​The Mask of Antiquity: Why Satanism Isn't Paganism and Lilith Isn't a Goddess

In the labyrinthine world of modern spirituality, terms often blur, histories intertwine, and new narratives emerge, sometimes at the expense of historical accuracy. For decades, a significant point of contention has simmered between those of us who practice Earth-centric Pagan traditions, like myself as a Druid, and a subset of individuals identifying as Satanists or followers of Lilith, who, perhaps inadvertently, lay claim to ancient roots that simply don't exist. This isn't a judgment on modern spiritual paths, but a call for intellectual honesty: Satanism is, at its core, a humanistic and atheistic philosophy, distinct from Paganism, and Lilith, while a powerful symbol, is an ancient demoness, not a goddess, reimagined for contemporary empowerment.

Part 1: The Echoes of the "Satanic Panic" – A Misguided Identity Crisis

For many of us, our first encounter with the term "Satanism" was through the chilling lens of the 1980s "Satanic Panic." Fueled by sensational media, unsubstantiated claims, and moral crusades, this era painted a terrifying picture of a clandestine network of devil-worshippers engaged in ritual abuse and sacrifice. The public, often ill-informed, lumped diverse spiritual paths under one terrifying umbrella.

At the receiving end of this indiscriminate fear were us Pagans—Druids, Wiccans, Heathens, and others—who found ourselves erroneously labeled "Satanists." Our pleas that "we don't even believe in their Satan" fell on deaf ears. Paganism, with its diverse roots in pre-Christian European traditions, its reverence for nature, and its polytheistic or pantheistic worldview, stood in stark contrast to the Abrahamic-centric concept of Satan.

Yet, as we battled external misconceptions, another front opened up. A nascent Satanic movement, emerging from the counter-culture, began to appropriate our Pagan terminology and symbolism, attempting to paint their philosophy as an ancient, Earth-centric spirituality. This created a profound internal conflict: "You are not Pagans," we argued. "You are not an Earth-centric spiritual path. Most of you are humanist/atheist."

This historical context is crucial because it highlights the fundamental identity crisis at play. To understand why Satanism cannot genuinely claim Pagan roots, we must first understand the true origins and evolution of both terms.

Part 2: Satan and Lucifer – Not Gods, But Evolving Concepts

The claim that Satan and Lucifer were pre-Abrahamic gods is a cornerstone of this pseudo-mythology, yet it finds no support in historical or textual evidence. Their figures, far from being ancient deities, emerged and evolved within the Abrahamic tradition itself, albeit influenced by older cultural ideas.

Satan: The Adversary, Not a Deity

The word "Satan" originates from the Hebrew term ha-satan, meaning "the adversary" or "the accuser." In its earliest biblical appearances, ha-satan is not a proper name for a distinct evil entity, but rather a role or function. In the Book of Job, "the satan" is a member of God's heavenly court, acting as a divine prosecutor who tests human faith. This figure is not inherently evil, nor is he an independent cosmic force; he is subservient to God, operating with divine permission.

The transformation of "the satan" into a definitive, malevolent adversary and the ultimate embodiment of evil is a later development, heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. This ancient Persian religion introduced a strong dualistic cosmology, positing a cosmic battle between the beneficent creator god Ahura Mazda and the destructive spirit Angra Mainyu (often known as Ahriman). During the Persian exile, Jewish thought absorbed these dualistic concepts, which profoundly reshaped the understanding of ha-satan, evolving him into a distinct, rebellious angel and eventually the cosmic opponent of God. This evolution, however, remains firmly within the Abrahamic framework, not as a pre-existing god.

Lucifer: The Morning Star, A Misinterpreted Metaphor

The figure of "Lucifer" is even more decisively not an ancient god. "Lucifer" is a Latin word meaning "light-bringer," originally the Roman name for the planet Venus when it appeared as the morning star. Its association with Satan stems from a single, poetic passage in the Book of Isaiah (14:12), which declares, "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!"

This passage is a prophetic lament against a historical King of Babylon, using vivid imagery common in ancient Near Eastern literature to describe a king's hubris and downfall. This imagery indeed has parallels in ancient Canaanite mythology, where the god of the morning star (Helel ben Shahar) attempted to ascend above the chief god El, only to be cast down. However, early Christian interpreters, most notably in the Latin Vulgate translation, reinterpreted this passage allegorically as a description of Satan's fall from grace. Thus, "Lucifer" became a powerful, evocative epithet for Satan, cementing his identity not as an ancient deity, but as a fallen angel within the Christian narrative.

To claim Satan or Lucifer as ancient Pagan gods is to ignore centuries of clear textual and historical development, projecting modern interpretations onto contexts where they simply do not fit.

Part 3: Lilith – Demoness Reimagined, Not a Goddess

Unlike Satan and Lucifer, Lilith does possess roots that predate the final forms of Jewish folklore, connecting her to truly ancient Near Eastern traditions. However, her origins are consistently those of a demonic entity, not a revered goddess.

Ancient Origins: The Whisper of Demons

The name Lilith is believed to derive from the Sumerian word lilitu, referring to a class of female, winged demons or wind spirits in ancient Mesopotamian and Babylonian mythology. These figures were creatures of the night, feared for their malevolent influence. They were believed to prey on men, seduce them, and, most terrifyingly, attack pregnant women and infants. Archaeological evidence, such as protective amulets and incantation bowls, speaks not of worship, but of attempts to ward off these dangerous entities. These lilitu were part of a vast pantheon of spirits, demons, and minor deities in Mesopotamia, but they were certainly not goddesses who commanded temples or cult followings.

Jewish Folklore: The Rebellious Outcast

In the Hebrew Bible, Lilith appears only once, in Isaiah 34:14, where she is listed among the desolate creatures inhabiting Edom, often translated as a "screech owl" or a similar nocturnal bird, reinforcing her ancient demonic associations. Her most famous narrative—that of Adam's first wife who demanded equality, refused to lie beneath him, and subsequently abandoned Eden—is not found in the biblical canon. This popular story emerged much later, in medieval Jewish folklore texts like the Alphabet of Ben Sira (c. 700-1000 AD). This narrative served a specific theological purpose: to reconcile the two creation accounts in Genesis and to provide a cautionary tale about female insubordination, explaining the origin of demons who prey on humans. In this context, Lilith is the ultimate outcast, the dangerous renegade, certainly not a benevolent goddess.

Modern Reimagining: From Demon to Icon of Empowerment

The modern "cult of Lilith" or her embrace within certain feminist or neo-Pagan circles represents a profound and deliberate act of re-interpretation. Here, Lilith's ancient demonic identity is stripped away, and her folklore as Adam's rebellious first wife is celebrated. She is transformed into a symbol of:

     • Female Autonomy and Defiance: Her refusal to submit to Adam is seen as a proto-feminist act.

     • Sexual Liberation: Her unbound nature and association with temptation are reframed as an embrace of female sexuality and power.

     • Shadow Self/Wild Woman: She represents the untamed, often repressed, aspects of the feminine psyche.

This re-imagining is a potent example of modern myth-making. There is nothing inherently wrong with creating new symbols or finding inspiration in ancient figures. However, it becomes disingenuous when this modern interpretation is presented as an unbroken lineage to an ancient goddess. The Lilith revered today is a modern construct, a powerful archetype built upon the bones of an ancient demoness, reflecting contemporary desires for empowerment and rebellion, not a historical deity of worship.

Part 4: Satanism – Humanism in Disguise, Not Paganism

The core of my argument against Satanism being a form of Paganism rests on its fundamental philosophical underpinnings. While the "theistic" minority of Satanists do believe in a literal Satan, even their worship is a reaction to, and inversion of, Abrahamic monotheism. However, the majority of modern Satanism, particularly the influential Church of Satan founded by Anton LaVey, is emphatically atheistic and humanistic, making it fundamentally incompatible with Paganism.

Paganism's Earth-Centric, Theistic/Pantheistic Core

Let's reiterate the essence of Paganism:

     • Polytheistic/Pantheistic: We typically honor multiple deities (gods and goddesses) from various historical pantheons (Celtic, Norse, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.) or view divinity as immanent within nature itself.

     • Earth-Centric: Nature, the seasons, the land, and the cosmos are sacred and central to our spiritual practice. Our rituals often align with natural cycles.

     • Spirituality Focused: The emphasis is on spiritual connection, reverence, and often the development of a personal relationship with divine forces.

Satanism's Humanistic, Atheistic Ethos

Modern Satanism, in its most widespread forms, presents a stark contrast:

     • Atheism: The most common Satanic position is that Satan is not a literal entity, but a symbol. He represents rebellion, individualism, self-indulgence, critical inquiry, and a rejection of oppressive religious dogma.

     • Humanism: Satanists often place humanity at the center of their ethical and philosophical framework. They emphasize self-empowerment, personal responsibility, and the pursuit of earthly pleasures and achievements. "Man is his own God" is a common tenet.

     • Anti-Theism/Anti-Establishment: Much of Satanic philosophy is defined by what it opposes: Abrahamic religions, perceived hypocrisy, blind faith, and societal conformity. It is a philosophy of rebellion against established norms, not a reverence for ancient gods or nature.

The "pseudo-mythology" I’ve heard—the attempt to link Satan to figures like Baphomet, Anubis, Ba'al, or Set—is a symptom of this identity struggle.

     • Baphomet: Not an ancient deity, but a medieval heresy charge against the Knights Templar, later popularized as a symbolic figure by 19th-century occultists like Eliphas Lévi. It was then adopted by modern Satanists as a powerful symbol of duality and individuality.

     • Anubis: The ancient Egyptian god of mummification and the afterlife. A guide of souls, entirely unrelated to a figure of evil or rebellion.

     • Ba'al: A Semitic term meaning "lord," a title for various storm and fertility gods in the ancient Near East. While later demonized in the Bible as a rival to Yahweh, these were legitimate, revered deities to their original worshipers, not figures of Satan.

     • Set: The ancient Egyptian god of chaos, storms, and deserts. Though a powerful force, he was not seen as "evil" in the Abrahamic sense but as a necessary and dynamic part of the cosmic balance. He was both feared and respected, and his modern appropriation as a "Satan" figure is a selective reinterpretation of his role as an agent of chaos to fit a modern philosophical agenda.

These connections are entirely modern fabrications, driven by a desire to imbueto a relatively new philosophy with a sense of ancient gravitas. While this might appeal to some, it fundamentally distorts the true historical and theological identities of both Satan and the ancient deities being appropriated.

Part 5: The Power of Honesty – Legitimacy Through Truth

My frustration isn't about denying anyone their spiritual path or philosophical freedom. It's about a foundational principle: honesty regarding origins. The history of Wicca provides the perfect illustration of why this matters.

In its early days, modern Wicca, largely through the narratives of Gerald Gardner, attempted to claim unbroken lineage to an ancient, pre-Christian "Witch-cult." This assertion, while romantically appealing, was ultimately proven false by historical and anthropological research. Any serious practitioner could see the Hermetic influence, and that there was no real ancient Celtic/European spiritual DNA in it.

The turning point for Wicca's legitimacy came when the community, for the most part, embraced this truth. Instead of clinging to a discredited historical narrative, the community began to proudly acknowledge that their tradition was modern and emergent, yet no less valid or profound for it. The serious practitioners in the broader Pagan community, myself included, understood that authenticity didn't require an unbroken chain to antiquity, but rather a sincere and clear understanding of one's own foundations.

This shift allowed Wicca to mature. It enabled practitioners to stop defending historical inaccuracies and instead focus on building a vibrant, Earth-centric spiritual path relevant to the modern world. This is what I call "new mythos," and it is a perfectly legitimate and powerful process when acknowledged for what it is.

The same principle applies to modern Satanism and the contemporary reverence for Lilith. There is immense power and validity in re-interpreting archetypes, in building new philosophies, and in forging spiritual paths that resonate with modern sensibilities. Lilith, as a symbol of female defiance against patriarchal oppression, is incredibly potent. Satan, as a symbol of individualism and rebellion against dogma, offers a compelling philosophy for many.

The disservice comes when these modern movements attempt to legitimize themselves by falsely claiming ancient Pagan roots or by portraying figures like Lilith as ancient goddesses. This not only causes confusion and appropriates the heritage of genuine Pagan traditions but also ultimately discredits the very movements themselves. When a path is built on a foundation of historical misrepresentation, it becomes vulnerable to criticism and undermines its own authenticity.

The call for honesty is not about judgment of belief, but about intellectual integrity. Let Satanism be proud of its humanistic, anti-establishment philosophy. Let the modern followers of Lilith celebrate her as a powerful, reimagined symbol of empowerment. But let's be clear: they are not Pagan. They are not Earth-centric in the ancient sense. And their figures are not ancient gods and goddesses. Embracing this truth is the only path to genuine legitimacy and mutual respect in the diverse landscape of modern spirituality.