the emperor's new religion

The Emperor’s New Religion Copyright © 2002 Ole Wolf of 30

ANALYSIS OF THE CHURCH OF SATAN:

THE EMPEROR’S NEW RELIGION

BY OLE WOLF

The Church of Satan has caused outrage and exten-sive media attention since its inception as the boldestchampion of Satan in the “occult explosion” peakingin the 1960es, and for better or for worse has becomesynonymous with modern Satanism. It asserts thatSatanism is a unique philosophy distinctly tailoredto man’s life on Earth which, if followed, has the po-tential to increase the follower’s earthly success.

This paper investigates the Church of Satan, itsideology, and its practices, and observes that theChurch of Satan includes the same dynamics as canbe observed in many other religions. In addition, theChurch of Satan appears to deliberately mislead itsmembers via conflicting policy statements and com-munication.

The paper concludes that the Church of Satan is apersonality cult that seems to have less interest inmaintaining an ideology than in gaining members,and that the Church of Satan may be no more thanthe invention of a skilled con artist who saw an un-used opportunity.

1. The Church of Satan and Its IdeologyW h e n A n t o n L a V e y ( 1 9 3 0 - 1 9 9 7 , b o r n

Howard Stanton Levey) founded the Church ofSatan reporting Walpurgisnacht (April 31) in1966 as its birthday,† the organization de-scribed the event as the “opening the floodgatesto a revolution” and proclaimed the event as“Year One,” announcing a new era in History[1].

Anton LaVey had regularly studied occultismat home together with his so-called “Magic Cir-cle” of devotees a few years earlier, and it wasthis group that was to become the Church of Sa-tan [2, p. 29].

Membership figures are kept secret by theChurch of Satan, leaving friends and foes guess-ing at membership figures differing by severalorders of magnitude. The membership card

provides no indication of the size of the organi-zation, as all membership cards issued todaydisplay the number 100261 (see Figure 1). Whilethe actual membership number probably liesbetween the guesses of just a few hundred andseveral millions, and while the influence of theChurch of Satan is probably less than hinted bythe organization itself and more than reportedby its enemies (anti-cult fanatics excluded), theChurch of Satan has established itself as the or-ganization that is usually mentioned in booksdescribing Satanism regardless of opinion. An-ton LaVey himself is usually mentioned in com-pany with names such as Eliphas Lévi, AbbéBoullard, and Aleister Crowley, all of whom areconsidered leading figures in so-called “tradi-tional” (or “religious,” or “mythical”) and“modern” Satanism.

Hagiographies such as The Secret Life of a Sa-tanist [3] and The Church of Satan [4], both by theChurch of Satan’s former High Priestess andAnton LaVey’s third wife, Blanche Barton‡

(Grand Priestess of the Temple), provide a col-

† 1966 coincided with “year one” declared in Ira Levin’s Rosemary’s Baby. Anton LaVey claimed to have been involved in the 1968movie production as both a technical advisor and as an actor. Neither claim is supported—neither the detailed biography of the movienor the size of the costume for LaVey’s purported role lend credibility to the claim.‡ Some critics have suggested that Blanche Barton’s hagiographies of Anton LaVey and his organization were not written by Bartonbut LaVey himself. Comparing the literary style of the books with her style after LaVey’s death lends credibility to Barton as the orig-inal author, albeit strongly inspired by LaVey.

Figure 1. A sample Church of Satan membershipcard with the follower’s name and signature re-moved. Apparently the number 100261 is printed onall membership cards issued today.


orful and haunting picture of a person qualifiedas no less than the Devil’s right hand man.

The strong publicity that the Church of Satanand its founder have received is itself no indica-tion that the Church of Satan represents Satan-ism beyond its own claim to the title as the Dev-il’s henchmen, however.

It can be argued that because in certain aspectsof its literature the Church of Satan referencesChristianity in its departure from the creedsusually associated with common Christian ide-ology, in that sense at least it qualifies as an an-ti-Christian organization and hence by Chris-tian definition, Satanic. In particular, the firstsection (most of which was adapted with fewmodifications from Ragnar Redbeard’s Might isRight [5]) of The Satanic Bible [6] by Anton LaVeyhas strong anti-Christian proclamations. AntonLaVey has later explained that this section wasintended as an eye-opener [5, p. 5].

1.1 Satanic IdeologyAnton LaVey has claimed inspiration from,

and ideological parallels with, several sourceswith leanings toward atheistic or non-Christianmorality, including Mark Twain, Jack London,P. T. Barnum, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ragnar Red-beard, Orrin Klapp, Niccolò Machiavelli ,Charles Finney, Adolf Hitler, Charles Darwin,Ayn Rand, Herbert Spencer, H. G. Wells, Yefi-movitch Rasputin, George Bernard Shaw, Sig-mund Freud, Ambroce Bierce, Sir Basil Zaha-roff, and Voltaire, to name just a few [3, p. 24; 5,p. 5-6; 2, p. 492, 741; 7, p. xii; 8, p. 51; 9]. Satan-ism, according to the Church of Satan, is a fu-sion of the thoughts expressed by these authorsand philosophers, etc.:

[Anton LaVey’s] ideas evolved from his enthusiasm forSatanic sympathizers and reprobates like George Bern-hard Shaw, John Milton, Goethe, […] peppered with aliberal dose of the Johnson, Smith & Co. Catalogue ofJokes, Tricks and Novelties. [7, p. xii]

That is, although neither thought alone wasnovel, no one before Anton LaVey had connect-ed the dots to synthesize a new religion basedon the thoughts combined.

The Church of Satan’s ideology states thatman alone is responsible for his own success,and that there is no reward in Heaven or pun-ishment in Hell for man’s intents and doings onEarth. As The Satanic Bible states:

1. Life is the great indulgence—death, the great absti-nence. Therefore, make the most of life—HERE ANDNOW.2. There is no heaven of glory bright, and no hell wheresinners roast. Here and now is our day of torment!Here and now is our day of joy! Here and now is ouropportunity. [6, p. 33]

Man is thus given with the chance to live in in-dulgence only while alive, and had better makefull use of it while it lasts.† This is a recurringtheme in the second section of The Satanic Bible.

Followers of the Church of Satan are encour-aged to make that of Satanism which suits eachindividual follower’s best needs:

As far as Satanists are concerned, taking the way thingsare and taking what suits you best and dwelling on it—that’s what it is all about. [10, p. 234]

The Church of Satan generally uses Satan as asymbol of man’s nature as that of any other ani-mal, and rejects the belief in Satan as an anthro-pomorphic being. Some of Anton LaVey’s clos-er associates, however, seem to have been told adifferent story. For example, Michael Aquino,who resigned from the Church of Satan andformed a new organization, The Temple of Setin 1975, explains that the belief in a literal Devil:

… was axiomatic to all of our [Aquino’s and LaVey’s]conversations and collaborations [11]

and Blanche Barton explained to The San Fran-cisco Chronicle at a press conference followingAnton LaVey’s death in 1997 that Anton LaVeyhad believed in the Devil [12]. In an article inThe Occult Explosion Anton LaVey had acknowl-edged that:

… many members of the Church of Satan who are mys-tically inclined prefer to think of Satan in a very real,anthropomorphic way. Of course we do not discouragethis, because we realize that it is very important tomany individuals to ritualistically conceptualize awell-wrought picture of their mentor or tutelary divini-ty. [2, p. 740]

He ventured on to explain that:In answer to those who would label us “Devil worship-pers” or … Satan worshippers, I must say that Satandemands study, not worship. [2, p. 740]

Note that Anton LaVey did not reject the beliefin Satan, only the worship of the deity.

The Satanic Bible defines Satan somewhat am-biguously as a unified God (that is, not a godamong others) which:

… is seen as the balancing factor in nature, and not be-ing concerned with suffering. [6, p. 40]

† In contrast to popular opinion among Church of Satan followers there is no implication that there is no life after death; the text onlystates that once one is dead, one will be unable to indulge in one’s desires.


andMost Satanists do not accept Satan as an anthropomor-phic being with cloven hooves, a barbed tail, andhorns. He merely represents a force of nature …[which] is an untapped reservoir that few can makeuse of… [6, p. 62]

This definition, in conjunction with the term“god,” lends itself to a theistic or deistic percep-tion of Satan in addition to the atheistic persua-sion also presented in the book.

The Church of Satan’s Grotto Master applica-tion requires prospective “Grotto Masters,”who are individuals that lead a local chapter ofChurch of Satan followers, to perform a self-ini-tiation ritual:

15. Before you complete this application—when yousense the time is right—perform a ritual (using the ba-sic elements described in The Satanic Bible) to petitionSatan and the Dark Legions to accept you as a GrottoMaster. Write down the ritual you performed and theresults, if any. [13]

Again, this ritual, requesting an infernal man-date, has theistic overtones.

Part of the Church of Satan’s ideology specifi-cally appeals to people that feel a need to bol-ster their egos, feeling that they are more impor-tant than their social recognition reflects. The Sa-tanic Bible provides a salt water injection to suchpeople’s egos with the assertion that Satanistsare intrinsically superior people. Church of Sa-tan literature, such as The Black Flame, bulgewith racist, fascist, and Nazi-oriented essaysand imagery, all of which are recurring themesamong people whose self-esteem is out of pro-portion with their physical or intellectual abili-ties. Organizations promising religious or simi-lar emotionally gratifying compensation forlacking achievements thrive on such people.The Church of Satan acknowledges an emotion-al link between its ideology and Nazism:

Barton: It’s an unholy alliance … The anti-Christianstrength of National Socialist Germany is part of theappeal to Satanists. …LaVey: … The aesthetics of National Socialism and Sa-tanism dovetail. [10, p. 236]

Anton LaVey states in The Satanic Bible thatthere is evidence of an emerging Satanic age. Atthat time there was increasing focus on personalfreedom, relaxed sexual morals, rebellionagainst authorities, and iconoclastic behavior,all cardinal to the hippie movement that wasgaining foothold in the years before the Churchof Satan was created. The first three clauses inthe Church of Satan’s official, semi-political pro-

gram, Pentagonal Revisionism, which was pub-lished in The Devil’s Notebook [14, p. 93] demandstratification (which is a form of meritocracythat rejects undeserved power), taxation ofchurches, and separation of church and state.These issues were also important in the “free-dom movement” of the 1960es. Interest in An-ton LaVey’s pet projects, the construction of ar-tificial human companions and total environ-ments (i.e., fantasy worlds) had already peakeda decade earlier when robots were the big hit onthe screen and popular literature, and the con-temporary fashion dictated a new home with acharacteristic departure from traditional fur-nishing.

Whether the evidence reflected a “zeitgeist”that was genuinely indicative of an emergingSatanic age or whether Anton LaVey simply de-fined social trends at that time as Satanic is diffi-cult to tell. However, lending itself well to theprevalent social trends the Church of Satan wascertainly a product of its time.

1.2 The Satanic BibleThe Satanic Bible formally defines the Church

of Satan’s ideology, and the Church of Satan re-fers to the book as:

a diabolical book, the basis for our philosophy. [1]

The book was released in 1969, three years af-ter the establishment of the Church of Satan.Anton LaVey explains that he was prompted towrite The Satanic Bible by his agent and publish-er’s suggestion with a tight deadline:

Then […] came the official commission to write a “Sa-tanic Bible”. My agent and publisher wanted the mate-rial I had already printed in tract form, with additionalstuff, to make up the “Bible” as quickly as possible. [5,p. 4]

The Satanic Bible is comprised of, in the follow-ing order:1. An anti-Christian diatribe. This section

seems to appeal especially to those that werebrought up in Christian homes and are fedup with that religion. The Church of Satanexplains that this section is a wake-up callthat is only necessary for some readers.

2. A level-headed refutation of Christian dog-ma; an assertion that there is no afterlife andhence no reward or punishment after onedies; and elaborations on different facets of alife lived accordingly. This section containsmany examples of how even seemingly con-flicting behavior is Satanic according to the


author, and effectively virtually any behavioris inherently Satanic.

3. Three recipes for magic focusing on aggres-sion, lust, and compassion. The magic in thethird section obviously appeals to peoplethat enjoy magic settings, but the Church ofSatan accepts that some followers do not feelso inclined.The Church of Satan states that belief in liter-al demons is permitted within the confines ofthe ritual chamber and abandoned outside ofthe chamber. Presumably this argument alsoholds in rituals such as “The Satanic ‘Bap-tism,’” [15, p. 212] which directly refers to theliteral Satan. It is a valid argument, but thedual acceptance of belief and non-belief is al-so an effective tool for appealing to suchstrongly diverging groups of people as the-ists and atheists simultaneously.

4. A listing of eighteen “Enochian Keys.” Ironi-cally, this section contains the very occult-nick bunk that Anton LaVey prides The Sa-tanic Bible as being devoid of in the preface ofthe book. Both readers despising such bunk-ery and readers desiring it are generouslysatisfied.

The Satanic Bible thus represents an occultnickslam dunk: most readers will agree with certainportions of The Satanic Bible as long as they areeither atheists on a rational level, deists withsymbolism but no supernatural beliefs, or eventheists believing in God and/or Satan but notparticularly caring about their sentences in theirafterlives.

Indeed, because most readers can find some-thing they agree with in The Satanic Bible almostregardless of personal belief, and because theyare encouraged to pick and choose those itemsthey agree with, the only obstacle to being a Sa-tanist per the Church of Satan’s requirementslies in the readers’ potential unwillingness to ac-cept the label “Satanist.” This conclusion is sup-ported by Blanche Barton’s welcoming state-ment on the official Church of Satan Web page,where she explains that:

The philosophy really isn’t that esoteric and doesn’ttake much pondering to understand. But it’s that loom-ing figure in the shadows, that majestic silhouette ofSatan—leathery wings outstretched, standing proudly,backlit by the flames of Hell—that people find… dis-quieting. [16]

Church of Satan officials have argued thatparts of the The Satanic Bible were intended assincere philosophy while other parts were in-

tended to mislead the rubes begging to bemocked and derided. According to WilliamGidney (Priest of the Church of Satan):

The Church of Satan champions the Machiavellian eth-ic of misdirection: You should try actually reading thephilosophical content of The Satanic Bible far morecarefully. What confusion we inspire is of no interest tous. [17]

Hence, the inclusion of the so-called EnochianKeys, a hoax invented by John Dee and EdwardKelley, in The Satanic Bible might be an ironic at-tempt at misdirection put there to confuse therubes, but any references to Machiavellian eth-ics would be sincere. Presumably only the elite(that is, whoever happened to read The SatanicBible) would be able to realize that the Crowley-inspired parts were misdirection, while theRedbeard and Machiavelli musings were sin-cere—or vice versa. Each follower of the Churchof Satan is left with the impression that he orshe and a few others understand the true mean-ing of Satanism, and everyone else does not.

It is more plausible, however, that when An-ton LaVey wrote The Satanic Bible, he decided totake a dash of Crowley (whose interest in Deeand Kelley is well documented) from here, anda dash of Machiavelli and Nietzsche from there,and bake his Satanic cake appealing to the wid-est audience possible.

The Church of Satan states that the contradic-tions are only apparent:

It is then up to the rank and file members, as well asanyone else who has an interest in this material, to ana-lyze these ideas and synthesize the apparent contradic-tions into a “Third Side” that is the essence of Satanicunderstanding. [18]

Or, in other words, the reason that there arecontradictions is that there are none; and byperceiving the ideology as ambiguous, one hasnot gained Satanic understanding. As in HansChristian Andersen’s popular story, The Emper-or’s New Clothes, where people would rather notadmit to being stupid not seeing the emperor’smarvelous new (missing) clothes, followers ofthe Church of Satan would probably rather notadmit they have no “Satanic understanding.”

Inevitably individual Satanists will reach dif-ferent interpretations. The Church of Satan con-tinues:

Will everyone arrive at the same synthesis? No. Sur-prised? You shouldn’t be, as Satanism is a religionwhich embraces the practice of individualism, not de-manding that all its members have some kind of lock-step sameness. [18]


Different and contrary individual interpreta-tions do not warrant religious unity, however.People do not unite in disagreement—not unlessthey join hands in a shared disagreement withsomething entirely different, such as Satanists’pet demon: Christianity. If the Church of Satandoes indeed unite its followers despite oppos-ing interpretations, their unity is not about itsideology at all.

1.3 Satanic Rituals and MagicThe Satanic Bible formally defines magic as:The change in situations or events in accordance withone’s will, which would, using normally acceptedmethods, be unchangeable. [6, p. 110]

The statement echoes Aleister Crowley’s defi-nition, and in admitting to a rather broad defini-tion Anton LaVey refers to the equivalence be-tween the perception of magic and science, pos-sibly borrowing Athur C. Clarke’s famous ThirdLaw, which stipulates that “[a]ny sufficientlyadvanced technology is indistinguishable frommagic.” Most interpretations ranging from mys-ticism to die hard science are thereby covered.

Anton LaVey asserted that magic falls intothree basic categories: anger, lust, and compas-sion [6, pp. 114-115]—feelings that are often dif-ficult to cope with in many societies. Two sec-tions of The Satanic Bible are devoted to the prac-tice of magic. One section contains three recipesfor the aforementioned three categories of mag-ic. The other section lists the Enochian Keys.Anton LaVey has later conceded that he choseto include the Enochian Keys in The Satanic Biblesimply because he was told that they were dan-gerous to mention [5, p. 4].

When the Church of Satan uses the term “cere-mony,” it means “ritual” in sociology. When ituses the term “ritual,” it means “magic” in soci-ology. This document uses the sociological no-menclature.

The rituals and magic that are publicly avail-able—the three basic types in The Satanic Bibleand the ones in The Satanic Rituals—are free touse by anyone. The three basic types of magiccan be performed solitarily, and can be expectedto be the most widespread Satanic magic basedon the ease of performance, and on the few ritu-al settings and/or participants required.

The Church of Satan’s rituals, as explained byAnton LaVey in The Satanic Rituals, are intendedto sustain the Satanic ideology:

Generally, a ritual [i.e., magic] is used to attain, while aceremony [i.e., a ritual] serves to sustain. [15, p. 17]

Rituals serve as self-programming devices thatmaintain the follower’s dedication to the reli-gion, and they have a transfusing effect on theperson’s life.

The Satanic Rituals includes the following ritu-als:1. Le Messe Noir—a rite of passage intended to

rid the follower of Catholic Christian dogma.2. L’air Epais—an initiation ritual in which the

participant symbolically dies and is reborn asa Satanist.

3. Das Tierdrama—a reminder of one’s animalheritage.

4. Homage to Tchort—draws inspiration fromRussian folklore of various demons, whichare summoned during the ritual.

5. The Ceremony of the Nine Angles—inspired byH. P. Lovecraft, it is intended to “emphasizepotential.”

6. The Call to Cthulhu—also inspired by H. P.Lovecraft, it “reflects the dimness of an al-most forgotten past.”

7. The Satanic Baptisms—baptism rituals for chil-dren and adults.

Rituals 4, 5, and 6 have no clear purpose.Michael Aquino, the author of rituals 5 and 6,explains that the fledgling organization’s theoryregarding rituals was not all that deep orthought-through, and that the purpose of somerituals was only to act as a vehicle for the emo-tional or intellectual stimulation or pleasure ofthe participants [11]. Given no explanation oftheir purpose in The Satanic Rituals, it is likelythat these three rituals fall into that category.

Rituals actualize ideology, that is, they arephysical manifestations of the abstract thoughtsexpressed by the ideology. Like birthdays aretimes where the birthday celebrant may thinkahead or back, rituals typically act as reflectivemoments where participants stop and relate totheir nature and situation. Rituals are not con-sidered in the everyday life, but require partici-pants to stop and act. It is not clear how inspira-tion from Russian folklore and Lovecraftian fic-tion actualizes the Satanic ideology as outlinedin The Satanic Bible.

It is remarkable that rites of passage, such aswedding and death, admission to adulthood(the Church of Satan has a concept of childrenvs. adults, as evidenced by The Satanic Baptisms,which come in those two forms), etc. are absentfrom the available material. Such rituals serve tosustain a religion and reinforce its ideology.


Michael Aquino’s explanation above is believ-able, but after 36 years of existence it is surpris-ing to conclude that rituals that actualize theideology still have that little weight. This topicis discussed further in Section 1.4, Lacking Ritu-als.

A complete analysis of the Church of Satan’srituals is beyond the scope of this article, butcompared with rituals known from other reli-gions the Church of Satan’s rituals are consider-ably shallow: there is only limited correspon-dence between the Church of Satan’s ideologyand what the rituals actualize; the rituals do notmeet common needs; and they are based onterse research, not in-depth refinements andstudies.

The Church of Satan’s magic consists of substi-tute actions for goals that the participant cannotreadily attain in real life. In keeping with thenotion of living here and now, magic in The Sa-tanic Bible concentrates on meeting very shortterm goals, eliminating present frustration withsexual desire, aggression, or compassion, asmentioned earlier:†

1. Lust magic—to get sex.2. Destruction magic—to get revenge.3. Compassion magic—to help someone.The Satanic Rituals adds the following magic:4. Die elektrischen [sic] Vorspiele—magic intend-

ed to produce far-reaching, social changes.5. The Statement of Shaitan—magic intended to

influence human events.Presumably it is left to the magician’s discre-tion which social changes or influences are de-sired in this magic, because The Satanic Ritualsprovides no description.

There seems to be no magic for individuallong term goals.

When a follower performs magic or rituals insolitude, the follower is not quite alone. Likewhen a believer in stone healing clenches hishands around a translucent stone and whispersa prayer by himself knowing that many otherbelievers also do this, it creates a sense of com-

munity and belonging, even if each believer isalone. The followers may be alone, but they arealone—together.

Such magic and rituals bind the followers to-gether much like a regular church communitydoes, only without the social interaction. Theknowledge that others perform the very samerituals also creates the belief that the ritual ismore important, or more effective, than if itwere a home made ritual. The follower gets theimpression that his behavior is meaningful, andit gains validity by social proof (i.e., the as-sumption that if many do it, it is inherently cor-rect or makes sense).

Social proof also persuades people to engagein a behavior that they would not otherwisehave displayed. Dressing up funny is less em-barrassing in a group of similarly dressed peo-ple than alone, for example; and followers thatfeel awkward about a ritual would similarly feelencouraged to complete it anyway knowingthat many others do it. The effect is self-perpet-uating.

The Church of Satan’s solitary rituals thuscontribute to a sense of solidarity and commu-nity, and they satisfy the followers’ desire forrituals, if any.

1.4 Lacking RitualsAs of this writing, the Church of Satan is 36

years old according to its reported foundationdate, and obviously the religion has not yet hadtime to evolve significantly. It is nonethelessstriking that certain elements of the religion thatare often absent in new religions are still miss-ing. A religion that is more than a generationold should have had its share already of couplesdesiring to get married or individuals that havepassed away. Wedding and funeral rituals havebeen written [2, pp. 604, 615 – 618], but for allpractical purposes they do not exist.‡ In spite ofan expected demand, rituals concerning mar-riage and death are thus effectively still absent.*Of rituals traditionally classified as rites of pas-sage—events such as birth, marriage, and

† It is a religious question whether this magic actually works, but if the chief purpose of the magic is to vent frustrations and “get itout of one’s system,” the magic probably has some self-therapeutic value.‡ The wedding and funeral rituals may have been published in past issues of the Church of Satan’s newsletter, The Cloven Hoof, butback issues prior to no. 126 are not available. The rituals are reproduced in Michael Aquino’s The Church of Satan [2, pp. 604, 615 –618], but this book is not endorsed by the Church of Satan. The Church of Satan Web site explains which Enochian keys (listed in The

Satanic Bible) are associated with different types of rituals, and associates keys 2, 7, and 13 with lust and weddings and key 11 with fu-nerals, according to Anton LaVey [19]. Hence, a preparation for such rituals is available, but the rituals themselves are not availablefor the followers.* Rituals concerning marriage and death may be said to be irrelevant to Satanism and therefore now ignored, but because religiouspeople tend to carry old socio-religious habits with them as spiritual baggage when they switch religions, marriage and funeral areguaranteed to be a concern.


death—only (voluntary) baptism rituals areavailable for initiation of new followers. Thisone, and rituals for marriage, funerals, etc.would generally be the first ones to be madeavailable for the followers of a religion.

The effective absence of such rituals even to-day suggests that followers of the Church of Sa-tan either abandon their religion quickly or donot take their religion particularly seriously inspite of their sometimes quite belligerent out-ward determination. Alternatively, it is a signthat the Church of Satan’s headcount is too lowto enable such social events (couples neverform, and friends or family members that dieare never Satanists), or that the religion is strict-ly individualistic. The latter can be said to fit theChurch of Satan’s statement that the religion isindividualistic, but it is improbable that two fol-lowers are so individualistic that they refuse tomarry or perform some sort of remembrance ofa diseased friend, and that they refuse to usetheir preferred religion in that situation.

The lacking rituals indicate that the religionhas yet to make a lasting impact, but a need forsuch rituals may eventually arise if followersgain interest or the religion gains momentum,depending on the reason why the rituals arelacking.

Possibly the Church of Satan considers the rit-uals too embarrassing for wide publication: thewedding ritual by Anton LaVey is unimpres-sive and quite short—about half a page—anddevoid of virtually any effects. The funeral ritu-al fits the style of other Church of Satan rituals,but was written by an individual that theChurch of Satan would rather forget: MichaelAquino.

Section 3, Active Recruiting, argues that theChurch of Satan is motivated to recruit new fol-lowers, but existing followers are mostly dead-wood in an economic and administrative sense,useful only as recruitment agents and combatunits. It is therefore possible that the Church ofSatan’s primary interest lies in recruiting fol-lowers (who will be looking for Satanic baptismrituals), but its desire to keep followers (who willbe looking for wedding, funeral, and other simi-lar rituals) is slim or even against its own inter-est.

The Church of Satan explains that a weddingritual can only be performed by a Church of Sa-tan appointed official:

The Official marriage Rite used by the Church of Satanwas authored by High Priest Gilmore and is not avail-able online or to members or the public. It is now onlypresented to members of the Priesthood of Mendeswho are about to perform it. [20]

The explanation also reveals that apparently theoriginal wedding ritual by Anton LaVey hasnow been replaced with a new one by PeterGilmore (High Priest of the Church of Satan),which according to the Church of Satan is to bepublished in Peter Gilmore’s planned book, Sa-tanic Scriptures† [20].

This requirement ostensibly provides theChurch of Satan with an ability to exercise a cer-tain control, albeit very limited in scope, or theChurch of Satan may be keeping the ritual pri-vate to make it seem tantalizing as “forbiddenfruit.” Whatever the reason, the Church of Satanevidently does not expect its followers to heedits own warning in the Satanic Bunco Sheet:

2. Look out for jargon and secrets to which only the“initiated” can be privy. Once you’re processedthrough the lengthy and strictly-enforced “degree sys-tem,” you’ll discover there are really no answers, justmore gobbledygook. [21]

2. A New ReligionThe Church of Satan has referred to its ideolo-

gy as a religion [22]. Although the founder mayhave had ulterior motives as indicated in thefollowing chapters, it is ultimately the behaviorof the organization that determines whether themovement qualifies as a religion. The Sai Babamovement is a religion, for example, regardlessof the motives and moral or legal integrity ofthe founder, whose “miracles” have been ex-posed as clumsy stage magic in video clips.

The Church of Satan is organized as illustratedin Figure 2. At the top level of the organization,the core is comprised of a relatively small groupof people, which handles administrative tasksand issues guidelines. The Church of Satan hashistorically referred to its core group as “TheCouncil of Nine”:

[T]he Council of Nine […] is the ruling body of the orga-nization [1]

It is not clear whether it is comprised of nineindividuals, and who these individuals are, but

† Satanic Scriptures will reportedly be a compilation of essays written by Peter Gilmore in various magazines. If so, it will resembleAnton LaVey’s The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks!, which are both compilations of essays that Anton LaVey wrote in variousmagazines.


recently the core group seems to have includedB l a n c h e B a r t o n , P e t e r G i l m o r e , P e g g yNadramia (High Priestess), and Jeff Nagy (Mag-ister) [23]. Only the core group has decisivepower.

The soldiers, at the second-highest level, fol-low the guidelines issued by the core and takestrong interest in studying what they considerSatanic ideology. The core and the soldiers ac-tively “present” Satanism to the outside world.Soldiers are not organized, but seem to occa-sionally or regularly talk with core group indi-viduals. They are usually energetically loyal tothe Church of Satan, as the following statementattests:

I am 100% loyal to the Church of Satan, and to its offi-cials. I will obey WHATEVER and EVERY proclama-tion and regulation that they set forth within the CoSas a corporate body … .

… And again, I declare my loyalty AND OBEDIENCEnot only to the CoS as a body, but also to certain offi-cials such as HP Blanche Barton, Magister Peter H.Gilmore, … [etc.]. They tell me to do something, and Ido it...This is rare, but I am more than happy to dowhatever they say. Any order they give me would nev-er be for my detriment, only for my good. [24]

One level further down, interested followershave read The Satanic Bible and some other doc-uments. They pursue further knowledge inwhat they happen to consider Satanic, but aregenerally unaware of guidelines issued by thecore and do not actively represent Satanism.

Finally, the periphery is comprised of peoplethat may have read The Satanic Bible and other

documents but do not pursue other knowledge.Their membership of the Church of Satan hasthe same value to them as perhaps a piece ofjewelry.

This organizational structure is commonamong religious groups. The structure is notformalized in the Church of Satan, and onlyserves to understand the dynamics of theChurch of Satan as a religious organization.

2.1 Characteristic Religious Traits

The core and the soldiers display the charac-teristic traits of new religious movementsfounded by charismatic leaders:1. They believe the founder can/could perform

miracles or other supernatural feats, and thefounder is perceived as somehow more thanhuman. The founder is considered infallible,or the founder’s faults are ignored or ex-plained away. [25, pp. 184 - 218]

The founder, Anton LaVey, plays a key role inthe religion. It is very common to find that fol-lowers of new religious groups, sects, or cultsrevere the founder as more than human, capa-ble of miracles (or, in the case of Anton LaVey,curses), etc. with very flattering hagiographieswritten about the founder’s life. They ignorerampant inconsistencies in the founder’s pro-fessed past† and perceive ordinary actions as ac-complishments only a demigod could have per-formed. They are quick to accredit generaltrends to the founder; for example, on theChurch of Satan Web page Peter Gilmore con-tributes today’s pleasure-oriented culture toAnton LaVey:

Indulgence was the “watchword” chosen by AntonLaVey when he founded the Church of Satan in 1966. Ithink a case may certainly be made that this concepthas in the interim made a lasting impact on human so-ciety. As we look through the landscape of what is cur-rently offered, we see that Dr. LaVey’s vision has hadbroad cultural effect, as the amount of freedom for per-sonal pleasure has abundantly increased on all levelsof social strata. [26]

Anton LaVey’s family is also seen as some-thing special. His wives and daughters auto-matically received titles as High Priestesses byvirtue of their family relation to him. Again thisillustrates how blood is more important thanboth ideological issues and the meritocracy that

Figure 2. The Church of Satan’s followers are roughlyorganized in four layers: the core, the soldiers, the in-terested, and the periphery, with an increasing num-ber of followers in each layer.

Core

Soldiers

Interested

Periphery

Full-fledgedreligiousbehavior

New Agebehavior

† The tendency to wholly desert the possibility that the founder is an ordinary person or even a crook is common among followers ofnew religious movements. Even if a follower is presented with undeniable evidence somehow the follower does not comprehend theevidence. The thought is beyond their operational paradigm, beyond obscenity and blasphemy; it is unthinkable.


the Church of Satan’s “Pentagonal Revision-ism” (see page 18) demands.†

Anton LaVey plays a key role on another termas well. Religious groups enjoy references to au-thority. Older, well established religions refer totheir ancient scripture (for example, Moslemsrefer to the Koran and Christians refer to the Bi-ble), but most new religious groups refer to sci-ence, albeit mostly in the form of pseudo-science such as creation science or faith healing.The Church of Satan cannot refer to science, be-cause most of its original claims of scientificfoundation have been rejected by either theChurch of Satan itself or modern science, orsimply does not apply anymore in the post-1960es world; the Church of Satan has just An-ton LaVey to lean on as an authority on Satanicreligion. Being the single authority they can relyon, it is understandable that they defend himfang and claw.

The Church of Satan’s current administrationstates that the interpretation of its ideology isstraightforward:

9. … Anton LaVey wrote The Satanic Bible, as well ashis other works, in such a manner so that they can bedirectly understood—they are carnal and non-esoteric.No “teacher” is needed, no “guru” must interpret hiswords for you. [21]

This is only true to the extent that the Church ofSatan’s administration is exempt from this rule,however, because it takes on the role as inter-

preter of the “correct meaning” of AntonLaVey’s writing when it excommunicates fol-lowers for reasons of differing interpretations ofAnton LaVey’s writing. One follower receivedthe following statements in his excommunica-tion:

I don’t think you’ve ever had much admiration or con-fidence in me personally, and you’ve shown yourselfto be increasingly critical of our founder’s ideas, aswell. You’ve done your best to stir up dissension andpurposely create misapprehensions about who we areand what Satanism advocates, despite attempts toguide, encourage and educate you. [27]

These statements demonstrate that criticism ofthe founder’s ideas is frowned upon, and thatthe Church of Satan actively attempts to en-force a specific interpretation where “no ‘teach-er’ is needed.” The potential objections that thisfollower did not understand the ideology orwas never appreciated are not valid, becauseBlanche Barton had written a personalizedstatement of appreciation for his efforts to thesame person just half a year earlier [28].

Hence, only the Church of Satan’s administra-tion can provide a “true” interpretation of An-ton LaVey’s ambiguous writing. Anyone elsemaking doctrinaire statements on the meaningof his texts is branded a heretic (as ironic as itmay seem for a religion called Satanism—seeFigure 3) who falsifies Satanism and misleadspeople.

† Today, several members of his family have become an embarrassment to the Church of Satan, which now does its best to downtonetheir influence: Diane Hegarty is never mentioned; Karla LaVey was suddenly never really important to the Church of Satan once shedistanced herself from the organization to start The First Satanic Church; and Zeena LaVey was soon considered a dumb blonde whenshe parted with the Church of Satan, denounced her “unfather,” and joined the Temple of Set.

Figure 3. Only the Church of Satan’s core group can provide a “true” interpretation of Anton LaVey’s ambiguouswriting. Anyone else making doctrinaire statements on the meaning of his texts is branded a heretic who falsifiesSatanism and misleads people.


2. There is strong contempt for organizationsthat follow the teachings of the founderwithout being followers of the founder’s or-ganization. [25, pp. 200-201]

It is common to find remarkably strong hostili-ty against the new organization if eventually agroup of people creates an organization of theirown that follows the teaching of the founderwithout belonging to the founder’s own organi-zation.

The Church of Satan is evidently no exceptionfrom the above rules, as described in Section 5,Desire for a Name Patent, and Section 6, EarnedHostility. The Church of Satan officially disap-proves of new organizations:

Founding your own “satanic organization” is a detri-ment to our movement. [29]

Sociologists have proposed the theory that byportraying the leader as a very special person,the followers feel that they themselves becomevery special people by proxy [25, p. 69]. To eachfollower, the story told about the leader and thenew religious group becomes an intricate storyabout himself or herself: the followers substitutetheir perception of their identity with that oftheir leader in the sense that they merge theirown identity with the leader’s fabricated identi-ty. This also happens between the followers andthe group’s perceived identity; that is, by be-lieving that the group is superior each followerfeels superior—and it does not matter to the fol-lower that reality speaks against him or her.

Focus is thus not on the ideology but on theidentity one assumes by being part of thegroup; or rather, on the identity that one as-sumes by being part of the story about thegroup. In short, they create a modern myth (orhave it created for them) then play a part in it.

Consequently, if someone uses the leader’s orthe group’s ideology outside of the story whichis lock-stepped with the leader and the group(as is the case if someone founds a new organi-zation that follows the ideology), the followersfeel that they have been personally robbed, be-cause their identity has become interwovenwith the fictitious identity of the leader and thegroup. It is question of joining their story, not aquestion of joining their ideology. It has every-thing to do with the Church of Satan as an orga-nization and its founder, and nothing to do withits ideology.

Supporting the above theory, the Church ofSatan strongly emphasizes that Anton LaVey de-

fined modern Satanism, placing Anton LaVeyas the pivot point rather than the ill-defined ide-ology. For example:

Anton LaVey originally defined the roots of Satanism,and we will continue to place our heritage in the con-text he provided. [30]

The Church of Satan thus claims one true way-ism based on Anton LaVey, disregarding the ide-ology of spin-off organizations as a goal in itself.Such a behavioral pattern is personality cult be-havior in disguise.

With the story of the leader and organizationso closely anchored in the followers’ identityfeelings, it is quite understandable that their re-action is that of someone that has been person-ally attacked if someone dares to criticize theirleader or organization.3. The religious group prefers to view itself as

isolated from people outside of the group.[31, p. 34]

A religious group often sees itself as “saved”compared to people outside of the group. Itsfollowers feel that the group’s path to success(earthly or otherwise) is the best path for them-selves. Groups may be more or less accepting ofother groups, but usually do not acknowledgethe routes taken by those groups as leading tothe best final destination, wherever that be.

The Church of Satan consistently describes it-self as an alien elite. Its followers are thought toconstitute a peerless group of human beingswhose conviction provides them with uniquefeatures above and beyond other human beings.

Followers that associate with other Satanicgroups tend to be met with distrust in theChurch of Satan, as is association with non-Sa-tanic religious groups. There is no demand thatits followers isolate themselves among fellowfollowers, as is customary among extremistsgroups. The Church of Satan is probably to befound among “moderate” groups in that re-gard, except for interaction with other Satanicorganizations:

[I]f you choose to affiliate with any pseudo-Satanic oranti-Satanic groups, you may well find yourself disaf-filiated from the Church of Satan. Forewarned is fore-armed. [21]

Peter Gilmore summarizes the sentiments ofboth characteristics 2 and 3 in his refusal to co-operate with leading sociologist James R. Lewisin the field on a “Satanic Sourcebook”:

I suspect that this book will be padded-out with a col-lection of writings coming from what I’d call the“pseudo-Satanic fringe,” the usual online rabble who


have no real outlet professionally or via websiteswhich have any significant traffic, let alone any coher-ent philosophy.

As the truism goes, “You are known by the companyyou keep.” Thus, having our materials “rubbing el-bows” with the scribblings of these people would onlygive them credence that they do not deserve. [32]

4. The religious group prefers to describe itselfas a philosophy that straddles a boundarybetween psychology and religion, not as a re-ligion. [33, p. 35]

The term “religion” has connotations that fol-lowers of religious groups often prefer to avoid.These groups typically make no direct use ofanthropomorphic gods, which is a hallmark oftraditional religions and silently implied by theterm “religion.” Instead they see themselves asgroups that follow a specific “philosophy” for-mulated by the founder. For example, The Tran-scendental Meditation program describes itselfas a technique and spurns the term “religion”(and even went to court to avoid it), but sociolo-gists agree that the organization is a religion [31,p. 20].

There are clear distinctions between religionsand philosophies,† and the differences in the be-havior of followers of a religion and followersof a philosophy are reasonably well definedamong sociologists. Thus, although some reli-gious groups may prefer the term “philoso-phy” to the term “religion” to avoid certain as-sociations, it is the latter that is correct.

The Church of Satan does present itself as a re-ligion, but with few exceptions its followersprefer to think of their religion as a philosophy.The official Church of Satan Web page calls itthe “iconoclastic philosophy” [34], and BlancheBarton refers to the religion as “Dr. LaVey’s dia-bolical philosophy” [16].

Documents such as The Satanic Bible and thebehavior of its followers would nonetheless cat-egorize the Church of Satan as a religion.5. The group believes to be founded on science

rather than faith. [35, pp. 72-74; 33, p. 34]

A related tendency among religious groups isa belief in justification by science rather thanfaith. The Church of Scientology is an unmistak-able example, as the reference to science is em-bedded in the religion’s very name, but manyother groups revolving around UFOs, pyramidhealing, astrology, psychokinesis, etc. also claimscientific evidence. Again, they may dislike theterm “religion,” because it sets them on anequal foot with traditional religions which ad-mit their faith-based existence.

The Church of Satan has similarly claimed va-lidity in science, and in The Cloven Hoof BlancheBarton not only claims connection with sciencebut equates followers of the religion with scien-tists:

… Scientists need that ineffable combination of rigidobjectivism and precision in their observations, unsul-lied by expectations or projected hopes, and a dream-er’s mind, capable of imagining methods and drawingconclusions that no one has devised before. They mustbe able to spend endless hours of boring observations,and then combine those data in new, revelatory combi-nations, and maintain their momentum and passionthroughout those long, boring hours. Only the Satanicmind can come up with that rare combination.… We should stand as the ones who are the most intol-erant of sloppy science and imprecise thinking, arro-gant in our demands for precision…‡ [36, p. 26]

6. The religious group promotes itself usingmodern marketing efforts. [33, p. 33]

Many religious organizations, and especiallyrelatively new organizations, promote them-selves by referring to celebrities that havejoined. For example, the Church of Scientologyuses celebrities such as John Travolta, Kelly Pre-ston, Kirstie Alley, Isaac Hayes, Lisa Marie Pres-ley, Juliette Lewis, Chick Corea, and many oth-ers to highlight its success [37].

Again, the Church of Satan fits the model, re-ferring to celebrities (albeit of much lesser fame)such as the individuals named in Section 4,Members, Priesthood, and Magistrate.

The above traits of new religions fit the coreand the soldiers in the higher two layers of theChurch of Satan’s organizational structure in

† Among other differences, a religion divides the world into the mundane and the sacred, which a philosophy does not. Recent phi-losophies distance themselves from the metaphysical world often found in religions. In addition, religions make use of rituals, cere-monies, and/or prayers that are absent from philosophies. Religions also imply social bindings that philosophies do not offer.Religion also sets certain standards of conduct that philosophies do not require. The line between religion and philosophy may besomewhat blurry at times, but it is ultimately the behavior of followers that determine whether they are religious or not, and conse-quently whether it is a religion or a philosophy.‡ Apparently this demand for precision does not seem to apply to The Satanic Bible, and the intolerance of sloppy science does not ex-plain why the Church of Satan insists on outdated and rejected scientific theories, such as those of Herbert Spencer and SigmundFreud. If Satanists are inherently scientists, it is bizarre that not a single scientist ranks among the individuals usually featured in theChurch of Satan’s self-promotion. At best, the Church of Satan has developed an intellectual beer gut caused by lack of mental train-ing, leaning back comfortably in a chair upholstered with ignorance.


Figure 2. The individuals found in the lowertwo layers are somewhat different.

2.2 New Age StyleFrom a sociological perspective the less active

followers of the Church of Satan—the interestedfollowers and the periphery—can best be classi-fied as New Age religious people and peoplewith no actual involvement in the religion, re-spectively.

New Age religious people are characterizedby rather unorganized religious “training” [25,pp. 316-317]. Like the religious people men-tioned earlier they typically consider them-selves followers of science-founded philoso-phies, but their relation to the founder and spin-off organizations is usually much more relaxed.

The technical term for their form of religiousstudy is “audience cult”† [31, p. 207], whichmeans that their understanding of their religionis self-taught via books and perhaps occasionalmeetings. They are free to pick and choose fromvarious books and sources: a religious buffet.

Ideologies vary greatly among New Age reli-gions, but a universal characteristic is that ofpersonal development [31, p. 206; 33, p. 24-27].Most of these religions emphasize individual-ism and self-realization where the followerworks on himself or herself in some manner to-wards some concept of perfection. Mankind isperceived as a creature with a higher potential,which unfortunately is curbed by today’s cul-tures and traditions. The followers believe thatthey will be better off if the religion is allowed aplace in the sun, where the follower:

… may come forth in splendor proclaiming “I AM ASATANIST! BOW DOWN, FOR I AM THE HIGHESTEMBODIMENT OF HUMAN LIFE!” [6, p. 45]

—Less restrained, perhaps, but otherwise theChurch of Satan’s anticipation of human poten-tial is not different from those of other New Agereligions in the world-affirming category.

The Church of Satan’s use of rituals is typicalfor New Age religions. The designers of the rit-uals used in New Age religions describe eachritual in relative detail, but make no attempts atexplaining how or why the rituals work [25,pp. 320-321]. Followers accept the designers asauthorities solely based on the designers’ per-sonal testimonials. If a designer says that a ritu-al works, the follower accepts it as fact and does

not seek scientific or even theological explana-tions. For example, if a crystal healer states thatspeaking a particular sentence to a pink stonewill improve the follower’s aura, the followerwill unquestioningly do it, evidence and expla-nations be damned.

Anton LaVey thus provides recipes for ritualsin both The Satanic Bible and The Satanic Rituals,but does not humor the reader with explana-tions beyond nebulous hints at bioelectricity, di-rected emotional force, adrenaline, cosmicpush/pull effects, tumblers in a combinationlock, etc. [6, pp. 135, 143; 15, pp. 17, 107; 14,p. 35]. He does provide an explanation for notexplaining, however:

It will be said, by some, that these instructions and pro-cedures are nothing more than applied psychology, orscientific fact, called by “magical” terminology—untilthey arrive at a passage in the text that is “based on noknown scientific finding.” It is for this reason that noattempt has been made to limit the explanations setforth to a set nomenclature. [6, p. 110]

One one account does the Church of Satan’sinterested followers distinguish themselvesfrom New Age religions. New Age religions arecharacterized by their large share of “seeking”people, who drift from one religion to anotheras they refine their views or gain new insights.The interested followers of the Church of Satanmay also drift, but with a peculiar twist: Satanusually remains a common denominator intheir religious affiliations when they move fromwhat is essentially one religious group to anoth-er, unless they become “born again” Christiansor otherwise leave the New Age milieu entire-ly. The ambiguity of the Church of Satan’sviews allows its followers to even radically ad-just their views and still pay homage to theDevil. Instead of moving to another religion,they redefine their own religion to designatetheir new stance. It is a religious analogy to thewarring states in Chinese history: each statemight win against the Chinese empire, yetsomehow it remained China.

Followers may shift stance many times andstill refer to themselves as Satanists, and a con-flict does not ensue until they are confrontedwith discrepant views held by other people al-so believing to be Satanists. It was not until theInternet became available for everyone thatsuch discrepancies became widely evident.

† “Cult” is used here to refer to religious groups of people that are not part of traditional religions, and who often find themselves inconflict with social norms. It is not used in any negative sense.


Where some New Age religions keep their fol-lowers in the organization via degree systemsallowing followers into higher organizationallevels with new secrets as their insights in-crease, or simply let the followers go, theChurch of Satan thus takes a different route: if afollower revises his or her view, then the newview is Satanism, too. It is only when the fol-lower does not accept other views as Satanicthat the Church of Satan administration typical-ly responds with an explanation that the follow-er’s “one true way” attitude is not appreciated.Such enforced dogmalessness ensures that dab-blers will not defect to another religion.

The periphery does not travel that far in theirquests for insight. These individuals read TheSatanic Bible or wear a Baphomet symbol andconsider themselves Satanists, but have onlyvery limited insight and interest in their religionand can better be described as “identity Sa-tanists” than philosophical, ideological, or reli-gious Satanists. They are somewhat compara-ble to people wearing “hip hop” pants to dis-play a sense of belonging.

3. Active Recruiting

The Church of Satan states that it does not so-licit memberships [1], but material such asCoop’s Church of Satan recruitment poster (Fig-ure 4) is a clear invitation to join. When present-ed with such initiatives by Church of Satan fol-lowers, the Church of Satan typically repliesthat it is not responsible for the actions of indi-vidual followers. Nevertheless, Coop’s posterhas been described by Blanche Barton in theChurch of Satan’s official newsletter, The ClovenHoof as “the new Church of Satan recruiting

poster,” [36] evidence that the Church of Satanendorses the follower’s artwork as a recruit-ment initiative.

The welcome (“splash”) screen (Figure 5) onthe official Church of Satan Web page greets thevisitor with the text:

We’re looking for a few outstanding individuals… [38]

which is again an invitation to join the organiza-tion.

Followers are sometimes inspired to join in theform of seemingly personal “form letters” [23].A typical form letter is sent to the owner of anewly discovered Web page that deals favor-ably with Satanism. The form letter containspraise for a well-designed and informative Webpage, followed by a question whether the per-son is a follower of the Church of Satan or in-tends to join it later, requesting a reason if not.Such letters are of course specifically designedto draw the person’s attention towards theChurch of Satan with an eye towards affilia-tion. Other people receiving such form lettersinclude those that post Church of Satan friend-ly messages to alt.satanism or various messageboards on the Internet.

The Grotto Master’s Handbook explains thatGrotto Masters receive a discount on grotto feesif they recruit new followers for the organiza-tion:

… you'll receive $10 credit toward your yearly grottofees for every direct Sponsorship of a new Church ofSatan member. [39]

Figure 4. The Church of Sa-tan claims that it does notadvocate membership, butthe text “Join now!” on thisr e c r u i t m e n t p o s t e r b yCoop is a clear-cut invita-tion to join. Explanationssuch as the Church of Sa-tan not being responsiblefor individual followers’actions does not hold incases like this poster wherethe Church of Satan openlyand actively endorses the

poster in, e.g., The Cloven Hoof, the Church of Satan’sofficial newsletter.

Figure 5. The text: “We’re looking for a few outstand-ing individuals…” welcoming visitors to the officialChurch of Satan Web page somewhat contradicts theorganization’s claim that it does not advocate mem-bership.


This is an obvious incitement to recruit follow-ers for the Church of Satan. The Grotto Master’sHandbook is marked confidential by the Churchof Satan.

4. Members, Priesthood, and MagistrateThe official Church of Satan Web page main-

tains that:individuals who resonate with Satan have always beenan alien elite. [34]

This statement does not imply that one mustbe a member of the Church of Satan to qualifyas elite, but it does imply that followers of theChurch of Satan automatically belong to anelite, since presumably they must have felt aresonance with Satan in order to join. Hence,the statement suggests that joining the organi-zation is equivalent to being part of an elite.

If the above only hints at being a member ofan elite by implication of a membership of theChurch of Satan, any doubt is cast aside whenthe new follower receives the confirmation ofmembership from the Church of Satan, whichdeclares that:

You have successfully entered into an alliance withtrue Satanists, those who lead and innovate … —youhave established an unwavering bond with the rareothers like yourself. Here you have found freedom.[40]

It also promises if not wealth and riches, at leasta potential for it:

As a Satanic magician, you will develop your abilitiesto change things around you, to influence those youwish, and to draw forth the advantages you desire. [40]

The individuals forming the elite are de-scribed just as ambiguously as the Church of Sa-tan’s ideology, and are vaguely referred to asthose who “lead and innovate.” The Church ofSatan Web page refers to itself and its followersas:

a cabal of like-minded, highly independent individualswho don’t require a social support group. Such selec-tive folk, the aristocracy of the able, at times partake ofthe pleasure of finding those few who share their per-sonal interests. [26]

Neither specifically state how the “alien elite”is an elite, but only describes them as somehowin charge and in positions as independent defacto leaders.

When the Church of Satan gives examples ofmembers of the elite, recurring names include:Sammy Davis, Jr., Jayne Mansfield, KennethAnger, Marilyn Manson, Coop, Timothy PatrickButler, Michael Moynihan, Vincent Crowley,

and Boyd Rice. Occasionally the list is extendedwith a few other people. Few people outside ofthe Satanic scene know any but the first fourpeople mentioned, and at least two of those fourpeople received their membership in theChurch of Satan only as honorary memberships.The remaining list of people have had moderatesuccess in their specific fields, but would hardlyqualify as an elite.

By joining the Church of Satan one somehowbecomes part of the cabal formed by the elite,opaque as the definition may be. But if anyonebecomes part of it simply by joining the Churchof Satan, statistically the elite is really com-prised of people not particularly different fromthe new follower. If such logic escapes the newfollower, the follower is free to invent any ideal-ized form of elitism and believe that he or she isnow part of this made-up elite.

“Registered” membership of the Church of Sa-tan is obtained by sending a sum of $100.00 anda signed statement that one wishes to join theorganization to the Church of Satan [1]. It is reg-istered members that receive the confirmationof membership referenced above.

“Active” membership requires followers tosend detailed personal information to theChurch of Satan, providing contact informationand a photograph, and the answers to a ques-tionnaire with forty personal questions [1]. Thisform of membership is otherwise free.

The Church of Satan does not explain why itrequires such detailed personal information inthe active membership application, but it is pre-sumably used when followers request contactwith consenting followers in their area. The de-tailed information can be used to guarantee thatpeople with diverging interpretations of theChurch of Satan’s writings are kept apart. It isusually more productive to gather like-mindedindividuals than disagreeing individuals, butthe separation also minimizes the risk of reveal-ing the ambiguity of the writings. The Churchof Satan states that, among other reasons, the in-formation is used to protect its members:

The protection of our members is one of the reasons wegather information through our extensive question-naire about the people who affiliate and wish ActiveMembership participation. [1]

The Church of Satan has stated that its follow-ers are acknowledged with titles based on ac-complishments in the “real world”:


Members of our Priesthood are people of accomplish-ment in the real world—they have mastered skills andhave won peer recognition, which is how they have at-tained their position—“as above, so below.” [1]

Some speculation on the nature of these accom-plishments has been made, as the accomplish-ments of some nominees have seemed ratherlimited. A common trait across all nominationsto priesthood or magistrate is that the nomineeshave influenced other people to join the Churchof Satan, that is, their accomplishment is that ofcontributing to an increased membership count.

(Incidentally, the Church of Satan’s self-imageas an organization for people capable of real-world accomplishments is far from unique tothe Church of Satan—it is common for NewAge religions to cater to those very people thatare socially well-integrated. [31, p. 50])

A distinct group of people have receivedpriesthood or magistrate degrees as honorary ti-tles. Most known among these are perhapsSammy Davis, Jr., King Diamond, and MarylinManson. The exact reason for their honorary ti-tles is somewhat unclear. Sammy Davis, Jr. wasJewish; King Diamond’s personal belief thatcenters around an afterlife and the existence of ahuman soul seems at odds with the Church ofSatan’s fundamental stance even when the am-biguity of its ideology is considered; and Mary-lin Manson’s “outcast” style conflicts with theChurch of Satan’s “elite” image—and besides,he later publicly distanced himself from theChurch of Satan. These individuals have cer-tainly made accomplishments in the real worldby figuratively raising the Devil in their stageshows, and the reason for their honorary titlesmay be that simple. However, the titles may al-so have been offered as a marketing scheme. Byoffering a honorary title to a successful personthe Church of Satan acquires a marketing agentwhose success becomes linked with Satan andthe Church of Satan via the title in the organiza-tion.

In 1975 Anton LaVey decided to sell titles for afee, a decision that led Michael Aquino to con-clude that the Church of Satan had deviatedfrom its path. Michael Aquino subsequentlyformed The Temple of Set to continue what hebelieved was the original intent of the Church ofSatan [2, pp. 407 – 412]. The reasoning behindthe selling of titles may have been that the abili-ty to afford money on mostly useless titles wasan indication of success in the real world, re-

flecting the Church of Satan’s current stance onaccomplishments as a metric of titular awards.Diane Hegarty’s letter to Michael Aquino indi-cates that this is the case:

If a big shot is really a big shot and/or capable of offer-ing the Church a sizable contribution, he has had hisfill of fancy dinners, honor guards, and fifteen-wordhonorary titles. [2, p. 827]

Intentional or not, the selling of intangibles is al-so a classical example of fleecing people thatwill pay for a pat on their backs. It is not clearwhether anyone has taken the offer, unless thetitle as Grotto Master qualifies. (A Grotto Mas-ter is required to pay a yearly fee.)

5. Desire for a Name PatentThe Church of Satan is the first organization in

modern society to claim devotion to Satan;Aleister Crowley’s groups, its only arguablecontesters to the title as Satanic organizations,have been linked with occultism per se ratherthan Satanism specifically, and the various “re-ligious Satanists” in the 1950es were clandestineand short-lived.

The novelty granted the Church of Satan animplied patent on the name, and the Church ofSatan has historically been rash to dismiss anygroup making claim to the name as a mere copyof the Church of Satan (see, e.g., the Church ofSatan’s Satanic Bunco Sheet [21], which practical-ly defines any Satanic group beyond the Churchof Satan as such a copy) that prospective or cur-rent followers should avoid.

Although the Church of Satan does state that aperson is born a Satanist and that membershipof the Church of Satan is not necessary to be aSatanist [41], the Church of Satan does not tendto acknowledge people as Satanists unless theyopenly support the Church of Satan. In fact,ranking followers in the Church of Satan havehabitually declared that only through member-ship of the Church of Satan does a person quali-fy as a “real” Satanist—in the words of aChurch of Satan priest:

And then there are two types of Satanists; those whoare members of the Church Of Satan and those whowish they were. [42]

Complaints to their superior in rank are nor-mally defused with the explanation that theranking follower is entitled to his or her opin-ion, and that one should not otherwise take thisfollower too seriously. In the case of the afore-mentioned priest, Peter Gilmore explained toone member:


He has his own personal style […]. That has no bearingon you both at all, I simply am aware that this situationexists. [43]

It is not clear how many people have been in-timidated by these declarations and felt re-quired to join as a result, but the author has en-countered people that have been insecure oftheir entitlement to the label “Satanist” as non-members of the Church of Satan because ofsuch statements [23].

The Church of Satan aggressively defends itsdesired position as sole proprietor of Satanismon the Internet. Many organizations and indi-viduals have received intimidating emails with(hollow) lawsuit threats or have been subjectedto harassment by Church of Satan followers perinstruction from the Church of Satan’s adminis-tration. For example, Peter Gilmore wrote in anemail to selected individuals that the adminis-tration would:

… like to see you perhaps interact with one anotherand coordinate your attacks on those who dare to try to be-smirch our organization [author’s emphasis], and thoseof us who I think have earned your respect as yourleaders. [44]

There are also examples that the Church of Sa-tan’s administration has divulged personal

membership information about followers whoturned on the Church of Satan [44], despite theorganization’s claim in the affiliation informa-tion that:

an individual’s membership is held in strictest confi-dence by the Church of Satan. [1]

Other attempts to keep a monopoly on Satan-ism include the Church of Satan’s use of the Ba-phomet symbol (Figure 6). Reportedly, theChurch of Satan originally used an exact copyof the Baphomet symbol displayed on the frontcover of Magic and the Supernatural [45] on mem-bership cards and other material, but has laterproduced a cleaned-up rendition [46]. TheChurch of Satan does not own the original sym-bol, but the Church of Satan has attempted toprevent other organizations from using any ren-dition of the symbol claiming it to be a copy-right violation against the Church of Satan [23].†

Because the precise rendition is less importantthan symbolism when it comes to religioussymbols, the Church of Satan’s aggressivetrademark protection indicates that there issomething else at stake than the use of the reli-gious symbol.

Figure 6. The Baphomet symbol was copied by the Church of Satan from the front cover of Maurice Bessy’s book,Magic and the Supernatural (left). The current edition of The Satanic Bible uses the same symbol (right), but withseveral clean-ups compensating for the somewhat blurred rendition on Bessy’s book. Although the precise rendi-tion is less important than symbolism when it comes to religious symbols, the Church of Satan has aggressivelypursued other uses of the symbol as copyright violations against the Church of Satan.

† In practice, it is the specific use of the Baphomet symbol in combination with the words “Church of Satan” that is protected by atrademark, not the symbol itself. Keeping tradition, the Church of Satan administration seldom pursues copyright “violators” direct-ly, but instead encourages followers of the Church of Satan to combat people that are followers of other Satanic organizations, andhence also those that use the symbol outside of the Church of Satan. This enables the administration to deny direct involvement usingthe plea of not being responsible for the actions of its followers.


The Church of Satan often argues that if notfor Anton LaVey, other organizations wouldnever have thought of referring to themselvesas Satanic. This argument is questionable, how-ever, because it is based on the improbablepremise that no-one else would have designedan organization and called it “Satanism” dur-ing the three decades following the creation ofAnton LaVey’s organization, especially becausethe interest in occultism and rebellion againstauthorities is still strong.

The question remains what the Church of Sa-tan is competing for, and why other organiza-tions are seen as threats. The membership countcannot be important, because the membershipcount is kept secret, and the organization ishardly collecting souls. The best bets seem to beeither the desire to be a large organization, hop-ing to eventually gain influence, or money. At a$100.00 registration fee per follower, followersare a profitable business, although far less prof-itable than systemized exploitation of membersby means of tutelary charge, for example.

Whatever its motives, the Church of Satanfiercely combats any alternatives to its desiredmonopoly.

6. Earned Hostility

Most organizations laying claim to Satan’sname are hostile against the Church of Satan.According to the Satanic Bunco Sheet the Churchof Satan views the attacks mostly as “sour-grapes” attacks, meaning that the organizationsare envious of something that only the Churchof Satan provides [21]. There is probably an ele-ment of truth in the statement, because a largerportion of the groups tend to select names thatare very close to the name “The Church of Sa-tan,” indicating their primary source of inspira-tion. We thus find groups emerging named“The First Church of Satan,” “New Church ofSatan,” “The Church of Satanic Brotherhood,”“The Original Church of Satan,” etc. Lendingfurther credibility to the Church of Satan’s viewthe behavior of many new High Priests of vari-ous new and improved Church of Satans (notnecessarily including or limited to the organiza-tions mentioned above) seem rather focused onbeing High Priests and little else. Finally, it iscommon to observe rebellious behavior againstthe original organization among break-outsects.

It is easy to become a member of the Church ofSatan and with the grapes thus within easyreach the Church of Satan’s sour-grapes argu-ment is not air-tight, however. Furthermore,varying versions of the sour-grapes argumenttend to be uncritically used against any hostilenon-follower, ex-follower, or organization, indi-cating that perhaps this argument provides anexplanation that is too simple. There may beother motivations behind some of the attacksagainst the Church of Satan.

Some doubt can be shed over the desire to be acopy of the Church of Satan. Inspiration fromThe Satanic Bible or several of the many sourcesthat Anton LaVey cited is unescapable seeingthat most other sources are Christian theology.Drawing inspiration from Anton LaVey is notequivalent to copying the Church of Satan.

Split groups are inevitable, because tradition-ally such groups arise from different interpreta-tions of a religion, or because emphasis isplaced on other elements of the religion than inthe original organization. The vagueness of theChurch of Satan begs for diversion and individ-uals focusing on each their understanding. Inany religion, individuals that delve deeper intoa case that they feel dedicated to usually desireless breadth in the organization’s convictionthan necessary for the sustainment of the origi-nal community. They split off, not because theywant to be a copy the original group, but be-cause they want to pursue their own, refinedbeliefs.

The choice of a similar name is therefore notnecessarily proof that the new organizations de-sire to copy the Church of Satan or otherwiseride on its coat-tails, as the Church of Satan ar-gues. Instead, the name testifies that the organi-zations wish to be what they thought theChurch of Satan should have been or once was.

The Church of Satan may misunderstand it asan attack when another organization clarifies itsstance on some of the facets also found in theChurch of Satan. It is also possible that Churchof Satan followers feel that their religion is the“one true way” and that any other voiced opin-ion is a heretical attack. Perusing archivedUsenet (newsgroup) messages on the Internetthe Church of Satan is quick to scornfully de-merit any competition it receives, and typicallywith no other provocation than the announce-ment of a new organization that does not men-tion the Church of Satan.


When attacked by other organizations theChurch of Satan may have had motives to havecast the first stone triggering an aggressive reac-tion from the other organization. Pentagonal Re-visionism states that first of all the Church of Sa-tan desires stratification, meaning that:

Water must be allowed to seek its own level withoutinterference from apologists for incompetence. [14]

It is a form of lassez-faire libertarianism,which on one hand implies that the Church ofSatan should welcome competing organiza-tions as vehicles for stratification, and on theother hand should view them as threats. TheChurch of Satan evidently concentrates on thelatter, attempting to level other organizationswhen natural stratification in the Church of Sa-tan’s favor is not prompt enough.

Some of the other organizations are hardly in-nocent, but the Church of Satan evidently at-tempts to quell its competition by means of in-timidation as discussed earlier. Decrees issuedby the organization’s very top, such as Syco-phants Unite! by Blanche Barton, demand that:

[The Church of Satan’s] supporters and advocatesmust be prepared to recognize and battle our enemies,especially when they’re wearing black robes. [47]

The enemies are defined as any other organi-zation laying claim to Satan’s name.

The Church of Satan presumably has a largemembership base compared with competing or-ganizations who are encouraged by the Churchof Satan to attack first. Even without encourage-ment, for each person that attacks the Church ofSatan for no reason statistically the Church ofSatan can be expected to have many more fol-lowers that have made similar attacks out of theblue. The encouragement only exacerbates thehostility.

It is very plausible that many attacks againstthe Church of Satan are results of harassmentby Church of Satan followers acting on expecta-tions from the Church of Satan’s administrators.The CoS Files contain examples of conflicts thatare initiated by the Church of Satan. [44]

The competition from alternative Satanic orga-nizations is two-fold: firstly, the alternative or-ganizations threaten the Church of Satan’s re-cruitment as they provide additional options forthose that would otherwise have joined theChurch of Satan. If one was to believe theChurch of Satan’s statement that it does not ad-vocate membership, it would seem unlikely thatthe Church of Satan would be provoked by a

competition for followers. In fact, the Church ofSatan often proclaims that it is better off with-out those followers that join other Satanic orga-nizations [48; 23]. As was argued in the previ-ous section, however, the Church of Satan ac-tively recruits followers, and the proclamationinstead indicates that the Church of Satan itselfis prone to sour-grape attacks over much small-er grapes.

Secondly, the alternative organizations threat-en the Church of Satan’s monopoly on Satan-ism. But, this is inevitable, because as arguedearlier virtually any view can be derived fromthe Church of Satan’s material, and as long as itis referred to as “Satanic,” it qualifies per theChurch of Satan’s definition.

Both the Church of Satan and other organiza-tions using the label “Satanism” have interest atstake, and to believe the Church of Satan’s pre-tence as a completely innocent organization en-during unjust attacks from vile renegadeswould be preposterous. On the contrary, theChurch of Satan encourages its followers to pre-emptively attack other organizations.

7. Double-Talking and Two-Facing

When inevitably followers or prospective fol-lowers of the Church of Satan have complainedabout the opinions of charismatic people in theChurch of Satan, the Church of Satan has usual-ly used the eclecticism argument, replying thatthe religion encompasses a large array of differ-ing opinions which together form a greaterwhole, and that each follower should choosewhat makes him or her successful [23].

At the same time, followers and prospectivefollowers that agree with the same charismaticpeople find that the Church of Satan reinforcestheir support stating that these people form thecore of the Church of Satan’s ideology.

It is unlikely that people with widely diverg-ing opinions will want to discuss religious de-tails with each other on a constructive level(they will rather just hiss at each other), andtherefore unlikely that they will discover theconflicting support given by the Church of Sa-tan’s officials. If they do discover the conflictnonetheless, it can be resolved with a repetitionof the above reference to richness and diversityof the religion. (That is, serving the Church ofSatan’s purpose to “confound and confuse tillthe stars be numbered,” the people are beingtold that they are both right, and that they only


do not have the insight to appreciate this factyet.)

This stratagem enables the Church of Satan tolet many different people with opposing viewsinteract with people of their own liking. In turn,these people are given the impression that Sa-tanism is exactly about their particular interpre-tation, because their “contact” in the Church ofSatan is endorsed by the organization. By claim-ing support, not only does the Church of Satanpersuade gullible people to join the organiza-tion believing it to be well suited to their per-sonal ideology; it also places the charismaticpeople in a role as active recruiters.

It is quite possible that from the Church of Sa-tan’s view their role as recruiters may be theironly justification and reason for titular rewardin the organization, and that their ideologicalcontributions are summarily ignored unlessthey are useful for luring more followers andtheir accompanying $100.00 into the organiza-tion. If the esteemed recruiters eventually beginto discourage more people from joining thanthey encourage to join, their titles may be re-voked or the recruiters may be expelled for du-bious reasons of sudden disagreement with theChurch of Satan or its founder.

8. The 1975 “Turning Point”

It is possible that the Church of Satan startedas a genuine organization dedicated to thePrince of Darkness, but then deviated from itscourse and focused on perpetuating its pro-fessed alliance with the Devil only as a conduitfor fraud. This is the view held by MichaelAquino of the Temple of Set.

The fact that the Church of Satan was original-ly a home study group indicates that at the veryleast it was originally an ideological movement.Michael Aquino describes how the Church ofSatan ostensibly later turned its back on Satan,1975 being the year where the Church of Satandecided to sell priesthood titles at a fee followedby increasing charges for services and Baphom-et medallions; Baphomet medallions previous-ly sold at $20 already with a comparatively highprofit of $17 were now sold at $50 a piece [2,p. 420].

According to Michael Aquino, the Church ofSatan practically ceased to exist as a religiousorganization by 1975, largely withdrawing fromthe public scene until the late 1980es when PeterGilmore entered the scene after double-court-

ing the Temple of Set and the Church of Satan.(This double-courting illustrates that PeterGilmore used two-faced policies from the verybeginning of his career in Satanism.) MichaelAquino argues that Anton LaVey had lost inter-est in Satanism and instead attempted to turnthe organization into his personal cash cow, andthat the organization’s continued activities werea financial scam.

Michael Aquino shows evidence that a focuson finances did escalate in the months before1975, and that 1975 may have presented a some-what drastic escalation. It is also believable thatMichael Aquino’s relation of his concord withAnton LaVey on the belief in Satan is correct,judging from Michael Aquino’s otherwise ex-quisite memory and careful use of sources anddocumentation. The odds of Michael Aquinohaving a personal agenda that provokes theview mentioned above are low given the addi-tional documentation of Anton LaVey’s acceptof, or belief in, the Devil cited earlier.

In frustration over the new direction, whichMichael Aquino saw as ideological treason, heclaims to have performed a personal invocationof Satan in the form of the ancient Egyptian godSet. In The Book of Coming Forth by Night, Micha-el Aquino describes how Set explained that An-ton LaVey’s “infernal mandate” had been re-voked and passed to Michael Aquino as AntonLaVey’s successor:

I [Set] raised him [Anton LaVey] to the Will of a Dai-mon, unbounded by the material dimensions. And so Ithought to honour him beyond other men. But it mayhave been this act of mine that ordained his fall.… Michael Aquino, you are become Magus V° of theAeon of Set. [49]

The Church of Satan has a case against Micha-el Aquino in terms of the postulated 1975schism. Firstly, the Church of Satan advises thatMichael Aquino’s revelation might have beenprompted by a strong desire to be a new AntonLaVey or to take over the Church of Satan:

This supernatural revelation supposedly gives him theright to supercede the Church of Satan. Doesn’t thatsound familiar? [50]

Thus noting that the revelation came at an op-portune moment when Michael Aquino foundhimself torn between loyalty with the Church ofSatan and his personal interpretation of its ide-ology, the Church of Satan has a point: MichaelAquino’s revelation and his evaluation of theChurch of Satan are to be taken with a grain ofsalt.


Secondly, Michael Aquino’s conclusion as re-gards the Church of Satan’s departure from itsideology by turning its back on the literal Satanhas a potential flaw. His statement that theChurch of Satan included the belief in a literalDevil is probably correct considering AntonLaVey’s acceptance of a literal belief in Satan. Itis more doubtful whether this belief extendedthroughout the entire Church of Satan asMichael Aquino feels, however, because in hisbook, The Church of Satan, Michael Aquino givesan impression that he played a much more im-portant role in the Church of Satan than is re-flected in Burton Wolfe’s hagiography of AntonLaVey, The Devil’s Avenger, [51] which was re-leased prior to Michael Aquino’s conflict with,and subsequent departure from, the Church ofSatan in 1975. The book does not mentionMichael Aquino, but other followers trusted byAnton LaVey are named. The Church of Satansensibly argues that if Michael Aquino had beenas important for the Church of Satan as indicat-ed in his own book, he would have deserved atleast a mention in Burton Wolfe’s book.

Michael Aquino may thus have representedjust one of perhaps several groups that wereeach given the impression of being importantand privy to confided material. It is reasonableto assume in that case that Michael Aquino wasdeliberately mislead to believe that he was amost important figure in the Church of Satanand that his views formed the foundation of theorganization, while other groups were told sim-ilar stories about their views.

Michael Aquino’s conclusion is thus valid, butaccounting for his ostensibly limited influencethe conclusion may apply to just the group thatMichael Aquino knew of and possibly someothers. Michael Aquino’s conclusion and itsconstrained application together indicate that ifthere were a 1975 schism, it applied to just someof the Church of Satan’s followers. Specifically,Michael Aquino’s conclusion would have beenthe same if:1. The Church of Satan believed in Satan, but in

1975 it changed its course and became ascam.

2. The Church of Satan had deliberately echoedwhat each group wanted to hear, and Micha-el Aquino was led to believe that his viewwas shared with the entire Church of Satan.Signs that had become too clear to ignore

caused the scales to fall from his eyes in mid-1975.

The latter seems more likely given that con-flicting interpretations and lies such as AntonLaVey’s and the Church of Satan’s fabricatedpast were produced prior to 1975 (see Section 9,Unsupported Claims). Hence, instead of necessar-ily evidencing a change of course by the Churchof Satan, Michael Aquino’s book may rather bea report on how one group became disillu-sioned upon realizing that the Church of Satanhad other goals than the group had been led tobelieve.

The first of the Church of Satan’s objectionsagainst Michael Aquino remains valid, becausehe received his revelation at a suspiciously op-portune moment.

Its other objection is invalid, however, becauseMichael Aquino did have distinctive impor-tance in the Church of Satan. He was the editorof the Church of Satan’s official newsletter, TheCloven Hoof and held a IV° title (the highest titleobtainable) in the Church of Satan [50], and hadauthored some of the Church of Satan’s rituals,two of which are available in The Satanic Rituals.His having held such positions open specula-tions as to why Michael Aquino was not at allmentioned in Burton Wolfe’s book.

The explanation may be sought in the fact thatBurton Wolfe’s biography of Anton LaVeycould hardly have been written without assis-tance from Anton LaVey himself. Anton LaVeyknew Michael Aquino’s sincerity and dedica-tion to Satanism, and if Anton LaVey happenedto be planning a shift from occult studies to ei-ther a scam or nothing at all, Michael Aquinowas guaranteed to be a problem to be dealtwith. Anton LaVey may thus have decided topreemptively remove Michael Aquino from thehistory of the Church of Satan by either “forget-ting” to mention him to Burton Wolfe, or haveinstructed Burton Wolfe to remove all referenc-es to Michael Aquino from his manuscript.

It is reasonable to assume that Anton LaVey’soriginal home study group was honestly dedi-cated to an emerging religion whose backingideology the group did not perceive as ambigu-ous for the simple reason that they had an un-spoken agreement on the understanding of Sa-tanism. Later, but possibly as early as the foun-dation of the Church of Satan as more than justa home study group, profit became a stronger


motivator than occult studies and insight, or theinterest faded.

In conclusion, it seems that 1975 may havemarked a time when Michael Aquino discov-ered a scam, but if the scam was not intentionalfrom the very birth of the Church of Satan, itcertainly must have been brewing before 1975.

9. Unsupported ClaimsBiographies of Anton LaVey make fantastic

claims about his past, claiming that AntonLaVey had been employed as a lion tamer inClyde Batty’s circus, played in the San FranciscoBallet Orchestra, that he played the Devil in Ro-man Polanski’s film Rosemary’s Baby, that hisgrandmother was a gypsy who passed on tohim legends of vampires and werewolves in hernative Transylvania, etc. [3; 51].

In 1998 Zeena Schreck (Anton LaVey’s seconddaughter) and Nikolas Schreck compiled AntonLaVey: Legend and Reality [52], a list of refuta-tions of many of the fantastic claims that AntonLaVey and the Church of Satan had made abouthim and his life. The document includes a num-ber of remarks that may be debatable. For exam-ple, it relies in part on statements by Diane He-garty, Anton LaVey’s second wife, includingtestimonials that she had made during their di-vorce case. It is common for divorcing couplesto accuse each other of mistreatment, and in-deed such allegations arose during the divorcebetween Anton LaVey and Diane Hegarty, too.Her accusations of violence against her commit-ted by Anton LaVey are a clear sign that the di-vorce was problematic but they are not neces-sarily true.

Most of the remaining statements in Zeenaand Nikolas Schreck’s compilation, however,are highly plausible and do not rely on state-ments by opinionated sources. For example,Anton LaVey asserted that he joined the ClydeBeatty circus in 1947 as a lion tamer [3]. If com-mon sense alone does not speak against the em-ployment of a 17 year old new hire as a liontamer, the absence of the name “LaVey” or“Levey” from Clyde Beatty’s employmentrecords strongly indicates that Anton LaVeyfabricated the story. Similarly, with few excep-

tions that provide no statistical weight, AntonLaVey has taken credit for curses involving thedeath or harm of his enemies only after the al-leged maledictions had taken effect. Like hisprofessed circus employment and curses, mostof his history is either unsupported, posthu-mously claimed, or contradicted by facts.

It is clear that Zeena and Nikolas Shreck’s mo-tivation for making public the myths behindAnton LaVey in itself does not provide a caseagainst the accuracy of the information. Thelack of adequate refutation of the document bythe Church of Satan or anyone else is telling.

Considering the amount of attention that theChurch of Satan has given the few verifiablytrue events in Anton LaVey’s, combined withthe apparent need to fabricate stories it is re-markable how comparatively few noteworthyevents must have taken place in his life and inthe history of the Church of Satan.† One wouldexpect any other memorable events to have re-ceived similar attention.

Not surprisingly did the Church of Satan notapprove of Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality.Faced with undeniable evidence against AntonLaVey’s claims, the Church of Satan instead de-fended its founder with the argument that thedetails of his life are less important than the factthat he founded the Church of Satan. Apparent-ly the Church of Satan does not consider this ar-gument when it attacks leaders of other Satanicorganizations, because the Church of Satan isquick to track down and point out inconsisten-cies and potential fallacies in claims made bycompeting leaders [53, 54].

Unless the Church of Satan is a personalitycult or otherwise revolves around the life of itsfounder, the Church of Satan’s appeal to irrele-vance is correct. The Church of Satan even turnsthe argument around, claiming that it is thosewho mention that Anton LaVey fabricated hispast that have personality cult mentality—in thewords of Michael Rose (Magister):

Another common avenue of attack is to charge thatmembers of the Church of Satan worshipped Dr.LaVey. These dolts cannot distinguish worship fromrespect. … They imagine that by criticizing Dr. LaVeythey can diminish, or cause us to reject, the Church of

† If anything, Anton LaVey seems to have been rather unsuccessful. He apparently never held a long term employment, and living offhis only success (the creation of the Church of Satan) did not help him from dying broke in a cold and run-down house. He must havebeen bitterly aware of this fact unless his sense of reality was severely distorted. In The Satanic Bible Anton LaVey states that man: “isworshipping by proxy the man that invented god [original emphasis]” [6, p. 44]. If LaVey knew that he was a failure, one may speculatewhether his motive behind the Church of Satan was a desire to be worshipped by proxy for a god that he invented. As explained inSection 2, A New Religion, in that respect he succeeded.


Satan. They do not attack the philosophy; they attackthe philosopher. This makes it quite clear that it is theywho are the personality cultists. [55]

While it is true that an attack on the founderdoes not necessarily imply an attack on the ide-ology, it is false to state that the attack impliespersonality cult mentality on behalf of the at-tacker. The argument may apply to some peo-ple, but does not address the following cases,for example:• The leader’s false past and less than glorious

demise is criticized with no ulterior motives,with motives of devotion to facts, etc.

• The leader is criticized because it will affectthose Church of Satan followers whose pri-mary devotion is Anton LaVey. It is under-standable why Church of Satan followers areperceived as people with personality cultmentality when, for example, Peter Gilmoresolemnly states that:

Dr. LaVey is our High Priest, because he is certainlythe most advanced person in the Church of Satan. He istruly a brilliant man and one that we can all learn from.Actually, he never ceases to amaze me with, er, thewondrous things that he’s experienced and has toteach. [56]

• When a Church of Satan follower reveresAnton LaVey as the foremost Satanist and atthe same time considers his ideology to be arecipe for success, pointing out that AntonLaVey died bitter and broke in a run-downhouse serves to illustrate that the follower iswrong on at least one account.

Hence, it is less than clear, and maybe evenunlikely, that those who criticize Anton LaVeywould be “personality cultists.” It is a twist ofirony that cult mentality is defined as the pro-fession of great devotion to some person andthe desire to follow that person almost withoutquestions, when Michael Rose continues:

I’ve never believed any of the tired accusations thatthese people have made …Dr. LaVey blazed a trail. We who followed him be-cause we were traveling the same way will continueundeterred. [55]

It remains that if Anton LaVey’s life were as ir-relevant as Church of Satan officials claim, it isremarkable that he would fabricate such fantas-tic stories, even if he did so out of personal vani-ty, or perhaps because had convinced his origi-nal home study group of an unusual past andwas forced to keep up the appearance. Evident-ly the Church of Satan wants to draw from themystery of a very special person, or the Church

of Satan would have ceased to emphasize his“remarkable” life. It is noteworthy that theChurch of Satan membership card shown inFigure 1 displays the text “Anton SzandorLaVey / Founder and High Priest,” because it isvery unusual for a membership card to displayanother person’s name unless it is a fan clubmembership card. Although the Church of Sa-tan’s appeal to irrelevance is valid, clearly itdoes not reflect the Church of Satan’s use of An-ton LaVey’s sinister image.

Lies provide a clue to one’s values, because astoryteller lies about that which he finds impor-tant, and the particular claims themselves arethus telltale of the Church of Satan’s values. It istherefore not surprising, based on the storiesabout Anton LaVey’s life, that the Church of Sa-tan invariably appreciates people involved inshowbiz or “shock” art, sexual fetichism, andvarious forms of con artistry. (The “News” sec-tion on the official Church of Satan Web page[38] has strong emphasis on such engagements,for example.) One never hears about a Churchof Satan follower accentuated by the Church ofSatan as a lawyer, programmer, professor, etc.

10. The Barnum Effect

The famous circus showman P. T. Barnum’sformula for success was: “Always have a littlesomething for everybody.” The so-called “Bar-num Effect,” named after P. T. Barnum and hismethods, takes advantage of the fact that whena person is confronted with an analysis or de-scription where many views are presented andboth sides of each view are presented, the per-son perceives an apparent accuracy. It is an illu-sion based on the fallacy of positive instances,in which a person remembers the instances thatconfirm his or her expectations and forgets therest [57].

Like palm readings, fortune tellings, horo-scopes, and other products of pseudo-psycholo-gy, a religion that is stated in such general termsthat it can hardly miss will always contain “a lit-tle something for everybody.”

Essays by Anton LaVey in, e.g., The Devil’sNotebook and Satan Speaks! and his general ad-miration of con artists including P. T. Barnumindicate that Anton LaVey was keenly aware ofthe methods employed by people making a liv-ing off the money they could trick from unsus-pecting victims. The Satanic Witch [58], also byAnton LaVey, and its extensive reference is a


veritable cornucopia of useful techniques to be-guile unwary people into following one’s wish-es.

The double-talking and two-facing of theChurch of Satan’s current administration pro-vides followers and prospective followers withjust what they want to hear, hiding the manyopposing views, which are told only to otherpeople that want to hear those views. In theworld of con artists, this is a form of cold read-ing, except that the Church of Satan raises thetemperature to both warm and hot readings,drawing on a priori knowledge about those thatit addresses and tailoring the replies according-ly.

Intentional or not, the ambiguous texts of theChurch of Satan fit the traditional structure ofstatements characterized by the Barnum Effect,and the Church of Satan’s selective answers arethose of the crystal ball gazer.

Anton LaVey’s many references to other estab-lished religions as hoaxes may have been fullydeserved, but they also drew attention from thepossibility that his own ideology might be nobetter, much like a pickpocket may attempt tocreate a commotion that allows him to work un-disturbed. The references appeal to those thatknow they were fooled by the Christian reli-gion; their emotional reaction against theirchildhood religion is likely to compel them tobelieve Anton LaVey when he sells his ideolo-gy as the “real thing” that they missed earlier.

11. A Financial Scam?

A scam is loosely defined as promising andcharging for delivery without delivering.

Michael Aquino argues that the Church of Sa-tan is a scam, because it deviated from the Dev-il’s path for financial gains while still claimingto pay homage to Satan (see page 19).

There is reason to believe that the Church ofSatan knowingly attempts to fleece its members,and that some profit was planned from the veryestablishment of the Church of Satan. In an in-terview with Michael Aquino, professional pub-licist Edward Webber recalls suggesting to An-ton LaVey that LaVey:

would never make any money by lecturing on Fridaynights for donations […] it would be better to formsome sort of church and get a charter from the State ofCalifornia […] I told Anton at the time that the presswas going to flip out over all this and that we wouldget a lot of notoriety. [2, p. 27]

Reviewer Jerry Carroll of The San FranciscoChronicle interviewed Anton LaVey over dinnerone night in 1986, and reported:

It was all an act for a marketing niche. “It’s a living,” ashe put it. He didn’t hide his contempt for his followers[2, p. 431]

Occasionally opponents of the Church of Sa-tan have insinuated that the $100.00 member-ship fee is a scam. The Church of Satan has typi-cally replied that Anton LaVey could have cho-sen a more profitable scheme. This reply doesnot invalidate the accusation, however, becauseit only states that Anton LaVey was not focusedon excessive income or that he made a poorchoice.

Another recurring reply to the accusation isthat Church of Satan followers knew that themoney went to Anton LaVey himself. This ar-gument is valid, but followers pay the $100.00in appreciation of Anton LaVey’s creation of anorganization that allegedly suits their ideology.But this is the scam: the organization does notmatch their personal ideology any more thanLeo horoscopes fit Scorpio persons (which theydo only because of the Barnum Effect). TheChurch of Satan’s reply is thus identical to stat-ing that the Church of Satan is not a scam sim-ply because the deceived people were con-vinced!

However, although the replies from theChurch of Satan do not reject the accusation,and although the yearly Grotto Master fees andthe $100.00 registration fee that the Church ofSatan receives for each membership do providea continuous flow of money, there is ampleroom for improving this flow. The Church ofSatan fits the pattern of any other religiousgroup, and if money were its primary businessthe Church of Satan would probably employseveral of the common financial engines of oth-er religions.

The limited financial scam-like profiting maytherefore be a perk for the religion’s leaders, butit is hardly their primary concern.

More seriously, Michael Aquino has notedthat Anton LaVey filed for bankruptcy as a re-sult of his and Diane Hegarty’s divorce. Thebankruptcy was eventually completed afterlengthy trials, and included the liquidation ofthe Church of Satan [2, pp. 427 – 429]. Hence,the Church of Satan cannot demand paymentfrom anyone, because there is no organizationto receive the payment. Only it name exists as a


group description, somewhat like the term“Christianity” can exist without a living Christ.

Church of Satan officials and members arguethat evidently the Church of Satan exists, be-cause the members are right there to argue itsexistence. This is a valid argument, but it ad-dresses a quite different issue. The argumentproves that followers exist that embrace the Sa-tanic ideology (ambiguous as it may be), but itprovides no proof that the Church of Satan ex-ists as a legal organization that can demandpayments.

It should perhaps be kept in mind that theChurch of Satan is far from alone in financialspeculations, which appear to be the rule ratherthan the exception among religious groups.†

The Church of Satan is perhaps one of the lesserplayers as far as financial scam is considered. Itwould therefore be incorrect to conclude thatmoney forms the Church of Satan’s motivationfor existence, simply because the organizationdoes not pursue financial gains that aggressive-ly. But, it would be equally incorrect to statethat the Church of Satan has no interest in scam-like financial activity.

12. An Ideological Scam?

It was argued in Section 2, A New Religion, thatthe Church of Satan provides a religion that isso vaguely defined that virtually any interpreta-tion is readily possible. Such a wide appeal en-ables the religion to gain a large number ofmembers without explicitly supporting any ofthem.

Many of the Church of Satan’s followers seemto revere Anton LaVey as exceptionally intelli-gent, and his oratory skills and literacy canhardly be denied. At first glance it may none-theless seem too flattering to Anton LaVey’s in-telligence to accredit him with the ability tomastermind a hoax that has gone unnoticed foralmost forty years.

Anton LaVey’s intelligence was probably wellabove average, and he was certainly not naïvebut possessed a certain cunning and an instinc-tive ability to be in the right place at the righttime. This is a character trait that fits most suc-cessful con artists.

Beyond Anton LaVey’s skill as a con artist—and certainly his desire to be one—it may havebeen a question of luck. Just like The Satanic Bi-ble was pieced together facing an imminentdeadline, the Church of Satan may have beenestablished in a hurry with few thoughts to-wards a consistent ideology. The original Mag-ic Circle almost certainly shared an implied ide-ology, some of which was captured in The Sa-tanic Bible, some not. Once the Church of Satanhad been established followers would ap-proach it with each their own understanding,often incompatible with those of other follow-ers, of the ideology expressed by the Church ofSatan and The Satanic Bible.

Given evidence in both directions, it seems fairto conclude that Anton LaVey did not plan theChurch of Satan, and much less an ideologicalscam. Instead, Anton LaVey accidentally be-came involved in publishing and news eventsbeyond his control, and being a con artist atheart he saw an unused opportunity that he halfchose, half was forced to exploit.

13. Inconsistency Gone UnnoticedIt may seem surprising at first that the ambi-

guity of the Church of Satan’s ideology hasgone unnoticed for decades. However, it is like-ly that faced with clear examples of ambiguity,followers will just ignore them. When it comesto religion, rational arguments against the reli-gion tend to fall on the followers’ deaf ears ifonly the followers feel that the religion suitstheir best interests. In such situations it is hu-man to err, and apparently even more human tostay in error.

This section provides a number of possible ex-planations why followers may ignore rampantexamples that they were fooled, and why the in-consistency and perhaps deliberate hoax is notacknowledged.

13.1 Followers of the Church of SatanAs is also discussed in Section 2, A New Reli-

gion, a follower may not acknowledge the ambi-guity and instead consider his or her own inter-pretation to be the only interpretation possible.The dynamics discussed in Section 2 that causefollowers to isolate themselves from other influ-ences also act as a barrier against criticism.

† Most religions are speculative in that they make hypotheses that invariably fail the falsification principle. By definition, they areusually scams because they fail to deliver what they promise. They do, however, deliver other products such as social networks, emo-tional gratification, comfortable illusions, etc., meaning that their followers do get something that they pay for—just not what waspromised.


(Outside influence is a form of implied criti-cism, as it provides examples of alternative in-terpretations.)

A person is less inclined to accepting a state-ment telling the person that he or she is wrongthan a statement that confirms the person’s be-lief [59]. Because religious questions or person-al values are typically held without supportingevidence (as opposed to a rational stance), evi-dence pointing in another direction has an evenlesser effect on the person if it is religion or val-ues that are questioned. The very key princi-ples behind critical thinking, which is requiredto acknowledge the fundamental flaws in theChurch of Satan’s ideology, are antithetical toreligious sentiments or personal values. A per-son that voices critique can be expected to bedismissed as either ignorant or a “shit-disturb-er,” a common term against critics within theorganization. Sometimes in moments of self-re-flection followers may acknowledge that they“have not yet understood” an apparent contra-diction.

Followers whose primary interest in theChurch of Satan is a fascination with its foundermay be impervious to critique for other reasonsthan religious conviction or personal values.Such followers display cult mentality, and be-cause the ideology has little importance to suchpeople, a devastating critique of the ideologywould produce no effect.

Many followers may also feel that they re-ceived something genuine from the Church ofSatan, even if the goods are intangible. Their$100.00, their time, and their efforts went to An-ton LaVey or The Church of Satan as a gift in re-turn for what they happened to gain emotional-ly from The Satanic Bible. Such followers createan illusion of accomplishment, leading them tofeel that they did receive what they bargainedfor by this specific religion, when they might aseasily have received the same emotional gratifi-cation elsewhere. The illusion of being part of agroup that shares one’s ideology is adequate tosome, whereas others feel their egos inflated bytheir membership. If they can display genuineaccomplishment in the real world, they attributeit to their membership of the Church of Satanwhich is most likely inconsequential to their ac-complishments. If their accomplishments are

faltering in the real world, usually they canboast of a mediocre achievement as a significantaccomplishment instead.†

Finally, contributing to one’s local church isconsidered common practice in the USA, wherethe Church of Satan appears to recruit most ofits followers. This tradition lessens the suspi-cion that perhaps the contributor was cheated,because the contributors are usually not accus-tomed to receiving anything in return but thesatisfaction of recognition for the donation.

A critique of the Church of Satan and/or itsideology is thus not likely to produce any reso-nance among the Church of Satan’s followers.

13.2 Non-Affiliates of the Church of Satan

Outside of the Church of Satan there may alsobe limited interest in such a critique. One possi-ble explanation is the fact that few peoplewould have reason to accuse Anton LaVey of apoorly designed ideology. Disgruntled ex-fol-lowers would not happily admit that they be-lieved in something that made little sense, andif only a few ex-followers complain or if theycomplain about virtually anything related to theChurch of Satan, they are not taken seriously;sociologists would not consider it unusual com-pared to other ideologies and therefore not par-ticularly worthy of mention; and his sworn reli-gious enemies, fundamentalist Christians, ac-cused him of anything with little concern fortruth, burying minor offenses among more seri-ous and easily refuted accusations.

The Church of Satan helps downtone the criti-cism. Disgruntled ex-followers that do object tothe Church of Satan’s methods are usually ex-plained away by the Church of Satan as peoplewho were never really important in the organi-zation, and who fell by the wayside becausethey did not have the high standards (implied:the high standards that followers stand to loseby defecting) required to be Satanists. The argu-ment seems thin, however, because these peo-ple include individuals that have been moresuccessful on the Satanic scene than most otherSatanists, and individuals that were invited in-to the Magistrate; even Zeena LaVey and KarlaLaVey, Anton LaVey’s daughters, who were en-titled High Priestesses of the Church of Satan,were dismissed as insignificant when they

† Among Satanists, the Internet displays a large number of owners of poorly designed web pages that promote themselves as Web art-ists; writers of an article or two that promote themselves as authors; guitar players that cannot play for a living who promote them-selves as musicians, etc.


eventually defected. If all these people had beenthat insignificant, they would hardly haveachieved their high ranks. Those that receivethe Church of Satan’s explanation may not beaware of such facts, however.

But perhaps an even more likely explanationis that of lazy convenience. People tend to judgea person and his achievements by the person’sreputation, and drawing on the emotional pow-er of the word “Satan” and the flamboyant, dia-bolical scenery Anton LaVey became a conve-nient identification of the embodiment of Satan.If, for example, a person is called “mediocre,”that is what the person becomes for reportorialpurposes, and Anton LaVey may have sensedthe need to firmly establish himself as an un-usual character even if it meant a radical alter-ation of his past.

13.3 SummaryThe persistency of the religion in spite of its in-

herent contradictions and the many warningbeacons can be explained by the commitmentand consistency trap, which is well knownamong marketing experts. It exploits the humantendency to stay consistent with—and even de-fend—one’s decisions, even if the decisions areshown to be wrong. Once a person finds “a littlesomething” in The Satanic Bible or other of theChurch of Satan’s publications and subsequent-ly joins the organization, the person has com-mitted himself or herself to the organization,and will be disinclined to deviating from futureconsistency with this commitment.

Ergo, the ideology is kept alive partly by fol-lowers that were deceived, because they act asagents rejecting accusations of an inconsistentideology using arguments that, lacking tangibleevidence, are essentially religious.

Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan arehandy metaphors for the Devil for both friendsand enemies, and if a journalist or follower ofthe Church of Satan was to finally admit thetruth about Anton LaVey’s organization thejournalist or follower would necessarily admitthat he missed it all the times before. There is astrong tendency to avoid this, and if it meansthat as a follower of the Church of Satan one ad-mits to paying a $100.00 penalty of being dupedby a con man, one might be even less happyabout it. Besides, it is unlikely that the person

would even be heard among the larger group ofpeople that had not made the discovery, be-cause such a discovery, after all, will hardly be atopic for the next episode of 60 Minutes.

14. Disclosing the Inconsistencies

The Internet boom in the mid-1990es enabledfollowers of the Church of Satan knowing noother followers in their area to communicatewith other followers at the speed of email or viainstant messaging in IRC chat rooms†. In addi-tion, the Internet relies on written and hencedocumentable information. This level of com-munication between prospective followers andcurrent Church of Satan followers must haveboosted the organization’s membership count,but it also made it possible to quickly see sorampant differences between religious convic-tions that they could not possibly fit under oneumbrella religion. In particular, the Internet en-abled followers to compare statements from theChurch of Satan administration, revealing“form mails,” more or less veiled threats, and apattern of saying what people want to hear. TheCoS Files [44] contain numerous examples of theChurch of Satan’s interaction with followersand competing organizations.

The Internet provides the Church of Satanwith a recruitment agent, but it is also a tool forunraveling the Church of Satan’s methods thatwas not widely available during the first threedecades of the organization’s existence. Thelacking interaction between Church of Satan fol-lowers until the Internet boom probably ex-plains part of the reason why the scam has re-mained mostly hidden.

It is perhaps telling that the Church of Satanrecognized the Internet’s contribution to grow-ing tension between followers with conflictingideologies each believing theirs to be Satanic be-cause all ideologies fit the vague definition inThe Satanic Bible, and issued several recommen-dations on the Internet and in The Black Flame[47] to either stay off the Internet or not debatewith those people that one disagrees with. TheChurch of Satan’s reconciliation today is pro-vided on its Web page:

[S]ince only a very small percentage of our memberschoose to interact with people online, it would be anerror to think that your online experience is necessarily

† Instant messaging is an Internet service that enables people to communicate in writing in real time. IRC chat rooms is a special kindthat enables several participants to communicate in writing in real time simultaneously, all seeing each others’ replies.


a reflection upon what your personal experience withthe Church of Satan might be. [38]

Apparently the author of this disclaimer ex-pects the unfortunate follower to believe that heor she happened to meet just the people thatdisagree, and that there are plenty of followersthat agree lurking in the dark world off-line.

15. Conclusion

The Church of Satan’s ideology appeals tosuch a wide range of people that the only obsta-cle to agreeing with it is a potential unwilling-ness to accept the dreaded ‘S’ word. The wideapplication of the religion is explained by thefact that its ideology is inordinately ambiguous,fitting just about every conceivable view. TheSatanic Bible and other Church of Satan docu-ments represent so many opposing views thatreaders are prone to committing the fallacy ofpositive instances, causing them to focus onstatements that match their opinions and forgetthe rest: it is known as the Barnum Effect, whichis utilized by fortune tellers, charlatans, andother quackery.

Part of the religion suits people who feel lack-ing in some way, drawing from racist, fascistand Nazi imagery. Ideological scams thrive onsuch people, who are inclined to accept intangi-ble compensation for their tangible shortcom-ings.

Titles admitting followers into the priesthoodor magistrate are given in reward to those thatpersuade new followers to join.

Despite its claims the Church of Satan activelyrecruits followers, and together with a very ag-gressive defense of its historical name patent isvery hostile against other organizations. Fol-lowers are expected to antagonize other organi-zations by direct request from the highest-posi-tioned people in the Church of Satan, includingBlanche Barton and Peter Gilmore. This behav-ior has earned the Church of Satan a significantlevel of hostility from other organizations. TheChurch of Satan maintains that other organiza-tions attack the Church of Satan out of envy, butalthough this may the case in many situations, itis not a catch-all excuse. There are examplesthat attacks were initiated by the Church of Sa-tan in the form of intimidation and harassment,and that counterattacks on the Church of Satanwere motivated by several stones first cast bythe Church of Satan.

Anton LaVey’s alternate past is irrelevant forany ideology and must have served a purposethat a professed ideology alone could not satis-fy. It appeals to a fan club or personality cultmentality, which is a strong motivation to joinfor many people.

Several of the indications that the Church ofSatan deliberately deceives its members can ofcourse be explained otherwise. For example, thedetailed information required for active mem-bership might be genuinely used to match fol-lowers in groups with optimal productivity.

In addition, the Church of Satan’s membershipexhibits typical religious behavior. It may there-fore be incorrect to conclude that the Church ofSatan necessarily has ulterior motives such asmonetary or other reasons. It is more likely thatthe followers of LaVey are not different fromother people in the New Age climate, such as ascientologist or a Sai Baba follower, consideringthat their behavior snugly fits the pattern ofthose people.

Finally, Anton LaVey’s original home studygroup evidences that there was, at least in thebeginning, genuine interest, and that the ambi-guity of their ideology compiled in The SatanicBible was an accidental result of either impliedagreement, sloppiness, or a too aggressivedeadline.

Yet, LaVey’s fascination with con artists andfamiliarity with their methods should be con-sidered, especially because the fabrication of afantastic past is completely unnecessary for anideology and useful only for religions and per-sonality cults, and for duping unsuspecting vic-tims. The two-faced policies of the Church ofSatan and its very hostile stance towards orga-nizations competing for followers seem out ofplace for an organization claiming to desire peo-ple with high clarity only. Belief or disbelief inSatan, although a rather fundamental issue forthe religion, has been claimed alternately, theanswer determined by who was asking. Activerecruitment is denied but encouraged and prac-tised nonetheless. The ambiguity of the Churchof Satan’s religion today (mostly in the form ofencouraging personal eclecticism) and the two-faced policies employed by the Church of Satanseem deliberate.

There is ample evidence that the Church of Sa-tan has a very strong interest in gaining follow-ers uncritically of their ideological dispositions,and that it actively prevents other groups from


gaining any. At a high membership fee of$100.00 memberships may not be an exception-ally profitable business, but it is money none-theless. These facts suggest that the Church ofSatan’s interest in followers is in part based onan interest in profit. This speculation is under-scored by Michael Aquino’s documentation,which indicates that Anton LaVey lost interestin the Church of Satan and attempted turned itinto a cash cow instead.

This all leaves little doubt that the Church ofSatan deliberately attempts to fleece gulliblevictims. If not intentional from the very begin-ning, certainly this is what the Church of Sataneventually became. The current administrationof the Church of Satan clearly uses two-facedpolicies and double-talking, and encourageshostility against other Satanic organizations.

The reason that the Church of Satan’s opera-tion and inconsistent ideology have gone unno-ticed can be explained by psychological effectsthat cause people to be consistent with earliererrors, even when proven wrong. In addition,followers of different opinions seem to havebeen kept from each other. This is supported byobserving that while Michael Aquino’s groupconsiders 1975 a turning point in the history ofthe Church of Satan, apparently many othergroups did not notice any change. It was notuntil followers began to communicate in writ-ing via the Internet that the many conflictingstatements by the Church of Satan became veryclear.

It is inconsequential whether the Church of Sa-tan’s methods morally objectionable. It is alsoinconsequential that the Church of Satan’s reli-gion is inconsistent and tends towards hypocri-sy, because from a sociological point of viewsuch incongruences do not disqualify an ideolo-gy or a religion if they are accidental or resultsof intellectual shortcomings. The noteworthyconclusion is that the Church of Satan today in-tentionally provides a rubbery religion andclaims to be the foundation of nearly any ideol-ogy that (paying) followers happen to agreewith.

The Church of Satan is yet a young organiza-tion that has had very limited time to formulatean ideology. It is an unfinished product, whichwill either evolve (for example, via breakawayfactions) or die. It is perhaps ironic that themany organizations that have broken off from

the Church of Satan to practise their particularunderstanding of The Satanic Bible and otherdocuments may be the very ones that, in con-trast to the Church of Satan, have genuine ideol-ogies to offer: ideologies that do not embodyopposing interpretations with the intent to de-ceive the followers.

16. Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Amina Olander Lap forher careful reviews and her clarifications on thedynamics of religious behavior. I would alsolike to thank Michael Aquino and the reviewersof this article for their corrections and sugges-tions.

17. References

1. Affiliation with the Church of Satan, the officialChurch of Satan Web.

2. The Church of Satan, 5th Ed., Michael Aquino,2002.

3. The Secret Life of a Satanist, Blanche Barton, Fe-ral House, CA 1992, ISBN 0-922915-12-1.

4. The Church of Satan, Blanche Barton, Hell’sKitchen Productions, Inc., NY 1990, ISBN 0-9623286-2-6.

5. Might Is Right, Ragnar Redbeard, 1896, re-printed and published by M. H. P. & Co,Ltd., IL 1996.

6. The Satanic Bible, Anton LaVey, Avon Books,NY 1969, ISBN 0-380-01539-0.

7. Satan Speaks!, Anton LaVey, Feral House, OR1998, ISBN 0-922915-66-0.

8. Satanism and Objectivism, Charles Nemo, TheBlack Flame, vol. 6, no. 1 & 2, Hell’s KitchenProductions, Inc., NY 1997

9. Who Serves Satan?—A Demographic and Ideo-logical Profile, James R. Lewis, Marburg Jour-nal of Religion 6:2, June 2001.

10.Lords of Chaos, Michael Moynihan and DidrikSøderlind, Feral House, CA 1998, ISBN 0-922915-48-2.

11.Emails from Michael Aquino to Ole Wolf,December 29, 2001 through March 14, 2002.

12.The San Francisco Chronicle, November 8,1997.

13.Grotto Master Application, The Church of Sa-tan.

14.The Devil’s Notebook, Anton LaVey, FeralHouse, OR 1992, ISBN 0-922915-11-3.

15.The Satanic Rituals, Anton LaVey, AvonBooks, NY 1972, ISBN 0-380-01392-4.


16.Welcoming statement From our former HighPriestess at the official Church of Satan Webpage.

17.William Gidney (“Rev. Borg,” priest of theChurch of Satan) on the Usenet newsgroupalt.satanism, subject: Re: Gotham Grotto An-nouncement, May 9, 2002.

18.Peggy Nadramia on the Usenet newsgroupalt.satanism, subject: Nailing Custard, March15, 1997.

19.Enochian Pronunciation Guide, Anton LaVey1970, the official Church of Satan Web site.

20.Email from the Church of Satan to Niels Toft,March 18, 2002.

21.Satanic Bunco Sheet, Church of Satan, the offi-cial Church of Satan Web page.

22.The World’s Most Powerful Religion, AntonLaVey 1997, the official Church of Satan Website.

23.Author’s experience.24.Rocio Carrasco (member of the Church of Sa-

tan) on the Usenet newsgroup alt.satanism,subject: You cannot bully me anymore!!, July 29,2000.

25.Gud er (stadig) blå, Mikael Rothstein, Asche-houg Dansk Forlag A/S, 2001, ISBN 87-11-16015-2.

26.“State of the Church”—October 25, XXXVIA. S. (2001 C. E.), the official Church of SatanWeb.

27.Excommunication letter to Ole Wolf fromBlanche Barton, September 18, 2000.

28.Personalized note on letter of December 31,1999, concerning the failure to raise funds forpreserving the “Black House.”

29.The Myth of the “Satanic Community” and otherVirtual Delusions, Peter Gilmore, 2000, the of-ficial Church of Satan Web site.

30.Excommunication letter to “Hr. Vad” fromBlanche Barton, October 25, 2000.

31.Religion in the Contemporary World, Alan Ald-ridge, Polity Press, 2001, ISBN 0-7456-2083-3.

32.XXXVII (2002 C. E.) news section at the offi-cial Church of Satan Web page.

33.The Elementary Forms of the New Religious Life,Roy Wallis, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984.

34.Welcoming page at the official Church of Sa-tan Web page.

35.Gennem regnbuefarvede briller — Studiet afnye religiøse bevægelser, Armin W. Geertzand Ole Riis, Gyldendal 1999, ISBN 87-00-24084-2.

36.The Cloven Hoof, Issue #128, The Church ofSatan, CA 1996.

37.The official Church of Scientology Web pageat http://www.scientology.com.

38.The official Church of Satan Web page at ht-tp://www.churchofsatan.com.

39.Grotto Master’s Handbook, The Church of Sa-tan.

40.Confirmation of registered membership fromthe Church of Satan.

41.Church of Satan Youth Communiqué, BlancheBarton, 1998?, the official Church of SatanWeb site.

42.André Schlesinger (priest of the Church ofSatan) on the Usenet newsgroup alt.satanism,subject: Re: Delurk and Inquiry, October 26,2000. (He often repeated this statement in the#coscentral and #satannet IRC chat roomswhich were operated by Church of Satan of-ficials.)

43.Email from Peter Gilmore to Amina Lap,May 4, 1999.

44.The CoS Files, Ole Wolf et. al., available on theInternet at http://cosfiles.blazingangles.com.

45.Magic and the Supernatural, Maurice Bessy,Spring Books, London 1964.

46.The History of the Use of the Sigil of Baphomet inthe Church of Satan, Peter Gilmore, 2001, theofficial Church of Satan Web site.

47.The Black Flame, vol. 5, no. 3 & 4, Hell’s Kitch-en Productions, NY 1995.

48.A Map for the Misdirected, Peter Gilmore,1999, the official Church of Satan Web site.

49.The Book of Coming Forth by Night, MichaelAquino.

50.Pretenders to the Throne: Regarding the Templeof Set, Peter Gilmore, the official Church ofSatan Web page.

51.The Devil’s Avenger, Burton Wolfe, 1974.52.Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality, Zeena and

Nikolas Schreck, 1998.53.“Dilesios” on the Usenet newsgroup alt.sa-

tanism, subject: Meet Ron Mershon, November21, 2001.

54.Kevin Filan on the Usenet newsgroup alt.sa-tanism, subject: Re: Looking for info on Shaw,June 26, 2002.

55.Confessions of a LaVey Lackey, Michael Rose,the official Church of Satan Web site, 2000.

56.Speak of the Devil, film by Nick Bougas, Baker& Tyler Video, 1993.


57.Essentials of Psychology, 7th Ed., Dennis Coon,Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1997, IS-BN 0-314-20479-2.

58.The Satanic Witch, Anton LaVey, Feral House,OR 1989, ISBN 0-922915-00-8.

59.Influence—The Psychology of Persuasion, Rob-ert B. Cialdini, William Morrow and Compa-ny, Inc., NY 1993, ISBN 0-688-12816-5.

This article may be copied freely provided that all contents are unaltered. In addition, emphasized text mustnot be de-emphasized, figures must be included, and this note must be present. Trademarks and images in thisarticle are used for editorial purposes only, and belong to their respective owners. Web site contents as of July28, 2002.