SATAN vs SATAN: Who Owns the Devil?

The question of who “owns” Satanism, conceptually, not legally, sits at the center of a long-standing internal dispute. At its core, the disagreement is not about facts, but about definitions: whether Satanism is a fixed system established by a founder, or a broader, evolving current shaped by individuals.

On one side, the Church of Satan maintains that Satanism is a specific, codified religion established by Anton LaVey in the 1960s. Through works like The Satanic Bible, LaVey articulated a coherent philosophy rooted in atheism, materialism, individualism, and the symbolic use of “Satan” as an archetype rather than a literal entity. From this perspective, Satanism is not an open-ended category but a defined system with clear boundaries. Introducing theism, external deities, or metaphysical belief is seen as a contradiction of its core principles. As a result, adherents often argue that alternative interpretations, particularly theistic ones, are misapplications of the term rather than legitimate variations.

This position also serves a structural purpose. By insisting on definitional precision, the Church of Satan preserves internal coherence and avoids conceptual dilution. In their view, if “Satanism” is allowed to mean anything, it ultimately means nothing. Their refusal to adopt the label “LaVeyan Satanism” follows directly from this logic: to them, adding a qualifier implies the existence of parallel, equally valid forms, which they reject.

On the other side is a more pluralistic and experiential understanding of Satanism. In this model, Satan is not owned or defined by any one institution but functions as an archetype, a mirror in which individuals either recognize themselves or do not. From this perspective, Satanists are often described as “born, not made,” meaning the identity arises from personal disposition rather than formal initiation into a fixed doctrine.

Here, The Satanic Bible is viewed less as a final authority and more as a foundational text, an influential articulation of one man’s observations and philosophy, rather than a closed system. Satanism itself is understood as something that emerged organically from Anton LaVey’s actions and ideas, but not something he could ultimately contain or monopolize.

This framework also accommodates later developments, including more esoteric or theistic interpretations. Figures like Dr. Michael Aquino illustrate this trajectory. After departing from the Church of Satan, Aquino founded the Temple of Set, framing his work not as a separate “denomination” of Satanism, but as an initiatory path centered on personal transformation and self-deification. For those in the pluralist camp, such developments are not deviations but natural extensions of individual exploration.

This leads to a fundamental rejection of the idea of “Satanic denominations.” If each Satanist is, in essence, their own authority, shaping belief through study and experience, then rigid categorization becomes unnecessary or even misleading. Satanism, in this sense, resembles a philosophical current more than an organized religion.

The disagreement between these two positions is ultimately irreconcilable because it rests on incompatible assumptions. The Church of Satan operates from a model in which religion can be formally defined, stabilized, and preserved by a founder. The opposing view treats religion as something fluid, emergent, and inherently resistant to central control.

Using the term “LaVeyan Satanism” highlights this divide. It is analytically useful, as it distinguishes a specific doctrine from a broader field of interpretations. But it is also philosophically loaded: adopting the term implicitly affirms that Satanism is plural, while rejecting it reinforces the claim that Satanism is singular.

In the end, the conflict is less about who is “correct” and more about which model one accepts, the closed system or the open current. Each side is internally consistent. They simply define the terrain differently.

Before concluding, a few clarifications help sharpen the discussion.

First, there is no legal ownership of the terms “Satanism” or “Satanist.” The Church of Satan does not control these words in a universal sense. At most, organizations can protect specific names or symbols, but not broad religious labels. This means the disagreement over what “Satanism” is belongs to philosophy and identity, not law.

Second, Satan as a figure did not begin with Anton LaVey. The image of Satan and the idea of opposition or adversarial spirituality existed long before the 1960s in literature, folklore, and religious thought. What LaVey did was organize and define a modern system around that figure. Whether that act constitutes the creation of Satanism or simply one expression of it depends on the perspective one adopts.

Third, much of the disagreement comes down to how the word “Satanism” is being used. For the Church of Satan, it functions like a proper name, a specific religion with fixed principles. For others, it functions as a general category that includes multiple interpretations. This difference in usage creates the illusion of disagreement over facts, when it is really a disagreement over definitions.

Fourth, the Church of Satan’s strict stance can also be understood in practical terms. Like many smaller or non-mainstream religions, it maintains tight control over its identity to avoid dilution or misrepresentation. Defining clear boundaries helps preserve consistency, even if others reject those boundaries.

Finally, the term “LaVeyan Satanism” is not neutral. Using it implies that Satanism is broader than one system and includes multiple forms. Rejecting it implies that Satanism is singular and already fully defined. The choice of terminology, therefore, reflects a deeper position in the debate itself.

Taken together, these points clarify that the conflict is not simply about belief, but about language, structure, and how religion itself is understood, either as something fixed and defined, or something open and evolving.

The Devil is in the details!