s view on Satanism more authority than the view of actual Satanists? His degree? This pattern of thought creates a fertile ground for non-Satanists to justify their own pseudo-Satanic understanding of Satanism.
PF: “And the second one is when did Satanism start? And again, that depends on if we’re talking about Satanism in the strict sense, like a complete system of thought focusing on this positive interpretation of Satan—that is, in fact, a lot later than you might think. But the more broad version of Satanism has its beginnings in the late 18th century with romantic poets. Poets who were typically political radicals and were enthusiastic readers of John Milton’s epic “Paradise Lost.” And of course, in “Paradise Lost,” John Milton gives a portrayal of Lucifer which, at the outset, comes across as quite heroic. Later on, of course, it’s revealed that his motives are biased and he is a fairly unpleasant, cowardly character. But in the early parts of “Paradise Lost” there’s this, sort of, seeming lauding, almost, of the figure Lucifer. And reading Milton as being positive towards the Devil was something that people had been doing for quite a while, actually, in the immediate time of when it was written. Because Milton himself was the private secretary of Oliver Cromwell the revolutionary, against the crown of England. So people understood quite early on “Paradise Lost” as an allegory of the English Civil War where God would be in the monarch and Lucifer would be Cromwell, the revolutionary. And this is why it was understood by certain readers as Milton, in fact, praising the revolutionary because of his own revolutionary background and this was a tradition that the romantics picked up on. But they focused specifically on the figure of Lucifer and started producing texts of their own where they reworked this character into a sort of icon of revolution. And this became an established theme in literature and it spread all across Europe and subsequently was picked up on by socialists of various stripes, all across the continent. And at this time, of course, it’s just Satanism in the broad sense, right. So, it’s not Satanism as a whole system of thought just focusing specifically on Satan, it’s just a part of a reservoir of sort of submersive symbols being employed.”
Here Faxneld argues that Satanism began in the late 18th century with romantic poets. These are poets who read Milton, who was a Christian and was not creating an alternative religion, let alone one by the name of Satanism. If he is not citing Milton as the one to create Satanism, rather, it was these romantic poets. Who are they? He will address this in the coming commentary, but I wanted to draw attention to the fact that Faxneld says Satanism began with inspiration drawn from Milton, a Christian author, who did not create a religion, but crafted a political allegory based on an elaboration of select elements from Christian literature.
AP: “It’s a cultural wave.”
PF: “It’s a cultural wave, absolutely and of course, it’s very much tied up with the early history of secularism and secularization. So, these figures were often quite keen on getting rid of the influence of the church and creating these counter-myths where they reinterpreted the Devil as a positive figure. Romantic authors like Shelley, actually sought to destabilize the mythology of Christianity that he felt was one of the pillars, supporting the present order that he wanted to tear down, right. So that’s the sort of early roots of Satanism.”
Satanism’s origins, according to Faxneld, stem from romantic poets looking to tear down Christian mythology. But did any of these poets claim that title for themselves? Did they employ Satan or Lucifer as the lead figure in a contrary, oppositional religion that they would name to be “Satanism”? Mary Shelley was essentially a Christian, but Percy Bysshe Shelley was an avid atheist. Faxneld says that authors “like Shelley” are the “early roots” of Satanism, but at no point did he ever claim to be a Satanist or practice Satanism. While later thinkers might enjoy Shelley’s rejection of God and his use of Satanic imagery as inspirational, Shelley himself would most likely have been distressed by being seen as a proto-Satanist, considering at that point Satanism was still an accusation against people which involved supposition of revolting rites and disgusting behaviors. One might then ask if it is intellectually dishonest to bestow a title upon Percy Shelley that he did not claim for himself?
PF: “But at this point, no one in esoteric context was saying anything particularly positive about Satan. That’s a much later development almost one hundred years later, in fact. And we find the first sort of tendencies, in that direction, in some of the writings of Éliphas Lévi, where he identifies the quite complicated concept, in his cosmology, called the Astral Light. He identifies that with, well, with a lot of things; with the Holy Spirit but also with Lucifer and there’s a like tiny opening there in the direction of an esoteric Satanism. Now, of course, Éliphas Lévi considered himself a Christian and his Luciferian sympathies are embedded within a generally Christian framework.”
Faxneld just introduced two terms that he has not defined, “esoteric Satanism” and “Luciferian.” Contemporary Luciferians are generally quick to distinguish themselves from Satanists and many do not like being associated with Satanism at all. Faxneld just tied them together. He also did not define “esoteric Satanism.” He never does at any point in this interview. This is just a term we are supposed to know but given how scattered his views already are, a definition would have been helpful. And, noting Lévi was a mystic working within a Christian framework, he too would likely not be pleased to be recalled by history as promoting anything called “esoteric Satanism.”
PF: “But later on, other esoteric writers would pick up on this notion and turn it into something more fully fledged. And one of those or actually the key figure in this context was Helena Petrovna Blavatasky, one of the founders of the Theopsophical Society and its first major ideologue. And in Blavatsky’s, perhaps, most famous work “The Secret Doctrine” from 1888, there are several passages where she makes a radical reinterpretation of the figure of the Devil and what’s interesting here is that she uses the names Satan, Lucifer, and the Devil interchangeably. So, it’s clearly the same figure to her in these passages. And what she presents is a drastic reinterpretation of the fall of man. So, the events in the Garden of Eden, the eating of the forbidden fruit. And this is also interesting because this was such a key passage in the discourse of Christianity that sought to keep women in their place. Of course, you know the story with the eating of the forbidden fruit and how Eve was the first to accept the forbidden fruit from the Devil or from the serpent, actually, in the biblical narrative which was later on identified in Christian theology as the Devil. And because of this, Eve was seen as weaker and more susceptible to the guiles of the Devil than her male counterpart. But with Blavatsky, this narrative is turned on its head. So, the punishments meted out to Eve would no longer be fair punishments, for example, that she would give birth to children in great pain and things like that. And this had been used politically by, for example, medical doctors arguing for not administering pain relief to women giving birth because this was supposed to be a punishment for of God for Eve’s transgression—quite horrible. And this was also used in the rhetoric of Witch-hunters and inquisitors of the infamous Malleus Maleficarum who also argued that woman was particularly susceptible to the Satanic.”
Faxneld is fully aware that Madame Blavatsky is a founder of the Theosophical Society. She never claimed to be the founder of Satanism, nor does she claim to be a Satanist. And as Faxneld points out, Blavatsky assumes the serpent, Lucifer, Satan, and the Devil are the same figure. Yet another mistake where a post-Christian concept, a bastardization of Judaism, is offered to the listener as facts, and we are expected to simply accept this claim. Jews to this very day do not think the serpent, Lucifer, or Satan are the same character. This is another example of people converting Jewish mythology in hopes that it will allow their Christian peg to fit into a Satanic hole. Blavatsky did it to the Jews, Faxneld is following her distortion and doing it for Satanism.
Faxneld continues his pairing of the word ‘esoteric’ to ‘Satanic’ as if this makes something new. “Esoteric” simply means “intended for a small audience.” I can accept the idea that Blavatsky was an esoteric author, as few would spend the time reading her vast amount of mythological ramblings, but I see no reason to think she was a Satanist. She certainly did not claim the title for herself.
PF: “So this had had drastic consequences in European history, of course. Now Blavatsky then she turns the story on its head she says that Satan is not our enemy, Satan is the bringer of Gnosis, the serpent gives us a fantastic gift—setting our cosmic evolution in motion, he has a bringer of esoteric wisdom. So that’s a completely different story and of course, this also re-frames Eve’s role in this drama. And quite a few early Theosophical women picked up on this and saw the implications of what Blavatsky was doing here, and they used this in their own attacks on patriarchal Christianity, used this counter-myth that Blavatsky came up with. But in terms of the history of esotericism what Blavatsky did here was that she established a tradition of esoteric Satanism. Now I would never call Madame Blavatsky a Satanist, because she is just definitely not in the strict sense. If you look in her writings if there’s a figure she repeatedly returns to and praises it would be the Buddha, so it is not Satan. So in that sense, of course, it is not a Satanic system of thought at all. But....
“…she established a tradition of esoteric Satanism. Now I would never call Madame Blavatsky a Satanist….” Make that make sense. Explain it to me like I’m a child. She did not call herself a Satanist. She created esoteric Satanism? Faxneld would not call her a Satanist. This sloppy reasoning is from a person widely regarded as an authority on Satanism. Are you convinced?
AP: “It laid the foundations.”
PF: “It laid the foundations. Exactly.”
AP: “Yeah, especially the theoretical foundations for esoteric Satanism.”
PF: “Yes. Definitely. On the other hand then, if you want to find a complete system of Satanic thought, someone who is consistently using the symbol of the Devil, then we have to move ahead a few years in time and also shift location to Berlin where we find a very curious character called Stanislav Pryzbyszewski who was a Polish, decadent, proto-expressionist author. Also, an art critic and a very important figure in the art world, who formulated a system of Satanic thought where Satan was the central symbol. A symbol of creativity and evolution. So, in a way, similar to Blavatsky, even though he didn’t particularly like Blavatsky, actually. So that is, what I would say, the first system of Satanic thought. So, in a strict sense then, Stanislav Pryzbyszewski would have been the first Satanist.”
AP: “And when did the esoteric Satanism (pauses), so after him, how did it develop?”
PF: “I mean Stanislav Pryzbyszewski was really interested in the occult, in parapsychology and especially in, sort of, medieval black magic and things like that. But he was quite dismissive of most of the esoteric traditions of his own day. So, his system was not really an esoteric system of Satanism but rather something a bit in between.”
It should be stated up front that Pryzbyszewski did declare himself to be a Satanist. However, if you read the context of the term as he used it, it was in a Christian sense and also for shock value. He was a sort of Howard Stern of his day. With that out of the way, there is a lot to unpack here. Faxneld just introduced Pryzbyszewski to us, stated that he created a system of Satanic thought, but that it was not an esoteric system of Satanism, since he was not a fan of Blavatsky’s concepts and she’s credited by Faxneld to have set that in motion. Anyone who has taken the time to sludge through Synagogue of Satan, knows that there is nothing in that book that defines Satanism as a religion, even if the author took on the title of “Satanist.” The book is a compendium of medieval thinking about witches, and his calling himself a Satanist was likely meant as a sign of his sympathy for what he saw as the revolutionary posture of past witches. The entire book is a reaction to Christianity, and a reaction that I would define as a “hissy fit” at best. Like Faxneld’s train of thought here, Synagogue of Satan is ultimately an incoherent, stream-of-consciousness writing with more claims than evidence. It is not intended as a manifesto for a new religious movement. Instead, Pryzbyszewski, who struggled with alcoholism, was far more concerned with his participation in the Polish decadent arts movement of his time. He embraced various left-wing modes of thought then being explored in arts and literature prior to the First World War. If one examines the Polish Wikipedia entry about him, we find this translated quote from his writings from the year before his death: "I declare that in the Catholic faith in which I was born, I want to live and die. I sincerely regret all the offenses against the principles of this faith and want to fix everything. Stanisław Przybyszewski devoted to the Catholic Church as deeply and as possible. Warsaw, 20. X. 1926."
Regarding Pryzbyszewski, Magus Gilmore adds that, “The only ‘wide influence’ of Pryzbyszewski is derived from these “scholars” who, post the life of Dr. LaVey, want to claim his influence as being crucial to Satanism in an effort to diminish LaVey’s achievement. That essay was only available in German until 2002, when Setian and Asatru Master Stephen Flowers published the first English language translation. Pryzbyszewski thus had very little influence on the people he knew in any religious sense, and certainly the only people claiming to be Satanists these days look him up solely because these contemporary academics keep mentioning him….”
PF: “And if we’re thinking of a well-developed Satanic esoteric system of a thought, then that only happens a few later, and this time in Copenhagen where this a fairly obscure local eccentric called Ben Kadosh, his real name was Carl William Hansen. He was a member of a great variety of initiatory societies and masonic orders and things like that. You could almost say he sort of collected degrees in various esoteric orders. And he came up with a system, an esoteric system of thought, that he presented in a pamphlet that he sought to distribute widely where he places Satan as the central figure in an esoteric system. We know that his ambition was to recruit people for his Satanic circle, but it’s quite uncertain how many people actually did participate in the activities. We know that he had a few adherents and there is some rather wonderful visual materials produced by members of his circle that is preserved at the Royal Library in Copenhagen. We know there was some activity going on but we don’t really have that many details. So that, I would say, is the first Satanic organization in a sense but is of course it’s a miniscule one.”
Until this point, Faxneld has used the word “esoteric” to refer to “intended for a small audience”. Now we see that Kadosh came up with an “esoteric system of thought” that he “sought to distribute widely”. Which is it? The answer is irrelevant because this “Satanic” organization was “a miniscule one,” which failed to propagate during his lifetime beyond a few local associates. More to the point, he used Lucifer, not Satan. Examining his biography on Wikipedia, we learn that C. W. Hansen was a farmer who at first was part of the mystical Christian sect of Martinism, and then was influenced by French Gnostics, with alchemy and astrology as primary interests. He was in contact with Swedish literary figure and alchemist August Strindberg, who was also associated with Pryzbyszewski. Hansen was thus involved with gnostic Freemasonry and the O.T.O as his conceptual focus, but his Luciferian thoughts were limited to a very small circle of associates, until 2005. Then, a neo-Luciferian church was founded by Danish occultist Bjarne Salling Pedersen and the American occultist and Voodoo practitioner Michael Bertiaux. This organization incorporates aspects of Thelema, Gnosticism, Voodoo, general occultism, and witchcraft. If seen through a Christian lens, one might assign “Satanism” to this endeavor, but clearly this is another example of a Luciferian label being used for a sort of blend of various non-Christian beliefs which also employ Lucifer as a symbol. And this was only disseminated beginning in 2005, long after the founding and popularization of the Church of Satan. Thus, we have another example of a modern scholar forcing a title on an author from the past, who was essentially largely unknown until modern occultists latched on to his obscure writings and even they didn’t go for “Satanism” to define what their undertakings, for they were aware of LaVey’s works and had no interest in any connection with them.
PF: “And then if we move a little bit further ahead in time, we find in Germany a group called “Fraternitas Saturni” – the brotherhood of Saturn. And this group is perhaps not one that you could describe as Satanic per se, but they did identify Saturn, the central symbol of the order, with Satan and perceive Satan as sort of an initiator in the tradition of Blavatsky. And in this group, they also celebrated a type of Luciferian masses. So, they had some sort of ritual practice going, and they had this identification of their primary symbol, Saturn, with Satan. We can at least say that in this fairly well-populated order, there was some Satanic content even though they were working with a lot of symbols and entities simultaneously.”
“…not one that you would describe as Satanic per se.” Then why is it being brought up in a conversation about Satanism? If you know that association with Saturn is not association with Satan, why mention it at all? At best, this is just a time-filler. At worst, this is misinformation being weaponized for Faxneld’s own agenda, and we’ve already seen him admit in this very interview that that’s what modern scholars do.
PF: “And then in the 1930s, we have the first instance of a more or less public Satanic esoteric group, which was run by a woman called Maria Naglowska. And this group organized a type of black masses that were almost like theatrical events to which the general public could have access by paying a fee. And she also published a magazine detailing her rather idiosyncratic esoteric “Satanic” (PF used air quotes here) idea. And I would put that in quotation marks because her ideas are also so very much anchored in a Christian worldview where Satan is actually primarily an important part of God’s plan. So that’s his function. It’s not really the lauding of Satan that comes before but rather the important function that Satan supposedly has in God’s grander plan.”
Once again, we are faced with Satanism being defined through a Christian lens, where the title of Satanist is given to people who did not claim it for themselves. This is in my estimation intellectually dishonest. No amount of time makes it ok to bestow a title on someone who did not take it for themselves. They’re not alive to defend themselves, which makes for unsportsmanlike behavior on Faxneld’s part. An author shouldn’t have to add disclaimers against future unforeseen titles but thanks to “scholarly” work like we see here, this might become a necessity. One’s theatrical writing might be taken as having literal intent.
AP: “I think now people tend to distinguish between theistic and atheistic Satanism, would you make the same distinction when it comes to the contemporary Satanic milieu, or do you think it is an oversimplification?”
PF: “It is to some degree an oversimplification if you look at someone like Anton LaVey. Of course, he is primarily an atheist but there are also some passages that can be seen as a possible leakage of a theistic tendency into his Satanism. Where he speaks, for example, about Satan as a dark force in nature but, on the whole, it is an atheistic system and that is something that has been very much emphasized by those handling LaVey’s legacy and the taking of the Church of Satan into our century. These distinctions are for me as a scholar something we would have to take on a case-by-case basis to decide what’s useful for what we want to do as scholars.
1: How is one primarily an atheist? A scholar ought to know that ‘belief’ is a true dichotomy. One either believes or does not. If a person is unsure, they cannot possibly argue that they DO believe. 2: Does Faxneld assume ALL theatrical writing should be taken literally? Judging by his stating that the previously mentioned authors are “Satanists,” I think they may very well be the case here. 3: Why would a scholar need to decide what is useful for what THEY want as scholars? This statement appears to be suggesting that scholars create their own narrative rather than delivering the facts as-is. And that is actually the admission of what Faxneld and his disciples are doing. I wonder if a more stringent scholar would reach different conclusions regarding these very same authors if their goal was to simply show what we know about past events and beliefs? This entire commentary feels as if Faxneld is not only placing his own view onto authors of the past but is claiming that this is an acceptable practice for scholars. I reject all of this. An author’s work ought to speak for itself. I do not care what any scholar “wants to do” regarding someone else’s prior work. This is no different than a TV reporter spreading misinformation to the public on your local news, the difference is that we do not assume every news reporter is an expert on the subject they’re speaking about.
AP: “And it’s always the distinction between the emic and the etic.”
PF: “Yes. Yes.”
AP: (Defines terms)
PF: There can be a discrepancy but, in some cases, depending on what you want to do in your scholarly project, it might be better just to stick with the emic definitions and not come up with a definition of your own. It all depends on what goal you have set for yourself for that specific project.”
Gee. You think? But that doesn’t sell books or fill auditoriums, or get grants and fellowships to study a subject, does it? If your goal is to accurately portray what happened in history, there should be no added spin to an author’s works. Just report what we know about their views, don’t tell us how to think about it. This intentional subjectivism and re-interpretation of past thinkers to fit Faxneld’s rather overly broad concept of Satanism strikes me as the antithesis of what I’d define as scholarship.
AP: “And I was also interested in knowing about the relation between Satanism and the Left-Hand Path. Yesterday we were mentioning that and the connection that we grant.”
PF: “Sure. And that’s a complicated history and to some degree the Left-Hand Path can be perceived as an umbrella term that will also encompass Satanism, but the interpretation of the Left-Hand Path, which is of course an Indian concept to begin with, in this western occult milieu is something that partly must be understood against a background of Satanism. In a way it’s a post-Satanic development. So, Anton LaVey, for example, uses the term ‘Left-Hand Path’, and it’s also something that’s present in popular culture before LaVey, as like an alternative name for Satanism. So, you find that in Dennis Wheatley, the British author of occult-inspired, trashy fiction. He uses that in his fiction and the term itself doesn’t become broadly used within the esoteric milieu as a self-description until a bit later after LaVey came up with the term in “The Satanic Bible.” It had been floating around, for example, in Theosophy. But Theosophy pretty much used the term as a derogatory one, inspired by colonial constructs of the Left-Hand Path as sort of antinomian, transgressive, negative practice that they really would not recommend any proper Theosophist to engage with.
Did you catch the ping pong act here? The term ‘Left-Hand Path’ is an Indian concept to begin with, it’s a post-Satanic development, it was popular before LaVey, and LaVey came up with the term in The Satanic Bible (written in 1969). Which is it? At this point I am convinced that Dr. Faxneld is recalling the past in a fragmented manner that he is not clarifying, nor making coherent, in this talk.
PF: (continued from previous comment) “But an author like Kenneth Grant, who was, of course, one of Aleister Crowley’s disciples, incorporated this into his magical texts and began using this as a more or less positive self-designation. And he sort of mixed this up with both concepts from Indian Tantra and also various western antinomian traditions and dark, transgressive figures. And in this context, we could say that the Left-Hand Path is a type of esoteric spirituality that tends to focus on the dark antinomian symbols and entities and it is also very often connected to the notion of self-deification. So, an esoteric practice employing dark antinomian symbolism, focused on self-deification and in that sense, something like Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan would fit perfectly well with the definition. But it’s something that becomes more stressed, in terms of terminology, in groups that arose from the Church of Satan like the Temple of Set, the group that broke off in 1975 with the theme of self-deification, which was present in the Church of Satan, but in a more secular manner. Now it became something of a metaphysical, esoteric project, an actual literal self-deification—you would turn yourself in a living God or become a God after the death of your physical body.
This is a strange statement to make. Claiming that the Church of Satan fits “perfectly well” with anything that is antinomian is either a complete misunderstanding of Satanism, antinomianism, or both. Antinomianism is a view that Christians are exempt from moral law due to having received grace from God. Did you catch the part that fits perfectly well with Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan? I didn’t. Antinomianism was a hot point among many Christian church leaders over the centuries who engaged in the “faith vs. works” debate. Some Christian church leaders argued in favor of faith being enough to save a person (sola fide) while others insisted it was not enough, and that one must act in accordance with God’s law to maintain salvation (sola scriptura). Please explain to me how any of these ideas fits “perfectly well” with the Church of Satan.
Faxneld continues by mentioning Michael Aquino’s separation from the CoS and subsequent creation of the Temple of Set. How is this connected to antinomianism? It isn’t. You can throw as many syllables at the audience as you like, but Satanists are going to examine your words, and this train of thought is not painting the image of an expert understanding of Satanism or Christianity. It seems that some authors have more recently tried to redefine antinomianism away from its original Christian definition. They latch on to the phrase “being exempt from the obligations of the moral law” but neglect that this exemption was considered to be granted due to the grace of God received through faith. Now some authors want to spin it as meaning modes of thought that are contrary to Christian morality, yet that was not its actual definition.
AP: “And there are contemporary practitioners that have the, you know, the “become a living God” sort of statement as part of their practice. So basically, it is not really that Satanism comes out of the Left-Hand Path but more like the Left-Hand Path that developed after Satanism?”
PF: “To some degree we could see it as a post-Satanic development even though the term was floating around like Kenneth Grant prior to that.
Here, Faxneld is simply repeating a contradiction he expressed only moments ago. I still fail to see how something can be both a post-Satanic development and exist prior to that development. Is it quantum Satanism? Is this Schrodinger’s Left-Hand Path?
AP: “And what are the forms of Satanism that are contemporary, present at the moment?”
PF: Of course, we still have a strong Church of Satan present but there are so many varieties. It’s a really rich field of study because of that and that’s one of the first things you have to explain to students or journalists, that there’s not just one form of Satanism. Because you will often get questions like, ‘so is it like this in Satanism?’ And then you have to explain that there, you know, various Satanisms, so in the plural. But, of course, we have the Church of Satan still around, we have the Church of Satan offshoot, Temple of Set, which perhaps should not be designated Satanism proper because of their re-framing of the figure of Satan using different terminology. And we have the quite peculiar form of Satanism that arose in the Nordic countries in the late 80s, early 90s, with the Black Metal Satanism, which is extremely anti-social and transgressive. Which was famously connected to several murders and a great number of church burnings in the Scandinavian countries, in the early 1990s. And this is a very strongly theistic form of Satanism which also emphasizes Satan as an evil figure, which is quite interesting because that’s something you don’t often find in Satanism, generally. More Satanists would consider the devil to be the good guy, but these folks instead emphasized the nature of Satan and embraced that. And then we have the politically progressive Satanism that is now taking the world by storm. And I would say that’s probably the biggest form of Satanism today. It’s something that’s growing at an immense pace which has a real impact as well in more mainstream contexts in a way that we haven’t really seen with Satanism in quite a while.”
There is so much speculation here, and it is sprinkled across a field of misconception and fallacious reasoning. He must explain that there are multiple kinds of Satanism because he holds a definition of Satanism that is not historically accurate. He created his own definition and despite not having the authority to do so, he impresses his definition onto others, and he is not even a Satanist. He’s like Oprah handing out cars. “You’re a Satanist! You’re a Satanist! You’re a Satanist!” I am willing to grant that with this mindset, it truly is a “really rich field of study”.
The Temple of Set is not “designated Satanism proper” because they’re not designated Satanists at all! They do not claim to be. They are Setians. Aquino departed the Church of Satan in 1975 and founded a new religion. One would think that Lucifer-centered past beliefs might have their preference honored and not just be lumped into a catch-all “Satanism” label. Dr. Faxneld seems to think that anyone who mentions Satan, or Lucifer, or The Devil, or anything demonic in any capacity is automatically a Satanist. His books must write themselves with the opportunities presented by that flawed logic and overly expansive perspective.
If the Nordic “Satanism” appears peculiar, that is likely because they are not Satanists. Again, simply mentioning Satan does not make one a Satanist, and Black Metal is a musical genre not a religion. It is not both. One could make a religion by that name, but no one has. Despite what this scholar appears to believe, creating a religion requires a lot more than simply mentioning a Christian bad guy in your song lyrics. Where is the band that announced what Black Metal Satanism stands for? What lyric sheet codified the religion? I’ll wait.
“Politically progressive Satanism” most likely refers to The Satanic Temple, and if so, it is rather amusing that he omitted their name, but it is strange to call them “the biggest form of Satanism today” for one simple reason; how many members does the Church of Satan have? If you do not know the answer, you cannot logically claim to know which form of Satanism is the biggest. I can assure you that Faxneld does not know how many members are in the Church of Satan. His comment is pure speculation, but I’m willing to bet that an organization like The Satanic Temple, who is willing to accept anyone who applies, probably is “growing at an immense pace.” Their own website states that “membership is free.” You simply provide an email address and you’re a member. You do not even have to agree with TST’s views before joining, as stated in their section titled “Can I join TST if I have supernatural beliefs?” With standards set that low, I am sure they are growing the fastest. Nothing says “Satanic” quite like gathering anyone who can submit an email address.
AP: “And do you think that Satanism is necessarily Christian or linked to Christianity? I’m thinking about this because I’m aware that there is controversy in Italy because there is a group of Satanists that would like to be defined as pagans, and you know, the pagan community doesn’t want to accept them as pagans, and that is perhaps a different matter whether they, you know, classify as pagans or not. And I would say they don’t, and I know that you agree because we had a private conversation about this but that just made me think because one of the arguments that the pagan community was using was that Satanism is inherently linked to Christianity because, since Christianity invented Satan, then there wouldn’t be any Satanism without Christianity. So do you think that Satanism is inherently and inextricably linked to Christianity, or would you disagree with that?”
PF: “I would say that historically it’s quite obvious that there appears as a counter-discourse in opposition, direct opposition to Christianity, that that’s the roots of Satanism. On the other hand, there have been attempts by Satanists to free themselves from this and in many cases, this has been done using a re-framing of the figure of Satan. The Temple of Set would be an example of that and in one sense you could say that the Temple of Set is a pagan or neopagan group because they’re using the Egyptian God Set instead of Satan, claiming that the prince of darkness, formerly known as Satan, conveyed to the group’s founder, Michael Aquino, that he did no longer wish to be known by the name of a Hebrew fiend rather by the name of his first manifestation to mankind, which would have been Set in ancient Egypt. So, in a way, they still retain the identification of this entity with Satan but they re-frame it by employing this ancient Egyptian name instead. So, I mean it’s not a clear-cut issue in any way (because your foundational point is wrong), but generally speaking, I would say, that it’s difficult to entirely divorce Satanism, using the name Satan as the primary focus, from Christianity.”
Faxneld has already stated that the Temple of Set is not “Satanism proper”, so why is he mentioning them yet again? How does using Set instead of Satan make you pagan? What’s his definition of ‘pagan’? Perhaps he is using the word colloquially to refer to polytheists. Yet there is a problem with this; the word does not originally mean “polytheists.” The ancient Romans used the word to describe “outsiders” (read: non-Romans). The term had no bearing whatsoever on the worship of many gods. In fact, the Romans were polytheists themselves, and they used the word “pagan” to distinguish themselves from polytheists of other nationalities. I think Faxneld is truly stumbling here. Moreover, it seems that he has expanded his rule of “any mention of ‘Satan’ is Satanism” to include “words spelled very similarly to ‘Satan’ is Satanism”. Again, Setianism is not Satanism, but by Faxneld’s logic, possibly a person named “Stan” who drove a Saturn, played in a Black Metal band, and wore an ankh, they would be on the fast track to becoming a Satanic High Priest! All he would need is to freely distribute emails!
“Since Aquino’s beliefs on a deep level seem to have been kindled by LaVey, but then were more deeply seeded by Crowley, and then became his own personal reframing of Egyptian mythology, it is difficult to pin Setianism down. Setianism is anti-nature and sees Set as the primary avatar of a consciousness apart from the natural universe.
Paganism is more of an embracing of nature, and often a way of opposing modernity by going back to more rural practices, with deities that came from people who were more in harmony with the natural world. So, it isn’t really pagan as that is currently defined,” expounds Magus Gilmore.
AP: “And perhaps, one could also argue that there are elements of Paganism that are still Christian, and they have been employed by Pagans anyway, but yeah, that is a different topic, I guess. And then I wanted to ask you about the difference between, because you know so far we’ve been talking about Satan as equivalent to the Devil and Lucifer but I know I will get in the comments about this because I have a few other videos on Satanism, and one recurring comment was, ‘you’re using Satanism and Satan as synonymous to the Devil and Lucifer but they are different entities’. So, I am aware that there are practitioners that see a difference between these entities. So could you expand more than that?”
PF: “Absolutely. Even with, for example, Theosophy there were attempts by Theosophites to divorce these figures from each other. As is well known, the Theosophical Society published a journal called “Lucifer” and in the editorial for the first issue, they are quite adamant that this is not the Devil, that’s not where they got this name from, it is Lucifer – the bringer of light. On the other hand, in the same editorial, there are references to the noble rebel of Milton and such things that make it quite clear that there’s still a connection being retained here. And if we look at Blavatsky’s writings that the connection is still there. So, it’s a bit of a way, perhaps, keeping your back free in anticipation of the criticism that you expect. But at the same time, of course, if you choose a name like Lucifer, you want to taunt the Christians somehow, right? So, it’s intended to be a provocation, and I think it’s pretty much the same with most groups using the figure Lucifer and saying, of course, this is not the Christian Devil, it’s a different entity. But of course, you could have gone with a different figure or a symbol or name for it. You still want to, sort of, provoke, in a sense. But I mean it’s a matter of theology within these groups and it’s not my role as a scholar to say that it’s right or wrong to divorce the figure Lucifer from Satan. If they interpret the entity that way, that’s their prerogative, of course, and I’m only here to analyze that, perhaps look at the underlying reasons why they would.”
AP: “Yeah, that’s what I was interested in, the underlying reasons as to why, you know, practitioners separate Lucifer from Satan, from the Devil.”
It is not Faxneld’s place to say if it is right or wrong to divorce the figure Lucifer from Satan, and also not his place to apply religious titles to people who did not willingly take these titles for themselves. He conveniently does so after those authors have passed away and cannot defend themselves from these accusations. However, I am willing to bet that modern day Jews have the right to divorce the figure Lucifer from Satan, which they have done since the inception of their religion. At no point in the Hebrew Bible is the word ‘satan’ used as a proper noun. There is no character named “Satan,” but there are many examples of a character acting as a satan. As LaVey pointed out in The Satanic Bible, “satan” means “adversary, opponent, obstacle, or accuser.” It is not a single entity’s name. This was true for Jews four-thousand years ago and is true in 2025 CE, but this easily confirmed fact is where Faxneld draws the line for taking liberties. This is like setting a car on fire but refusing to key it afterwards.
PF: “Sure, I mean often it’s because they want to distance themselves from some negative symbolism attached to the figure of Satan and perhaps, they want to put an emphasis on the initiatory aspect and the light-bringer symbolism rather than all the dark stuff that’s also bound up with Satan historically. So that could be one reason.
AP: “Could it also be that in some cases they want to divorce the figure from Christianity or highlight…?”
PF: “Sure, absolutely and it’s used that way for example in the various currents that have been labeled Luciferian Witchcraft.”
AP: “That’s another thing I wanted to talk about.”
PF: “Yeah, we consider that is very much within those groups but of course, the rhetoric of Christianity having somehow twisted originally pagan figures into Satanic, demonic things. That’s something that’s present within Satanism as well. You find with Anton LaVey, he says the same thing in The Satanic Bible about the figure Lucifer, actually.”
Finally, he wants to talk about what LaVey says in The Satanic Bible, but it is cherry-picking at its finest. LaVey addressed nearly everything stated in this interview up until this point, but Faxneld does not tell that side of the story. He relies on the safety granted by appealing to an audience who will not read the works of the authors he mentions and will instead feel comfortable just knowing “a Satanic scholar” said so.
AP: “Can you talk about Luciferian Witchcraft? What is Luciferian Witchcraft and when and how they started?”
PF: “Sure, again this is something that there’s a variety of forms and it’s sometimes difficulty to make general statements about this but if we look at the historical development of this phenomenon we find that it comes really as a reaction to Wicca, quite early on, in like, the late 50s when various sort of competitors to Gerald Gardner start appearing on the Wiccan scene, trying to create legitimacy for themselves and their tradition by making claims of, for example, being hereditary witches who represented something more than the stuff that Gardner came up with. And with some of these figures, there was a turn towards folk magic and also darker forms of folk magic which would sometimes then encompass the figure of the Devil in some sense.
And there are several figures who worked with this but there wasn’t really sort of a tradition being formulated very clearly at this time. But these ideas seem to have been floating around in that, shall we say, early post-Wiccan or alternative-Wiccan milieu. And this, later on, became more well known to the general public, I would say primarily with the 1970 publication of Paul Huson’s book Mastering Witchcraft and this book combined what is clearly Wiccan material, with things taken from more, shall I say, High Magic or Ceremonial Magic and also some Satanic content. For example, there’s a ritual of self-initiation in that book where you’re supposed to read the Lord’s Prayer backwards, so that’s quote blasphemous. And that was something that others also picked up on. There’s, for example, a small Swedish book that came out a few years later that picked that ritual up and then incorporated it into a sort of Wiccan context. So that’s one of the main impulses for this but then a lot of people started working with this, this type of combination of Witchcraft and then elements from Wicca and Ceremonial Magic and folk magic and some Satanic symbolism. People like Michael Howard and of course, Andrew Chumbley and the whole tradition of Sabbatic Witchcraft and sort of shamanistic, if you will take on, on what Witchcraft is and this then involved the whole symbolism of the devilish, sabbatical rites that are known from the early modern period but of course, reinterpreted the whole thing into something different but retain some of the Satanic symbolism of this.”
AP: “And what do Luciferian Witches do?”
PF: “Well, I mean again…”
AP: “Do they follow the Wheel of the Year?”
PF: “It’s such a diverse set of traditions that it’s really impossible to make a general blanket statement. But yeah, definitely, some of them do and a lot of these traditions retain a lot of the ritual structure and symbolism from Wicca.”
AP: “So is it a combination of Wicca, ceremonial high magic, with Lucifer at the center as a core deity?”
PF: “In some cases it is, and in some cases it’s rather the case of having the Devil or a Lucifer, with clear traits of the Satanic, as part of a larger pantheon. So, it’s not necessarily that Satan is sort of center stage. No, I wouldn’t really say that. And also with the ceremonial high magic thing which is, of course, a bit of an arbitrary distinction but even with that as many of these traditions have come to emphasize folk magic much more. So, the magical practices of Cunning Folk from the traditional, agrarian, European societies. So, there are many different strands within this broader tradition of Luciferian Witchcraft. And there are also differences between the US and UK and other countries as well.”
Now he is attaching Luciferianism and also Wicca to Satanism. Faxneld recently referred to what LaVey said in his book, I wonder if he happened to glance at the section that addresses these beliefs. I doubt it. And what exactly are these “clear traits of the Satanic”? As we have seen, all it takes is mentioning “Satan” to earn that title.
AP: “And in Luciferian Witchcraft do they employ the figure, the entity of Lucifer in a Theosophical sense, like the bringer of the light or as a rebellious figure?”
PF: “There can be a bit of both. And of course, with a figure of Lucifer as a bringer gnosis, that also goes back to ancient Gnosticism and that’s something that Madame Blavatsky refers to quite a lot in her work, this supposed reinterpretation by Gnostics of the serpent as a bringer of gnosis, which we can find in some actual gnostic texts but where the, shall we say, Satanic connotations of this were, of course, very much overemphasized by the early Church Fathers who wrote texts about what Gnostics were up to. So that’s a tradition that’s a present but there are also these sorts of folk magic traditions that really have very little to do with something like Theosopohy or Gnosticism, folk traditions that really have very little to do with something like Theosophy or Gnosticism, folk traditions where the Devil would be a figure you could turn to for magical purposes, to get help in specific situations, where God or the church would be very unlikely to help you, for example, this thing with childbirth, where women were supposed to give birth in great pain as a punishment meted out by God. You find in many countries folk medical practices where you turn to the Devil for help to alleviate your pain during childbirth, of course, often according to folklore with horrible consequences – your firstborn son would become a werewolf, things like that.”
AP: “Yeah and why would the women do it anyway if they believe that the firstborn child would turn into a werewolf? Why would they still resort to the Devil to help them with pain?”
PF: “One interpretation could be that it was out of desperation. Another one could be that there’s a disconnect between the actual practices and beliefs surrounding these specific rights and then the people who would have helped out with that and, shall we say, more legendary elements in folklore, sort of, the tales spun around these practices as something you’d tell around the campfire.”
AP: “Oh, this is really interesting. I really enjoyed this conversation. Thank you very much, Per for being here on Angela’s Symposium, and yeah, obviously for you guys watching this interview….”
PF: “Thank you for having me.”
(END INTERVIEW)
What was your impression of the “expert opinion” regarding Satanism? I found it to be rather inconsistent and unnecessarily convoluted. At no point did we hear Dr. Faxneld describe the religious dogma of any of these groups. He mentioned how they viewed the Christian bad guy, but we did not see a clear presentation of what each religion stood for. He simply stated they were Satanists, largely due to their mentioning ‘Satan’ or Lucifer in some capacity, and the matter was closed. Faxneld accepts groups as having Satanic content for simply worshipping a deity that is spelled similarly to Satan. This is not scholarship. This reads like a Google search you do when it’s midnight and your paper is due the next day, but you put it off to the last minute.
It does seem clear that Faxneld is determined to expand Satanism to include many things that wouldn’t self-describe as Satanism, and that is a trend amongst some current academics. It seems a means to broaden their field of study so that they can be identified as scholars of Satanism (that word is the hot one). True scholars, I would expect to be more true to the facts and carefully delineate these past and present belief systems, presenting them as they saw themselves. The desperation to find some group prior to the founding of the Church of Satan as being significant to the current global interest in Satanism keeps failing. Noting that none of the precursors mentioned above had much notice until long after the founding of the Church of Satan, which was known globally from the very beginning, and whose literature has been translated into many languages and published…legally and illegally.
Rest assured, dear reader, if you made it this far, I am happy to report that Satanism does have experts. And they are not lumping such a diversity of dissimilar beliefs together in one practically meaningless collage. They do not necessarily have degrees in religious studies, but they do have degrees within the Church of Satan. They are here and they are proudly standing guard upon the Adamantine gates, ready to return fire when needed. The world of academia is a wonderful world filled with the pursuit of knowledge—a worthy pursuit, indeed. Should that pursuit ever cross the line by attempting to redefine our own religion, we are ready to stand in opposition to their outsider’s view, thus truly earning the title of ‘adversary.’
Hail the adversaries!
Hail the emic!
Hail Satan!
J. Mammon
Priest in the Church of Satan
