Sources

Satanism: A Social History

Citation Formats

General Reference

Divinity Atlas. "Satanism: A Social History." Accessed August 30, 2026. https://dev-divinity.interactiveatlas.org/sources/satanism-a-social-history.

APA Style

Divinity Atlas. (n.d.). Satanism: A Social History. Retrieved August 30, 2026, from https://dev-divinity.interactiveatlas.org/sources/satanism-a-social-history

BibTeX

@misc{divinityatlas-satanism-a-social-history,
  author = {Divinity Atlas},
  title = {Satanism: A Social History},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://dev-divinity.interactiveatlas.org/sources/satanism-a-social-history},
  note = {Accessed August 30, 2026}
}

Massimo Introvigne's social history works from documented research distinguishing theistic Satanism, LaVeyan and related atheistic self-deification currents, and Luciferianism as related but historically and doctrinally distinct modern movements, rather than treating Satanism as one undifferentiated category. That named, movement-by-movement distinction, checkable against the specific groups and documents it traces, is the book's real evidentiary basis. This record has not independently traced further scholarly response to Introvigne's specific claims since 2016. Use it for established historical facts about these movements' formation and relationship to one another; it is a critical academic history, not any one group's own doctrinal statement, which is better sourced from that group's own primary text, such as the Temple of Set's own tenets.

Facts

Assessment

Reliability Tier

Massimo Introvigne's scholarly social history distinguishing theistic Satanism, LaVeyan and related atheistic self-deification currents, and Luciferianism as related but historically and doctrinally distinct movements, rather than treating Satanism as one undifferentiated category.

Notes

Massimo Introvigne's scholarly social history of Satanism, distinguishing theistic Satanism, LaVeyan and related atheistic self-deification currents, and Luciferianism as related but distinct modern movements. Use for established historical facts about these movements' formation and relationships to one another; a critical academic history, not any one group's own doctrinal statement, which is better sourced from that group's own primary text such as the Temple of Set's own tenets.

Citation

Author

Massimo Introvigne

Publisher

Brill

Publication Year

2016

URL

https://brill.com/display/title/27153

Source Type

book

Claims Backed By This Source (217 claims)

This source backs 217 claims across the atlas. As facts: 167 well-attested, 3 scholarly debate, 2 open question. As cited relationships: 12 holds, 4 connected, 2 critiqued Here, 1 rejected Here, 2 held Differently. Plus 24 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.

Disposition By Topic

Denominations, 57 claims: 44 well-attested, 3 scholarly debate, 2 open question, 1 holds, 1 rejected Here, 2 held Differently, 4 general references.
Scriptures & Texts, 25 claims: 18 well-attested, 4 holds, 3 general references.
Articles, 24 claims: 24 well-attested.
Beliefs & Restrictions, 20 claims: 16 well-attested, 4 general references.
Religions, 18 claims: 16 well-attested, 2 general references.
Rituals, 16 claims: 13 well-attested, 2 holds, 1 general references.
Open Questions, 12 claims: 7 well-attested, 4 connected, 1 general references.
Doctrines, 11 claims: 5 well-attested, 1 holds, 2 critiqued Here, 3 general references.
Subcategories, 10 claims: 8 well-attested, 2 general references.
Practices, 9 claims: 8 well-attested, 1 general references.
Sources, 8 claims: 8 well-attested.
Years, 7 claims: 4 holds, 3 general references.