Spirit and Soul Beliefs Worldwide: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

I don’t believe in the supernatural notion of a “soul,” especially with our natural-only evolution. Undesigned natural processes of evolution made us “believing-machines.” I am not an animist, thus I don’t believe in souls or spirits. How can I? When in our natural-only evolution was there added magical-anything? I can’t buy anything but natural, thus I can be labeled a “Metaphysical naturalist (also called ontological naturalist, philosophical naturalist, and anti-supernaturalist) which is a philosophical worldview that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.” ref

AI Overview: Spirit and Soul Beliefs Worldwide: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism

Animism, totemism, shamanism, and paganism are related spiritual beliefs that view the world as infused with spirits. Animism is the foundational belief that all things—plants, animals, rocks, and natural phenomena—possess a spirit. Totemism is a specific type of animism that connects groups of people to a spiritual ancestor or protector, often represented by an animal. Shamanism is a practice, typically within an animistic framework, where a practitioner (shaman) enters a trance to communicate with spirits for healing and other purposes. Paganism is a broad term for nature-centered belief systems, many of which are animistic and incorporate aspects of totemism and shamanism.

• Core belief: The belief that a living soul or spiritual essence is present in all natural things, including animals, plants, and inanimate objects. 
• Worldview: Sees the natural world as a vibrant, animated place where spirits and humans can interact. 
• Examples: Traditional Native American religions, Shinto, and many modern Pagan traditions describe a world full of spirits. 

• Core belief: A spiritual connection between a group of people and a spiritual ancestor or protector, often an animal, which is called a totem. 
• Worldview: The totem represents a spiritual kinship, and its qualities are believed to influence the group’s identity and destiny. 
• Relationship to other beliefs: Can be considered a subcategory of animism.

• Core belief: A practice where a shaman enters an altered state of consciousness to communicate with the spirit world. 
• Role of the shaman: To serve as an intermediary for purposes such as healing the soul and body, divination, and guiding the community. 
• Relationship to other beliefs: A common tradition found within animism. Shamans often use rhythm, dance, or psychoactive substances to enter a trance state. 

• Core belief: A broad term for non-Abrahamic, nature-based religions, including many ancient European belief systems. 
• Worldview: Centers on the forces of nature and often includes elements of polytheism, pantheism, and animism. 
• Relationship to other beliefs: It is a broader, more modern term that can encompass animistic, totemic, and shamanistic beliefs, especially among contemporary nature-focused spiritualities. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which brings about a new caring awareness.

AI Overview: Spirit or soul, beliefs in different cultures

Spirit and soul beliefs vary across cultures, with some seeing the soul as an immortal, individual essence (as in Abrahamic religions) and others as a life force connected to nature or part of a cycle of rebirth (as in Hinduism and Buddhism). Many indigenous belief systems, like animism, view the spiritual essence as permeating all of nature, while some traditions believe the soul has multiple parts or is formed through embodied experience.

Many cultures and religions believe in a spirit or soul, including major world religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, as well as many indigenous, shamanistic, and ancient traditions. Beliefs range from a single soul to multiple souls, with varying ideas on their origin, purpose, and afterlife.

Major world religions

Abrahamic Religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Generally view the soul as an immortal essence created by God that exists separately from the body.

Christianity: Most denominations believe in a soul created by God that survives death. Christianity adds the belief that God infuses the soul at conception, and it is judged after death.

Islam: Believes in a soul that departs the body after death. Islam also believes the soul is everlasting and faces either eternal bliss or torment after the body’s death.

Judaism: Believes the soul is created by God, and some schools of thought, like Kabbalah, include concepts of reincarnation.

Dharmic Religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism

Hinduism: Believes in the eternal soul, or atman, as a part of the supreme spirit (Brahman), which goes through cycles of death and rebirth (samsara) until liberation (moksha) is achieved. Hinduism also believes in a soul (\(Atman\)) that is eternal and can be reincarnated.

Buddhism: Has a complex view, with the belief that a “self” or “soul” survives death in a form that is not permanent. Buddhism rejects the concept of a permanent, unchanging soul (anatman) and emphasizes the impermanence of all phenomena, including the self.

Jainism: The soul (jiva) is an immortal, eternal, and conscious entity that exists within every living being, from humans to plants. Jains believe the soul is individual, responsible for its actions, and trapped in a cycle of birth and death (samsara) due to the accumulation of karma, which is seen as a physical substance. The ultimate goal is to achieve liberation (moksha) by purifying the soul and freeing it from this cycle.

Sikhism: Views the soul as a part of God that goes through cycles of birth and death. In Sikhism, the soul (atma) is considered a spark of the divine light of God (Waheguru), a fundamental part of the all-encompassing divine essence. After death, the soul transmigrates through a cycle of reincarnation, which is influenced by the law of karma – the consequences of one’s actions in a past life. The ultimate goal is to break this cycle by living a life of righteousness, devotion, and selfless service, leading to liberation and the soul’s reunification with God.

Other religions and spiritual traditions Indigenous and tribal religions: Many cultures across Africa, the Americas, and other parts of the world hold a belief in spirits and souls, often with complex ideas about a soul’s journey after death.

Ancient religions

Sumerians believed in a variety of spirits, including the ghosts of the deceased (\(<<!nav>>gidim<<!/nav>>\)) and numerous other nature and underworld spirits. After death, a person’s ghost (\(<<!nav>>eemmu<<!/nav>>\) or \(<<!nav>>gidim<<!/nav>>\)) was meant to go to the underworld, where it continued a shadowy existence, but it depended on proper funerary rites and ongoing offerings from the living to ensure its peaceful rest. If neglected, the ghost could become a wandering, malevolent spirit that caused misfortune, illness, or madness for the living.

Ancient Egyptians believed in multiple souls, like the \(ka\) and the \(ba\). Ancient Egyptians believed the soul had multiple parts, such as the Ka (life force), Ba (personality), and Akhu (immortal essence).

Ancient and New Paganism: Traditions like Celtic, Germanic, and Wiccan faiths often include a belief in spirits and souls. Many Pagans believe in an animistic worldview, where everything in nature possesses a life force or spirit, while others see the “soul” or “spirit” as an individuated spark of the divine. Some believe in a soul that survives death, while others focus on the interconnectedness of all life here on Earth.

Neoplatonism and Hermeticism: Ancient Greek mystery schools and related traditions believed in the existence of a soul.

Zoroastrianism: This ancient religion teaches that the soul survives death. Zoroastrianism centers on the belief in a supreme, benevolent deity, Ahura Mazda, who is opposed by the malevolent spirit Angra Mainyu. Spirits are a key part of this worldview, with Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu representing the ultimate forces of good and evil. Other important spirits include the six Amesha Spentas, or “Holy Immortals,” who are divine beings personifying aspects of Ahura Mazda like Truth and Good Mind. After death, individual spirits are judged based on their actions in life, with the soul’s journey beginning on the “Chinvat Bridge,” where their deeds are weighed.

Indigenous and Other Beliefs of Spirits/Souls

Animism: A widespread belief in indigenous cultures that places, objects, and creatures possess a spiritual essence and agency. In animism, the belief that all things have a spirit or soul is central; it may include animals, plants, bodies of water, rocks, and weather. These spirits are not just passive essences; they are believed to be conscious, capable of having moods, and able to interact with humans by helping or causing trouble. As a result, people show respect and offer rituals to spirits to maintain balance and receive blessings, with the belief that earthly events have spiritual causes.

Beliefs about  Multiple souls

Soul dualism: This concept, also called “multiple souls” or “dualistic pluralism,” proposes that a person has two or more distinct types of souls. The idea of “multiple souls thinking” is addressed by concepts like soul dualism, which proposes that a single person has two or more distinct souls, often with different functions, like a physical one and a “free” soul that can leave the body. Other beliefs, particularly in Asian traditions, suggest a soul can split and exist in multiple bodies or timelines simultaneously to learn and grow faster, while ancient Egyptian beliefs also included distinct soul parts like the ba and ka.

Body and free souls: A common belief is the existence of a “body soul” (or life soul), which is tied to the body’s vitality and consciousness while awake, and a “free soul” (or wandering soul) that can leave the body during sleep, dreams, or spiritual journeys. In many traditions, a healthy person is one whose souls are in harmony, while an evil person is one whose souls are in conflict. In some cultures, illness is seen as a “soul loss,” and healing involves a shaman journeying to retrieve and return the “free soul” to the body. “Body soul” and “free soul” are terms used in various belief systems, particularly those with a concept of soul dualism, where a person is thought to have more than one soul. The “body soul” is the part connected to the physical body, governing life functions and consciousness, while the “free soul” is a separate entity capable of leaving the body during dreams, trances, or after death.

More than two souls: Some traditions, like the Fang of Gabon, believe in as many as seven souls, which can be linked to different organs or character traits. In an animistic context, Two-Spirit identity is a spiritual and cultural role, not merely a gender or sexual orientation. In Indigenous cosmologies, animism is the belief that all living beings and natural elements possess a spiritual essence, or anima. This worldview fosters a deep respect for gender and spiritual diversity, seeing Two-Spirit individuals as having a unique spiritual gift that creates harmony within the community. “Two-spirited thinking” is a term for Indigenous North American people who identify as having both masculine and feminine spirits, a concept that exists beyond the colonial gender binary. It is a sacred and culturally specific identity that is not synonymous with being both Indigenous and gay, and it can be a metaphor for possessing a balance of traits or an abstract representation of having both a masculine and a feminine spirit. This identity was historically revered in many Indigenous cultures and is now being reclaimed to connect with and educate others about traditional teachings in a contemporary context. 

Different destinies: The various souls are often thought to have different roles even after death. For example, one soul might remain with the body, another might go to the underworld, and a third might ascend to heaven, according to some northern Asian beliefs. Many beliefs propose that souls have different roles after death, such as different souls having different destinies, a single soul being divided into multiple parts, or a soul undertaking various stages of transition. For example, some traditions believe one soul may remain with the body, another descends to the underworld, and another ascends to heaven. In other belief systems, such as the ancient Egyptian view, the personality and a body-double aspect of the soul (called ka and ba) would go to the afterlife, with the ka requiring sustenance from the living.

“Where does human life go after death if no afterlife is real? Explain that, Damien.”

My response, Where does bacterial life go after death if no afterlife is real? Explain that, and what makes you think humans have added magic different from all other life, if we agree that evolution is true? Stop believing in the unscientific nonsense called Spirits/Ghosts!

You still believe in ghosts/spirits because you think you have seen or felt them?

Well, think again, it’s all just in your head.

“Scientists Created ‘Ghosts/Spirits’ in the Lab: This sensation is commonly reported in people with certain neurological or psychiatric disorders, or those exposed to extreme conditions. In 1970, mountaineer Reinhold Messner reported seeing a “phantom” climber descending the slopes of a particularly extreme summit alongside him. This also happens in people who have recently experienced another extreme condition: the loss of a spouse. In most cases, the sufferer reports the very real sensation of an unseen presence. This is the stuff of which ghost stories are made, but researchers say they know why this feeling occurs, and they’ve even recreated it in the lab.” ref

So, are ghosts/spirits real? Science says NO.

Ghost/soul/spirit believers will most likely keep believing and close in on the belief while also closing out the reason and evidence debunking the belief in ghosts. They can believe as they wish, and no amount of that belief makes a thing such as ghosts true. Let’s address the thinking that if energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changes form, what happens to our body’s energy when we die, and why not ghosts/spirits? 

“According to Benjamin Radford, a Live Science Contributor, it may seem like a reasonable assumption — unless you understand basic physics. The answer is very simple, and not at all mysterious. After a person dies, the energy in his or her body goes where all organisms’ energy goes after death: into the environment. The energy is released in the form of heat, and transferred into the animals that eat us (i.e., wild animals if we are left unburied, or worms and bacteria if we are interred), and the plants that absorb us. There is no bodily “energy” that survives death to be detected or seen. So are ghosts/spirits real? Science says NO.” ref

No, there are “Not” any Spirits/ghosts!

Spirit/ghost believers say, but it’s not magic, it’s reality, it’s a scientific fact that once energy is created, it can never cease to exist, it just changes form. Nevertheless, they are in error; they seem to be confusing two things, as energy is mindless, not aware of what it was in a previous form. Science is against ghosts and souls, and stating that energy can go on is a non sequitur to infer that proves spirits/ghosts exist is like saying that because we were once star stuff, we turn back into stars. Faith, as “evidence” to justify belief, only looks reasonable to the unreasonable. No, ghosts are not possible, as at no time did magic get added to our natural evolution. No, there are not any Spirits/ghosts!

“But Damien, Souls are real because energy does not die!”

My response, That is a logical fallacy as it is not a reasoned jump in logic. Energy leaves all once alive bodies by dissipating heat in the environment then is gone as the once related energy in a now dead body.

“Damien, where does the “Spark of Life” go if you don’t believe in an afterlife for humans?”

My response, There is no spark; that is just poetic musing that leads people to think magic may be happening when life is only natural, as in a seed springing to life (through germination) is not the birth of a soul but nature at work. Where does the life of a plant go? Nowhere, just like all life.

Stop believing in the Unscientific Soul/Spirit nonsense!

Science shows we don’t have the conspiracy theory called a soul or spirit, as death is our end. Mind is a process of an alive, brain-dependent arena. Scientific consensus does not support the existence of any kind of soul/spirit-anything as an immaterial, independent entity, and considers the concept of soul/spirit-anything as a non-scientific thinking devoid of reality support. Instead, all scientific fields, such as neuroscience and psychology, easily explain/demonstrate the mind as a product of the brain’s complex, physical processes. Scientific consensus concludes that when the body and brain die, all consciousness ends with them.

Soul/Spirit (animating force) = (Unscientific nonreality speculation of a supernatural “life force” with mind-aspects somehow independent of mind or body, thought to exist after death with the person you once were)

“In religion and philosophy, spirit is the vital principle or animating essence within humans or, in some views, all living things. Although views of spirit vary between different belief systems, when spirit is contrasted with the soul, the former is often seen as a basic natural force, principle or substance, whereas the latter is used to describe the organized structure of an individual being’s consciousness, in humans, to include their personality.” ref

“The word spirit came into Middle English via Old French esperit. Its source is Latin spīritus, whose original meaning was “breath, breathing” and hence “spirit, soul, courage, vigor”; its ultimate origin is a Proto-Indo-European root *(s)peis-. In Latin, spīritus was distinct from Latin anima, whose etymological meaning was also “breathing” (PIE root *h₂enh₁-), yet which had taken a slightly different meaning, namely “soul.” ref

“The distinction between “soul” and “spirit” in English mirrors that between “psykhē” and “pneuma” in Classical Greek, with both words having a connection to breathing: ψυχή) psykhē   originally “cold air”, hence “breath of life” and “soul” (PIE root *bhes- “to breathe”) πνεῦμα pneuma “breath, motile air, spirit”, from verb πνέω (pnéō) “to breathe.” ref

“Psychical research, “In all the publications of the Society for Psychical Research the term ‘spirit’ stands for the personal stream of consciousness whatever else it may ultimately be proved to imply or require.” In some belief systems, the “spirit” may separate from the body upon death and remain in the world in the form of a ghost, i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person. The concepts of spirit and soul often overlap, and some systems propose that both survive bodily death.” ref

But I (want to) believe in Souls!!!

“The soul is the purported immaterial aspect or essence of a living being. It is typically believed to be immortal and to exist apart from the material world. The three main theories that describe the relationship between the soul and the body are interactionism, parallelism, and epiphenomenalism. Anthropologists and psychologists have found that most humans are naturally inclined to believe in the existence of the soul and that they have interculturally distinguished between souls and bodies.” ref

“The English noun soul stems from the Old English sāwl. The earliest attestations reported in the Oxford English Dictionary are from the 8th century. In the Vespasian Psalter 77.50, it means ‘self’,’ life’, or ‘animate existence’. In King Alfred’s translation of De Consolatione Philosophiae, it is used to refer to the immaterial, spiritual, or thinking aspect of a person, as contrasted with the person’s physical body. The Old English word is cognate with other historical Germanic terms for the same idea, including Old Frisian sēle, sēl (which could also mean ‘salvation’, or ‘solemn oath’), Gothic saiwala, Old High German sēula, sēla, Old Saxon sēola, and Old Norse sála. Present-day cognates include Dutch ziel and German Seele.” ref

I want to believe Animism spirits are TRUE (even if I have no reason to)

“Various forms of animism, such as Japan’s Shinto and African traditional religion, focus on invisible beings that represent or connect with plants, animals, or landforms (in Japanese: kami); translators usually employ the English word “spirit” when trying to express the idea of such entities.” ref

AI Overview: Animism is the belief that spirits or souls can and may inhabit all things, including people, animals, plants, objects, and even natural phenomena like weather and mountains. This thinking sees the world as alive with spiritual essence, and relationships with this world are reciprocal, requiring respect and appeasement through rituals and practices. Unlike a mechanistic view of nature, animism views humans as part of a larger web of spiritual beings and forces. Everything, from a rock to a river to a human, can and may be thought to have a distinct spiritual essence or soul/spirit. Natural events and human experiences, such as illness or a storm, may be thought of as and are often believed to be explained through spiritual causes like the anger of a spirit or the effects of a curse. People engage with spirits through actions like prayer and ritual to maintain balance, appease offended forces, or seek blessings. Humans are not seen as separate from or superior to nature but as one type of spiritual/spirit/soul being among many, requiring a moral imperative to treat other life with respect. Animism extends the concept of a “spirit” or “soul,” typically associated with humans, to all of nature, making it a universal principle rather than a uniquely human trait. It suggests that the human mind is just one form of consciousness among many, challenging the modernist idea that human consciousness is unique and separate from nature. This perspective fosters a sense of deep connection and interdependence with the world, seeing relationships with non-human entities as being as real and important as human relationships. 

“Animism (from Latin: anima meaning ‘breath, spirit, life‘) can involve the belief that places, objects, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence. Animism can perceive all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and in some cases words—as being animated, having agency and free will. Animism is used in anthropology of religion as a term for the belief system of many indigenous peoples in contrast to the relatively more recent development of organized religions. Animism is a metaphysical belief which focuses on the supernatural universe: specifically, on the concept of the immaterial soul.” ref 

“Although each culture has its own mythologies and rituals, animism is said to describe the most common, foundational thread of indigenous peoples’ “spiritual” or “supernatural” perspectives. The animistic perspective is so widely held and inherent to most indigenous peoples that they often do not even have a word in their languages that corresponds to “animism” (or even “religion”). The term “animism” is an anthropological construct. Largely due to such ethnolinguistic and cultural discrepancies, opinions differ on whether animism refers to an ancestral mode of experience common to indigenous peoples around the world or to a full-fledged religion in its own right. The currently accepted definition of animism was developed only in the late 19th century (1871) by Edward Tylor. It is “one of anthropology‘s earliest concepts, if not the first.” ref

“Animism encompasses beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no categorical distinction between the spiritual and physical world, and that soul, spirit, or sentience exists not only in humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features (such as mountains and rivers), and other entities of the natural environment. Examples include water sprites, vegetation deities, and tree spirits, among others. Animism may further attribute a life force to abstract concepts such as words, true names, or metaphors in mythology. Some members of the non-tribal world also consider themselves animists, such as author Daniel Quinn, sculptor Lawson Oyekan, and many contemporary Pagans.” ref

“English anthropologist Sir Edward Tylor initially wanted to describe the phenomenon as spiritualism, but he realized that it would cause confusion with the modern religion of spiritualism, which was then prevalent across Western nations. He adopted the term animism from the writings of German scientist Georg Ernst Stahl, who had developed the term animismus in 1708 as a biological theory that souls formed the vital principle, and that the normal phenomena of life and the abnormal phenomena of disease could be traced to spiritual causes. The origin of the word comes from the Latin word anima, which means life or soul. The first known usage in English appeared in 1819. Earlier anthropological perspectives, which have since been termed the old animism, were concerned with knowledge on what is alive and what factors make something alive. The old animism assumed that animists were individuals who were unable to understand the difference between persons and things. Critics of the old animism have accused it of preserving “colonialist and dualistic worldviews and rhetoric.” ref

“The idea of animism was developed by anthropologist Sir Edward Tylor through his 1871 book Primitive Culture, in which he defined it as “the general doctrine of souls and other spiritual beings in general”. According to Tylor, animism often includes “an idea of pervading life and will in nature;” a belief that natural objects other than humans have souls. This formulation was little different from that proposed by Auguste Comte as “fetishism“, but the terms now have distinct meanings. For Tylor, animism represented the earliest form of religion, being situated within an evolutionary framework of religion that has developed in stages and which will ultimately lead to humanity rejecting religion altogether in favor of scientific rationality. Thus, for Tylor, animism was fundamentally seen as a mistake, a basic error from which all religions grew. He did not believe that animism was inherently illogical, but he suggested that it arose from early humans’ dreams and visions and thus was a rational system.” ref

“However, it was based on erroneous, unscientific observations about the nature of reality. Stringer notes that his reading of Primitive Culture led him to believe that Tylor was far more sympathetic in regard to “primitive” populations than many of his contemporaries and that Tylor expressed no belief that there was any difference between the intellectual capabilities of “savage” people and Westerners. The idea that there had once been “one universal form of primitive religion” (whether labelled animism, totemism, or shamanism) has been dismissed as “unsophisticated” and “erroneous” by archaeologist Timothy Insoll, who stated that “it removes complexity, a precondition of religion now, in all its variants.” ref

“Many anthropologists ceased using the term animism, deeming it to be too close to early anthropological theory and religious polemic. However, the term had also been claimed by religious groups—namely, Indigenous communities and nature worshippers—who felt that it aptly described their own beliefs, and who in some cases actively identified as “animists.” It was thus readopted by various scholars, who began using the term in a different way, placing the focus on knowing how to behave toward other beings, some of whom are not human. As religious studies scholar Graham Harvey stated, while the “old animist” definition had been problematic, the term animism was nevertheless “of considerable value as a critical, academic term for a style of religious and cultural relating to the world.” ref

“The new animism emerged largely from the publications of anthropologist Irving Hallowell, produced on the basis of his ethnographic research among the Ojibwe communities of Canada in the mid-20th century. For the Ojibwe encountered by Hallowell, personhood did not require human-likeness, but rather humans were perceived as being like other persons, who for instance included rock persons and bear persons. For the Ojibwe, these persons were each willful beings, who gained meaning and power through their interactions with others; through respectfully interacting with other persons, they themselves learned to “act as a person.” ref

“Hallowell’s approach to the understanding of Ojibwe personhood differed strongly from prior anthropological concepts of animism. He emphasized the need to challenge the modernist, Western perspectives of what a person is, by entering into a dialogue with different worldwide views. Hallowell’s approach influenced the work of anthropologist Nurit Bird-David, who produced a scholarly article reassessing the idea of animism in 1999. Seven comments from other academics were provided in the journal, debating Bird-David’s ideas.” ref

Postmodern anthropology

“More recently, postmodern anthropologists are increasingly engaging with the concept of animism. Modernism is characterized by a Cartesian subject-object dualism that divides the subjective from the objective, and culture from nature. In the modernist view, animism is the inverse of scientism, and hence, is deemed inherently invalid by some anthropologists. Drawing on the work of Bruno Latour, some anthropologists question modernist assumptions and theorize that all societies continue to “animate” the world around them. In contrast to Tylor’s reasoning, however, this “animism” is considered to be more than just a remnant of primitive thought. More specifically, the “animism” of modernity is characterized by humanity’s “professional subcultures”, as in the ability to treat the world as a detached entity within a delimited sphere of activity.” ref

“Human beings continue to create personal relationships with elements of the aforementioned objective world, such as pets, cars, or teddy bears, which are recognized as subjects. As such, these entities are “approached as communicative subjects rather than the inert objects perceived by modernists.” These approaches aim to avoid the modernist assumption that the environment consists of a physical world distinct from the world of humans, as well as the modernist conception of the person being composed dualistically of a body and a soul.” ref

Shamanism and Soul dualism

“Soul dualism, also called “multiple souls” or “dualistic pluralism”, is a common belief in Shamanism, and is essential in the universal and central concept of “soul flight” (also called “soul journey”, “out-of-body experience“, “ecstasy”, or “astral projection“). It involves the belief that humans have two or more souls, generally termed the “body soul” (or “life soul”), and the “free soul”. The former is linked to bodily functions and awareness when awake, while the latter can freely wander during sleep or trance states. In some cases, there are a plethora of soul types with different functions. Soul dualism and multiple souls appear prominently in the traditional animistic beliefs of the Austronesian peoples, the Chinese people (hun and po), the Tibetan people, most African peoples, most Native North Americans, ancient South Asian peoples, Northern Eurasian peoples, and among Ancient Egyptians (the ka and ba).” ref

“Belief in soul dualism is found throughout most Austronesian shamanistic traditions. The reconstructed Proto-Austronesian word for the ‘body soul’ is *nawa (‘breath’, ‘life’, or ‘vital spirit’). The body-soul is located somewhere in the abdominal cavity, often in the liver or the heart (Proto-Austronesian *qaCay). The “free soul” is located in the head. Its names are usually derived from Proto-Austronesian *qaNiCu (‘ghost’, ‘spirit [of the dead]’), which also apply to other non-human nature spirits. The “free soul” is also referred to in names that literally mean ‘twin’ or ‘double’, from Proto-Austronesian *duSa (‘two’). A virtuous person is said to be one whose souls are in harmony with each other, while an evil person is one whose souls are in conflict.” ref

“The “free soul” is said to leave the body and journey to the spirit world during sleep, trance-like states, delirium, insanity, and at death. The duality is also seen in the healing traditions of Austronesian shamans, where illnesses are regarded as a “soul loss“—and thus to heal the sick, one must “return” the “free soul” (which may have been stolen by an evil spirit or got lost in the spirit world) into the body. If the “free soul” cannot be returned, the afflicted person dies or goes permanently insane. The shaman heals within the spiritual dimension by returning ‘lost’ parts of the human soul from wherever they have gone. The shaman also cleanses excess negative energies, which confuse or pollute the soul.” ref

“In some ethnic groups, there can be more than two souls. Among the Tagbanwa people of the Philippines a person is said to have six souls—the “free soul” (which is regarded as the “true” soul) and five secondary souls with various functions. Several Inuit groups believe that a person has more than one type of soul. One is associated with respiration, the other can accompany the body as a shadow. In some cases, it is connected to shamanistic beliefs among the various Inuit groups. Caribou Inuit groups also believed in several types of souls.” ref

Ancient Views of Spirits/Souls

“Sumerian religion was the religion practiced by the people of Sumer, the first literate civilization found in recorded history and based in ancient Mesopotamia, and what is modern day Iraq. All souls went to the same afterlife, and a person’s actions during life had no effect on how the person would be treated in the world to come. The souls in Kur were believed to eat nothing but dry dust and family members of the deceased would ritually pour libations into the dead person’s grave through a clay pipe, thereby allowing the dead to drink. Nonetheless, there are assumptions according to which treasures in wealthy graves had been intended as offerings for Utu and the Anunnaki, so that the deceased would receive special favors in the underworld. During the Third Dynasty of Ur, it was believed that a person’s treatment in the afterlife depended on how he or she was buried;  those that had been given sumptuous burials would be treated well,  but those who had been given poor burials would fare poorly, and were believed to haunt the living.” ref

“The Mesopotamians did not view physical death as the ultimate end of life. The dead continued an animated existence in the form of a spirit, designated by the Sumerian term gidim and its Akkadian equivalent, eṭemmu. The eṭemmu is best understood as a ghost. Its etiology is described in the Old Babylonian Atrahasis epic I 206-230, which recounts the creation of humans from the blood of the slain god We-ilu. The text uses word play to connect the etemmu to a divine quality: We-ilu is characterized as one who has ṭemu, “understanding” or “intelligence”. Thus, humans were thought to be composed of a corporeal body and some type of divine insight.” ref

“It must be stressed that Mesopotamian notions of the physical body and the eṭemmu do not represent a strict body/soul dualism. Unlike the concept of psyche in Classical Greek thought, the eṭemmu was closely associated with the physical corpse. Some texts even speak of the eṭemmu as if it were identical to the body. For instance, the eṭemmu is sometimes described as “sleeping” in the grave (Scurlock, “Death” 1892) – a description that echoes accounts of the corpse or pagaru. Further, the eṭemmu retained corporeal needs such as hunger and thirst, a characteristic that will be discussed in more detail below. It also unclear whether the eṭemmu existed within the living body prior to death (and was thus an entity that separated from the body), or whether it only came into existence at the moment of physical death (and was thus an entity created by the transformation of some physical life-force). In either case, upon physical death the status of the deceased changed from awilu to eṭemmu. Death was therefore a transitionary stage during which humans were transformed from one state of existence to another.” ref

Ancient Mesopotamian belief in Ghosts?

“There are many references to ghosts in ancient Mesopotamian religion – the religions of Sumer, Babylon, Assyria and other early states in Mesopotamia. Traces of these beliefs survive in the later Abrahamic religions that came to dominate the region. The concept of ghosts or spirits in Mesopotamia is comparable to the shades of the deceased in the Underworld in the mythology of classical antiquity. The shades or spirits of the deceased were known as gidim (gidim 𒄇) in Sumerian, which was borrowed as eṭemmu in Akkadian. The Sumerian word is analyzed as a compound of either gig “to be sick” and dim³ “a demon”, or gi₆ “black” + dim₄ “to approach.” ref

“Gidim were thought to be created at time of death, taking on the memory and personality of the dead person. They traveled to the netherworld, Irkalla, where they were assigned a position, and led an existence similar in some ways to that of the living. Relatives of the dead were expected to make offerings of food and drink to the dead to ease their conditions. If they did not, the ghosts could inflict misfortune and illness on the living. Traditional healing practices ascribed a variety of illnesses to the action of ghosts, while others were caused by gods or demons. Some sources say the spirit was “inherited from the slain god whose body was used in creating man.” ref

“The Babylonians believed that life in the underworld could be made more tolerable if the surviving relatives regularly made offerings of food and drink. The ghosts of people without children to make these offerings would suffer more, while people who died in fire or whose body lies in the desert would have no ghost at all. If the relatives failed to make offerings, the ghost could become restless and visit sickness and misfortune on them.” ref

“Physical ailments resulting from hearing or seeing a ghost included headaches, eye and ear problems, various intestinal pains, shortness of breath and dizziness, fever, and neurological and mental disorders. Cures involved ritual performances with use of offerings, libations, figurines, ritual burial and dispatch, encirclement, amulets, fumigants, bandages, salves, potions, washes, and suppositories. Other Mesopotamian diseases were blamed on gods or ghosts, each causing a particular sickness.” ref

Judaism

“The Hebrew terms נפש nefesh (‘living being’), רוח ruach (‘wind’), נשמה neshamah (‘breath’), חיה chayah (‘life’) and יחידה yechidah (‘singularity’) are used to describe the soul or spirit. Jewish beliefs concerning the concept and nature of the soul are complicated by a lack of singularly authoritative traditions and differing beliefs in an afterlife. The conception of an immortal soul separate from and capable of surviving a human being after death was not present in early Jewish belief, but became prevalent by the onset of the Common Era.” ref

“This conception of the soul differed from that of the Greek, and later Christian, belief in that the soul was viewed an ontological substance which was intrinsically inseparable from the human body. At the same time, a burgeoning belief in an afterlife required some form of continued existence following the end of mortal life in order to partake in the world to come. This need for apparent dichotomy is reflected in the Talmud, where the biblical psychophysical unity of the soul remains, but the possibility of the soul’s simultaneous existence on both a physical and a spiritual level is embraced. This essential paradox is only reinforced by subsequent Rabbinical works. Ultimately, the specific nature of the soul was of secondary concern to rabbinical authorities, and indeed remains as such in most modern traditions.” ref

“As spiritual and mystic traditions developed, the Jewish concept of the soul underwent a number of changes. Kabbalah and other mystic traditions go into greater detail into the nature of the soul. Kabbalah separates the soul into five elements, corresponding to the five worlds:

1. Nefesh, related to natural instinct.
2. Ruach, related to emotion.
3. Neshamah, related to intellect.
4. Chayah, which gazes at the transcendence of God.
5. Yechidah, essence of the soul, which is bound to God.” ref

“Kabbalah proposed a concept of reincarnation, the gilgul (nefesh habehamit, the ‘animal soul’). Some Jewish traditions assert that the soul is housed in the luz bone, although traditions disagree as to whether it is the atlas at the top of the spine, or the sacrum at bottom of the spine.” ref

Christianity: Soul in the Bible

“The Bible teaches that upon death, souls are immediately welcomed into heaven, having received forgiveness of sins through accepting Christ as Savior. Believers experience death as a transition where they depart their physical bodies to dwell in God’s presence. While the soul is united with God at death, the physical body remains in the grave, awaiting resurrection. At the time of the resurrection, the body will be raised, perfected, and reunited with the soul. This fully restored, glorified unity of body and spirit will then exist eternally in the renewed creation described in Revelation 21–22.” ref

“Paul the Apostle used psychē (ψυχή) and pneuma (πνεῦμα) specifically to distinguish between the Jewish notions of nephesh (נפש), meaning soul, and ruah (רוח), meaning spirit (also in the Septuagint, e.g. Genesis 1:2 רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים = πνεῦμα θεοῦ = spiritus Dei = ‘the Spirit of God’). This has led some Christians to espouse a trichotomic view of humans, which characterizes humans as consisting of a body (soma), soul (psyche), and spirit (pneuma). However, others believe that “spirit” and “soul” are used interchangeably in many biblical passages and so hold to dichotomy: the view that each human comprises a body and a soul. The author of Hebrews said, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit.” ref

“The “origin of the soul” has proved a vexing question in Christianity. The major theories put forward include soul creationism, traducianism, and pre-existence. According to soul creationism, God creates each individual soul directly, either at the moment of conception or at some later time. According to traducianism, the soul comes from the parents by natural generation. According to the pre-existence theory, the soul exists before the moment of conception. There have been differing thoughts regarding whether human embryos have souls from conception, or whether there is a point between conception and birth where the fetus acquires a soul, consciousness, and personhood.” ref

“Corruptionism is the view that following physical death, the human being ceases to exist (until resurrection) but their soul persists in the afterlife. Survivalism holds that both the human being and their soul persist in the afterlife, as distinct entities, with the soul constituting the human. Most Thomists hold to the corruptionist view, arguing that a human person is a composite of matter and soul. Survivalists argue that while a person is not identical to their soul, it is sufficient to constitute a person. In recent years, a middle view has been put forward: that the separated soul is an incomplete person. It argues that the soul meets most of the criteria of a person but that the survivalist view fails to capture the unnaturalness of a person surviving death.” ref

Islam: Nafs and Rūḥ

“Islam uses two words for the soul: rūḥ (translated as ‘spirit’, ‘consciousness’, ‘pneuma’, or ‘soul’) and nafs (translated as ‘self’, ‘ego’, ‘psyche’, or ‘soul’). The two terms are frequently used interchangeably, although rūḥ is more often used to denote the divine spirit or “the breath of life”, while nafs designates one’s disposition or characteristics. The Taj al-‘Arus min Jawahir al-Qamus lists several meanings of nafs, including two from the Lisān al-ʿArab, including spirit, self, desire, evil eye, disdain, body. Lane’s Lexicon notes that humans consist of nafs and rūḥ. The former applies to the mind and the latter to life. Attribution of nafs to God (Allah) is avoided. Al-Bag̲h̲dādī also rejected that God has rūḥ in order to have life, as Christian beliefs, and proposes that all spirits (arwāḥ) are created.” ref

“In the Quran, nafs (plurals: anfus and nufūs) refers in most cases to the person or a self. It is used for both humans and djinn (but not to angels). When referring to the soul it is of three types: the commanding self (ammāra bi ’l sūʾ), remniscient of the Hebrew nefes̲h̲ (physical appetite) and the Pauline idea of “flesh” (φυχή) and is always evil, its greed must be feared, and it must be restraint. The accusing self (lawwāma) is the soul of the deserters. Lastly, there is the tranquil soul (muṭmaʾinna). This typology of the soul is the foundation for later Muslim treatises on ethics and psychology.” ref

 “Most Muslim philosophers (Arabic: falsafa), aligned with their Greek predecessors, broadly accepted that the soul is composed of non-rational and rational elements. The non-rational dimension was subdivided into the vegetative and animal souls, while the rational aspect was split into the practical and theoretical intellects. While all agreed that the non-rational soul is tied to the body, opinions diverged on the rational part: some deemed it immaterial and naturally independent of the body, whereas others asserted the entirely material nature of all soul components. Ibn Hazm uses nafs and rūḥ interchangeably. He also rejected metempsychosis that all souls were already created then the angels were commanded to bow before Adam, waiting in Barzakh until the blown into the embryo.” ref

“Consensus held that during its union with the body, the non-rational soul governs bodily functions, the practical intellect manages earthly and corporeal matters, and the theoretical intellect pursues knowledge of universal, eternal truths. These thinkers maintained that the soul’s highest purpose or happiness lies in transcending bodily desires to contemplate timeless universal principles. All agreed the non-rational soul is mortal—created and inevitably perishable. However, views on the rational soul’s fate varied: al-Farabi suggested its eternal survival was uncertain; Ibn Sina claimed it was uncreated and immortal; and Ibn Rushd argued that the entire soul, including all its parts, is transient and ultimately ceases to exist.” ref

“For Ibn Arabi, the soul is human potential, and the purpose of life is the actualization of that potential. Human experience is whereby always between the body (jism) and spirit (rūḥ), and thus the indivual experience is limited to imagination (nafsânî). Wavering between its body and spirit, the soul can choose (free-will) between either ascending to realization or descending to the materialistic mind, which Ibn Arabi compares to Muhammad’s Night Journey (miʿrāj). This allows the soul to determine its own tragectory in a karmic chain of causalities, towards paradisical or infernal levels, depending on the person’s understanding, traits, and actions.” ref

“Al-Ghazali (fl. 11th century) reconciles the Sunni views on the soul with Avicennan philosophy (falsafa). Al-Ghazali defines human as a spiritual substance (d̲j̲awhar rūḥānī), neither confined, nor joined, nor separated from the body. It possesses knowledge and perception. He identifies the immaterial self with the al-nafs al-muṭmaʾinna and al-rūḥ al-amīn of the Quran and nafs for bodily desires which must be disciplined. He, however, refuses to elaborate on the deepest nature of the soul, as he claims it is forbidden by sharīʿah, on grounds that it is beyond comprehension.” ref

“According to al-Ghazali, nafs consists of three elements: animals, devils, and angels. The term for the self or soul is heart (ḳalb). The nafs, in al-Ghazali’s concept of the soul, is best be understood as psyche, a ‘vehicle’ (markab) of the soul, but yet distinct. The animalistic parts of nafs is concerned with bodily functions, such as eating and sleeping, the devilish part with deceit and lies, and the angelic part with comtemplating the signs of God and preventing lust and anger. Accordingly, the inclinations towards following either nafs or the intellect is associated with supernatural agents: the angels inspire to follow the intellect (ilhām) and the devils tempt to give in into evil (waswās).” ref

“Al-Baydawi‘s psychology shows influence from the writings of al-Ghazali, whom he also mentions explicitly. His classification of souls is elaborated in his Ṭawāliʿ al-anwār, authored c. 1300. Like, al-Ghazali, he is in support of the existence of the soul as independent from the body and offers both rational as well as Quranic evidence. He further adds that nafs is created when the body is completed, but is not embodied itself, and is connected with rūḥ.” ref

“When discussing the souls, al-Baydawi establishes a cosmological hierarchy of heavenly Intellects. Accordingly, God, in his unity (tawḥīd), first creates the Intellect (ʿaḳl), which is neither body, nor form, but the cause of all other potentialities. From this Intellect, a third Intellect is produced up to the tenth Intellect, which in turn influences the elements and bring fourth the spirits (arwāḥ). Below these Intellects are the “souls of the spheres” (al-nufūs al-falakiyya) identified with the heavenly angels. Below them are the incorporeal earthly angels, both good and evil angels (al-kurūbiyyūn and al-s̲h̲ayāṭīn), angels in control of the elements and the “souls of reasoning” (anfus nāṭiḳa), as well as djinn.” ref

Hinduism: Ātman (Hinduism) and Jiva

“Ātman is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation (moksha), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (ātma jñāna), which is to realize that one’s true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman according to Advaita Vedanta. The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman (‘self’, ‘essence’) in every being. In Hinduism and Jainism, a jīva (Sanskrit: जीव, jīva; Hindi: जीव, jīv) is a living being, or any entity imbued with a life force. The concept of jīva in Jainism is similar to Ātman in Hinduism; however, some Hindu traditions differentiate between the two concepts, with jīva considered as an individual self, but with Ātman as that which is the universal unchanging self that is present in all living beings and everything else as the metaphysical Brahman. The latter is sometimes referred to as jīva-ātman (a soul in a living body).” ref

“The concepts of anatman (not-self) is fundamental to Buddhism. Early Buddhists were suspicious about the spiritual value of a soul. They wanted to clearly reject the notion of a mortal body and eternal soul dualism that Jainism posited and that lead to ascetics starving themselves to death to free the soul from the mortal prison. From a historical perspective, the doctrine of anatman evolved out of two main philosophico-religious beliefs: eternalism (sassata-vada) and annihilationism (anuyoga). The eternalists assert the eternity of the soul; ritual purity, celestial beings, heaven and hell, mortification of the body, etc. In contrast, the annihilationists deny the immortality of the soul and believe that the soul only exists as long as the body does. Since they believe that the soul dies with the body, they prescribe practising self-indulgence (kamasukhallikanuyoga) in order to enjoy pleasures experienced through the senses. The Buddha rejects both views and identifies their origins to be caused by two cravings: Desire for immortality drags people to eternalism, when life is pleasurable, while unpleasant states lead to annihiliation because of the craving for self-discontinuity. Buddha identifies both views as soul-theories, as both identify a self through craving.” ref

“The idea of an unchanging soul conflicts with the principles of dependent origination and cessation of all of the five aggregates. Due to their impermanence, they are considered “empty” or “without essence”. Through the lens of impermanence, Buddhists recognize that all phenomena—whether physical or mental—are in a continuous cycle of arising and dissolving, with nothing being permanent, including the perception of a self or soul. In Buddhism, the only absolute is Śūnyatā. The self is a retrospective evaluation of sensual experience. This sensory experience then leads to craving and the formation of the thought “this is mine”, whereby creating the notion of a self. It is this continuity of craving to a self, which gives raise to a new birth. Buddhists regard the identification of an independent soul with perception as mistaken, since our perception of the world depends on the sense organs. In the Cetana-sutta, the flow of consciousness maintains the connection between one birth to another, and also determines the conditions of the conceptions into the mother’s womb, where they forget about their previous lives. The Mahavedalla-sutta mentions three modes of self-continuity: sensual self-continuity (kama-bhava), fine-material mode (rupa-bhava), and immaterial self-continuity (arupa-bhava), the latter two take place among those who practise absorption meditations (jhana) and become brahmas.” ref

“However, even this transmission of consciousness cannot be identified with a soul, for the very possibility of losing consciousness would be inexplicable. Were there a soul, Buddhists would associate it with something entirely devoid of sensibility—yet such an entity would lack any basis for being identified as “me”. Another argument against an autonomous soul is that it could will itself to never die or get sick, however, death and sickness happen against the will of individuals. The final argument is that, within Buddhist thought, nothing has been identified as unchanging or permanent. Since consciousness too is impermanent, an unchanging soul cannot exist. Thus, every individual is a complex interplay of physical and mental phenomena, all dependent on countless conditions; once these phenomena and conditions are removed, no enduring self can be found.” ref

“The Buddha left ten questions unanswered, one of which concerned the existence of a soul (“Is the soul one thing and the body another?” and “Who is it that is reborn?”). This led some people believe that the Buddha only rejected a soul defined through one (or more) of the five aggregates (Skandha). Another interpretation holds that he remained silent, because the Buddha considered the question irrelevant to the pursuit of enlightenment. Whether he knew the answer remains a matter of debate. Yet another view argues that the Buddha remained silent, because the question itself is invalid. Those who argue that the Buddha affirmed a self, independent from body and mind, as proposed by the eternalists or annihilists, argue that the soul is something transcending the five aggregates. Some Buddhists of the Mahayana tradition believe that the soul is not absolute, but immortal; the soul cannot die, although influenced by karma, since the soul is unborn and unconditioned. In support for that view, Christopher Gowan points at Buddhist texts possibly implying some sort of self, such as references to personal pronouns, and the need for a self who suffers in order to aim for release in nirvana.” ref 

“Due to the implicit references in the Buddhist doctrines, Gowan also rejects the view that they are merely conventions of speech, rather the best way to understand Buddha’s teachings coherently would be to distinguishing between a substantial self and an ever changing self beyond the five aggregates. The Buddha would have rejected the former, but implicitly affirmed the latter. In contrast, others hold that the Buddha remained silent on this matter, because they are invalid questions. When asked such a question (“Who is reborn?”) the existence of a self is presupposed. However, if souls do not exist, no one can be reborn in the first place, and thus, there is no accurate answer to the question. This view also disapproves of later responses within traditional Buddhist schools, such as Theravada, who answered the question on identity in paradoxical terms, yet whereby implicitly affirming some sort of self or soul.” ref

“In the early Buddhist text Milinda’s Questions, the nature of the enduring self is examined through a dialogue between the Greek king Milinda and the monk Nāgasena. When asked about his identity, Nāgasena explains that in truth, there is no Nāgasena, because his name is merely a label. To illustrate his point, he refers to Milinda’s chariot and asks whether its essence lies in the axle, the wheels, or the framework. Milinda concedes that the chariot’s essence is not found in any single part, but maintains that the term ‘chariot’ is still meaningful, as it refers to the combination of all its parts. Nāgasena agrees—and adds that this is precisely his point: there is no Nāgasena beyond the five aggregates that constitute him. Like the chariot, the person is a conventional designation applied to a collection of interdependent components.” ref

“The example of Milinda’s chariot relates to the Buddhist Two truths doctrine. Accordingly, the conventional truth refers to phenomenal truths of the perceptive world, including persons, but ultimately, they are devoid of essence and independent existence. Upon realization of the self as a mere convention, fear of death and attachment to self-permanence would cease, as there is no self to attach to in the first place. This interpretation of Milinda’s Questions was often compared to David Hume‘s bundle theory.” ref

Jainism: Jīva (Jainism) and Vitalism (Jainism)

“In Jainism, every living being, from plant or bacterium to human, has a soul and the concept forms the very basis of Jainism. According to Jainism, there is no beginning or end to the existence of soul. It is eternal in nature and changes its form until it attains liberation. In Jainism, jīva is the immortal essence or soul of a living organism, such as human, animal, fish, or plant, which survives physical death. The term ajīva in Jainism means ‘not soul’, and represents matter (including body), time, space, non-motion and motion. In Jainism, a jīva is either samsari (mundane, caught in cycle of rebirths) or mukta (‘liberated’).” ref

“According to this belief, until the time the soul is liberated from the saṃsāra (cycle of repeated birth and death), it gets attached to one of these bodies based on the karma (‘actions’) of the individual soul. Irrespective of which state the soul is in, it has got the same attributes and qualities. The difference between the liberated and non-liberated souls is that the qualities and attributes are manifested completely in case of siddha (‘liberated soul’) as they have overcome all karmic bondage, whereas in case of non-liberated souls they are partially exhibited. Souls who rise victorious over wicked emotions while still remaining within physical bodies are referred to as arihants. Concerning the Jain view of the soul, Virchand Gandhi said that, “the soul lives its own life, not for the purpose of the body, but the body lives for the purpose of the soul. If we believe that the soul is to be controlled by the body then soul misses its power.” ref

Sikhism: soul (Ātman)

“In Sikhism, the soul, referred to as the Ātman, is understood as a pure consciousness without any content. The soul is considered to be eternal and inherently connected to the divine (Paramatman), although its journey is shaped by karma—the cumulative effect of one’s actions, thoughts, and deeds. According to Sikh teachings, the soul undergoes cycles of rebirth (transmigration) until it achieves liberation (mukti) from this cycle, a process governed by the principles of divine order (hukam) and grace (nadar). The cycle of rebirth is influenced by the individual’s attachment to worldly desires and ego (haumai), which obscures the soul’s innate connection to the divine. Sikh scripture warns that preoccupation with material wealth, familial ties, or sensory pleasures at the moment of death can lead to rebirth in lower life forms, such as animals or spirits.” ref

“Conversely, meditation on God’s name (Nam Simran) and remembrance of the divine (Waheguru) during life—and especially at death—enable the soul to merge with the eternal truth (Sach Khand), ending the cycle of reincarnation. Central to Sikh doctrine is the belief that while karma determines the soul’s trajectory, divine grace can transcend karmic limitations. The Guru Granth Sahib claims that liberation ultimately depends on God’s will. Ethical living, including honest labor (Kirat Karo), sharing resources (Vand Chhako), and community service (seva).” ref

“In Ancient Greek medicine and philosophy generally, the spirit (pneuma, literally “breath”) was thought to be the animating force in living creatures. Plato considered the spirit to be one of three parts of a person’s soul. In Stoicism, spirit is an all-pervading force frequently identified with God. The soul (psyche) was thought to be a particular kind of pneuma, which was present in humans and animals, but not in plants.” ref

“Greek philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, understood that the soul (ψυχή, psykhḗ) must have a logical faculty, the exercise of which was the most divine of human actions. At his defense trial, Socrates even summarized his teachings as nothing other than an exhortation for his fellow Athenians to excel in matters of the psyche since all bodily goods are dependent on such excellence (Apology 30a–b). Aristotle reasoned that a man’s body and soul were his matter and form respectively: the body is a collection of elements, and the soul is the essence. Soul or psyche (Ancient Greek: ψυχή psykhḗ, of ψύχειν psýkhein, ‘to breathe’, cf. Latin anima) comprises the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, free will, feeling, consciousness, qualia, memory, perception, thinking, and so on. Depending on the philosophical system, a soul can either be mortal or immortal.” ref

“The ancient Greeks used the term “ensouled” to represent the concept of being alive, indicating that the earliest surviving Western philosophical view believed that the soul was that which gave the body life. The soul was considered the incorporeal or spiritual “breath” that animates (from the Latin anima, cf. “animal”) the living organism. Francis M. Cornford quotes Pindar by saying that the soul sleeps while the limbs are active, but when one is sleeping, the soul is active and reveals “an award of joy or sorrow drawing near” in dreams. Erwin Rohde writes that an early pre-Pythagorean belief presented the soul as lifeless when it departed the body, and that it retired into Hades with no hope of returning to a body. Plato was the first thinker in antiquity to combine the various functions of the soul into one coherent conception: the soul is that which moves things (i.e., that which gives life, on the view that life is self-motion) by means of its thoughts, requiring that it be both a mover and a thinker.” ref

“The traditional Chinese concept of qi is a kind of vital force forming part of any living being. The exact meaning of the term morphed over the course of the development of Chinese philosophy. The literal meaning of the Chinese language term qi (气), like many analogous concepts in other cultures, derives from the word for “breath”; this may have been the meaning of the word in the Analects of Confucius. Gods, especially anthropromorphic gods, are sometimes thought to have qi and be a reflection of the microcosm of qi in humans. Qi also was in natural forces, where it could be controlled by gods and harnessed by magicians.” ref

“In Taoism, the idea of the “soul” is not a single, unchanging entity like in many Western traditions. Instead, it is seen as a dynamic balance of energies. Two key parts are the hun and po. The hun is the “ethereal soul”, linked to light, spiritual awareness, and the mind. It is considered yang (‘active, upward energy’) and is said to depart the body after death. The po is the “corporeal soul”, tied to the body, instincts, and physical senses. It is yin (‘passive, earthly energy’) and stays with the body after death, dissolving back into the earth over time. There is significant scholarly debate about the Taoist understanding of death. The process of death itself is described as shijie or “release from the corpse”, but what happens after is described variously as transformation, immortality or ascension of the soul to heaven.” ref

“For example, the Yellow Emperor was said to have ascended directly to heaven in plain sight, while the thaumaturge Ye Fashan was said to have transformed into a sword and then into a column of smoke which rose to heaven. Taoist texts such as the Zhuangzi suggest the soul is not separate from the natural world but part of the flow of the Tao (the universal principle). One passage states, “Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and the ten thousand things are one with me.” Similarly, the Daodejing teaches that harmony with the Tao dissolves rigid boundaries between self and cosmos: “Returning to one’s roots is known as stillness. This is what is meant by returning to one’s destiny.” ref

I like learning prehistory!

I also hate: “Pseudo-science, Pseudo-history, and Pseudo-morality.”

So yeah, history is fun, but one must weed through the sometimes added mythology, half-truths, or outright lies. This is even more important when reading religion-related information.

I don’t see religious terms Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, or Paganism as primitive but original or core elements that are different parts of world views and their supernatural/non-natural beliefs or thinking.

In the past or even lingering today, are beliefs often ripe with religious bigotry, seen in how religious/spiritual thinking not Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) religious thinking are often believed to be primitive, unequal, or less than monotheism (preserved as the only real or not the correct religion beliefs if not monotheism).

I see all religions as having shared or similar features or core elements that relate to religious terms Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, or Paganism including Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) religious thinking. 

I don’t class any religious thinking as primitive but in error to what I see as a natural-only world, that religious thinking then makes up a myriad of non-natural/non-empirical themes/beings, stories, and myths about which group together are called religions.

I fully enjoy the value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence from fact or artifacts at a site) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past, adding to our anthropology (evidence from cultures, both the present and past) intellectual (rational) assumptions of the likely reality of actual events from time past.

Religion is Unwarranted Faith and Belief.  The problem with religion is unwarranted faith and belief. The problem of faith is an invalid justification, and the belief problem is holding an unjustified false belief, believing it is a justified true belief. I use the Animism term as a definition of spirit-beliefs or a kind of Supernatural-Spiritism thinking, which, to me, is in all spiritual or religious type beliefs, not primitive but core. I see Animism as the original religion (religious non-naturalism/supernatural persuasion or spiritual/magical thinking) of all humanity, and it is still in all the religions of the world.

I am mainly a prehistorian, 1 million to around 5,000/4,000 years ago. So while I may understand the past most don’t I don’t know a lot of history many seem to commonly know. I am not reading any more books, maybe ever again as I am tired from a life devoted to deep study. lol

I post lots of religious info, but don’t believe in any religion or spiritual beliefs?

I am an atheist, antitheist, and antireligionist. However, I am also a self-taught prehistorian, trying to explain the evolution of religion, which requires me to fully understand the connections of religious or spiritual beliefs to allow others to rethink the belief in them. To expose the evolution of religion and thus understand its humanness, not just from reason but due to understanding all the facts of archaeology, anthropology, and religious mythology. It is to bring about awareness to inspire others to atheism or at least a new understanding of religion removing its believed special status when religion or spiritual beliefs are, to me, just “culture” or “sociocultural“ products, like language. I don’t believe in gods or ghosts, and nor souls either. I don’t believe in heavens or hells, nor any supernatural anything. I don’t believe in Aliens, Bigfoot, nor Atlantis. I strive to follow reason and be a rationalist. Reason is my only master, and may we all master reason.

“Sociocultural factors characterize social and cultural forces that influence the feelings, attitudes, values, thoughts, beliefs, interactions, and behaviors of related individuals and groups.” ref

“Examples of sociocultural factors include:

• Income and wealth distribution
• Social classes
• Attitudes towards education and work,
• Language, customs, and taboos
• Business and health practices
• Housing
• Religious beliefs
• Population size and housing
• Social mobility
• Age distribution and social values” ref

Who Do I Think I AM?

I did not turn atheist until 35, and around that time I realized that not just my religious beliefs were a lie, but my morality was wrong as well. And a thinking change occurred in me, to where I went from a strong rightist to a strong far leftist anarchist socialist. I see how the truth can set some free, and I try to help others do the same, choosing evidence and reason to guide them. I like to offer my ideas on prehistory and think outside the box often but I want to be very clear, in general, I support mainstream archaeology, anthropology, and historical thinking and stand by archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians, appreciating all their hard work.

I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary that teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education. I strive to address fake history (Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, and Pseudoscience) and its supporters as well as try to teach real history. I also make speculations on history from how I see the evidence relating. I strive to be right in my thinking and actions but understand as an agreer to some of fallibilism‘s thinking, that I know I can be wrong and am thus rationally open to changing my thinking on valid and reliable reason and evidence. It is my welcoming correction that distills my thinking to the purity available to reach reason.

Here is the form of fallibilism I am thinking, “The claim that all assertions are provisional and thus open to revision in light of new evidence, which is widely taken for granted in the natural sciences.” ref

Teach Real History: all our lives depend on it.

I am trying to help the undereducated to become more educated by easier means for them. I am trying to liberate all people if I can, not simply the well-educated. I am for the people being empowered, and education is my weapon. We must come to see that education is both a light of hope and a path to our freedom. Life requires us to learn and understand because what we don’t understand, we too often come to fear. I want to help bring anarchist thinking to the world. I have inspired several people to become anarchists, and this is a goal I hope for. We all have ancestors that came from Africa if you go back far enough. We are truly one humanity. I wish we acted like the family we truly are as a humanity. But yet we act quite inhumanely to each other. May we all be that needed change. The world needs you, a needed part of all our family. I believe equality is a behavior and not merely a state of being. Thus, everyone can be treated in an equalitarian manner and devoid of the need for the quantifying requirement of fitting someone’s value assessments to achieve an equal status. I wish to make a difference in others’ lives to give back what was given to me. I wish to bring about change in myself and others. I wish to be bold in what I believe in and to match my actions with my words. I value and appreciate Academics, Archaeologists, Anthropologists, and Historians as they provide us with great knowledge, informing us about our shared humanity.