Untitled

FANTASY AND BELIEF
Approaches to New Religions

Series Editors: James R. Lewis, University of Tromsø, & Henrik Bogdan, University of
Gothenburg
Editorial Board
Gordon Melton, Institute for the Study of American Religion; Ingvild Gilhus,
University of Bergen; Wouter Hanegraaff, University of Amsterdam; James T.
Richardson, University of Nevada Reno; Steve Sutcliffe, Edinburgh University;
Jo Pearson, University of Winchester; Massimo Introvigne, CESNUR
Published
Cults: A Reference Guide, 3rd edition

James R. Lewis
Fantasy and Belief: Alternative Religions, Popular Narratives and Digital Cultures
Danielle Kirby
YSIS AND BELIEF
FANTASY
Alternative religions, popular
narratives and digital cultures
Danielle Kirby
First Published 2013 by Equinox Publishing Ltd, an imprint of Acumen
Published 2014 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group, an informa business

© Danielle Kirby 2013
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced

or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Notices
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience
and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods,
compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information
or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of
others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors,
contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage
to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or
otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
isbn: 978-1-908049-23-0 (hardback)
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kirby, Danielle, 1980–
Fantasy and belief : alternative religions, popular narratives and digital cultures /
Danielle Kirby.
p. cm. — (Approaches to new religions)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-908049-23-0
1. Religion and culture. 2. Mass media—Religious aspects. I. Title.
BL65.C8K567 2013
201'7—dc23
2012026810
Typeset by JS Typesetting Ltd, Porthcawl, Mid Glamorgan

To David Campbell and Dr Barry Fryar
Thanks for, well, everything…
This page intentionally left blank
CoNTENTS
Acknowledgements ix
Introduction 1
1. Religion, occulture and the modern world 7

2. The Otherkin 39
3. Fantasy and re-enchantment: sources of content 69
4. The internet and popular cultures: sources of context 103
Conclusions 129
Appendix: Otherkin survey results 133
Notes 151
Bibliography 175
Index 189
ACkNowLEDgEmENTS
This book has been a long time in the making, and would not have been pos-
sible without the help and support of a number of people. First and foremost,
I’d like to thank Lynne Hume, who has offered both knowledge and guidance
for longer than I (and probably she) would care to admit. Phillip Almond, Rick
Strelan and Helen Farley have also provided invaluable advice, support and
discussion, as more recently has Carole Cusack, Elizabeth Coleman, Christian
McCrea, Rebecca Hill and Peter Horsfield. It would also be remiss of me not to
mention the decade or so of incredible conversations had with the artists from
half/theory, many of which are still ongoing, which are a source of constant
inspiration. Finally, particular mention must be made of the contribution of
David Campbell, who has both tolerated and participated in more conversa-
tions about dragons than he thought humanly possible.
INTroDuCTIoN
The pagan and the paranormal have colonized the twilight zones of
pop media.1
This book is an inquiry into the relationship between the creation of alter-
native personal metaphysical systems, fantastic narrative and contemporary
popular digital cultures. Focusing upon the Otherkin as an exemplary group,
this project is an exploration of the bodies of knowledge that contribute to
the creation of such belief systems, and contextualizes such apparently deviant
beliefs within the nexus of religiosity and culture of which they are a part.
At the core of this study is a group called the Otherkin, a loosely affiliated
network of individuals who believe that they are to some degree non-human.
The Otherkin are by no means alone in their beliefs, but constitute a specific
manifestation of religiosity particularly oriented to the late modern Western
world. This book explores the origins and implications of such a belief, looking
both towards contemporary Western esoteric and occult traditions as well as
pertinent elements of the broader contemporary society of which they are a
part. Rather than providing an exhaustive exploration of the Otherkin com-
munity, I instead focus on investigating some of the myriad influences that have
supported the development of this metaphysical framework.
Of central significance here are the dual influences of speculative (prima-
rily fantasy) fiction and communication media in the creation of alternative
metaphysical systems. This relationship is an immensely complex one, and does
not so much constitute a direct inheritance from the former to the latter, or
vice versa, as it does related and reciprocal bodies of knowledge: convergence
rather than borrowing.2 As such, the notions of the cultic milieu3 and occul-
ture4 are used as central interpretative frameworks. Both these frameworks
highlight the interwoven and overlapping nature of the various distinct ideolo-
gies that, in combination, constitute a broader culture of alternative ideology
and spirituality. In a continuous fashion, I propose that the body of fantastic
and speculative narrative available across media can be understood to form an
equatable fantastic milieu, a conglomerate of interrelated yet discrete ideas that
1
fantasy and belief
may be engaged with at the discretion of the participant, and yet form en masse
a broadly continuous body of ideas.
Although the specific interrelation of new religions, media and fantastic
narrative has yet to be delved into in depth by the broader academy, there are a
number of theorists who have recognized the formative relationship between
narrative fiction, popular culture and religious impulse.5 In recent works,
Christopher Partridge has emphasized this relationship as a key aspect of the
re-enchantment tendencies of contemporary Western culture, positing popular
culture as both a forum for the exploration of spiritual ideas and as the source
material for beliefs.6 Partridge notes the particular applicability of literature and
film in these contexts, presumably reliant, at least to a degree, on the manifesta-
tions of the occult and the esoteric often portrayed within these mediums. On
a broader cultural level, Partridge acknowledges Western culture’s penchant
for immersing children in fantasy through fairy tales, folklore and children’s
literature, and the likely effects such input may have on the development of con-
ceptions of what is plausible.7 Other authors have also noted the particular rela-
tion between fiction and religion, as illustrated by the Pagan interest in books
such as the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett8 and Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.
Generally speaking, it is assumed that such texts provide illustration or support
for the religions and spiritualities utilizing them, and are not necessarily central
to the ideologies of the various groups. This, however, is only presumption, as
often the relationship between text and participant is undertheorized9 in new
religious movements (NRMs) and directed studies of this relationship are only
very recently beginning to emerge. Collectives such as the Otherkin10 and the
Otakukin stand as exemplars of associations of individuals who have integrated
the content of narrative fiction into personally meaningful spiritual realities.
Rather than providing illustrative or evocative support for other beliefs, in these
cases the particular content of the relevant fictions appears to have become the
object of belief in itself. Such situations, although admittedly unusual, signal the
need for more detailed research into the development of these types of beliefs,
and in particular require an approach that is integrative with respect to the
variety of influences that are evident in these cases.
There are a number of assumptions operating here that should be made clear
from the outset. First and foremost is the point that, while at first blush they
may seem extremely unusual, the types of beliefs held by the Otherkin are not
new, nor have they sprung up entirely in response to new technologies or other
specific elements of the late modern era.11 This is not to say that the internet,
postmodernist thought and many other aspects of the late modern era have not
played a substantial role in either creating the communities dedicated to these
beliefs or in facilitating the particular forms of syncretism apparent within such
metaphysics. Rather the point is that the central thrust of the metaphysic, most
particularly the association of self with the non-human, has existed in various
forms previous to the late modern age. Most prevalent in a literary context,
2
introduction
the mythology of the Western and Classical world abounds with instances of
human to animal transitions, with the medieval period highlighting this trend
through stories of werewolves and revenants. This historical and literary context
is explored in Chapter 3.
The second point is +that the internet, or indeed any other form of communi-
cation media, does not suddenly and drastically alter human interaction,12 but
rather gradually gives weight to alternative aspects of the process, such as can
be seen in changes in the speed, frequency, reach or accessibility of communica-
tion forms. These shifts of emphasis then encourage the popularization of new
modes of exchange, such as can be seen in the movement from letter writing
to email, and then more recently from email to the use of social networking
sites such as Facebook or Twitter. These shifts do of course effect changes in
both the methods and the nature of interaction, but slowly and over time, as
has been the case with all innovations of communication technology that are
internalized by the broader public. “The new medium … reinforces the old, but
of course transforms it.”13 There is a necessary lag between the development of
new technologies, their popularization, and their subsequent internalization.
This point may seem obvious, but is an important one to highlight in view of
the extreme utopian and dystopian views that have been propounded of the
internet.14
A third point is that the Otherkin as a group, and other groups like it, are both
responses to, and creations of, the late modern Western world. While many of
the ideas involved have a lineage that reaches back into early modern and pre-
modern times, as already mentioned, the specific manifestation of the Otherkin
community is utterly located in this time and place, and as such should not be
viewed in isolation of these facts. Rather than demonstrating some form of
fundamental disjunction with broader society, they may be viewed as being
both a product of, and oriented towards, the realities and lived experience of
contemporary Western life.
A fourth assumption is that it is inappropriate to view the Otherkin as funda-
mentally consumerist in nature, as is often done in other cases of a metaphysic
built from popular culture sources.15 To view the Otherkin through this lens
is both to misread their engagement with source material as well as to misrep-
resent the role of consumer culture within the contemporary Western world.
Cultural consumption – of music, art, film, literature and so on – is central to
the leisure pursuits of Western society and there is no basis upon which to deni-
grate this process per se. Capitalism is currently the mechanism by which such
things operate, and to critique on this basis renders the majority of the practices
of the Western world vulnerable to the same charge. Tacit in much analysis of
this sort is a hidden elitism that harks back to the high and low culture divisions
of earlier times. Such static hierarchies of quality are not only out of date, but
they also deny the complexities of appreciation and engagement as they occur
within the contemporary Western world. Beyond this, however, locating the
3
fantasy and belief
element of consumption as the central factor of these beliefs emphasises inap-

propriate aspects of these beliefs and can tend to elide the personal meaning
and creativity inherent within such stances: demonstrable in, for instance, the
active engagement with and extension of established texts, as well as the crea-
tion of new original texts.
This work, then, undertakes a threefold purpose: first, to provide basic data
on the Otherkin as an exemplary group that is situated upon the nexus of meta-
physical inquiry, fantasy narrative, digital communications and popular culture;
second, to explore their continuities with other trends, both sacred and secular,
within contemporary Western society as a means of shedding new light upon
their particular situation; and third, to utilize an interpretative framework for
such beliefs that does not require recourse to consumerist narratives.
The ideas and approaches of this research are highly indebted to the work
of Christopher Partridge: this book is something of a limpet to the leviathan
of The Re-enchantment of the West. Fundamentally, this book both shares and
develops from the notion that popular culture, personalized spirituality and
everyday lived experience are all mutually supportive and constitutive aspects
of the religious and spiritual milieu as it manifests within the contemporary
occultural world:
Particular concepts and cosmologies explored in popular culture are

not merely expressions of contemporary religious interests and con-
cerns, but they lead, first, to familiarisation and fascination, and sec-
ondly, to the development of spiritualities. In other words, although
there is a complex network of reasons for the rising interest in occul-
tural cosmologies, it seems clear that popular artefacts are, in some
significant sense, contributing to the construction of new sacralised
plausibility structures and worldviews.16
Much of the locus of this work is in the notion of Occulture as articulated by

Partridge, viewing particular metaphysical practices and ideas through the
framework proffered by him. A more detailed explanation of this construc-
tion will be undertaken later, but, in brief, this concept is essentially an exten-
sion and a revision of Colin Campbell’s cultic milieu.17 Rather than positing
a singular set of practices and beliefs, this approach instead sees overlapping
bodies of knowledge and practices that participants engage with at their own
discretion. Thus contemporary occulture may be seen to include alternative
healing, astrology, drug use, neo-shamanism, Technopaganism, UFOlogy,
demon worship, and eco-spirituality, among many other practices and ideolo-
gies. Of course, all practices are unlikely to be engaged in by any one individual,
but in terms of the broader body of knowledge, these, and many more, practices
and beliefs constitute Occulture as it is presently discernible. These related
spheres of interest are precisely the focus here, with a view to articulating as
4
introduction
exactly as possible the particular location of groups like the Otherkin within
the broader Occulture.
It should be noted that a relatively specific approach has been taken to the
primary source material, one which is broadly based in textual analysis prem-
ised on a phenomenological stance. In practice this position is established in
the bracketing of questions of metaphysical validity and prioritizing the stated
experiences of individuals. These experiential accounts are drawn from online
sources and rely solely on publicly available texts, rather than “members only”
areas and other online spaces that could be construed as private. This method
has been utilized specifically so as to approach a generally acceptable view of
the beliefs and practices of the community at large without becoming caught
between the differing stances of individual participants. It is also designed to
minimize active involvement by the researcher within the group, which seems
undesirable in a community still so much in a formative chapter of its devel-
opment. This type of online research, focusing on document analysis only,18 is
one of many techniques of online research and data collection, but seems to
be best suited for this study. When groups have published texts in hard copy,
such as those made available by Otherkin, these sources have also been used. In
researching beliefs that highlight individual experience and prioritize subjec-
tive reality it seems of central importance to locate general trends within the
community rather than becoming mired in conflicting personal views. This
generalist approach has been complemented here with the findings from an
online survey, which provides more specific and personalized, if anonymous,
accounts (see Appendix).
Using a dynamic information source involves inherent difficulties, as any
ethnographer would attest, but the sheer scope of the online world, with its mass
of information and innumerable contributors, has complicated this situation
many times over.19 Approaches to online research are being slowly developed,
but are truly still in their infancy. Initially, this project was developed around
the idea of a thorough textual exploration of limited sources, but the nature
of online engagement in general, and the types of groups here viewed in the
specific, have made such a position untenable. It has been necessary, albeit
perhaps unfortunate, to exercise quality judgement without the benefit of a
strict theoretical framework, simply to choose which sites to view and which
to leave out. There has been a loose focus upon following links as a navigation
tool, useful insofar as they denote deliberate association between sites, but,
given the thousands of potentially relevant links, this process can be considered
a guide only. This position has resulted from a number of problems: initially,
the size and spread of participants and their varied presences; then the speed
with which changes occur in the online world, both in terms of participation
and presence, and most recently the development of social networking tools
such as Facebook and Twitter, both of which have become popular in the period
since this project began. What started as a strict textual study inquiring into
5
fantasy and belief
the linkages between specific beliefs, specific texts and specific media has now
evolved into a far more general summary of a variety of alternative metaphysics
relating fiction and identity with a significant online presence, and the continu-
ity, or lack thereof, between such beliefs and the practices of the late modern
digitalized world.
While unfortunate from a methodological position, such an approach has its
own benefits. It has become evident that to view the relationship between a par-
ticular text and participant, in the case of the Otherkin for instance, would lead
the researcher to conclusions valid for that individual only. The communities
and individuals viewed in this study are all in their separate ways extraordinar-
ily, even radically, individualistic, and specific analysis in such a context seems
of dubious value outside of a personal perspective. Coupled with the speed with
which sub-sections of these communities can grow and fade, and the frequency
with which individuals may affiliate or disaffiliate, it retrospectively seems a far
more valid undertaking to provide a general overview rather than a specific
case study. These groups are communities only in the most minimal sense of
the term: association is premised upon a singular shared philosophy or belief
without any necessary pragmatic basis such as geography, history, or common
situation. In a broader sense, I also have come to question the appropriateness
of contemporaneously critically analysing cultural developments in anything
but the most general terms, as it tends to err towards both the pointless and
the invasive.
As a mechanism for maintaining a sense of the negotiable nature of the
concepts discussed in this book, definitions have been drawn from the data-
base of Urban Dictionary.20 This approach, while somewhat unusual for aca-
demic research, is supported in this context by a number of factors. First, as
the resource has been set up as a wiki, it allows for conflicting definitions to be
posted by participants and other interested individuals, rather than attempting
to force a compromise in understanding. In utilizing such a resource, sharp
disagreement in the understanding of terms is accommodated, but it still pro-
vides the framework within which consensual understandings of each term
can be approached. In this context, such a grassroots approach to definitions
is a boon rather than a bane. Second, the terms utilized in such a fashion are
generally neologisms developed by participants for participants, and, as such,
rarely appear outside of the participants’ textual presences online. As a result,
such terms are simply not defined elsewhere. While on occasion I either query
or expand on the understandings provided by Urban Dictionary, it seems a
valid and consistent starting point that is consistent with the phenomenological
attitude of this research. It should also be noted that, where necessary, spelling
errors have been corrected, and neologisms have been retained rather than
interpreted or corrected. This has been done largely for ease of reading, and all
due care has been taken to preserve the original meaning.
6
Chapter 1
rELIgIoN, oCCuLTurE AND

ThE moDErN worLD
Talking about alternative and emergent religion in the late modern era is not
an uncomplicated task. Non-traditional religion is, more or less by definition,
decoupled from many, if not most, normative assumptions of what constitutes
acceptable religious beliefs, communities and practices. Simultaneously, a post-
modern bent and the primacy of subjectivity in the Western world has reori-
ented the attribution of value towards a strongly relative and subjective position,
which manifests in both sacred and secular locales. Such positions tend to be
pitted in a silent war with more traditional hierarchies of value which might,
for instance, denigrate new religions for a lack of authenticity or dismiss fantasy
literature as juvenile escapism. Given the contested and constantly negotiated
nature of these areas of engagement, this chapter is given over to exploring
current understandings of religion, occulture and the circumstances of the
modern world.
Religion AnD spiRituAlity: new, AlteRnAtive AnD enchAnting
Religion
The problems are manifold in delineating a general definition of religion: a

situation that is particularly exacerbated by the attempt to incorporate often-
obscure new religious movements. From the outset, academic definitions of
the term “religion” are lacking in consensus, as we are still without a designa-
tion that is both widely accepted and capable of incorporating the many and
varied beliefs and practices that are commonly accepted as religious. That said,
there are some general approaches that allow for some degree of precision in
locating what is considered to be the mark of religiosity in any given situa-
tion. Approaches to the classification of religion can be divided into two main
types, termed functional and substantive.1 These alternative methods are not
7
fantasy and belief
necessarily mutually exclusive, but rather highlight different elements of the

phenomenon of religion. A functionalist understanding of religion prioritizes
religion in its social/communal role: that is to say, a religion is a religion insofar
as it provides a specific framework of cultural/social/moral meaning within
which to interpret the world. A substantive understanding, on the other hand,
upholds the focus on “the sacred, the supernatural or the superempirical”2 as the
primary reference point to which religions must ascribe to be validly considered
as such. This approach is effectively an extension of the minimum definition
proposed by Tylor, that religion is the “belief in spiritual beings”,3 but such a
method sufficiently allows for the breadth and scope of the varieties of personal
religiosity while denoting very specific territory.
Rather than focusing upon structural elements, important though they cer-
tainly are, I take, as a starting point, a substantive view of religions. Given that
new and alternative religions differ enormously in structure, geography and
participatory modes from the more traditional “churchlike” hierarchies that
have historically been the norm, interpretation is, in such cases, particularly
facilitated by locating the notion of religiosity in the intention of participants,
rather than in the extrinsic manifestations of beliefs. By prioritizing the search
for and the experience of the sacred, the way is opened up for recognition of
the validity of ideologies that may not give the appearance of religion, but are
nonetheless inherently so due to participants’ stated concerns. Here, then, if
participants demonstrate a concern with and a focus upon the superempirical,
they are considered to be engaging in substantively religious behaviour.
Even when accepting a substantive approach to delineate what may be con-
sidered broadly religious behaviour, there is still some issue with the specific
meanings that this and other related terms may denote. As noted above, expres-
sions of religiosity may manifest themselves in modes that fall outside tradi-
tional “churched” understandings of religious affiliation. But while participants’
concerns may be religious, they are not necessarily participating in “religion”.
Hanegraaff ’s proposed distinction between religion and spirituality is of par-
ticular interest here:
Religion = any symbolic system which influences human action by pro-

viding possibilities for ritually maintaining contact between the every-
day world and a more general meta-empirical framework of meaning.4
Spirituality = any human practice which maintains contact between

the everyday world and a more general meta-empirical framework of
meaning by way of the individual manipulation of symbolic systems.5
In defining these two separate forms of religious impulse, Hanegraaff has pro-
vided a distinction that highlights the differences of approach without disal-
lowing crossover between the two. He goes on to point out that
8
religion , occulture and the modern world
When talking of “spiritualities” we should definitely not think merely

or even mainly of the comparatively rare phenomenon of “religious
virtuosi”. In principle we are dealing with a common everyday phenom-
enon: every person who gives an individual twist to existing symbols
(be it only in a minimal sense) is already engaged in the practice of
creating his or her own spirituality.6
The Otherkin, and other groups holding like beliefs, can comfortably be
understood to exist within the latter category, and, on occasion, also within
the former. As a general rule, though, they exist far more clearly within the
understanding of spirituality rather than that of religion, and will generally be
referred to as such.
New religious movements and alternative religion
Two other classifications that are central to academic understandings of groups

such as the Otherkin, yet once again are challenging to clearly define, are new
religious movements and alternative religion. These are but two of a number
of terms that have been formulated in recent years that attempt to incorporate
non-traditional religiosity into academic understandings, while maintaining
the distinction between them and the more accepted or normalized forms of
religion. “New religious movements” appears to have become the most gener-
ally accepted category of this sort, although “alternative religion” and, more
recently, “religions of re-enchantment” also have some use. The problems asso-
ciated with such terminology are by no means overwhelming, and they cer-
tainly have proven to be useful, but in themselves raise as many issues as they
solve. Take the term “new” for instance. Deriving from the Japanese shin shukyo
(“new religions”), the word “new”, in its academic religious sense, originally
came into common usage in response to the rise of new forms of religiosity
evident in post-World War II Japan.7 Even in this context, “new” is not always
an accurate designator, as movements may be, and often are, comprised of older
ideas or, as in this particular case, extant religions that had been repressed by
the secular authority.8 The term “new” was broadened to include the counter
cultural spiritualities of 1960s America, and then more generally was applied
to religions that did not comfortably fall within the church/sect/cult typologies
that were then and, to a degree, still are in general use today.9
In Beckford’s analysis, he locates the term “new religious movements”
(NRMs) as one that “refer[s] principally to the groups which have attracted
the most publicity and/or notoriety”.10 According to his study of Scientology,
Children of God, Unification Church, and the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness,11 there are three observable points that can be seen as relatively
consistent between the various groups: first, that the actual substance of beliefs
9
fantasy and belief
does not show any necessary kinship; second, that their systems are all self-
referential and internally consistent (or at least aiming to be so); and third,
that the originality and diversity demonstrated by each of these groups is a key
element in attracting believers to the various groups. It is evident then that the
category of NRMs, in Beckford’s understanding, is not a term implying any
form of shared philosophy or situation within a history of religious ideas, but
rather a sociological category regarding the placement of NRMs in relation to
mainstream contemporary society. It is essential that the appellation of NRM
is understood as indicating a shared social status rather than representative of
a commonality of religious beliefs. This is particularly important when seen
in relation to some of the more obscure groups that fall under this rubric, as
assuming any actual relation between NRMs on a substantive level will lead to
some confusion.
Melton also makes the case that the use of shared characteristics in positing
definitions of NRMs is inevitably unsatisfactory as such schemas simply do not
withstand the variety of beliefs and behaviours that are incorporated within the
term.12 He again refers to the relationship with normative culture as the key
factor in NRMs as a category:
The field of new religious studies is concerned with groups of religious

bodies/movements which, though they do not share any particular
set of attributes, have been assigned to the fringe by, first, the more
established and dominant voices in the religious culture and, second,
various voices within the secular culture (government officials, watch-
dog groups, the media, etc.), and thus are basically to be seen as a set
of religious groups/movements existing in relatively contested spaces
within society as a whole.13
Melton goes on to propose that NRMs are effectively those that are left once we
remove the churches, sects and ethnic religions.14
Furthering the argument, Robbins15 finds that New Religions and Alternative
Religions are separate categories, and must be treated as such. Seeing difficul-
ties with the “new”, as the vagueness of the term could imply either a newness
of chronology,16 organization or structure,17 Robbins questions the relational
definition proposed by scholars such as Melton18 and Bromley.19 It may be,
as Robbins points out, that defining NRMs in terms of alignment to domi-
nant cultural forces in addition to the chronological and organizational issues
can lead to some confusion. NRMs may be chronologically new but cultur-
ally well-aligned, or alternatively they may be ideologically established but
culturally deviant.20 What Robbins proposes instead is the distinction made
between NRMs, which would refer to the chronological newness of a group,
and Alternative Religions, which would reference the tension with dominant
cultural alignment.21
10
While Robbins’s resolution of these definitional difficulties does go some

way towards allowing such technical terminology practical application, the
framework is still lacking. Attempting to ascertain whether a group is chrono-
logically new is not a simple process. Nor is there any clear method to be found
for approaching new variations of older beliefs, Melton’s approach of tracking
a history of ideas notwithstanding.22 With groups that fall within the Pagan
stream of spirituality and belief, for instance, there is rarely a formal structure
that would allow for classification on the basis of the chronology of the organi-
zation, or even more broadly, movement. This focus upon chronology can be
further complicated by the internal narratives and myths of any given group.
Many spiritual paths lay claim to a basis in ancient tradition that is not factually
or textually supported,23 and further, individuals may deliberately obfuscate the
origins of any given text or set of practices. To use an example from contem-
porary Paganism again, see the writings of Gerald Gardner. His descriptions
of covens and rituals are of significant importance in contemporary witch-
craft, and the content is explicitly attributed to ancient tradition, but is actually
likely to have been created by Gardner.24 Further, groups and individuals that
fall within the alternative of Robbins’ approach are not necessarily likely to be
forthcoming about their beliefs, for many reasons that can range from a fear of
persecution25 to the deliberate silences surrounding initiatory knowledge. In
addition, there is also a problem that specifically relates to syncretic forms of
religiosity: is the belief system to be judged new when some of its component
parts are clearly derived from other, older, traditions, while other elements are
clearly original? While this point may appear to be an excessive problematiza-
tion of the issue, it is of particular relevance to the syncretic forms of belief
focused upon here, as content may be sourced from a wide variety of locations
that may simultaneously include, for instance, ancient myth, popular fiction,
utopian idealism and political activism.
As is perhaps now obvious, the idea of a new religion or new religious move-
ment is deeply problematic. That said, however, functionally, the category does
broadly represent a body of religious, spiritual and metaphysical stances that
differ from the mainstream of traditional beliefs. This in no way implies that
NRMs in general are, historically speaking, new phenomena, as the category,
at least as is defined here, is situated in tension with normative culture at any
time or locale. Thus any emergent religion can feasibly be located under the
rubric of a new religion or movement.26 What is evident from the above analysis
is that NRMs are constituted as such by their perceived outsider status in rela-
tion to mainstream culture. This does not necessarily imply that the premise or
philosophy of any given NRM is essentially foreign to mainstream culture, but
rather that it is viewed as contentious by either participants and/or the larger
culture of which it is a part.
11
fantasy and belief
Religions of re-enchantment
A final scholarly construction that pertains to alternative religiosity that is

essential to understanding emergent narrative and popular culture-oriented
beliefs is the notion of “religions of re-enchantment”.27 This idea directly relates
to, and seeks to correct, the “disenchantment of the world” put forward by
Weber,28 and has gained ground over the last few decades.29 It is intrinsically
bound up in notions of secularization, which will be explored more thoroughly
below, but primarily it states that, rather than the death of religion foretold
by earlier theorists, the current state of religion is rather one of relocation.30
Essentially, the construction points towards an active desire for enchantment
in the face of Western modernity with its attendant materialist and rationalist
bent, and the deliberate imbuing of the world with abundant meanings which
reincorporate the intangible into the world. “Reenchantment brings back the
imagination and the possibility of magic into our everyday lives.”31 This view of
religiosity has the benefit of re-aligning the category of religion into step with
the myriad of beliefs and practices that are currently being engaged with, but
that fall outside the traditional rubric of institutionalized or “churched” religion,
while still maintaining a space between the former and the latter.
Here, then, it is accepted that the type of metaphysical engagement groups
like the Otherkin engage in may validly be referred to as alternative religiosity
or alternative spirituality, or even (somewhat more awkwardly) as an element
of various new religious movements. Such beliefs also fall under the rubric of
“religions of re-enchantment”. Due to the implications, though, it seems appro-
priate to avoid straight use of the term “religion” if only to avoid association
with perhaps more familiar forms of “churched” religion. It seems that the most
accurate designators for the types of beliefs discussed here are “spirituality” and
“alternative”, and wherever possible these terms will be used in preference to
other, more contentious, terms.
the occult AnD its peRmutAtions
As perhaps should be obvious already, the history and current presence of

new and alternative religious movements in the modern technologized world
is both complex and controversial.32 The twentieth century has demonstrated
an upsurge in non-traditional forms of religiosity that appears historically
unparalleled in both the high birth rate of new religious paradigms and the
structural variety that such new forms of religion take. The academy, alongside
broader Western society, has grappled with the divergence implicit within such
religious development, and the implications that it holds for the directions of
contemporary religiosity. Some of the central factors in the array of new forms
of religiosity include the broad issues of secularization, modernization and its
12
attendant industrial and technological developments, the proliferation of com-

munication technologies, and globalization. These broad shifts in the fabric of
society have deeply affected the way individuals and communities engage both
with one another and with cultural artefacts. In particular, secularization and
modernization both have their roots in the earlier modern era, and impact
heavily on discussions on the development of both occultism and fantasy, or
fantastic, literature.
In order to approach these extremely broad cultural developments in a
coherent fashion, it is useful to establish some of the central interpretative struc-
tures that have been developed by scholars that pertain to this study. First and
foremost among these is the idea of the cultic milieu,33 and, in its more recent
incarnation, occulture,34 the latter being usefully thought of as something of
an extension and a correction of the former. Current understandings of eso-
tericism and occultism are also explored, in terms admittedly limited to this
research. These definitions represent a select few of the academic attempts to
theorize various sub-sections of the alternative spiritualities mentioned above.
The cultic milieu
The notion of a cultic milieu encapsulates deviant knowledge in all forms,

encompassing everything from alternative healing modalities through to
divination or magical practices. The term “deviant” is here used to denote a
digression from knowledges that are granted authority and are ideologically
supported by the institutions and public manifestations of endorsed knowledge
in the modern Western world. The term should not in any way be construed
as critical or derogatory, although it is absolutely intended to point to a certain
tension or contestation of territory. The cultic milieu is understood as the bed
from which, for instance, the “underground”, or counterculture of the 1960s,
grew. By approaching underground and/or deviant practices as an interlinked
milieu rather than unrelated divergences from the norm, Campbell provided
a theory that allows space for the syncretism so evident in many alternative
religious philosophies, and also locates the alternative religious/spiritual sphere
as conjunct with other contested or disenfranchised knowledges.35 Thus eco-
logical activism and Paganism can both constitute important parts of the cultic
milieu without necessarily overlapping, although they may well actually do
so. In viewing the many practices that fall under the rubric of the alternative
as one singular, distended and multifaceted culture or sub culture, we stand a
chance of actually understanding such an eclectic field: a field which is simul-
taneously pervasive and yet nebulous. While not always the case, as a general
rule it is important to view the continuity between the sacred and the secular
with such knowledges, as there may be social or cultural concerns interre-
lated with spiritual beliefs. For instance, a Pagan who practises witchcraft may
13
fantasy and belief
consider herself or himself an essential part of the environmental movement,

or the chaos magician who commits acts of public nuisance may be deliberately
engaging in ontological anarchy and poetic terrorism in order to further their
magical practice. To the outside observer, these acts may appear unrelated, but
they have an internal logic that is consistent. Simultaneously, the logics of the
aforementioned Pagan may well be completely opaque to the chaos magician,
and vice versa, demonstrating the dangers of assuming any common ground
between such syncretic forms even within the cultic milieu. As an aside, it is
also worth noting that this confluence of the spiritual, the social, the political
and the artistic is by no means limited to recent times, but may be seen just as
clearly throughout the twentieth and late nineteenth centuries,36 with less overt
examples occurring prior to that as well.
The idea of the cultic milieu is derived from early academic arguments
pertaining to the nature of “cult”. Although originally deeply entwined with
mysticism, owing to the Church/Sect/Cult religious typology developed by
Troeltsch37 and those who elaborated upon his work, interpretation of the term
“cult” has shifted in more recent years towards a less mystical, more general
understanding premised in a group’s deviance from the dominant culture.38 In
the Church/Sect/Cult typology, there was a notion of the mystical embedded
within the category of “cult”, which suggested that the desire for personal, non-
institutional, religion or religiosity, unfettered even by a broader community,
was often an element of this type of religious behaviour.39 This particular aspect
of mysticism is very much in keeping with personalized and privatized religion
as is currently understood, insofar as the individual seeks direct access to the
numinous without necessarily paying heed to broader normative or institu-
tionalized ideas about accessing the deity. Indeed, deviance from the norm is
one of Campbell’s defining aspects of the cultic milieu, pointing towards his
indebtedness to Troeltsch’s construction. Alongside this idea of deviance is also
the predominance of seekership, mutual sympathetic support within different
subsections of the milieu, and syncretism.40 Fundamentally, Campbell proposed
that rather than, or in addition to, attempting to understand any one individual
cult, we are perhaps better served by viewing the broader cultural context of
which it is a part.41 This insight has proven invaluable in relation to unchurched
and alternative religion and spirituality as, while individual association with
particular groups may be fleeting or intermittent, the broader cultic milieu itself
is, in both its existence and appeal, much more constant.42
The cultic milieu is an extremely useful construction, and points towards a
functional method of approaching a set of ideas, practices and beliefs that are
extremely challenging to group together formally, even though, in practice,
such disparate ideas are often conjunct. The terminology is, of course, unfortu-
nately problematic due to the contemporary associations of the term “cult”, both
in its formal definition and within more popular usages. The status of “cult”
as deviant is challenging at best insofar as the notion of a mainstream norm is
14
a purely theoretical abstraction, albeit a common one. To define practices as

deviant in this sense requires a stable “normal” as referent that is completely
untenable in this day and age. There is also an issue of respect involved, as high-
lighting the deviance of particular beliefs or groups intrinsically encourages a
negative bias that may become inappropriate when dealing with real people
and real behaviours. Also, public outcry and media representation over the last
few decades, in relation to particular issues such as the cult controversies of the
1970s43 or the Satanism scare of the 1980s,44 has rendered the term “cult” almost
inexcusably derogatory. Rather than inferring a neutral designation of distance
from mainstream culture, it more often brings to mind sensationalist images
of mass murder and ritual suicide, exemplified by events like the Jonestown
massacre,45 the Branch Davidians46 or the Solar Temple.47 Such an association
is clearly inappropriate, and begs the question as to whether the term should be
used at all. Further, to assert the central defining feature of any body of knowl-
edge as deviant or rejected is also technically difficult in the extreme, especially
when viewed over time. What constitutes endorsed knowledge constantly shifts
in response to cultural and social developments: the rubric of deviancy is more
or less constantly shifting in the same manner. So, where arguably in the 1950s
Western world religiosity was predominantly subject to a “relative unity and
solidity”,48 and deviancy could be tested against that system, fifty years on there
are certainly those who would consider a Christian-based morality deviant in
itself. So in general, although the cultic milieu is a useful construction in many
ways, its central point derives from a relative position that undermines it as a
tool of strict application.
Occulture
Occulture is a more recent conceptualization of the cultic milieu. Quite clearly

avoiding the negative and/or inappropriate connotations of both “mystical” and
“cult”, Partridge suggests that “occulture” and its attendant associations more
accurately depict the broad culture articulated by the cultic milieu.49 The origins
of the term are somewhat obscure,50 but Partridge attributes its promulgation
to Genesis P-Orridge, a well-known occultist and artist who has been publicly
and popularly active since the 1970s. Whatever its history, however, the term’s
appropriateness is made clear insofar as it simultaneously highlights the body
of knowledge as a culture, and places the overriding emphasis upon the occult
as a locus of beliefs and practices. Foremost in this construction is the removal
of the mystical associations of the original conception of cult mentioned above.
Occulture, in its simplest summary, refers to “often hidden, rejected and oppo-
sitional beliefs and practices associated with esotericism, theosophy, mysticism,
New Age, Paganism, and a range of other subcultural beliefs and practices”.51 It
is vast enough to be extraordinarily difficult to precisely locate, but Partridge’s
15
fantasy and belief
list provides a clear indication of the general thrust and scope of contemporary
occulture. It is worth noting that Partridge questions both the deviancy and the
hiddenness of the following ideas and practices in practical terms, given their
current popularity, but still effectively places them in an outsider category:
Western Occulture includes … magick (as devised by Aleister Crowley),

extreme right-wing religio-politics, radical environmentalism and deep
ecology, angels, spirit guides and channelled messages, astral projec-
tion, crystals, dream therapy, human potential spiritualities, the spirit-
ual significance of ancient and mythical civilizations, astrology, healing,
earth mysteries, tarot, numerology, Kabbalah, feng shui, prophecies (e.g.
Nostradamus), Arthurian legends, the Holy Grail, Druidry, Wicca,
Heathenism, palmistry, shamanism, goddess spirituality, Gaia spiritual-
ity and eco-spirituality, alternative science, esoteric Christianity, UFOs,
alien abduction, and so on.52
For all the variety of practices and beliefs included in this passage, they do
constitute a complex, interrelated system of beliefs and practices that have a
large and growing popularity. The idea of “occulture” is far preferable to the
“cultic milieu” insofar as it denotes the broadness of the field, highlights its
pervasiveness as a culture of its own, and avoids the negative and misleading
connotations of “cult” and academic notions of mysticism.
It should be noted that there is a pervasive, and to my mind, unacceptably
dismissive, view that is often taken towards the current status of the relationship
between popular culture and spirituality, called the dilution theory.53 In essence,
this theory takes the position that spiritualities are fundamentally trivialized
by their proximity to popular culture; that the closer religiosity moves towards
regions traditionally defined as secular, the further it moves from its authentic
roots. Such a stance assumes spiritual engagement at its most superficial, tacitly
positing that participation is premised in faddish or fashionable behaviour and
implying a dearth of genuine religious sentiment. It seems quite possible that
such a position is also bound up in the location of popular culture within the
broader framework of consumer culture, and thus carries with it the attendant
baggage. Such a stance is emphatically not taken here, and there should be no
assumption that discussion of popular sources equates to a dismissive approach
to metaphysics extrapolated from such.
Esotericism
“Esotericism” and “occultism” have often been used interchangeably,54 and

while attempts at consensus definitions have been made, they are still often
contentious.55 This difficulty stems in part from the terms’s usage as being both
16
emic and etic: a static, academic definition does not necessarily align well with
more personal understandings. Further, as these categories are applied ret-
rospectively, their particular nature can become complicated due to different
research agendas.56 As a general rule, I have taken my cue from Faivre and
Hanegraaff, and adopt their usages. In this framework, esotericism is seen as a
broad stream, “an ensemble of spiritual currents in modern and contemporary
Western history”,57 incorporating ideas such as Gnosticism, Neoplatonism,58
and theosophy.59 In addition to this definition, Faivre notes three other under-
standings of the term “esotericism”: first, as a generic term pertaining to
countercultural, deviant, or occult literature;60 second, esotericism as secret
knowledge;61 and, third, as a centre of being.62 These other definitions, while
certainly denoting actual usages, are not particularly helpful from a historical
academic perspective, and are not understood as intrinsically associated with
the term here.
Faivre postulates four defining features of Western esotericism63, as well
as two more that are often, but not always, present. These central four ideas
are correspondences, living nature, imagination and mediation, and the expe-
rience of transmutation. The two associated but unessential components are
the praxis of the concordance and transmission. The first of the four integral
constitutive aspects of esotericism, correspondences, refers to both symbolic
and real sets of meaning derived from any one aspect of the universe pertain-
ing to another.64 Thus, the world, both in its tangible and intangible aspects, is
a series of relationships wherein knowledge of one simultaneously illuminates
the other. The best known example of this approach is the correspondence
between the macrocosm and the microcosm. This characteristic erupts also
within the context of occultism, but with a distinctly different set of support-
ing assumptions. The second of the characteristics posited by Faivre is that of
living nature, an attitude that sees the natural world not only as integral, but
also active in the constitution of meaning. This aspect of esotericism consti-
tutes a “triad of ‘God–Humanity–Nature’ from whence the theosopher brings
forth dramaturgical correspondences, complementary and forever new”.65 This
notion also appears within an occult context, again with quite different interpre-
tive implications in its more modern incarnation. Imagination and mediation,
the third components in Faivre’s construction of esotericism, are inextrica-
bly linked. The former, imagination, is “the tool for knowledge of self, world,
Myth”.66 It is the method through which the esotericist may “establish a cogni-
tive and visionary relationship with an intermediary world”.67 This intermedi-
ary world is encapsulated in the notion of mediation. This type of mediation
may refer to symbols, entities, or rituals: anything that provides a connection
between the esotericist and the numinous in whatever form it is conceived. In
a moment of glorious articulation, Faivre describes the esotericist as one who
is far more likely to spend time on Jacob’s ladder, where as the mystic would
more likely drive straight for the top.68 In this characterization he highlights
17
fantasy and belief
the tendency of the esotericist to focus upon the intermediaries rather than the
divine per se. This tendency is also apparent within contemporary occulture,
albeit again with specifically modern interpretations. The final essential com-
ponent of Western esotericism is the experience of transmutation. Borrowing
the term from alchemy, this refers to the metamorphoses of the individual, fol-
lowing the form of a second birth.69 This notion is still of extreme importance
in more contemporary contexts, and may be seen as parallel to the synthesis
and growth inherent in James’s idea of the twice-born soul70 or the Jungian
process of individuation.71 In Faivre’s framework, all of these four aspects must
be present to constitute “esotericism”. In this understanding, then, esotericism
does not denote any particular behaviours, but is rather understood as a set
of philosophical frameworks from which practices, such as occultism, grow.72
Occultism
Occultism is a modern development within esotericism. Rather than being

conceived of as a part of esotericism proper, occultism is rather an offshoot,
utilizing notions and practices from the long history of Western esotericism on
occasion, but in a way that should be seen as a borrowing and a recontextuali-
zation of practices and ideas, rather than the direct descendant of the body of
knowledge denoted by “esotericism”. Occultism is a clear product of modernity,
coming into existence on the heels of industrialization and the Enlightenment,
and is intrinsically bound up in scientific worldviews,73 rationalism and dis-
enchantment narratives: “Occultism … came into existence when the esoteric
cosmology (based on universal correspondences) increasingly came to be
understood in terms of the new scientific cosmologies (based on instrumental
causality).”74
One of the earliest academic definitions of occultism locates it as a set of
intentional practices, techniques, or procedures which (a) draw upon

hidden or concealed forces in nature or the cosmos that cannot be
measured or recognised by the instruments of modern science, and (b)
which have as their desired or intended consequences empirical results,
such as either obtaining knowledge of the empirical course of events or
altering them from what they would have been without intervention.75
This definition makes occultism an eminently practical preoccupation, far

removed from the philosophical orientation of esotericism. Such an approach
does not fit entirely comfortably with Faivre’s or Hanegraaff ’s, as if we couple
this construction of occultism with their definition which attributes occult-
ism’s origins to the mid-nineteenth century, then the implication is that, prior
to the current era, there was only philosophical inquiry, without any form of
18
practical application, a suggestion not borne out by historical fact. In addition,

I would argue that there is much that is “occult” rather than esoteric that does
not actively seek empirical events. Pathworking,76 for instance, and meditation
(outside of a traditional context) are both regular aspects of occultural practice
that do not necessarily seek empirical results, but often rather focus upon inter-
nal states of being. This definition of occultism, well used though it may be, is
far too limited to be of particular use. Rather, occultism is taken as “a category
in the study of religions, which comprises all attempts by esotericists to come to
terms with a disenchanted world or, alternatively, by people in general to make
sense of esotericism from the perspective of a disenchanted secular world”.77
In this approach, occultism is intrinsically linked with the modern disen-
chanted world and is limited firmly within a specific time and place: occultism
is esotericism as filtered through the conditions of the modern age. Also notable
is the suggestion that the situation of the self within the modern world is the
primary concern of the occultist; a point which would appear to be generally
supported by the vast range of occult practices and beliefs that focus upon
functional ontological strategies centred upon notions of reenchantment.
So, in summary, esotericism may be seen as a long-standing Western tra-
dition from which occultism has developed, post-Enlightenment, as a sub-
category informed by, but not restricted to, traditional esoteric practices and
philosophies. The cultic milieu may be seen as the bed of ideas utilizing occult-
ism as well as partaking in the broader concerns manifest within the 1960s
counterculture. Occulture, then, is the current manifestation of the cultic
milieu, existing within a context of a lessened general perception of deviancy
from the broader culture, holding a more widespread appeal, and shorn of its
emphasis upon mystical associations.
Magic
Magic is not a way to form a one-to-one relationship between an indi-

vidual and an otherwise unattainable goal; it is an elaborate, dramatic
metaphor for the relationship between an individual and the universe,
and, like all metaphors, it hovers on the boundary between the figura-
tively and the literally true, refusing to commit itself firmly on either
side.78
Magic, although central to any discussions of modern occulture, is another of

those terms that verges upon the useless in the breadth and spread of its various
meanings, and the cultures within which it has weight. There is white magic
and black magic, ceremonial and ritual magic, earth magic and shamanistic
magic, internal transformative magic and sympathetic magic, left-hand path
and right-hand path magic, magic utilizing secondary technologies and magic
19
fantasy and belief
without tools.79 In addition, the term is often simply used to denote something
special or mysterious. This list can be expanded indefinitely to incorporate both
major streams and individual bents, as practitioners add their own techniques
and variants to established techniques and traditions. In this sense, often the
magician can be likened to the spiritual practitioner, or even perhaps the vir-
tuosi referred to by Hanegraaff, as they regularly do put their own spin upon the
traditions, no matter how obscure, to which they affiliate. Magic, like occulture,
is an area of practice that holds a variety of techniques effectively in common
which participants engage with at their own discretion.
While there is a variety of theoretical understandings of magic, many stem
from earlier theorists who were invested in the progressive notion of ration-
alization defeating the superstitious, and within such frameworks magic tends
to represent for the most primitive level of humankind’s endeavour:80 thus the
“survivals” of Tylor’s approach, or Weber’s inverse equation between magic
and technology.81 Moving away from such reductive views, some suggest that
a general common-sense understanding of what magic actually is may be a
better place to start.
Most peoples in the world perform acts by which they intend to bring
about certain events or conditions, whether in nature or among people,
that they hold to be the consequences of these acts. If Western terms
and assumptions are used, the cause and effect relationship between
the act and the consequence is mystical, not scientifically validated. The
acts typically comprise behavior such as manipulation of objects and
recitation of verbal formulas or spells.82
This understanding, while admittedly vague and perhaps uncomfortably reliant

upon an implicit capacity to “know it when you see it”, at least attempts to
represent both the intention and the means by which magic is often under-
taken. Certainly this understanding can incorporate within it most of the cross-
cultural manifestations of magic. On the other hand, such an approach does
not particularly highlight any of the specifically Western contemporary forms
of magic. Interestingly, while there is a comparative abundance of academic
literature available and various forms of indigenous and historical forms of
magical practice, somewhat less is available about the contemporary Western
world. Magic is mentioned often in general terms, but there is surprisingly little
precise information available about current practices outside of emic texts.
Potentially this dearth is due to a continuance of the assumption that magic
is somehow primitive, or even possibly an embarrassment in our current age
of rationality.
One seminal exception to this academic silence (or mumble) is the work of
Luhrmann, in her study Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft.83 In this text Luhrmann
clearly outlines what she sees as the central idea of contemporary magic: “that
20
mind affects matter, and that in special circumstances, like ritual, the trained
imagination can alter the physical world”.84 This understanding is important
insofar as it highlights the relationship between the psyche and the world and
the concurrent intention of the participant. Magic is not a confusion of instru-
mentality, but rather an overcoming of materialistic notions of the possible.
Extending from Luhrmann’s central notion, I include within understandings
of “magic” those intentional practices that engage the unknown, intangible
and superempirical forces of the universe and that may manifest direct results
within the worlds of everyday lived experience, be they pertinent to the physical
realm or the psyche. This definition is clearly a variant of Tiryakian’s definition
of “occultism” as mentioned above, but it appears to be appropriate insofar as
it highlights (a) the intentional nature of the practice, (b) the superempirical
nature of engagement and (c) the variable location of intended results.
With all of the above in mind, then, it can be seen that magic is a set of
practices attempting to engage the unknown, intangible and the superempirical;
occultism is the modern set of knowledges from which the various forms of
magic derive; and esotericism is the stream of thought that has contained these,
and many more, themes from the Renaissance and earlier times.
seculARizAtion AnD consumption
Talk of secularisation is meaningful when it refers to the weakness of

traditional religious belief or the lack of power of churches or other
religious bodies … But if it means a type of society in which religion is
absent, secularism is a kind of contradiction, for it is defined by what
it excludes.85
Throughout the last century or so, academic discourse has generally leaned
towards a tacit admission of the demise of religion86, supported by constructions
such as Weber’s “disenchantment of the world”87 and the secularist passions of
many early theorists who looked upon the advent of the modern era as an end
to all superstitious thinking and the beginning of a glorious era of rational-
ity. The theory of secularization essentially queries the potential of religion to
exist in the modern world.88 Such lines of reasoning appear to be intrinsically
bound up in a progressive attitude to cultural development: we, as humans, will
outgrow our need for religion in much the same way that we came down out
of the trees and started building cities. The proliferation of new and alternative
religion has, to a significant degree, illustrated the flaw in such reasoning, as the
very existence of NRMs has challenged the central ideas of both disenchant-
ment and secularization as they are commonly understood.89 What is becoming
apparent is that, rather than secularization and disenchantment being the key
factors, it is rather a case of a shift in the location of religiosity. This religious
21
fantasy and belief
shift, or displacement, is not limited to the late modern era, either. Certainly,
in the early years of the emerging modern world, the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries, religious upheavals were many, as the political and social
currents of the time tended to emphasize secularization on the one hand with
an increase of extreme religiosity on the other.90 Either way, secularization is
central to almost all discussions of contemporary religiosity, modern occulture
and even genre literature. In a similar vein to the disenchantment posited by
Weber, world-affirming91 new religious movements that are complementary to
modern technologized existence have often been approached as symptoms of
secularization,92 rather than as valid and sincere forms of religiosity in and of
themselves.
No matter how it is viewed, secularization is a complex process, intimately
bound up in industrialization, modernization, and the associated social and
cultural changes that these developments have allowed. First used in an analyti-
cal sense by Weber93 in relation to Protestantism,94 the concept has been under-
stood in a multitude of ways. Shiner has attempted to articulate the various
strands of interpretation placed upon the term, the general thrust of which
remains true today. Shiner locates six different understandings of the term:
1. the decline of religion

2. conformity with “this world”
3. disengagement of society from religion
4. transposition of religious beliefs and institutions
5. desacralization of the world
6. movement from a “sacred” to a “secular” society.95
All these categories are reflective of various usages of the term, and serve to
demonstrate both the huge variety of interpretations, and the almost ridicu-
lously sweeping social developments it seeks to reference.
Somewhat more simply, Turner locates two main streams in the understand-
ing of secularization: the attritionist and the atrabilious.96 The attritionist theory
of religion posits that secularization is the “process by which religious institu-
tions, actions, and consciousness, lose their social significance”.97 The key factor
in this understanding is that secularization effects a fundamental change to
the nature of society, rather than simply being a process that occurs within
society.98 One of the primary difficulties of the secularization thesis stems from
the often-made assumption of a concomitant period that entirely prioritized
the sacred, against which the modern process of secularization is held up.99 It
is from this objection that the atrabilious position stems, suggesting that the
entire concept of secularization, in sociological terms, is flawed due to its reli-
ance upon unverifiable ideal-type constructions of an “age of faith”.100 Certainly,
this latter point seems of extreme importance, and underpins one of the major
concerns with the theory.
22
Alternatively, Hanegraaff defines secularization as
the whole of historical developments in western society, as a result of

which the Christian religion has lost its central position as the founda-
tional collective symbolism of western culture, and has been reduced to
merely one among several religious institutions within a culture which
is no longer grounded in a religious system of symbols.101
This definition is functional inasmuch as it limits the proposition clearly to

the Western world, and further reinterprets earlier statements of the demise
of religion into what is rather seen as a relocation of Christianity. By removing
any inference of the end of religion, Hanegraaff has made the notion of secu-
larization usable without recourse to the more drastic (and perhaps hoped for)
scenarios of earlier theorists. “Secularisation … does not drive religion from
modern society, but rather fosters a type of religion which has no major func-
tions for the entire society.”102
Functionally speaking, then, secularization can be used as a valid concept
insofar as it highlights a general social (not personal) inclination towards
mechanical and tangible modes of interpreting the world, and sees Christianity
as one among many valid religious options, rather than the central tradition.
However, it must be noted that secularization is an extremely broad social
theory, no matter which specific definition is used, and is primarily directed
towards technologized Westernized cultures. The whole notion of seculariza-
tion does, however, suggest a shift in the orientation of the cultural gaze away
from the religious or metaphysical towards the tangible and the rational103 that
is queried here. Within cultures that prioritize the individual, it is a question-
able assumption that considering the traditional sources of religiosity (such as
is viewable through the modes of institutional religion such as church attend-
ance and publicly proclaimed affiliations) will necessarily reflect cultural trends,
and the broadness of theories of secularization makes it unlikely that they are
compatible with the everyday lived experience of individuals.
Many of the problems associated with secularization theories resolve them-
selves if one approaches a notion of the privatization, rather than the disappear-
ance, of religion, as a sort of extension of Hanegraaff ’s proposal. As articulated,
or lamented, by Berger,104 privatization and pluralism are essential aspects of
modern religion. While believers are continuing to leave their pews in ever-
increasing numbers,105 many more individuals are essentially staying home
with their beliefs. Rather than maintaining an image of religion as holding a
diminishing role in people’s lives, this approach rather focuses upon a reloca-
tion of that role.106 No longer are religious beliefs necessarily a matter of public
engagement and practice, such as group rituals (church services, for example)
and extrinsic demonstrations of faith, but rather the focus has moved towards
more intrinsic forms of belief.107 This inclination towards privatization has also
23
fantasy and belief
had the corollary effect of emphasizing the individual relationship with the
numinous as well as leaving the particular nature of religious faith and practice
somewhat beyond the purview of the broader society. This factor may go some
way towards an explanation of the predominance of syncretism, although by
no means is it the only cause. In any case, if Hanegraaff ’s understanding of
secularization, viewing the Christian faith as dispossessed of its centrality in
contemporary Western culture is coupled with a notion of the privatization
of religion, it begins to point towards an understanding of secularization that
accommodates the variety of forms of religiosity clearly evident within the
Western world: “Outside of tradition, rather than religion diminishing, we are
witnessing the emergence of new forms of spiritual and religious practices that
are entwined with the political, the social and the popular.”108
Consumption
With post-war affluence, and the diffusion of what many had consid-
ered luxuries before, came a new concentration on private space, and
the means to fill it … the “pursuit of happiness” took on new, more
immediate meaning, with a growing range of easily available means.
And in this newly individuated space, the customer was encouraged
more and more to express her taste, furnishing her space according to
her own needs and affinities, as only the rich had been able to do in
previous eras.109
The complex of secular and privatizing tendencies developing in the modern

West has been complimented in more recent years with a noticeable shift
towards consumer society and culture. Late modernity has seen a rise in the
visibility of consumption as a mode of both public and private engagement.
Correspondingly, much scholarly analysis of late modern practices is framed
in terms of consumption, and this is certainly often the case with emergent
religiosity and spirituality. Given both the particular location of the types of
beliefs investigated here, and my reluctance to rely on consumer-oriented inter-
pretative frameworks, it is worth digressing somewhat to articulate the scholarly
framing of consumption and consumer society as it currently stands.
Consumption, while unproblematicly a constant aspect of society,110 is none-
theless a highly problematic interpretative category. It encompasses a huge raft
of behaviours, and is subject to a large array of distinct, and often conflicting,
definitions.111 Much of the difficulty lies in the origins of the notion of a con-
sumer society, as opposed to consumption in general, and the attendant con-
cerns of those noting the shift. Rhetoric around the consumer society “rose to
prominence during the Cold War and expressed the anxieties of observers about
the pathologies of consumer society rather than the realities of how people
lived their lives in affluent societies”.112 Coupled with an assumed connection
24
between production and consumption, and the associations inherited from a

Marxist position, consumption has generally been viewed as negative or unde-
sirable: lacking in substance, superficial, alienating, and with little merit: “The
assumption tended to be that if large-scale factory-based machine production
was an essentially alienating experience for those involved, then it would seem
to follow that the consumption of commodities produced in this was must be
similarly alienating.”113
Some academic approaches, epitomized by the Frankfurt school, have
tended to view the status of consumption in negative terms quite continuous
with this logic: that culture within a consumerist framework becomes homo-
geneous and mass; that creativity and individuality is undermined.114 While
certainly no longer the default position of scholarly discussions, there remains
a normative bias that often interprets consumption in such a fashion, where it
is both usually “taken for granted and often denigrated”.115 On the other hand,
more recent scholarly constructions, particularly within sociological circles,
have tended to move away from this type of analysis, often seeking to remove
the assumed link between production and consumption and rather focus upon
consumption as a mechanism for the articulation of the self. This attitude has
been described as “the shared orthodoxy for most in the social science com-
munity”,116 which tends to frame “consumerism as a new lifestyle, the defining
mode of contemporary society where consumption is crucial for self fashioning
and lifestyle, the actualisation of the self and the rise of a consumer-citizen”.117 It
should be noted that this approach has been criticized for viewing contempo-
rary consumer society as distinct from, and at least to a degree discontinuous
with, earlier forms of consumption.118
The term “consumer culture” … conceptualizes an interconnected

system of commercially produced images, texts, and objects that groups
use – through the construction of overlapping and even conflicting
practices, identities, and meanings – to make collective sense of their
environments and to orient their members’ experiences and lives.119
Heelas, in querying the many and varied uses of the term “consumption” within
the context of various spiritualities, offers a list of eight potential characteriza-
tions of the consumer. These, in brief, envisage the consumer as:
1. someone who has the freedom to exercise choice

2. someone who purchases things
3. someone who is passive, therefore favouring ease of consumption
4. someone who has (varying degrees of) authority over the producer or
supplier
5. someone who exercises autonomy to decide on the nature and significance
of what is actually provided
25
fantasy and belief
6. someone whose authority-by-way-of-autonomous-choice and whose

passivity-that-favours-ease-of-consumption are catered for by producers
and suppliers providing the consumer-friendly
7. someone who is content with the superficial
8. someone who puts provisions or services to various forms of use.
The final point regarding use is further subdivided as:
1. vital requirements
2. social and cultural currency
3. personal display and identity requirements
4. hedonistic requirements.120
Alternatively, Campbell121 sees the major sociological characterizations of the

consumer as tending to fall into four major types: the rational actor, the passive
dupe, the postmodern identity seeker and the craft consumer. To summarize
these characterizations briefly, the notion of the consumer as a rational actor
is embedded in an understanding that assumes actors as thoughtful, informed
consumers who make rational decisions about what they purchase, and is
strongly resonant with economic theories. “The dupe” is framed somewhat in
opposition to this characterization, assuming that the consumer is “the passive,
manipulated and exploited subject of market forces”.122 The third category, the
“postmodern identity seeker”, is perhaps the most familiar to the study of con-
temporary religions, assuming that the consumer is “a self-conscious manipu-
lator of the symbolic meanings that are attached to products, someone who
selects goods with the specific intention of using them to create or maintain a
given impression, identity or lifestyle”.123 Campbell’s fourth category, the craft
consumer, assumes that the consumer acts out of “a desire to engage in crea-
tive acts of self-expression”.124 More specifically, he suggests that the craft con-
sumer is one “who typically takes any number of mass-produced products and
employs these as the ‘raw materials’ for the creation of a new ‘product’, one that
is typically intended for self-consumption”.125 Exemplary behaviours of this type
would include home design and lifestyle endeavours such as gourmet cooking,
DIY home improvement and the like.
These characterizations, while by no means encompassing the entirety
of understandings of consumption, nonetheless successfully articulate the
general models currently at play within sociological approaches: they allow
for the testing of a set of assumptions about how and why individuals and
groups consume. Intrinsic to these discussions, however, is still a primary
linkage between consumption and the commodity, be the commodity an
object or a service. Following Kopytoff, commoditization can be understood
as a process by which things are attributed value within a limited number of
26
spheres of exchange.126 This process of value uniformity is complemented with

a corresponding category of the unsaleable. Appropriately, Kopytoff articulates
the non-saleability of things in terms of their singularity and, often, sacredness:
In the west, as a matter of cultural shorthand, we usually take saleability

to the unmistakeable indicator of commodity status, while non-salea-
bility imparts to a thing a special aura of apartness from the mundane
and the common … To be saleable or widely exchangeable is to be
“common” – the opposite of being uncommon, incomparable, unique,
singular, and therefore not exchangeable for anything else.127
It should also be noted that within the broader conversation around consumer
culture and society in the late modern age, religion holds a particular and,
inevitably, fraught position. This can be read in a number of ways: for instance,
as an extreme articulation of the understanding of consumer culture as homog-
enizing; an equation of money with the emphatically secular and religion
oppositionally sacred; or perhaps as a slight variation on the dilution theory.
Either way, consumer culture and religion are often understood as unhappy
bedfellows. In perhaps even stronger terms than the discomfort with the com-
modification of art and creative endeavours, religion when seen as proximate to
consumption is inevitably devalued and, at best, is granted questionably authen-
ticity: “Consumer culture is generally presented as being extremely destructive
for religion in terms of its emphasis on hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure here
and now, the cultivation of expressive lifestyles, the development of narcissistic
and egoistic personality types.”128
While a number of theorists working in the field of NRMs utilize consumer
culture frameworks, the construction of religious and spiritual participants as,
for instance, believer/consumers,129 tends to elide potential space between the
experience of the numinous or the “other” and an everyday location within
contemporary (consumer) culture. This is at least in part due to the fact that
such formulations are often unclear as to the precise location of consump-
tion:130 for instance, are individuals consuming religion in a commodified
manner? Are they consuming objects that hold religious meaning? Are they
consuming non-religious objects and services as religious individuals? Without
a clear designation of the particular forms of consumption implied, one is
often left with the slightly uncomfortable feeling that maybe people are just
buying belief.
In summary, contemporary understandings of consumption within a con-
sumer society can be understood as not necessarily contingent upon produc-
tion, usually related to the acquisition of commodities, often a mechanism by
which the self is articulated, and increasingly a central element of late modern
Western life. Nonetheless, consumption is rejected here as a framework for
27
fantasy and belief
analysis on the basis of a number of points. First, the intrinsic connection

between commodities (and their attendant commercial and saleable nature)
and consumption is, at best, unwieldy within a context where the capacity to
purchase and sell is often irrelevant. That access to source material and cultural
products is often granted via monetized means is of secondary importance
to, for instance, particular narratives accessed. Second, while individuals who
engage with the types of beliefs explored here are certainly members of a con-
sumer society, they are no more likely to be consumers than creators, and to
frame analysis in such terms would misrepresent their engagement. Following
from this point, to frame participants as consumers is to denote them, if implic-
itly, as receivers of products or services. Even within a framework that allows
for the decommoditization and personalization of purchased materials, this
nonetheless turns attention from the particular areas of interest here. Third,
there is a conflation that occurs within the particular context of religious and
spiritual participants when understood as consumers: the experience and prac-
tice of these types of spiritualities are distinct from commodified objects that
may be supportive of the same. These points are explored in more detail in
later chapters, but for the moment this suffices to articulate the uncomfortable
fit of consumer culture narratives to idiosyncratic personalized religiosity and
spirituality.
FAntAsy AnD the mARvellous
Fantasy literature is a genre fraught with differing interpretations and astound-

ingly arguable limitations. Taken in its broadest sense, it can be considered to
include mythology, legend and folklore, even classics,131 and in its most limited
interpretation may be viewed as a product of and a response to the modern
world. Fantasy is, for instance, often distinguished from science fiction by fans
and critics alike, for all that publishers and bookstores often conflate these cat-
egories. Further, the distinction between the fantastic and fantasy is an issue of
some contention,132 even though there is considerable crossover between the
two fields: theorists of the fantastic tend to deal with radically different canons
compared with those who deal with fantasy. While I am focusing predominantly
upon contemporary fantasy narrative in the context of personal metaphysics,
texts from science fiction and mythology also contribute significantly to the
alternative spiritualities explored here. As a result, this section is concerned
with outlining a brief overview of these forms, in order to articulate both com-
monalities and distinctions between these various overlapping types of narra-
tive. “Fantasy … presumes a heterogeneous discourse situation. It links human
beings in a cosmos perceived as containing something other than humankind,
and the audience response it evokes is predicated on an assumption of a human
solidarity composed of heterogeneity, not homogeneity.”133
28
The fantastic
Technically speaking, the fantastic is understood as “a mode of fiction in which

the possible and the impossible are confounded so as to leave the reader (and
often the narrator and/or central character) with no consistent explanation for
the story’s strange events.”134 Todorov, an influential theorist in the field, pro-
posed that the fantastic was particularly denoted by a hesitation on behalf of the
reader, with explanation of events hung between a natural and a supernatural
interpretation.135 This category is separated from the types of narrative central
here in significant ways: the very hesitation described by Todorov can in turn
be seen as what is often smoothed over within fantasy and science fiction. It
is also worth noting that the texts Todorov chooses for his study are a far cry
from the more “pulp”136 texts viewed here, and tends to concern itself only with
the extremely literary.
This division between the fantastic and fantasy, although maintained by
many theorists, is nonetheless a debateable distinction. Those who hold to this
division tend to posit the fantastic as a post-Enlightenment, romantic phenom-
enon137 on the basis that, among other things, the pre-Enlightenment world
made no sharp distinctions between the natural and the supernatural for nar-
rative purposes.138 This assumption is clearly problematic and an oversimpli-
fication at best, and as such significantly undermines the veracity of this form
of division. On the other hand, there exists an important school of thought
that considers fantasy effectively to be more or less continuous from the time
of Homer. This perspective tends to view fantasy as intimately bound up in
writing, and does not discriminate so emphatically between the modern and
mythic. In essence, this school sees “the improvisation of a historical divide
between modern fantasy literature and earlier manifestations of the materials
that it recycles and transfigures is a brutal artifice”.139 This perspective is very
much in line with the stance taken here. Primarily, while there are stylistic dif-
ferences between, say, contemporary science fiction and ancient myth, there is
also clearly a continuity of themes that are present across the different types of
fantasy. While it is imperative to distinguish between the various forms of nar-
rative fiction, it is just as essential to highlight their commonalities, particularly
in light of the fact that it tends to be these areas of commonality that are the
central focus of the groups discussed here.
Fantasy
One of the immediately obvious elements of fantasy is that it is fundamentally

concerned with the creation and extension of secondary worlds. The composi-
tion of fantasy narrative is an explicit act of creation, or “sub-creation”.140 In
seeking to outline the boundaries of the different aspects of the fantastic in
29
fantasy and belief
usable ways, Cornwell proposes that the type of fantasy relevant here actu-
ally comprises a subsection of the category of the marvellous. This category,
according to his schema, includes what if narratives, fairy stories and romance/
fantasy. In Cornwell’s framework, the marvellous is but one category within a set
attempting to cover the trajectory from non-fiction through to mythology as its
farthest point. This category of romance/fantasy is flanked in Cornwell’s schema
on one side by fairy stories and on the other by mythology. The romance/
fantasy is understood as a narrative “in which the work unfolds in a world
patently not ‘ours’: either a romance or ‘faery’ world, à la Tolkien (the word
‘romance’ of course presents possible difficulties, due to both its high medieval
and popular generic connotations), or an other-planetary SF world”.141 Such a
broad understanding of fantasy, and the attendant implications of continuity
with mythology and fairy stories is useful here insofar as it broadly denotes the
spread of literatures that are implicated within Otherkin beliefs.
It is, perhaps unsurprisingly, Tolkien who most evocatively outlines what
constitutes fantasy. He himself refers to the fairy story, and his use of the term
is, while antiquated, understandable in light of his definition.142
The definition of a fairy-story – what it is, or what it should be – does

not, then, depend on any definition or historical account of elf or fairy,
but upon the nature of Faërie: the Perilous Realm itself, and the air that
blows in that country … a “fairy-story” is one which touches on or
uses Faërie, whatever its own main purpose may be: satire, adventure,
morality, fantasy. Faërie itself may perhaps most nearly be translated
by magic – but it is magic of a peculiar mood and power, at the furthest
pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific magician.143
From his category, Tolkien excludes travellers’ tales (such as A Voyage to

Lilliput),144 beast fables145 and, most importantly, narratives that rely on some
form of device, such as a dream, that regulates the world of the narrative to
any form of psychological or imaginary factor.146 This last point is particularly
notable, both in and of itself and in relation to much theory surrounding the
fantastic. What Tolkien is noting here is, rather than the element of surprise,
intrusion or hesitation as Todorov discusses, the truthfulness, the internal con-
sistency of the narrative world.147
In a more recent taxonomy, Mendelsohn proposes a further four-part divi-
sion within fantasy: intrusive fantasy, estranged fantasy, portalling fantasy,
and immersive fantasy. “In the intrusive fantasy the fantastic enters the fic-
tional world; in the estranged fantasy the magic hovers in the corner of our
eye; portal fantasies invite us through into the fantastic; while the immersive
fantasy allows us no escape.”148 The precise distinctions between these different
forms of fantasy are, for my purposes, less relevant that the articulation of the
scope of the field and its defining features. Implicit in Mendelsohn’s taxonomy
30
is a clear statement of the genre relationship to secondary worlds, their creation,

and the means of transition between them. Thus within Cromwell, Tolkien and
Mendelsohn’s various frameworks, all highlight the otherworldliness of fantasy
as an essential aspect of the genre.
One of the basic difficulties of discussing fantasy is the extreme diversity
of implications attached to the term, and the degree to which such texts can
evoke intensely personal followings. What is canon for one individual may be
completely unacceptable to the next reader, and some theorists in the field seem
just as likely to support their personal favourites as more informal readers.
Take, for instance, the notion of commodified fantasy. Commodified fantasy
denotes the formulaic end of contemporary fantasy composition: a “stereotypi-
cal and imitative genre fantasy devoid of intellectual and moral complexity”.149
Stableford lists Terry Brooks, David Eddings, Raymond Feist, Robert Jordan,
Katherine Kerr and Terry Goodkind as exemplars of this form of fantasy.150
However negative the initial conception of this type, though, it has been noted
that such formulaic fantasy does provide consistent structures that appeal
greatly to audiences. The authors that exemplify this form all fairly consistently
include massive discrete worlds, magic and non-human entities possessed of
consciousness. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these types of formulaic narratives also
figure largely within the booklists of the Otherkin. The derogatory stance taken
by some theorists towards this form of fantasy should in no means be thought
to equate to a limited audience interest, but rather perhaps to an unattractive
literary elitism that is not shared by the vast numbers of readers to whom this
sub-section of the genre appeals.
Another relevant sub-section of the genre is heroic fantasy;151 a type of
fantasy closely related to “sword and sorcery” narrative, which focuses upon,
unsurprisingly, the hero. These types of narrative are certainly not limited to the
modern era, but would incorporate many myths and legends under its rubric.
Probably the most well-known heroic fantasy of modern times is Tolkien’s Lord
of the Rings.152 This form of categorization is highly indebted to the work of
Joseph Campbell.153 Such narratives tend to take on a quest structure, are often
set in quasi-medieval worlds (i.e. have swords and peasants) that also contain
magic (which is, unsurprisingly, where the sorcery comes from).
Science fiction
Science fiction is, within this book, understood as closely related to fantasy
insofar as it focuses upon the creation of new narrative worlds154 of various
types. That said, it will be dealt with here in detail as the vast majority of criti-
cism around the area deals specifically with science fiction and not the broader
field of fantasy. It is imperative to note that I am not saying that fantasy like
Lord of the Rings is stylistically equatable or continuous with a text like the
31
fantasy and belief
speculative science fiction romp The Cyberiad,155 but rather simply that it is
what they have in common that I wish to highlight. That said, some departure
is necessary here in order to establish the variants between these styles precisely
because the approach taken here is not a particularly popular one.
There is a lot of contention surrounding the relationship between science
fiction and fantasy. Many, academics and fans alike, object to the close relation-
ship often assumed between the two styles. There are many different forms
of definitions, ranging from self-referential, historicist and formalist types of
definition.156 Arguments as exactly how to divide up what is and is not science
fiction approach the ludicrous in their proliferation, but one point of general
agreement is that the genre is united in the use of extrapolation.157 Insofar as
this is true, science fiction writings make extensions from the “real” world and
in doing so effectively create another. Another regular attitude to the definition
of science fiction is based in its association with change, with discontinuity.158
Gunn describes his position on this stance well:
Science Fiction is the branch of literature that deals with the effects of
change on people in the real world as it can be projected into the past,
the future, or to distant places. It often concerns itself with scientific or
technological change, and it usually involves matters whose importance
is greater than the individual or the community; often civilization or
the race itself is in danger.159
This position takes the notion of extrapolation to the extent where the extrapo-
lation is expansive enough that the secondary world may be considered dis-
continuous from the primary, thus effectively becoming a tertiary world.160
Interestingly, Gunn sees both fantasy and science fiction as discontinuous: he
draws the distinction between fantasy and science fiction on the basis that
fantasy relies upon the ground rules of worlds distinct from everyday existence,
whereas science fiction is an extension of those everyday rules, irrespective of
how far the extrapolation may go.161
Another term used to discuss this distinction between our everyday lived
experience of the world and the worlds created within fantasy and science
fiction texts is cognitive estrangement. Cognitive estrangement is understood
as an utterly central characteristic of science fiction, denoting science fiction
as “estranged from the naturalistic world but cognitively connected to it.
‘Noncognitive estrangement’, according to this scheme, would include myths,
folktales, and fantasies that are neither naturalistic nor cognitively linked to the
natural world.”162 According to Damien Broderick,
SF is that species of storytelling native to a culture undergoing the

epistemic changes implicated in the rise and supercession of techni-
cal-industrial modes of production, distribution, consumption and
32
disposal. It is marked by (i) metaphoric strategies and metonymic

tactics, (ii) the foregrounding of icons and interpretative schemata
from a collectively constituted generic ‘mega-text’ and the concomi-
tant de-emphasis of ‘fine writing’ and characterisation, and (iii) certain
priorities more often found in scientific and postmodern texts than in
literary models: specifically, attention to the object in preference to the
subject.163
Fantasy and science fiction can be seen as “opposite responses to the triumphant
humanizing of Western post-Renaissance culture.”164 Where science fiction can
be viewed as an extrapolation of a modern, disenchanted situation and, often,
hyperbolic statements of this circumstance, fantasy on the other hand can be
seen as a reintroduction of re-enchantment. Romantic fantasy takes on “the
highly peculiar task of creating awareness that what we have come to accept as
the only possible reality may not be as absolute, complete, or comprehensive
as we think, and of urging us to imagine what in a progressive and enlightened
and incredulous world must seem inconceivable”.165 Such a circumstance clearly
indicates at least part of why it has such particular appeal to Pagans, magicians,
and the like.
The predominant style of science fiction, then, alerts us to the pro-

found paradox of its favoured themes: it seems to deal with alien forms,
monsters, Martians, green spores from Alpha Centauri, mutants in
distant galaxies, and the like, but all these are in fact only means for
dramatizing how our world has become so exclusively humanized as
to be self-diseased. The Martians, mutants, and intelligent spores are
extrapolations of our frighteningly practical imaginative power as it
is expressed in a technological and scientific progress that annihilates
otherness.166
As can be seen, there are important distinctions to be made between science

fiction and fantasy, but the distinctions are generally more relevant to the
compositional concerns of authors and literary theorists than they are to the
appreciation of audiences. The most simplistic, and for the purposes of this
book, probably the most relevant, distinction between the two is that science
fiction tends to head towards space where fantasy tends to aim for the forests.
Science fiction utilizes technology whereas fantasy focuses upon magic. While
naïve, this approach clearly outlines the broad differences in the literatures. For
instance, take the Star Wars films by George Lucas: do they constitute science
fiction or fantasy? They take place in space, theoretically extended from our
current situation but conceivably within our universe, and yet, for instance,
have none of the minimal or distanced characterization that typically marks
science fiction. The trashy romance-type narrative certainly brings to mind
33
fantasy and belief
more of a fantasy than a science fiction text, and yet many fans consider the
films to be one of the ultimate exemplars of science fiction. The series of films
is probably most accurately defined as a space opera, which is typically under-
stood as a sub-genre lying between the two forms, but proliferating sub-genres
does not get us any further towards understanding the field of narrative relevant
here. While at the opposite ends of the two forms of narrative there are very
distinct differences between the styles, where they overlap there is no simple
means of distinguishing between the two. Realistically, they should be viewed as
located at different points on the same spectrum, with significant intermingling
between the two.167
Fantasy responds to the modern condition of rationalized civiliza-

tion, culture deprived of enchantment, by seeking to uncover magic
possibilities, especially in the processes of linguistic articulation and
narrative in themselves…To cast a spell, fantasy must be a spell, the
texture of its enunciation must be magical, in the sense of bringing
forward the amazingly transformative, because self-transformative,
powers of language, exactly what science, and so science fiction, seeks
to exorcise.168
Myth
Moving away from modern manifestations of fantasy in literature towards the

most archaic forms of the same, it is worth addressing the category of myth.
Determining precisely what constitutes myth is not only extremely problem-
atic, but also an endeavour that has been undertaken for thousands of years,
with non-literal interpretation of myth stretching back as far as classical schol-
ars such as Plato, Xenophanes and Heraclitus.169 Arguably more than most
areas, theories of myth generally suffer from an alarming absence of posi-
tions that view myth in its own right. An overview of academic approaches
to mythology supplies the reader with constructions of myth as education,
indoctrination in social norms, justification for taboo and so on, but tends
to overlook the actual substance, or more particularly the content, of myths.
While the precise meanings of myths have been negotiated and renegotiated ad
nauseum by theorists,170 there is generally an assumption that myths support
the origin narratives of the cultures to which they belong. It should be noted
that these types of readings will not be utilized within this book, and myth is
considered in more or less the same terms as other types of fantasy narrative.
This choice does not reflect a dismissal of the many academic understand-
ings of myth, but rather is indicative of participants’ use of the material. The
types of beliefs that are under discussion here tend to prioritize the content,
not the context, of narrative, and thus utilizing academic approaches to myth
34
tends to lead away from the specific concerns of participants. It is in only this
sense, then, that myth is considered in the same light as contemporary fantasy
narrative.
The distinction between myth, legend and folklore is also notoriously
difficult to articulate. This difficulty begins at the point of definition, as to
many theorists the difference between these forms is of integral importance,
whereas to other scholars they may be the same thing.171 Generally speaking,
the assumption tends to be that myths constitute the most important found-
ing narratives of a group, legends constitute devolved history, and folklore is
a manifestation of the superstitious relics of our benighted past. Bascom pro-
poses that the three types of prose narrative are distinguished on the basis of
emic truth claims, time-frames, and the designation of sacred: by this account
myths are true narratives set in the distant past of a sacred content, legends
are true narratives set in the recent past and are more likely to be secular, and
folktales are fictional narratives set in any time of a secular content.172 The tem-
poral elements of these distinctions between myth, legend and folklore are of
particular interest.173 Myth, for instance, tends to occur outside of linear time,
in sacred time:174 Dundes points out that mythic narratives are situated before,
and up to, the act of creation.175 Legends, on the other hand, are set after crea-
tion. “There is no time after legends, just as there is no time before myth.”176
Folklore can be situated in any time, either mundane or sacred. Bascom goes
on to note that myths contain predominantly non-human characters, legends
generally focus upon the human, and folklore can go either way. Certainly,
this tends to be the case in relation to the types of narrative of interest here:
the fantastic creatures generally have their source in myth and folklore while
they have a distinctly lesser presence in legend. Grimm, for instance, noted
that “Folktales, not legend, have in common with the god-myth a multitude of
metamorphoses: and they often let animals come upon the stage … Divinities
form the core of all mythology.”177
It should also be noted that the mythologies of the classical world, and the
Nordic cultures in particular, underpin much of the norms of contemporary
fantasy.178 They provide fantasy in abundance, and indeed many of the mythical
and therianthropic creatures relevant to the Otherkin find their source within
the various mythological traditions. Mythology provides one of the richest nar-
rative sources of fantastic worlds, creatures and tales, passages to other worlds,
and eruptions of the divine or other within the human.
Fantasy and the occult
Tying some of these various areas of interest together, it should be noted that the
parallel development of, and relationship between, fantasy narrative, modernity
and the occult is well established in the history of the modern West.
35
fantasy and belief
Along with smoking factory chimneys came both the literature of the
fantastic and the new phenomenon of spiritualism. These two possess
a common characteristic: each takes the real world in its most concrete
form as its point of departure, and then postulates the existence of
another, supernatural world, separated from the first by a more or less
impermeable partition. Fantasy literature then plays upon the effect of
surprise that is provided by the irruption of the supernatural into the
daily life, which it describes in a realistic fashion. Spiritualism, both
as a belief and as a practice, follows the inverse procedure, teaching
how to pass from this world of the living to the world of the dead,
through séances of spirit rappings and table tippings, the table playing
a role analogous to that of the traditional magic circle. It is interesting
that occultism in its modern form – that of the nineteenth century –
appeared at the same time as fantastic literature and spiritualism.179
While I do not hold to the definition of fantasy as limited to the post-

Enlightenment era, as already established, it is however important to note the
broadly concurrent appearance of the fantastic and the rise of occultism (as
opposed to esotericism) within the context of the secularizing tendencies of
Enlightenment ideologies. Romanticism as a movement, and romantic fantasy
as a specific development within the former, “developed self-reflexively the
intense scepticism fostered by enlightened rationality, seeking not to dismiss or
ignore the power that had destroyed superstition but to redirect systematized
disbelief against itself ”.180 It did not constitute an attack upon Enlightenment so
much as a construction of the same notions into a “secular theology of historical
progress”.181 It tended to complement the nascent emphasis of rationality with
an equivalent highlighting of emotionality. “Romanticism provided no practical
response to enlightened society’s radical attack on the human person; it offered
an imaginative, rooted in what Wordsworth termed ‘feeling’.”182 This “feeling”
provided the root stock of a re-enchanting, a mystification of a world that was
increasingly being explained in rational terms.
The influence of Romanticism in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries also contributed to an increasing interest in local historical texts, and
a general interest in mythology, folklore and legend.183 During this time, the
first English translations were made of various mythic, folkloric and legendary
narratives, such as the Mabinogi, with the first section of Pughe’s translation
published in 1796,184 or the collections of folklore made available by the broth-
ers Grimm from as early as 1812.185 Even earlier, seminal imports such as the
1704 French translation of the Arabian Nights helped establish, and heavily
supported, the resurgence of the fantastic tale in this era.186
So while the category of fantasy extends back more or less as far as the
written word, the modern era did most certainly see a rise in interest in fantasy
and re-enchantment, which can in turn be seen as manifested separately within
36
the development of occultism and the rise in popularity of fantasy. This point
is highlighted expressly to emphasize that the intertwining of fantasy and spir-
ituality evinced by the Otherkin and their like has an established historical
precedent.
In essence, then, I am proceeding with the understanding that the notion
of fantasy is a broad rubric within which is included science fiction as well as a
plethora of other forms such as horror, cyberpunk and the like. While they all
vary to a degree in their content, their common element is the creation of various
different worlds that significantly differ from our everyday lived experience.
While somewhat tangential, it should also be noted that fantasy literature
across the board has been located in a contentious position in the modern
world: indeed, it has evoked criticism and ridicule since its popularization in
the nineteenth century. The appearance of the supernatural within the text in
romantic works was generally found to be disreputable,187 and this tendency has
extended into more recent times. There has been a long-standing assumption
that works involving the fantastic need “some sort of extraliterary rationale for
their legitimate employment in a work of literature”.188 This rationale may be
educational or moral, for instance, but, generally speaking, fantastic literature
has not been allowed to exist simply as works valid in their own right. Denied
the high status of “literature”, fantasy generally has needed to justify its existence
with a purpose beyond simply appreciation. Without such justification, and
indeed sometimes as well as, fantasy is accused of compensation,189 escapism
and/or formulaic composition.190 As a result, much of contemporary discussion
of fantasy literature is framed in defensive terms, and much of the relevant criti-
cism is still directed towards justifying engagement with such fanciful narrative.
In relation to this point it should be noted that I have no intention of defend-
ing the role of fantasy literature in an educational, psychological or indeed any
other sense: I take, fundamentally, the position that these texts have value in and
of themselves. There has been much written defending fantasy fiction and its
various sub-genres from their detractors, due largely to a perceived bias against
them on the basis of the high/low literature division, or the association of child-
ishness with the subject matter.191 This assumed hierarchy of value pervades
most discussion of cultural products, from fine art to television programmes,
and, frankly, is largely a relic of earlier times. This is not to say, of course, that
all cultural products are of equal value, but rather that the attribution of value
is in all cases subjective. In this context, then, the simple fact of the existing
communities of interest surrounding most forms of fantasy fiction renders the
notion of discussing the texts purely in terms of literary merit or social func-
tion, for instance, irrelevant. Readings such as this in a social context imply a
proscriptive value system that renders audiences either unthinking dupes or
chronic escapists, neither of which are appropriate here. Given the history of
bias against these popular, rather than endorsed, forms, it seems appropriate
to clearly establish the position taken within this study.
37
Chapter 2
ThE oThErkIN
More so than any other community of which I am aware, the Otherkin embod-
ies the particular conjunction of popular culture, spirituality, narrative fantasy
and new media communication forms. There are other groups that demonstrate
such a concurrence of themes, of which some will be briefly mentioned at the
end of this chapter, but the Otherkin stand as the premier exemplar of these
domains as conjunct locales. That being the case, the majority of this chapter
is a general and limited overview of the community as it exists online: general
insofar as each individual participant’s interests and beliefs are divergent enough
that detailed examination of specific aspects of the community inevitably leads
one into a morass of individual preference at the cost of accurate, if broad, rep-
resentation; and limited insofar as the following material is largely drawn from
one online nexus of the Otherkin community. It is important to understand that
the Otherkin are here taken as an exemplary community rather than an isolated
one: many others share similar, if not the same beliefs, but do not necessarily
associate with the rubric “Otherkin”. Thus the following material may ring true
to a Pagan, for instance, and yet they may have no affiliation whatsoever with
the community. I emphasize this point so as to illustrate that the beliefs dis-
cussed below are by no means limited to this particular community, but rather
that the Otherkin serve as exemplars of a broader trend.
the otheRKin
The Otherkin are those people who believe themselves to be spiritu-

ally and/or physically other than human. While mythological species
(elves, satyrs, fairies, dragons, and so on) are widely accepted as being
included under the term “Otherkin”, many people in the community
prefer to include aliens, vampires, furries, extraterrestrial humans, and
other nonhuman races.1
39
fantasy and belief
The Otherkin are a loosely affiliated group of likeminded individuals who have
formed a virtual online community. Their shared belief is that some people
are, either partially or completely, non-human. To quote another participant,
“Otherkin is a collective noun for an assortment of people who have come to
the somewhat unorthodox, and possibly quite bizarre, conclusion that they
identify themselves as being something other than human.”2 Further, they con-
sider themselves to be “an alternative community that accepts everything from
therianthropes to extraterrestrial fae”.3 In practice, there are a variety of self-
knowledges supported within the community, including constructions such
as a human body with a non-human soul, multiple souls within the one body,
a human who is a reincarnated non-human, and even occasionally those who
claim physical status as non-human. The types of non-human entities refer-
enced in this context include dragons, elves, vampires, lycanthropes, fairies,
fae and angels, as well as a plethora of specific characters and creatures sourced
from popular culture media creations, and even particular species that are the
creations of participants themselves.
Beyond the premise of the group, there seems little in common across the
community, with participants engaging in an eclectic personal mix of magic,
philosophy, metaphysical questing and self-inquiry. In line with the framework
offered by Christopher Partridge,4 they are clear participants in Occulture. As is
often the case within occultural spiritualities, the authority and priority is given
to personal lived experience,5 and there is a notable lack of a unified creed or
dogma.6 As a community the Otherkin function without formalized authority
structures, and focus largely on support and information sharing. The sense of
the non-human self, in whatever particular manifestation it may take, provides
both the foundation of and the impetus for the community.
It is important to reiterate that the designation “religion” in its everyday sense
is far too misleading to be used in terms of the Otherkin: while some partici-
pants may construe their other-than-humanness as a religious position, many
rightly deny any such association, and are generally far more likely to frame
their Otherkin-ness as a spiritual, rather than religious, position. Indicative of
this is that, in a recent survey,7 80 per cent of respondents constructed being
Otherkin as a spiritual position, whereas only 1.5 per cent considered it reli-
gious. As was prefigured in the introduction, the Otherkin do fall under the
academic substantive definition of religion, in so far as they uphold a belief in
the superempirical, but within the community this idea is somewhat contested.
On the other hand, they are incontestably a metaphysic, insofar as their para-
digm goes far beyond the tangible and the provable.
Location
The Otherkin are unusual in that they are a community that has developed
almost entirely online.8 While the beliefs held and shared by participants most
40
the otherkin
certainly pre-date the advent of the internet, the community itself is largely,
although not entirely, dependent upon the medium. In this I mean that, while
individuals have held this belief since before the popularization of the internet,
they did so in such small and isolated numbers that they did not constitute
a community in any practical sense of the term. This circumstance probably
arises from a number of points, such as a tendency to avoid espousing deviant
beliefs arising from fears of persecution, or a sense of personal alienation that
makes confidences unlikely, but most importantly it is simply an issue of geog-
raphy: participants have been physically too spread out to have formed sizable
communities until the internet made such associations feasible.
Online there is a wide array of presences pertaining to Otherkin commu-
nities and beliefs.9 There are personal web pages, community sites, forums,
discussion boards, mailing lists, Facebook groups, Otherkin in Second Life,
web rings, and so on. These various locales make up the Otherkin community
online, for all that individual participants may never cross paths in their digital
wanderings. There are many smaller communities existing under this broad
rubric, many of which may be more meaningful to individual participants than
the notion of the group as a whole. Suffice it to say that the Otherkin web pres-
ence is by and large a vast and sprawling network of individuals, interconnected
in a variety of ways. To give a detailed summary of the extent of that presence
is not particularly useful, but specific sites, highlighted by their regular appear-
ance as links as well as the nature of their content, may be taken as indicative
of the general thrust of the broader Otherkin community.
Otherkin.net is one such site, a focal point for the Otherkin community
online. It currently has 358 listed members,10 and as it is not necessary to sign up
to access Otherkin information, there are likely to be many more casual brows-
ers. It is also worth pointing out that since the inception of this research (2004),
the number of members on Otherkin.net have, at various points, reached as
high as 2500 (2010) and as low as 348.11 This site is, of course, only one among
many Otherkin sites online, and presumably represents only a fraction of indi-
viduals involving themselves with an Otherkin-like metaphysic. Their constitu-
ency is thinly spread across the world, with participants from the United States
most heavily represented.12 There is no particularly obvious gender inequity,
although it is impossible to be sure, given the overt identity construction and
play that occurs within this context. The site contains a wealth of information,
including essays, links to Otherkin websites and media reports on Otherkin,
an Otherkin directory, an Otherkin wiki, as well as access to mailing lists and
events information. The entire site reflects a grassroots philosophy in the sense
that it does not present a monolithic message, but rather attempts to make
accessible a variety of views about the nature of the Otherkin. For instance, the
essay section reflects this tendency well. A new member or interested seeker is
directed to introductory papers outlining the general substance of what consti-
tutes the Otherkin. Beyond this recommended reading, there is a large selection
41
fantasy and belief
of articles,13 sixty-four on the website at last count, written by Otherkin about

Otherkin. The content of these articles range from personal reflections upon
the experience of being Otherkin (such as “why an elf ”14), to issues taken with
trends within the community (such as a tendency to construct their position
in binary opposition to prevailing norms15). There are papers pertaining to
specific aspects of their metaphysic, such as soulbonding16 and magic,17 and
papers calling out against sloppy logic. This variety is reflective of the diversity
of interests and focus within the group, and is indicative of their generally
inclusive attitude.
At this point it is worth digressing for a moment into some brief discussions
of the Otherkin as a community. Thus far I have blithely referred to the holders
of this particular philosophy as a community, assuming both consensus on the
use of the term, and that Otherkin interaction falls within this set of behaviours.
This is, of course, problematic on both fronts. Although libraries could be filled
with the research into the nature of virtual communities,18 it can be difficult
to pin down a specific definition. Certainly, in the case of the Otherkin, this is
an extremely difficult undertaking. The participants are dispersed geographi-
cally, and appear as a group to be primarily a virtual phenomenon. That said,
there are still group activities and meetings organized offline as well. While the
majority of participants are based in the USA, there are also small numbers
scattered across the rest of the world. Interestingly, it may be possible to view
the types of community here as a virtual form of communitas, the liminally
situated, unstructured society of equal individuals as opposed to the more tra-
ditional “area of common living”.19 What links these individuals is not neces-
sarily geography, nor demographic, nor class, but rather one single point of
common belief. For all that this would not meet the criteria of community by
some standards, by participants’ language and engagement they clearly perceive
themselves as such. Simply put, they call themselves a community, they interact
with one another, and individually contribute to shared endeavours. This meets
at least a minimal understanding of community.
The Otherkin exist online not just in a collection of personal and community
web pages and forums, but have also moved into the realms of social network-
ing,20 or more broadly what is often referred to as web 2.0. The language of web
2.0 may have become slightly less pervasive in the glorious early adolescent
days of online engagement, but is theoretically entirely continuous with social
networking and sites that focus on user-created content rather than explicitly
hierarchical author/audience divisions. Rather than approaching the internet
as a more complex form of essentially unidirectional media such as film or
TV, social networking and user created content has emphasized the broader
movement from a (comparatively) passive or a straightforward sender–reciever
notion of audience towards an idea of the participant, or user, as an integral
creator of content. Wikipedia and Facebook stand currently as exemplary forms
of user-created content and social networking respectively. Such developments
42
the otherkin
have, as can be imagined, been heralded as both triumphs for the freedom of
information and the death of accurate information. While both positions are
excessively extreme, there is a element of truth to both. What is perhaps more
interesting, however, is the actual impact that such technologies have on the
way individuals use and interact within such contexts.
Social networking sites such as Facebook have also been adopted by Otherkin
participants. Beyond this, user-created compilations such as an Otherkin wiki
on Otherkin.net is indicative of the non-hierarchical user-oriented inclinations
of the group. It also demonstrates the degree to which such communities are
engaged in the cultural transformations of new media, and, in the case of the
Otherkin, were quite early adopters of these forms. On the other hand, though,
upholding their importance in relation to the Otherkin may be somewhat mis-
leading. While these aspects are important in and of themselves, the Otherkin
network effectively functions in this manner anyway. It is all user-created
content, and, short of exclusion due to unacceptable behaviour, participants do
not appear to be censured in what they make available within the community.
In a nutshell, then, it would seem that the presence of networked and digitally
literate approaches are important insofar as they indicate a strong engagement
with current trends in digital community and communication, it does not in
practice particularly add anything to the community that was not there already.
Cosmology
There are a number of cosmological assumptions that underpin the commu-

nity that diverge from more traditional constructions of a religious or spir-
itual milieu. Primary among these is the largely tacit postulation of multiple
or parallel universes; alternative worlds separate to our own, yet not entirely
unrelated. As a general rule, a spiritual or religious hierarchy is conceptualized
as a vertical axis with deities at the top, humans somewhere in the middle, and
whichever nasties are relevant at the bottom. The Otherkin construction of the
cosmos, on the other hand, is one far more densely populated with alterna-
tive spaces, and also one seemingly devoid of absolute value judgements that
would infer any scale of relational importance that could be mapped into a
linear system. Although not clearly stated, the strong impression is given that,
to an Otherkin paradigm, multiple alternative worlds approach the infinite in
at least their potential existence. If a Pagan philosophy asserts the animation
or ensoulment of the non-human parts of this world,21 the Otherkin en masse
seem to extrapolate this animism not just into the regions of this world, but
into many others also.
The origin and/or location of these multiple worlds is not stated within the
community. This is clearly, at least in part, because there is no simple or singular
answer. Individual participants or sub-groups, however, certainly demonstrate
43
fantasy and belief
a focus on these kinds of questions. As will be explored below, the Elenari elves
are, for instance, involved in actively seeking to better understand their home
worlds, whether they are understood as located on another planet or in another
dimension.22 In other cases, some participants posit an earlier age on Earth that
was populated with then extant but now mythical creatures.23 In such cases
the separation from a more mundane, everyday reality is framed in temporal,
rather than spatial or dimensional, terms. With other participants, the locales
from which the non-human entities are drawn are psychic in nature, internal
worlds that are ambiguously situated somewhere between the psyche and the
larger universe. While this summary is somewhat of a simplification, it gives
some indication of the variety of locales which participants either explicitly
state or implicitly suggest contain some form of valid reality. In general, though,
the issue of location seems to be of one of lesser interest to most Otherkin. As
one participant has noted, “when you get right down to it, being Otherkin isn’t
really about what you were in the past or on some other plane; it’s about who
and what you are now, here – on Earth in the 21st century”.24
While defining maps of reality, be they physical or metaphysical in nature,
does not seem to be of central concern to the Otherkin community as a whole,
the creatures populating both this and other worlds seem to lie closer to the
heart of Otherkin self-inquiry. This emphasis is no surprise given the central
premise of the group, and indeed to a degree appears to dictate association
within subsections of the group. Many of the mailing lists associated with
the Otherkin are in fact divided along species lines, with mailing lists such as
“Midwest Weres”, “Truewyrm” and “Angelkin”25 giving a good indication of the
way that participants relate within the group. This emphasis upon species type
makes sense when one considers what, for instance, a dragon and a vampire
might have in common beyond the sense of being other-than-human. Further,
as already noted, the very use of the term “community” in this case tends to
imply a whole set of forms of interaction that are simply not apparent with
the Otherkin: this is not a singular monolithic body of individuals following
the same creed; rather, it appears more like a large number of individuals that
crossed paths, creating a network of interactions.
Otaku kin and Mediakin
Another illuminating sub-section of the Otherkin community is the Otakukin

or Ota’kin,26 with particular respect to the sources from which they draw their
non-human aspects. The nomenclature is drawn from the term “otaku”, a
Japanese word literally meaning house, but colloquially used somewhat simi-
larly to “geek” or “nerd”, albeit with more sociopathic overtones.27 This particu-
lar branch of the Otherkin community specifically refers to those participants
who experience their non-human aspect through representations drawn from
44
the otherkin
anime and manga.28 As with many other of the participant classifications

explored here, it should be noted that there is a large range of approaches to
Otakukin status: it is by no means uniformly accepted as a sincere position, nor
is it necessarily embraced in an uncomplicated way. The particular nature of
source material utilized often places the Otakukin at odds with Otherkin, for
all that they are often accepted under the same rubric: many Otherkin consider
the Otakukin predilection for involvement with contemporary media source
material as simply silly or infantile. There is clearly a strong, if tacit, equation
here between historical presence and authenticity. This issue is often addressed
within the community as participants attempt to express the rationale by which
they feel their particular form of involvement with contemporary media is
valid.
I believe that there are an infinite number of alternate worlds/realities

wherein everything happens. Every possibility is explored. There are
worlds with Sailor Moon. There are even worlds like this one, except
nobody mocks otakukin. (Far fetched I know, but it has to happen
somewhere)
And I believe that sometimes souls can cross the barrier, resulting in
reincarnations of demons and dragons and whatnot. The only differ-
ence between Otherkin and otakukin is that the stories Otherkin come
from are a bit older.29
Another discussion, approaching the stance of what is called “Mediakin”30

(similar to Otakukin or Ota’kin, but in a broader sense, i.e. not strictly limited
to Japanese manga and anime), offers an extremely interesting example of the
types of discussions taking place within the community.
Pop culture entities can exist independent of their “creators”. In older

cultures, fiction and mythology were kept separate; however, I believe
that the processes for recording both are the same, though the intent
differs. Pop culture is modern mythology; since mainstream America
in particular lacks a cohesive cultural mythology, pop culture is about
the closest we have. Belief = power, and all entities – gods, spirits, pop
culture beings, etc. – rely to an extent on belief in order to have any
connection to this realm of existence. It doesn’t mean they have to have
that belief to exist, but the belief is the core of connection between them
and us. I have worked successfully with San from Mononoke Hime as a
huntress goddess in a similar manner to that which I’ve used working
with Artemis in the Greek pantheon. From my own perspective and
experience, San is no less real than Artemis, though I don’t see them
as one and the same. In fact, in some ways San is more relevant to me
because her story is contemporary to this life, rather than having been
45
fantasy and belief
recorded by a culture thousands of years ago, with a very different set

of values.31
In this instance, it is evident that the above quoted passage is written by an

individual whose particular focus is upon the functional aspects of such beliefs,
rather than being overly concerned with a more valid/invalid or real/unreal
division. This functional approach points strongly towards a magical paradigm
rather than a religious worldview in as much as the overriding focus is on effi-
cacy and the subjectivity of the individual rather than the specific nature of the
entity in question. This extract suffices to demonstrate one of the main argu-
ments as to the validity of Mediakin and Otakukin type beliefs. It is interesting
to note that this approach, while expanding upon the nature of the relationship
between participant and entity, does not touch on the nature of the entity per se.
One may derive from such that, to this participant at least, such questions are
largely irrelevant, or at least of minimal concern. This overriding pragmatism
towards a spiritual or magical position is very much in keeping with the tenden-
cies of modern occultism, and is explored in more detail in the next chapter.
The Otakukin appear to be somewhat fringe even within the Otherkin com-
munity, presumably at least partially due to the overtly fictional and extremely
recent sources for such characters and creatures. The primary issue appears
to be one of authenticity: creatures from the canon of the fantasy genre are
accepted at minimum as validly archetypal, if not outright actual, whereas more
recent additions to that particular pantheon are considered somewhat more
suspect. The very existence of the above cited article on Mediakin,32 and others
like it, attests to their occasionally controversial location within the Otherkin
community. The type of contestation viewable between Otherkin and Otakukin
is particularly intriguing in terms of authenticity: for a group that emphati-
cally supports personal experience and attributes explicit and personal spiritual
meaning to the redundancies of fictional narrative, it would seem somewhat
peculiar that there could be such an apparent gap between notions of appropri-
ate source material.
The Otakukin raise some fascinating points within the community by their
explicit association with popular culture creations that lack the associations
attendant upon the more traditional mythical creatures. Indeed there is an
excess of criticism viewable online for such beliefs, dwarfing even the deroga-
tory position often taken on Otherkin proper beliefs.33 Some Otherkin sites,
for instance, specifically deny the validity of Otakukin type beliefs.34 On the
other hand, even when participants attempt to be inclusive, as is often the
case, there are often clear indications of the difficulties of such communities.
One articulate example of this is the community rules for “Fic’kin: 100% Free-
Range Otherkin”.35 These rules start in the normal way for online communities,
requiring basic courtesy from participants, and these standards are articulated
clearly and succinctly in the first rule. The second and third rules, however, deal
46
the otherkin
specifically with issues arising from the particular orientation of the commu-
nity. These community frameworks give a very specific insight into the types of
problems such communities experience internally, and have been reproduced
here in their entirety.36
1. I’m not going to insult your intelligence by telling you not to flame
other people, respect each other’s opinions, etc. etc. THAT SHOULD
BE VERY BASIC BY NOW. If you cannot be civil or not-flame,
please contact your ISP and tell them not to let you near a computer
the rest of your human life so we can avoid that hassle.
– On basic respect, real quick: Try to be civil if someone just poured
their heart out.
– On arguments, debates, whatever: There is a time and place for
everything. Your opinions are valued but if you’re hormonal,
going to explode in a fiery pile of rage, or have no idea what
you’re talking about, you might want to take a deep breath, look
over what you’ve written or maybe not reply at all.
2. This community was originally for those who believe themselves to
be fictionkin/mediakin/otakukin, however we accept Soulbonders
with Bonds from fictional sources, people who are unsure or the
plain old curious folks. A good description lies here by the person
who even coined the phrase to begin with. As long as you’re respect-
ful, play nice and don’t act like a gossiping troll, you’ll be fine.
3. Some SPECIFIC Otherkin restrictions! Sorry if you find these
unreasonable, but dammit, respect them!
– If you’re a Multiple or Soulbond or something with multiple
LJ accounts for each of your personalities, only ONE journal is
welcome to Otakin. If you must make a “general “ LJ for all of
them just to join this community, then so be it. Violation of this
rule will result in all members representing the one being thrown
out until compliance is made. If you think this is unfair, I am
sorry, but we need to have a good idea of exactly WHO is in the
community.
– Avoid nit picking another’s interpretation of the same myth. If
someone mistakenly calls themselves an (anime) Sylph when in
fact everything they describe is Pixie-derived then contact them
privately and discuss it there. While it is true many Otherkin have
stuff that is violently inaccurate, try to keep your frustration to a
minimum. Don’t forget that what you’re arguing about cannot be
proved one way or another in the physical realm! This also applies
to stuff made up that is paralleled by myth.
– Keep mundane-bashing to a minimum. Or if you must, try to
keep it civil and intelligent. Yes, they may confuse or wrong you,
47
fantasy and belief
and you can even express frustration but please try to take a note
from their book and love the sinner, hate the sin.
– No one has “property” on a character. If someone says they’re
Squall from Final Fantasy 8, and someone else joins claiming to
be Squall, you’re not allowed to play childish games to try and
edge out the other. Pretend parallelities exist, even if you don’t
want to. Technically no one has ownership of any of the content
except their “rightful legal” owners.
– On that note … Any disagreement on astral/dimensional physics
is to be resolved on scientific principals and compassionate
debate. If the physics of either argument have no scientific base,
the debate will be considered totally moot. Some of you may not
like this world, but it’s going to be the line of reference this com-
munity is using.37
As can be seen, Otherkin communities deal with a number of issues that are
particular to the metaphysic. Some issues, such as the use of numerous accounts
for different entities within the same body, are so specific that it seems unlikely
that any other type of community would face such challenges to the degree
that they are problem solving via community rules. It is also apparent, from
the heavy iteration of the need for mutual respect, that the personal under-
standing and interpretation of the particular narratives and entities is of great
importance and probably one of the more contested areas of discussion. It is
also worth pointing out that “the ‘rightful legal’ owners” almost certainly refers
to the copyright holders of particular works of fiction. For instance, Squaresoft
and/or Sony would be the rightful owners of the character Squall mentioned
above, as the company that produced the game within which Squall is a central
character.
One particular point of interest in the above extract is the explicit state-
ment of the physically unverifiable nature of the topics in question coupled
with the injunction to utilize the notion of parallel realities irrespective of one’s
personal beliefs. The notion that two or more individuals may be Squall from
Final Fantasy VIII, and further that this issue is clearly contentious for some
participants, raises some fascinating implications. First, the multiple individu-
als engaging with the single entity leads the outsider to tend towards inter-
pretation of the entity as a sort of variant upon the notion of archetypes. Is
Squall, instead of being an entity to which is ascribed a unique set of attributes
that would constitute some form of personhood,38 rather viewed as a sort of
generic character or the personification of a type? The latter suggestion could
point towards an explanation of how multiple individuals could access the same
entity. And yet, that some participants require warning against “owning” enti-
ties re-emphasizes that these characters are seen as specific, not general. Second,
it is clear that the idea of parallel or multiple realities is not universally held by
48
the otherkin
affiliated individuals, which in turn prompts the question of how they might
conceptualize the world in which they might be, or be able to communicate
with, characters from narrative outside of the text. This point leads towards an
excess of personal answers, rather than the general summary that is the goal
here, but it is nonetheless important to emphasize such divergence in Otherkin
interpretations of reality.
Texts and authorship
The texts utilized by the Otherkin cover a range of territories, from fantasy fiction
through to non-fiction texts as well as mythology and classical literature.39 As
Graham Harvey has noted, “No Paganism has a dogmatic creed, few of its varie-
ties are represented by allegedly authoritative texts, and certainly there is no
single writer who is universally persuasive.”40 This statement may be accurately
applied to the Otherkin as well. Intriguingly, like the worlds discussed previ-
ously, the fantastic texts themselves do not generally loom large in the group’s
discussions, although fantasy and mythological narrative is clearly central to
the community, if only as an illustrative source for the creatures associated with
it. There are a number of individual Otherkin book lists available online which
provide a good indication of the general reading interests of the community.
The recommended reading section of Otherkin.net offers a clear example of
the texts considered as worthy of engagement.41 Among others, the suggested
texts include the works of Michael Ende, Christopher Paolini, Clive Barker, Neil
Gaimon, Anne McCaffery, Terry Goodkind, J. R. R.Tolkien and Terry Brooks,
all of which could be considered to be fantasy canon. It should be noted here
that the use of the term “canon” here does not necessarily line up with schol-
arly approaches to literature,42 but rather refers to classics when understood as
emerging from a fan type of appreciation. While such texts may be of a some-
what dubious literary stature, and tend to fall into the somewhat derogatory cat-
egory of commodified fantasy,43 they are nonetheless appreciated by readers for
other reasons. These fantasy texts generally include elves, dragons and the like
within their various speculative worlds, but the provided reading lists are by no
means limited to the fantasy genre. Beyond these genre narratives, the reading
list also includes texts written by Otherkin44 and non-fiction works also.45
Even in limiting attention just to the fantasy texts, these reading lists cannot be
viewed as comprehensive guides to fantasy literature, as might be assumed if
one were to view participants primarily as members of a fan culture or society
of appreciation. What becomes clear from the book lists, as well as the music
and movie recommendations, is an overwhelming emphasis upon evocative,
supportive texts concerned with either imaginative otherworlds or re-enchant-
ment narratives. The vast majority of the recommended section emphasizes
magical worldviews, whether the narratives are located on earth or elsewhere.
49
fantasy and belief
The simultaneous centrality of the fantastic juxtaposed with an apparently

negligible interest in the specific text raises some interesting questions. It is pos-
sible, for instance, that participants are in fact extremely interested in specific
texts, but that that the public virtual spaces of the internet are not the spaces
where such interest is displayed. This study, as previously noted, has avoided the
more private online spaces that Otherkin inhabit so as to preserve their privacy,
and so perhaps has passed over the opportunity to view such engagement. Or
another explanation is perhaps that textual appreciation is in this case simply
too personal and individual to significantly impact on representations of the
group as a whole. On the other hand, it is equally possible that this lack of focus
upon fictional narrative is directly reflective of participants’ interests or lack
thereof, and that their attention lies predominantly with fantastic creatures,
rather than with a more general interest in fantastic narrative. Perhaps even
more likely is that even the interest in fantastic creatures is subordinate to a
focus upon the personal evocative relationship or interaction with the relevant
entities, rather than a fixation with the entities per se. In any case, though, the
situation highlights the surface incongruity of a belief system so clearly related
to fantasy fiction and mythology that yet gives the appearance of relative dis-
interest in these objects at the same time.
One aspect of an Otherkin paradigm that may help to explain this incongru-
ity is viewable in some of the ideas surrounding the meaning and role of the
author. If, as is the case in the Otherkin community, the creatures and/or worlds
of fictional narrative are attributed with some form of meaning beyond simple
entertainment, then it follows that the role of the author holds some interesting
implications. There are two particular explanations offered on Otherkin.net of
this point.46 The first recasts the author as a channel or medium, expressing,
perhaps unintentionally, another world or plane of existence. The second pos-
sible explanation is that the readers themselves, through their attention and
interest, actually create the worlds or creatures of the fantastic. This process
seems to be based in an idea of energy transfer, and implicitly assumes the
validity of psychic powers and magic. The former proposal assumes the alterna-
tive world is already existent before the composition of the author, whereas the
latter includes the audience in the process of world making, albeit as facilitators
rather than creators. Subtly, these two stances have quite different implications.
The first position, in assuming the alternative world as pre-existing, implies
a cosmos, be it physical or otherwise, densely packed with discrete realities
merely waiting to be discovered. Thus the participant taking this view is effec-
tively an intrepid explorer through potentially limitless alternative worlds. The
latter proposition, on the other hand, implicitly limits these alternative worlds,
rather asserting the existence of possible worlds: thought forms that can be
made real by human engagement, but are not necessarily already so. This stance,
then, locates the participants in a far more active role in the process of world
creation.
50
the otherkin
It is also worth noting that textual engagement within the community of

Otherkin extends in turn to the creation of their own texts. This appears to
run the full gamut from remix culture-type approaches, such as fan fiction
extensions of extant narrative, through to metaphysical reflection, as may be
seen in the collections of letters made available by the Silver Elves.47 Fan fiction,
or fanfic, is narratives written by fans that expand upon the texts that fans
are interested in, utilizing the same characters and worlds in their own way.48
This type of behaviour extends the already evident participation with fantasy
narrative: beyond the simple appropriation of appealing elements of fantas-
tic narrative, many Otherkin are engaged with creating or discovering their
own narratives, histories and myths. Possibly this point also goes some way
to explaining the incongruity noted above, the focus upon fantastic creatures
without an equal emphasis upon the existent texts themselves: the Otherkin in
general give every appearance of being far more interested in finding their own
narratives rather than focusing upon pre-existent ones.
A good example of this tendency is found in the Elenari Elves.49 To the best
of my knowledge, this particular type of elf does not occur in fantasy literature
outside of the Otherkin community, although the name itself is attributed by
participants to Tolkien’s Elvish, from the word elen50 meaning star.51 In addi-
tion to elves, there are also Elenari dragons, unicorns and a number of other
mythic creatures. The Elenari believe they come from the Elenari home worlds,
a variety of worlds that have common history and culture. Participants are
unsure as to whether these worlds are to be found on different planes of exist-
ence, dimensions or planets, yet nonetheless these individuals clearly feel a
certainty and a commonality of experience in the existence of these worlds.
The Elenari have embarked on an intricate exploration of their “soul memories”,
and have started to piece together the cosmologies and/or geographies of their
shared heritage. This includes descriptions of their multiple home worlds, the
types of races living on them, the technological basis of the cultures, as well as
the suggested reasons for any Elenari being on this particular world rather than
any other. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there seems to be somewhat of a bias towards
low-tech societies, those with swords and sorcery, but the Elenari also claim
heritage from worlds with far more advanced technologies, such as interstellar
travel. There is also a description of the general attributes of the Elenari, as well
as an associated magical/philosophical system, called Des’tai:
Des’tai is the following of the Way; it is dancing with the song of the
Universe. The word Des’tai translates as “being on the path” or “the
Good Path.” It has also been considered to mean “way of light” or the
“right/light way.” What it really means is similar of the Way of the Tao,
or the Way of the Wyrd – the weaving together of reality – but the dif-
ference is that Des’tai flows in the way which is most harmonious for
all involved. Not the path of least resistance, but the path of harmony
– that which leads to greater harmony.52
51
fantasy and belief
This notion of Des’tai, with the emphasis upon flows and the ideal of harmoni-
ous interaction with reality, is strikingly similar to Earth- or nature-centred
magical paradigms. Des’tai is distinct from magic when understood as a tech-
nical tool, but is the underlying premise for engagement in the world. Magic,
in this framework, is rather intentional approaches to energy that complement
the ontological meanings of Des’tai:
Energy Flows are energies which permeate our reality and which can
be caused to flow and used to make things happen. For example, Ley
Lines are a common type of Energy Flow, and are used by some Elenari
to do things directly, or to do Workings. Nature (Gaia), Storm, Solar,
and Lunar energies can be used as energy flows, if one has an affinity for
them, or at least doesn’t have a strong sensitivity to them. Source energy
is the underlying energy of creation and Elenari touch the Source in
connection with reading, bending, or weaving the Flows and other
magic workings, and in the Des’tai sense of dancing with the song of
the Universe.53
In short, the Elenari are not only finding personally meaningful ways of expe-
riencing and expressing their non-human aspects, but are also fleshing out
broader cosmologies, histories, cultures and meanings, not to mention magical
techniques and philosophies, that resonate validly with their individual and
shared experiences. In the process, they are also providing something that, to
an outsider without the associated experiences, reads like enjoyable fiction.
Two important points must be raised at this juncture. First, the implications
that I, as a researcher, find in the metaphysic of the Otherkin are not necessar-
ily of particular concern to participants, nor are they engaged in any specific
attempt to consolidate a singular or cohesive framework of belief. This group
is premised, first and foremost, in an experientially based metaphysic, and as
such upholds the lived experience of the individual as the primary, and indeed
only, arbiter of truth claims. Second, it is extremely important to note that any
statements made about the community as a whole are not necessarily reflective
of the beliefs of specific individuals. This overview is an attempt to highlight
broad trends and point towards the underlying assumptions of the metaphysic,
rather than attempting an exhaustive case study.
Mythology and fantasy
It is clear that the influence of mythology is of no small import within the

Otherkin community. While participants explicitly do not limit themselves to
traditional mythological narrative, or indeed to published narrative at all, there
is nonetheless a strong emphasis upon creatures from mythology, whereas other
52
the otherkin
non-traditional creatures seem generally less predominant, as previously noted

in the case of the Otakukin. If one takes the species listing page on Otherkin.
net as indicative,54 it is clearly evident that Therians, Dragons, Elves, Angelics,
Faeries and Vampires hold sway, although interestingly human Otherkin are
also notably present in the list. Other species (of both fantastic and natural
origins) and sub-species (for example, particular types of angel or vampire)
have a noteworthy presence, and then there are many more small categories
with but a handful of inclusions. It is worth noting that the site authors spe-
cifically state that the species list includes only those species that have two
or more stated members, as otherwise the list would become unmanageable.
Alternatively, in the Otherkin survey, Angels, Animals, Dragons, Demons, Elves
and Fae were the most commonly associated entities. Although emphasizing
slightly different orientations, it is nonetheless evident that, while the Otherkin
may indeed welcome individuals that associate themselves with more recent fic-
tional creations, the more established fantastic creatures of traditional mythol-
ogy and literature certainly appear to dominate the community.
This demonstrable emphasis upon established mythological creatures raises
some interesting points. Dragons, for instance, occur in the traditional myths
of many cultures55 and notably appear both within Eastern and Western tradi-
tions. Further, given the scope of their narrative presence, these creatures are
associated with a wide variety of attributes, with representations ranging from
rampaging beasts56 to ancestors.57 It would seem safe to assume that at least part
of the appeal of such a creature is in its capacity to suggest so many varying
associations. On the other hand, though, elves, which also seem quite popular
within the Otherkin community, have a decidedly Western flavour, originating
in Norse mythology58 (álfr in Old Norse),59 but also occurring within a German
(alp in Old High German)60 and a British context (ælf in Old English).61 If
Elves are understood more broadly as faeries, then they assume a far more
widespread appeal, but the simple fact that participants distinguish between
the two types disinclines me from this approach. Another relevant point is that
while elves have not been particularly widespread within traditional mythology,
the same cannot be said for their location within modern fantasy literature: it
is arguably the case that they are written about more than any other fantastic
creature.
The central point pertaining to the mythological origins of such creatures is
that such mythologies provide a body of knowledge and widely available texts
that may be used as support for the types of beliefs discussed here. I am by no
means making the claim that individuals necessarily reach these metaphysical
positions through knowledge of ancient myths, although that might indeed
sometimes be the case, but rather that the mere existence of such myths implies
authenticity in addition to a tangible body of lore that may be drawn upon if
desired. If one takes in combination both traditional mythology and the more
recent representations within fictional narrative, there is a sizable body of work
53
fantasy and belief
available that, if not consistent, it is at least generally continuous in the depic-

tions of the fantastic creatures contained within.
While it is evident that ancient mythologies are important in the creation of
Otherkin-type beliefs, they are equally clearly not the only, or even the central,
source from which material is drawn. Indeed, it is arguably the case that the
strongest influence upon the Otherkin beliefs is popular culture. The influence
of popular culture on religiosity in general is well established:62 overtly present
in the case of the Otherkin, and made particularly evident by the beliefs of the
Otakukin. Both the content of beliefs as well as the forum for expression of the
same are intrinsically bound up in popular forums: material is just as likely to
be drawn from Japanese anime or fantasy fiction as it is from more traditional
sources. This circumstance is perhaps less unusual than it might appear at first
glance. As Christopher Partridge has noted, “Popular culture has a relationship
with contemporary alternative religious thought that is both expressive and
formative.”63 In this sense, many popular culture texts represent contemporary
religious and spiritual themes or, as is the case with the Otherkin, become some
of the source documents from which new or variant metaphysics are created.
In both senses this relationship is reciprocal rather than hierarchical insofar as
narrative representations serve as the source material utilized which in turn
leads to the creation of more affiliated narrative. “A mythological or literary
equivalent is not necessary to be included under ‘Otherkin’; there are types of
Otherkin that have not shown up in known legends or fiction (star-dragons,
Elenari, etc.).”64
While to an outsider the distinctions between various forms of dragons or
elves such as mentioned in the above quote is unnecessarily pedantic, to a
practitioner this differentiation may be considered extremely important. The
Elenari are not the same as the Tuatha de Danan, a fairy is not an elf, and so on.
But the expansion of narrative around entities without literary precedent is a
clear instance of the creative elements contained within such a metaphysic. As
an interesting aside, it should be noted that the star-dragons mentioned above
now have a significant presence in both published and fanfic fantasy.65 Given
that the Otherkin FAQ referenced above was written in 2001, it is quite possible
that this literature has more or less come into existence since then. It is also
worth noting the longevity of the Otherkin FAQ in an online context: that this
information has been available for a decade, and is still regularly referenced in
relevant websites, is indicative of the meaning it has within a medium where
sites are often maintained much more briefly.
Otherkin attitudes towards texts can be summarized in the following way:
first, that having specific textual precedent in any form, while often considered
positive, is not necessary for these beliefs; second, that while a certain authority
and authenticity may be garnered from a relationship to mythology or other
established texts, this should not be assumed to be the focus for many partici-
pants; third, that the entities populating these texts seem much more central
54
the otherkin
to the belief than the texts themselves; and, fourth, that the representation of
entities and worlds in fiction is the beginning rather than the end point of an
Otherkin metaphysic.
Awakening
Attempting to describe the practices of the Otherkin is to some degree futile,

as the individualistic bent of the community means that any practices are
extremely personalized. That said, there are certain experiences that seem to
be commonly acknowledged within the community that pertain to the develop-
ment of Otherkin-type consciousness.
One of the more regularly mentioned experiences of the Otherkin is that
of “awakening”.66 This concept appears to refer to the process of coming to
the larger sense of self that the Otherkin metaphysic entails. This awakening
may take the form of remembering past lives, coming into one’s own personal
powers, or simply a new perspective on the world. It is an innately personal
experience, and may affect the individual in a variety of ways. One article, for
instance, describes three general types of awakening:
The first is the “gradual or independent Awakening,” in which the

Sleeper feels a certain distance from others, possibly proceeding
through religious experimentation, until hopefully they find a sup-
porting circle. These people may or may not be fae themselves, and the
Sleeper may in fact not fully think of themselves as “fae.” The second is
the “alarm clock Awakening.” This occurs when the Sleeper is exposed
to group of Awakened fae and their own nature surges to the front. This
can take the form of recognizing a shared memory or even recognizing
a person they’ve never met before. The third type is the “snooze alarm
Awakening.” In this form, the Sleeper has seen evidence of their nature,
but is choosing – consciously or unconsciously – to ignore it.67
Another personal account traces an individual Otherkin’s progressive sense of

self from childhood, describing his personal process of awakening.68 Stating
from the outset a feeling of difference from society, Casidhe outlines believ-
ing as a child that he was an alien, and moving onto a teenage interest with
magic that deepened over time into a Neo-Pagan ethic and practice. During
this personal development, he describes, for instance, an intermittent feeling of
gender shift and the sensation of phantom wings; particularly interesting as he
associates as an elf, which is generally depicted as a wingless race. Importantly,
though, he describes experiencing a flood of interest and information when
finally coming across the Otherkin community. The idea of community as cata-
lyst is interesting, as this individual had clearly spent much of his life intrigued
55
fantasy and belief
by and engaging with alternative metaphysics and spirituality, but accessing

the community evoked a reorientation in his focus that began the process of
awakening for him. It should be noted that the idea of awakening is not limited
to the Otherkin community. Certainly some magicians, occultists and Pagans
also acknowledge the idea of awakening, and certainly give every appearance of
interpreting the experience in a similar fashion. Beyond this occultural context,
conversion narratives within the broader scope of traditional religion also often
include a notion of awakening. The social/communal element of this particular
awakening experience echoes much contemporary discussion of conversion,
insofar as it is considered less and less to be a solely internal process.69
One common point among the community is the seeking of self-under-
standing and, by extension, the exploration of the continuity of various spiritual
and magical concepts. The following passage is a good indicator of the types of
synthesis discussed within an Otherkin context.
It is “possible” that people who talk about Otherkin and/or Mediakin

in terms of reincarnation, soulbonding, psychology, and/or metaphor
are all talking about the same phenomenon but interpreting it in dif-
ferent ways. This is why I don’t assume that we all ‘became’ Otherkin
in the same manner. I think it’s very possible that people experiencing
past lives, and people experiencing very vivid journeys through the
Collective Unconscious/personal unconscious/whathaveyou, are going
through the same thing, except that the former group explains it “exter-
nally”, while the latter explains it “internally”. Because the experience is
very vivid, the first assumption may be that it’s reincarnation, and that
the person literally experienced those events and sensations at a differ-
ent literal point in space/time. The question is whether space/time stops
where the brain begins, or whether the microcosm and macrocosm are
much more intimately linked than often assumed.70
Being an Otherkin, becoming awake, is a dynamic process that in no ways

ends with the assignation of the other to self. Rather, participants actively seek
understanding of themselves and, to a degree, the cosmos through the lens of
their otherness. Such a process leads quite naturally into attempts at transla-
tion between experiences while still maintaining the integrity of the personal
experience itself. In this the Otherkin demonstrate both an interest in various
means of interpretation and the fundamental pragmatism of the occultist noted
by Hanegraaff.71
Beyond this extremely interesting statement of personal philosophy, what is
clearly evident from the above extract is the extent to which participants engage
in a wide variety of sources both for the content of their philosophies, as well as
the interpretative structures with which they view their beliefs. A second point
highlighted here is the degree of reflection and analysis that these individuals
56
the otherkin
take to their own metaphysic, a focus indicative of the “subjective turn” noted
in relation to postmodern and late modern religion.72 Indeed, beliefs such as
those held by the Otherkin are clear instances of occultural bricolage,73 drawing
as they do from wide varieties of sources that are chosen between at the discre-
tion of the individual.
Soulbonding
There are a number of associated ideas that are not strictly part of the Otherkin
community, but nonetheless clearly overlap. To some participants these ideas
may be considered contentious, while to others they may constitute a central
aspect of the metaphysic. Like almost all of the body of knowledge utilized by
the Otherkin, these further aspects of the metaphysic may be effectively viewed
as discrete areas of belief and practice with extremely blurred boundaries. Two
of these overlapping spheres of self-knowledge will be explored here: soulbond-
ing and multiples.
Soulbonding is a concept that appears regularly in relation to Otherkin type
beliefs. While not necessarily Otherkin, the essential idea of soulbonding is
quite complimentary to Otherkin type beliefs. It is quite a contentious term,
and depending on the individual, meanings can range from the extremely eso-
teric through to the purely psychological. As with most neologisms, though, a
median point can be ascertained that generally describes what is signified by
the term.
The two most supported definitions of a soulbond on the Urban Dictionary are:
1. A soul created by the mental energy of another person/people, exist-

ing within the “mental plane” of a person and not in the physical
plane. Soulbonds are often fictional characters.74
2. A term sometimes used by writers to describe the common phe-
nomenon in which they feel one or more of their characters has
taken on a “life of its own” and talks back to them or pushes the plot
in their own direction.
A strong attachment to a fictional or historical character and/or
the story of said character; a habit of holding mental “conversations”
with such a character; a sort of “imaginary friend” for grown-ups.75
Soulbonding is a practice/knowledge/idea that is related to, but not bound by,

the Otherkin notions of being. Soulbonding, in brief, refers to the relationships
that may develop between a participant and another entity, considered physical
or otherwise, and it is approached as it is named: as a bond between souls. A
soulbond is “someone with whom you tend to reincarnate time after time …
even to the extent of having agreed to permanently share soul development”.76
57
fantasy and belief
Alternatively, it is “the adoption into one’s mind, into personal mental space,
of characters from history, video games, films, books, TV anime, daily life”.77
As is to be expected, the idea is not a static one, but rather a cluster of experi-
ential knowledge that is emphasized differently according to the agenda and
philosophy of each individual participant. Importantly, this notion is distinct
from Otherkin or Otakukin, as these beliefs pertain to the sense of self as being,
to a degree at least, non-human, but importantly the focus is on the individual.
Soulbonding, on the other hand, is specifically discussing the relationships
between individual entities, which may or may not inhabit the same bodies,
but are clearly discrete personages.
Soulbonding at the spiritual/metaphysical end of the perspective becomes a
full-blown interpersonal relationship, and occurs in all the variety that human
relationships may, be that as a lover, a friend or a mentor and so on. In these
cases, the non-human entity is an entirely self-contained individual, albeit
almost never physical, and interacts with participants as such. Participants
may experience their soulbonds as nominally outside themselves, and although
some refer to having had their bodies taken over occasionally, this does not
appear to be the norm. The spaces within which soulbonds exist vary between
participants, with some locating them within a “soulscape”, others within the
physical realm, and others referencing the astral, and others again simply refer-
ring broadly to alternative realities or dimensions. A soulscape appears to be
one’s inner space, a personal landscape contained within the self that may or
may not extend beyond the bounds of the psyche.78
In a slightly different context, constructed psychologically rather than
metaphysically, soulbonding is also used to refer to the nature of relationships
formed between an author and the characters they create. This relationship can
apparently be very intense, but is not considered to be a spiritual thing. The
contexts where such an interpretation seems to hold sway tend to lean heavily
towards emerging writers’ communities and fan fiction, rather than the more
magical or spiritual orientation viewable in the more metaphysical interpreta-
tion of the term. In relation to the Otherkin, soulbonding tends to overlap with
the Mediakin or Otakukin subculture, and errs towards the superempirical.
Multiples
One of the particularly intriguing aspects of the Otherkin and associated ide-
ologies is the diversity of communities that share similar philosophies. Take,
for instance, the notion of multiples. They are considered by participants to
be distinct from soulbonds, and are not necessarily, although sometimes are,
Otherkin. Multiples are simply “anyone with more than one entity in their
body”.79 Multiples is a very broad term, and incorporates within it concepts such
as channelling in various forms, reincarnation, walk-ins (exterior entities taking
58
the otherkin
up residence within another body), and even a concept of possible mind genera-
tion (the psychic birthing of new entities).80 The varieties of constructions are
extremely individual, as are the natures of the hosted entities. Multiples relate
to the Otherkin community insofar as one or many of the cohabiting entities
may themselves be Otherkin, even if the majority of beings within the one body
may be human.
Many multiples (particularly those still stuck in therapy culture) will
speak of their “inner lands.” While this is a useful metaphor for some,
and for a while, our lands are not “inside” the body, not created by, nor
contained within the body’s mind. To speak of them as such is both
demeaning and unrealistic.
We come from different worlds which share a common portal with
this world. That portal is this earth-body. Some of us choose to come
from our worlds to interact in this earth world that you know. Many
thousands of others do not. As we understand it, there are three distinct
planets which all portal to Earth through this one body …
These are not RPGs [role-playing games]. We are not playing roles.
This is not about soul-bonding. These are not imaginary worlds, not
made up to entertain ourselves or others. Life in these worlds is real in
any way you define it – including the laws of action and reaction, cause
and effect, results and consequences. This is multiplicity, in one of its
many possible presentations. These are our realities, in worlds beyond
the one you know.81
Although this extract refers to multiples, an associated yet not precisely Other-
kin form of metaphysic, the similar premises incorporated into the belief
structures are clear. Unknown yet experientially valid worlds, complex and
conglomerate notions of the self, the priority of personal experience, and a
magical paradigm are all common themes within this type of belief. In par-
ticular, the notion of the body as a portal is of unique and particular interest.
The above statement makes it abundantly clear that participants do not think
of such a paradigm as simply an imaginative or evocative position. At the very
least, such a stance is certainly not limited to constructions of the psyche. The
iteration of the reality of these experiences of other worlds, and the denial
of these beliefs as simply role-playing are constant enough in Otherkin and
associated online presences that they warrant particular attention: most par-
ticipants are emphatically not interested in being mistaken for anything other
than serious and genuine in their beliefs. From their online presences, it is
also abundantly clear that participants are by no means unaware of the paral-
lels between such beliefs and medical conditions such as dissociative identity
disorder.82 It should be noted that there appears to be no denial of the reality of
such disorders, but rather that many participants feel that it is an inappropriate
categorization for their personal perceptions of reality.
59
fantasy and belief
While the position outlined in the above extract is clearly extremely indi-
vidual and specific, it is indicative of the types of construction viewable within
and around the Otherkin community. It is also worth noting that this extract
highlights again the particular and variable nature of the terminology used,
and the complications of moving from the general to the specific. I, as an out-
sider reading the above, would be inclined to construe the writer’s position as
falling under the rubric of soulbonding, albeit with its own specific permuta-
tions. To the participant cited above, however, this is clearly not the case as any
association with soulbonding is explicitly denied. This type of disassociation
is not unusual within the Otherkin and other groups like it, where practices
and beliefs that appear typologically related are explicitly denied relationship.
In any case, the above extract clearly demonstrates that individual practition-
ers are actively engaged in understanding and, to a degree, mapping their own
cosmologies.
Overview
The Otherkin constitute a very specific manifestation of alternative metaphysics

insofar as they attribute some degree of reality to fictional content. Further, they
prioritize their sense of non-humanity, self-identifying as other than human.
They exist as a community far more readily online than they do off, although
they certainly have an offline presence as well. Their general philosophy tends
towards the often tacit postulation of alternative worlds or dimensions, and
strongly suggests the reality of mythical and fictional creatures. Their relation-
ship to the source texts is complex and non-linear, and tends towards extension
and expansion, if not the outright creation of new texts. Their paradigm implies
at the very least a notion of re-enchantment and often an explicit acceptance,
if not practice, of magic. Occultural ideologies of many types are utilized in
Otherkin processes of self understanding within a framework that asserts the
primacy of individual experience.
The very process of ascribing reality to fictional creations, no matter how
tentative, is one worthy of note. While by no means a simple process, the exist-
ence of groups such as the Otherkin denotes a particularly interesting shift in
notions of fiction and the real. Although the step between fiction, on the one
hand, as evocative support, and on the other, as the source for, or representation
of, true alternative realities is perhaps not large, the latter orientation merits
recognition as an alternative and distinct stance.
The Otherkin are not alone in the conjunction of fantasy narrative, popular
media forms and metaphysical inquiry, although they are perhaps situated at
the more explicit end of the area of engagement. Other groups have developed
in similar conditions with parallel interests. The Church of All Worlds, for
instance, is a very well-known example of a Pagan group that draws inspiration
60
the otherkin
from Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land83 and also were the first Pagan group
to get recognition by the US government as a religious body. Similarly, Jediism
has been thrust into public awareness through the 2001 censuses in Australia
and the UK.84 Star Trek has long had observers unsure as to where the line
between fan-type appreciation and religious belief actually lies.85 This next
section will briefly touch upon some few of the many groups that engage in
the particular combination of fantasy narrative, popular media and metaphysi-
cal or spiritual enquiry. The purpose of this is twofold: first, to demonstrate a
structural continuity between these quite disparate metaphysical systems; and,
second, to illustrate the varieties of belief that are born from this particular
conjunction of themes. Particular attempt has been made to illustrate diversity
rather than conformity of metaphysic, and the groups mentioned below have
been chosen accordingly.
For all that the following groups demonstrate the use of speculative or fan-
tastic narrative, heavy engagement in popular culture artefacts, and new media
forums, the importance of these component parts varies across groups. The
status of the fictional input is of particular interest as the overt locus of the
various metaphysics. As a broad frame of reference, the treatments of fantastic
narrative in these groups fall into three categories: as the inspiration of belief, as
evocative support for belief, or as the object of belief itself. The Otherkin would
generally fall into the latter category, individual variations notwithstanding. The
groups covered in this next section demonstrate somewhat less deviant, if still
entirely heartfelt, relationships to fantasy narrative.
JeDiism
One good example of fictional narrative used as the inspiration for a developing
belief system is Jediism. Jediism, simply put, appears to be the personal accept-
ance of the moral and spiritual code attributed to the Jedi, characters in George
Lucas’s classic film trilogy Star Wars. This community appears closely related
to the massive fan culture surrounding Star Wars, as the following quote will
attest, but still self-consciously separates itself from a more mundane reading
of communities of appreciation.
We’ve all seen the movies. We bought the DVDs and the toys. We imag-
ined what it would be like to be a Jedi. We went online and met others
who thought like we did. We met online, we grew online, and we began
organizing online. We encouraged each other to take the life we talked
about online, offline; at work, as neighbours, as friends. We were no
longer “role-playing,” but Jedi Realists, making the Jedi way how we
lived our lives.86
61
fantasy and belief
Primarily, this emergent belief appears to revolve around adherence to the

idea of “the force” and the code of the Jedi. “The force …[is] an energy field
created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy
together.”87 This power goes beyond simply energy, and also includes a concept
of intentional use. “A Jedi can feel the force flowing through him. You mean it
controls your actions? Partially, but it also obeys your commands.”88 It should
be noted that most Jedi sites specifically disclaim anything more than an evoca-
tive reading of the films, while also explicitly denying any form of role playing.
Belief in the force can be feasibly construed as a form of magic, although explicit
techniques for accessing it seem limited. Beyond this, Jedis generally assert that
peace is, both globally and personally, a central goal. Although Jediism seems
to be considered somewhat dubious in some circles,89 it certainly has made
its presence felt both on- and offline. While apparently simplistic, it appears
that this text has genuinely inspired some form of spiritual engagement for
participants. To the best of my knowledge, though, no Jedi is proposing that
the Death Star truly exists, or that Darth Vader90 is literally walking among us.
In this group it can be seen that it is an adherence to the ideals espoused rather
than a fidelity to the created world that is appealing.
Jediism portrays itself as a contemporary manifestation of older ideals, phi-
losophies and beliefs,91 which is a point that raises two questions in particular.
First, if such a system is understood as pre-existent, then why turn to a new
expression of the same. Possibly, it is simply that the films provide a framework
easily accessible, given the popularity of the movies, rather than requiring an
individual to immerse themselves in ancient texts. Or, in a similar vein to the
preference for Mononoke Hime over Artemis noted above,92 perhaps it is that
a contemporary manifestation is more meaningful precisely because it is con-
temporary. Possibly the simple fact that it is a created world not intended for
use in any form of spirituality allows the metaphysical quester an interpretative
framework that has far more freedom and flexibility than the well-trodden
paths of traditional religious frameworks. Or perhaps the provenance of the
ideas contained within the text is simply irrelevant: the specific experience of
the specific text is what evoked the hypothetical individual, and so the focus of
belief remains fixed upon it.
The second question raised is that, as there is emphatic denial of the movies
as anything other than fictional, why then associate so closely with them. There
seem few Otakukin-like attitudes within Jediism, and they are not positing
the existence of specific characters beyond their textual manifestations. If the
text is simply understood as evocative support of a broader paradigm, then it
seems unusual that they would so explicitly highlight it, particularly in light of
its location within popular culture. Perhaps this tendency is simply a form of
cultural referencing: a way of paying homage to the text that inspired the lived
philosophy. Alternatively, it may be indicative of the fan cultural roots of this
particular group.
62
the otherkin
Fans of Star Trek, otherwise known as “Trekkies”, provide a good example

against which to view the Jedi movement, most particularly due to the fact that
they both focus upon one particular text as opposed to a set of broadly inter-
related narratives. In this way at the least, both Jediism and Trekkies are situated
extremely closely to the locus of fan cultures. Trekkies err towards the religious
in the depth of their engagement. In his insightful and ground-breaking study,
Michael Jindra explored the religious nature of Star Trek devotion,93 finding that
while participants lack the substantive element of religion, that they nonetheless
exhibit the characteristics of quasi religion.94 What is particularly of note here
is that, while participants in both groups appear equally enmeshed in these
respective constructed worlds, Jediism is at least in some cases developing a
notion of the superempirical that brings it in line with substantive definitions
of religion, whereas Star Trek fandom generally does not. And yet, Star Trek
fans seem as much engaged in imaginative play with their constructed worlds,
if not more so than members of the Jedi church, yet do not extrapolate a spir-
ituality from it.
pAgAnism
The most common example of the use of fiction as evocative support for a
spiritual stance is contemporary Paganism, or Neo-Paganism. Although general
statements about this movement are nigh on impossible to make accurately,
their tendency to find paradigmatic support in fictional texts has been well
noted.95 Indeed, as a group they are unusual for relying far more upon creative
texts than polemic literature,96 and many Pagans find the path to their faith
through immersion in the fantastic worlds of speculative fiction.97 Paganism
draws upon a vast array of texts to support its worldviews, as a brief perusal of
any Pagan booklist will attest. These texts are often seen as ideal type examples
of the world as it should be, evoking the types of relationships between human-
ity, nature, and divinity that are essential to a Pagan paradigm. The works of
Terry Pratchett and Robert Holdstock are central examples of the kinds of
narrative fiction utilized in support of Pagan worldviews.98
Paganism has been characterized as “a pervasive ideology with its own
dynamic, at first kindled by an individual’s interest in the non-material world,
sparked by the imagination and fired by a fascination with the occult”.99 While
broad, this understanding successfully allows the inclusion of the many prac-
tices and philosophies that fall under the rubric of Paganism. It has also been
understood as a conglomerate term to refer to “all those modern movements
which are, firstly, based on the conviction that what Christianity has tradition-
ally denounced as idolatry and superstition actually represents/represented
a profound and meaningful religious worldview”.100 A Pagan may practice
Witchcraft,101 Shamanism102 or Jungian psychology; may be a feminist, a
63
fantasy and belief
nationalist or a participant in the ecological movement; might believe in crys-

tals, astrology or chaos magic. Arguably, Paganism understood broadly may
be construed as one of the chief locales for the manifestation of occulture and
re-enchantment.
Specific aspects of a Pagan philosophy will be explored in the latter chapters
of this book, but for the moment it should be stated that Paganism is generally
a nature- or Earth-oriented belief system with a heavy emphasis upon subjec-
tive experience. There is no central creed nor dogma, and most participants err
towards the animistic in philosophy. There are significant sections of the Pagan
community that take as given the presence of “non-human people”, and indeed
many Otherkin consider themselves to be Neo-Pagans.103
chuRch oF All woRlDs
One Pagan group that provides an excellent example of the utilization of fic-
tional narrative is the Church of All Worlds.104 In this case the relationship to
the text can be seen as providing the inspiration for, as well as support of, the
beliefs of its members. Formally incorporated in the 1970s,105 this group was the
first Pagan collective to be granted legal status as a church in the United States.
The underlying coherency of the Church of All Worlds philosophy is based in a
deep respect and engagement with the natural world, best highlighted by their
founder’s proposal of the “Gaia book”.106 This group tends to combine deep
ecology with practical Wiccan magic and the libertarian philosophies espoused
within A Stranger in a Strange Land.107
The Church of All Worlds pays homage to A Stranger in a Strange Land by
Robert Heinlein as the source of its inspiration. A classic science fiction novel
of the 1960s, the narrative follows the story of a Martian raised human who is
returned to Earth. This text portrays, among other things, an ideal of human
interaction where friends become “waterkin” (an extremely intimate relation-
ship within which everything is open and shared). This ideal, among others,
resonated so strongly with the founding members of the Church that they
adopted the associated terminology alongside the ideology into the practice of
their faith. In this case, then, it can be seen that the fictional text was central to
the both the origins and development of the group.
It is worth noting that Stranger in a Strange Land inspired not only the
Church of All Worlds, but also other similar, albeit more secretive, groups
premised in the creations of the book. Indeed, Charles Manson stands as the
premier example of this, and is attributed with a deep fixation with Stranger
in a Strange Land.108 It has also been asserted that terminology such as “grok”,
the Martian term for deep understanding, within the text, became commonly
used within the family.109
64
the otherkin
oveRview
The set of groups mentioned here could be expanded indefinitely, particularly

if one discounts a numerical bias in terms of affiliated members. Permutations
on the theme of fantasy or speculative fiction, spirituality and new media forms
abound, and even the most cursory of searches online will uncover hundreds, if
not thousands, of groups premised in a similar conjunction of influences. The
purpose of this section has been far more to provide exemplars of this trend
rather than attempt some form of exhaustive survey. In particular, it is impor-
tant to note the possibility of subdividing the types of engagement with fictional
texts into distinct, if interrelated, categories. The use of fiction as the inspiration
for belief, as exemplified here by the Church of All Worlds, demonstrates the
kind of impact that specific texts can have on individuals. Interestingly, the
second category, that of evocative support, can also be applied to the Church
of All Worlds, as it utilizes a specific text as a utopic illustration of the values
upheld by the group. Jediism, however, more clearly depicts this second type
of engagement insofar as they have adopted the terminology, practices, and
philosophies of the Jedi as shown in the Star Wars films. Fascinatingly, this
adherence to the forms supplied within the narrative depiction demonstrated
by Jediism occurs in the face of other extremely similar philosophies, such as
Buddhism, or a kind of medieval chivalric code of behaviour. Both of these
philosophies could be assumed to have more authenticity, or at least some
authority garnered through age, than a space opera filmed in the 1970s. And
yet, simply by choosing the latter rather than by the former, the case of Jediism
forces attention to the forms through which ideologies are delivered, as much
as the content. Even with pre-existing ideas, when filtered through popular
culture, such notions may be reinterpreted in such a way as to create renewed
interest, highlight novel points, or perhaps simply to be more continuous with
everyday lived experience. As for the last category, fiction as the content or
focus of belief, the Otherkin and their various offshoots stand as the ultimate
exemplar of this practice. By extrapolating onto the self admittedly fictional
creatures, and extrapolating into the universe fictional worlds, they provide a
clear illustration of the possibilities of personalized religion when informed by
everyday lived experience within a culture of leisure.
These groups, while metaphysically diverse, all share certain elements of
common ground: not just the confluence of digital communication, popular
culture and fantastic narrative; but also a complicated relationship to the broader
society of which they are a part. These individuals are not just the owners of
obscure philosophies, metaphysics or ontologies, with world denying or isola-
tionist tendencies. Quite the opposite, these participants are active members of
contemporary society, and their beliefs are to a degree a manifestation of trends
within everyday lived experience. Similar studies to this one have focused upon
the nature of such groups as consumer cultures, such as Possamai’s Religion and
65
fantasy and belief
Popular Culture, or as fans, such as Jindra’s inquiry into the religiosity of Star
Trek fandom.110 This research, on the other hand, seeks to explore some of the
trends within Western popular and digital culture that are to some degree con-
tinuous with, and supportive of, the beliefs of the Otherkin and other similar
groups. While countless volumes could be devoted to unpicking the sources and
extrapolations of groups like the Otherkin, Jediism and aspects of Paganism,
the rest of this book is given over to the exploration of some few themes that
underpin beliefs of this sort. In particular, the themes of identity and magic,
and both narrative and pragmatic world creation will be considered as central
aspects of these types of metaphysics. The following exploration effectively
constitutes a circumambulation of intersecting themes in order to arrive at a
context for such beliefs that acknowledges both the internal and the external,
the sacred and the secular, the personal paradigms and the popular cultures.
the FAntAstic milieu
One feasible method of locating this circumambulation is in developing a

notion of a milieu of the fantastic as a technique of approaching the types
of convergence evident between the contents of fantasy en masse, be that in
the context of narrative and elements of occulture. Explicitly modelled on the
cultic milieu of Campbell, this idea is an attempt to create a structure which
will facilitate discussion of the elements of fantasy without having to align them
within specific narrative contexts. It also allows for a certain flexibility in terms
of the status of aspects of the milieu: precisely because the Otherkin and groups
like them are moving outside of texts, yet utilizing concepts so heavily indebted
to fantasy, discussion is benefited by a strategy that can move beyond specific
textual instances without loosing the variety of interpretations placed upon the
mythic, magical, and fantastic imagery.
What I would particularly note here is not any one specific text, although
I am sure that, on the individual level, this may be highly relevant, but rather
the conglomerate effects of a fantasy ideal type of world (or worlds) that is
generally ascribed to by participants. In a similar vein to the idea of the cultic
milieu, the fantastic milieu may be used as a method for discussing a body
of associated imagery and cosmology, as well as practices and beliefs, which
are dawn freely on by participants at their choice. This element of choice is
particularly important to preserve as participants do not uniformly engage
with the content, but construct their own meanings across sources and per-
sonal experience. While not perfectly consistent, there are a number of features
within fantasy narrative that are regularly present, most particularly the use of
magic and fantastic creatures such as dragons and elves, as well as concepts of
multiple worlds. Notably, these common elements are the particular focus of
the Otherkin community, whereas specific textual engagement seems of less
66
the otherkin
importance. Approaching these themes as a milieu opens the way for discus-
sion of fantasy narratives being personally actualized while maintaining space
for the apparent vast diversity of texts.
The proposed framework is related to the idea of the mega-text as put
forward by Brooke-Rose111 and Broderick,112 the thick text of Kaveney,113 and
the notion of icons as presented by Wolfe.114 These constructions directly relate
to science fiction, and revolve around what is essentially a notion of narrative
archetype.115 These theorists utilize such ideas in specific relation to science
fiction, but the notion may be profitably translated into discussions of fantasy
as well. The mega-text in Brooke-Rose’s discussion is essentially the broader
world created to underpin narrative: a history, social structure, geography and
so on.116 The mega-text allows the reader an interpretive anchor: particularly
necessary as sci-fi and, presumably, fantasy suffer from the lack of external ref-
erent,117 being, as they are, usually situated within discrete tertiary worlds more
or less unrelated to the primary. Broderick expands this notion by incorporat-
ing the cumulative effect of generations of sci-fi, pointing towards the accrual
of genre specific conventions, topoi such as the robot or the spaceship,118 called
icons by Wolfe:119
1. The icon connotes the opposition between the known and the unknown,
and thus serves as a structural pivot for the work of which it is a part;
2. The icon represents not a mimetic, but what has been called a “subjunctive”
reality, portraying hypothetical environments and beings rather than imi-
tations of real ones, and thus encompassing by its very mode of meaning
a fundamental sensibility of the genre; and
3. The meaning of icons involves psychological and cultural levels as well
as fictive and aesthetic ones, so that the emotional power of a particular
icon does not derive exclusively from the aesthetic structure of which it is
a part.120
Such icons may be utilized by authors in many ways, even in contexts mutually
exclusive, but they develop a set of intrinsic meanings that regular readers of
such narratives become aware of. Like the mega-text of Broderick, the “thick
text” of Kaveney refers to the massive worlds created by various narratives and
their dependence upon the integration of broader themes to embed them with
meaning.121 The fantastic milieu, I propose, is constituted in precisely this way,
in that the icons of fantasy, while constructed with many different manifesta-
tions, effectively contain essential natures that participants are aware of.
To utilize these narrative theories, however, is to remain limited within
textual worlds and to theories of literature. To be of use here, however, the
notion of a fantastic milieu extends beyond the bounds of the fantasy canon.
The central point of proposing the idea of a fantastic milieu is that the relevant
concepts such as fantastic creatures, magical abilities, and multiple worlds are
67
fantasy and belief
not confined to the territories of fantasy narrative. They also manifest within
the realms of popular cultures, occultural metaphysics and magic, and virtual
worlds. As the instance of the Otherkin attest, an interested individual is just
as able to engage with the more than human through games and non-narrative
based virtual worlds as they are through Paganism or reading fantasy. Thus any
inquiry into their source material or the cultural underpinnings of the meta-
physic must address these various sources.
Groups such as the Otherkin are engaging primarily in a fantastic milieu
in which concepts drawn from occulture, fantasy and popular digital cultures
imbricate and become cross-fertile. It seems most likely that the appropri-
ate cultural situation for the fantastic milieu is as a sub-section of occulture
that extends significantly into the worlds of mainstream popular culture. This
extension is important as occulture has traditionally been associated with dis-
enfranchised and alternative knowledges, whereas mainstream elements are
demonstrably present, and significant aspects of the fantastic milieu.
It should be noted that the following two chapters outline a territory that
is vast, intricate, and deeply complex in its interrelations. As a result of this
complexity, trends are demonstrated through examples rather than exhaustive
exploration of each area. It is important to note, however, that for every instance
provided here, there are hundreds if not thousands of other examples. In the
same way that the Otherkin are but one instance of a larger trend, so too are
the following chapters dealing with content that is illustrative of the broader
cultural tendencies being explored.
68
Chapter 3
YSIS AND rE-ENChANTmENT:

FANTASY
SourCES oF CoNTENT
While groups such as the Otherkin are fascinating in and of themselves, the fact
that they are still in a formative phase suggests an inclination away from further
analysis of the group themselves. Rather, it is the broader cultural circumstances
within which they have appeared that warrants attention at this point. The clear
relationship with fantasy narrative and the continuation of occultural themes
are both firm anchors that situate the Otherkin, and other like groups, within
a broader cultural confluence. Such a confluence not only deserves atten-
tion, but also potentially may go some way to illuminating the context within
which individuals are situating themselves outside of the rubric of humanity.
This chapter approaches some of the subjectivities and the “otherness” of the
Otherkin through an investigation of the fictional representations of the relevant
fantastic creatures. By viewing the fictional element of the ontology as well as
the supporting occultural paradigms, it is hoped that the underlying substance
and affiliations of the Otherkin metaphysic will become more apparent.
This chapter is a study of both the creatures of fantasy literature and the
broader cultural context of occulture: here I explore the connections made by
participants (i.e. with fantastic creatures) and locate such approaches along-
side other similar ideologies (such as the continuity between a Neo-Pagan
worldview and an Otherkin one). The various species of self mentioned in
an Otherkin context occur within the myths and folklore of the world as well
as more recent fantasies, and a brief survey of narrative representations will
provide, firstly, a sense of their presences in both a spatial and a temporal sense
and, secondly, allow the central associations and imagery of such creatures to
become evident. This will, at least partially, illuminate the appeal of being other
than human, as well as demonstrating how a notion of the other than human
is continuous with other contemporary alternative ideologies.
This sense of the self as “other than human” is bound up not only within
fantastic literature and its contemporary proliferation, but also within a
69
fantasy and belief
re-enchantment paradigm situated towards the explicitly magical end of the

spectrum. Magic and its associated philosophies can be understood as one of
the most central foundations of modern occulture, and of integral importance
in worldviews such as those demonstrated by the Otherkin. Similarly, various
Paganisms and even Jediism may be seen as dependant upon a magical phi-
losophy. While magical practice is not necessarily (although it is often likely to
be) an aspect of an Otherkin paradigm, the metaphysic rests heavily in magical
conceptions of the world: an occult worldview located at the crossroads of many
different individual practices based in a paradigm of re-enchantment. To that
end, I focus not only upon situating the more popular creatures that are so
significant within the Otherkin metaphysic within their narrative context, but
also in contextualizing such understandings within the broader framework of
magical and re-enchanting worldviews. These bodies of knowledge significantly
contribute to the Otherkin paradigm, and a clear understanding the cultural
location of the Otherkin is nigh on impossible without recourse to other con-
temporary re-enchantment ideologies and the broader occulture. Thus, some
history of the various fantastic and occultural themes is provided as well.
FAntAstic cReAtuRes
This section is given over to exploring the spread and type of representations
of some of the more prevalent creatures associated with by Otherkin: dragons,
elves, vampires, therianthropic creatures, fairies, angels and demons. It should
be noted, however, that the various Otherkin species are immensely varied and
these are but a few of many more. Other types are also not limited to fantastic
creatures, and also include physical animals, humans and cartoon characters.
This exploration is aimed particularly at developing a sense of the broad liter-
ary genealogies of these most popular creatures, their cultural situation, and
their general attributes.
The various creatures described here may be seen to exist somewhere
between ideas of the non human and the superhuman. At the non-human end
of the spectrum are creatures like dragons, elves and fairies. Such creatures
are emphatically outside of the human sphere: essentially “other”, for all that
some are humanoid. Somewhere between the non-human and the superhuman
are creatures such as vampires or werewolves. Both of these types of monster
indicate a form of departure from the human: through a pact with the devil or
malign influence the human is transformed into something monstrous. While
the vampire and the werewolf relate respectively to the unrestful dead and the
savage animal, both are nonetheless images of the human changed. At the other
end of the trajectory is the superhuman, those individuals with all their human-
ity intact who also hold additional powers. Slightly outside of this schema are
entities such as angels and demons, particularly due to their specific role as
70
fantasy and re - enchantment
intermediary beings within theological systems, and their very strong associa-
tion with biblical content. It should be noted that this approach is in no way
proposing a formal classification, but rather is simply designed to demonstrate
that the associations given to the various creatures are quite distinct in terms
of their relationship to the human. Correspondingly, it may be that Otherkin
of various types approach their relationship with their own “other” in distinct
ways. These various creatures, while all constituting other-than-human beings,
all own specific imagery, associations, and different levels of cultural diffu-
sion. Given the Otherkin emphasis upon such creatures, it seems reasonable to
begin this circumambulation here, with some of the non-human entities that
Otherkin feel themselves to be.
Dragons
First and foremost, the dragon is the symbol of the fluid, rapid, startling
movement of life within us … From earliest times, man has been aware
of a “power” or potency within him – and also outside him – which he
has no ultimate control over. It is a fluid rippling potency which can
lie quite dormant, sleeping, and yet be ready to leap out unexpectedly.1
Dragons are noticeably present in many ancient mythological systems, includ-

ing Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek.2 The Western medieval period
proliferated dragons as well,3 and they appear, for instance, in the works of
Geoffrey of Monmouth,4 the Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson,5 and the great
English saga of Beowulf.6 They also occur regularly in folklore,7 such as may be
seen within the collections of the brothers Grimm.8 Bestiaries to this day will
still often include the dragon among the other fabulous creatures.9 Dragons
were by no means limited to the western world, but also regularly appeared
within eastern, particularly Chinese, mythologies.
Dragons in the West are usually considered to be “serpentlike creatures of
exceptional size, with wings, claws, and a tail, breathing fire and/or poison,
guarding treasure, living in remote areas (whether on land, or in or near water),
and acting as antagonists to divine, heroic, or chivalric warriors.”10 This char-
acterization is limited to Western traditions, however, as in the East a far more
positive approach was, and is, taken to the dragon, most particularly high-
lighted by the Imperial connections in China.11 The Imperial associations with
the creature come from a particular type of dragon that functions as a rain
dragon (the long), who is sometimes equated with heaven.12 This dragon is
associated with fertility and rain,13 and is generally understood in a positive
light. It is interesting to note that association between the dragon and water is
not limited to Chinese folklore and mythology, but also appears within Arabic,
with the word for waterspout meaning “dragon”.14
71
fantasy and belief
In a more contemporary sense, dragons still appear in mythology, albeit

with the same types of syncretic influences that have become the norm in late
modern Western society. The emphatically negative view of the dragon sug-
gested by traditional Western medieval representations of such has by and large
given way to a far more compound image, with the savage view of the dragon
as raging beast tempered by the influence of easternization; this view chang-
ing in particular under the auspices of the countercultural movement in the
1960s.15 This more positive view of the dragon is now evident not only within
occultural circles and narratives, but also within the mainstream of popular
culture products, with fantasy texts regularly depicting the dragon as noble
rather than vicious.
In more recent years, the steep increase in the interest in fantasy has been
matched by a proliferation of dragons in narrative, be that in book, game, TV
or film format. These newer representations of dragons are not simply relics of
a forgotten age, dredged up to provide quaint archaism, but rather demonstrate
a broadening understanding of the creature.16 Tolkien’s The Hobbit, Pratchett’s
Discworld series, the Harry Potter novels, Ursula Le Guin’s Earthsea Quartet,
Katherine Kerr’s Deverry books, Terry Goodkind’s Sword of Truth series, the
incredibly prolific Dragonlance novels, Paolini’s Inheritance series and Anne
McCaffery’s Pern books barely even constitute a drop in the ocean of narrative
in which dragons play a significant part. Likewise, in addition to the movie
versions of these fantasy novels, recent films such as Reign of Fire, Dragonheart,
The Neverending Story, Dungeons and Dragons and Excalibur have detailed
depictions of dragons, while many others make reference to them as taken
for granted aspects of the internal narrative world. Spirited Away, Constantine
and the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are all representative of
this trend. Ultima, Everquest and World of Warcraft are massively multi-user
online role-playing games (MMORPGs),17 in which dragons exist within the
game play, and there are also numerous older offline games, such as the Final
Fantasy series (discussed below), in which they regularly appear.
The various representations of dragons contained in the above list are by
no means completely consistent, but they do tend to fall within a limited
set. Dragons can be powerful, greedy creatures with absolutely no regard for
humans. This view is typified by Smaug in The Hobbit, and the dragon king in
Pratchett’s Guards! Guards!. Then there are depictions of a more aloof nature,
where the dragons are both powerful and intelligent, but not necessarily pos-
sessed of an intellect in any way similar to humans. The dragons of the Earthsea
Quartet exemplify this trend.18 Less alien representations are contained within
the Deverry novels, the Sword of Truth series, and Dragonheart, where humans
and dragons are treated as peers, albeit with differing strengths, while within
The Inheritance Cycle and, to a degree, the Pern books, dragons and humans are
treated as co-dependant. Then there are depictions of dragons as simply wild
animals, still immensely powerful, but lacking conscious awareness. Excalibur,
72
on the other hand, represents the dragon as an essential underlying magical

energy: extraordinarily powerful and potentially dangerous. Alternatively, nar-
ratives such as those from the Dragonlance world contain multiple varieties,
with both good and evil dragons, and a variety of differing characteristics within
the species.
As is obvious, the image of the dragon is an immensely complex one that
holds a massive history stretching back into antiquity. Without fail, though,
dragons are depicted as powerful, often intelligent creatures. They are regu-
larly associated with magical powers, and in general are represented as solitary,
self-sufficient entities. Many recent depictions have emphasized their essential
nobility, and their capacity to interact as equals with humans.
Elves
Elves historically appear most significantly within the northern European tra-
ditional literatures.19 In particular, both the Poetic Edda 20 and the Prose Edda,21
the great epics of the Nordic tradition, contain numerous references to elves,
or álfr.
There is one [place] called Alfheim, and there live the people called the
light elves, but the dark elves live down in the earth and they are unlike
the others in appearance and much more so in character. The light
elves are fairer than the sun to look upon, but the dark elves, blacker
than pitch.22
The light elves and the dark elves were distinct from other mythical creatures
such as dwarves, although such distinctions are somewhat confused within
these texts.23 Within a folkloric context, elves were often considered rather
negative or ambivalent: sometimes thought to shoot people with elf-shot, they
were regularly blamed for both human and animal disease.24 Elves were also
on occasion associated with deviant sexual behaviours and often considered
the owners of great beauty.25 This image of the elf as mischievous or downright
troublesome was not consistent, however: they were also sometimes under-
stood as forest spirits, benign and small.26 The word “elf ”, an Anglo-Saxon term,
originally denoted spirits in general.27 Indeed, it has been proposed that the old
English term actually developed from a translator, who, frustrated by the lack
of equation between the specific Latin terms such as dryads or nymphs, simply
used the term elf with a descriptor place before it (i.e. sea-elf, wood-elf, etc.).28
Previous to the development of a modern fantasy canon, there is little
distinction made between elves and fairies, and, indeed, these terms appear
to have been used interchangeably.29 While this factor arguably undermines
treating elves and fairies as separate categories, the difficulty is mitigated by
73
fantasy and belief
the contemporary differences within the classification, as well as the Otherkin

distinction clearly evident within the community. Due to this, it is contextually
appropriate to maintain the two categories as separate, even though such sepa-
ration is relatively recent in origin. With the advent of contemporary fantasy
narrative, elves have taken on quite specific and consistent characteristics which
are of particular interest in exploring an Otherkin metaphysic.
In opposition to the historical mythical and folkloric images of elves as
diminutive pranksters who require appeasement, contemporary representa-
tions of elves are far more human-like in stature and bearing. Tolkien’s elves, for
instance, are the inheritors of a fine sense of their place in the world, unques-
tionably superior beings to mankind, albeit giving way to them as the ages go
on. On the other hand, Pratchett’s representation in Lords and Ladies 30 depicts
elves as far more dangerous beings: they hold no concept of empathy for others,
are completely self-centred, they revel in violence. Beautifully evocative as
always, Pratchett describes them succinctly:
Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.

Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.31
In a contemporary sense, there is a fair amount of consistency in the repre-

sentations of elves, although, as mentioned above there continues to be a fair
degree of moral ambiguity associated with them. They are inevitably beauti-
ful, usually ethereal, almost certainly magical, and often wise. They are also
regularly associated with the natural world, and their magical powers are often
bound up in living things. In highly influential fantasy worlds such as those of
Tolkien or the Dragonlance novels, elves appear in what could be characterized
as a caretaker role: they understand the natural world and use their powers to
work with, rather than against, it.
Interestingly, though, in many of the recent narratives that deal with elves,
they tend to be fairly aloof and uninterested in human or mortal affairs. At best
they tend to distance themselves, as may be seen within Tolkien’s middle earth
or the Dragonlance world. At worst, they require propitiation and worship, as in
Pratchett’s Discworld. Also worthy of note is that no matter how well disposed
they may be towards humans, elves are consistently represented as dangerous:
not necessarily malicious, but certainly powerful.32 Like the dragons, they are
represented as powerful, often magical, and independent of, or superior to,
humans.33 Interestingly, while dragons tend to be isolationist as individuals,
elves, in the texts referenced here, are isolationist as a group. In all these rep-
resentations, the elves live apart from humans, usually in locales hidden from
74
or forbidden to humans, that are typically embedded in the natural world, in

places like forests.
Elves are by far the least represented of the fantastic creatures viewed here.
Perhaps due to their predominant location within folklore rather than mythol-
ogy, they seem to lack the significant narrative presence apparent in most of
the other cases viewed here. And there is not the ridiculously copious bodies of
contemporary fantasy heralding them either. That said, elves tend to be utterly
central in some of the more monumental texts of this genre, originally stemming
from Tolkien and more recently within the narratives of hulking Dungeons and
Dragons worlds like Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Correspondingly, they
are almost always essential character types within fantasy role-playing games
(RPGs). In order to understand the contemporary imagery of the elf, however,
it is imperative to refer back to the work of Tolkien. His imagery and characteri-
zation are still one of the major touchstones of contemporary representations,
and indeed, his work is of central importance in the development of subsequent
fantasy literature, in many ways constituting something of a blueprint.
Tolkien, across his works, effectively attempted a synthesis of the lore sur-
rounding elves sourced from both continental and insular sources.34 It is well
acknowledged that Tolkien explicitly based his image of elves on the álfr of
Norse myth, but his characterization also included much material that par-
alleled the lore surrounding the Tuatha de Danann.35 The division between
the light elves and the dark elves posited in the Prose Edda (quoted above)
eventually led Tolkien to the distinctions between high elves and wood elves
so noticeable within the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings: the wood elves less
peaceful and more explicitly violent than the high elves.36 Similarly, much of the
background myth supplied by Tolkien in the Silmarillion parallels the behav-
iours of the Tuatha de Danann, with their happy homeland over the seas37 and
various correspondences in behaviour such as the burning of ships.38
Although technically not elves in a historical sense, the Tuatha de Danann
are one of the primary sources for the elvish imagery so apparent today. The
name “Tuatha de Danann” translates as “the tribes or peoples of the Goddess
Danu”, Danu being one of the names of the Morrighan, the Great Queen
Goddess of Irish Mythology.39 According to the tradition,40 the Tuatha de
Danann were the fourth and final peoples to settle in Ireland preceding the
coming of humankind. Having been defeated by the Sons of Mil (humans), a
settlement was agreed upon in which above the land is given over to humans,
and below became the realm of the Tuatha de Danann. The belief that deities
live under the ground within the Irish tradition grows from this narrative. The
settlement between humans and the Tuatha de Danann was due to the strong
magical powers owned by the Tuatha de Danann, who, even in defeat, had the
strength to force decent terms.
Contemporary elves tend to be similar insofar as they are strongly associated
with the natural world, are often hidden, generally have a home world that is
75
fantasy and belief
somewhat protected from or unreachable for humankind, possess magic, and

are powerful. Similarly, they are often represented as beautiful, wise, older as a
race than humankind, and possessed of some form of secret knowledge or power
beyond human ken. The historical precedent for contemporary elves seems much
closer to mythical demigods such as the Tuatha de Danann than the folkloric
spirits of earlier narratives, but elements of such characterization are still evident.
Fairies
“The fairies then are the hidden folk, who in their subterranean world are con-
cealed from us; and who when they come up into the world of humans, can put
on their cloak of concealment and move about unseen by humans.”41 Fairies,
on the other hand, seem more clearly the direct descendants of the folkloric
traditions. As noted above, the distinction between fairies and elves is very
much unclear. The term “fairy” is thought to be derived from fay,42 which in
turn grew from fata, the roman Fates.43 While they appear largely in European
and Asian cultures,44 they also have a presence within American narratives.45
They may be helpers or bringers of omens; they might be geographically asso-
ciated; they may group or be solitary.46 In practical terms it may be possibly
to say that fairies are the general category of which the contemporary imagery
of elves are a specific subsection. Carter proposes a four-part division to assist
with the classification of fairies:47
1. the fays
2. certain monsters and demons having a connection with fairies and/or
having some of the characteristics of fairies
3. the nature fairies
4. the fairy people.
According to this schema, the fays are magic users, and may be either human,
other, or some variation between. The second category is self-explanatory and
not relevant here, as such creatures are treated separately. The nature fairies are
of particular interest in that they include a variety of beings associated with or
tied to the natural world: dryads, forest spirits, and the like. The fourth category,
the fairy people, are just that: different peoples of fairy. The Tuatha de Danann
fall into this category, as do others such as the Scandinavian alfar. So, in addi-
tion to elves, dryads, and forest spirits, the general idea of fairies also includes
brownies, leprechauns, pixies, sprites, goblins, mermaids and so on. This list
should suffice to demonstrate that the category tends towards inclusivity, and
can more or less be seen to refer to any non-human, magical being. It is assumed
that the fourth category of fairy people can be considered more or less com-
mensurate with elves, already dealt with in the previous section.
76
Here, fairies are taken to refer to the third category, nature fairies. This cat-
egory may be seen as akin or overlapping with the elemental creatures48 and
forces of occultist thought. Indeed, there is a long-standing and well-established
belief in elemental spirits. Validated in the work of Paracelsus but widely known
through folklore,49 these elemental spirits were the corresponding entities to
the four elements, and accordingly live within the world appropriately to their
nature:50 “Those in the water are nymphs, those in the air are sylphs, those in
the earth are pygmies, those in the fire salamanders … The name of the water
people is also undina, and of the air people sylvestres, and of the mountain
people gnomi, and of the fire people vulcani.”51
Traditionally, fairies were often also extremely good at crafts. Spinning,
smithing, shoe crafting and mining were often practical skills they excelled at,
as well as more elusive talents like music and dance.52 Strongly associated with
such entities is the use of glamour, “a mesmerism or enchantment cast over
the senses, so that things were perceived or not perceived as the enchanter
wished”.53 Fairies have a range of relations with humans: depending upon type,
they might help or harm people, or even be entirely ambivalent. Once again,
though, fairies are usually associated with magic, either inherent or as the result
of casting spells.
Representation in contemporary media is somewhat elusive: if looking spe-
cifically for nymphs or gnomes and so on, imagery is somewhat scarce. There
are certain narratives, such as Spirited Away, the Harry Potter stories and Pan’s
Labyrinth, which contain a plethora of spirits, but by and large there is only
limited representation available within contemporary media. Unsurprisingly,
given the usual equation between folklore and children’s stories, the majority
of such narratives occur within the context of films and books for children,
and often seems to simply be a way of fleshing out an animist or supernatural
world. This dearth is interesting in comparison to the relatively massive scope
of narrative forms related to the other entities viewed here. Perhaps such an
absence is explained somewhat by the fact that such creatures are not generally
striking in their scope and power, but rather have quite homely, if still super-
natural, abilities.
Vampires
The literary and folkloric history of the vampire is, somewhat surprisingly, sig-
nificantly shorter than the rest of the fantastic creatures explored here. While
there is some historic literary precedent for vampires, the contemporary images
of these creatures have been developed extensively in recent years and bear only
a minimal resemblance to the older monsters of the same name.54 Although
present in folklore as “souls of the dead who at night feed on the blood of
the living”,55 and even in certain classical sources as undead corpses,56 their
77
fantasy and belief
popularity in contemporary Western culture can be traced back to the works

of Byron in the early nineteenth century.57 The term itself is Slavic and may
be found in similar form in many eastern European countries.58 The idea of
the vampire, or at least the angry dead or revenant, was certainly present in
the British Isles and western Europe by the medieval period.59 The nineteenth
century saw a rise in public depictions of the vampire, with both novels60 and
plays.61 This increase in depictions has continued to the present day, and vam-
pires are now an extremely well-known and often liked non-human creature.
Recent times have seen a huge outpouring of narrative representations of
vampires across all media.62 Films such as Nosferatu, Interview with a Vampire,
Blade, the Underworld series, From Dusk Till Dawn and The Lost Boys; TV shows
like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Salem’s Lot and True Blood have become
immensely popular and significantly contributed to the familiarization and
glamorization of the vampire. Probably the most well-known texts in a written
format are the Vampire Chronicles of Anne Rice,63 although there is now a huge
body of contemporary literature. The recent success of the Twilight 64 books and
films is indicative of this trend.
There are two main streams of representation evident in the above men-
tioned narratives. While historically the vampire or revenant was a figure of
fear and diabolic influence, many recent representations have depicted them
in a far more sympathetic light. Their glamour and beauty is generally empha-
sized, and there is a notable inclination towards representations that highlight
a certain nobility of character: vampires that refuse to take human life. Highly
evident within Buffy, Angel and Twilight, this trend emphasizes the vampire
element as something to be overcome within the individual, internally, rather
than external conflict of the monster figure to be overcome by the raging mob
of earlier narrative. Notably, these narratives also effectively state that sympathy
rather censure is the appropriate response from humans. On the other hand,
the older vampiric imagery of uncontrolled savagery is still extremely evident
in current narrative, even when occurring within a text that also incorporates
more sympathetic representations.
Vampires are almost universally strong, sometimes magical, and close to
immortal. They are glamorous, attractive and compelling. They are separated
from broader society by either their personal choice or by the fact that they view
humans as food. They are regularly depicted as solitary creatures irrespective of
whether a sympathetic approach is taken or not. Imagery associated with vam-
pires is generally significantly darker than the creatures previously mentioned,
and, like the werewolf, still often holds specifically diabolical connotations.
For the sake of completeness it is also worth mentioning that many horror
films also depict the creatures explored here: specifically the vampire and the
werewolf, and various permutations of these. In particular, there is a strand of
horror films that show humans, usually overcome by some form of virus, attack-
ing and eating other humans, and often undead. These behaviours certainly
78
overlap with the more vicious fantastic creatures mentioned, but in general
seem to be fairly explicitly about the monstrous and dehumanizing elements
of the human, rather than the “other”. Where the various entities viewed here
are predominantly being humanized by contemporary representation, horror
genre portrayals tend to take such creatures to the other extreme: the ultimately
animal, savage form of the human without possession of either conscience or
consciousness. Good examples of this alternative trend are contained within the
films Resident Evil, I am Legend and 28 Days Later. While these films certainly
contribute to the overall imagery associated with the various creatures, horror
has a far more specific audience than the more mainstream texts discussed here.
Therianthropic and were-creatures
The belief in therianthropic creatures has been immensely widespread across

human history,65 occurring within European and Asian cultures and through-
out the classical world.66 The term comes from the Greek, and denotes the
combination of the human with the animal.67 While the most well-known form
of therianthropic creature is the werewolf, the category is by no means limited
to this. The medieval image of the witch capable of turning herself into a cat, or
even Lucius’s enforced sojourn as a donkey in Metamorphoses,68 both describe
a process through which an individual may transition between a human and
animal form. For the purposes here, though, discussions will be limited to the
werewolf or lycanthrope, as it is one of the most common forms of therian-
thropic creature seen in an Otherkin context.
Transformations of human into wolf occur as early as the epic of Gilgamesh:69
in that instance a result of the goddess Ishtar turning one of her followers into
a wolf.70 In the work of Virgil the first example of a voluntary transition from
a man to a wolf may be found.71 It is in the late medieval period, however, that
the image of the werewolf, and the fear it evoked, took on practical manifesta-
tion. In France in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries there was
a wave of werewolf trials, the most famous example of which was that of Gilles
Garnier, who was convicted of, confessed to, and was burned at the stake for
lycanthropy.72 During this era, the common approach to lycanthropy was to per-
ceive it as a heretical act undertaken in league with the devil, and thus it inspired
similar kinds of fear and horror as the image of the witch at that time. Events
such as the trial of Garnier and others in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
give testament to the strength of fear and belief associated with such creatures.
In a contemporary sense, werewolves are also highly represented within
various media. An American Werewolf in London, the Underworld series, and
Wolf are some of the more well known recent films dealing with werewolves,
but even as early as 1935,73 films were being made on the topic. In terms of
role-playing games, the White Wolf series includes Werewolf: the Apocalypse 74
79
fantasy and belief
alongside other games such as Vampire: The Masquerade,75 and Mage: The
Ascension.76 While these games are no longer available, they have been replaced
with upgraded versions and are extremely well known within the culture of
which they are a part.
Probably the most well-known current representation of werewolves is in
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (book and film),77 which contains a
central and continuing character: Lupin, a sympathetic and friendly werewolf.
Other characters learn how to transform themselves into other animals, such
as a dog and a rat. This sympathetic representation is counterbalanced within
the Harry Potter novels by the bad werewolves: nasty psychotic creatures that
deliberately hunt down humans. Similarly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer has a were-
wolf as a central character who is shown sympathy rather than censure when
his werewolf nature becomes apparent. This character is also counterbalanced
by werewolves who are uninterested in avoiding harm to humans. Again, as
with vampires, the sympathetic view of the werewolf revolves around the need
for self discipline and a willingness to fight an internal struggle, rather than the
unequivocal evil of earlier depictions.
The imagery surrounding werewolves is predominantly negative, with
moments of sympathy reserved for those characters who refuse to indulge in
their werewolf nature. Nevertheless, the powerful abandonment with which the
werewolf throws off their humanity tends towards a passionate representation
of the uncivilized, or conversely the superhuman strength of will required to
overcome such desire. Their overriding characteristic is their powerful nature,
and they are, in this context, probably the entities least associated with magic.
Angelic and demonic beings
The word “angel” (“angelos” in Greek, “malak” in Hebrew) means a

person sent or a messenger. It is a name not of nature but of office,
and is applied also to humans in the world who are ambassadors or
representatives. In another sense, the word denotes a spiritual being
employed in occasional offices; and lastly, men in office as priests or
bishops.78
Angels and demons are heavily entrenched in Western consciousness with their
roots in Biblical literatures. Mediating beings between the human and divine,
the original distinction between angels and demons was based in the simple
division between those who did what they were told (angels) and those who
deviated from their designated path (demons).79 Although strongly associated
with Judaic, Christian and Muslim thought, angels are also present within a
whole range of traditions stretching from the classical world through to the
contemporary New Age.80 Indeed, much of the Western world’s history from
80
the classical era until the current day is coloured with a belief in angelic and
demonic beings, as well as other intermediary entities. The renaissance saw
the construction of non-religious techniques for interacting with angels, for
instance, through John Dee’s work with Edward Kelly.81 On the other hand,
medieval Catholic practices such as exorcism, or the ritual invocation of angels,
certainly fall within this type of behaviour as well.82
Perhaps unusually, given the strength of the history of angelic beings, their
representation within popular narrative is comparatively slight. Films such as
Constantine, Dogma and The Prophecy centre around angels, but in each case
they are portrayed as morally ambivalent, if not fallen, and relatively antagonis-
tic towards humanity. Demons, on the other hand, have a significant presence
within contemporary narrative. Unsurprisingly, the horror genre is replete with
instances of demons. The Evil Dead films, The Exorcist, The Omen and Hellraiser
are but a few of the many narratives centred upon demons. These sources depict
demons as infernal and diabolic forces, not necessarily anti-Christian but cer-
tainly anti-human. Alternatively, more sympathetic and mainstream represen-
tations can be seen in Buffy, Angel and the HellBoy films. In these narratives,
demons occur in all the variety that humans do: they are effectively represented
as another species capable of co-existence with humans, albeit while holding
great power. Although these sympathetic representations do exist, in the case of
demons they are far outweighed by the predominant image of the supernatural
entity bent upon the destruction of humans.
It is worth noting that angels have significant presence within New Age
beliefs. In this context, angels are usually understood in the broadest way pos-
sible, as benign beings of superior spiritual awareness that often help or guide
people. Within a New Age context, little if any distinction is made between
spiritually enlightened humans and these more supernatural beings: by a New
Age philosophy they are all entities at different points on the same trajectory
of spiritual growth.83 This New Age attitude is in distinction from a more tra-
ditional esoteric approach which ascribes specific meaning and cosmological
location to such beings.
Both angels and demons are intangible beings of immense power.
Contemporary narrative has erred towards the removal of their monolithic
good/bad status, and granted them a far more human complexity. They are
explicitly associated with the superempirical, and their associations range from
the theologically oriented opposing positive and negative, through to a neutral
status as intangible beings.
The presence of angels and demons within the Otherkin milieu is of par-
ticular interest insofar as it highlights the occasionally present continuity with
traditional Western religiosity, particularly the Christian tradition. It is also
noteworthy that association with angels seems to have increased over the years
of this study. While Partridge has made a convincing argument that demonol-
ogy has become an integral aspect of Western occulture,84 what is particularly
81
fantasy and belief
notable in this circumstance is the authenticity attributed to a Christian world-

view within a context where mythological and fantastic constructions are most
usually the norm. Implicit in this inclusion is an open-handed acceptance of all
evocative narrative, irrespective of provenance. It is perhaps less surprising that
demons have their place in the Otherkin milieu than that any predominantly
Christian entity would be included at all. Even more so, it is fascinating to see
that many individual Otherkin do not find conflict between being Otherkin and
being Christian.85 This is quite possibly due to Otherkin engaging in spiritual
or religious behaviour rather than religion per se.
the supeRhumAn
Overlapping with these representations of non-human creatures is the body of

narrative that depicts the superhuman. Although not part of the short list of
most regular Otherkin species, the superhuman is relevant here for two reasons:
first, as many of the popular culture entities referred to by the Otakukin fall into
this category; and second, because such imagery provides a slightly less exotic
version of the extension of the human into areas magical and metaphysical.
The superhuman is an extremely pervasive notion in the modern era, and
has a massive representation within contemporary narrative. The ideal of the
superhuman is prefigured in the literatures of the ancient world, with mytho-
logical characters such as Heracles demonstrating a quintessential humanness
while demonstrating a power that verges upon the divine.86 Within a more
contemporary context, the image of the superhuman is most recognizable in the
post-World War II rise of comics.87 In many ways, the image of the superhuman
may be seen to bridge the gap between the idea of ordinary, mundane humanity
and the fantastic creatures discussed above, both in terms of the implication for
humans as well as the cultural location of such imagery. This type of bridging
is even more noticeable in the many recent attempts to represent the superhu-
man as everyday, as is evident in films such as Unbreakable and TV series such
as Heroes.88
It should be clarified here that the superhuman in this context does not
directly equate to the superhero in genre terms. The character of a superhero
almost always falls within the category of the superhuman, but the reverse is
not necessarily true. In a technical genre sense, the superhero is defined with
fair consistency as an individual with a mission to save or help people (i.e. is a
hero and behaves heroically), specific powers (i.e. magical, enhanced strength
etc.) and a protected identity (i.e. wears a costume and/or has a code name).89
In the context of this discussion, it is the second point, the specific powers, that
is taken to be indicative of the superhuman. It is the simultaneous extension of
the self and the incorporation of the other that delineates the superhuman, not
the specific genre conventions of the superhero, which are of interest here. So,
82
as an instance, the character Buffy meets the criteria of the superhuman, but
does not qualify as a superhero.90
The list of narrative representations of the superhuman is frankly enormous.
Taken in the broad context utilized here, sources include not only well-known
comics and their subsequent film adaptations such as Superman, Batman,
Spiderman, X-Men, The Incredible Hulk, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
and Watchmen, but arguably also sci-fi classics such as the Star Wars films or
the Matrix series. Vampire narratives such as Nightwatch and Daywatch rep-
resent humans with supernatural powers, while movies like Hancock explain
such powers in reference to ancient gods. Again, Joss Whedon’s Buffy and Angel
clearly contain characters of this type.
An important element of representations of the superhuman is that they
will often attribute the special powers to some non-supernatural cause, not the
intentional gaining of powers that would constitute the magician or even the
divine interventions of the heroes of the classical world.91 Such causes might
be genetic (such as with the human mutant X-Men), or the result of an acci-
dent (as can be seen in the case of Dr Manhattan of Watchmen). This idea of
the inherent super is quite distinct from images of the dedicated magician or
witch learning new skills: this division effectively comes down to inherent talent
versus learned craft.
Superhuman characters, like the non-human creatures already discussed,
are generally treated as intrinsically dangerous. It is interesting that the positive
bent viewable within such characters in the second half of the twentieth century
is conflicted with a far more negative view taken previously.92 The danger of
the superhero in pre-1938 literatures far outweighs any other concern: they
constitute a danger to society and “cannot be permitted to exist”.93 This per-
ceived danger is paralleled by the classical heroes, those hubristic mortals that
poached upon the terrain of the gods. In modern pre-war terms, such charac-
ters became almost inevitably “other”, forced towards the outside of society irre-
spective of actual behaviours. On the other hand, post war superheroes tended
to be viewed more positively, and are generally seen as supportive rather than
disruptive of their social context.94 That said, they are still generally depicted
in some form of contention with the rest of humanity.
The notion of the superhuman is of particular interest here in that it exists
not only within the worlds of fantasy literature, but also has strong support in
the ideologies of the New Age and various elements of occulture. Nietzsche’s
construction of the Ubermensch 95 is probably the most famous exposition of the
idea, but the notion exists far beyond the bounds of his works. Intrinsic in the
Human Potential movement and other occultural notions of self-transformation
and development, and appearing in secular guise within certain streams of psy-
chology, the notion of more-than-human is clearly pervasive and compelling.
The image of the superman within popular fiction, appropriately termed the
“pulp ubermensch”,96 is one that, while inspired by Nietzsche’s work, manifests
83
fantasy and belief
little if any of the sophisticated elements of the philosophical Ubermensch.97

Likewise, the New Age approaches to the development of individual potential
are reminiscent of the idea without necessarily involving any of the nuances.
The Human Potential movement is an important aspect of New Age beliefs,98
focused originally upon holistic methods of well being with an emphasis upon
psychological and emotional health.99 Since the 1970s, the movement has taken
on a far more spiritual element, and the concept of health has become expanded
to include notions of cosmic consciousness as an integral aspect of health.100
Within Human Potential rhetoric, the aim is of the “realisation of the individ-
ual’s inner potential”.101 This idea has pervaded much of contemporary Western
culture, and is strikingly parallel to notions of the superhuman.
The notion of the superhuman is one that essentially extends upon the
human. It is the extension of the self, the addition of the super that is relevant:
not an othering process so much as a broadening of the self. The trend towards
more positive representations of the superhuman compliments the human-
izing tendencies viewable in representations of the non-human. Further, this
idea is conspicuously present within the New Age movement in terms of ideas
of constant personal growth that is spiritual or cosmic in nature. That humans
should be more-than-human, or at the very least more than they currently are,
suggests that the acquisition of more-than-human powers is not only possible
but desirable.
Overview
As can be seen, these creatures and beings all have a significant and varied
literary and narrative presence. By and large, representations are tending to
verge more towards the sympathetic rather than the monstrous, and there is a
long tradition of content to draw upon, and depart from, for these illustrations.
Relatively consistent across these various depictions is exceptional personal
power of a supernatural nature. There is also a marked tendency towards isola-
tion and, at minimum, an aloof attitude towards humanity. Magic is a common,
but not universal, element of these entities, although an intrinsic aspect of these
narratives is an inclusive view of the world that contains both the tangible and
the superempirical.
What these summaries demonstrate is that there exists a fairly extensive
body of narrative that may be interpreted as a body of lore: supporting narrative
diverse enough to provide a spread of imagery and meaning that fleshes out the
representations of these creatures. The presence and ideologies of the Otherkin,
however, are by no means explicated simply by the presence of narrative tradi-
tions for reference. These texts provide a backdrop, perhaps a starting point for
these beliefs rather than a blueprint for behaviour. It certainly seems possible
that the consistent elements mentioned above play some part in the process of
84
association of the self with the non-human or the more-than-human. Further,

particular rhetoric of the Otherkin, such as the feeling of difference or detach-
ment from humanity, is certainly paralleled within these narratives. Likewise,
embracing an image of the self that is immensely powerful holds clear appeal.
But the Otherkin appear to be moving beyond a purely psychologically-based
affinity with these creatures insofar as they assert that they are these creatures,
not just like them. To state it so baldly is obviously glossing over the many
varying nuances of the ontology, but it is essential to distinguish between, for
instance, using the image of a dragon in an archetypal sense, and asserting that
one is a dragon.
Beyond providing a body of lore, the increasing narrative presences of these
entities across media forms allows for a certain amount of normalization of
the superempirical and the fantastic. This normalization, I argue, is at least in
part due to the effective humanization of such creatures. Images of the super-
natural abound and are by no means necessarily represented in the light of a
simple dichotomy of good and evil. These entities are no longer merely animals
of power and or menace, but have become far more complex beings contain-
ing within themselves the capacity for both good and evil as well as the many
degrees in between. In this, they parallel the increasing postmodern tendency to
view individuals as complex, multivalent beings outside of any totalizing status.
Another aspect of this normalization lies in that fact that contemporary narra-
tives of this type are tending to emphasize what has been called the “ordinariness
of the extraordinary”.102 Most obvious within popular and mainstream narratives
such as Harry Potter, Buffy and Angel, these texts integrate fantastic creatures
and other worlds relatively seamlessly into the fabric of the everyday world,
complete with banks, schools and personal issues. Such texts take the other and
make it commonplace by making only minimal or no distinction between this
world and the rest. The creatures of those other worlds are depicted as having the
same concerns as humans do in ours: thus demons watch TV, goblins run banks,
vampires buy houses, and young magicians purchase their wands at a shop.
An intriguing and relevant aspect of such depictions is the way in which they
negotiate the relationship between the mundane and the supernatural. Harry
Potter, Buffy, Angel, Twilight and True Blood, for instance, all start with more or
less realistic illustrations of this world and then embed the fantastic within the
secularized modern Western circumstance. There are no barriers maintaining
separation between the mundane and the supernatural, no dream sequences or
voyages to facilitate transition to some separate reality in which the supernatu-
ral is present. Rather, the superempirical elements are integrated into the world
as we know it. So, in narratives such as Twilight and True Blood, vampires go to
school or lobby for citizenship rights: in these cases the supernatural is granted
equal location within the everyday world, and the fantastic creatures possess
overwhelmingly human interests, albeit with the addition of their superhuman
desires and needs. There is no other world they emerge from, no deep mysteries
85
fantasy and belief
of the cosmos that such characters have access too: they’re just (non-human)
people trying to get along. Alternatively, texts such as Harry Potter, Buffy and
Angel equally start from generally realistic depictions of the modern Western
world, but they rather extend the boundaries into spaces owned by non-human
or magical entities. Thus in Harry Potter, magical buildings have geographic
location in the real world, but may only be accessed through particular tech-
niques of the magical community. Buffy and Angel both use a notion of the
multiverse that posits effectively infinite worlds and dimensions accessible in
many different ways, but that locate a plethora of entities living within the
everyday human world. This point is explored in more depth below, but for the
moment it suffices to note that there is a significant trend towards incorporating
the supernatural into the everyday world, rather than removing the audience to
another world, in current popular fantasy narrative. Such approaches tend not
only towards re-enchantment narratives, but also emphasize the “ordinariness
of the extraordinary” in such a way as to totally embed the supernatural within
everyday lived experience.
moDeRn occultuRe, Re-enchAntment AnD mAgic
Small wonder that spell means both a story told, and a formula of power
over living men.103
The types of extension and othering of beings that is evident within narrative
contexts also exist outside of the worlds of fantasy. Paralleling these narra-
tive representations is a growing tendency within the modern Western world
towards philosophies that have a propensity towards notions of the expansion
of the self. In particular, occultural and New Age ideologies generally heavily
emphasize personal development in ways that can often go beyond the psycho-
logical and into the realms of the spiritual and metaphysical.
While admittedly varied, the beliefs explored here tend to focus most par-
ticularly upon the subjective experience of the world and the self, and often
the exploration of worlds both interior and other. In their various ways, these
occultural paradigms include an expanded notion of the self, often posit the
existence of non-human entities, and further regularly propose methods for
communication with them. When seen in conjunction with the fantasy nar-
ratives discussed above, it becomes apparent that there exists both copious
content for the experience of non-human entities, as well as a surfeit of magical
paradigms and occultural techniques available to access the same.
As these magical paradigms and occultural techniques are extremely varied,
I have focused on but a few of the more relevant occultural elements. In par-
ticular, Paganism and particular magical practices will be discussed with a
view to demonstrating the continuity between these beliefs and practices and
86
those of the Otherkin. This continuity is demonstrated not only in the simi-
larity of elements of the respective paradigms, but also insofar as many, if not
most, Otherkin explicitly consider themselves Pagan or Neo-Pagan.104 As there
already exists a significant body of literature pertaining to many of these occul-
tural elements, this section provides an overview only so as to contextualize
the Otherkin within the broader occulture. A brief history of the development
of contemporary occulture is also included in order to demonstrate the rela-
tive longevity of such approaches as well as to appropriately situate occulture
within the modern Western world. Likewise, the gap between psychology and
magic, or the lack thereof, is also explored in order to demonstrate the failing
boundaries that occur between the real and the unreal, the psyche and the
cosmos, within the context of paradigms that emphasise subjective experience
and interiority.
Background
Contemporary occultism and magical practice have their basis in the develop-
ments of the nineteenth century. During this era there was a flourishing of eso-
teric and occult practices, with beliefs such as Illuminism,105 Spiritualism and
theosophy becoming much more noticeable.106 Interest in the occult was not
only limited to occult or esoteric societies dedicated its exploration, however,
but also was found informing far more traditional religious attitudes. Beliefs
containing an “occult quality”107 are not necessarily limited to the obvious
regions of practice, such as magic or initiatory systems, but may also appear
within more traditional beliefs, such as may be manifest in an interest in the
supernatural or in inexplicable phenomena, for instance. Thus, the occult
revival did not just see an uprising of interest in the purely esoteric or occult,
but was paralleled by a surge of supernaturalism within a Christian context at
the same time. This upsurge in interest denoted by the occult revival was not
bound to strictly esoteric practices or philosophies, but incorporated a more
general interest in mysticism, some Christian, some “neo-Christian”, and then
some, of course, simply non-Christian.108 Although the occult revival erupted
initially in France,109 it would eventually impact on the majority of Western
Europe and the United Kingdom, and indeed the larger colonized areas as well.
The occult revival held under its rubric some particularly important precur-
sors to contemporary occulture, most notably Spiritualism, the Hermetic Order
of the Golden Dawn, and the Theosophical Society. The beliefs and practices
of these movements underpin much of the contemporary occultural world-
view, and in particular have supplied contemporary occulture with many of
the magical techniques utilized today.
Spiritualism was a massively popular phenomenon that arose in the early
to mid years of the nineteenth century,110 usually dated from 1848,111 and
87
fantasy and belief
maintains its appeal to this day.112 Born in the United States of America, this
practice essentially comes down to communication through a variety of means
with the spirits of the dead, largely equating to what we would currently call
“channelling”.113 Spiritualism was distinct from other forms of communica-
tion with non-physical entities particularly in that it approached the human
dead, rather than heavenly or hellish beings of a somewhat different order.
What is particularly interesting about Spiritualism is the degree of interest that
the phenomena acquired within the broader public realm,114 rather than being
limited to individuals already possessed of a curiosity with the superempiri-
cal or supernatural. Spiritualism, as with freemasonry and theosophy, was not
necessarily considered counter to a Christian belief,115 but was often practised
by devout Christians.116
Spiritualism effectively encouraged a form of surrender: to the holy, the
numinous, or the other.117 Rather than the priority of the will which was so
evident within the more explicitly magical endeavours of the Golden Dawn
and subsequent practices, this was a sublimation of the self reminiscent of the
romantic tendencies of the time. Such behaviour tended towards the mystical,
and emphasized the intuitive and evocative aspects of engagement with both
this world and others.118 This is not to say that participants did not consider
themselves to be rigorous in their analysis of their experiences, as they often
clearly considered themselves to be, but rather that their method of experi-
mentation was the experience itself.119 Spiritualism overlapped with the parallel
movements of Mesmerism and Swedenborgianism, and was strongly informed
by new notions of causality as well as more traditional esoteric themes.120
Hanegraaff has argued convincingly that Spiritualism laid the groundwork for
contemporary occultism in that it encouraged syncretic forms of belief and that
in its combination of spiritual inquiry and scientistic thinking it typified what
is now a commonplace approach within occultist thinking.121
On a slightly different tangent, but born of the same era, was the Hermetic
Order of the Golden Dawn. The Golden Dawn, founded in 1888 in England,122
synthesized a large body of disparate esoteric teachings to develop its prac-
tices.123 There were two main sections of the order, the first correlating to a more
philosophical understanding of the universe, whereas the second order was only
available to invitees and was largely concerned with magical practice. The first
Order focused upon “astrology, alchemy, and Cabala … geomantic and tarot
divination, and … basic magical techniques.”124 The magical practices associ-
ated with the Second Order, on the other hand, utilized astral travel, dream
interpretation, ritual magic, visualization and the like.125 All of these techniques,
both of the first and second order, are central to contemporary magical prac-
tice, and although these ideas predate the Golden Dawn, it was this group that
synthesized the vast array of esoteric teachings into a single cohesive whole.
Indeed, this desire to correlate scientific and metaphysical or spiritual findings
is inherent in the very notion of the occult movements,126 and the Golden Dawn
88
can be seen as a very clear example of this trend. Insofar as this synthesis is
the case, contemporary occulture and particularly ritual magical practice owe
a significant debt to the Golden Dawn.127 “The Golden Dawn single-handedly
revived and taught a Rosicrucian magical tradition that united practical occult-
ism with the mystical and metaphysical, and reworked it so that it spoke in the
language of ‘ancient wisdom’ to the most immediate of modern concerns.”128
The third stream of thought so constitutive of contemporary occulture is
that of theosophy, discussed here through the specific case of the Theosophical
Society. Theosophy itself was revived towards the end of the eighteenth
century, in line with the resurgence of esoteric and occult themes in general.129
Theosophy, while varied in its specific manifestations in different contexts,
holds certain elements in common. As described by Faivre, they are:
1. the God/Human/Nature triangle

2. the Primacy of the Mythic, and
3. direct access to superior worlds.130
The general orientation of the interests of the Theosophical Society was far
more philosophically directed than the Golden Dawn, but nonetheless has also
greatly contributed to occulture as it currently stands.131 Blavatsky, the founder
of the society with Olcott,132 held theosophy’s constitution as a metaphysical and
spiritual society as central, and disdained the practical ritual magic as practiced
by some occultists. The stated goals of the Theosophical Society were
1. to form the nucleus of a universal brotherhood

2. to encourage the study of all religions, of philosophy, and of science, and
3. to study the laws of Nature as well as the various psychic abilities of human
beings.133
The central stream of Blavatsky’s thought focused upon the rediscovery of uni-
versal wisdom: “primordial lore about the manifestation and inner nature of
the universe and humanity”.134 Blavatsky authored numerous texts expounding
her beliefs,135 which were popular in her time,136 have maintained their appeal
to this day, and are particularly central to the creation of the New Age move-
ment.137 Blavatsky was deeply devoted to perennialist notions of religion,138 and
the Theosophical Society reflects such a position. Like the Romantics, Blavatsky,
and the Theosophical Society with her, held that the supernatural was in fact a
natural aspect of the cosmos.
For all of their philosophical orientation, though, the Theosophical Society
boasted a sub-section that focused upon the research of magic,139 a sort of paral-
lel to the Second Order within the Golden Dawn.140 The Theosophical Society
had from its inception a distinctly Eastern bent, and gave the appearance at
least of a thoroughgoing glamorization of Buddhist and Hindu141 traditions in
89
fantasy and belief
particular. Blavatsky certainly credited the oriental world with the preserva-
tion of the “ancient wisdom”,142 the reclamation of which was one of her major
goals. It has been posited that the integration of Eastern religious themes into
Western esotericism is actually theosophy’s most important contribution to the
field:143 certainly the popularization of the notion of reincarnation in the West
cannot be underestimated.144 Theosophy also provides a great example of the
interweaving of social and metaphysical concerns, and has been linked with
feminism, anti-slavery and anti-imperialist movements. On all these points,
contemporary occulture has absorbed and expanded these themes.
Finally, before delving into the worlds of contemporary Pagan and ritual
magic, it is worth discussing some few elements central to the notion of magic
itself. While there are many differing attitudes and techniques, there are a
few assumptions within the occultural sphere that seem relatively universal.
Primary among these is the idea of energy,145 seen as an ethereal substance
capable of interconnecting with or transmitting across various levels of the
cosmos. Contemporary concepts of energy in its magical context can be traced
back to the animal magnetism of the late eighteenth century. The notion of
animal magnetism, of a subtle agent,146 became widely known with the work of
Mesmer, after whom Mesmerism is named. In the 1770s Mesmer proposed a
theory that essentially posited, among other things, “an impalpable fluid perme-
ates the entire universe and connects human beings to animals, plants, objects,
and to each other.”147 This idea of the subtle fluid, the doctrine of spiritus,148 has
its roots in Renaissance thought and has continued in various contexts up to
the present time.149 Effectively seen as a mediating matter between the seen and
unseen aspects of the world, this notion has held great appeal to esotericists and
occultists in particular, and can be understood within this context as the sub-
stance through which magic is transmitted.150 This subtle matter is essentially
the primary building block upon which the varieties of contemporary Western
magical systems are thought to work.
It is also imperative to note that many of the specific techniques used in ritual
magic are based in ancient practice. The elements, the cardinal points, interme-
diary beings such as spirits or angels and demons, the idea of beings portalling
through a body, and ritual objects all come from the earliest eras of the Western
esoteric and magical tradition.151 How such concepts are actually enacted, or
the broader cosmological frameworks within which they are embedded have
changed drastically over the centuries, but such provenance lends authenticity
and weight to such constructions, as well as providing a vast body of esoteric
lore for practitioners to draw upon should they choose to do so.
Lastly, it should be noted that the formal organized societies like the Golden
Dawn and the Theosophical Society, or popular movements such as Spiritualism,
were by no means the only type of magic present within British and continen-
tal society at the time when these groups were developing. Witchcraft, in the
form of village charmers and the like, featured prominently in the works of
90
nineteenth century folklorists.152 In many ways, such folk magic provided the
precursors to many forms of contemporary witchcraft, and the positive ideal
type of the village witch is evident within certain streams of Paganism.
The psychologization of the supernatural
[M]agicians always worked on the assumption that the manifestations

of personal consciousness can encompass meanings that outstrip the
vagaries of the individual psyche.153
Emerging in a broadly concurrent sense, and extending on from the develop-

ments of the occult revival, two particularly relevant developments are evident
within occultist attitudes: an increasing psychologization and an overriding
pragmatism. Modern occultism is a field of behaviour where there has been
a significant conflation between notions of psychology and spirituality, to the
degree that it can often be difficult to distinguish between the two.
The psychologization of the supernatural is very much the product of occult,
rather than esoteric, attitudes. Since the nineteenth century, occultist thought
has increasingly focused upon the development and public acceptance of psy-
chological approaches to the self. Early psychologists reciprocated such focus
with both interest and belief in supernatural phenomena.154 This increasing
psychologization had many results, including consequences such as a shift in
the supernatural from outer expression to inner, the increasing interpretation
of traditional esoteric themes in an internal rather than external context, and
the ideal of the centrality of the will as the ultimate mode of action within the
world for magicians.155
Hanegraaff points out that one of the particular aspects of modern occult-
ism is an overriding pragmatism, in conjunction with a lessened interest in a
precise understanding of history or practice that is overshadowed by an inher-
ently functional approach: does it or does it not work.156 The positioning of the
work itself, of efficacy, has gradually shifted from an objective to a subjective
goal, wherein the engagement of the “other”, the numinous or the magical, is
sometimes psychologized to the point where it is often unclear as to wether any
given magical practice is meant to manifest results within the psyche or within
the broader cosmos. This pragmatism goes a long way towards illuminating the
predominance of eclecticism and syncretism, as well as suggesting some inter-
esting trends in relation to the Otherkin and like communities. Philosophies
and particularly techniques are likely to be chosen on the basis of effectiveness
rather than an abstract notion of authenticity, or any necessary sense of a purity
of tradition. This is of course not to say that there are not many individuals who
are extremely interested in the provenance of the practices and philosophies
that they engage in, but rather that such an interest should not be assumed.
91
fantasy and belief
Additionally, as Campbell notes, one of the major issues with occult beliefs
and practices is that many practitioners of alternative spiritualities are likely to
hide their beliefs, or manifest a certain embarrassment when acknowledging
such.157 While this is less true in the twenty-first century than it was at the time
of Campbell’s observation, such reticence is still often the case. While there are a
plethora of “how to” books available on magical practice, from various books of
shadows to manuals for chaos magicians, and regular representations of magic
in all forms of media, the fact remains that there is a stigma attached, if not
to the techniques of magic, then at least to the implicit assertion of magicians
and occultists, that reality has unseen, intangible aspects, and that humans may
effect change within the world through non-empirical means.
I would argue that the increasing psychologization may function at least
in part as a justification on behalf of practitioners of magic, in that an explicit
belief in other levels of reality may well be scoffed at, whereas the idea of using
occult techniques as a means of exploring one’s inner space is likely to be, if
not supported, then at least accepted as functional. This is not to say that I
disagree with the predominance of the psychological bent in occultists, but
am rather hesitant to invest the notion with to much importance in terms of
individual practice. While the influence of psychological themes is undeni-
ably historical fact, I suspect that many who practise magic, in whatever form,
genuinely do so in order to influence outside events, not just as a means of self
exploration and understanding. It seems possible that many of the psychologi-
cal justifications given to magical practice may in fact be a method by which
individuals may acknowledge their engagement with the body of knowledge
while asserting their rationality: a slight variation on the embarrassment noted
by Campbell.
To answer the question of whether psychologization functions simply as a
socially acceptable justification for magical practice or magical practice has
become merely a tool for comprehension of the psyche requires a far more
individual approach than I utilize here. Nonetheless, positing this question
illuminates the often failing boundary between psychological and the spiritual
within contemporary alternative religiosity. Such ambiguity is prevalent within
occultural ideologies, and suggests a need for caution in the application of strict
boundaries between this- and other-worldliness.
Paganism
In his seminal work on contemporary Paganism, Graham Harvey includes the

practices of druidry, witchcraft, heathens, goddess spirituality and shaman-
ism, as well as the concepts of magic, ecology and Earth mysteries as central
aspects of Paganism.158 The key connecting theme in these Paganisms is that
of an Earth-centred or Earth-oriented gaze: the various Paganisms are all
92
nature-based religions or spiritualities in one way or another.159 Some involve

a deity, some practise magic. Some focus upon healing and others upon national
traditions. In all of these, however, there is a persistent focus upon the natural
world and its more than tangible elements.160
Wicca, or witchcraft, is a prominent element of Western contemporary
Paganism. Although, as already noted, there is a longstanding tradition of folk
practitioners of magic distinguished from the “high” magic of esoteric extrac-
tion, the roots of contemporary witchcraft can be seen in the early twenti-
eth century, particularly as made known through the endeavours of Gerald
Gardner.161 In addition to his association with Paganism, Gardner was also
a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis and the Folklore Society, and knew
Crowley personally. Gardner publicized witchcraft by announcing his finding of
ancient survivals of the Pagan religion. Gardner claimed to have been initiated
into an English coven in 1939162 that was itself an ancient group. Both the claim
of ancient provenance and the particulars of the coven he joined are highly
dubious in nature,163 but Gardner’s experience, to whatever degree invented, was
revealed through his subsequent publications. These were of a religion based
in fertility rites that focused upon a coupled female and male as deities. The
development of Gardenerian Witchcraft led in turn to other variations such as
Alexanderian Witchcraft and, more recently, the wiccan synthesis of Vivianne
Crowley and the strongly feminist witchcraft of Starhawk.164
Pagans tend to position the natural world at the centre of their gaze. This
has a number of consequences, both in that they tend to venerate nature, but
also that magic tends to be posited as a natural, rather than supernatural,
element of the world. Generally speaking, the supernatural and magical ele-
ments of contemporary lived experience are understood as intrinsic, normal
manifestations of the natural world. While theories of natural magic, as well as
the naturalness of magic, have existed within the Western tradition since the
ancient world,165 they were more or less suppressed by the then more common
interpretation of magic as engaging with demonic forces and Pagan gods.166 In
the twelfth century such theories begun to gain some purchase,167 and in the
modern era they have become a central aspect of occultural magical and spir-
itual thought.168 This contemporary incarnation of notions of the naturalness
of magic can be seen as rooted in the Romantic backlash to Enlightenment
ideologies. Indeed, the celebration of the world itself resounded strongly with
the Romantics: Schiller, Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley and Keats all represented
the desire for a more nature-oriented spirituality within their works, criticizing
Christianity and celebrating a form of classical Paganism oriented around the
natural world.169
Central to such nature-based spiritualities are both an animist philosophy,
and often an inclusion of intangible entities into the world. The animist view
of the world is an essential element of understanding of the broader occulture,
as well as seemingly underlying an Otherkin ontology. “Paganism is, at best,
93
fantasy and belief
not merely ‘tree-hugging’ or ‘talking to trees’, but conversations with trees about
matters of mutual benefit.”170 Animism effectively asserts the ensoulment of
all entities: not just humans and animals, but trees and rocks and fairies and
all. Precisely the types of creatures associated with in an Otherkin context are
acknowledged to be present within the world around us, not as lesser beings
or imaginary forces, but as entities with which we humans share the world.
It has been noted that “fantasy seeks to develop a vision of a world in which
humans cohabit with nonhumans”,171 and further, that fantasy has its roots in
the “desire to converse with other living things”.172 Pagans, in their everyday
lives, tend to seek exactly the same thing. In such a context, it is no surprise
that Pagans have a propensity to turn towards fantasy narrative for evocative
support of their worldviews.
Shamanism and, more relevantly, Neo-Shamanism is another important
element of contemporary occulture which deals with worlds and entities
beyond the mundane, and significantly overlaps with Paganism. While nar-
ratives of indigenous shamans have inspired Westerners since the eighteenth
century,173 the impact of such ideologies has been felt most strongly since the
1960s. As a set of practices it is often highly contentious, engaging in neo-
colonial behaviours and post-imperialist attitudes that manifest in the simul-
taneous glamorization of the “noble savage” while appropriating indigenous
practitioners’ knowledge bases.174 Nonetheless, such practices are extremely
entwined within contemporary occulture, as well as the earlier syncretism of the
occult movement, and have their positive aspects as well as their more negative.
Shamans primarily engage with “other-than-human persons”.175 Through a
variety of techniques such as dancing and drumming, imbibing psychedelics,
and the taking on of totem animals and spirit guides, the shaman explores many
different aspects of reality.176 “The shaman is a master of spirit entities, a ven-
turer on different cosmic planes.”177 These spirits, however, need not necessarily
be disembodied ghosts floating on the ether or entities existing further up the
spiritual hierarchy, but can also include real animals and plants, attributed with
status equal to humans.178 Likewise, the otherworlds of shamanic experience
may be inner, seen effectively as layers of the psyche, or genuinely “other” in
whatever form.179 Shamanism, in its Western “neo” context, emphasizes per-
sonal experience and growth, respect for nature, and, most importantly, com-
munication with all beings and entities.
Natural magic, such as may be viewed in a Pagan or Neo-Shamanistic
context, tends to be less structured than other forms of more esoterically
inclined approaches. Magical practice may revolve around seasonal change or
the growth cycles of plants, and involve “imagination, visualisation, invocation,
chanting”.180 This does not mean, however, that Pagans do not utilize ritual.
Contemporary Pagan, or Neo-Pagan, ritual magic tends to follow a fairly stand-
ard pattern. Eight particular elements have been noted, which are thought to
be generally consistent (here given in only a general order):181
94
• casting: the accessing (finding or creating) of sacred space

• purifying: cleansing the sacred space and or self
• grounding: contacting energy sources and preparing the self and group
• centering: focusing upon the ritual task
• invoking: awakening the sources of energy
• raising: bringing the energy under control
• directing: channelling the energy towards the intended goal
• returning: closing the ritual
Rituals may be undertaken for the eight Sabbats, where they are primarily
intended to celebrate the changing of seasons, and the renewal of the world.182
They may also be undertaken for more personal reasons, and indeed a ritual
may serve multiple purposes. Most Pagans see ritual as containing both internal
and external results, with an often heavy emphasis upon the latter aspects.183
The two most commonly discussed sources of energy are elemental and those
drawn from the goddess.184 It should be noted that ritual in this context does
not necessarily denote formal group behaviours, and magical workings can be
done solo and through whatever mechanisms the individual feels appropriate.
Of the above listed elements of ritual, there seems to be three distinct aspects:
sacred space, energy and the utilization of will in the manipulation of energy.
The creation and/or utilization of sacred space is a regular feature of religious
and spiritual practice. The sacred space may present itself to the practitioner
who experiences a hierophany,185 an encounter with the enchanted nature of
a specific place,186 or as a space made sacred by dint of deliberate effort.187 In
a sacred space, within or without a ritual context, participants are opening
themselves to the “magical otherworld”188 where they are both part of and have
access to the cosmos and the energy it affords.
Revealed worlds and otherworlds
All religions promote the idea of an invisible world, inhabited by

various creatures, gods, angels, and devils, which control much of what
happens to us.189
Alongside contemporary fantasy and mythology, the other obvious location of

intangible realms is within the worlds of religious beliefs and spiritual cosmolo-
gies.190 While the particular types of extra-physical realms vary, religions are
more or less united in the notion that reality extends well beyond the physical.191
These worlds include not only the cosmologies of traditional Western religions,
with their various heavens and hells and spaces in between, but also for instance
the otherworlds of European, Insular and Classical heritage.
95
fantasy and belief
Interestingly, although Otherworlds exist within many traditions, there is

a distinct difference between ancient and mythological representations and
Western esoteric notions of planes. In general, this distinction is based in the
lack of differentiation between worlds found within mythology, as opposed
to the discrete and precise parallelism found within Western esoteric notions
of the astral plane.192 The origins of the otherworld as entirely discrete to the
physical has been attributed to twelfth-century theosophical Sufism, with a
conception of “a phantasmagorical dimension of reality, an otherworld of
unlimited variety, where the impossible was real and true”.193 This notion passed
through into Kabbalistic thought, and entered Western esotericism through
Renaissance esotericists such as Ficino and Paracelsus.194 While I would argue
against Merkur in that I suspect that applying the term “otherworld” only to
realms non-continuous with physical reality is unnecessarily limited, this dis-
tinction between a parallel magical plane and intersecting intangible worlds is
an intriguing one. Mythology, if it distinguishes between worlds at all, tends to
represent the “other” as continuous. Journeys to the otherworlds occur through
the geography of this world; transition between the human and divine spheres
of activity are matters of degree, not distinction. The astral or magical plane,
on the other hand, is not treated as an extension or expansion of this world, but
rather as a precise duplicate with a creative capacity.
Within contemporary magical practice, magicians often refer to a magical
plane or level which more or less equates to the astral.195 Such magical planes,
be they constructed as singular or plural, are interwoven with but discrete from
the physical plane, a “real-but-different”196 reality that is considered to exist well
beyond the bounds of the psyche. In a striking parallel to the soulscape of those
who soulbond, Crowley asserts, for instance, a plethora of planes premised in
all manner of literatures, of ideologies, which somehow exist beyond the purely
imaginative, but not within the physical.197
The magician works on a parallel reality or a “subtle plane” where the

things of the imagination are real. Just like the computer specialist
needs to learn a complex programming language with its own symbols
and rules, the magician needs to learn a no less complex language of
symbols and equivalences based on elaborate systems of correspond-
ences. By mastering such a symbolic language, it becomes possible for
the magician to manipulate the realities on the magical place; and as
a result of such activity things will change on the parallel level of the
everyday world.198
While there are many variations on the nature of religious and spiritual cos-
mologies, there tends to be a fairly consistent focus on proliferating worlds.
More relevantly, there is a very clear occultural penchant for multiple worlds
that include both parallel and discrete interpretations. It is quite plausible to
96
imagine that an individual who engages in occulture would easily expand from
a notion of a magical plane into a philosophy that incorporates multiple worlds
of varying content. Conversely, an individual entrenched within the norms of
speculative fiction may find constructions of a magical cosmology surprisingly
familiar.
Both the ritualized engagement with a magical otherworld, and more infor-
mal approaches of a Pagan or Neo-Shaman philosophy distinctly acknowledge
a world extended beyond the tangible, and populated with incorporeal beings.
Within these forms of spirituality, there are established techniques for access
to and engagement with otherworldly beings, as well as an acceptance of the
validity of more informal methods of the same.
Ceremonial magic
It is obvious that there exists significant crossover in the magical techniques

between the various different occultural movements, enough so that any divi-
sion made between them requires explanation. Here, the primary reason for
treating such systems differently comes down to a notion of orientation. Within
Western contemporary magical practice, orientation is generally denoted by
the division of the left-hand and the right-hand path, which is simplistically
(and inaccurately) thought to equate to black and white magic. This terminol-
ogy, and indeed the division itself, is derived from Tantra, the left-hand path,
and broadly denotes the use of ritualized transgression as spiritual practice.199
From a practitioner perspective, the left-hand path has been defined as “the
path of non-union with the objective universe”.200 Generally speaking, the divi-
sion refers to the intention of the practitioner: right-hand path practitioners
are explicitly altruistic, seeking to benefit others through their works; whereas
left-hand path practitioners generally prioritize themselves. Or, from another
angle, the right-hand path practitioner errs towards union with the cosmos,
whereas one oriented to the left-hand path focuses upon the supremacy of the
individual and the unique and articulated self. As a general rule, the majority
of Pagans tend to be more right-hand path oriented, with their notion of well
being extended into the world and its many entities. Ceremonial and ritual
magic, on the other hand, often tends to appeal to those of a more left-hand
path orientation.
Ceremonial magic tends to draw a more direct line back to the constructions
of the Golden Dawn than do the Pagan approaches discussed above. Indeed,
Aleister Crowley is probably the most (in)famous magician of modern times,
is by many considered to be the father of contemporary magic, and was for a
short time a member of the Golden Dawn, joining in 1898 in his early twen-
ties.201 Most well known for his practice of sex magic, Crowley embodied a
transgressive approach towards magical practice: the deliberate destruction of
97
fantasy and belief
taboos used as a means of generating magical energy.202 Much of contemporary

magical ritual practice is sourced through the works of Crowley, and particu-
larly the practice of sex magic may be attributed to his endeavours. It should be
noted that much of contemporary ritual magic has been largely disseminated by
Israel Regardie, who has explicitly reworked the original texts he utilized.203 He
was a one-time student and secretary of Crowley, who then joined an offshoot
of the Golden Dawn, and went on to publish much of the Golden Dawn’s rituals
against their habit of secrecy.204 Regardie’s work gained popularity during the
occult revival of the 1960s, and is now commonplace among magical practition-
ers and participants of occulture.
One magical technique that is relatively common is that of pathworking.
Described as “a guided fantasy”,205 pathwork involves visualizing and moving
through imagined spaces, building or finding them in the non-tactile areas of
the cosmos. This process is thought to stimulate magical energy as well as prac-
tice the imaginative and visual skills that are so central to contemporary magical
practice. This practice effectively constitutes the creation of, and engagement
with, alternative worlds that are on occasion attributed with more reality than
simple products of the imagination. Other practices of note include ritual invo-
cation: calling a goddess, god, demon or general entity to be present.
Another approach to contemporary magical practice is worth mentioning
at this juncture: that of the chaos magician.206 Chaos magic is premised in a
fairly anarchistic approach to the world, as might be imagined, but also in some
specific ways it tends to be extremely this-worldly. The chaos magician will use
any tool that may come to hand, with no particular reference to its provenance
or intended use. It can be, but is not necessarily, anti-ritual: the chaos magician
might, for instance, transform a night of watching television into a method of
divination constructed as magical practice. In this way, chaos magic tends to be
situated at the extreme end of the tendency towards pragmatism already noted
in modern magical practices in general.
Crucial to any understanding of chaos magic is Hakim Bey’s notion of onto-
logical anarchy.207 Essentially a left-hand path approach, the underlying notion
is one that seeks the deliberate subversion or destruction of dominant modes of
thinking, primarily as a source of power. In this it is a sort of extension of, or at
least similar to, Crowley’s sex magic in that it utilizes transgression to generate
magical energy, but where sex magic specifically utilizes carnality, chaos magic
in general, and ontological terrorism in specific, are aimed at normative modes
of everyday life, sexuality being just one small aspect of this.
Ontological anarchism is pervasive in chaos magic and other similar ideolo-
gies, but its fundamental premises are by no means limited to such practices.
Bey’s work, for instance, appears on Otherkin reading lists, and he has in turn
drawn upon writers and spiritualities of earlier times, most notably the beat
literature of the 1960s, and groups such as Discordianism208 and the Church
of the SubGenius.209 In a way, the underlying gist of ontological anarchy is the
98
same as the New Age idea of “let go/drop it”210 or the Pagan tendency towards
re-enchanting the world: they all propose that the modern materialist rational-
ist worldview is not only lacking, but that moving outside such a framework
allows for a clearer view of the actuality of the cosmos. Chaos magic, however,
often tends to do so through much more confrontational and, of course, anar-
chistic means.
The re-enchantment of technology
A final element to view in this occultural contextualization is the re-enchantment

of technology. A simplistic image of Pagans as tree-obsessed hippies is unlikely
to suggest that technology would be a significant aspect of their everyday lived
practice, and yet there is significant evidence that many occultural practices and
philosophies are finding a deeply comfortable home online. It has been noted
that new religions tend to appear “in contexts in which both globalising and
localising tendencies make themselves felt”.211 This tendency has a somewhat
perverse manifestation in relation to Paganism, in that the mechanisms that
were thought by the romantics to take away from an authentic Pagan spirituality
– technology, industry, scientific thought, and so on – are themselves becoming
enchanted: not just as a medium, but in and of themselves.
The potential of technology as both a medium and as a source for magical
belief and practice is recognized by many. There are Technopagans, Cyber-
shamans212 and Chaos Magicians who all work with the deliberate use of
modern technology. In a broader sense, the vast amount of ritual practice that
has migrated online within the last decade or so in both traditional and alterna-
tive contexts demonstrates that, theoretical arguments aside, the sacred can be
found and accessed somewhere between pixels and wires.
One example of this enchanting approach to technology, drawn from the
ubiquitous magical “how to” publications is Taylor Ellwood’s Pop Culture
Magic.213 Ellwood, a chaos magician, has provided a text which specifically
addresses magic within a popular culture context. There is at the outset the
assertion that popular culture icons such as the character Buffy are god forms,214
and can be utilized in the same way as older gods and goddesses. An individual
can charge their sigils while playing a computer game, or wear specific char-
acters to empower the self.215 Again, it may be seen that it is but a small gap
between these sorts of practices and those of the Otakukin: this is an enchanting
of the modern, of the actual state of everyday lived experience which seeks the
enchantment of our current condition rather than a romanticized anachronism.
Where more traditional Pagans venerate the natural world and seek places
untouched by human endeavour, Technopagans specifically utilize modern
technologies and their products in their search for the numinous. “Generally
occultists do not condemn scientific progress or modernity. Rather, they try
99
fantasy and belief
to integrate it within a global vision that will serve to make the vacuousness of
materialism more apparent.”216
Overview
This chapter has begun the circumambulation of the Otherkin by viewing

the fantastic creatures of mythology and fantasy and some of the occultural
paradigms that engage with the non-human and the superhuman. As both
areas are extremely large, have significantly long histories, as well as copious
academic discussion and analysis, I have focused upon highlights only, with a
view to establishing the implications of such creatures and possible parallels
of engagement viewable within the occultural world. There are a number of
relevant points that emerge here that are suggestive in relation to the situation
of Otherkin-type approaches to the self.
First, it is clear that fantasy narrative has become commonplace across media
forms. While fantasy narrative of various types has a history as long as the
written word, in recent years there has been a veritable explosion of such texts.
Not only through books, but also in film, television and games, fantasy narra-
tives are extremely popular and becoming more so. These texts tend to share
similar contents, such as the presence of magic, and the existence of non-human
sentient creatures: the kind of narrative referred to so dismissively by Ursula le
Guin as commodified fantasy. While the narratives are in themselves discrete,
their continual use of shared themes creates a sense of continuity between texts
and a consistent, if expanded, sense of the world.
The second point is that there is a noticeable shift in the nature of the represen-
tations of the non- and super-human. Where earlier narratives tended to posit
a fairly clear division between good and evil, human and other, or benign and
monstrous, recent texts are rather tending towards a position that emphasizes
plurality and relativism. Thus, the werewolves, vampires and dragons and all have
moved away from their traditional location as the enemies of humanity – those
senseless beasts bent on the destruction of humanity – and have generally become
more complex, multifaceted, and self-conscious persons in their own right.
This shift in representation suggests the third point of relevance here: that
this process actually constitutes what is effectively a humanization of the other.
Where in earlier texts the emphasis is laid upon the gap between the human and
the other, in these more recent representations, the other becomes humanlike
in its complexity. Dragons get lonely, vampires want a lasting and loving rela-
tionship, superhumans seek social acceptance, and demons have friends. This
situation effectively includes the other within notions of humanity, if admittedly
not the human itself.
Fourth, outside of the confines of fictional narrative, occulture and its
various themes and ideologies are becoming far more commonplace within
100
every day lived experience. They are increasingly accessible through geographi-
cally emplaced groups and access points such as bookstores, alternative healing
centres, and the like. Probably more importantly, mass media forms have pro-
vided access through simple additions such as the astrology section in news-
papers, not to mention the huge increase in accessibility that the internet has
afforded. Such a situation presumably has the corollary effect of reducing any
perceived risk in engaging with such notions for all that they are still held in
low esteem by many.
The increasing commonplaceness of occultural ideologies brings me to my
fifth point, which is the relationship between fictional narrative and occultural
ideologies. Fundamentally, the former embeds itself with ease within the latter,
although, as already noted, the relationship is in practice reciprocal. Methods
of magic utilized within fictional texts are in turn used by practitioners, while
authors turn to various occultural traditions to support their own fictional crea-
tions. This effectively creates a continuity in the body of lore, and, given this
situation, it is no surprise that individuals might find fiction as useful a source
for magical and metaphysical inquiry as non-fiction texts. Tolkien, in discussing
fantasy, noted that of crucial importance to fantasy is “The Mystical towards
the Supernatural; the Magical towards nature; and the Mirror of scorn and pity
towards Man.”217 This understanding is mirrored clearly within the rhetoric of
alternative spirituality, most notably Paganism, and also articulates succinctly
why these two bodies of knowledge are such comfortable bedfellows.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the circumstances of the Otherkin
that is evident here is the roughly simultaneous processes of, on the one hand,
the humanization of the non- and super-human, and on the other, the increase
in spiritual rhetoric surrounding the extension of the human. Although such
logics have been evident for some time within particular sub-cultural rhetoric,
the expansion of occultural influence and interest has made such ideologies far
more commonplace.
The fundamental premise of the Otherkin, that participants feel themselves
to be in some way non-human or more than human, is indicative of a radical
realignment of notions of the self. Simultaneously, such a premise highlights
the absolute centrality of subjectivity and interiority while positing a species/
soul division with the vast majority of humanity. The presence and priority of
subjectivity and interiority is relatively common in Western alternative spir-
itualities,218 as is the internal attribution of outsider status. What is unusual is
the explicit equation of the self with the non- or super-human. Such attribu-
tion effectively entails the extension or expansion of the bounds of the self,
and involves a profound reinterpretation of the self in relation to the psyche
and/or soul and spirit at the very least. In such a context, it is impossible to
ignore the intentional element of identity construction associated with their
beliefs. It could be said that, within the Otherkin community, explicit identity
construction is not only the primary content, but also the primary connection
101
fantasy and belief
between the individuals involved. That they may build a spirituality, metaphysic
or ontology is almost peripheral, occurring around the primary edifice of a
non-human, or more-than-human, status. Indeed, from the outset, the rubric
“Otherkin” denotes one who understands oneself as “something other than
human”,219 which leads clearly to a position that queries what then constitutes
the individual self. Participants, in their various individual ways, are reassess-
ing their sense of self, their sense of humanity and their sense of embodiment.
102
Chapter 4
ThE INTErNET AND popuLAr CuLTurES:

SourCES oF CoNTExT
Moving on from some of the sources of content for the Otherkin and other like
beliefs, this chapter completes the circumambulation of the Otherkin through
an exploration of relevant elements of the online world and contemporary
popular culture. Here, the focus is upon the context of Otherkin approaches to,
and in, the world, rather than the content of these types of beliefs. This chapter
tracks a path through the contemporary popular cultures and associated media
in order to reveal some of the developments in communication and engagement
that may be constitutive of Otherkin-type ontologies. By tracing these various
influences, it can be seen that the Otherkin are by no means occupying some
sort of obscure cultural cul-de-sac, but rather that they are one particular, if
admittedly idiosyncratic, manifestation of significant broader cultural shifts.
Arguably the most important of those is the development and mass populariza-
tion of the internet and attendant digital cultures.
Digital communications, indeed the very nature of online engagement,
attenuate and expand the sense of the self beyond the bounds of the body. Not
just online communication forms, but also online participatory forums such as
multi-user domains (MUDs), massively multi-user online role-playing games
(MMORPGs), and even open digital worlds such as Second Life, provide tex-
tually and graphically rich extensions of the self. These spaces, and the behav-
iours within them, in turn extend and expand upon a long-standing literature
of the non-human and the superhuman, simultaneously integrating both the
content and providing virtual instance of the veracity of such extensions of the
self. Concurrently, the rise of individualism and the postmodern bent towards
self-conscious syncretism has been both supported and facilitated by modes
of virtual engagement. The “othering” of individuals holding to unusual beliefs
or practices is slowly giving way to the development of outsider cultures as
online communications puts people in contact with other likeminded individu-
als previously distanced, no matter how obscure their shared beliefs or interests
103
fantasy and belief
may be. The likelihood of locating others who share any particular philosophy
is increased many times over by the use of the internet, as the instance of the
Otherkin attests.
Underlying much of online behaviour is a process of world creation. Simil-
arly, the Otherkin and groups like it demonstrate a persistent affinity for
alternative worlds, both of their own and others creation. The vivid fictional
worlds created within textual and cinematic fantasy discussed in the previous
chapter have been both expanded upon and supported by online engagement.
From the internet itself, taken as a whole, we have a fully functional intangi-
ble virtual world within which actions can have effect within fleshy reality.
Particular bounded spaces online, such as games (World of Warcraft, Ultima,
Neverwinter, Anarchy Online, etc.) and social networking sites (Facebook,
Second Life, etc.), all in effect create their own micro-realities that are both
discrete and continuous with the broader culture within which they occur.
These many faceted virtual spaces are persuasive not just in the capacity to
effect change within the world via virtual economics and so on, but also that
the experience can be shared. Further, to varying degrees these worlds intrude
upon, and are affected by, everyday tangible reality. Through an exploration
of particular elements of contemporary popular culture, in particular world
creation, fan cultures, and remix ideologies, it can be seen that in many ways
the Otherkin and other, similar metaphysics are actually extremely well aligned
within the developments of contemporary popular culture, and that there are
actually clear continuities between Otherkin-type metaphysics and their more
secular cultural counterparts.
online engAgement
The internet is accelerating the decentering of the self. It is conditioning

people to living as multiple selves, freed from the traditional constraints
of geographically bound communities. It is fostering a measure of anar-
chistic transcendence of the modern social order.1
As has already been noted, the Otherkin exist primarily as a community in

an online context. Any view of the Otherkin, or indeed any online religious
or spiritual community, would be ill served by analysis without recourse to
a broader understanding of online engagement,2 viewing both the practical
and perceptual ramifications of the medium. While the practices and beliefs
of the type manifested by the Otherkin are in no ways limited to the online
world, much of the community itself exists only online. Beyond this, the modes
of communication native to online interaction are, in themselves, important
constituent aspects in the creation of these types of metaphysic. From the basic
perceptual realities of the internet, communicating through text and image
104
the internet and popular cultures
removed at least a degree from the fleshy reality, through to the use of avatars
in virtual worlds, the internet is something of a playground for remaking and
representing the self as one desires.
That the Otherkin community interacts largely in the worlds of cyber-
space is neither surprising nor unique. Religious communities, information
and practices abound online,3 and have since the internet’s inception,4 with
many dedicated sites representing and supporting both traditional and alter-
native religious behaviour.5 Although in recent years established churches and
communities have made their presence felt online,6 it is particularly “those
individuals and groups who wish to ‘be’ religious outside the control of an
organized religious institution”7 that are so well facilitated by the nature of
online engagement.
In cyberspace there is a cornucopia of spiritual teachers, communi-

ties, ideas, and practices. With little more that a click of the mouse
the spiritual seeker can travel across continents, explore the world’s
religions, happen upon new spiritualities, stumble upon perceived
“heresy”, encounter the paranormal, experience an online ritual, enjoy
fellowship with other believers, and download esoteric sigils.8
In this eclectic landscape it is unsurprising that the Otherkin and other similarly
obscure beliefs have found a comfortable home. Further, it is not just com-
munity interaction that is facilitated by the internet, but also the very beliefs
espoused by Otherkin are, in some respects, supported by the notion of an
affective disembodied presence. The veracity of such notions is reinforced by
day-to-day interactions online, where the disjunct between the physical expe-
rience of computer use (i.e. sitting in front of a screen) is belied by the actual
effects of virtual actions such as online banking, shopping and engaging in
virtual community. Correspondingly, the distinctions between the “actual”
tangible world, a “virtual” intangible world that is verifiably efficacious, and
internal worlds that are personally meaningful, have become far more fluid.
This expansion of perceived realities has had great impact on both the sense
and the presentation of the self.9
The online world has become one of the prime locales for the promulgation
and practice of contemporary religion and spirituality,10 with religious groups
forming online as early as the 1980s.11 In 2001, already 28 million Americans
were accessing religious and spiritual material online, a figure that was at that
time twenty-five per cent of internet users in the US.12 Religiously oriented
online behaviours have been divided into two broad categories: religion online
and online religion.13 Religion online effectively constitutes the online expres-
sion of religious content. This content might be anything from the physical
address of the local church to the text of a sermon given last week, a discussion
of Pagan interpretations of environmentalism or basic information regarding
105
fantasy and belief
the central tenets of any given belief system. On the other hand, online religion
refers to the actual practice of religion within a virtual environment. Examples
of this range from virtual altars, 3D churches through to real time virtual ritual.
The distinction here is fundamentally between theory and practice. If one talks
about religion online it is “religion online”, whereas if you practise religion
online, it is “online religion”. It is interesting to note that Cowan and Hadden,
in their excellent paper “Virtually Religious: New Religious Movements and
the World Wide Web”, specify that religion online constitutes “information and
services related to religious groups and traditions which are already established
and operating offline” (my emphasis).14 There is something of a gap between
the provision of information about offline groups and the virtual practice of
religion, and there is a whole raft of spiritual and religious behaviours that
fall between the two. While this gap has been acknowledged in recent years,
researchers are still coming to grips with the complexity of the situation.15
To situate the Otherkin in one or the other category is somewhat fraught as,
while the sources viewed in this book all fall within the category of supplying
information rather than forums for practice, their minimal offline presence
suggests that the rubric of “religion online” is perhaps misleading. Also, given
the methodological limitations of this research and its reliance upon docu-
ment analysis that does not include the observation of nominally private or
“members only” areas,16 it is entirely possible that this study has simply missed
instances of Otherkin engaging in “online religion”. In addition, groups like the
Otherkin highlight the question of whether we can even theoretically maintain
a separation between the discussion and practice of religion. To take a hypo-
thetical instance: if an individual Otherkin has the soul of an elf, and, within the
context of a virtual world, has an avatar representing him- or herself as an elf,
does behaviour in this form constitute an extension of their spiritual activity, a
playful role separate from their identity as an Otherkin, a virtualized manifesta-
tion of their psyche, or engagement with a reality more truly representative than
their offline existence? Does the mere existence of such avatars imply practice
within an Otherkin context? While such questions can only be answered on an
individual level, they demonstrate the degree to which such differing interpreta-
tions significantly alter the situation within either category, and reveal the gap
between the two theoretical kinds of online religious presence. For the moment,
suffice it to say that the space between the form and the forum of online religi-
osity has in itself the potential for much religious creativity.
The huge spread of religiously and spiritually oriented online information,
communities and practices is clear from the simplest Google search, but is
nowhere more obvious than in relation to alternative religions and spirituali-
ties. The internet has proved to support and encourage not just new methods of
communication, but also subtly promotes alternative constructions of the self.
Indeed, one of the major concerns of researchers in online cultures has been with
its impact on personal identity.17 The idea of avatars, for instance, encourages
106
self-association with non-tactile, distanced representations of the self. Further,

representations of the self in an online context are, at least to a greater degree
than in face-to-face communication, intentional and self edited (or not) at the
discretion of the participant. As such, identity construction and self-representa-
tion take on a distinctly different flavour when considered online rather than off.
There are some particularly notable factors relevant to self-expression and
identity specific to the internet.18 First, the potential for anonymity often asso-
ciated with online interaction minimizes the need to represent the self in the
ways socially endorsed within one’s everyday lived experience of the physi-
cal world. This freedom arguably becomes more relevant the more deviant an
individual’s interests are from the perceived norm. In the case of the Otherkin,
it seems likely that this point is of central importance in the creation of the
community in light of the comparative ease with which one may represent one’s
“true”19 self within a digital context. Second, the capacity to find like-minded
individuals engaging in almost any conceivable area of interest allows individu-
als access to identity-relevant groups that may well be beyond the pragmatics
of their offline lives. Again, it would seem likely that this factor is indicated
in the Otherkin presence online. Beyond these two points, issues of social
anxiety, physical appearance or incapacity are highly ameliorated by online
interaction in a positive fashion in relation to the individual psyche. Indeed,
one of the major appeals of digital interaction is the degree of control afforded
over issues of embodiment:20 “avatars afford control not only over appearance
but also over behavioural expression, thereby potentially avoiding the pitfalls
of nonverbal leakage that can occur in both face-to-face and video-mediated
communication”.21
The implications of such control go far beyond issues of socially unaccept-
able stigmata such as physical deformity when seen in light of Otherkin-type
beliefs: an elf who is forced to wear a human physical body is potentially allowed
virtual representation of their “true” self in ways far beyond the scope of what
was previously available.
Concomitant with the internal freedoms facilitated by online interaction are
diminishing perceptual distances within the physical world. One of the more
obvious elements of online cultures and communities is the lack of emphasis
upon geographical boundedness. While this element has been both applauded
and bemoaned depending on the utopic or dystopic orientation of the theo-
rist,22 it is undeniable that online communications have restructured the social
world. Like railroads, highways and planes, these technologies of extension have
altered the way in which we perceive,23 act within spaces and interact with indi-
viduals. This movement towards non-geographically situated social networking
is, while distinct from older notions of community, nonetheless compelling in
its veracity for users. “As we take on specific roles in our lives … we also take on
specific communities – of practice, kinship, audience membership. We identify
with different and plural communities, networks and social worlds.”24
107
fantasy and belief
These plural communities reflect not just an increasing flexibility between

forums of interaction, but the active choice of individuals to associate across
many groups in ways they can tailor to their own needs. Earlier theories of
cultural and sub-cultural capital effectively posited a hierarchy, no matter how
specifically located within a community, which participants could diverge from
or conform to more or less at their choice. The generally unbounded nature of
online communities make such notions of capital obsolete for all intents and
purposes insofar as the individual has a historically unrivalled opportunity to
engage in as many various, even potentially opposing or mutually exclusive,
communities as one wills without particular fear of rejection, persecution, or
even just loss of social or cultural standing. This is not to say that cultural
capital is irrelevant within any given community, far from it, but rather that
the individual’s capacity to move between communities de-emphasizes any one
particular set of social or cultural credentials. Thus an Otherkin, or any other
participant, is able, should they choose, to be active members within that com-
munity while engaging in other forums in which their personal metaphysic
might be considered unacceptable. Further, they are able to do so within a
highly controlled context where it is unlikely to bring about negative reper-
cussions outside of said context. This type of networked engagement may
encourage a streamlining of self-expression, but is inversely paralleled by the
capacity to participate in a far broader spread of interest-based communities.
These interest-based communities will be discussed in more detail below within
the context of fan cultures. “In our lives on the screen, people are developing
ideas about identity as multiplicity through new social practices of identity as
multiplicity.”25
Another way in which the internet has facilitated a shift and expansion of
notions of community and identity is through its heavy emphasis upon textual
and graphic self-representation. While real-time video is certainly used online,
epitomized by tools such as Skype, a huge portion of online depiction is sourced
from either literally what one chooses to say about oneself, or pictures or avatars
chosen as virtual portrayal of the self. These particular representations of the
individual constitute not only extension in the sense of tool use, but also an
expansion of the bounds of what any individual associates with as themselves.
Paralleling the ways in which notions of self are becoming less bounded to
the body, it should be understood that “reality” has also extended somewhat
beyond the bounds of the tangible. The efficacy of virtual transactions (such as
banking, shopping and so on) displaces the emphasis on physical engagement
as the touchstone of reality. This simplest of examples is only the beginning,
however. Online gaming worlds literally affect the offline economy. Gamers pur-
chase virtual currencies on eBay,26 and artists create art within virtual worlds.27
Institutions purchase virtual islands in virtual worlds for various purposes. A
student can enrol, do assessment and complete a course online without ever
needing to be physically present. The perceptual shift away from the equation
108
of the real with the tangible is not only interesting, but is becoming increas-
ingly essential to incorporate into personal strategies of engagement with the
world. What was once a laudably clear and grounded view of reality increas-
ingly appears as a social and cultural liability in the face of the proliferation of
spheres of engagement.
For all that digital experience is at least theoretically so distinct from the
practice of being in the fleshy world, individual engagement does not mirror
such divisions. Phenomenologically speaking, online experience is generally
considered uninterrupted with its offline counterpart: it is continuous rather
than discontinuous.28 Participants are usually not particularly distinguishing
between their online and offline experiences,29 and it is essential to understand
that “our virtual identities and experiences are not separate from our identi-
ties and experiences in the material world.”30 Noting the trend in relation to
games, Nick Yee points out that “most users are simply being themselves rather
than experimenting with new identities or personalities.”31 While there are far
reaching implications intrinsic to these new modes of communication, such
implications are generally of a secondary importance, if any at all, to the indi-
viduals who just live the processes.
Users do not concern themselves much with the “reality” of their virtual
activities, even when intensely engaged in disembodied communica-
tions through imaginary bodies in fantastic places. The real/virtual life
distinction, broached so often in academic discussions of the internet,
is sidelined by the experience that “everything that is experienced is
real”.32
It is necessary to reiterate clearly here that, firstly, the internet and digital
communications are significantly affecting and challenging earlier assump-
tions relating to the self and community, and secondly, the generally uncon-
scious nature of these processes in practical terms. For instance, while an
individual may perceptually associate with an avatar, they are not necessarily
consciously thinking “oh my god, I am now a collection of pixels as well as
cells”. Individuals are internalizing these new modes of interaction and exten-
sion, not theorizing them.
A multiplicity oF woRlDs
Fantasy, the making or glimpsing of Other-worlds, was the heart of the

desire of Faërie.33
Taking up the element of world creation and the proliferation of realities so

noticeable in regards to the internet, it is worth digressing somewhat into a
109
fantasy and belief
broader discussion of the creation of, and engagement with, intangible worlds
so as to contextualize the specific manifestation of virtual worlds and environ-
ments. These various forms of world creation imbricate in such a way as to
support the creation of metaphysics like those of the Otherkin. From fantasy
literature are taken the icons and concepts so evident within the ontology;
as discussed in the previous chapter, occultural, religious and spiritual cos-
mologies assert the veracity and truth of multiple intangible realities; and many
virtual worlds provide everyday access to, and possible immersion in, persistent
discrete worlds comprised of the same general subject matter. Thus a meander
through these various worlds will illuminate both the spread of relevant con-
cepts as well as the correlations between these different fields of endeavour.
Virtual worlds
Virtualisation reinvents a nomadic culture, not through a return to

the Paleolithic or to the early pastoral civilizations, but by creating a
medium of social interaction in which relations reconfigure themselves
with a minimum of inertia … Virtualisation comes as a shock to the tra-
ditional narrative, incorporating temporal unity without spatial unity
… continuity of action coupled with discontinuous time.34
Much of popular culture’s conceptualization of cyberworlds can be traced,

for instance, to the bleak techno-dystopia presented in William Gibson’s
Neuromancer,35 dealing as it does with issues of artificial intelligence, embod-
ied presence in virtual worlds36 and disembodiment. The idea of virtual reality
has even been credited to Huxley’s Brave New World,37 although there is no
question that science fiction writers, as well as computer technicians, have since
expanded upon the idea. In the particular case of the internet, it would seem
that the new spaces afforded by virtual interaction owe as much to the specu-
lation and imaginings of science fiction authors as to the skill of information
technology specialists.
Quite predictably, use of the term “virtual” is both pervasive and problem-
atic. Consensus definitions are once again absent, and yet the term has become
a constant appellation in relation to internet-based concepts. Often tacitly
used in binary opposition to “real”, it can infer inappropriate connotations of
unreality.38 In light of the particular areas of interest in this book it is further
confused by the integral distinction drawn between virtual worlds, understood
as “a world rendered by a computer”,39 and, for instance, possible or terti-
ary worlds, the conceptual worlds created by narrative. Both types of worlds
are physically intangible, (hopefully) immersive and (occasionally) evoca-
tive. The distinction, then, is one of medium. Another distinguishing factor
is that, while possible worlds may be engaged with by multiple individuals
110
– by reading the same book, for instance40 – socialization around this fact
only occurs at a degree of removal. Individuals may discuss a text, but the
actual immersion occurs in personal or small group context. On the other
hand, going to the movies, for instance, creates a group experience of a pos-
sible world, but not one that is constituted in relation to other individuals.
Then there are virtual worlds such as represented by various MMORPGs, for
instance, which in effect creates a virtualized version of a tertiary world within
which individuals act, interact, and in doing so become co-creators of action
within the bounded virtual space.
It should be noted that there is a swath of philosophical inquiry and argu-
ment into the technical nature of the “virtual” as distinct from, say, the “actual”,
“possible”, or “real”. Theorists such as Deleuze41 and Levy42 have approached this
issue, with Levy, for instance, locating the notion of the virtual in that it “tends
towards actualisation, without undergoing any form of effective of formal con-
cretisation”.43 Such discussions tend to hold, in varying positions, a notion of
simulacra44 as the unreal.45 Arguments pertaining to the real and the unreal,
simulacra, or the hyperreal warrant a cautious approach in as far as they often
imply a strong bias either for or against the virtual. As Murray so insightfully
points out, “Our dismay at … the ‘hyperreal’ quality of American life, derives
simply from the fact that we need time to get used to any increase in represen-
tational power.”46 Further, discussions such as this open into problematic areas,
as what is the human word, real or intangible, if not one designed and struc-
tured.47 While such philosophizing is both fascinating and necessary, it strays
too far from the locus of this discussion to be of significant use. However, to
briefly establish precisely what is here being referred to by virtual worlds, I take
my cue from Calleja, understanding that “Virtual environments are computer
generated domains which create a perception of space and permit modification
through the exertion of agency … Virtual worlds are composite assemblages of
persistent, multi-user virtual environments extending over a vast geographical
expanse.”48 This approach limits virtual environments and worlds to those that
enable agency, and further allows a division between such virtual worlds and
other online spaces such as chat rooms or web pages. It also has the benefit of
specifying the computer generated nature of the virtual in this context, and
allows for an articulated distinction between, say, metaphysical worlds or possi-
ble worlds in this context. Predominantly, when using the term “virtual worlds”,
I am referring to MMORPGs or specific locales such as Secondlife. In these
forums, participants use an avatar within a computer generated environment
which is graphically rich and in which they can interact with other individuals:
“Virtual worlds are places where the imaginary meets the real.”49
One particularly interesting aspect of late modern visual narrative is the
exponential increase in our capacity to represent the fantastic with the growing
use and facility of computer graphics. Commenting in 1965, Tolkien notes that
the “Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking
111
fantasy and belief
animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy.”50
The use of digital media for computer generated imagery has begun to allow
for representations of fantasy to appear outside of the literary context which are
by no means limited to buffoonery or mimicry. This facility is evident within
many aspects of online culture, but nowhere more obvious than in the context
of games. Games have become massively popular, now second only to television
in terms of home entertainment.51
Online gaming represents a significant portion of online interaction. MUDs
have been present since the 1970s (the first was made in 1979)52 and devel-
oped contemporaneously with the better-known face-to-face RPGs.53 More
recently, increasing sophisticated technology has allowed for the development
of MMORPGs, and participants in these worlds often number in the hundreds
of thousands,54 if not millions.55 MMORPGs constitute the most significant
common form of persistent discrete virtual worlds,56 and so will serve here as
the locus of discussion. It should be noted, however, that other types of virtual
worlds such as Second Life may achieve many of the same phenomenological
effects without the explicit narrative component evident within games. “The
age-old desire to live out a fantasy aroused by a fictional world has been inten-
sified by a participatory, immersive medium that promises to satisfy it more
completely than has ever before been possible.”57
Take World of Warcraft, for instance. While but one of the many MMORPGs,
World of Warcraft provides a clear instance of the translation of fantasy topoi
into a virtual world, as well as demonstrating a fundamental intertextuality.58 It
has been noted that Lord of the Rings is in fact the single most implicated fiction
in relation to virtual worlds,59 and this is clearly evident within the context of
World of Warcraft. The basic structure and approach of Tolkien’s work have
been paralleled in the game.60 Not just in the sense of a heroic quest in a fantasy
world, but in the multiple races, their individual histories, their vividly realized
territories, and their varying cultural tendencies. In World of Warcraft, there
are ten different races players must choose from, including elves, dwarves, orcs,
trolls, gnomes, and humans.61 The game has seasons, festivals,62 religions of the
moon – many of which parallel real world celebrations, and some of which are
game specific.
One significant distinction between methods of engagement within fantasy
worlds lies in “non-linearity and player agency”.63 In more traditional narra-
tives contexts, readers and audiences access the text in a linear fashion, walking
through episodes from beginning to end, engaging in the narrative arc as a
whole. In games, on the other hand, engagement with the narrative may be
non-linear, chosen at the discretion of the individual player. While this is the
case with offline RPGs as well, in MMORPGs the non-linearity is enhanced by
the very persistence of the world: individuals can literally just wander around
inside them.
112
Online games, while proving to be extremely popular, are nonetheless often

devalued due to their status as entertainment. Again, however, this view ignores
not only the investment of time and, often, money participants are willing to
give, but also the emotional engagement and social aspects of the worlds that
are clearly of central import to many users. One issue that seems to be recur-
ring revolves around a sense of validity, of experience, above all, of authenticity
within these spaces. Studies such as Kluver and Chen’s, of the Church of Fools,
come to the conclusion that the virtual spaces are only simulacra,64 that the
virtual spaces cannot achieve the necessary sense of presence and immersion
available in the offline world. And yet, millions of individuals choose to spend
significant portions of their lives within these virtual worlds, and would argue
strenuously against any devaluation of the practice.
For all of this theorizing and abstracted categories of ontology, it is worth
reiterating the phenomenological position in which the user’s experience is
highlighted rather than this secondary stance. Fundamentally, as Markham65
so accurately noted over a decade ago, most participants’ personal experience
of online states is a far cry from the types of rhetoric surrounding the academic
study of the same.
As an aside, it is also worth noting that the usual stereotype of the teenage
boy geek gamer – the Western otaku – is not actually supported by the data
available. In a study spanning four years and incorporating 30,000 users,66 Yee
found that only twenty-five per cent of MMORPG participants were in their
teens, with participant ages ranging from eleven to sixty-eight years old, the
average age being twenty-six.67 Yee also raises the noteworthy point that, as the
participants surveyed come from a vast range of demographics, their interac-
tion highlights the development of traditionally unlikely relationships.68 Inter-
estingly, this stereotype is paralleled by the usual image of the participants in
new or alternative religion, that they are often young, as well as “social losers
and marginal types”.69 Just as equally, the stereotype does not bear much rela-
tion to the actuality, and participants are drawn from many demographics. In
a recent study of New Age and holistic beliefs in a particular locale, it was been
noted that the majority of participants were over forty-five years of age.70 In
a similar vein, respondents to the Otherkin survey were far more likely to be
adults rather than teenagers, with eighty-six per cent of respondents over the
age of eighteen.
Two particular mechanisms through which discrete tertiary worlds percep-
tually embed themselves within the broader world are of particular interest
here. Firstly, it is done within the worlds through use of icons, or more obvious
uses of intertextuality through explicit borrowing and importation of locales
or events. In World of Warcraft, for instance, the image of the Wicker Man is
included in a seasonally appropriate context.71 Not only does this icon reference
classical history, but within the game, quests around the event have references to
113
fantasy and belief
the 1973 film of the same name.72 These types of intertextuality create a percep-
tual continuity between the fantasy world and the everyday, as well as between
disparate popular culture narratives. The other notable method through which
such discrete worlds embed is through multiple points of access.
Many of these virtual worlds extend far beyond the bounds of the enclosed
world insofar as the same tertiary world can be accessed through many portals.
This process, only relatively recently acknowledged as a significant direction for
contemporary media, is implicated within the broader context of convergence.
While immensely complex and, frankly, still only in its infancy, the recent ten-
dency towards convergence across both the mechanisms and the content of
media allows, for instance, the same narratives to be engaged in across multi-
ple formats (see, for instance, the Lord of the Rings books, films, board games,
computer games, etc.). This is but one element of a larger process, broadly
understood as the “situation in which multiple media systems coexist and
where media content flows fluidly across them. Convergence is … an ongoing
process or series of intersections between different media systems, not a fixed
relationship.”73
One result of media convergence and narrative access via multiple mediums
is the way in which it tends to reinforce the potential for immersion within a
given narrative. An individual reads the book and watches the film. Then he
or she plays the game as a central character. Or alternatively he or she actu-
ally plays a peripheral character and so accesses new elements of the narrative
beyond the arc of the original text. The tendency towards convergence is not just
manifest in corporations locating new media forums through which to market
their goods, however. On the contrary, much of the manifestation of conver-
gence happens well outside of the control of such bodies. Take, for instance,
the phenomenon of Wizard Rock. A recent documentary, We Are Wizards,74
explored elements of Harry Potter fandom. These included the development
of bands such as “Harry and the Potters” and “Draco and the Malfoys” and
their thriving, if youthful and library-oriented, audiences. These bands write
music from the perspective of the characters themselves, giving audiences an
opportunity to hear the internal narratives of characters outside of the texts and
extending their characterization. This type of cultural development implicitly
breaks down the phenomenological boundaries of the fictive and the real.
In such ways the mega-text is expanded and fleshed out, and the boundaries
of the narrative diminish as the fictional world becomes further populated
within and without of the text. Access to these various mega-texts through dif-
ferent media, and indeed even outside of media, allows for more prolonged and
depth engagement with the relevant material. Until recently more the province
of fan cultures and geeks, such convergence has now entered the realms of the
mainstream. “The ease of mobility between concepts in literary fiction and
culture-shaping communication technologies is perhaps one of the most telling
aspects of virtuality in our time.”75
114
possible AnD FictionAl woRlDs
All writers of creative fiction are subcreators of Secondary Worlds.

The Secondary World of a non-fantastic writer will be as close to the
Primary World as his talents and the needs of his art will allow … A
licence is granted to writers of ‘normal’ creative fiction to change the
Primary World for the purpose of their art. Fantasy begins when an
author’s Secondary World goes beyond that licence and becomes ‘other’
… Such a subcreation should be called a Tertiary World.76
Many virtual worlds utilize fantasy topoi to create worlds and populate them
with inhabitants. It should also be noted that, in relation to science fiction,
the created world itself is generally a central character within the narrative,77
and this point can also be applied to fantasy. It is reasonable to assume that a
significant element of the attraction of fantasy for readers, viewers and gamers
is the created worlds themselves.
Created immersive worlds are by no means a product of the burgeoning
digital era.78 Mythology, for instance, has long supplied us with narratives
replete with worlds extended far beyond the tangible and rational. Typically,
mythology tends to represent this world as continuous with the realms of the
divine or other: thus deities and fabulous creatures tend to be geographically
located, albeit somewhat removed from the everyday world of human inter-
action. In this it is somewhat distinct from contemporary fantasy, where the
tertiary world tends to be discrete. Tolkien, for instance, despised the use of
techniques of transition to create fantasy, believing that in doing so the integrity
of the tertiary world would be lessened if not destroyed.79 Likewise, in studies
of contemporary fan cultures and texts, it has been found that a regular feature
of the narratives that gain such a fervent following is the massive scope of the
created worlds coupled with a well maintained internal consistency.
Cult80 narrative, meaning those that inspire a dedicated and sometime fanati-
cal following, “constructs immensely detailed, often fantastic, narrative worlds
which we as viewers can never fully encounter”.81 Fantasy narrative achieves
the same sense of fully populated worlds which, phenomenologically speaking,
exist beyond the bounds of the narrative occasion of the actual text. This massive
world creation, this potentially limitless horizon line, gives some indication as
to why these types of narrative are so well suited to passionate and sustained
engagement. Such a form of world creation, called hyperdiegesis, can be under-
stood as “the creation of a vast and detailed narrative space, only a fraction of
which is ever directly seen or encountered within the text, but which neverthe-
less appears to operate according to principles of internal logic and extension”.82
These hyperdigetic worlds own a mega-text83 for audiences that can func-
tion in the absence of supplied narrative: fans may, for instance, extend upon
extant text as happens within fan fiction, or extrapolate responses by characters
115
fantasy and belief
not clearly depicted within the text, such as can be seen in slash fiction.84 The
hyperdigetic world must be consistent for it to function, or engagement with
the mega-text becomes frustrating, if not impossible. By and large, fantasy nar-
rative supplies massive, detailed worlds of which only a fraction is ever directly
engaged with through the texts. “The fan-viewer treats the hyperdigetic world
as a space through which the management of identity can be undertaken … its
role is also … one of stimulating creative speculation and providing a trusted
environment for affective play.”85
To take one instance of how such hyperdigetic worlds can retain integrity
while being intertextual, it is worth looking at the example of the multiverse: a
fictional framework within which numerous realities co-exist. The idea, popu-
larized in a number of works such as those of Michael Moorcock from the
early 1960s,86 is essentially one of parallel universes wherein all possibilities
are allowed existence.87 Numerous other writers have utilized this theme: most
notable in this context is Pratchett’s idea of the “trousers of time”, which is
played out in many of the Discworld novels.88 While the minutiae of these
various literary constructions can differ, those engaging in the idea of the mul-
tiverse tend to suggest an inclusivity that is both unusual and suggestive. The
idea may denote parallel universes in the sense of infinite worlds in which every
possible course of action is played out.
What is of particular interest in this notion is the way in which the idea
of the multiverse opens up the potential for massive intertextuality, and to a
degree paves the way for a macro structure that interweaves disparate worlds
without damaging the integrity of each individual constructed reality. In such
contexts, it is possible to have an immersive fantasy (denoted by the narrative
being set entirely within a tertiary world)89 maintain its integral hyperdigetic
structure while holding the potential for access to other discrete hyperdigetic
worlds. Such a construction provides a clear example of how multiple tertiary
worlds can imbricate without destroying their perceptual validity and integrity.
FAns AnD communities oF AppReciAtion
The increasing cosmopolitanism of the global culture industry today

greatly expands the repertoire of resources for the formation of group
identities, within the West as well as outside it.90
Online engagement has facilitated the growth of many previously unaccept-

able or outré practices, not just limited to the world of alternative beliefs and
spiritualities. One pertinent instance of this may be seen by the expansion and
increasing acceptability of fan cultures and knowledges. These types of commu-
nities are predicated upon avid appreciation of content of whatever form, and
often transcend usual demographic divisions. In recent times, fans have shifted
116
out from the “invisible margins of popular culture and into the centre of current
thinking about media production and consumption”.91 Most visible through
conventions and the like, there are a plethora of forums available for people to
share their love for the content of their choice, to deconstruct, to discuss, and
even sometimes to dress up. “Everyone knows what a ‘fan’ is. It’s somebody
who is obsessed with a particular star, celebrity, film, TV programme, band;
somebody who can produce reams of information of their object of fandom,
and can quote their favoured lines of lyrics, chapter and verse.”92
Fan behaviours demonstrate striking similarities to groups such as the
Otherkin and Jediism, both in content and structure. The type of popular
culture texts appreciated, such as science fiction, fantasy, horror, cyberpunk and
more, are paralleled between the two areas of endeavour. Similarly, community
in both these cases is predicated in shared interest rather than more pragmatic
considerations such as geography, lifestyle, or age. These factors suggest that
not only are there parallels that may shed light upon Otherkin-type practices
and beliefs, but also that the distinctions between the two areas of interest may
yield a more clear situation of the Otherkin and other such groups.
Understandings of fan cultures have significantly developed in recent years.
No longer is the fan relegated to the margins of the social world, nor are they
considered passive consumer dupes. Audiences are “active, critically aware, and
discriminating”.93 If anything, these days fans may be seen as forerunners indica-
tive of the general direction in which contemporary digitized culture is headed,
a gauge of the soon-to-be popular. The traditional stereotype of the sci-fi nerd,
the classic image of the otaku, has moved away from a negative towards a posi-
tive stereotype as the skill bases associated with the characterization increase
in perceived value. Specialist knowledge of particular content, a willingness to
trawl through obscure source material, and passionate interest have all become
boons rather banes within contemporary digitized culture. Digital culture has
allowed fans to be visible,94 to share their own creative content, and to do so
with an often appreciative audience.
Although fan cultures can be seen to cover a vast range of interests, initially
these types of groups were most strongly associated with science fiction,95 and
science fiction has in turn been heavily implicated in the development of the
online world. Probably the single most well-known fan culture, Trekkies, were
already closely involved in online communication forms in the early 1990s.96
In terms of timelines of the popular use of the internet, such a presence verges
towards ancient history. Indeed, the movement to make the internet available
to the general public was spearheaded by a group of science fiction aficionados
from Harvard in the 1970s. These days, fan cultures have a far broader base, and
include under the rubric phenomena such as furries and slash fiction alongside
far more traditional fan practices.97
Fan cultures fundamentally revolve around a passionate engagement with
their content. So much so that they are often referred to, both by others and
117
fantasy and belief
among themselves, as cult fans.98 The use of this term, although contextually
referring not to religiosity but rather a religious-like appreciation or quasi-
religion, highlights the intensity of the relationship, as well as the traditional
notions of deviancy attached to it. As an aside, it is interesting to note that
within studies of fan cultures there has been a persistent difficulty in properly
deciding how seriously to take the religious element.99
Theories of fan cultures, by focusing on both formal and informal societies
of appreciation, offer an interestingly inverse approach to the issues central
here, as well as providing particular approaches that help clarify passionate
engagement with texts. Although, generally speaking, such theories treat groups
as quasi-religions,100 they are dealing with a similar convergence of devotion,
media and cultural product, as can be seen with the Otherkin. Notably useful
are some of the theoretical constructions of recent scholars that have attempted
to clarify the particular location of cult discourses within fan cultures.101 Of
particular interest is Matt Hills’s location of cultic followings premised upon
media within the religious milieu by use of his term neoreligiosity.102 From the
outset, Hills emphatically denies religiosity as a formative aspect of fan cultures,
but rather points to the shared language and characteristics to justify use of
this term.103 Particularly relevant in this case is fans’ self-conscious use of the
term “cult” in the face of its overwhelmingly negative popular connotations.104
Hills’s thesis here rests primarily upon fans’ appropriation of the “other” or
“outsider” status common to both religious and media cults, but also incor-
porates ideas of self-absence in fans’ inability to fundamentally justify why
they are fans.105 Hills’s construction of neoreligiosity is in some ways parallel to
that of quasi-religion,106 as he sees here the discourses but not the content of
religion. Primarily, then, it is the notion of deviancy that makes things “cult”, a
finding that is paralleled within religious studies of the same. What is particu-
larly interesting in both a religious and a fan context is that deviancy is often
ascribed from within as well as without of the community. Participants’ very
sense of difference, of alienation, can be constitutive of the community itself.
Thus the heavy Otherkin dialogue around the difference between them and
“mere” humans; thus the geek’s scorn for the outsider who lacks their encyclo-
paedic knowledge of contemporary media.
For Hills, the religious terminology and associations of cult fandom have
three particular reasons for existence.107 First, they allow for a broad statement
of appreciation, not a textually specific one. Second, religious discourse permits
self absence and does not demand rational explanations. Last, and somewhat
inversely, religious frameworks also allow fans to avoid classification as totally
irrational.
From the outset, Hills’s claim that fan cultures “cannot usefully be thought of
as religions”108 is important. Nor can metaphysical endeavours like those of the
Otherkin be seen as fan cultures. There is, however, common ground between
these two that pertains to the structure and the content of both. The structural
118
similarities are relatively clear; for instance, “fan communities have long defined
their memberships through affinities rather than localities”,109 a factor that is in
line with the “networked individualism”110 apparent within the Otherkin. The
interests of the Otherkin, though, highlight the commonality between the nar-
rative objects around which both such communities are formed. This mutual
interest in popular and, often, cult, narrative bespeaks the importance of the
particular nexus between passionate textual engagement and the specific appeal
of speculative worlds.
It is imperative at this point to restate the precise nature of the approach
taken to the situation of the Otherkin and other groups used in this study. I am
not positing that these groups are like religions, as has been done in many cases
such as football events111, “body beautiful” ideologies or twelve-step groups.112
The use of the category of religion in this context is not intended as a meta-
phor to demonstrate similar modes of structure, practice or communication.
These groups are actively religious insofar as their concerns are of a spiritual
and superempirical nature.113 Although such groups deviate to a degree from
the accepted or “common sense” norms of what religion is,114 they share the
primary interest in the superempirical that is arguably the only reliable linking
factor in all that falls within the category of discourse. Given that this is the case,
terms such as “quasi-religion”115 or “neoreligiosity”116 are perhaps inappropriate
to describe the nature of the groups in question in this study, as such terms are
intrinsically invested in maintaining a tension and a space between the concep-
tion of religion and the objects of study. While compelling the groups in this
study into a pre-formed ideal of religion would do them a great disservice, it
also appears that to exclude them from the field is to fundamentally misunder-
stand both their interests and their lived experience. While both quasi-religion
and neoreligiosity have much to offer in aid of interpreting obscure and fringe
groups, and indeed are essential to understanding groups as obscure as those
in this study, such theories point to the relationship with religion in order to
eventually distance those studied from it.
There are a number of striking parallels between the Otherkin and fan cul-
tures. Cult fandom tends to grow up around the same sorts of source material
as the Otherkin, Jediism and the like. Science fiction and fantasy are favourite
genres for fans, with texts inspiring particularly avid interest of both the secular
and the sacred type. These texts are also the predominant type of literature
contained within various Otherkin booklists, as well as being the most prolific
source for representations of the fantastic creatures so central to an Otherkin
worldview.
Another point where fan cultures and Otherkin-type beliefs can be seen
to meet is within the active extension of narrative. Fanzines and RPGs are
both clear examples of this sort of extension. Fanzines are “non-professional,
non-commercial fan-produced magazines or ‘zines’”.117 Often such texts will
take an already extant hyperdiegetic world and create new narratives within
119
fantasy and belief
the internal logic of the secondary world, furthering the narrative of spaces
or characters from the original text. RPGs, before the advent of the online
MMORPGs, functioned in similar ways; with participants creating original
narratives within a real time setting within a set of rules ascribed to the sec-
ondary world. Such narratives may involve continuing narrative for favourite
characters, new characters continuing within a familiar secondary world, or
perhaps mash up approaches to texts where multiple separate narrative worlds
are combined. How dedicated the creators of fan fiction can be is evinced by
instances such as the official Star Wars fan film contest.118 This type of extension
parallels that which was noted earlier in the case of the Elenari.
The main distinction that may be made between the Otherkin and fan-type
appreciation, and for the purposes here the most important, is that fan cultures
traditionally stop short of extrapolating a metaphysic from the content. In other
words, the tertiary worlds (and their inhabitants) of authorial composition stay
as such, and are not attributed existence beyond imaginative forms.
Remix and bricolage
One lens through which to view the types of engagement with texts that fans,
Otherkin, and other likeminded individuals are engaging in is encapsulated
within the notion of remix. Remix and bricolage are prevalent within the secular
areas of contemporary Western digital culture, and have come to form a huge
portion of both commodified and private textual creation. These developments
have tended to blur the role between performers and audiences, between the
creators of popular culture objects and those who enjoy them.
[Consumers are] playing a more active role in shaping the flow of media
throughout our culture, are drawn together by shared passions and
investment in specific media properties or platforms, and often create
new content by appropriating, remixing, or modifying existing media
in clever and inventive ways.119
The syncretism so apparent within the contemporary alternative spiritual world

is paralleled within the secular by this predominance and primacy of remix
culture. Unlike the direct referencing so pervasive throughout Western history,
the contemporary remix culture often utilizes radical juxtaposition in ways
extraordinarily similar to the forms of belief encapsulated within the groups
mentioned within the first chapter. This remix culture is pervasive throughout
contemporary popular media, and manifests itself in the juxtaposition of ideas.
The trend is most clearly evident within contemporary arts practice, particu-
larly within various forms of music, with DJs in particular spearheading the
trend.
120
Today’s notions of creativity and originality are configured by velocity:

it’s a blur, a constellation of styles, a knowledge and a pleasure in the
play of surfaces, a rejection of history as objective force in favour of sub-
jective interpretations of its residue, a relish for copies and repetition.120
Remix culture does not only engage with juxtaposition, but more generally with
recontextualization. The underlying premise tends to be one of exchange and
interrelation rather than the static, modernist view of the created object that
sees a work as distinct, discrete and, importantly, copyrightable. In a far more
postmodernist vein, remix cultures generally see no problem with extending,
recontextualizing, or changing the text, with or without legal permission.121 Fan
fiction, for instance, can clearly be seen as an instance of this type of attitude.
Moreover, remix culture is not a phenomena limited to only to one form
of art, or to only one subculture. It denotes a far broader shift in attitudes to
content, to authenticity, and to context. For instance, bricolage of this sort has
been implicated as an integral element of the subversion of consumerism in
subcultural contexts122 in as much as consumables are not utilized as intended,
but are reworked by individuals. In this sense objects become “owned” rather
than just purchased. Remix implies a process that extends somewhat beyond
bricolage in that it does not just juxtapose disparate content to shed light on
otherwise obscured implications, but rather uses juxtaposition to create new
artistic and popular products that are complete in and of themselves.123
This kind of process is not just evident within underground, DIY or subcul-
tural arenas, however. This tendency is also apparent within the mainstream
world of games, music, visual art and so on. An interesting example of this
tendency can be found in the Final Fantasy games by Squaresoft.124 This series
of games is of notable interest as the characters are often associated with by
Otakukin, and are regularly mentioned by some who soulbond. The games are
classic computer-based RPGs with intricate plots, involved character develop-
ment, and complex worlds. The elements that make them significant here are
numerous. Firstly, these games all have an underlying animistic and elemental
view of the world. Particularly, the Earth itself is constructed as a singular
living entity that may be harmed or killed. For instance, in Final Fantasy VII
the overall goal of the game is to protect the world from external malign influ-
ences bent on the destruction of the planet. The magical system in the game is
premised on a variant on the elemental system regularly adhered to by many
forms of contemporary occultists.125 The internal narrative of the central char-
acter is consistently one of self-actualization and realization, generally taking
the frame of a heroic quest reliant upon companions, simultaneously empha-
sizing the development of social conscience and personal power. Beyond this,
though, the radical juxtaposition within the games is most clearly evident in
the naming of characters and entities. For instance, persistently throughout
many of the games there are cameo appearances by Biggs and Wedge, two
121
fantasy and belief
fighter pilots from the original Star Wars film. There are a series of elemental
entities that are immensely powerful called, to name but a few, Shiva, Odin,
Hades, Cerberus, Ifrit, Siren and Bahamut. These entities have no necessary
relationship to the particulars of the gods and mythical beasts after which they
are named, although occasionally there is some continuity. Take Bahamut, for
instance. Attributed by Borges to Arabic tradition,126 he describes Bahamut as
a giant fish that is part of the strata of the world. In Final Fantasy, however,
Bahamut is a dragon-type creature that, in various incarnations, errs towards
the robot in form. There is no apparent connection between the water-based,
world-creating associations of the traditional image and the laser-breathing
tech dragon of the computer games. Likewise, representation of Shiva in the
computer games is similarly at odds with the traditional owner of the name.
Rather than the masculine, sexualized, creator-destroyer of Hindu mythol-
ogy,127 Final Fantasy posits Shiva as a female ice elemental. On the other hand,
the Siren character is depicted fairly closely to the original Greek image, as a
winged woman who sings to her victims in the sea.128
These games, and many others like them, are interesting on a number of
points. First, their referencing creates a consciously intertextual circumstance
between both contemporary popular culture texts and ancient mythology: they
build bridges between otherwise unrelated texts, and unashamedly borrow
from them. Second, they do so within a fantasy world with explicitly Pagan
philosophies and in-game practices. Interestingly, the various Final Fantasy
games are specifically proposed by Taylor Ellwood as offering “viable systems
of magic”.129 It seems possible that this is precisely because the magical systems
within the games develop and change over the various iterations, providing
a relatively stable interpretative framework that also includes a fair degree
of flexibility. Characters and entities reference long traditions without being
limited to them. Likewise, in this form of referencing a precedent is set for
the malleability of narrative icons, which is clearly useful from a magical
perspective.
This kind of use of sources goes far beyond simple referencing, rather
approaching the explicitly creative in the degree to which disparate narratives
and ideas are interwoven as well as radically juxtaposed. Like many recent
popular culture texts, they constitute a veritable web of references that provide
a kind of list of affiliation across fantasy texts. Beyond this web, however, there
is a demonstrable capacity to strip references of their original meaning without
necessarily losing their functions as icons. Levi-Strauss saw bricolage as impli-
cated in mythical thought,130 and this would certainly seem to be borne out in
the case of the Otherkin. Importantly, however, bricolage has become pervasive
not just in the realms of spiritual inquiry, but is becoming a constant element
of cultural production and reappropriation.
122
Consumer culture and McDonaldization
It is also important to note the complex role that consumption plays within cult
fandom and Otherkin-type beliefs alike. It has been acknowledged that “fans
are both commodity-completists and they express anti-commercial beliefs or
‘ideologies’”.131 Simply speaking, individuals are generally more interested in
the content than the object. Consumption is merely the method through which
they can access the relevant material, not the goal in and of itself. In the con-
temporary world, this has less meaning than it otherwise might previously, as
“consumer society has become the accepted model both for individual behav-
iour and political decision making.”132
It has been argued that the movement of the “subcultural frontier” is strongly
impacted by the behaviours of the subculture industry, as participants and fans
eternally seek the new, the uncommodified, outside of the framework of the
commercially available.133 Further, it is proposed that subcultural capital has
become in fact more meaningful than cultural capital within postmodern soci-
eties.134 I would, in turn, take this progression a step further, and argue that
the subcultures we have previously been taken for granted since the counter-
culture movements of the 1960s have become, with the massive acceptance of
the digital world, diffused to the point of non-existence in any practical terms.
Bearing in mind the significant overlaps between the occultural world and the
subcultural world, this progression lines up with Partridge’s assertion of the
dubious nature of classifying occulture as alternative or outside of the norm.
Much of the content is so familiar, so easily accessible, and so readily available
that to view it as some form of outsider culture seems somewhat perverse.
In reference to the late modern, digital age, however, I would propose
another variation in developing trends. The notion of a mainstream culture
coupled with the attendant yet peripheral sub-cultures, can be read as becom-
ing increasingly obsolete within the digitized world. What we term popular
cultures, be they mainstream or sub, are effectively conglomerates of knowledge
situated across disciplinary boundaries with some form of thematic coherence.
One becomes more deeply involved with any given culture as one progressively
gains information of, and access to, the associated cultural products (music,
film, fashion, literature, etc.). The nature of the internet changes this structure
as access to information is far more expansive than in previous times. Detailed
knowledge of a specific area or field is still distinct from this, but the lines
distinguishing insiders and outsiders is far more blurred than ever before. I
would even posit the gradual death of anything remotely resembling discrete
sub-cultures within the digital world, not because they don’t exist, but because
the individual has so much more scope for entirely personalized engagement
and consumption, that the inference of a limited set of monolithic cultural
groupings is entirely inappropriate to the late modern, digitized age. A more
123
fantasy and belief
appropriate characterization, perhaps, is the expansion of the bounds of the

accessible and acceptable coupled with a diminishing limin: deviance disap-
pears into either acceptability or taboo rather than maintaining an acceptably
unacceptable social ascription. This type of trend can be seen in instances of
areas that previously would have been the purview of specific subcultures being
encroached upon by the mainstream. For instance, where twenty years ago,
role-playing games would have branded the participant a geek or a Goth, these
days gamers range across all demographics, with no generally discernable loss
of cultural capital.
Fan cultures highlight one of the specific problems of talking about older
concepts of consumption in relation to contemporary behaviours in the digital
age. Fans are, yes, consumers, but the notion of the passive or receiving con-
sumer as premised in a mass media context, with the attendant assumptions of
a unidirectional information flow and the like, are simply not relevant within
an online context. All the associated negative connotations of consumption
imply both an intellectualized disdain for “stuff and things” as well as an out-
moded notion of the means of individual engagement within contemporary
society. Fan cultures represent one of the best exemplars of the shift away from
consumers as passive dupes towards individuals who actively constitute their
own pathways through the glut of source material available to them. Utilizing
judgement, taste and discernment, fans are active audiences,135 not passive con-
sumers. By referring to the pre-packaged nature and “McDonaldization”136 of
consumer-culture/popular-culture religion we oversimplify what participants
are actually doing in specific cases with such consumer goods as movies, books,
television and games. The syncretic process only starts with consumption, and
the texts may then become appropriated and subverted to the point of new
authorship.
What is fascinating about the Otherkin and other beliefs of this type is the
way in which they go beyond consumerism, and even to a degree subvert a
consumerist paradigm. While there is obviously a process of consumption that
is acted upon, namely the initial engagement with the popular culture object,
consumption is arguably the central fact of contemporary Western society and
should not be over-emphasized. If we are to dismiss or underestimate any group
upon the basis of consumption then the entirety of the Western world stands
ready for some rather scathing critique. Rather, what makes the Otherkin, and
other groups like it particularly fascinating is what they do in response to the
products of popular culture. While the initial engagement with the source mate-
rial is predicated in the norms of capitalist consumer culture, as the popular
culture product is often both sponsored and disseminated within commer-
cial channels, the (re)appropriation and specific types of engagement with the
popular culture object firmly remove such approaches from the consumer
world. If anything, such groups may be better understood as tacitly opposing
and subverting consumerist culture in that:
124
1. Engagement with the objects of popular culture does not continue to

take place within the methods and mediums it is designed for. While the
various species of fantastic creatures may perhaps be initially recognized
through a text or texts, participants are not dependant upon those par-
ticular texts for engagement.
2. They are just as, if not more, likely to create their own narratives than
return to the marketplace for continuing narrative.
The broad cultural shifts towards remix and fan cultures highlight a principle
difficulty in approaching these types of groups. One of the primary oversights
of the academy in relation to modern alternative religion is the tacit assump-
tion of seriousness and gravitas as the flag of authenticity. Simply put, we look
to the passionate seriousness of the participant as the measure of religious
sincerity. This is understandable in light of the methodological issues that
confront the scholar of religions, and, to a degree, is in line with phenom-
enological approaches that prioritize the experience of the participant and
therefore necessarily rely upon the expressions of religiosity as portrayed. We
assume, in the face of a multitude of different forms of religiosity, that it is only
in so far as the participant is incapable of heretical self-depreciation or, to use
the traditional word, blasphemy, that such an individual’s beliefs are genuine
and worthy of respect. Approaches such as this simply do not function in the
Westernized late modern world, and even less so in relation to the younger
generations and their spiritual and/or religious attitudes.137 Irony culture is
now essentially entrenched within the common communication styles of the
internet, and this affects all aspects of everyday life. To assume that individuals
who generally treat their experience as ironic would suddenly achieve some
solemnity and sincerity in relation to their spiritual beliefs is simply ridiculous.
As Droogers has so insightfully pointed out, “‘playful’ and ‘serious’ are not
necessarily opposites”.138
We as theorists must reorient ourselves in order to understand that the fic-
tional, created worlds and creatures that are at the centre of an Otherkin per-
spective are most emphatically here as well as being elsewhere, they are more
pervasively present for many than the older truths of revealed knowledge. Every
day, participants live with, interact with, and embody, these other worlds and
creatures. They can discuss them with other people; they may perspectively
indwell virtual representations; they might extend the worlds and narrative in
which they find meaning.
In attempting to understand groups such as the Otherkin, analysis must
move beyond the traditional locales of religion and spirituality, and even occul-
ture. Participants are engaging in popular culture both as a source of content
and a context for communication. Precisely what makes groups such as these
difficult to analyse is their firm location within, and continuity with, the worlds
of the popular, coupled with a radically idiosyncratic approach to materials.
125
fantasy and belief
These types of explicit beliefs and implicit assumptions about the self and the
world are not created in a vacuum, but rather are formed between the nexus of
everyday lived experience and subjective spiritual understandings.
It is in attempting to address this nexus of everyday lived experience and
subjective spiritual understandings that the notion of the fantastic milieu has
currency. The specific icons that the Otherkin are utilizing are not limited to any
one locale, but instead proliferate across disparate areas of engagement. While
a dragon in a given computer game is almost certainly going to demonstrate
different characteristics to one drawn from a myth of the ancient world, they
are still to a large degree continuous. Further, the variations in representation
are likely to enhance the icon’s use in a spiritual context in that personalized
interpretations need not precisely line up with some singular monolithic image.
More importantly, however, it would be erroneous to assume that participants
would refuse to engage with the relevant icons wherever they might emerge.
The case of the Otakukin demonstrates this point clearly in that they explicitly
engage icons from the most popular of cultural sources.
Overview
The Otherkin are perhaps most clearly contextualized by recourse to discus-

sion of the internet and the popular cultures which deal with the same type
of content. As most of these fields are emergent, vast, and almost impenetra-
bly complex as well as being intrinsically subjective and dependant upon the
individuals choice, I’ve provided exemplars of the relevant trends rather than
exhaustive analysis of any one element. While broad, there are a number of
implications evident within this exploration that support the location of the
Otherkin as one situated across a number of interwoven fields.
First, engagement with the online world promotes and supports an approach
to everyday lived experience that does not assume a direct equation between
the real and the tangible, or conversely, the unreal and the virtual. The exten-
sion of the tactile world into the intangible is made perceptively continuous by
dint of these new digital technologies. This perceptually expanded sense of the
world is experientially verified in everyday practice by the practical efficacy
of online transactions and communications: what is done in the virtual has
palpable effect in the real.
Second, the internet has also significantly altered the perception of the
bounds of the self. It tends to ameliorate issues pertaining to bodily image,
and concomitantly increases the representational power of the individual. The
flexibility and ease with which individuals may prioritize representation of
their true self is at least partially facilitated by an environment where negative
consequences arising from self-disclosure are lessened. Any form of deviancy
is thus likely to be safer for the individual to represent online rather than off.
126
The third point is that specific virtual worlds such as MMORPGs allow for
significant immersion in fantasy worlds replete with icons drawn from literary
and mythological sources. The boundaries between the real and the unreal are
further blurred by the degree to which action within these worlds is shared
with other participants, and the fact that such worlds are persistent. In this
MMORPGs go far beyond other mediums in not just creating the sense of the
other world, but in maintaining it in any particular participants absence. These
virtual fantasy worlds make the borders between the real and the fantastic
indistinct through a variety of means: the actual value of gaming currencies; the
presence of player agency; the reality of in game communities; and the multiple
entry points into the same narrative worlds.
The element of convergence, however, brings us to the fourth point, which
is that the distinct borders between text and not-text have been blurred offline
just as online. Fan cultures also tend to remove such distinctions with a variety
of behaviours spanning from dressing up as a favourite character, through to
writing fan fiction narratives, be they textual, musical or visual. These behav-
iours, rather than demonstrating a fundamental consumerism, are rather reflec-
tive of a broader cultural trend towards bricolage and remix that is becoming
increasingly mainstream, or at least comfortably unusual: “if you dig deep
enough, you find more intimate correspondences between computer culture
and Paganism’s religion of the imagination. One link is science fiction and
fantasy fandom, a world whose role playing, nerd humour, and mythic enthu-
siasm has bred many a Pagan.”139
As far as postulating a cultural location for the Otherkin, this chapter has
gone some way towards articulating some of the broader secular tendencies
occurring around the nexus of fiction and media. It needs to be reiterated here
that I am absolutely not making the claim that individual Otherkin are neces-
sarily gamers, geeks or cultural pirates. Rather, the point is that this is the milieu
in which they exist, and that the concepts they explicitly and implicitly engage
with may be seen paralleled in other behaviours that manifest in the conjunct
locales of fiction and communication media.
For instance, although it would be a simple thing to draw a direct line from
individuals’ potential online experience as elves, magic users and so on, to the
beliefs evident within the Otherkin community, I am extremely reluctant to
do so. While the connection is clearly important, to attribute such beliefs to a
confusion of the boundaries of the self due to a lack of capacity to distinguish
between the various personas utilized online, or some kind of “fact–fiction
reversal”,140 for instance, seems unacceptably dismissive and completely misses
important aspects of the situation. To draw a causal link between the two
types of behaviour misrepresents the situation, whereas rather highlighting a
reciprocal connection allows both the creation of persona associated with the
internet and tertiary worlds, and the non-human constructions of self by the
Otherkin an equal, separate, and yet still potentially interrelated, existence. As
127
fantasy and belief
Sherry Turkle noted a decade ago, “the many manifestations of multiplicity in

our culture, including the adoption of online personae, are contributing to a
general reconsideration of traditional, unitary notions of identity”.141 It is this
reconsideration that, I propose, has facilitated the expansion of Otherkin-type
ideals.
128
CoNCLuSIoNS
The Otherkin exist, as do a number of other groups that engage in some com-
bination of fantasy narrative and digital cultures. The Otherkin appear to have
a reasonably significant constituency, across a number of countries. They are a
community, albeit one that exists primarily online in a variety of virtual locales.
Moreover, they utilize fantasy icons found in multiple sources and available
through a wide selection of media. Most importantly, these fantasy icons are
integral aspects of their metaphysic. In this, the Otherkin seem unusual insofar
as they tend to utilize the icons outside of the text rather than relying upon
specific textual manifestations.
It is also clear that the beliefs of the Otherkin show continuity with elements
of the occultural world. Ideas such as channelling, reincarnation, magic, oth-
erworlds and energy are apparent within the community, and hold a firm and
established location within occultural thought. Most particularly evident in the
context of Paganism, many of the ideologies of the Otherkin mirror or extend
re-enchanting notions of the world not just into this, but other realms as well.
On the other hand, the Otherkin also bear some resemblance to popular cul-
tural engagement, albeit with a difference of intention in terms of the attribution
of mundane and the metaphysical meaning. The particular fantasy icons, the
basis of community affiliation in terms of interest, and the depth and passion of
engagement with narrative are all shared between the two types of engagement,
and suggest a significant and perhaps formative relationship.
The Otherkin draw source material, as well as structural support, from
within contemporary popular culture as equally as they do occulture. Not only
are the fantasy icons just as, if not more, accessible through television shows,
movies, comics and games as they are through traditional literary formats,
but these various media provide far more graphically rich manifestations of
these icons. Fantasy icons in turn have become progressively more humanized,
and representations are more and more likely to depict fantastic creatures as
129
fantasy and belief
sympathetic rather than monstrous. Further, the increasingly immersive capac-

ity of media, most particularly evident within MMORPGs, adds depth and
breadth to the engagement with and within fantasy topoi. The internet itself
encourages approaches to the self that are not bounded by the physical body,
and multiplies both worlds and selves in a variety of fashions. Further, as a space
it tends to ameliorate issues of deviancy and facilitate engagement on the basis
of interest rather than pragmatic considerations.
While the primary distinction between the Otherkin and other related
behaviours such as fan cultures appears to be the assertion of a metaphysic
or lack thereof, the similarities suggest possible methods of interpretation. It
would be most unlikely that anyone utilizing elements of narrative fiction in
the creation of personal spiritualities could fall outside classification as a fan,
no matter what beliefs they may hold. Presumably, anyone so deeply involved
in fictional content as to make use of it in the creation of personal spiritualities
has premised such use in a wholehearted appreciation for the text/s, or at least
the icons within. This factor does not detract from the sincerity or genuineness
of participants’ beliefs, but rather highlights another important element of this
convergence of influences.
Ona broader theoretical note, a potential method for ascertaining the pres-
ence of metaphysical inquiry in relation to groups that utilize fantasy lies
in viewing the way groups, and individuals, treat their source material. The
Otherkin and similar groups are taking elements from popular culture sources,
reappropriating them from various locations in their individual fashions, and
then integrating them meaningfully into their lives. Now, while such reinte-
gration is by no means an essential aspect of general religious practice, these
popular culture oriented religions occupy a very specific location within the
religious milieu. Fundamentally, they are effectively creating spirituality, not
joining already established belief systems. Ascertaining religiosity in these con-
texts is not simply a case of attributing religious status to one and not another,
but in some cases it is even making such distinctions within groups. Take, for
instance, the Lord of the Rings: There are many passionate followers of Tolkien’s
famous fantasy series, even more so after the release of Peter Jackson’s recent
films. There are also Otherkin-type groups that have developed spiritual prac-
tice premised within the text. To treat the former as Otherkin, or the latter as
simply fans entirely misses the point of both endeavours.
The point of distinction I would like to highlight here is the simultaneous
processes of active participation and internalization – not necessarily with the
community or group, but with the fantastic icons and worlds. Can it, perhaps,
be proposed that any significant intrinsic religious engagement in this context
must imply an active role on behalf of the participant? Insofar as a substantive
view of religion is taken, the Otherkin fall under the rubric of religion. For all
that, they also clearly involve participation within popular and fan cultures,
and some indeed even appear to stem from such. I do not, however, believe
130
conclusions
that this should lead to the assumption that we cannot distinguish between the
two. Rather, what I am proposing is a trajectory that encompasses the space
between communities of interest and communities of adherence, and treats
both as end points upon a continuum. In a context where religious themes and
popular culture are both significantly present, the degree to which a text has
been reworked or reinvented and then integrated into the participants lived
experience provides at least an indicator of the meaningfulness of the popular
culture object within participants’ lives.
Active participation in the text then assumes not just passive engagement,
but some form of contribution, recontextualization or creation: reappropria-
tion and personalization of some type. The world-mapping practices of the
Elenari, for instance, would certainly fall into this category. Alternatively, the
types of engagement with characters that the Otakukin practice would similarly
constitute active engagement. This element alone does not provide significant
clarity, however, as fan fiction also achieves precisely the same form of active
participation, as does many other secular behaviours. It is here that the element
of internalization becomes relevant. The degree to which the reappropriated
texts (or icons) are given personal significance is likely to reflect a significant
investment of personal time and meaning. Of course, this still does not success-
fully divide between behaviours that are grounded in metaphysical assertion
from the purely psychological. What it does achieve, however, is a framework
that establishes the types of engagement that may lead to metaphysical and
spiritual speculation. Once these factors are determined to be present, then the
distinction between metaphysical and mundane approaches may be determined
on the level of individual practice.
131
AppENDIx: oThErkIN SurvEY rESuLTS
YSIS
These are the results of an online survey undertaken in the first half of 2011.
It consisted of a series of thirteen questions, aimed at gathering responses
around three main areas of interest: basic sociological data, respondents’ self-
understanding as Otherkin, and how participants relate this understanding
to broader notions of religion and spirituality. The survey was sent to three
Otherkin community sites online, and, via the site administrators, participants
were invited to respond. No identifying data were collected, nor was there any
contact between respondents and the researcher. It should also be pointed out
that the data do not claim to be a clear or totalizing articulation of the Otherkin
community, but rather are included so as to provide a more detailed illustration
of particular Otherkin positions.
Question 1
Gender Number of responses Response %

Female 41 51.3%
Male 21 26.3%
Other 18 22.5%
80 respondents
Respondents were offered the opportunity to further articulate their positions

to “Other”. The 18 responses were as follows.
1. I’m a demon; we switch gender and sexes as years past

2. Androgyne
3. Female to Male Transgender
133
fantasy and belief
4. Although I identify male above all else, I also identify as pretty much
anything and everything
5. Biologically female, I identify as androgyne
6. Androgynous
7. Gender neutral
8. Androgynous
9. Physical sex female, agender
10. Transgender
11. Gender fluid (female I Identifying as internally androgynous leaning
toasted male)
12. Androgyne/gender fluid
13. Transgender – FtM Pre-op
14. Gender-neutral
15. I range from genderless to slightly masculine
16. Female bodied, Male spirited
17. Female-leaning gender-fluid androgyne
18. Gender neutral
Question 2
Age Number of responses Response %

Under 18 13 16%
18–25 45 55.6%
25–35 19 23.5%
35–50 3 3.7%
50 and above 1 1.2%
81 respondents
Question 3
What is your main occupation? Number of responses Response %

Creative/arts 5 6.4%
Other 16 20.5%
School student 5 6.4%
Service/retail 9 11.5%
Technical/professional 8 10.2%
Unemployed 5 6.4%
University student 30 38.4%
78 respondents
134
appendix : otherkin survey results
Where respondents listed more than one occupation, the first occupation is
taken as primary. Unless specified, students are assumed to be at a university
level rather than secondary school. The categories provided in this table are
broad, and intended to be indicative only. Complete answers are offered below:
1. Theatre tech, artist, dancer, chaos mage, and spiritworker-in-training

2. Student
3. Student
4. Student of social sciences
5. Retail
6. Grocery store clerk
7. Student
8. Unemployed
9. Student
10. University student
11. Tier 2 tech support
12. Student
13. School
14. Student and private art instructor
15. Unemployed, unfortunately. So … currently, nothing
16. Fast food
17. Security officer
18. High school junior
19. Massage therapist
20. I don’t have one yet
21. Geologist
22. Full time high school student
23. Pharmacy technician
24. Communication design
25. Stay-at-home wife
26. Overnight janitor
27. School teacher
28. Student
29. Retail
30. Student
31. I don’t have one yet
32. Student and homecare worker
33. Retail
34. Student
35. Student
36. Machine shop assistant, basically an internship except sometimes getting
to actually do things
37. Computer science (student)
135
fantasy and belief
38. Administrative assistant

39. Security
40. Retail
41. Middle school
42. Student
43. Student of philosophy at a university
44. Insurance
45. Currently between jobs
46. Retail
47. Graphic designer
48. Professional writer
49. Student
50. Bartender
51. Library technician (cataloguer)
52. Student – electronics technician
53. Fitness instructor
54. Student
55. Student
56. Student
57. Freelance artist and author
58. I am a product manager in a bakery (family business) and I own my own
art and photography company
59. Writer of short articles as well as alternative reality books and memoirs
60. Student
61. Part-time
62. Part-time
63. Student
64. Freelance artist (illustration, graphic design)
65. Graduate student
66. College, part time/fulltime job
67. Firefighter, emergency medical technician–basic
68. Student
69. IT consultant
70. School
71. Student
72. Cook
73. Customer service rep
74. Medical student
75. Student
76. Taking a look at your survey ;)
77. Full time student of psychology
136
Question 4
Country Region Number of responses

Region Country Country %
Australia 2 3%
New South Wales 1
Queensland 1
Canada 2 3%
British Columbia 2
Czech Republic 1 1%
Germany 2 3%
Bavaria 1
Unspecified 1
Netherlands 1 1%
Friesland 1
Norway 1 1%
Oslo 1
Poland 1 1%
Maopolska 1
UK 5 6%
Cambridge 1
Manchester 1
Salisbury 1
Unspecified 1
Wales 1
USA 62 79%
Arizona 2
Arkansas 1
California 8
Chicago 1
Colorado 2
Connecticut 1
Florida 3
Georgia 1
Illinois 2
Indiana 2
Iowa 1
Kentucky 1
Louisiana 1
Maryland 2
Massachusetts 1
137
fantasy and belief
Country Region Number of responses

Region Country Country %
Minnesota 1
Mississippi 1
Nebraska 1
New Jersey 1
New Mexico 3
New York 2
North Carolina 1
Ohio 1
Oregon 1
Pennsylvania 4
South Carolina 2
Tennessee 2
Texas 8
Unspecified 1
Virginia 1
Washington 3
Question 5
Which, if any, of the following terms Number of Response %

best describes you? responses
Otherkin 64 94.1%
Soulbond 2 2.9%
Mediakin 0 0.0%
Otakukin 0 0.0%
Multiple 7 10.3%
Other 9 13.2%
68 respondents
Respondents were able to select more than one option in this question.
Respondents were also offered the opportunity to further articulate their posi-
tions to “Other”. The 9 responses were as follows:
1. Theriankin
2. Myself
3. Shapeshifter
4. Starseed
138
5. Leopard-therian
6. Classification unknown
7. Demon
8. I am not a big fan of labels, but so far I suppose one could call me an
otherkin
9. Therian
Question 6
What non-human entity do Number of responses Response %

you relate to?
Angelic 17 26%
Demon 6 9%
Dragon 9 14%
Elves 6 9%
Fae 6 9%
Fairies 1 2%
Gargoyle 2 3%
Hybrid/shapeshifter 2 3%
Animals 10 15%
Other 10 15%
Polymorph 3 5%
Vampire 2 3%
64 respondents
This question was open, with no predetermined responses available. The

number of non-human entities is larger than the number of respondents as
some indicated a number of relationships. The responses to this question are
listed in full below:
1. Angelic
2. Gargoyle
3. Dragon
4. Domestic feline; symbolic wings
5. Fae/myself
6. Vampire, phoenix …
7. Bennu and western dragon
8. Polymorph
9. Angel
10. Dragonkin
139
fantasy and belief
11. Spinner dolphin

12. Angel
13. I’m a shapeshifter; I have many, many forms.
14. Fallen angel (Judeo–Christian–Islamic paradigm)
15. Angel
16. Gryphons
17. Don’t really know
18. I am an angel/wolf hybrid
19. I mostly relate to faeries
20. My kin is an elven-being who has some dragon traits in her. She comes
from a plane, where energy can be manipulated and she even subsists on
pure energy. Her elements are air and darkness. Her purpose in life is to
fulfill the law of cause and effect. She calls home some dark moons far away
from the sun. Her character can be very overexcited and clownish simul-
taneously fulfilling her destructive task with great joy. I assume that her
people is small, but there are many other beings on the moons and planets
around whom she befriends. As energy is easy to manipulate, travelling
through space by flying, opening a portal or using a kind of space ship
that consists of conscious energy, was normal. Time doesn’t matter, cause
my kin isn’t mortal. But can be killed or she decides to leave her existence
as elven-being behind and go on to another life.
21. Mermaid/Mermaid-like extraterrestrial (Nommo) from Sirius B
22. Demons
23. Sidhe/Elf
24. Short explanation: something of a servitor of the universe/God/
whathaveyou that keeps the universe and all its various dimensions in
balance. Closest label would be a polymorphic angel of sorts, but that’s
fitting myself into others’ words.
25. Gargoyle
26. I’m not sure yet (still soul searching), but I have a strong connection to
birds, so that’s what I’ve been.
27. I relate to several things, the main two being angel and wolf.
28. Elf, faerie, vampire
29. Celestial/angelic
30. Seems to have shape-shifting qualities
31. Dragon
32. Angelic
33. Dragon. Fairly young lived in densely forested mountainous area.
34. Demon
35. Angel
36. Demon incarnate
37. Water nymph/elemental (still working out the specifics)
140
38. A creature that combines wolf, snake, and human physical characteristics.
Looks kind of like a scaly Anubis with a lion tail.
39. Relate? … erm … a couple of spirits around my house, a few friends from
the astral plane, some other people who claim to be non-human … who
else … not sure.
40. Fallen angel
41. Polymorphic celestial
42. Dragon
43. Demon
44. Abrahamic angels
45. Sidhe/faery, occasionally dragon
46. Elven – not fae
47. Hawks, big cats, and the god Horus/Heru
48. Fae
49. European/Western type dragon
50. A creature that is a mixture between a harpy and phoenix. I do not know
the name of the species yet, if there is one coined for it in mythology or
otherwise.
51. Demons
52. Elves
53. Fae
54. Sidhe
55. Dragon
56. Demon
57. Angelic, but “Fallen”
58. Fox
59. Jaguar
60. Dog (but I’m still unsure.)
61. It’s a polymorph
62. Angel
63. I (Sachael) am of the cherubim (a type of angel) of the Abrahamic (Islam/
Judaism/Christianity) traditions. My headmate Kat is a human-seeming
eight-year-old female split from myself (an issue with childhood trauma).
Limbrethil is a male Tolkien elf walk-in (a soul originating outside the
body)
64. Abrahamic Angelic
Question 7
This question was purely descriptive in nature, as respondents were asked to

describe their relationship with the non-human entity. In order to provide a
141
fantasy and belief
simple overview, findings have been summarized within limited categories.

These categories are broad, and intended as indicators only, rather than in any
way encapsulating the individual responses. The complete answers are provided
below the summary.
Nature of relationship with Number of responses Response %

non-human entity
Descendant 3 4.84%
Memories/past life 12 19.35%
Self as non-human 35 56.45%
Separate entities 3 4.84%
Spiritual connection 3 4.84%
Unclear 3 4.84%
Union 2 3.23%
61 respondents
1. She is not only a part of me. We are 2 parts that belongs together. She is
very brave, strong and full of love and justice, but sometimes a little bit
stubborn. As I completely accepted her, she was no longer a separate part
of my identity and we became a unity.
2. I feel as if I was either intended to be a dragon, and was put in a human
body, or possibly was a dragon at some point and was reincarnated as a
human.
3. There is no “relationship”, the “entity” would be a part of my dynamic self.
4. I feel the connection through a heavy bond to nature, as well as the feeling
that this wasn’t the right world for me. I feel as though, as good as this
world can be, it is not my home. In terms of my Faeness, my love of nature
helps me define it, but also just a gut feeling that Fae is the “right fit” as
it were. The reason I put “myself ” was that, overall, that is who I am. No
one, can define me as anything else, and Fae is just a part of who I am.
5. Is my soul.
6. The dragon is the remnants of a past life while the Bennu is the makings
of a future life.
7. I’ve had angels that teach and guide me in my dreams since I was little.
Those have stopped for the most part now, but I’ve always believed I was
an angel. It’s mostly apart of my personality. I don’t understand the logic
of most people. Their decisions are just counter productive for their own
well being and others. Most seem to cause their own misery more than
they realize or will admit.
8. You mean the relationship with myself? Um … I have memories of myself
before this form.
142
9. My spirit is that of an angel, so I do not really have a relationship to the

non-human entity.
10. Each is slightly different. I feel like they ARE me, as I am them.
11. I was once an angel in high standing with the Creator, now fallen from
His grace for reasons I don’t entirely know or understand, possibly
self-imposed.
12. Well its difficult to describe really. Its less a relationship with an entity and
more … a different me. I feel a call to heal. I’ve experienced mental shifts.
I’ve felt phantom wings, and I’ve seen objects interact with them, people
subconsciously respond to them. Its a definite presence I can sense.
13. Basically, I am a gryphon in spirit, and I believe I’ve been reincarnated
from one.
14. It is who I am.
15. I don’t see the “non-human entity” as a separate thing from myself, so I
can’t accurately describe a relationship with it (because “it” is me).
16. It just feels like where I belong in all honesty.
17. I feel like being a part of my kin, who has all memories inside her. I’m
a somewhat separate character but I’m aware of who I truly am. My kin
helps me to become myself again. To free myself from harmfully thinking
and behavior human society has teacher me. But she mainly stays in the
background at this time, only guides me by feelings.
18. “Relationship”? She is me, and I am her, and we are one … I was born with
the soul of a Nommo, I cannot survive without the water.
19. One of my guardian spirits is a demon and several of my Wicca family are
demon kin. I am also descended from a clan of demon kin that came onto
this plane to live in peace with the humans and protect them to the best of
their ability from the ones from their plane that would wish them harm.
20. Blood descendant.
21. It is who I am. I believe I was reincarnated and bound within this human
body, but my soul is still the same. While I am here, I am human of course,
but I am still that other self in some sense as well.
22. I was one in a past live, my first life.
23. As I said I’m not sure yet, but I love birds and have an unusual attraction
to them. I’m not sure if this means anything in the way of being Otherkin,
since many people love birds, but I feel I’m a bird at heart; I want to fly
away and have adventures in far off places, and I’m a free spirit, too. I don’t
like to be tied down to anything. I don’t believe that I was a bird in a past
life (as I have no memories of it), but I feel that I’m spiritually connected
to them.
24. I know myself very well, I’ve known about the Angel part of me for two
years now and the Wolf for more then that.
25. having visions and dreams of places I was a part of. Knowing a language
that it is not of human origin.
143
fantasy and belief
26. We are one in the same. The angelic/kin side of me is still as me as the
human side of me.
27. Close relationship
28. Reincarnation, leftover scraps that probably shouldn’t be here
29. Spirit is entirely nonhuman, body is entirely human, mind is the meeting
point between the two.
30. I’m fairly certain it is a past-life dealie. Just have a lot of memories, some
positive and uplifting, most more on the negatives and depressing. Affects
my mood and personality heavily.
31. It is a state of being, a way of life, I have followed through multiple incarna-
tions and lifetimes. It is a more so a path and not a creature. It has forever
changed my mentally and physically, as it has always. It is what I have
always been and shall always be.
32. I am the non-human entity incarnated into human body.
33. I believe myself to be a demon incarnated in a human body. I am the non-
human entity inside a human body.
34. Most likely reincarnation.
35. It’s me. I consider my soul to be nonhuman-shaped, and my body to be
human-shaped.
36. Friendship generally.
37. I believe my otherkin identity to stem from a past life. I’ve always believed
in the idea of reincarnation, and despite the few years I tried to repress the
idea it asserted itself and I feel like I’ve learned more about myself because
of it.
38. I don’t have a relationship with a non-human entity. I believe instead of a
human soul the energy being that is me is inside of this human body.
39. I believe I was a dragon in a past life.
40. I am the non-human entity.
41. I believe myself to be an incarnated angel.
42. It’s not a “relationship with”; it’s me.
43. In past lives, I was incarnated as an elf, as opposed to being incarnated as
a human.
44. I share some of the characteristics and mindset of the entities listed. As far
as Heru goes, I think the Hindu term “amsha” (partial incarnation) seems
to describe it best. I’m not Him, but my spirit is part of Him.
45. I am.
46. Always felt a connection, even as a small child. When I got older the feeling
of having a non-human soul became stronger, and I accepted having a
Dragon soul long before I discovered the term and community; Otherkin.
I became quite surprised when I discovered I was not alone.
47. Mainly recalling past as said creature, no “communication” or conversa-
tions as it is obviously no longer living if its soul has been reincarnated
into the body/mentality of a human being.
144
48. I am a demonkin, basically a demonic entity born in a human body.

because of that I have contact with other demonkin and demons (spiritual
contact).
49. I believe that Elves visited Earth 30,000 years ago, and that some of their
DNA is still within some people of Earth. This DNA connects all of these
“Elfkin” telepathically, whether the people know it or not. They can sense
“something” there between them due to their Elf blood.
50. I am my own entity.
51. I was Sidhe in one of my previous lives, and this non-human origin influ-
ences my perception, emotional life and way of thinking.
52. I feel that it was a past life of mine, the imprint of which was strong enough
to remember and identify with it on some conscious level.
53. It’s been a part of me and my soul since childhood, and my parents
accepted that since youth when I went through awakening at the age of 5.
54. It’s my belief that I was an Angel of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.
However, on a disagreement with “god”, I chose to walk away. Therefore,
I’m technically a “fallen angel”.
55. I see myself as the entity
56. Can you have a relationship with yourself?
57. I’m very close to dogs I see and have a few points of dog-ish behaviour.
58. I don’t know what you mean. For all I know, it’s not a real being and this
is just a psychological phenomena brought about by trauma in childhood.
59. I believe I am an angel incarnated in human form.
60. Speaking for myself, it is who I am, it is my soul, a collection of memories
from before this life, a gut instinct, a knowing that it is who and what I
am despite my current human body and human limitations. I know I am a
cherub just as I know I am not straight, and just as I know I am not entirely
female-gendered. I just know.
61. My identification with this archetype is simply a belief that my essential
nature, or soul, is that of an angel. Otherwise, there is nothing remarkable
about the belief, and it does not change my life in anyway. There is also
a very understood possibility that this belief is simply a way of dealing
with the average existential anxiety that is part of the human condition. If
this is true, I find the belief to be quite effective as a coping mechanism,
and it does not prove to be “maladaptive” in such a way that it interferes
with my social functioning, so there is no pressing need to discontinue
the belief.
145
fantasy and belief
Question 8
For how long have you Number of responses Response %

understood yourself as Otherkin?
Less than a year 5 7.4%
1–2 years 5 7.4%
2–5 years 17 25%
5–10 years 21 30.9%
10–20 years 14 20.6%
More than 20 years 6 8.8%
68 respondents
Question 9
Which of the following best Number of responses Response %

describes your beliefs?
Religious 13 19.7%
Spiritual 53 80.3%
Agnostic 12 18.2%
Atheistic 5 7.6%
Other 10 15.2%
66 respondents
This question allowed multiple answers. Percentages are of the total number of
responses. Respondents were offered the opportunity to further articulate their
responses to “Other”. The 10 responses were as follows.
1. Non denominational
2. Pagan
3. I believe any god can exist as long as someone wholeheartedly believes in
that god, thought I don’t worship any type of deities.
4. Pagan/wiccan
5. I am possibilitist … anything is possible, but not necessarily true.
6. Polytheist
7. I believe that the spiritual exists and that deities exist, but that one is not
required to include them in their lives in order to feel happy and fulfilled;
in other words, they are not absolutely necessary for us to continue on as
a species.
146
8. Open-minded
9. I (myself and Kat) am regularly religious and a member of a church.
Limbrethil is spiritual, and while polytheistic, his deity figures do not
demand strict worship, just recognition.
10. General spiritual beliefs are influenced by Christianity, Buddhism, Neo-
Paganism, as well as Absurdist and Existentialist philosophies.
Question 10
Are you a participant in any of the following Number of Response %

religious or spiritual traditions? Responses
Buddhism 2 3.8%
Christianity 15 28.3%
Hinduism 0 0.0%
Islam 0 0.0%
Judaism 1 1.9%
Other 42 79.2%
Druidry 2 4.8%
Goddess Worship 1 2.4%
Hermetic 1 2.4%
Neo-Gnostic 2 4.8%
None 6 14.3%
Other 6 14.3%
Pagan 16 38.1%
Wicca/Witchcraft 8 19.0%
53 respondents
Respondents were offered the opportunity to further articulate their responses

to “Other”. Given recurring themes, the responses to “Other” have been grouped
into broad categories. Percentages in the subcategory “Other” relate to the 42
respondents who answered “Other”. Complete answers are offered below:
1. Wicca
2. None
3. Paganism
4. Paganism
5. Have a bit of pagan belief as well
6. Neo-Pagan
7. Witchcraft, Paganism, many different forms of spirituality
8. Some Wicca, mostly I’m agnostic though.
147
fantasy and belief
9. Druidry
10. Pagan beliefs
11. New Thought Movement, referring to the Conversations with God from
Neale Walsch
12. Goddess worship
13. Wicca
14. Paganism
15. Pagan
16. Wiccan
17. Paganism/witchcraft
18. Paganism, used to be Christian
19. N/A
20. Neo-Gnosticism
21. The truth behind all religions
22. N/A
23. Eclectic Neopaganism
24. None, too sheep-ish
25. Paganism
26. Paganism
27. Revival Druidry
28. None
29. Paganism (religious witchcraft)
30. Pagan
31. Currently studying Kemeticism
32. Paganism
33. Wicca
34. Calyr
35. Animist
36. Agree with certain tenets of Hermeticism
37. I don’t participate in Religious activities
38. Gnostic Luciferian
39. Shamanism/Paganism
40. Wicca
41. Kemeticism
42. Neo-Paganism
148
Question 11
Which, if any, of the following Number of responses Response %

ideas do you believe in?
Reincarnation 59 89.4%
Magic 54 81.8%
Astral Travel 50 75.8%
Spirits 61 92.4%
Otherworlds 53 80.3%
Ghosts 54 81.8%
Other (please specify) 16 24.2%
66 respondents
This question allowed multiple answers. Percentages are of the total number of
responses. Specific responses to “Other” are listed below.
1. I’m a very open-minded person.

2. There’s not much I don’t believe in, but I don’t get ridiculous about it. I do
a lot of study and research into each subject.
3. Various psychic phenomena.
4. Otherkin, astrology, visions and future seeing, seeing into the metaphysi-
cal plane
5. Dimensions of existence.
6. Everything is possible if you/we really want it.
7. Extraterrestrial contact in ancient times.
8. Magick – yeah, it’s silly to make such a big deal over one letter, but there
is a difference.
9. A crapload of stuff, but most of my beliefs are “Maybe”.
10. Science.
11. Mythical and magical entities.
12. Heaven.
13. Otherworldly beings, curses/spells.
14. Just about anything. I like to keep my mind open, so long as it’s presented
rationally.
15. I wouldn‘t say I believe in these things as I have not experienced them but
I keep my mind open to the possibilities.
16. Everything.
149
fantasy and belief
Question 12
Do you consider being Otherkin Number of responses Response %

a religion?
Yes 1 1.5%
No 64 98.5%
65 respondents
Question 13
Do you consider being Otherkin Number of responses Response %

a spiritual belief?
Yes 52 80%
No 13 20%
65 respondents
150
NoTES
intRoDuction
1. Erik Davies, Techgnosis (London: Serpent’s Tail, 1998), 2.

2. Martin Ramstedt, “Metaphor or Invocation: The Convergence between Modern Paganism
and Fantasy Fiction”, Journal of Ritual Studies 21(1) (2007), 2.
3. Colin Campbell, “Cult, the Cultic Milieu, and Secularisation”, in A Sociological Yearbook of
Religion in Britain, M. Hill (ed.) (London: SCM Press, 1972), 119–36.
4. Christopher Partridge, The Re-enchantment of the West, vol. 1 (London: T&T Clark
International, 2004); The Re-enchantment of the West, vol. 2 (London: T&T Clark
International, 2005).
5. See for instance Carole Cusack, Invented Religion (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2010); Andreas
Grunschlob, “Waiting for the ‘Big Beam’: UFO Religions and ‘Ufological’ Themes in New
Religious Movements”, in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, James R. Lewis
(ed.) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 419–44.
6. Christopher Partridge, “Alternative Spiritualities, New Religions, and the Re-enchantment
of the West”, in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, Lewis (ed.), 54–6.
7. Ibid., 55; C. Campbell & S. McIver, “Cultural Sources of Support for Contemporary
Occultism”, Social Compass 34 (1987), 58.
8. Graham Harvey, Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism (Kent Town,
Australia: Wakefield Press, 1997); “Fantasy in the Study of Religions: Paganism as Observed
and Enhanced by Terry Pratchett”, Diskus 6, 2000.
9. Steven J. Sutcliffe, “The Dynamics of Alternative Spirituality”, in The Oxford Handbook of
New Religious Movements, Lewis (ed.), 482. Sutcliffe here is referring specificially to new age
texts, but the point holds true in the wider context of new religious movements.
10. Otherkin.net, “Harmony & Discord”, www.otherkin.net (accessed October 2012).
11. See Ramstedt, “Metaphor or Invocation”, 3. This study focuses particularly upon the conver-
gence between fantasy and paganism in terms of metaphor.
12. Lorne Dawson, “Researching Religion in Cyberspace: Issues and Strategies”, in Religion on
the Internet: Research Prospects and Promises, Jeffrey K. Hadden & Douglas E. Cowan (eds)
(New York: JAI Press, 2000), 31.
13. Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London: Methuen, 1982),
133.
14. Dawson, “Researching Religion in Cyberspace”, 26.
151
notes
15. See, for instance, Adam Possamai, Religion and Popular Culture (New York: Peter Lang,
2005).
16. Partridge, The Re-enchantment of the West, vol. 1, 141.
17. Campbell, “Cult, the Cultic Milieu, and Secularisation”.
18. C. Hewson, “Gathering Data on the Internet: Qualitative Approaches and Possibilities for
Mixed Methods Research”, in The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, A. Joinson,
K. McKenna, T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (eds) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007),
418–23.
19. Christopher Helland, “Online Religion as Lived Religion: Methodological Issues in the Study
of Religious Participation on the Internet”, Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 1(1)
(2005), http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/5823 (accessed November 2012).
20. Urban Dictionary, www.urbandictionary.com (accessed October 2012).
1. Religion, occultuRe AnD the moDeRn woRlD
1. A. L. Greil & T. Robbins, “Introduction: Exploring the Boundaries of the Sacred”, in Between
Sacred and Secular: Research and Theory on Quasi-Religion, A. Greil & T. Robbins (eds)
(Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1994), 3.
2. Ibid.
3. Edward Burnett Tylor, Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology,
Religion, Language, Art and Custom, 4th edn (London: Murray, 1903), 424.
4. Wouter Hanegraaff, “New Age Religion and Secularisation”, Numen 47(3) (2000), 295.
5. Ibid., 296.
6. Ibid., 300.
7. J. Gordon Melton, “An Introduction to New Religions”, in The Oxford Handbook of New
Religious Movements, James R. Lewis (ed.) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 19.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid., 18–21.
10. James A. Beckford, Cult Controversies (London: Tavistock, 1985), 23.
11. Ibid.
12. J. Gordon Melton, “Perspective: Towards a Definition of ‘New Religion’”, Nova Religio 8(1)
(2004), 74.
13. Ibid., 75.
14. Ibid., 80.
15. Thomas Robbins, “New Religions and Alternative Religions”, Nova Religio 8(3) (2005),
104–11.
16. Ibid., 107.
17. Ibid., 106.
18. Melton, “Perspective: Towards a Definition of ‘New Religion”.
19. David Bromley, “Perspective: Whither New Religions Studies?”, Nova Religio 8(2) (2004),
83–97.
20. Robbins, “New Religions and Alternative Religions”, 107.
21. Ibid., 108.
22. Melton, “An Introduction to New Religions”, 30.
23. James R. Lewis, Legitimating New Religions (New York: Rutgers University Press, 2003), 79.
24. Ibid., 80; Ronald Hutton, “Modern Pagan Witchcraft”, in Witchcraft and Magic in Europe:
The Twentieth Century, W. Blecourt, R. Hutton & J. Fontaine (eds) (London: Athlone Press,
1999), 44–5.
25. Lynne Hume, Witchcraft and Paganism in Australia (Melbourne: Melbourne University
Press, 1997), 95.
152
notes
26. Beckford, Cult Controversies, 24.

27. For an extensive overview of re-enchantment in the West, see Partridge, The Re-enchantment
of the West, vols 1 & 2; and L. Hume & K. McPhillips, Popular Spiritualities: The Politics of
Contemporary Enchantment (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006).
28. A phrase often attributed to Weber, but actually a quote from Schiller. Max Weber, From
Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (eds) (London: Routledge,
2001), 51.
29. See, for instance, Geoffrey K. Nelson, Cults, New Religions and Religious Creativity (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987), 2.
31. Lynne Hume & Kathleen McPhillips, “Introduction”, in Popular Spiritualities: The Politics of
Contemporary Enchantment, Lynne Hume & Kathleen McPhillips (eds) (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2006), xv.
32. Thomas Robbins, “Introduction: Alternative Religions, the State, and the Globe”, in New
Religious Movements in the 21st Century: Legal, Political, and Social Challenges in Global
Perspective, Thomas Robbins & Phillip Charles Lucas (eds) (New York: Routledge, 2004), 2.
33. Campbell, “Cult, the Cultic Milieu, and Secularisation”, 119–36.
34. Partridge, The Re-enchantment of the West vols 1 & 2.
35. Campbell, “Cult, the Cultic Milieu, and Secularisation”, 122.
36. Alex Owen, The Place of Enchantment: British Occultism and the Culture of the Modern
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 25.
37. Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (New York: Harper & Row,
1960); Melton, “An Introduction to New Religions”, 18.
38. Campbell, “Cult, the Cultic Milieu, and Secularisation”, 120.
40. Campbell, “Cult, the Cultic Milieu, and Secularisation”, 122–4.
41. Ibid., 122.
42. Ibid.
43. James R. Lewis, “Overview”, in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, Lewis
(ed.), 5–7.
44. P. Stevens Jr., “The Demonology of Satanism: An Anthropological View”, in The Satanism
Scare, David G. Bromley, Joel Best & James T. Richardson (eds) (New York: de Gruyter, 1991),
21.
45. Rebecca Moore, “Is the Canon on Jonestown Closed?”, Nova Religio 4(1) (2000), 7–27.
46. Eugene V. Gallagher, “The Persistence of the Millennium: Branch Davidian Expectations of
the End after Waco”, Nova Religio 3(2) (2000), 303–19.
47. Jean-Francois Mayer, “‘Our Terrestrial Journey is Coming to an End’: The Last Voyage of the
Solar Temple”, Nova Religio 2(2) (1999), 172–207.
48. S. Hoover, Religion in the Media Age (London: Routledge, 2006), 51.
49. Partridge, The Re-enchantment of the West, vol. 1, 66–7.
50. Ibid., 67–8.
51. Ibid., 68.
52. Ibid., 70
53. Ibid., 122–3.
54. Antoine Faivre, “Questions of Terminology Proper to the Study of Esoteric Currents in
Modern and Contemporary Europe”, in Western Esotercism and the Science of Religion,
Antoine Faivre & Wouter J. Hanegraaff (eds) (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 1998), 9; Edward
A. Tiryakian, “Towards the Sociology of Esoteric Culture”, American Journal of Sociology 78(
3) (1972), 498.
55. For an recent example of this continuing terminological disagreement, see for instance David
S. Katz, The Occult Tradition: From the Renaissance to the Present Day (London: Pimlico,
153
notes
2007), 14–16. For an overview of different approaches to the esoteric traditions, see Wouter
Hanegraaff, “On the Construction of ‘Esoteric Traditions’”, in Western Esotericism and the
Science of Religion, Antoine Faivre & Wouter Hanegraaff (eds) (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters
Publishers, 1998).
56. Olav Hammer, “Esotericism in New Religious Movements”, in The Oxford Handbook of New
Religious Movements, Lewis (ed.), 445–9.
57. Faivre, “Questions of Terminology Proper to the Study of Esoteric Currents in Modern and
Contemporary Europe”, 2.
58. Wouter Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of
Secular Thought (New York: SUNY Press, 1998), 388–92.
59. Antoine Faivre, “What Is Occultism?”, in Hidden Truths: Magic, Alchemy and the Occult,
Lawrence E. Sullivan (ed.) (New York: Macmillan Collier, 1987), 5.
60. Ibid., 1.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Antoine Faivre, Access to Western Esotericism (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1994), 10–15.
64. Ibid., 10.
65. Ibid., 11.
66. Ibid., 13.
67. Ibid., 12.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid., 13.
70. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience : A Study in Human Nature (London:
Penguin, 1982), 488, footnote.
71. M. von Franz, “The Process of Individuation”, in Man and his Symbols, Carl Jung (ed.)
(London: Picador, 1978), 164.
72. Faivre, “What Is Occultism?”, 3.
73. Hanegraaff, “New Age Religion and Secularisation”, 293–4.
74. Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture, 407.
75. Tiryakian, “Towards the Sociology of Esoteric Culture”, 498.
76. T. M. Luhrmann, Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft : Ritual Magic in Contemporary England
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 192–5; Julia Phillips, “The Magical
Universe”, in Practising the Witch’s Craft: Real Magic under a Southern Sky, D. Ezzy (ed.)
(Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2003), 135–6.
78. S. Reid & S. Rabinovitch, “Witches, Wiccans, and Neo-Pagans: A Review of Current
Academic Treatments of Neo-Paganism”, in Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements,
Lewis (ed.), 523.
79. Some of these various forms of magic are addressed in more detail in Chapter 3. For summary
definitions of these terms, see N. Drury, The Watkins Dictionary of Magic (London: Watkins,
2005).
80. John Middleton, “Magic: Theories of Magic”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Lindsay Jones (ed.)
(Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference, 2005), 5562–3.
81. Ibid., 5566.
82. Ibid., 5562.
83. Luhrmann, Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft.
84. Ibid., 7.
85. John Gray, Black Mass (London: Penguin, 2007), 189.
86. Karen Armstrong, “Resisting Modernity: The Backlash against Secularism”, Harvard
International Review 25(4) (2004), 1.
87. This phrase was originally used in a lecture given by Weber in 1917. See Michael Saler,
154
notes
“Modernity and Enchantment: A Historiographic Review”, American Historical Review

111(3) (2006), 695.
88. L. Dawson, “The Sociocultural Significance of Modern New Religious Movements”, in The
Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, Lewis (ed.), 69.
89. The rise of various fundamentalisms equally casts doubt upon the efficacy of the seculariza-
tion thesis, albeit with different implications.
90. E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution: [Europe] 1789–1848 (New York: New American
Library, 1962), 229.
91. Roy Wallis, “Three Types of New Religious Movements”, in Cults and New Religious
Movements: A Reader, L. Dawson (ed.) (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003), 44.
92. Dawson, “The Sociocultural Significance of Modern New Religious Movements”, 69.
93. Larry Shiner, “The Concept of Secularisation in Empirical Research”, Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 6(2) (1967), 208; Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture, 409.
94. Partridge, “Alternative Spiritualites, New Religions, and the Reenchantment of the West”, 39.
95. Shiner, “The Concept of Secularisation in Empirical Research”, 209–16.
96. Bryan S. Turner, Religion and Social Theory, 2nd edn (London: Sage, 1991), 143–6.
97. Bryan R. Wilson, Religion in Sociological Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982),
149.
98. Turner, Religion and Social Theory, 143.
99. Nelson, Cults, New Religions and Religious Creativity, 150; Turner, Religion and Social Theory,
142–3.
100. Turner, Religion and Social Theory, 146.
101. Hanegraaff, “New Age Religion and Secularisation”, 301–2.
102. R. K. Fenn, “Toward a New Sociology of Religion”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
11(1) (1972), 31.
103. Hanegraaff, “New Age Religion and Secularisation”, 301.
104. Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New York:
Doubleday, 1969).
105. Gordon Lynch, After Religion : “Generation X” and the Search for Meaning (London: Darton
Longman & Todd, 2002), 3–5.
106. L. Halman, T. Pettersson & J. Verweij, “The Religious Factor in Contemporary Society”,
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 40(1) (1999), 142.
107. For a detailed discussion of the implications of intrinsic and extrinsic forms of religiosity, see
for instance G. W. Allport & M. Ross, “Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 5(4) (1967), 432–43; L. A. Kirkpatrick & R. W. Hood,
“Intrinsic–Extrinsic Religious Orientation: The Boon or Bane of Contemporary Psychology
of Religion?”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 29(3) (1990), 442–62.
108. Hume & McPhillips, “Introduction”, xv.
109. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2007), 474.
110. S. Zukin & J. S. Maguire, “Consumers and Consumption”, Annual Review of Sociology 30
(2004), 173; Igor Kopytoff, “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process”,
in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspectice, Arjun Appadurai (ed.)
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
111. Paul Heelas, Spiritualities of Life: New Age Romanticism and Consumptive Capitalism (Oxford:
Blackwell, 2008), 98.
112. Frank Trentman, “Crossing Divides: Consumption and Globalization in History”, Journal of
Consumer Culture 9(2) (2009), 189.
113. Colin Campbell, “The Craft Consumer: Culture, Craft and Consumption in a Postmodern
Society”, Journal of Consumer Culture 5(23) (2005), 25.
114. Mike Featherstone, Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, 2nd edn (London: Sage, 2007),
14–16.
155
notes
115. Zukin & Maguire, “Consumers and Consumption”, 174.

116. Trentman, “Crossing Divides: Consumption and Globalization in History”, 189.
117. Ibid.
118. Ibid.
119. Eric J. Arnould & Craig J. Thompson, “Consumer Culture Theory: Twenty Years of Research”,
Journal of Consumer Research 31(4) (2005), 869.
120. Heelas, Spiritualities of Life: 100–112.
121. Campbell, “The Craft Consumer”.
122. Ibid., 24.
123. Ibid.
124. Ibid.
125. Ibid., 28.
126. Kopytoff, “The Cultural Biography of Things”, 70.
127. Ibid., 69.
128. Featherstone, Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, 111.
129. See, for instance, Adam Possamai, “Cultural Consumption of History and Popular Culture
in Alternative Spiritualities”, Journal of Consumer Culture 2(2) (2002), 197–218.
130. For a through and fascinating overview of this issue, see Heelas, Spiritualities of Life, 98,
100–112.
131. D. Sandner, Fantastic Literature (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004).
132. Margaret Drabble, “Fantasy Fiction”, in The Oxford Companion to English Literature (Oxford
University Press, 2000).
133. K. Kroeber, Romantic Fantasy and Science Fiction (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1988), 87.
134. Chris Baldick, “Fantastic, The”, in The Concise Oxford of Literary Terms (Oxford: Oxford
135. Tzvetan Todorov, The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre (Cleveland, OH:
Case Western Reserve University Press, 1973), 33.
136. Gary K. Wolfe, Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy: A Glossary and Guide to
Scholarship (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), xv.
137. Brian M. Stableford, Historical Dictionary of Fantasy Literature (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Press, 2005), xlv.
138. Ibid., xl.
139. Ibid., xl–xli.
140. Ann Swinfen, In Defense of Fantasy: A Study of the Genre in English and American Literature
since 1945 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), 3.
141. Neil Cornwell, The Literary Fantastic: From Gothic to Postmodernism (London: Prentice Hall,
1990), 39–41.
142. Following the lead of Ann Swinfen, I will accept Tolkien’s definition while changing his
terminology: Tolkien’s “fairy tale” is today’s “fantasy”. See Swinfen, In Defense of Fantasy, 4–5.
143. J. R. R. Tolkien, “On Fairy-Stories”, in Tree and Leaf (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1965),
10.
144. Ibid., 12.
145. Ibid., 14–16.
146. Ibid., 13–14.
147. See also Swinfen, In Defense of Fantasy, 3.
148. Farah Mendlesohn, “Towards a Taxonomy of Fantasy”, Journal for the Fantastic in the Arts
13(2) (2002), 171.
149. Stableford, Historical Dictionary of Fantasy Literature: 84.
150. Ibid., 84–5.
151. Ibid., 197–8.
156
notes
152. J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings (London: Allen & Unwin, 1954).
153. Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 2nd edn (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
154. G. Slusser, “Reflections on Style in Science Fiction”, in Styles of Creation: Aesthetic Technique
and the Creation of Fictional Worlds, G. Slusser & E. Rabkin (eds) (Athens, GA: University
of Georgia Press, 1992), 3.
155. Stanislaw Lem, The Cyberiad: Fables for the Cybernetic Age (London: Secker & Warburg,
1974).
156. Adam Roberts, Science Fiction. (London: Routledge, 2006), 2–3.
157. Kroeber, Romantic Fantasy and Science Fiction, 9.
158. James Gunn, “Towards a Definition of Science Fiction”, in Speculations on Speculation:
Theories of Science Fiction, James Gunn & Matthew Candelaria (eds) (Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press, 2005), 8.
159. Ibid., 6.
160. A tertiary world is a narrative world completely discrete from the primary world, as opposed
to secondary worlds such as those viewable within fiction located within this world. This will
be discussed further in Chapter 4.
161. Gunn, “Towards a Definition of Science Fiction”, 9–10.
162. Gary K. Wolfe, “Coming to Terms”, in Speculations on Speculation, Gunn & Candelaria (eds),
15.
163. Damien Broderick, Reading by Starlight: Postmodern Science Fiction (London: Routledge,
1995), 155.
165. Ibid., 71.
166. Ibid., 22.
167. Richard Mathews, Fantasy : The Liberation of Imagination (New York: Routledge, 2002), 4–5;
Eric S. Rabkin, The Fantastic in Literature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976).
168. Kroeber, Romantic Fantasy and Science Fiction, 29–30.
169. Lauri Honko, “The Problem of Defining Myth”, in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory
of Myth, Alan Dundes (ed.) (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 44; Kees
Bolle, “Myth: An Overview”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Lindsay Jones (ed.) (Detroit, MI:
Macmillan Reference, 2005), 6365.
170. There are nature theories, language theories, psychological theories, structural theories and
myth–ritualist approaches, which all in their own ways attempt to explain myths, but few
seem to view myth in its own right. See, for instance F. M. Muller, Natural Religion (London:
Longmans, Green, 1889); Ernst Cassirer, Language and Myth, Susanne K. Langer (trans.)
(Mineola, NY: Dover, 1953); S. Freud, Totem and Taboo: Some Points of Agreement between
the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics, James Strachey (trans.) (New York: Norton, 1950);
Claude Levi-Strauss, Myth and Meaning (New York: Schocken, 1979); Carl Jung, Symbols of
Transformation, Collected Works of C. G. Jung, R. F. C. Hull (trans), Michael Fordham, Sir
Herbert Read, Gerhard Adler & William McGuire (eds), vol. 5, 2nd edn (London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1953–79); Emile Durkheim & Marcel Mauss, Primitive Classification (Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press, 1963); B. Malinowski, Myth in Primitive Psychology (New
York: Greenwood Press, 1971); J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion
(London: Macmillan, 1911–15); E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 5th edn (London: Murray,
1913).
171. Robert A. Segal, Theorizing about Myth (Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Press,
1999), 59–65.
172. William Bascom, “The Forms of Folklore”, in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of
Myth, Alan Dundes (ed.) (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 8–9.
173. Alan Dundes (ed.), Sacred Narrative, 5.
157
notes
174. Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, or, Cosmos and History (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1954), 67.
175. Dundes, Sacred Narrative, 5–6.
176. Ibid., 5.
177. Bascom, “The Forms of Folklore”, 29
178. Stableford, Historical Dictionary of Fantasy Literature, 297.
179. Faivre, “What Is Occultism?”, 7.
181. Scott Masson, “Romanticism”, in The Oxford Handbook of English Literature and Theology,
David Jasper & Elisabeth Jay Andrew Hass (eds) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007),
124.
182. Ibid., 123.
183. Faivre, Access to Western Esotericism, 86.
184. R. Bromwich, “The Mabinogi and Lady Charlotte Guest”, in The Mabinogi: A Book of Essays,
Charles W. Sullivan (ed.) (New York: Garland, 1996), 6.
185. Elizabeth Holtze, “Grimm Brothers”, in Encyclopedia of Modern Europe: Europe 1789–1914:
Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire, John Merriman & Jay Winter (eds) (Detroit,
MI: Scribner, 2006).
186. R. C. Johnson, R. I. Maxwell & K. Trumpener, “The Arabian Nights, Arab-European Literary
Influence, and the Lineages of the Novel”, Modern Language Quarterly 68(2) (2007), 243–79.
187. Cornwell, The Literary Fantastic, 4–5.
188. Wolfe, Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy, xvii.
189. Cornwell, The Literary Fantastic, 215.
190. Lucie Armitt, Theorising the Fantastic (London: Arnold, 1996), 1.
191. Stableford, Historical Dictionary of Fantasy Literature, xxxv.
2. the otheRKin
1. Arhuaine The Crisses, Miaren Crowsdaughter, Thistle Kachunk, Golden Syrpent, Knight of
Ghosts and Shadows & Jarin Dreamsinger, “Otherkin FAQ v 4.0.1”, http://kinhost.org/res/
Otherfaq.php (accessed October 2012).
2. Tirl Windtree, “What are Otherkin?”, www.otherkin.net/articles/what.html (accessed
October 2012).
3. Kinjou Ten, “Temple of the Ota’kin”, http://otakukin.otherkin.net (accessed November 2012).
4. C. Partridge, The Re-enchantment of the West, 67.
5. Michael York, The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-Pagan Movements
(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995), 145.
6. Graham Harvey, “The Authority of Intimacy in Paganism and Goddess Spirituality”, Diskus
4(1) (1996), §1.2.
7. See Appendix.
8. For an earlier discussion of this issue, see Danielle Kirby, “Alternative Worlds: Metaphysical
Questing and Virtual Community amongst the Otherkin”, in Through a Glass Darkly:
Reflections on the Sacred, Frances Di Lauro (ed.) (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2006).
9. See, for instance, The Elenari, www.elenari.net/index.shtml (accessed October 2012);
“Synesthesia Symbiosis”, www.rialian.com (accessed November 2012); http://silverelves.
angelfire.com (accessed November 2012); The Otherkin Community, www.otherkincom-
munity.org/wiki/Main_Page (accessed November 2012); “Harmony & Discord”, www.other-
kin.net/index.html (accessed November 2012); Otherkin.com, www.otherkin.com/phpBB3
(accessed November 2012).
158
notes
10. Otherkin.net, “Otherkin Directory”, http://otherkin.net/community/directory/full.html.

Accurate as of 28 November 2011.
11. The comparatively small members list at present I understand to be reflective of the recent
removal of inactive members from the list.
12. Otherkin.net, “Geographic Listing”, www.otherkin.net/community/directory/geog.html
(accessed December 2012).
13. Otherkin.net, “Articles”, www.otherkin.net/articles/index.html (accessed December 2012).
14. Dandelion Æ, “Why an Elf?”, www.otherkin.net/articles/whyAnElf.html (accessed October
2012).
15. Dandelion Æ, “Us vs Them”, www.otherkin.net/articles/usThem.html (accessed October 2012).
16. Dan O’Dea, “Soulbonds”, www.otherkin.net/articles/soulbonds.html (accessed October
2012).
17. the hedgie, “What’s Magic?”, www.otherkin.net/articles/whatMagic.html (accessed October
2012).
18. For some particularly formative and insightful work see, for instance L. Dawson, “Religion
and the Quest for Virtual Community”, in Religion Online, L. Dawson (ed.) (New York:
Routledge, 2004), 75–90; Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the
Electronic Frontier, rev. edn (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000); Lorne L. Dawson & Douglas
E. Cowan (eds), Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet (New York: Routledge, 2004).
19. Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure, Lewis Henry Morgan lectures
1966 (New York: de Gruyter, 1995), 96.
20. As most sites of this nature require membership of some form, and can therefore be reason-
ably construed as private by participants, I have avoided accessing these locales. It would be
remiss of me, however, to not acknowledge their presence and probable importance within
the community.
21. Hume, Witchcraft and Paganism in Australia, 44; Harvey, “The Authority of Intimacy in
Paganism and Goddess Spirituality”.
22. Otherkin.net, www.otherkin.net/wiki/Otherkin/Elves (accessed October 2012).
23. Buck Young, “An Historical Overview of the Whereabouts of Gnomes and Elves, Fauns and
Faeries, Goblins, Ogres, Trolls and Bogies, Nymphs, Sprites, and Dryads, Past and Present”,
www.eristic.net/fey/info/buckyoung.php (accessed October 2012).
24. Arhuaine the Crisses et al., “Otherkin FAQ v 4.0.1”, 4.3.
25. Otherkin.net, “Mailing Lists”, www.otherkin.net/community/lists/index.html (accessed
October 2012).
26. Ten, “Temple of the Ota’kin”.
27. Frederik L. Schodt, Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga (Berkeley, CA: Stone
Bridge Press, 1996), 43–6.
28. Anime is an umbrella term used to refer to Japanese animation and cartoons, while manga
refers to comics. These genres are often heavily laden with myths, legends, fantasy, and
apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic themes. Susan J. Napier, Anime: From Akira to Princess
Mononoke (New York: Palgrave, 2000).
29. Greer-The-Raven, “Stop Dissing Otakukin, I am one”, deviantArt, http://forum.deviantart.
com/community/complaints/612247 (accessed November 2012).
30. Lupa, A Field Guide to the Otherkin (Stafford, UK: Megalithica Books, 2007), 202.
31. Lupa, “Some Thoughts on Mediakin”, www.otherkin.net/articles/mediakin.html (accessed
October 2012).
32. Ibid.
33. A simple Google search will provide abundant evidence of this criticism, as well as partici-
pants’ attempts to defend their beliefs. Some examples of this are Greer-The-Raven, “Stop
Dissing Otakukin, I am one”; Janet Houck, “In Search of the Otakukin”, www.mania.com/
search-otakukin_article_54149.html (accessed October 2012).
159
notes
34. The Otherkin Alliance, “FAQ: About Otherkin”, http://main.otherkinalliance.org/faq/about-

otherkin (accessed December 2012).
35. from_fiction Livejournal community, “Fic’kin: 100% Free-Range Otherkin”, http://
community.livejournal.com/from_fiction/profile (accessed October 2012).
36. LJ in the following extract refers to LiveJournal, which is the host to this community.
37. from_fiction LiveJournal community, http://community.livejournal.com/from_fiction/
profile (accessed 2008, 2011).
38. Graham Harvey, Animism: Respecting the Living World (New York: Columbia University
Press, 2006), xvii–xviii.
39. An earlier version of this section discussed this topic at length. See Danielle Kirby, “From
Pulp Fiction to Revealed Text: a Study of the Role of the Text in the Otherkin Community”,
in Exploring Religion and the Sacred in a Media Age, C. Deacy & E. Arweck (eds) (Farnham:
Ashgate, 2009), 141–54.
40. Harvey, “Fantasy in the Study of Religions”, 1.
41. Otherkin.net, www.otherkin.net/community/recommended/index.html (accessed 2008).
42. Graham Dunstan Martin, An Inquiry into the Purposes of Speculative Fiction – Fantasy and
Truth, (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003), xx.
44. For instance, see Lupa, A Field Guide to the Otherkin; The Silver Elves, The Magical Elven
Love Letters, vols 1 & 2 (USA: Silver Elves Publications, 2007).
45. For instance, see Hakim Bey, T.A.Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy,
Poetic Terrorism, 2nd edn. (Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 2003); C. Wicker, Not In Kansas
Anymore (New York: HarperCollins, 2005).
46. http://otakukin.otherkin.net.
47. The Silver Elves, The Magical Elven Love Letters, vols 1 & 2.
48. A. Levi, “The Americanisation of Anime and Manga: Negotiating Popular Culture”, in
Cinema Anime: Critical Engagements with Japanese Animation, S. Brown (ed.) (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 52.
49. elenari. “The Elenari”. www.elenari.net/index.shtml (accessed October 2012).
50. J. R. R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion (London: HarperCollins, 1977), 358.
51. K’Llayna, “A FAQ list of the Elenari”, www.elenari.net/Elenari/Elenarifaq4.html (accessed
November 2012).
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
54. Otherkin.net, “Species Listing”, www.otherkin.net/community/directory/species.html.
Accurate as of 28 November 2011.
55. Cristiano Grottanelli, “Dragons”, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.) (Detroit, MI:
Macmillan Reference, 1987), 2430–31.
56. Ibid., 2431.
57. Ibid., 2433.
58. Venetia Newall, “Fairies”, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 2952.
59. Elizabeth Ashman Rowe, “Alfar”, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 254.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid.
62. See, for instance Possamai, Religion and Popular Culture.
64. Arhuaine the Crisses et al., “Otherkin FAQ v 4.0.1 “.
65. See, for instance M. Brotherton, Star Dragon (New York: Macmillan, 2005).
66. It should be noted that the notion of “awakening” is by no means limited to the Otherkin
community, but rather represents a significant theme within many religious and spiritual
experiences. Many spiritual traditions, and indeed also various psychological approaches,
160
notes
frame personal and/or spiritual growth in such terms. See, for instance, John Welwood,
Towards a Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Psychotherapy, and the Path of Personal
and Spiritual Transformation (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 2000); Walter Anderson, The Next
Enlightenment: Integrating East and West in a New Vision of Human Evolution (New York:
St Martin’s Press, 2003). Theoretically speaking, theories of conversion also offer an interest-
ing framework through which to view the Otherkin concept of awakening.
67. Miaren Crow’s Daughter, “So … You’re Awake?”, www.otherkin.net/articles/wakeup.html
68. Casidhe Adain, “Reflections on Waking”, www.otherkin.net/articles/reflections.html
69. Frank K. Flinn, “Conversion: The Pentecostal and Charismatic Experience”, in Religious
Conversion: Contemporary Practices and Controversies, Christopher Lamb & M. Darroll
Bryant (eds) (London: Cassell, 1999), 52–3.
70. Lupa, “Some Thoughts on Mediakin”.
71. See “The Psychologization of the Occult” in Chapter 3.
74. Hime, “Soulbond”, www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soulbonding (accessed
November 2012).
75. Stachelrochen, “Soulbond”, www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soulbond (accessed
November 2012).
76. O’Dea, “Soulbonds”.
77. Gabriel Ragland, “Soulbond Sense”, www.karitas.net/pavilion/library/articles; now defunct.
78. It is interesting to note that the term “soulscape”’ has also appeared in an academic context.
In an impassioned discussion on the personhood of animals, Bekoff uses the term ”soulscape”
to denote the utopic ideal that the “awe-inspiring universe as a whole will become a better
place-a soulscape-in which to live in harmony with all of our kin, other life, and inanimate
landscapes.” Whether this understanding had any influence on the notion of soulbonding
is unclear. M. Bekoff, “The Evolution of Animal Play, Emotions, and Social Morality: On
Science, Theology, Spirituality, Personhood, and Love”, Zygon 36(4) (2001), 648.
79. Kinhost.org, “Brief FAQ”, www.kinhost.org/wiki/Main/BriefFAQ (accessed October 2012).
80. Kinhost.org, “Natural”, www.kinhost.org/wiki/Main/NaturalMultiple (accessed October
2012).
81. Shaytar, “The Gatefield”, http://bentspoons.com/Shaytar/gatefield.shtml (accessed 2008; the
page is no longer available).
82. Kinhost.org, “Dissociative Identity Disorder”, www.kinhost.org/wiki/Main/Dissociative
IdentityDisorder (accessed October 2012).
83. Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (New York: Putnam, 1961).
84. Possamai, Religion and Popular Culture, 72–3.
85. Michael Jindra, “Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon”, Sociology of Religion 55(1)
(1994), 27–51.
86. The Jedi Resource Centre and Jedi Gatherings Group, www.jediresourcecenter.org/vb/index.
php (accessed 2008; the page is no longer available).
87. George Lucas (director), Star Wars: Episode 4, (Century City, CA: Twentieth Century Fox,
1977).
88. Ibid.
89. See, for instance, the 2001 census and the associated uproar. See Possamai, Religion and
Popular Culture, 72–5.
90. A central character in the Star Wars series.
91. Possamai, Religion and Popular Culture, 75.
92. See also pages 45–6.
161
notes
93. Jindra, “Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon”.

94. Ibid., 48.
95. G. Harvey, “Fantasy in the Study of Religions”; “Discworld and Otherworld: The
Imaginative Use of Fantasy Literature among Pagans”, in Popular Spiritualites: The Politics of
Contemporary Enchantment, Lynne Hume & Kathleen McPhillips (eds) (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2006); “Boggarts and Books: Towards an Appreciation of Pagan Spirituality”, in Beyond New
Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality, S. Bowman & M. Sutcliffe (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2000), 155–68.
96. Harvey, “Fantasy in the Study of Religions”.
97. Hume, Witchcraft and Paganism in Australia, 80; Faye Ringel, “New England Neo-Pagans:
Medievalism, Fantasy, Religion”, The Journal of American Culture 17(3) (1994): 66.
98. Harvey, “Fantasy in the Study of Religions”.
99. Hume, Witchcraft and Paganism in Australia, 2.
101. Mary Jo Neitz, “Quasi-Religions and Cultural Movements: Contemporary Witchcraft as a
Churchless Religion”, in Between Sacred and Secular: Research and Theory on Quasi-Religion,
Greil & Robbins (eds), 127–49.
102. Jenny Blain, Nine Worlds of Seid-Magic: Ecstasy and Neo-Shamanism in Northern European
Paganism (London: Routledge, 2002).
103. Lupa, A Field Guide to the Otherkin, 211.
104. For a detailed exploration of this group, see Cusack, Invented Religion.
105. James R. Lewis, Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions (Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1999), 56.
106. Ibid.
107. Hume, Witchcraft and Paganism in Australia, 39; Lewis, Witchcraft Today, 56.
108. E. Sanders, The Family: The Story of Charles Manson’s Dune Buggy Attack Battalion (New
York: Dutton, 1971), 31.
109. Adam Rostoker, “Whence Came the Stranger: Tracking the Metapattern of ‘Stranger in a
Strange Land’”, in Rapid Eye 3, Simon Dwyer (ed.) (London: Creation Books, 1994), 228.
110. Jindra, “Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon”.
111. Christine Brooke-Rose, A Rhetoric of the Unreal: Studies in Narrative and Structure, Especially
of the Fantastic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 243.
112. Broderick, Reading by Starlight, 59.
113. Roz Kaveney, From Alien to The Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film (London: Tauris, 2005),
5–6.
114. Gary K. Wolfe, The Known and the Unknown: the Iconography of Science Fiction (Kent, OH:
Kent State University Press, 1979), 16.
115. Broderick, Reading by Starlight, 60.
116. Brooke-Rose, A Rhetoric of the Unreal, 243–5.
117. Broderick, Reading by Starlight, 58–9.
118. Ibid., 59.
119. Wolfe, The Known and the Unknown, 16.
120. Ibid., 17.
121. Roz Kaveney, From Alien to The Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film (London: Tauris, 2005),
5–6.
3. FAntAsy AnD Re-enchAntment: souRces oF content

1. D. H. Lawrence & Richard Aldington, Apocalypse (New York: Viking, 1966). Quoted in
Joseph Nigg, The Book of Fabulous Beasts: A Treasury of Writings from Ancient Times to the
Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
162
notes
2. Grottanelli, “Dragons”, 2431.

3. Nigg, The Book of Fabulous Beasts, 10.
4. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Histories of the Kings of Britain (London: Dent, 1912).
5. Snorri Sturluson, The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson: Tales from Norse Mythology, Jean I.
Young (trans.) (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1954).
6. Seamus Heaney, Beowulf: A New Verse Translation (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2000).
7. Nigg, The Book of Fabulous Beasts, 304.
8. Jacob Grimm et al., The Complete Grimm’s Fairy Tales (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980).
9. See, for instance Jorge Luis Borges with Margarita Guerrero, The Book of Imaginary Beings,
trans. Norman Thomas di Giovanni (London: Vintage, 2002).
10. Jonathan D. Evans, “The Dragon”, in Mythical and Fabulous Creatures, ed. Malcolm South
(New York: Greenwood Press, 1987), 28.
11. Nigg, The Book of Fabulous Beasts, 363; Evans, “The Dragon”, in Mythical and Fabulous
Creatures, South (ed.), 32.
12. Peter Chemery, “Meteorological Beings”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.) (Detroit,
MI: Macmillan Reference, 2005), 5996.
13. Mircea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion, Rosemary Sheed (trans.) (London: Sheed
& Ward, 1958), 207–8.
14. Theodor Gaster, “Monsters”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 6163.
16. S. Unerman, “Dragons in Twentieth-Century Fiction”, Folklore 113(1) (2002): 94, 100.
17. For an informative overview of MMORPGs, see Nick Yee, “The Psychology of Massively
Multi-User Online Role-Playing Games: Motivations, Emotional Investment, Relationships
and Problematic Usage”, in Avatars at Work and Play, R. Schroeder & A.-S. Axelsson (eds),
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (New York: Springer, 2006), 187–208.
18. Unerman, “Dragons in Twentieth-Century Fiction”, 98.
19. John Marshall Carter, “Fairies”, in Mythical and Fabulous Creatures, South (ed.), 340.
20. Ursula Dronke, The Poetic Edda (London: Oxford University Press, 1969).
21. Sturluson, The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson.
22. Ibid., 46.
23. T. A. Shippey, “Light-Elves, Dark-Elves, and Others: Tolkien’s Elvish Problem”, Tolkien Studies
1 (2004), 4.
24. Wilfrid Bonser, “Magical Practices against Elves”, Folklore 37(4) (1926), 351.
25. Shippey, “Light-Elves, Dark-Elves, and Others”, 3.
26. Carter, “Fairies”, 328.
27. Ibid. Quoting Katharine M. Briggs, The Anatomy of Puck: An Examination of Fairy Beliefs
among Shakespeare’s Contemporaries and Successors (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1959), 188.
28. Shippey, “Light-Elves, Dark-Elves, and Others”, 2–3.
29. “Elves”, in A Dictionary of English Folklore, Jacqueline Simpson & Steve Roud (eds), Oxford
Reference Online (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
30. Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies (London: Corgi, 1992).
31. Ibid., 169.
32. Shippey, “Light-Elves, Dark-Elves, and Others”, 11–12.
33. Harvey, Listening People, Speaking Earth, 172.
35. Dimitra Fimi, “‘Mad’ Elves and ‘Elusive Beauty’: Some Celtic Strands of Tolkien’s Mythology”,
Folklore 117 (2006), 161–4.
37. D. Fimi, “‘Mad’ Elves and ‘Elusive Beauty’, 162; “‘Tolkien’s “Celtic” type of legends’: Merging
Traditions”, Tolkien Studies 4 (2007), 55.
163
notes
38. Fimi, “‘Mad’ Elves and ‘Elusive Beauty’”, 163.

39. Elizabeth Gray, “Tuatha de Danann”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 9390.
40. The following summary is paraphrased from Proinsias MacCana, “Celtic Religion: An
Overview”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 1488–9.
41. George T. Flom, “Spirits, Black Elves, Fairies and Giants in the Floklore of Aurland in Sogn,
Norway”, The Journal of American Folklore 62(234) (1949), 29.
42. Katharine M. Briggs, An Encyclopedia of fairies: Hobgoblins, Brownies, Bogies, and Other
Supernatural Creatures (New York: Pantheon, 1976), 131.
43. Newall, “Fairies”, 2951.
44. Ibid.
45. See for instance Harley Stamp, “The Water-Fairies”, The Journal of American Folklore 28(109)
(1915), 310–16.
46. Katharine M. Briggs, “The English Fairies”, Folklore 68(1) (1957), 270–72.
47. Carter, “Fairies”, 326.
48. Briggs, An Encyclopedia of Fairies, 318.
49. J. Brach, “Intermediary Beings III: Renaissance”, in Dictionary of Gnosis and Western
Esotericism, Wouter Hanegraaff (ed.) (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 626.
50. Ibid.; Carter, “Fairies”, 329.
51. Paracelsus, Four Treatises of Theophrastus von Hohenheim called Paracelsus, Henry E. Sigerist
(ed.) (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1941), 231.
52. Briggs, An Encyclopedia of Fairies, 137–9.
53. Ibid., 191.
54. Lynne Hume, “Liminal Beings and the Undead: Vampires in the 21st Century”, in Popular
Spiritualites: the Politics of Contemporary Enchantment, Lynne Hume & Kathleen McPhillips
(eds) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 4.
55. Eric Maple, The Complete Book of Witchcraft and Demonology: Witches, Devils, and Ghosts
in Western Civilization (South Brunswick, NJ: Barnes, 1978), 12.
56. Gordon David Keyworth, Troublesome Corpses: Vampires and Revenants from Antiquity to
the Present (Westcliff-on-Sea: Desert Island Books, 2007), 18.
57. Nina Auerbach, Our Vampires, Ourselves (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 1.
58. “Vampire”, in J. A. Simpson & E. S. C. Weiner, The Oxford English Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1989), www.oed.com (accessed November 2012).
59. Keyworth, Troublesome Corpses, 24–40.
60. For example, Bram Stoker, Dracula (London: Penguin, 1993).
61. For instance, J. M. Rymer, Varney the Vampire; or, The Feast of Blood (New York: Arno Press,
1970).
62. For an exhaustive list of vampire films, see J. Gordon Melton, “List of Vampire Movies in
English (origins-2008)”, CESNUR website, www.cesnur.org/2009/vampires_movies.htm
63. Anne Rice, Blood Canticle (London: Arrow, 2004); Blackwood Farm (London: Arrow Books,
2003); Memnoch the Devil (London: Arrow, 1996); The Vampire Lestat (London: Warner
Books, 1995); The Tale of the Body Thief (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993); The Queen of
the Damned: The Third Book in the Vampire Chronicles (London: Futura, 1990); Interview
with the Vampire (London: Futura, 1977); The Vampire Armand (London: Arrow, 1998);
Merrick (London: Arrow, 2001); Blood and Gold (London: Arrow, 2002).
64. Stephenie Meyer, Twilight (New York: Little, Brown, 2006).
65. Carol K. Mack & Dinah Mack, A Field Guide To Demons, Fairies, Fallen Angels, and Other
Subversive Spirits (New York: Arcade, 1998), 235.
66. Ann Dunnigan, “Wolves”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 9784.
67. Stanley Walens, “Therianthropism”, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 9155.
68. Apuleius, The Golden Ass, or, Metamorphoses, E. J. Kenney (trans.) (London: Penguin, 1998).
164
notes
69. Nancy K. Sandars, The Epic of Gilgamesh: An English Version, rev. edn (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1972).
70. Adam Douglas, The Beast Within (London: Orion, 1993), 39.
71. Ibid., 264.
72. Ibid., 131–4.
73. Stuart Walker (director), Werewolf in London (Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures, 1935).
74. Mark Rein-Hagen (creator), Werewolf: The Apocalypse (Stone Mountain, GA: White Wolf,
1992).
75. Mark Rein-Hagen (creator), Vampire: The Masquerade (Stone Mountain, GA: White Wolf,
1991).
76. Stewart Wieck et al. (creator), Mage: The Ascension (Stone Mountain, GA: White Wolf, 1993).
77. Alfonso Cuaron (director), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Pyrmont, NSW:
Warner Home Video [distributor], 2004); J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
Azkaban (London: Bloomsbury, 1999).
78. “Angels”, in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, Gordon Melton (ed.) (Detroit,
MI: Gale, 2001), 52.
79. Ibid.
80. Andrea Piras, “Angels”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 343, 49.
81. Wouter Hanegraaff, “How Magic Survived the Disenchantment of the World”, Religion 33
(2003), 368; Drury, The Watkins Dictionary of Magic, 181, entry on “Magic, Enochian”.
82. C. Fanger, “Intermediary Beings II: Middle Ages”, in Dictionary of Gnosis and Western
Esotericism, Wouter Hanegraaff (ed.) (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 619.
86. Donald LoCicero, Superheroes and Gods: A Comparative Study from Babylonia to Batman
(Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2008), 4.
87. Possamai, Religion and Popular Culture, 90; Christopher Knowles, Our Gods Wear Spandex:
The Secret History of Comic Book Heroes (San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2007), 3.
88. Knowles, Our Gods Wear Spandex, 13.
89. P. Coogan, Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre (Austin, TX: MonkeyBrain Books, 2006),
30–52.
90. Ibid., 48.
91. Adam Possamai, “Superheros and the Development of Latent Abilities: A Hyper-real
Re-enchantment?”, in Popular Spiritualities: The Politics of Contemporary Enchantment,
Lynne Hume & Katherine McPhillips (eds) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 57.
92. Adam Possamai, Religion and Popular Culture.
93. T. Andrae, “From Menace to Messiah: The History and Historicity of Superman”, in American
Media and Mass Culture: Left Perspectives, D. Lazere (ed.) (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 1987), 125. Quoted in Possamai, Religion and Popular Culture, 90.
94. Adam Possamai, “Superheros and the Development of Latent Abilities”, 58.
95. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, Adrian Del
Caro & Robert B. Pippin (eds) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
96. Coogan, Superhero, 158.
97. Ibid., 159; Matthew Wolf-Meyer, “The World Ozymandias Made: Utopias in the Superhero
Comic, Subculture, and the Conservation of Difference”, Journal of Popular Culture 36(3)
(2003), 497.
98. Self-Spirituality is another term that is used to describe the modern phenomena of per-
sonal religiosity; see Paul Heelas, The New Age Movement: The Celebration of the Self and
the Sacralization of Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 18–36. Tested in relation to the
New Age Movement, Paul Heelas proposes the label as one that may cohesively enfold the
165
notes
variety of individual beliefs that fall under the rubric of the New Age. Heelas locates three
central characteristic paradigmatic statements, in addition to many more generally held
approaches. The first of these central propositions is that “your lives do not work”. This refers
to the tendency of New Agers to assert that an individual’s indoctrination into mainstream
society and its associated practices lead to a division of the self and a departure from the
“authentically human”. The second proposition, that “you are gods and goddesses in exile”,
highlights the assumption that humans are primarily spiritual creatures. The third common
premise is summarized as “let go/drop it”; see also Marcel Gauchet, The Disenchantment of
the World: A Political History of Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).
This refers to the need for New Age practitioners to shuck off their societal assumptions and
behaviours so as to experience life in its fullness, not through the lens of habitual approaches.
Beyond these three aspects, Heelas locates many other specific characteristics impor-
tant, if not so widely held, to self-spirituality. These include unmediated individualism,
where the individual is considered the last and best authority on the self; see also Peter W.
Williams, Popular Religion in America: Symbolic Change and the Modernization Process in
Historical Perspective (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980). A familiar theme by now,
this concept is particularly pervasive within contemporary alternative beliefs, and it seems
rare to find philosophies within the occultural world that hold to strict hierarchies.
99. Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture, 48–50.
100. Ibid., 49.
102. Michael Ostling, “Harry Potter and the Disenchantment of the World”, Journal of Contemp-
orary Religion 18(1) (2003), 4.
103. Tolkien, “On Fairy-Stories”, 31.
105. Illuminism is the term used to refer to the period from 1750 to 1820, denoting the broad the-
osophical orientation of the time. Antoine Faivre, “Esotericism”, in Encyclopedia of Religion,
Jones (ed.), 2843.
106. Helen Sara Farley, “Tarot: An Evolutionary History” (PhD thesis, University of Queensland,
2007), chapter 4.
107. Katz, The Occult Tradition, 16.
108. Owen, The Place of Enchantment, 4.
109. Farley, “Tarot: An Evolutionary History”, chapter 4.
112. John B. Buescher, “Spiritualism”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 8715.
114. Hume, Witchcraft and Paganism in Australia: 19; Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western
Culture, 437; Joscelyn Godwin, The Theosophical Enlightenment (Albany, NY: SUNY Press,
1994), 187–8.
115. Buescher, “Spiritualism”, 8716.
116. These devout Christians were often in conflict with the Church, however, while still aligning
themselves with Christian religion. See Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture,
439.
117 Buescher, “Spiritualism”, 8715.
118. Ibid.
120. Ibid., 441.
121. Ibid., 441–2.
122. Drury, The Watkins Dictionary of Magic, 133.
166
notes
124. Ibid., 46.

125. Ibid., 148–86.
126. Antoine Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition: Studies in Western Esotericism (Albany,
NY: SUNY Press, 2000), 26–7.
127. The magical systems that are generally adhered to by contemporary occultural practitioners
tend to stem from the great synthesis of the Hermetic order of the Golden Dawn. The Golden
Dawn, in turn, drew much of its material from the Freemasonic orders. While slightly tan-
gential to the main thrust of this research, it is worth providing a brief summary of the
general situation of Freemasonry as a significant element of the origins of contemporary
magical and ritual practice.
While the history of Freemasonry is long, complex and of somewhat dubious provenance,
it is known that the first organized national body appeared in 1717, the Grand Lodge of
England, with what can be called modern or “speculative” Freemasonry (see Faivre, Access
to Western Esotericism, 72). Lodges spread to Europe and throughout the (largely colo-
nial) world, with the first European lodge appearing in France in 1725; see W. Stemper &
G. Beck, “Freemasons”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 3195. Much of the focus of
Freemasonry was in its rites, both the Christian type such as is exemplified by the Rectified
Scottish Rite and the Strict Observance (developed in the mid-eighteenth century), and
orders such as the Golden Rosy-Cross with far more of an Eastern bent. Although not
strictly speaking an inherent aspect of Freemasonry, many esoteric traditions and rituals
were developed in response to, or as an extension of, the ritual and mystery of the society.
Thus, in addition to the traditional three degrees that equate to the personal development
of the individual participant from darkness to light (ibid., 3197), there are also many rites
of a far more esoteric and/or occult bent. These include “Rosicrucian, Gnostic, qabbalistic,
and Hermetic elements”, and are possibly better understood as para- or quasi- Masonic
movements rather than as freemasonry proper (Faivre, Access to Western Esotericism, 79;
Stemper & Beck, “Freemasons”, 3196). Freemasonry in general posits an ultimate creator,
the “Great Architect”, but is not particularly affiliated with any one religion. Esoteric currents
that have influenced the development of Freemasonry include alchemy, Neoplatonism, and
Hermetic ideas such as those developed by Giordano Bruno. In addition to effectively being a
stronghold of Western esotericism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Freemasonry
provided a blueprint for secret and initiatory societies. These elements come to the fore in
groups such as the Theosophical society and the Hermetic Society of the Golden Dawn,
both occult groups with esoteric leanings which borrowed extensively from freemasonic as
well as other diverse influences. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, for instance, was
founded by three Freemasons, some of whom had already been affiliated with other esoteri-
cally oriented societies (see Owen, The Place of Enchantment, 46). Much of contemporary
occult magical knowledge is derived from the great syntheses of esoteric knowledges drawn
from many sources undertaken by these groups.
129. Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 20.
130. Ibid., 7–8.
131. See, for instance, Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture, 443–55.
132. Robert S. Ellwood, “Blavatsky, H. P.”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 977.
133. Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 27.
134. Ellwood, “Blavatsky, H. P.”, 977.
135. H. P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy, 3rd
rev. edn (London: Theosophical Publishing House, 1893); Isis Unveiled: a Master-Key to the
Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Science and Theology (New York: Bouton, 1877); The Key
to Theosophy: Being a Clear Exposition, in the Form of Question and Answer, of the Ethics,
Science, and Philosophy, for the Study of which the Theosophical Society has been Founded,
167
notes
with a Copious Glossary of General Theosophical Terms, rev. 2nd American edn (New York:
Theosophical Publishing Company, 1896).
138. Heelas, The New Age Movement, 45.
139. Hutton, “Modern Pagan Witchcraft”, 11.
142. Ellwood, “Blavatsky, H. P.”, 978.
145. Hume, Witchcraft and Paganism in Australia,163.
147. B. Meheust, “Animal Magnetism/Mesmerism”, in Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Eso-
tericism, Hanegraaff (ed.), 76.
148. Hanegraaff, “How Magic Survived the Disenchantment of the World”, 363.
149. Ibid., 368.
150. Ibid.
151. Ronald Hutton, The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001), 66–7.
154. Birgit Meyer & Peter Pels, Magic and Modernity: Interfaces of Revelation and Concealment
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003), 11.
157. Campbell, “Cultural Sources of Support for Contemporary Occultism”, 47.
158. Harvey, Listening People, Speaking Earth.
159. Robert J. Wallis, Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Contested Ecstasies, Alternative Archaeologies, and
Contemporary Pagans (New York: Routledge, 2003), 33.
160. Reid & Rabinovitch, “Witches, Wiccans, and Neo-Pagans”, 514.
162. Hutton, The Triumph of the Moon, 206.
163. Ibid., 207–12.
164. Joanne Pearson, “Wicca”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 2729–30.
165. Katz, The Occult Tradition, 22–3.
167. Ibid., 364, fn.18.
170. Harvey, Animism: Respecting the Living World, 87.
173. Meyer & Pels, Magic and Modernity, 7.
174. Wallis, Shamans/Neo-Shamans, 30–31.
175. Graham Harvey, “General Introduction”, in Shamanism: A Reader, Graham Harvey (ed.)
(London: Routledge, 2003), 9.
177. Nevill Drury, The Shaman and the Magician: Journeys between the Worlds (London: Arkana,
1987), 1.
178. Harvey, “General Introduction”, 11.
168
notes
179. Harvey, Listening People, Speaking Earth, 114–16.

180. Ibid., 102.
181. The following is drawn from the work of D. J. Cheal & J. Leverick, “Working Magic in
Neopaganism”, Journal of Ritual Studies 13(1) (1999): 10–14.
182. Ibid., 8.
183. Ibid., 17.
184. Ibid., 13.
185. Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion, 367–87.
187. As in the ritual process outlined above.
188. Susan Greenwood, Magic, Witchcraft and the Otherworld: An Anthropology (Oxford: Berg,
2000), 36.
189. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, “Occultism and Private Salvation Movements in Israel”, in Between
Sacred and Secular, Greil & Robbins (eds), 289.
190. See Richard A. Bartle, Designing Virtual Worlds (Indianapolis, IN: New Riders, 2003),
61; Maria Beatrice Bittarello, “Another Time, Another Space: Virtual Worlds, Myths and
Imagination”, Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1) (2008), 246–66.
192. D. Merkur, “The Otherworld as a Western Esoteric Category”, in Western Esotericism and the
Science of Religion, Antoine Faivre & Wouter J. Hanegraaff (eds) (Leuven: Peeters Publishers,
1998), 79.
193. Ibid., 89.
194. Ibid., 90–91.
195. Luhrmann, Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft: Ritual Magic in Contemporary England, 274.
196. Ibid.
197. A. Crowley, Magick in Theory and Practice (New York: Dover, 1976), 144, 250; quoted in
Luhrmann, Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft, 275.
200. Stephen Flowers, Lords of the Left-Hand Path: A History of Spiritual Dissent, 2nd edn (San
Francisco, CA: Rûna-Raven Press, 1997), 3.
202. H. B. Urban, “Crowley, Aleister”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, Jones (ed.), 2072.
204. “Regardie, (Francis) Israel (1907–1985)”, in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology,
J. G. Melton (ed.), 1296.
205. Luhrmann, Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft, 192.
206. For a detailed investigation of this and broader related themes, see H. B. Urban, Magia
Sexualis: Sex, Magic and Liberation in Modern Western Esotericism (Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press, 2006).
207. Bey, The Temporary Autonomous Zone.
208. See Malaclypse the Younger & Lord Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, Discordia: Hail Eris Goddess
of Chaos and Confusion (Berkeley, CA: Ronin, 2006). This is a copyrighted version of the
Principia Discordia, which is open source and avaliable online at www.principiadiscordia.
com/book/7.php (accessed October 2012).
209. See for instance Rev. Ivan Stang, The Book of the SubGenius (New York: Fireside, 1983).
210. Heelas, The New Age Movement, 20.
211. S. M. Greenfield & A. Droogers, “Syncretic Processes and the Definition of New Religions”,
Journal of Contemporary Religion 18(1) (2003), 33.
212. Libuse Martinkova, “Computer Mediated Religious Life of Technoshamans and Cyber-
shamans: Is There Any Virtuality?”, Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1) (2008),
43–60.
169
notes
213. Taylor Ellwood, Pop Culture Magic (Stafford: Immanion Press, 2004).
214. Ibid., 16.
215. Ibid., 142.
216. Faivre, Access to Western Esotericism, 88.
217. Tolkien, “On Fairy-Stories”, 28; Swinfen, In Defense of Fantasy, 6.
218. Partridge, The Re-enchantment of the West, vol. 2, 6; Paul Heelas, The Spiritual Revolution:
Why Religion is Giving way to Spirituality (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 77–128.
219. Windtree, “What are Otherkin?”.
4. the inteRnet AnD populAR cultuRes: souRces oF context

1. L. Dawson, “Religion and the Internet: Presence, Problems, and Prospects”, in New
Approaches to the Study of Religion, Armin W. Geertz, Peter Antes & Randi R. Warne (eds),
Religion and Reason (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 390.
2. Dawson, “Researching Religion in Cyberspace”, in Religion on the Internet, Hadden & Cowan
(eds), 25.
3. Douglas E. Cowan & Jeffrey K. Hadden, “Virtually Religious: New Religious Movements and
the World Wide Web”, in Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, James R. Lewis (ed.)
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 120.
4. Helland, “Online Religion as Lived Religion”, 1.
5. Dawson, “Religion and the Internet”, 387.
7. C. Helland, “Popular Religion and the World Wide Web: A Match Made in (Cyber) Heaven”,
in Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet, Dawson & Cowan (eds), 23.
8. Christopher Partridge, The Re-enchantment of the West, vol. 2, 161.
9. Katelyn Y. A. McKenna, “Through the Internet Looking Glass: Expressing and Validating
the True Self ” in The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, Adam N. Joinson, Katelyn Y.
A. McKenna, Tom Postmes & Ulf-Dietrich Reips (eds) (New York: Oxford University Press,
2007), 205–21.
10. Nadja Miczek, “Online Ritual in Virtual Worlds: Christian Online Services Between
Dynamics and Stability”, Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1) (2008), 144.
11. Heidi Campbell, Exploring Religious Community Online: We are One in the Network (New
York: Peter Lang, 2005), 55.
12. Elena Larsen, “Cyberfaith: How Americans Pursue Religion Online”, in Religion Online:
Finding Faith on the Internet, Dawson & Cowan (eds), 17.
13. See, for instance, Cowan & Hadden, “Virtually Religious”; Brenda E. Brasher, Give Me
That Online Religion (Chapel Hill, NC: Rutgers University Press, 2004); Dawson & Cowan
(eds), Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet; Christopher Helland, “Online Religion/
Religion Online and Virtual Communitas”, in Religion on the Internet: Research Prospects
and Promises, Jeffery K. Hadden & Douglas E. & Cowan (eds) (London: JAI Press/Elsevier
Science, 2000); “Online Religion as Lived Religion”.
14. Cowan & Hadden, “Virtually Religious”, 120.
15. See in particular Helland, “Online Religion as Lived Religion”; Douglas E. Cowan,
Cyberhenge: Modern Pagans on the Internet (New York: Routledge, 2005).
16. C. Hewson, “Gathering Data on the Internet: Qualitative Approaches and Possibilities for
Mixed Methods Research”, in The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, A. Joinson,
K. McKenna., T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (eds) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007),
418–23.
18. The following attributes are drawn from McKenna, “Through the Internet Looking Glass”,
211–12.
170
notes
19. For a more detailed explaination of what constitutes the “true” self, see ibid., 207–8.
20. M. Garau, “Selective Fidelity: Investigating Priorities for the Creation of Expressive Avatars, ”
in Avatars and Work and Play: Collaboration and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments,
R. Schroeder and A.-S. Axelsson (eds), Computer Supported Cooperative Work (New York:
Springer, 2006), 23.
21. Ibid., 22.
22. C. Haythornthwaite, “Social Networks and Online Community”, in The Oxford Handbook
of Internet Psychology, A. Joinson, K. McKenna, T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (eds) (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007), 122–3.
23. T. Rockwell, “Visual Technologies, Cosmographies, and our Sense of Place in the Universe”,
Zygon 37(3) (2002), 607–8.
24. Haythornthwaite, “Social Networks and Online Community”, 125.
25. S. Turkle, “Looking Towards Cyberspace: Beyond Grounded Sociology: Cyberspace and
Identity”, Contemporary Sociology 28(6) (1999), 646–7.
26. J. Dibbel, “Virtual Gold Could Draw Real Taxes: Congress is Investigating Whether the IRS
Should Tax Online Game Loot”, PC World 25(3) (2007), 30.
27. See, for instance, Adam Nash, Christopher Dodds & Justin Clemens, Babelswarm, 2008,
http://babelswarm.blogspot.com. It is worth mentioning that this artwork was part of a
secondlife residency – in itself a fascinating development.
30. Nick Yee, “The Psychology of Massively Multi-User Online Role-Playing Games: Motivations,
Emotional Investment, Relationships and Problematic Usage”, in Avatars at Work and Play,
R. Schroeder & A-S Axelsson (eds), Computer Supported Cooperative Work (New York:
Springer, 2006), 203.
31. Ibid., 196.
33. J. R. R. Tolkien, “On Fairy-Stories”, in Tree and Leaf (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1965), 41.
34. Pierre Levy, Becoming Virtual: Reality in the Digital Age, Robert Bononno (trans.) (New York:
Plenum, 1998), 29–30.
35. William Gibson, Neuromancer (London: HarperCollins, 1984).
36. Sue Barnes, “Cyberspace: Creating Paradoxes for the Ecology of Self ”, in Communication and
Cyberspace: Social Interaction in an Electronic Environment, Ron L. Jacobson, Lance Strate &
Stephani Gibson (eds) (New York: Hampton Press, 2003), 230.
37. Charles U. Larson, “Dramatisiation and Virtual Reality: Implications and Predictions”, in
Commuication and Cyberspace: Social Interaction in an Electronic Environment, Jacobson et
al. (eds), 113.
38. G. Calleja, “Virtual Worlds Today: Gaming and Online Sociality”, Heidelberg Journal of
Religions on the Internet 3(1) (2008), 8; Levy, Becoming Virtual, 23, 27.
39. Calleja, “Virtual Worlds Today”, 8; Edward Castronova, Synthetic Worlds: The Business and
Culture of Online Games (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 294.
40. Bittarello, “Another Time, Another Space”, 256.
41. Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition (London: Athlone Press, 1994).
42. Levy, Becoming Virtual.
43. Ibid., 23.
44. See, for instance, Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation (Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press, 1994).
46. Janet Horowitz Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace (New
York: Free Press, 1997), 103.
47. Calleja, “Virtual Worlds Today”, 9.
171
notes
48. Ibid., 14–15.

49. Bartle, Designing Virtual Worlds, 1.
51. M. Highland & G. Yu, “Communicating Inner Experience with Video Game Technology”,
Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1) (2008), 275.
52. R. Bartle, “Early MUD History”, 1990, www.mud.co.uk/richard/mudhist.htm (accessed
November 2012). Other authors have given 1978 as the birthdate of MUD1; see Kerstin
Radde-Antweiler, “‘Virtual Religion’: An Approach to a Religious and Ritual Topography of
SecondLife”, Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1) (2008), 174.
53. Yee, “The Psychology of Massively Multi-User Online Role-Playing Games”, 188.
54. Ibid.
55. World of Warcraft, for instance, has 7.5 million users. K. Coppola, “Virtual Outbreak:
Gaming has Never Been More Serious”, New Scientist 193(2592) (2007), 39–41.
56. P. Martinez-Zaeate, I. Corduneanu & L. M. Martinez, “S(L)pirituality: Immersive Worlds
as a Window to Spirituality Phenomena”, Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1)
(2008).
57. Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck, 98.
58. T. Krzywinska, “World Creation and Lore: World of Warcraft as Rich Text”, in Digital Culture,
Play, and Identity: A World of Warcraft Reader, Hile G. Corneliussen & Jill Walker Rettberg
(eds) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), 123.
59. Bartle, Designing Virtual Worlds, 61.
60. Krzywinska, “World Creation and Lore”, 128.
61. “WoW – Info – Races”, World of Warcraft, Irvine, CA: Blizzard Entertainment, www.
worldofwarcraft.com/info/races/index.html (accessed November 2012).
63. Ibid., 126.
64. R. Kluver & Y. Chen, “The Church of Fools: Virtual Ritual and Material Faith”, Heidelberg
Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1) (2008), 138.
65. Annette N. Markham, Life Online: Researching Real Experience in Virtual Space (Walnut
Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 1998), 20.
66. Yee, “The Psychology of Massively Multi-User Online Role-Playing Games”, 192.
67. Ibid., 193.
68. Ibid.
69. L. Dawson & J. Hennebry, “New Religions and the Internet: Recruiting in a New Public
Space”, Journal of Contemporary Religion 14(1) (1999), 160.
70. Heelas, The Spiritual Revolution, 107.
72. Robin Hardy (director), The Wicker Man (London: British Lion Film Corporation, 1973)
73. Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York: New
York University Press, 2006), 322.
74. Josh Koury (director), We Are Wizards (New York: Brooklyn Underground Films, 2007).
75. Calleja, “Virtual Worlds Today”, 39.
76. Edmund Little, The Fantasts: Studies in J. R. R. Tolkien, Lewis Carroll, Mervyn Peake, Nikolay
Gogol and Kenneth Grahame (Amersham: Avebury, 1984), 9–10. Quoted in Cornwell, The
Literary Fantastic, 16.
77. Gwyneth Jones, “The Icons of Science Fiction”, in The Cambridge Companion to Science
Fiction, Edward James & Farah Mendlesohn (eds) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003), 163.
79. Tolkien, “On Fairy-Stories”.
172
notes
80. The term “cult” here is used in its popular culture sense, to denote source material that evokes
a deeply passionate response within a specific audience. The implication of the category is
that of outsider value, but there exists what is effectively a cult canon, although it differs
between individuals and sub-cultures.
81. Matthew Hills, “Defining Cult TV: Texts, Inter-Texts and Fan Audiences”, in The Television
Studies Reader, Robert C. Allen & Annette Hill (eds) (London: Routledge, 2004), 511.
82. Matthew Hills, Fan Cultures (London: Routledge, 2002), 137.
83. Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture (New York:
Routledge, 1992), 98–107.
84. Slash fiction is fan fiction written about sexual encounters, usually homoerotic, between
favourite characters.
85. Hills, Fan Cultures, 138.
86. Gary K. Wolfe, “Surfing the Multiverse”, Nature 448(5) (2007), 25.
88. Most particularly, see Terry Pratchett, Jingo (London: Victor Gollancz, 1997) and Nightwatch
(London: Doubleday, 2002).
90. Martin Roberts, “Notes on the Global Underground: Subcultures and Globalization” in The
Subcultures Reader, Ken Gelder (ed.) (London: Routledge, 2005), 578.
91. Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 12.
92. Hills, Fan Cultures, ix.
93. Henry Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture (New York: New
York University Press, 2006), 135.
94. Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 131–2.
95. Henry Jenkins, “Afterword:The Future of Fandom”, in Fandom: Identities and Communities
in a Mediated World, Cornel Sandvoss et al. (eds) (New York: New York University Press,
2007), 364.
96. Jindra, “Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon”, 29.
97. Furries are a subculture that appreciate anthropomorphic animals. This may, for instance,
involve a variety of practices such as dressing up in costume, or denote particular sexual
behaviours.
98. See the definitional differences between the idea of the cult fan versus the fan discussed in
Hills, Fan Cultures, ix–xv.
99. John Frow, “Is Elvis a God? Cult, Culture, Questions of Method”, International Journal of
Cultural Studies 1(2) (1998), 201.
100. A. L. Greil & T. Robbins (eds), Between Sacred and Secular: Research and Theory on Quasi-
Religion (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1994).
102. Ibid., 117–29; Hills, “Media Fandom, Neoreligiosity, and Cult(ural) Studies”, The Velvet Light
Trap: A Critical Journal of Film and Television 46 (2000), 73–84.
104. Ibid., 121.
105. Ibid., 123.
106. Greil & Robbios, Between Sacred and Secular.
108. Ibid., 117.
109. Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, 137.
111. Edward Bailey, “Implicit Religion”, in Encyclopedia of New Religions, Christopher H. Partridge
(ed.) (Oxford: Lion, 2004), 397.
173
notes
112. John S. Rice, “The Theraputic God: Transcendence and Identity in Two Twelve-Step Quasi-
Religions”, in Between Sacred and Secular, Greil & Robbins (eds), 151–64.
113. Greil & Robbins, “Introduction: Exploring the Boundaries of the Sacred”, 3.
114. Eileen Barker, “But is it a Genuine Religion?”, in Between Sacred and Secular, Greil & Robbins
(eds), 97–110.
115. Greil & Robbins, Between Sacred and Secular.
116. Hills, “Media fandom, neoreligiosity, and cult(ural) studies”; Fan Cultures.
117. Hills, “Defining Cult TV: Texts, Inter-Texts and Fan Audiences”, 514.
118. Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 131.
119. Jenkins, “Afterword: The Future of Fandom”, 357–8.
120. Paul D. Miller, Rhythym Science (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004).
121. See for instance Matt Mason, The Pirate’s Dilemma: How Hackers, Punk Capitalists and
Graffiti Millionaires are Remixing our Culture and Changing the World (London: Allen Lane,
2008).
122. Dick Hebdige, “Subculture: The Meaning of Style [1979]”, in The SubCultures Reader, Ken
Gelder (ed.) (London: Routledge, 1997), 125.
123. Mason, The Pirate’s Dilemma, 71.
124. Square Co. Ltd, Final Fantasy VII (Europe: Sony, 1997).
125. For a wiccan example, see Amber Laine Fisher, Philosophy of Wicca (Toronto: ECW Press,
2002), 218–21.
126. Borges, The Book of Imaginary Beings, 25.
127. “Shiva”, in A Dictionary of World Mythology, Arthur Cotterell (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997).
128. “Siren”, in Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, Elizabeth Knowles (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2006), 661.
129. Ellwood, Pop Culture Magic, 153.
130. Daniel Chandler, Semiotics: The Basics, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 2007), 99.
132. Pieter Boeder, “Habermas’ Heritage: The Future of the Public Sphere in the Network Society”,
First Monday 10(9) (2005).
133. Roberts, “Notes on the Global Underground”, 579.
134. Ibid.
135. Jenkins, “Afterword: The Future of Fandom”, 358.
136. P. Kornig, “The Internet as Illustrating the McDonaldisation of Occult Culture”, www.cesnur.
org/2001/london2001/koenig.htm (accessed November 2012).
137. Tom Beadoin, Virtual Faith: The Irreverent Spiritual Quest of Generation X (San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998).
138. A. Droogers, “Enjoying an Emerging Alternative World: Ritual in its Own Ludic Right”, Social
Analysis 48(2) (2004), 138.
139. Erik Davies, “Technopagans”, Wired 3.07 www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.07/technopagans_
pr.html (accessed November 2012).
140. Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America
(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003), 29–33. See also Partridge, The Re-
enchantment of the West, vol. 1, 126.
141. Turkle, “Looking Towards Cyberspace”, 647.
174
BIBLIogrAphY
Adain, C. “Reflections on Waking”, www.otherkin.net/articles/reflections.html (accessed October

2012).
Allport, G. W. & M. Ross 1967. “Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice”. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 5(4): 432–43.
Anderson, W. 2003. The Next Enlightenment: Intergrating East and West in a New Vision of Human
Evolution. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Andrae, T. 1987. “From Menace to Messiah: The History and Historicity of Superman”. In
American Media and Mass Culture: Left Perspectives, D. Lazere (ed.), 124–38. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Apuleius 1998. The Golden Ass, or, Metamorphoses, E. J. Kenney (trans.). London: Penguin.
Arhuaine the Crisses, Miaren Crowsdaughter, Thistle Kachunk, Golden Syrpent, Knight of
Ghosts and Shadows & Jarin Dreamsinger 2001. “Otherkin Faq V 4.0.1”, http://kinhost.org/
res/Otherfaq.php (accessed October 2012).
Armitt, L. 1996. Theorising the Fantastic. London: Arnold.
Armstrong, K. 2004. “Resisting Modernity: The Backlash against Secularism”. Harvard Inter-
national Review 25(4): 40–45.
Arnould, E. J. & C. J. Thompson 2005. “Consumer Culture Theory: Twenty Years of Research”.
Journal of Consumer Research 31(4): 868–82.
Auerbach, N. 1995. Our Vampires, Ourselves. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bailey, E. 2004. “Implicit Religion”. In Encyclopedia of New Religions, Christopher H. Partridge
(ed.), 397–9. Oxford: Lion.
Baldick, C. (ed.) 1990. “Fantastic, The”, in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Barker, E. 1994. “But Is It a Genuine Religion?” In Between Sacred and Secular: Research and Theory
on Quasi-Religion, Arthur L. Greil & Thomas Robbins (eds), 97–110. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Barkun, M. 2003. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Barnes, S. 2003. “Cyberspace: Creating Paradoxes for the Ecology of Self ”. In Communication
and Cyberspace: Social Interaction in an Electronic Environment, R. L. Jacobson, L. Strate &
S. Gibson (eds), 220–53. New York: Hampton Press.
Bartle, R. 1990. “Early MUD History”, www.mud.co.uk/richard/mudhist.htm (accessed October
2012).
Bartle, R. A. 2003. Designing Virtual Worlds. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
175
bibliography
Bascom, W. 1984. “The Forms of Folklore”. In Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth,
A. Dundes (ed.), 5–29. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Baudrillard, J. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Beadoin, T. 1998. Virtual Faith: The Irreverent Spiritual Quest of Generation X. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beckford, J. A. 1985. Cult Controversies. London: Tavistock.
Beit-Hallahmi, B. 1994. “Occultism and Private Salvation Movements in Israel”. In Between Sacred
and Secular: Research and Theory on Quasi-Religion, A. L. Greil & T. Robbins (eds), 289–301.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bekoff, M. 2001. “The Evolution of Animal Play, Emotions, and Social Morality: On Science,
Theology, Spirituality, Personhood, and Love”. Zygon 36(4): 615–55.
Berger, P. L. 1969. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York:
Doubleday.
Bey, H. 2003. TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism, 2nd
edn. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia.
Bittarello, M. B. 2008. “Another Time, Another Space: Virtual Worlds, Myths and Imagination”.
Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1): 246–66.
Blain, J. 2002. Nine Worlds of Seid-Magic: Ecstasy and Neo-Shamanism in Northern European
Paganism. London: Routledge.
Blavatsky, H. P. 1877. Isis Unveiled: A Master-Key to the Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Science
and Theology. New York: Bouton.
Blavatsky, H. P. 1893. The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy, rev.
3rd edn. London: Theosophical Publishing House.
Blavatsky, H. P. 1896. The Key to Theosophy: Being a Clear Exposition, in the Form of Question and
Answer, of the Ethics, Science, and Philosophy, for the Study of which the Theosophical Society
has been Founded, with a Copious Glossary of General Theosophical Terms, rev. 2nd edn. New
York: Theosophical Publishing Company.
Boeder, P. 2005. “Habermas’ Heritage: The Future of the Public Sphere in the Network Society”.
First Monday 10(9), http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/
view/1280/1200 (accessed November 2012).
Bolle, K. 2005. “Myth: An Overview”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 6359–71. Detroit,
MI: Macmillan Reference.
Bonser, W. 1926. “Magical Practices against Elves”. Folklore 37(4): 350–63.
Borges, J. L. with M. Guerrero 2002. The Book of Imaginary Beings, N. Thomas di Giovanni (trans.).
London: Vintage.
Brach, J. 2006. “Intermediary Beings iii: Renaissance”. In Dictionary of Gnosis and Western
Esotericism, W. Hanegraaff (ed.), 623–8. Leiden: Brill.
Brasher, B. E. 2004. Give Me That Online Religion. Chapel Hill, NC: Rutgers University Press.
Briggs, K. M. 1957. “The English Fairies”. Folklore 68(1): 270–87.
Briggs, K. M. 1959. The Anatomy of Puck: An Examination of Fairy Beliefs among Shakespeare’s
Contemporaries and Successors. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Briggs, K. M. 1976. An Encyclopedia of Fairies: Hobgoblins, Brownies, Bogies, and Other Supernatural
Creatures, 1st American edn. New York: Pantheon Books.
Broderick, D. 1995. Reading by Starlight: Postmodern Science Fiction. Popular Fiction Series.
London: Routledge.
Bromley, D. 2004. “Perspective: Whither New Religions Studies?” Nova Religio 8(2): 83–97.
Bromwich, R. 1996. “The Mabinogi and Lady Charlotte Guest”. In The Mabinogi: A Book of Essays,
C. W. Sullivan (ed.), 3–18. New York: Garland.
Brooke-Rose, C. 1981. A Rhetoric of the Unreal: Studies in Narrative and Structure, Especially of
the Fantastic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brotherton, M. 2005. Star Dragon. New York: Macmillan.
176
bibliography
Buescher, J. B. 2005. “Spiritualism”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 8715–18. Detroit,

Calleja, G. 2008. “Virtual Worlds Today: Gaming and Online Sociality”. Heidelberg Journal of
Religions on the Internet 3(1): 7–42.
Campbell, C. 1972. “Cult, the Cultic Milieu, and Secularisation”. In A Sociological Yearbook of
Religion in Britain, M. Hill (ed.), 119–36. London: SCM Press.
Campbell, C. 2005. “The Craft Consumer: Culture, Craft and Consumption in a Postmodern
Society”. Journal of Consumer Culture 5(23): 23–42.
Campbell, C. & S. McIver 1987. “Cultural Sources of Support for Contemporary Occultism”. Social
Compass 34: 41–60.
Campbell, H. 2005. Exploring Religious Community Online: We Are One in the Network. New
York: Peter Lang.
Campbell, J. [1949] 1968 The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 2nd edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Carter, J. M. 1987. “Fairies”. In Mythical and Fabulous Creatures: A Source Book and Research Guide,
M. South (ed.), 325–48. New York: Greenwood Press.
Cassirer, E. 1953. Language and Myth, S. K. Langer (trans.). Mineola, NY: Dover.
Castronova, E. 2005. Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Chandler, D. 2007. Semiotics: The Basics, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
Cheal, D. J. & J. Leverick 1999. “Working Magic in Neopaganism”. Journal of Ritual Studies 13(1):
7–19.
Chemery, P. 2005. “Meteorological Beings”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 5992–6.
Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference.
Coogan, P. 2006. Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre. Austin, TX: MonkeyBrain Books.
Coppola, K. 2007. “Virtual Outbreak: Gaming Has Never Been More Serious”. New Scientist
193(2592): 39–41.
Cornwell, N. 1990. The Literary Fantastic: From Gothic to Postmodernism. London: Prentice Hall.
Cotterell, A. 1997. A Dictionary of World Mythology: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cowan, D. E. 2005. Cyberhenge: Modern Pagans on the Internet. New York: Routledge.
Cowan, D. E. & J. K. Hadden 2004. “Virtually Religious: New Religious Movements and the World
Wide Web”. See Lewis (2004), 119–40.
Crowley, A. [1929] 1976. Magick in Theory and Practice. New York: Dover.
Cuaron, A. (director) 2004. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Pyrmont, NSW: Warner
Home Video (distributor).
Cusack, C. 2010. Invented Religion. Farnham: Ashgate.
Dandelion Æ “Us Vs Them”, www.otherkin.net/articles/usThem.html (accessed October 2012).
Dandelion Æ “Why an Elf?”, www.otherkin.net/articles/whyAnElf.html (accessed October 2012).
Davies, E. 1998. Techgnosis. London: Serpent’s Tail.
Davies, E. 2007. “Technopagans”. Wired 3.07 www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.07/technopagans_
pr.html (accessed October 2012).
Dawson, L. 2000. “Researching Religion in Cyberspace: Issues and Strategies”. In Religion on the
Internet: Research Prospects and Promises, J. K. Hadden & D. E. Cowan (eds), 25–54. New
York: JAI Press.
Dawson, L. 2001. “Doing Religion in Cyberspace: The Promise and the Perils”. The Council of
Societies for the Study of Religion Bulletin 30(1): 3–9.
Dawson, L. 2004. “Religion and the Internet: Presence, Problems, and Prospects”. In New
Approaches to the Study of Religion, A. W. Geertz, P. Antes & R. R. Warne (eds), 385–405.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dawson, L. 2004. “Religion and the Quest for Virtual Community”. In Religion Online, L. L.
Dawson & D. E. Cowan (eds), 75–90. New York: Routledge.
177
bibliography
Dawson, L. 2004. “The Sociocultural Significance of Modern New Religious Movements”. See
Lewis (2004), 68–98.
Dawson, L. & J. Hennebry 1999. “New Religions and the Internet: Recruiting in a New Public
Space”. Journal of Contemporary Religion 14(1): 17–39.
Dawson, L. L. & D. E. Cowan 2004. Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet. New York:
Routledge.
Deleuze, G. 1994. Difference and Repetition. London: Athlone Press.
Dibbel, J. 2007. “Virtual Gold Could Draw Real Taxes: Congress is Investigating Whether the IRS
Should Tax Online Game Loot”. PC World 25(3): 30.
Donner, R. (director) 1976. The Omen. Los Angeles: Twentieth Century Fox.
Douglas, A. 1993. The Beast Within. London: Orion.
Drabble, M. 2000. “Fantasy Fiction”. In The Oxford Companion to English Literature, M. Drabble
(ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dronke, U. 1969. The Poetic Edda. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Droogers, A. 2004. “Enjoying an Emerging Alternative World: Ritual in Its Own Ludic Right”.
Social Analysis 48(2): 138–54.
Drury, N. 1987. The Shaman and the Magician: Journeys between the Worlds. London: Arkana.
Drury, N. 2005. The Watkins Dictionary of Magic. London: Watkins.
Dundes, A. (ed.) 1984. Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Dunnigan, A. 2005. “Wolves”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 9783–5. Detroit, MI:
Macmillan Reference.
Durkheim, E. & M. Mauss. 1963. Primitive Classification. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Eliade, M. 1954. The Myth of the Eternal Return, or, Cosmos and History. Bollingen Series 46.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Eliade, M. 1958. Patterns in Comparative Religion, R. Sheed (trans.). London: Sheed & Ward.
Ellwood, R. S. 2005. “Blavatsky, H. P.”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 977–8. Detroit,
Ellwood, T. 2004. Pop Culture Magic. Stafford: Immanion Press.
Evans, J. D. 1987. “The Dragon”. In Mythical and Fabulous Creatures, M. South (ed.), 27–58. New
York: Greenwood Press
Faivre, A. 1987. “What Is Occultism?” In Hidden Truths: Magic, Alchemy and the Occult, L. E.
Sullivan (ed.), 3–9. New York: Macmillan Collier.
Faivre, A. 1994. Access to Western Esotericism. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Faivre, A. 1998. “Questions of Terminology Proper to the Study of Esoteric Currents in Modern
and Contemporary Europe”. In Western Esotercism and the Science of Religion, A. Faivre &
W. J. Hanegraaff (eds), 1–10. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
Faivre, A. 2000. Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition: Studies in Western Esotericism. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Faivre, A. 2005. “Esotericism”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 2842–5. Detroit, MI:
Fanger, C. 2006. “Intermediary Beings II: Middle Ages”. In Dictionary of Gnosis and Western
Esotericism, W. Hanegraaff (ed.). Leiden: Brill.
Farley, H. S. 2007. “Tarot: An Evolutionary History”. PhD thesis. Queensland: University of
Queensland.
Featherstone, M. 2007. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, 2nd edn. London: Sage.
Fenn, R. K. 1972. “Toward a New Sociology of Religion”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
11(1): 16–32.
Fimi, D. 2006. “‘Mad’ Elves and ‘Elusive Bueaty’: Some Celtic Strands of Tolkien’s Mythology”.
Folklore 117: 156–70.
Fimi, D. 2007. “‘Tolkien’s “Celtic” Type of Legends’: Merging Traditions”. Tolkien Studies 4: 51–71.
178
bibliography
Fisher, A. L. 2002. Philosophy of Wicca. Toronto: ECW Press.

Flinn, F. K. 1999. “Conversion: The Pentecostal and Charsimatic Experience”. In Religious
Conversion: Contemporary Practices and Controversies, C. Lamb & M. D. Bryant (eds), 51–72.
London: Cassell.
Flom, G. T. 1949. “Spirits, Black Elves, Fairies and Giants in the Floklore of Aurland in Sogn,
Norway”. The Journal of American Folklore 62(234): 26–33.
Flowers, S. 1997. Lords of the Left-Hand Path: A History of Spiritual Dissent, 2nd edn. San Francisco,
CA: Rûna-Raven Press.
Frazer, J. G. 1906–15. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. 12 vols. London:
Macmillan.
Freud, S. 1950. Totem and Taboo: Some Points of Agreement between the Mental Lives of Savages
and Neurotics, J. Strachey (trans.). New York: Norton.
Frow, J. 1998. “Is Elvis a God? Cult, Culture, Questions of Method”. International Journal of
Cultural Studies 1(2): 197–210.
Gallagher, E. V. 2000. “The Persistence of the Millennium: Branch Davidian Expectations of the
End after Waco”. Nova Religio 3(2): 303–19.
Garau, M. 2006. “Selective Fidelity: Investigating Priorities for the Creation of Expressive Avatars”.
In Avatars and Work and Play: Collaboration and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments,
R. Schroeder & A.-S. Axelsson (eds), 17–38. New York: Springer.
Gaster, T. 2005. “Monsters”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 6163–6. Detroit, MI:
Gauchet, M. 1997. The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Geoffrey of Monmouth. 1912. Histories of the Kings of Britain. London: Dent.
Gibson, W. 1984. Neuromancer. London: HarperCollins.
Godwin, J. 1994. The Theosophical Enlightenment. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Gray, E. 2005. “Tuatha De Danann”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 9390–91. Detroit,
Gray, J. 2007. Black Mass. London: Penguin.
Greenfield, S. M. & A. Droogers 2003. “Syncretic Processes and the Definition of New Religions”.
Journal of Contemporary Religion 18(1): 25–36.
Greenwood, S. 2000. Magic, Witchcraft and the Otherworld: An Anthropology. Oxford: Berg.
Greer-The-Raven. “Stop Dissing Otakukin, I Am One”. deviantArt, http://forum.deviantart.com/
community/complaints/612247 (accessed November 2012).
Greil, A. L. & T. Robbins 1994. Between Sacred and Secular: Research and Theory on Quasi-Religion,
D. G. Bromley (ed.), vol. 4, Religion and the Social Order. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Greil, A. L. & T. Robbins 1994. “Introduction: Exploring the Boundaries of the Sacred”. In Between
Sacred and Secular: Research and Theory on Quasi-Religion, A. L. Greil & T. Robbins (eds),
1–23. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Grimm, J., W. Grimm, J. Stern & J. Scharl 1980. The Complete Grimm’s Fairy Tales. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Grottanelli, C. 1987. “Dragons”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 2430–34. Detroit, MI:
Grunschlob, A. 2004. “Waiting for the ‘Big Beam’: UFO Religions and ‘Ufological’ Themes in New
Religious Movements”. See Lewis (2004), 419–44.
Gunn, James. 2005. “Towards a Definition of Science Fiction”. In Speculations on Speculation:
Theories of Science Fiction, J. Gunn & M. Candelaria (eds), 5–12. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Press.
Halman, L., T. Pettersson & J. Verweij 1999. “The Religious Factor in Contemporary Society”.
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 40(1): 141–60.
Hammer, O. “Esotericism in New Religious Movements”. See Lewis (2004), 445–65.
179
bibliography
Hanegraaff, W. 1998. New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular
Thought. New York: SUNY Press.
Hanegraaff, W. 1998. “On the Construction of ‘Esoteric Traditions’”. In Western Esotericism and
the Science of Religion, A. Faivre & W. Hanegraaff (eds), 12–61. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
Hanegraaff, W. 2000. “New Age Religion and Secularisation”. Numen 47(3): 288–312.
Hanegraaff, W. 2003. “How Magic Survived the Disenchantment of the World”. Religion 33:
357–80.
Hardy, Robin (director) 1973. The Wicker Man. UK: British Lion Film Corporation
Harvey, G. 1996. “The Authority of Intimacy in Paganism and Goddess Spirituality”. Diskus 4(1):
34–48.
Harvey, G. 1997. Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism. Kent Town: Wakefield
Press.
Harvey, G. 2000. “Fantasy in the Study of Religions: Paganism as Observed and Enhanced by Terry
Pratchett”. Diskus 6, www.basr.ac.uk/diskus/diskus1-6/harvey-6.txt (accessed December 2012).
Harvey, G. 2000. “Boggarts and Books: Towards an Appreciation of Pagan Spirituality”. In
Beyond New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality, S. Sutcliffe & M. Bowman (eds), 155–68.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Harvey, G. 2003. “General Introduction”. In Shamanism: A Reader, G. Harvey (ed.), 1–24. London:
Routledge.
Harvey, G. 2006. Animism: Respecting the Living World. New York: Columbia University Press.
Harvey, G. 2006. “Discworld and Otherworld: The Imaginative Use of Fantasy Literature among
Pagans”. In Popular Spiritualites: The Politics of Contemporary Enchantment, L. Hume &
K. McPhillips (eds), 41–51. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Haythornthwaite, C. 2007. “Social Networks and Online Community”. In The Oxford Handbook of
Internet Psychology, A. Joinson, K. McKenna, T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (eds), 121–37. Oxford:
Heaney, S. 2000. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Hebdige, D. 1997. “Subculture: The Meaning of Style [1979]”. In The Subcultures Reader, K. Gelder
(ed.), 121–31. London: Routledge.
hedgie, the “What’s Magic?”, www.otherkin.net/articles/whatMagic.html (accessed October 2012).
Heelas, P. 1996. The New Age Movement: The Celebration of the Self and the Sacralization of
Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heelas, P. 2008. Spiritualities of Life: New Age Romanticism and Consumptive Capitalism. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Heelas, P. & D. Martin 1998. Religion, Modernity, and Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Heelas, P. & L. Woodhead 2005. The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Heinlein, R. A. 1961. Stranger in a Strange Land. New York: Putnam.
Helland, C. 2000. “Online Religion/Religion Online and Virtual Communitas”. In Religion on the
Internet: Research Prospects and Promises, J. K. Hadden & D. E. Cowan (eds), 205–24. London:
JAI Press/Elsevier Science.
Helland, C. 2004. “Popular Religion and the World Wide Web: A Match Made in (Cyber) Heaven”.
In Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet, L. L. Dawson & D. E. Cowan (eds), 23–36.
London: Routledge.
Helland, C. 2005. “Online Religion as Lived Religion: Methodological Issues in the Study of
Religious Participation on the Internet”. Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 1(1):
1–16.
Hewson, C. 2007. “Gathering Data on the Internet: Qualitative Approaches and Possibilities
for Mixed Methods Research”. In The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, A. Joinson,
K. McKenna, T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (eds), 405–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
180
bibliography
Highland, M. & G. Yu 2008. “Communicating Inner Experience with Video Game Technology”.
Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1): 267–89.
Hills, M. 2000. “Media Fandom, Neoreligiosity, and Cult(ural) Studies”. The Velvet Light Trap:
A Critical Journal of Film and Television 46: 73–84.
Hills, M. 2002. Fan Cultures. London: Routledge.
Hills, M. 2004. “Defining Cult TV : Texts, Inter-Texts and Fan Audiences”. In The Television Studies
Reader, R. C. Allen & A. Hill (eds), 509–23. London: Routledge.
Hobsbawm, E. J. 1962. The Age of Revolution: 1789–1848. New York: New American Library.
Holtze, E. 2006. “Grimm Brothers”. In Encyclopedia of Modern Europe: Europe 1789–1914:
Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire, J. Merriman & J. Winter (eds), 1023–5. Detroit,
MI: Scribner.
Honko, L. 1984. “The Problem of Defining Myth”. In Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of
Myth, A. Dundes (ed.). Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Hoover, S. 2006. Religion in the Media Age. London: Routledge.
Houck, J. “In Search of the Otakukkin”, www.mania.com/search-otakukin_article_54149.html
(accessed October 2012).
Hume, L. 1997. Witchcraft and Paganism in Australia. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Hume, L. 2006. “Liminal Beings and the Undead: Vampires in the 21st Century”. In Popular
Spiritualites: The Politics of Contemporary Enchantment, L. Hume & K. McPhillips (eds), 3–16.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hume, L. & K. McPhillips 2006. “Introduction”. In Popular Spiritualities: The Politics of
Contemporary Enchantment, L. Hume & K. McPhillips (eds), xv–xxii. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hume, L. & K. McPhillips 2006. Popular Spiritualities: The Politics of Contemporary Enchantment.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hutton, R. 1999. “Modern Pagan Witchcraft”. In Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: The Twentieth
Century, W. Blecourt, R. Hutton & J. Fontaine (eds), 1–79. London: Athlone Press.
Hutton, R. 2001. The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
James, W. [1902] 1982. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. Gifford
Lectures. London: Penguin.
Jenkins, H. 1992. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge.
Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York
University Press.
Jenkins, H. 2006. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New
York University Press.
Jenkins, H. 2007. “Afterword: The Future of Fandom”. In Fandom: Identities and Communities
in a Mediated World, C. Sandvoss, J. Gray & C. L. Harrington (eds), 357–64. New York: New
York University Press.
Jindra, M. 1994. “Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon”. Sociology of Religion 55(1):
27–52.
Johnson, R. C., R. I. Maxwell & K. Trumpener 2007. “The Arabian Nights, Arab-European Literary
Influence, and the Lineages of the Novel”. Modern Language Quarterly 68(2): 243–79.
Jones, G. 2003. “The Icons of Science Fiction”. In The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction,
E. James & F. Mendlesohn (eds), 163–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jung, C. 1953–79. Symbols of Transformation, Collected Works of C. G. Jung, R. F. C. Hull (trans.),
M. Fordham, H. Read, G. Adler & W. McGuire (eds), 2nd edn., vol. 5. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Katz, D. S. 2007. The Occult Tradition: From the Renaissance to the Present Day. London: Random
House.
Kaveney, R. 2005. From Alien to the Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film. London: Tauris.
181
bibliography
Keyworth, G. D. 2007. Troublesome Corpses: Vampires and Revenants from Antiquity to the Present.
Westcliff-on-Sea: Desert Island Books.
Kirby, D. 2006. “Alternative Worlds: Metaphysical Questing and Virtual Community Amongst
the Otherkin”. In Through a Glass Darkly: Reflections on the Sacred, F. Di Lauro (ed.), 275–87.
Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Kirby, D. 2009. “From Pulp Fiction to Revealed Text: A Study of the Role of the Text in the
Otherkin Community”. In Exploring Religion and the Sacred in a Media Age, C. Deacy &
E. Arweck (eds), 141–54. Farnham: Ashgate.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. & R. W. Hood. 1990. “Intrinsic–Extrinsic Religious Orientation: The Boon or
Bane of Contemporary Psychology of Religion?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
29(3): 442–62.
K’Llayna. “A FAQ List of the Elenari”, www.elenari.net/Elenari/Elenarifaq4.html (accessed
October 2012).
Kluver, R. & Y. Chen. 2008. “The Church of Fools: Virtual Ritual and Material Faith”. Heidelberg
Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1): 116–43.
Knowles, C. 2007. Our Gods Wear Spandex: The Secret History of Comic Book Heroes. San Francisco,
CA: Weiser Books.
Knowles, E. (ed.) 2006. Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kopytoff, I. 1986. “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process”. In The Social
Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, A. Appadurai (ed.), 64–91. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kornig, P. “The Internet as Illustrating the McDonaldisation of Occult Culture”, www.cesnur.
org/2001/london2001/koenig.htm (accessed October 2012).
Koury, J. (director) 2007. We Are Wizards. New York: Brooklyn Underground Films.
Kroeber, K. 1988. Romantic Fantasy and Science Fiction. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Krzywinska, T. 2008. “World Creation and Lore: World of Warcraft as Rich Text”. In Digital Culture,
Play, and Identity: A World of Warcraft Reader, H. G. Corneliussen & J. Walker Rettberg (eds),
123–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Landis, J. (director) 1982. An American Werewolf in London. Universal City, CA: Universal
Pictures.
Larsen, E. 2004. “Cyberfaith: How Americans Pursue Religion Online”. In Religion Online: Finding
Faith on the Internet, L. L. Dawson & D. E. Cowan (eds), 17–20. New York: Routledge.
Larson, C. U. 2003. “Dramatisiation and Virtual Reality: Implications and Predictions”. In
Communication and Cyberspace: Social Interaction in an Electronic Environment, R. L.
Jacobson, L. Strate & S. Gibson (eds), 113–21. New York: Hampton Press.
Lawrence, D. H. & R. Aldington 1966. Apocalypse. New York: Viking Press.
Le Guin, U. K. 1993. The Earthsea Quartet. London: Puffin.
Lem, S. 1974. The Cyberiad: Fables for the Cybernetic Age. London: Secker & Warburg.
Levi, A. 2006. “The Americanisation of Anime and Manga: Negotiating Popular Culture”. In
Cinema Anime: Critical Engagements with Japanese Animation, S. Brown (ed.), 43–65. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1979. Myth and Meaning. New York: Schocken.
Levy, P. 1998. Becoming Virtual: Reality in the Digital Age, R. Bononno (trans.). New York: Plenum.
Lewis, J. R. 1999. Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions. Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Lewis, J. R. 2003. Legitimating New Religions. New York: Rutgers University Press.
Lewis, J. R. 2004. “Overview”. See Lewis (2004), 3–15.
Lewis, J. R. (ed.) 2004. The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Little, E. 1984. The Fantasts: Studies in J. R. R. Tolkien, Lewis Carroll, Mervyn Peake, Nikolay Gogol
and Kenneth Grahame. Amersham: Avebury.
182
bibliography
LoCicero, D. 2008. Superheroes and Gods: A Comparative Study from Babylonia to Batman.
Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Lucas, G. (director) 1977. Star Wars: Episode 4. Century City, CA: Twentieth Century Fox.
Luhrmann, T. M. 1989. Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft: Ritual Magic in Contemporary England.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lupa. 2007. A Field Guide to the Otherkin. Stafford, UK: Megalithica Books.
Lupa, “Some Thoughts on Mediakin”. www.otherkin.net/articles/mediakin.html (accessed
October 2012).
Lynch, G. 2002. After Religion: “Generation X” and the Search for Meaning. London: Darton
Longman & Todd.
MacCana, P. [1987] 2005. “Celtic Religion: An Overview”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones
(ed.), 1478–97. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference.
Mack, C. K. & D. Mack. 1998. A Field Guide to Demons, Fairies, Fallen Angels, and Other Subversive
Spirits. New York: Arcade.
Malcalypse the Younger & Lord Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst 2006. Discordia: Hail Eris Goddess
of Chaos and Confusion. Berkeley, CA: Ronin.
Malinowski, B. [1926] 1971. Myth in Primitive Psychology. New York: Greenwood Press.
Maple, E. 1978. The Complete Book of Witchcraft and Demonology: Witches, Devils, and Ghosts in
Western Civilization. South Brunswick, NJ: Barnes.
Markham, A. N. 1998. Life Online : Researching Real Experience in Virtual Space. Walnut Creek,
CA: Altamira Press.
Martin, G. D. 2003. An Inquiry into the Purposes of Speculative Fiction – Fantasy and Truth. New
York: Edwin Mellen Press.
Martinez-Zaeate, P., I. Corduneanu & L. M. Martinez 2008. “S(L)pirituality: Immersive Worlds
as a Window to Spirituality Phenomena”. Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1):
212–27.
Martinkova, L. 2008. “Computer Mediated Religious Life of Technoshamans and Cybershamans:
Is There Any Virtuality?”. Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1): 43–60.
Mason, M. 2008. The Pirate’s Dilemma: How Hackers, Punk Capitalists and Graffiti Millionaires
Are Remixing Our Culture and Changing the World. London: Allen Lane.
Masson, S. 2007. “Romanticism”. In The Oxford Handbook of English Literature and Theology,
A. Hass, D. Jasper & E. Jay (eds), 115–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mathews, R. 2002. Fantasy: The Liberation of Imagination. New York: Routledge.
Mayer, J.-F. 1999. “‘OurTerrestrial Journey Is Coming to an End’: The Last Voyage of the Solar
Temple”. Nova Religio 2(2): 172–207.
McKenna, K. Y. A. 2007. “Through the Internet Looking Glass: Expressing and Validating the
True Self ”. In The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna,
T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (eds), 205–21. New York: Oxford University Press.
Meheust, B. 2006. “Animal Magnetism/Mesmerism”. In Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Eso-
tericism, W. Hanegraaff (ed.), 75–82. Leiden: Brill.
Melton, J. G. (ed.) 2001. Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Detroit, MI: Gale.
Melton, J. G. 2004. “An Introduction to New Religions”. See Lewis (2004), 16–35.
Melton, J. G. “List of Vampire Movies in English (Origins-2008)”, CESNUR website, www.cesnur.
org/2009/vampires_movies.htm (accessed October 2012).
Melton, J. G. 2004. “Perspective: Towards a Definition of ‘New Religion’”. Nova Religio 8(1):
73–87.
Mendlesohn, F. 2002. “Towards a Taxonomy of Fantasy”. Journal for the Fantastic in the Arts
13(2): 173–87.
Merkur, D. 1998. “The Otherworld as a Western Esoteric Category”. In Western Esotericism and
the Science of Religion, A. Faivre & W. Hanegraaff (eds), 75–94. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
Meyer, S. 2006. Twilight. New York: Little, Brown.
183
bibliography
Meyer, B. & P. Pels 2003. Magic and Modernity: Interfaces of Revelation and Concealment. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Miaren Crow’s Daughter “So … You’re Awake?”, www.otherkin.net/articles/wakeup.html (accessed
October 2012).
Miczek, N. 2008. “Online Ritual in Virtual Worlds: Christian Online Services between Dynamics
and Stability”. Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1): 144–73.
Middleton, J. 2005. “Magic: Theories of Magic”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 5562–9.
Miller, P. D. 2004. Rhythym Science. Mediawork Pamphlet Series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Moore, R. 2000. “Is the Canon on Jonestown Closed?”. Nova Religio 4(1): 7–27.
Muller, F. M. 1889. Natural Religion. London: Longmans, Green.
Murray, J. H. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York:
Free Press.
Napier, S. J. 2000. Anime: From Akira to Princess Mononoke. New York: Palgrave.
Nash, A., C. Dodds & J. Clemens “‘Babelswarm’. Secondlife”, http://babelswarm.blogspot.com/
2008 (accessed October 2012).
Neitz, M. J. 1994. “Quasi-Religions and Cultural Movements: Contemporary Witchcraft as a
Churchless Religion”. In Between Sacred and Secular: Research and Theory on Quasi-Religion,
A. L. Greil & T. Robbins (eds), 127–49. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Nelson, G. K. 1987. Cults, New Religions and Religious Creativity. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Newall, V. 1987. “Fairies”. In The Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 2951–4. Detroit, MI:
Nietzsche, F. W. 2006. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, A. Del Caro & R. B. Pippin
(eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nigg, J. 1999. The Book of Fabulous Beasts: A Treasury of Writings from Ancient Times to the Present.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ong, W. J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, T. Hawkes (ed.). London:
Methuen.
Ostling, M. 2003. “Harry Potter and the Disenchantment of the World”. Journal of Contemporary
Religion 18(1): 3–23.
Owen, A. 2004. The Place of Enchantment: British Occultism and the Culture of the Modern.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Paracelsus 1941. Four Treatises of Theophrastus Von Hohenheim Called Paracelsus, H. E. Sigerist
(ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Partridge, C. 2004. “Alternative Spiritualities, New Religions, and the Reenchantment of the West”.
See Lewis (2004), 39–67.
Partridge, C. 2004. The Re-enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralization,
Popular Culture, and Occulture, vol. 1, London: T&T Clark International.
Partridge, C. 2005. The Re-enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralization,
Popular Culture, and Occulture, vol. 2, London: T&T Clark International.
Pearson, J. 2005. “Wicca”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 9728–32. Detroit, MI:
Petersen, W. (director) 1984. The Neverending Story. Burbank, CA: Warner.
Phillips, J. 2003. “The Magical Universe”. In Practising the Witch’s Craft: Real Magic under a
Southern Sky, D. Ezzy (ed.), 122–39. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Piras, A. 2005. “Angels”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 343–9. Detroit, MI: Macmillan
Reference.
Possamai, A. 2002. “Cultural Consumption of History and Popular Culture in Alternative
Spiritualities”. Journal of Consumer Culture 2(2): 197–218.
Possamai, A. 2005. Religion and Popular Culture. New York: Peter Lang.
184
bibliography
Possamai, A. 2006. “Superheros and the Development of Latent Abilities: A Hyper-Real

Re-enchantment?”. In Popular Spiritualities: The Politics of Contemporary Enchantment.
L. Hume & K. McPhillips (eds), 53–62. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Poster, M. 2004. “Consumption and Digital Commodities in the Everyday”. Cultural Studies 18(2):
409–23.
Pratchett, T. 1992. Lords and Ladies. London: Corgi.
Pratchett, T. 1997. Jingo. London: Victor Gollancz.
Pratchett, T. 2001. Guards! Guards! New York: HarperTorch.
Pratchett, T. 2002. Nightwatch. London: Doubleday.
Rabkin, E. S. 1976. The Fantastic in Literature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Radde-Antweiler, K. 2008. “‘Virtual Religion’: An Approach to a Religious and Ritual Topography
of Secondlife”. Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 3(1): 174–211.
Ramstedt, M. 2007. “Metaphor or Invocation: The Convergence between Modern Paganism and
Fantasy Fiction”. Journal of Ritual Studies 21(1): 1–15.
Reid S. & S. Rabinovitch 2004. “Witches, Wiccans, and Neo-Pagans: A Review of Current
Academic Treatments of Neo-Paganism”. See Lewis (2004), 514–33.
Rein-Hagen, M. 1991. Vampire: The Masquerade. Stone Mountain, GA: White Wolf.
Rein-Hagen, M. 1992. Werewolf: The Apocalypse. Stone Mountain, GA: White Wolf.
Rheingold, H. 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Rice, A. 1977. Interview with the Vampire. London: Futura.
Rice, A. 1990. The Queen of the Damned. London: Futura.
Rice, A. 1993. The Tale of the Body Thief. New York: Ballantine.
Rice, A. 1995. The Vampire Lestat. London: Warner.
Rice, A. 1996. Memnoch the Devil. London: Arrow.
Rice, A. 1998. The Vampire Armand. London: Arrow.
Rice, A. 2001. Merrick. London: Arrow.
Rice, A. 2002. Blood and Gold. London: Arrow.
Rice, A. 2003. Blackwood Farm. London: Arrow.
Rice, A. 2004. Blood Canticle. London: Arrow.
Rice, J. S. 1994. “The Therapeutic God: Transcendence and Identity in Two Twelve-Step Quasi-
Religions”. In Between Sacred and Secular: Research and Theory on Quasi-Religion, A. L. Greil
& T. Robbins (eds), 151–64. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ringel, F. 1994. “New England Neo-Pagans: Medievalism, Fantasy, Religion”. The Journal of
American Culture 17(3): 65–8.
Robbins, T. 2004. “Introduction: Alternative Religions, the State, and the Globe”. In New Religious
Movements in the 21st Century: Legal, Political, and Social Challenges in Global Perspective,
T. Robbins & P. C. Lucas (eds), 1–24. New York: Routledge.
Robbins, T. 2005. “New Religions and Alternative Religions”. Nova Religio 8(3): 104–11.
Roberts, A. 2006. Science Fiction. London: Routledge.
Roberts, M. 2005. “Notes on the Global Underground: Subcultures and Globalization”. In The
Subcultures Reader, K. Gelder (ed.), 575–86. London: Routledge.
Rockwell, T. 2002. “Visual Technologies, Cosmographies, and Our Sense of Place in the Universe”.
Zygon 37(3): 605–22.
Rostoker, A. 1994. “Whence Came the Stranger: Tracking the Metapattern of ‘Stranger in a Strange
Land’”. In Rapid Eye 3, S. Dwyer (ed.), 228–48. London: Creation Books.
Rowe, E. A. 2005. “Alfar”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 254–5. Detroit, MI: Macmillan
Reference.
Rowling, J. K. 1999. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. London: Bloomsbury.
Rowling, J. K. 2000. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. London: Bloomsbury.
Rymer, J. M. [1845–7] 1970. Varney the Vampire; or, the Feast of Blood. New York: Arno Press.
185
bibliography
Saler, M. 2006. “Modernity and Enchantment: A Historiographic Review”. The American Historical
Review 111(3): 692–716.
Sandars, N. K. 1972. The Epic of Gilgamesh: An English Version. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sanders, E. 1971. The Family: The Story of Charles Manson’s Dune Buggy Attack Battalion. New
York: Dutton.
Sandner, D. 2004. Fantastic Literature. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Schodt, F. L. 1996. Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge Press.
Segal, R. A. 1999. Theorizing About Myth. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Shiner, L. 1967. “The Concept of Secularisation in Empirical Research”. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 6(2): 207–20.
Shippey, T. A. 2004. “Light-Elves, Dark-Elves, and Others: Tolkien’s Elvish Problem”. Tolkien
Studies 1: 1–15.
Silver Elves 2007 The Magical Elven Love Letters, vols 1 & 2. USA: Silver Elves Publications.
Simpson, J. & S. Roud 2000. A Dictionary of English Folklore. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford:
Simpson, J. A. & E. S. C. Weiner 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Slusser, G. 1992. “Reflections on Style in Science Fiction”. In Styles of Creation: Aesthetic Technique
and the Creation of Fictional Worlds, G. Slusser & E. Rabkin (eds), 3–23. Athens, GA: University
of Georgia Press.
Stableford, B. M. 2005. Historical Dictionary of Fantasy Literature. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Stamp, H. 1915. “The Water-Fairies”. The Journal of American Folklore 28(109): 310–16.
Stang, I. 1983. The Book of the Subgenius. New York: Fireside.
Stemper, W. & G. Beck 2005. “Freemasons”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 3193–9.
Stevens, P., Jr. 1991. “The Demonology of Satanism: An Anthropological View”. In The Satanism
Scare, D. G. Bromley, J. Best & J. T. Richardson (eds), 21–39. New York: de Gruyter.
Stoker, B. [1893] 1993. Dracula, M. Hindle (ed.). London: Penguin.
Sturluson, S. 1954. The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson: Tales from Norse Mythology, J. I. Young
(trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sutcliffe, S. J. 2004. “The Dynamics of Alternative Spirituality”. See Lewis (2004), 466–90.
Swinfen, A. 1984. In Defense of Fantasy: A Study of the Genre in English and American Literature
since 1945. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Taylor, C. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Ten, K. “Temple of the Ota’kin”, http://otakukin.otherkin.net (accessed November 2012).
Tiryakian, E. A. 1972. “Towards the Sociology of Esoteric Culture”. The American Journal of
Sociology 78(3): 491–512.
Todorov, T. 1973. The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre. Cleveland, OH: Case
Western Reserve University Press.
Tolkien, J. R. R. 1954. The Lord of the Rings. London: Allen & Unwin.
Tolkien, J. R. R. 1965. “On Fairy-Stories”. In Tree and Leaf, J. R. R. Tolkien (ed.), 3–84. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Tolkien, J. R. R. 1977. The Silmarillion. London: HarperCollins.
Tolkien, J. R. R. 1999. The Hobbit: Or There and Back Again. London: HarperCollins.
Trentman, F. 2009. “Crossing Divides: Consumption and Globalization in History”. Journal of
Consumer Culture 9(2): 187–220.
Troeltsch, E. 1960. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. New York: Harper & Row.
Turkle, S. 1999. “Looking Towards Cyberspace: Beyond Grounded Sociology: Cyberspace and
Identity”. Contemporary Sociology 28(6): 643–8.
Turner, B. S. 1991. Religion and Social Theory, 2nd edn. London: Sage.
Turner, V. 1995. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York: de Gruyter.
186
bibliography
Tylor, E. B. 1903. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Religion,
Language, Art and Custom, 4th edn. London: Murray.
Tylor, E. B. 1913. Primitive Culture, 5th edn, 2 vols. London: Murray.
Unerman, S. 2002. “Dragons in Twentieth-Century Fiction”. Folklore 113(1): 94–101.
Urban, H. B. 2005. “Crowley, Aleister”. In Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 2071–2. Detroit,
Urban, H. B. 2006. Magia Sexualis: Sex, Magic and Liberation in Modern Western Esotericism.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
von Franz, M. 1978. “The Process of Individuation”. In Man and his Symbols, C. Jung (ed.), 413.
London: Picador.
Walens, S. 1987. “Therianthropism”. In The Encyclopedia of Religion, L. Jones (ed.), 9155–6. Detroit,
Wallis, R. J. 2003. Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Contested Ecstasies, Alternative Archaeologies, and
Contemporary Pagans. New York: Routledge.
Wallis, R. 2003. “Three Types of New Religious Movements”. In Cults and New Religious Movements:
A Reader, L. Dawson (ed.), 36–58. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Weber, M. 2001. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (eds).
London: Routledge.
Welwood, J. 2000. Towards a Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Psychotherapy, and the Path of
Personal and Spiritual Transformation. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Whedon, J. (director) 1997–2004. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Moore Park, NSW: Twentieth Century
Fox Home Entertainment.
Whedon, J. & D. Greenwalt (directors) 1999–2004. Angel. Los Angeles, CA: Mutant Enemy.
Wicker, C. 2005. Not in Kansas Anymore. New York: HarperCollins.
Wieck, S., C. Earley, S. Wieck, B. Bridges, S. Chupp & A. Greenberg 1993. Mage: The Ascension.
Stone Mountain, GA: White Wolf.
Williams, P. W. 1980. Popular Religion in America: Symbolic Change and the Modernization Process
in Historical Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wilson, B. R. 1982. Religion in Sociological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Windtree, T. “What Are Otherkin?”, www.otherkin.net/articles/what.html (accessed October
2012).
Wolfe, G. K. 1979. The Known and the Unknown: The Iconography of Science Fiction. Kent, OH:
Kent State University Press.
Wolfe, G. K. 1986. Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy: A Glossary and Guide to
Scholarship. New York: Greenwood Press.
Wolfe, G. K. 2005. “Coming to Terms”. In Speculations on Speculation: Theories of Science Fiction,
J. Gunn & M. Candelaria (eds), 13–22. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Wolfe, G. K. 2007. “Surfing the Multiverse”. Nature 448(5): 25–6.
Wolf-Meyer, M. 2003. “The World Ozymandias Made: Utopias in the Superhero Comic,
Subculture, and the Conservation of Difference”. Journal of Popular Culture 36(3): 497–517.
Yee, N. 2006. “The Psychology of Massively Multi-User Online Role-Playing Games: Motivations,
Emotional Investment, Relationships and Problematic Usage”. In Avatars at Work and Play,
R. Schroeder & A-S Axelsson (eds), Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 187–208. New
York: Springer.
York, M. 1995. The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-Pagan Movements.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Young, B. “An Historical Overview of the Whereabouts of Gnomes and Elves, Fauns and Faeries,
Goblins, Ogres, Trolls and Bogies, Nymphs, Sprites, and Dryads, Past and Present”, www.
eristic.net/fey/info/buckyoung.php. (accessed October 2012).
Zukin, S. & J. S. Maguire 2004. “Consumers and Consumption”. Annual Review of Sociology 30:
173–97.
187
INDEx
alchemy 18, 88 Blavatsky, Madame 90

aliens 39 Branch Davidians 15
Alternative Religions 10 bricolage 120–22, 127
see also NRMs Broderick, Damien 32–3, 67
anarchy 14, 98–9 Bromley, D. 10
Angel (TV series) 72, 78, 83, 85, 86 Brooke-Rose, C. 67
angels 16, 40, 53, 70–71, 80–82 Brooks, Terry 31, 49
Christianity and 80, 81–2 Buddhism 89–90
New Age context of 81 Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) 72, 78,
animal magnetism 90 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 99
anime 44–5, 54, 136
animism 43, 93–4 Calleja, G. 111
Arabian Nights 36 Campbell, Colin 4, 13, 14, 26, 66, 92
archetypes 48, 85 Campbell, Joseph 31
Asian cultures 76, 79 capitalism 3–4, 65–6
astral plane 96 Carter, J. M. 76
astrology 16, 64, 88 channelling 58, 88, 129
authenticity 45–6, 113, 125 chaos magic 14, 64, 98–9
avatars 106–7 Chen, Y. 113
“awakening” 55–7 Children of God 9–10
children’s literature 2
Bahamut 122 China 71
Baldick, Chris 29 Christianity 15, 16, 23, 63, 71
Barker, Clive 49 angels and 80, 81–2
Bascom, W. 35 demise of 23, 24
beat literature 98 and Spiritualism 88
Beckford, J. A. 9–10 Church of All Worlds 60–61, 64, 65
Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin 95 classical world/mythology 34, 35, 80, 122
belief systems, personal 55–7, 65 cognitive estrangement 32–3
and capitalism/consumerism 3–4, 65–6 commoditization 26–7, 100
fiction/media and 1–2 communication media 13
and Otherkin community 55–6 changes in, and social change 3, 107–8
research approach for 5–6 forms, proliferation of 100, 101, 114
Berger, P. L. 23 Otakukin and 45
Bey, Hakim 98 Otherkin and see Otherkin community
189
index
passive/participating types of 42–3 relationship with humans/natural world

and personal belief systems 1–2 74–6
see also internet Silver 51
community/communitas 42, 44 Tolkein and 74, 75
Constantine (movie) 72, 81 Tuatha de Danaan 54, 75, 76
consumerism/consumer culture 3–4, 24–8, Ende, Michael 49
100 Enlightenment 36, 93
characteristics of 25–6 environmental movement 13, 14, 64
and commoditization 26–7 esotericism 1, 13, 15, 16–18
and fan cultures 123–6, 127 four features of 17–18
negative views of 25, 27 and occultism 16–17, 18
religion and 27–8, 65–6 Excalibur (film) 72–3
subversion of 121, 124–5 exorcism 81
cosmology 43–4
Cornwell, N. 30, 31 Facebook 3, 5, 41, 42–3
counterculture movement 13, 72 Fae 40, 53
Cowan, D. E. 106 fairies/Faeries 39, 40, 53, 70, 76–7
Crowley, Aleister 16, 93, 96, 97–8 classification of 76
Crowley, Vivianne 93 in contemporary media 77
cultic milieu 1, 4, 13–15, 19, 66 and elves 73–4
“cults” 9, 14–15, 16, 118 and magic 76, 77
nature 76, 77
data collection 5, 133 relationship with humans 77
Davies, Erik 1 fairy tales 2, 30
Dawson, L. 104, 109 Faivre, A. 17–18, 36, 89
Dee, John 81 fan cultures 108, 115–26
Deleuze, Gilles 111 and consumer culture 123–6
demons 45, 53, 70–71, 80–82, 100 cult status of 117–18
Christianity and 81–2 diversity of forums for 117
worship of 4 and extension of narrative 119–20
Deverry novels (Kerr) 72 and Otherkin 117, 118–19, 130–31
digital cultures see communication media religion and 118–19, 125–6
Discordianism 98 remix/bricolage and 120–22, 125, 127
Discworld series (Pratchett) 2, 72, 74, 116 fan fiction 51
disenchantment 12, 18, 21, 22, 33 fantastic 28, 29, 50, 111–12
Dragonlance (Goodkind) 72, 73, 74, 75 fantastic creatures 39, 69–86, 100, 103
dragons 39, 40, 45, 53, 70, 71–3, 85 angels/demons see angels; demons
in modern fantasy narratives 72–3, 100 diversity of 70
dreams 30 dragons see dragons
Droogers, A. 125 elves see elves
Dundes, A. 35 fairies see fairies/Faeries
normalization of 82, 85–6, 100, 101,
Earthsea Quartet (Le Guin) 72 129–30
eco-spirituality 4 otherness and 85
Eddings, David 31 referenced by Otherkin community 40,
Elenari Elves 44, 51–2, 54, 120, 131 44, 53, 54
Ellwood, Taylor 99, 122 vampires see vampires
elves 39, 40, 53, 70, 73–6, 106, 107 werewolves 70, 78, 79–80
danger of 74 see also superhuman
Elenari 44, 51–2, 54 fantastic milieu 1–2, 66–8, 126
and fairies 73–4 fantasy literature 28–37, 53–5, 63–5
in fantasy literature 74–6 and Church of All Worlds 60–61, 64, 65
in folklore 73, 75 commodified 31, 100
190
index
definitions/taxonomies of 29–31 Hinduism 89–90, 122

difficulties/limitations of 28 Hobbit, The (Tolkein) 72
diversity of 28, 31 Holdstock, Robert 63
fantastic/marvellous and 28, 29, 30 horror genre 78–9
heroic 31 Human Potential movement 84
low status of 37 hyperdigetic worlds 115–16, 119–20
and myth 11, 17, 28, 34–5, 53
occult and 13, 35–7, 100–101 icons 67, 110, 113–14, 122, 126, 127,
and Paganism 33, 60–61, 63–4 129–30
and personal belief systems 1–2 identity 6, 101–2
romance and 30, 33–4 group 116
science fiction and 28, 29, 30, 31–4 online 107–8
fanzines 119–20 identity disorder 59
Featherstone, M. 27 individualism 6, 55, 103, 119
Feist, Raymond 31 internet 2, 3, 40–43, 54, 101, 103–28
feminism 63, 90, 93 fan communities on see fan cultures
Fenn, R. K. 23 games on 112–14
Final Fantasy series 48, 72, 121–2 and identity construction 107–8, 127
folklore 2, 28, 35, 73, 91 NRMs and 105–6
elves in 73, 75 Otherkin community on see Otherkin
fairies in 77 community
Folklore Society 93 research and 5–6
Freemasonry 167(n127) and sense of self/otherness 103–4, 105,
furries 39 107, 108, 126
unbounded nature of 107–8
Gaimon, Neil 49 Irish mythology 75
games, online 104, 108, 112–14 Islam 80
demographics of participants 113, 124
low status of 113 Japan 9, 44
non-linearity/player agency in 112 Jediism 61–3, 65, 117, 119
and other media 113–14 Jenkins, H. 120
see also MMORPGs; RPGs Jindra, M. 66
Gardner, Gerald 11, 93 Jones, Gwyneth 115
Garnier, Gilles 79 Jordan, Robert 31
Genesis P-Orridge 15
geomancy 88 Kabbalah/Cabala 16, 88, 96
Gibson, William 110 Kaveney, R. 67
Gilgamesh epic 79 Kerr, Katherine 31, 72
Golden Dawn 87, 88–9, 90, 97–8 Kluver, R. 113
Goodkind, Terry 31, 49, 72 knowledge, bodies of 1, 4, 53–4, 70, 101
Gray, John 21 Kopytoff, I. 26–7
Grimm, Brothers 36, 71 Krishna Consciousness, International Society
Gunn, James 32 for 9–10
Kroeber, K. 28, 33, 34
Hadden, J. K. 106
Hanegraaff, W. 8–9, 17, 18, 23, 24, 88, 91, 96 Le Guin, Ursula 72, 100
Harry Potter novels 72, 77, 80, 85, 86, 114 legend 28, 35
Harvey, Graham 49, 92, 93–4 Levi-Strauss, C. 122
healing 4, 16 Levy, Pierre 110, 111
Heelas, P. 25–6 Lord of the Rings (Tolkien) 2, 31–2, 112, 114,
Heinlein, Robert 61, 64 130
Helland, C. 105 Lucas, George 33–4, 61
Hills, Matt 118 Luhrmann, T. M. 20–21
191
index
Lupa 45–6 natural world 17, 74–6, 77, 92–4

lycanthropy see werewolves Neo-Shamanism see Shamanism/
Neo-Shamanism
Mabinogi 36 New Age 15, 80, 81, 86, 99
McCaffery, Anne 49, 72 Human Potential movement 84
magic 14, 19–21, 33, 42, 50, 51–2, 70, 84, and superhuman 83–4
88–100, 129 Nordic tradition 73
ceremonial/ritual 93, 94–5, 97–9 NRMs (new religious movements) 2, 57,
chaos 14, 64, 98–9 125
fairies and 76, 77 and internet 105–7
and folklore 91 outsider status of 11
Golden Dawn and 88–9 and secularization/consumer culture 21,
left-hand/right-hand 97 22, 27
literature gap on 20 shared characteristics/definitions of 9–11
nature 93–5
and ontological anarchy 98–9 occult/occultism 1, 12–21
and Otherworlds 96–7 and cultic milieu 13–15, 19
pathworking in 19, 98 defined 18–19
psychology-spirituality conflated in 91–2 and esotericism 16–17, 18
and re-enchantment of technology fantasy literature and 13, 35–7
99–100 magic and see magic
sex 93, 97–8 pragmatism of 91
Shamanism and 94 psychology–spirituality conflated in 91–2
Theosophists and 89–90 revival of 87–91
manga 44–5 Western historical context of 35–6
Manson, Charles 64 occulture 1, 4–5, 13, 15–16, 20, 40, 129
Marxism 25 and everyday life 100–101
Mediakin 45–6, 58 and fantastic creatures 69
meditation 19 and magic 70
Melton, J. G. 10, 11 Ong, Walter J. 3
Mendelsohn, F. 30–31 ontological anarchy 98–9
Mercur, D. 96 Ordo Templi Orientis 93
Mesmerism 88, 90 otaku 44, 113, 117
Middleton, John 20 Otakukin/Ota’kin 2, 44–9, 58, 99
Miller, Paul D. 121 and anime/manga 44–5
MMORPGs (massively multi-user online and historical presence/authenticity 46
role-playing games) 72, 103, 111, 112, and superhuman 82
127, 130 Otherkin 1, 2–4, 6, 39–68, 117, 118–19, 129
modernity 18, 24, 27, 35, 99–100, 125 “awakening” and 55–7
see also postmodernism and Church of All Worlds 60–61, 64, 65
modernization 12–13 community see Otherkin community
Moorcock, Michael 116 and consumerism/capitalism 3–4, 65–6
Morrighan 75 cosmology of 43–4, 60
MUDs (multi-user domains) 103, 112 cultural context of 69
multiple souls/entities 40, 48, 58–60 described 39–40
multiple worlds see Otherworlds diversity of 40, 57, 65
multiverse 116 as exemplary community 39
Murray, Janet Horowitz 111 and fantastic milieu 1–2, 66–8
mysticism 14, 16, 17 fantasy literature and 30, 31, 37, 53–5
mythological creatures see fantastic creatures historical/literary contexts of 2–3
mythology 11, 17, 28, 34–5, 52–5, 122 Jediism/Trekkies and 61–3, 65
and legend/folklore 35 and multiple souls/entities 40, 48, 58–60
and Otherworlds 96, 115 and mythology 35, 52–5
192
index
non-human entities referenced by see postmodernism 2, 7, 26, 33, 57, 85

fantastic creatures and internet 103–4
and NRMs 9 Pratchett, Terry 2, 63, 72, 74, 116
and occulture 5, 129 psychology 91–92
and Otakukin 45
outsider status of see outsider status/ Rabinovich, S. 19
otherness re-enchantment 9, 12, 19, 36, 70
questionnaire/survey results 133–50 of technology 99–100
as reaction to modernity 3 Regardie, Israel 98
and religion/spirituality 9, 12, 125–6 Reid, S. 19
soulbonding and 57–8 reincarnation 40, 45, 56, 58, 129
and text/authorship 41–2, 49–52, 54–5, 65 religion 2, 7–12
Otherkin community 40–43, 44, 104–9, demise of 21, 23
126–8 distinct from spirituality 8–9
as catalyst for “awakening” 55–6 and fan culture 118–19
development of belief systems by 51–2 functional/substantive types of 7–8, 40
mythology/fantasy and 52–5 new see NRMs
online resources for 41–2, 49 online 105–7
rules of 46–8 Otherkin and 40
and self-understanding 56 and Otherworlds 95
social networking and 42–3 and popular culture 54
Otherkin.net 41–2, 50 privatization of 23–4
Otherworlds 43–4, 67, 95–7, 109–10, 129 of re-enchantment 9, 12, 19, 36
online/virtual see virtual worlds remix 120–22, 127
outsider status/otherness 11, 16, 19, 56, 69, Renaissance 96
70, 85, 91, 100, 101–2 ritual 11, 21, 23, 94–5
and internet 103–4, 126 Robbins, T. 10
Owen, A. 88, 91 Roberts, Martin 116
Romanticism 36, 93
Paganism/Pagans 11, 13–14, 15, 39, 43, 97, Rosicrucian tradition 89
122 RPGs (role-playing games) 72, 75, 79,
animism and 93–4 119–20, 124
and “awakening” 55–6
diversity of 63–4 sacred, the 8, 13–14, 23, 35
and fantasy literature 33, 60–61, 63–4 sacred space 95
and magic 86–7, 92–5 science fiction 28, 29, 30, 31–4, 110, 115,
nature-centred 92–94 117, 127
and ritual 94–5 definitions of 32–3
sacred space and 95 icons in 67
technology and 99 Scientology 9–10
see also witchcraft Second Life 41, 103, 112
Paolini, Christopher 49 secularization 12–13, 19, 21–8
Paracelsus 77, 96 and consumer culture 24–8
Partridge, Christopher 2, 4, 15–16, 40, 54, definitions/theories of 22–3
81, 105, 123 history of 22
pathworking 19, 98 and privatization of religion 23–4, 36
Pern novels (McCaffery) 72 self-spirituality 165–6(n98)
phenomenology 5 Shamanism/Neo-Shamanism 4, 63, 92, 94,
political activism 11, 63–4, 90 96
popular culture 2, 4, 40, 44–5, 46, 54, 65–6, Shiner, L. 22
103, 125–6, 129–31 Silver Elves 51
convergence in 114 slash fiction 116
Possamai, A. 65–6 social networking 3, 5, 42–3
193
index
Solar Temple 15 tradition, spurious 11

soul 40, 45 Trekkies 63, 117
soulbonding 57–8 Troeltsch, E. 14
Spirited Away (movie) 72, 77 True Blood (TV series) 78, 85–6
Spiritualism 36, 87–8, 90 Tuatha de Danaan 54, 75, 76
spirituality 37, 62 Turner, Bryan S. 23
distinct from religion 8–9, 40 Twilight books (Meyer) 78, 85–6
and health 84 Twitter 3, 5
and internet 105–7 Tyler, E. B. 8, 20
Otherkin and 40
and psychology 91 Ubermensch 83–4
self- 165–6(n98) UFOlogy 4, 16
Star Trek 61, 63, 66 Unification Church 9–10
Star Wars 33–4, 61–3, 65, 120, 122 United States (USA) 41, 42, 61, 88, 105
star-dragons 54 Urban Dictionary 6
Starhawk 93 utopian idealism 11
Stranger in a Strange Land, A (Heinlein) 61,
64 vampires 39, 40, 53, 70, 77–9
SubGenius, Church of 98 contemporary depictions of 78, 100
subjectivity 5, 7, 37, 46, 57, 64, 69, 86, 87, 91, early depictions of 78
101, 121, 126 in folklore 77
Sufism 96 Virgil 79
superempirical 8, 21, 40, 58, 63, 81, 84, 85–6, virtual worlds 104, 108–16
88, 119 defined/features of 110–11
superhero 82–3 hyperdigetic 115–16
superhuman 70, 82–4, 100, 103 and multiverse 116
in ancient literature 82 mythology and 115
in comics/films 82, 83 relationship with real world 108–9, 111,
danger of 83 126, 127
and Human Potential movement 84
and New Age/Nietzschian philosophy Weber, M. 12, 20, 21, 22
83–4 werewolves 70, 78, 79–80, 100
normalization of 82, 101 Western culture 1, 2, 3–4, 35–6
Swedenborgianism 88 dragons in 72
high/low 3, 37
Tantrism 97 magic in 93
tarot 16, 88 and occultism 18, 19
Technopaganism 4 and Otherworlds 95, 96
Technopagans 99–100 and secularization 23, 27
text 33, 49–52, 131 Whedon, Joss 83
as contemporary manifestation 62 Wikipedia 42–3
mega-/thick 67, 115–16 Windtree, Tirl 40
Otherkin attitudes towards 54–5, 62, 65 witchcraft/Wicca 11, 13–14, 63, 90–91,
Theosophists 87, 88, 89–90 93
therianthropes 35, 40, 53, 70, 79–80 Wizard Rock 114
Tiryakian, E. A. 18, 21 Wolfe, Gary K. 67
Todorov, T. 29 Wordsworth, William 36, 93
Tolkien, J. R. R. 2, 30, 31, 49, 72, 74, 75, 86, World of Warcraft (game) 72, 104, 112,
101, 109, 111–12 113–14
194

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FANTASY AND BELIEF

Approaches to New Religions

Cults: A Reference Guide, 3rd edition

Published 2014 by Routledge

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group, an informa business

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced

isbn: 978-1-908049-23-0 (hardback)

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Typeset by JS Typesetting Ltd, Porthcawl, Mid Glamorgan

1. Religion, occulture and the modern world 7

element of consumption as the central factor of these beliefs emphasises inap-

Particular concepts and cosmologies explored in popular culture are

Much of the locus of this work is in the notion of Occulture as articulated by

rELIgIoN, oCCuLTurE AND

Religion AnD spiRituAlity: new, AlteRnAtive AnD enchAnting

The problems are manifold in delineating a general definition of religion: a

necessarily mutually exclusive, but rather highlight different elements of the

Religion = any symbolic system which influences human action by pro-

Spirituality = any human practice which maintains contact between

When talking of “spiritualities” we should definitely not think merely

New religious movements and alternative religion

Two other classifications that are central to academic understandings of groups

The field of new religious studies is concerned with groups of religious

While Robbins’s resolution of these definitional difficulties does go some

A final scholarly construction that pertains to alternative religiosity that is

the occult AnD its peRmutAtions

As perhaps should be obvious already, the history and current presence of

attendant industrial and technological developments, the proliferation of com-

The cultic milieu

The notion of a cultic milieu encapsulates deviant knowledge in all forms,

consider herself or himself an essential part of the environmental movement,

a purely theoretical abstraction, albeit a common one. To define practices as

Occulture is a more recent conceptualization of the cultic milieu. Quite clearly

Western Occulture includes … magick (as devised by Aleister Crowley),

“Esotericism” and “occultism” have often been used interchangeably,54 and

Occultism is a modern development within esotericism. Rather than being

intentional practices, techniques, or procedures which (a) draw upon

This definition makes occultism an eminently practical preoccupation, far

practical application, a suggestion not borne out by historical fact. In addition,

Magic is not a way to form a one-to-one relationship between an indi-

Magic, although central to any discussions of modern occulture, is another of

This understanding, while admittedly vague and perhaps uncomfortably reliant

seculARizAtion AnD consumption

Talk of secularisation is meaningful when it refers to the weakness of

1. the decline of religion

Alternatively, Hanegraaff defines secularization as

the whole of historical developments in western society, as a result of

This definition is functional inasmuch as it limits the proposition clearly to

The complex of secular and privatizing tendencies developing in the modern

between production and consumption, and the associations inherited from a

The term “consumer culture” … conceptualizes an interconnected

1. someone who has the freedom to exercise choice

6. someone whose authority-by-way-of-autonomous-choice and whose

The final point regarding use is further subdivided as:

Alternatively, Campbell121 sees the major sociological characterizations of the

spheres of exchange.126 This process of value uniformity is complemented with

In the west, as a matter of cultural shorthand, we usually take saleability

analysis on the basis of a number of points. First, the intrinsic connection

FAntAsy AnD the mARvellous

Fantasy literature is a genre fraught with differing interpretations and astound-

Technically speaking, the fantastic is understood as “a mode of fiction in which

One of the immediately obvious elements of fantasy is that it is fundamentally

The definition of a fairy-story – what it is, or what it should be – does