Stephen A. Kent

"Kent’s critics have long accused him of using anti-cultism as a tool to promote a broader hostility toward religion, and [his book Psychobiographies and Godly Visions: Disordered Minds and the Origins of Religiosity] reads like a spectacular confirmation. All religious leaders are painted with the same brush: deluded, dangerous, and diagnostically compromised. This worldview is so totalizing that it leaves no room for metaphor, [or for] mystery, or [for] the possibility that [the] spiritual experience might be more than just neurological noise."

"… [In his recent work, Kent] portrays several religions as breeding grounds for mental illness and abuse rather than multifaceted human phenomena. … To be clear, Kent is not a hoaxer like [French provocateur Léo] Taxil. He is a credentialed academic. But like Taxil, he operates in a space where ideology can overshadow evidence, and where the allure of uncovering hidden evil can distort the lens of inquiry. … Kent’s journey from sociologist to activist is a story worth telling, not because it is unique, but because it is emblematic of a broader tension between scholarship and sensationalism. After all, when the devil is in the details, the scholar must be doubly vigilant."

"[Religiologist David] Frankfurter’s central objection is that Kent conflates mythic narratives with historical reality. … Kent’s theory of “deviant scripturalism” posits that fringe groups can use or misuse specific religious texts—particularly those involving incest, sacrifice, or divine violence—to justify abuse. But Frankfurter argues that this approach lacks historical grounding. Kent’s method, he counters, amounts to a kind of speculative anthropology, in which the mere presence of a mythic in scripture is taken as evidence of its enactment in ritual. This is not just a methodological quibble. It strikes at the heart of Kent’s argument. By treating scriptural motifs as behavioral templates, Kent blurs the line between text and practice, belief and action. Frankfurter points out that such motifs are ubiquitous in religious literature, yet rarely—if ever—translated into ritual abuse. Historical data do not support the leap from narrative to crime."

"Kent’s problem is not that he critiques religion. The problem is how he does it. He constructs a sensational and simplistic narrative by privileging anecdote over evidence and ideology over nuance. He treats religious belief as pathology, ritual as camouflage, and dissent as proof. This is not sociology—it is polemic. And it has consequences. Kent’s theories have been used to justify surveillance of religious groups, to support prosecutions based on dubious evidence, and to stigmatize communities that deviate from [the] mainstream norms. His work has contributed to a climate of suspicion, where difference is equated with danger and belief with abuse. This is why revisiting the Satanism scare—and Kent’s role in it—is not merely an academic exercise. We must remember how easily fear can masquerade as scholarship, and how quickly ideology can distort inquiry. We must distinguish between critique and condemnation, between analysis and accusation."