This essay is also available as a podcast on anchor.fm, Spotify, and other platforms
Hail and welcome to A Satanist Reads the Bible.
This episode marks a significant break in what kind of content I cover and how I approach it. While the overall trajectory of this project will not be affected, I’m sure that some of my listeners have noted that, in general, I remain largely aloof from the goings-on of the various Satanist organizations extant in the world. I have my opinions on the philosophies of these organizations, which I have expressed from time to time, but their political aspects have not much concerned me. I want to make something clear at the outset before I start talking about the content of this specific episode: this project is about my own journey as a Satanist, and while I very much hope that it can serve as a guide for others, your personal religious journey, whatever religions you do or do not ascribe to, are your own concern. If your journey involves joining any particular religious organization, you’ll not hear a word for or against it from me. I may speak against that organization’s philosophy or actions, but whether or not you agree with those criticisms, and whether or not those affect your decisions regarding your membership, are simply none of my business or concern. I have no interest whatsoever in persuading anyone to join, remain with, or leave any organization, and I myself am not a religious leader: I am not a prophet, priest, minister, or anything of the sort, and this project does not exist to promulgate or codify any specific religion.
I am a philosopher and I am a Satanist. This project arises from the confluence of those two aspects of my identity. If people like my ideas and adopt them as their own, whether whole or in part, that’s their business. I am not seeking to establish a normative model for Satanism and I am not trying to convert anyone to any form of Satanism nor to get anyone to denounce their religion, Satanist or otherwise. To be clear, I’d be happy to hear of any news that someone has listened to my works and decided to break from hegemonic religion in order to seek their own religious path, but I wouldn’t consider this project a failure, even in part, if that never happened, and it is not something I am actively working to achieve.
This episode concerns the recent activities of the Satanic Temple, which is likely the most popular and most well-known Satanist organization. I know many of my listeners are members of the Satanic Temple, and, speaking to those listeners specifically, while this episode will be critical of the Satanic Temple and its recent actions, I want to be perfectly clear that nothing I say in this episode should be taken as an attack on you, on your religious beliefs, or on your personal decision to become or remain involved with this organization. Again, I don’t care either way, and it’s not any of my business in the first place.
I think that, if one were to decide to criticize the Satanic Temple, this would be about the most inconvenient time to do it. The Temple has recently received a great deal of positive attention for its efforts to combat the draconian abortion laws that have recently come into effect in Texas, and their efforts clearly warrant that praise. It’s important that organizations speak up against this kind of tyranny and the Satanic Temple is exactly the right organization to do so. This kind of thing is exactly the reason they came into being in the first place, and their actions are serving a good cause. At the same time, I question some of the Temple’s recent actions, and I think that if I were to refrain from making a good faith and legitimate criticism of an organization because it was politically inconvenient at the time, I would not be doing my own job as a Satanist. So I’ll be discussing some background on the Satanic Temple, my general thoughts on the beliefs espoused by the organization and their large-scale activities, and then delving into the recent information I’ve uncovered.
The Satanic Temple was founded by Lucien Greaves and Malcolm Jarry in 2013. I’ve been unable to find much information about the lives of either prior to their founding of the organization; apparently Greaves studied false memory syndrome at Harvard (Bugbee, 2013), and I’ve been able to find nothing substantive at all about Jarry. The impetus for their founding of the organization was political: their intention was to create a Satanist religious organization and use it to confront religious hegemony in the American political system using the very tools that that same hegemony had itself used to oppress others. The specific catalyst was the creation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (now the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships). Since then, the Satanic Temple has attracted significant public attention through various campaigns aimed towards this goal, such as their attempt to place a statue of Baphomet—a significant figure in Satanism and the occult—at the grounds of the Oaklahoma State Capitol in protest of the Capitol’s having placed a monument of the Ten Commandments there, in violation of the American tradition and legal doctrine of chuch/state separation.
A 2019 documentary, Hail Satan?, directed by Penny Lane, brought broader attention and recognition to the Temple. Shortly afterwards, the IRS granted the organization tax-exempt status, recognizing it as a “church or a convention or association of churches” under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. My opinion is that the Satanic Temple, while qualifying for such recognition as a technical matter, is not in fact a religious organization but rather a political one, with an emphasis on the politics of religion in the United States. I’ve said as much before, in my essay “Why I Am Not a Satanist of the Satanic Temple,” which never got made into a podcast episode but which you can find on asatanistreadsthebible.com. I’ll quote my summary of my argument against the Satanic Temple’s being a religious organization from that essay:
The executive branch of the US government instituted a program which directed public money to religious organizations, in seeming violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, and Jarry conceived of the Satanic Temple in response. The political cause existed prior to the religious formulation of the response, and the religious formulation is contingent on the political cause. Satanism was selected not for its intrinsic validity as a religion, but because it would be particularly repugnant to those who had established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives….
Bilsborough, 2019
To be clear, I am not making the argument that any individual members of the Satanic Temple are not true religious Satanists in any reasonable sense of the word. I’m sure some of them aren’t—that seems evident from what I’ve uncovered in researching for this essay—but I’ve met many religious Satanists who are also members of the Satanic Temple, or who are former members. Nor does the Temple’s genesis, taken in itself, negate its validity in terms of its having been the religiously-oriented political organization that it was founded as. My assessment up to this point does not denigrate the Temple in any way, any more than calling whales mammals rather than fish denigrates either mammals or whales.
I have another essay and podcast episode, “What Is Religion?” (Bilsborough, 2020) in which I discuss the difficulties of defining the term “religion.” Given my findings there, I certainly can’t say in any definitive way that the Satanic Temple does not constitute a religious organization. I believe that it doesn’t—that is my opinion on the matter, and I have my reasons for holding that opinion—but I have no basis for being able to make that an objective knowledge claim, and there are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made that I’m wrong about this. The Temple offers one such argument themselves under their FAQ page (Faq, n.d.). I think this argument fails but I’m not going to deconstruct it here; my opinion is necessary for this essay for transparency and to serve as a point of reference, but this episode isn’t aimed at me dissuading you on this matter, and, if this is something to which you’ve given a sufficient amount of thought, I’m not sure that my position is strong enough to even warrant the attempt. And to reiterate, whether or not the Satanic Temple is a religious organization has, in my opinion, no effect on whether its members are or are not religious Satanists. Membership is neither necessary nor sufficient for religious Satanism.
That said, looking at the “About Us” page (About Us, n.d.) on the Temple’s website, I consider my argument against its being a religious organization to be well founded, as the page lacks any content that is prima facie religious in nature. “The mission of The Satanic Temple,” the page states, “is to encourage benevolence and empathy, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and undertake noble pursuits.” There is some discussion of the Temple’s aforementioned campaigns, a couple paragraphs seeking to differentiate the Temple from the Church of Satan (to which it has no direct relation), some info on joining, and a statement of its ideology formulated in seven “fundamental tenets,” about which more presently. There is also a great deal of occult imagery, but Satan is not mentioned a single time apart from the word’s inclusion in organizational titles.
I’ll not rehash the Seven Tenets here, although I’ll be returning to them later; suffice to say, they’re broad principles reflecting Enlightenment humanism. While I don’t find them entirely disagreeable when considered at face value, they’re not given any defense or support, but rather presented as if they were brute moral facts, with nothing whatsoever offered by way of demonstrating that they follow from the religious veneration of Satan. There is a reading list, but the listed readings are primarly works about Satanism written by outsiders rather than works of religious Satanism written by Satanists, and those works of particular religious significance, such as the writings of the Romantic Satanists, are given no exposition or exegesis. There is a FAQ section as well, with a few short paragraphs dedicated to the religious aspects of the Satanic Temple, but no question—including the most philosphically and theologically complex among them—is answered with anything more than a cursory response, and any ties to the tenets and the mission statement of the organization are implict and tenuous at best.
One might counter—as people have when I’ve discussed this matter in casual online conversations—that the last thing a Satanist religious organization should be doing is interpreting texts for its adherents. For me, textual interpretation is one of the core sources of my religion, and while I refer to the interpretations of others for guidance, it would hardly be fitting for me to outsource the work of interpretation in any way. This is a perfectly valid point and I agree: the Satanic Temple shouldn’t be in the business of telling people how to interpret texts. But if they were a religious organization, I would nevertheless expect them to have their own interpretation, and this does not seem to be in evidence.
One paragraph from the FAQ, under the heading “How are you different from other Satanic organizations?” deserves special mention. I’ll quote it here in full:
Many Satanic organizations focus on pointless and misguided efforts to establish a monopoly on a vision of the one ‘true’ Satanism. This obsession with ownership has fomented an unfortunate culture in which Satanism’s most vitriolic critics are often self-identified Satanists. The Satanic Temple is not interested in establishing itself as the sole arbiter of Satanic practice. Rather, we are open to working with other self-identified Satanic organizations to promote general recognition of Satanic legitimacy. While many Satanic organizations seem to revel in superfluous hierarchies while isolating themselves in petty organizational autocracy, the Satanic Temple eschews rigid, centralized authority and focuses its efforts on effecting tangible constructive change. We believe in building a politically active Satanic movement and invite others to join us in these efforts.
Let’s step through this together, line by line, because this will bear heavily on our discussion today. “Many Satanic organizations focus on pointless and misguided efforts to establish a monopoly on a vision of the one ‘true’ Satanism.” This is not something I can demonstrate conclusively, but my experience with regards to members of the Church of Satan in particular has fully accorded with this statement, and I agree that such efforts are “pointless” and “misguided.” I acknowledge that Anton LaVey may have been the first to declare and codify a religious Satanism, but this does not entitle LaVeyan Satanists to sole ownership of the word “Satanism” any more than the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus is soley entitled to the word “Christianity.” That’s simply not how language works, and the entire campaign reeks of a cowardly fragility, as if they felt their truth threatened by people using the wrong names for things. Beyond that, as I mentioned in a recent essay regarding LeVeyan Satanism and the Church of Satan—and this is a criticism I level against the Satanic Temple as well—Satan does not appear to have much involvement beyond serving as a convenient symbol, lacking the full weight of theological necessity which Satan holds in my own religion, and which the deities or the symbols of deities in other religions hold for religions in general.
“This obsession with ownership has fomented an unfortunate culture in which Satanism’s most vitriolic critics are often self-identified Satanists.” There are two problems here. One is the suggestion that Satanism is any kind of unity, and the second is the suggestion that it would be better if the foremost critics of any religious Satanism were not themselves Satanists. The implication is that Satanists should not be critics of any religious Satanism, or should, at the least, grant Satanism some kind of special dispensation. Not only does this conflict with the previous sentence, which itself criticizes a normative doctrine of Satanic religion, I find it manifestly un-Satanic. Satanists: I hold you to a higher standard, and if you fall short, you can expect to find me among the foremost of your critics. I hold myself to a higher standard, and if I fall short, I expect you to be the foremost of my own critics. I am a Satanist, and I would be honored if I were also known as one of “Satanism’s most vitriolic critics.”
In my essay “Why I Am Not a Satanist of the Satanic Temple,” I mentioned my concern that the Satanic Temple would cause an integration of religious Satanism into the one-dimensional spectrum of life under the modern capitalist hegemony, much as the 20th century philosopher Herbert Marcuse described in his book One-Dimensional Man, and I’ll reiterate that concern here and argue that my concerns in that regard have turned out to be entirely warranted.
Herbert Marcuse was a prominent member of the Frankfurt School, a post-Marxist collective of philosophers aimed at investigating and critiquing the conditions of modern human existence, with a particular emphasis on power dynamics and human emancipation from oppression and servitude. It is from the Frankfurt School that Critical Theory emerged, a subject which has been the topic of much recent discussion, especially with regards to the offshoot of Critical Theory known as Critical Race Theory.
Marcuse’s initial goal was to study with the phenomenologist and existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger in order to synthesize Heidegger’s work with Marxism in response to the “crisis of Marxism,” the apparent non-fulfillment or failure of Marx’s predictions regarding the proletariat revolution. Marcuse later broke with Heidegger when the latter became interested in (and then later joined) the German Nazi Party, and Marcuse also came to find Heidegger’s philosophy insufficient to accomplish his goals of providing a philosophical basis for Marxism and for critiquing the conditions of human existence under advanced industrial capitalism, though some degree of influence (though exactly how much is disputed) remains (Farr, 2021).
My familiarity with Heidegger is minimal, but I’ll mention that much of the contemporary language surrounding “authenticity”—such as when we say that some person is a very authentic person—derives from his work. Marcuse also engaged deeply with Freud in order to created a psychoanalytical model of the working class. To this end, Marcuse expanded on Freud’s concept of repression. Marcuse agrees with Freud that some degree of repression is necessary in order for human society to function and perpetuate itself. I frequently find myself wanting to murder the other human beings around me and I know that most or possibly all other people feel the same way at times, and if everyone acted on those urges all the time, we wouldn’t get very far as a species. This is basic repression. But there is also, in Marcuse’s view, surplus repression. I often purchase food from individuals who, it is very clear, have no interest whatsoever in selling food to me or anyone else and who actively despise everything that they’re doing by way of engaging in this commodity exchange. I’ve been in similar positions myself. Perhaps one such person’s corporate overlords require this person and their fellow employees to engage in some sort of corporate propaganda chant at the beginning of their shifts, as the retailer Wal-Mart is reputed to do, and I doubt very much that any employee would consent to such activity if they had any real choice. So they must repress their disgust rather than walking out, and as this repression is not necessary for the continuation of the species, it is indeed surplus repression, serving not the survival of the human species but the reproduction and growth of what the French philosopher Louis Althusser referred to as the apparatus.
Capital is the foundational mediating principle of human life in the contemporary world. The apparatus which facilitates capital is, as Marcuse described, totalitarian: there is no aspect of your life which is not mediated by this principle. Everything you do, everything you say, everything you want, is appropriated and directed towards the accumulation of capital, and participation in capital is compulsory. To be clear, this isn’t any sort of conspiracy theory but rather something inherent to the nature of capital itself. Marx’s analysis of capital was an application of Hegelian dialectics, which has come up frequently in the course of this project and which I’ll summarize here: Marx began with the concept of the commodity and analyzed the contradictions concealed within that concept—such as its being a bearer of both the contradictory concepts of use-value and exchange-value—and those contradictions drive the evolution of the concept and demonstrate its inherent instability.
In his 1964 book One-Dimensional Man, Marcuse describes how capital has advanced under advanced industrial capitalism to protect itself from dissent and the revolutionary exploitation of its internal contradictions by absorbing dissent into itself. Violent authoritarian domination is expensive and counterproductive; easier and cheaper to dominate by constructing the total conditions of existence so that they accord with the goals of capital and by transforming any remaining qualitative dissent into a quantitative difference along the one dimension along which the apparatus operates. As an example, perhaps you heard me talking about Marx just now and thought that you might learn more about Marxism, socialism, and communism, which are nominally understood as being antithetical to capital, but in order to acquire the information you want, you will either have to buy books on the subject, generating profit for capitalists, or search the internet, exposing you to advertisements and generating clicks which, again, generate profit for capitalists. Watch the news for a while and see if you can find any segments that interrogate the foundational structures of our society.
Now, I certainly hope you don’t take my meaning here to be that you should not bother seeking out this information. The point is only to understand the conditions of our existence under capital. Marcuse was not a pessimist with regards to the possibility of revolutionary transformation in these conditions. As Douglas Kellner writes in the introduction to the second edition of One-Dimensional Man, “…perceiving the possibility of self-determination and constructing one’s own needs and values could enable individuals to break with the existing world of thought and behavior” (in Marcuse, 1991, p. xv).
Turning now to how this ties into the Satanic Temple, my research for this essay involved watching the documentary Hail Satan? for the first time. This documentary was released in 2019, and documents the activities of the Satanic Temple over the preceding several years. The general focus is on the monument disputes that I’ve already mentioned, but other elements of the organization and its politics emerged as well.
One of those involved with the Satanic Temple who featured heavily in the documentary was the activist Jex Blackmore. Jex fronted the Detroit chapter of the Satanic Temple and, during the period in which the documentary was filmed, conducted a Satanic ritual in which she called for the execution of then-president Donald Trump. For this, she was ousted from the Satanic Temple, as was documented in the film.
I’ll quote the relevant section of her speech during the ritual: “We are going to storm press conferences! Kidnap an executive! Release snakes in the governor’s mansion! Execute the president! Hail Satan!” I’m not a lawyer, but this seems to fall under the legal prohibition against threatening the president of the United States. For my part, whether or not her resulting ouster was justified within the context of an organization purporting itself as Satanic hinges on two questions: one, were her actions immoral? Two, were her actions un-Satanic?
Calling for the assassination of a public figure is not primae facie immoral. It is possible to concoct extreme examples under which it is clear that the assassination of a particular public figure is a moral action. Would it have been better if someone had assassinated Hitler? Would it have been better if someone had assassinated Pol Pot or Stalin? If someone had attempted such an assassination, would we consider that person’s actions morally laudable? The clear answer to all of these questions is yes. Whether or not Donald Trump, as president, warranted the same moral consideration is an arguable matter. In either case, it seems clear to me that such action would have caused more problems than it solved, but the point is, calling for the assassination of a public figure is not, in itself, immoral.
So then, is it un-Satanic? If we say that this action was definitively illegal but potentially moral, to call for the assassination of Donald Trump in defiance of the legal framework of the United States government is then itself definitively illegal yet potentially moral. To act morally in defiance of law is to act in defiance of illegitimate authority, which seems to me to be definitively Satanic. Clearly Jex Blackmore acted believing that Donald Trump, as President of the United States, fell under the same criteria warranting assassination as Hitler and Pol Pot. Even if I fail to make the case that she was correct in this, I believe I can still make a very strong case that she was not unreasonable in believing this, and that therefore, she was not, as a Satanist, unreasonable in calling for the assassination of Donald Trump, and so I can then say that she was acting legitimately as a Satanist. I will also stipulate that one authentically being a Satanist is equivalent to one acting as a Satanist.
Therefore, the Satanic Temple ousted one of its most prominent members for being a Satanist. The Satanic Temple ousted a member who had been instrumental in the Temple’s growth, and their reason for doing so was that this member is a Satanist. If Jex had acted otherwise, she would have acted in contradiction to her own morality in order to conform to the rules of the organization of which she was a part, and I stipulate this as being definitely un-Satanic.
Therefore being a Satanist is an acceptable reason for being ejected from the Satanic Temple, and this calls into question whether the Satanic Temple is justified in calling itself a Satanist organization.
The response from Lucien Greaves and the Satanic Temple, as documented in the film, was that the Temple operates within the constraints of American legal hegemony, and therefore could not tolerate activity that was openly illegal. The aim of the Satanic Temple is to work within the system, within its constraints, whether legitimate or not. Its having acquired 501(c)3 tax-exempt status as a legally-recognized church and its seeking to participate on the American stage coequal with establishment religions are further evidence to this. Jex Blackmore, in contrast, stated in the documentary that “…you can’t dismantle corrupt systems of power while functioning within them” (Lane et al., 2019).
It seems then that what the Satanic Temple is becoming is the establishment forum for religious dissent. It ceases to be a qualitative opposition to religious hegemony and becomes instead a quantitative aspect of it.
I reached out to Jex for comment on a few questions and I’ll read her responses in full.
T: Were you acting as a Satanist when you conducted the ceremony that resulted in your ouster from the Satanic Temple?
J: Absolutely.
T: Is operating within the norms and boundaries of the establishment a possible part of a Satanist ethos, or does a Satanist necessarily need to operate outside of or in opposition to those boundaries?
J: It’s not a prerequisite of Satanism to challenge the status quo. Satanism respects individual boundaries but certainly those who have suffered under the yoke of Satanism have traditionally transgressed normative sensitivities of the ruling class.
T: Do you have any comment on the recent activities of the Satanic Temple, such as regarding their opposition to the Texas abortion law?
J: I don’t find their opposition to be remarkable. Anyone with a damn mind should oppose the anti-abortion legislation in Texas. However, I am disturbed by their fundraising efforts especially when they fail to center those impacted most by these pronatalist policies. Generally, I strongly discourage folks from donating their hard earned money to an organization that isn’t transparent about how those expenses are spent. The Satanic Temple has a practice of exploiting the fears and distress of a traumatized public to fundraise for grandiose promises they have yet to deliver on — acting without strategy to satisfy their opportunistic headline lust.
T: Is the Satanic Temple primarily a religious organization, in your opinion, or a political one?
J: All religious organizations are political. However, in practice I don’t think the Satanic Temple is either. It’s a social club.
Many thanks to Jex for her answers.
The genesis of this episode arose in the Satanist Reads the Bible discord channel, which is available to patrons. One of my followers, by way of starting a general discussion on the subject, mentioned that the Satanic Temple had been formulating a Code of Conduct for its members which allegedly violated the Temple’s own tenets. I acquired a copy of this Code of Conduct, read through it, and came to the conclusion that the clauses in question do not violate the tenets explicity, but at the same time are not at all in keeping with the spirit in which they have ostensibly been offered.
In the released version of the Code of Conduct, on page 4, is a section on “Conflicts of Interest & Dating in the Organization.” I’ll quote the first paragraph:
Members and volunteers should actively avoid situations which may present a conflict of interest to TST. This may include operating a company, organization, charity, or religious affiliated group that has the potential to compete with or disparage TST; it may also include managing platforms that could be confused as being affiliated with TST.
This sounds to me as though TST is policing its members’ outside affiliations. The phrase “…that has the potential to compete with or disparage TST” is very broad; I could describe almost any company, organization, charity, or religious affiliated group in those terms. I could argue that your listening to this show right now is a situation which you should, according to this Code of Conduct, actively avoid. The Fourth Tenet of the Satanic Temple reads: “The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s one.” I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this clause of the Code of Conduct willfully and unjustly encroaches on anyone’s freedoms, but I don’t read it as respecting the freedoms of others either.
Remember that line from the FAQ: “The Satanic Temple is not interested in establishing itself as the sole arbiter of Satanic practice.” Like the Fourth Tenet, I don’t read the Code of Conduct as being in explicit contradiction to this claim, but neither do they seem entirely consistent, as I could read membership in, for example, the Church of Satan, to present a conflict of interest to TST.
I’m not claiming that TST has, does, or ever will interpret their Code of Conduct in such restrictive terms, but I also think that members would be right to to raise questions or criticisms along such lines as I have here. However, I’ve heard from several sources that those who have raised such questions and leveled such criticisms have received significant pushback, including shunning by other members. Joseph Rose, host of the podcast Hail Satan, describes as much in his episode “The Satanic Temple Drama Club” (Rose, 2021) and I’ve heard as much from some of my patrons.
In concluding, I want to emphasize that this essay is a critique, not a takedown. I’m not any sort of investigative journalist and I don’t want to step into that role. I’m just asking questions, and while I think there’s reasonable cause for concern, I’m not confident that I have sufficient answers to paint the Satanic Temple with any sort of broad brush. I also don’t want to denigrate or diminish any potential good that the Satanic Temple is presently accomplishing or has accomplished in the past. Even if all of the worst implications of my research were indeed the case, that in itself would not mean that the organization is incapable of accomplishing noble, worthwhile aims. Jex Blackmore, in her responses to my questions, expressed some additional concerns about such activities that I can’t confirm but which I think are very much worth looking into: how is the Satanic Temple spending the money it receives from donations, and do those expenses align with the expressed objectives under which that money was raised? Those aren’t questions I’ll be answering here, but like the others I’ve posed on the show today, I think they’re important questions to ask, and should anyone pose them directly to the Temple, I hope they’ll respond with the clear and transparent answers that such questions warrant.
I hope you’ve found this piece interesting and informative. If you’ve enjoyed it, I encourage you to look at some of my other essays, and if you find my approach to philosophy and religion at all valuable, I hope that you’ll stop in at my Patreon page, which features bonus content for patrons, and that you’ll stop back by to check on my new content.
Works Cited or Referenced
About Us. (n.d.). The Satanic Temple. Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us
Bilsborough, T. (2019, July 13). Why I Am Not a Satanist of the Satanic Temple. A Satanist Reads the Bible. https://asatanistreadsthebible.com/why-i-am-not-a-satanist-of-the-satanic-temple/
Bugbee, S. (2013). Unmasking Lucien Greaves, Leader of the Satanic Temple. https://www.vice.com/en/article/4w7adn/unmasking-lucien-greaves-aka-doug-mesner-leader-of-the-satanic-temple
Faq. (n.d.). The Satanic Temple. Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq
Farr, A. (2021). Herbert Marcuse. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/marcuse/
Lane, P., Blackmore, J., Blythe, C., & Crowe, N. (2019, April 17). Hail Satan? [Documentary]. Hard Working Movies.
Marcuse, H. (1991). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Beacon Press.
Rose, J. (2021). HAIL SATAN: The Satanic Temple Drama Club on Apple Podcasts. Apple Podcasts. Retrieved September 25, 2021, from https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-satanic-temple-drama-club/id1530297765?i=1000530736397
TST Code of Conduct. (n.d.). The Satanic Temple.