The phrase Satanic scriptures suggests a single, settled canon: a shelf of authoritative books shared by all Satanists in much the way the Bible, Qur’an, or Torah functions within other religious traditions. In practice, no such universal canon exists. Satanism is a family of modern and historical currents whose members disagree sharply about whether Satan is a real being, a literary symbol, a divine principle, or a figure best understood through psychology and philosophy. Their texts reflect those differences.
Some Satanic writings are books intended to guide belief and conduct. Others are rituals, essays, manifestos, poetry, or private initiatory materials. Still others are older works later reclaimed by Satanists, though they were originally written by Christian theologians, occultists, or hostile observers. To understand Satanic scriptures, then, it is necessary to ask not only what a text says, but who considers it meaningful, how it is used, and what kind of authority it is believed to possess.
Scripture Without a Single Canon
In its broadest sense, scripture is writing regarded as especially significant by a religious community. It may be read publicly, memorised, interpreted by clergy, used in ritual, or treated as a source of moral and metaphysical authority. Satanic traditions often use texts in these ways, but generally with less emphasis on immutable revelation than is found in many older religions.
Most contemporary Satanist organisations emerged in the twentieth century, and their principal writings bear the marks of that modern setting. They are often polemical, literary, and deliberately provocative. Their authors write against what they see as Christian moralism, social conformity, authoritarian religion, and the suppression of individual desire. Consequently, Satanic texts commonly elevate autonomy, scepticism, personal responsibility, self-development, and resistance to hypocrisy.
That does not mean they all teach the same values. The word Satanism covers important divisions:
• Atheistic or symbolic Satanists understand Satan as a fictional, mythic, or cultural figure representing qualities such as rebellion, reason, bodily life, and dissent.
• Theistic Satanists regard Satan, Lucifer, Set, or related beings as real spiritual intelligences, though their understandings vary greatly.
• Esoteric Satanists may frame Satan or Set as a principle of self-deification, individual consciousness, or occult initiation.
• Political or activist Satanists may use Satanic imagery to defend secularism, religious pluralism, bodily autonomy, or the separation of religion and government.
A book central to one group may be dismissed, ignored, or rejected by another. It is therefore misleading to speak of “the Satanic Bible” as though it were binding upon all Satanists, or to assume that every person using Satanic language subscribes to ritual magic, devil worship, or anti-Christian belief.
Anton LaVey and The Satanic Bible
The best-known modern Satanic text is Anton Szandor LaVey’s The Satanic Bible, first published in 1969. LaVey had founded the Church of Satan in San Francisco three years earlier, and his book gave its worldview a compact, memorable form. It remains influential both within the Church of Satan and in public ideas about Satanism.
Despite its title, The Satanic Bible is not a Bible in the conventional sense. It is not presented as an ancient revelation, a historical record of divine acts, or a collection of sacred narratives. It is a modern manifesto, composed in an aphoristic, confrontational style. Its central argument is that human beings should accept their animal nature and pursue satisfaction, self-respect, and excellence rather than guilt, self-denial, or abstract universal love.
The book is organised into four sections named after infernal figures: “The Book of Satan,” “The Book of Lucifer,” “The Book of Belial,” and “The Book of Leviathan.” The names serve symbolic purposes. Satan represents opposition and accusation; Lucifer, light and intellect; Belial, earthliness and independence; Leviathan, the abyss, primordial force, and the direction associated with water in LaVeyan ritual.
Its famous “Nine Satanic Statements,” “Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth,” and “Nine Satanic Sins” are frequently quoted as concise expressions of LaVeyan ethics. They emphasise reciprocity over indiscriminate compassion, responsibility toward those who deserve it, suspicion of self-deception, and refusal to submit to unearned authority. The tone is intentionally severe. Some passages use language that readers may find cruel, elitist, or politically dated, and these passages have contributed to lasting controversies around LaVey’s legacy.
LaVey’s Satan is not a literal devil. The Church of Satan identifies itself as atheistic: Satan is an archetype rather than a supernatural being. Ritual, within this framework, is understood as psychodrama—a focused and emotionally expressive performance intended to help the participant release feelings, clarify desires, or mark a personal transformation. The presence of an altar, black robes, invocations, or occult names therefore does not necessarily indicate belief in a personal deity.
This distinction matters. Popular accounts often reduce Satanism to either horror-film devil worship or adolescent rebellion. LaVey’s system is more accurately described as an atheistic religion of individualism, symbolism, theatrical ritual, and self-directed values. Whether one finds its moral philosophy persuasive is a different question from whether one understands its claims.
The Satanic Rituals and the LaVeyan Library
LaVey followed The Satanic Bible with The Satanic Rituals (1972), a collection of ceremonial texts. These include rituals inspired by fictional and historical sources, alongside LaVey’s own work. One well-known example is the “Call to Cthulhu,” drawing upon the cosmic horror fiction of H. P. Lovecraft. The book illustrates the literary and performative dimensions of LaVeyan Satanism: ritual language is used not simply to state beliefs but to create atmosphere, emotional intensity, and a sense of ceremonial separation from ordinary life.
Other books associated with LaVey include The Satanic Witch (originally published as The Compleat Witch in 1971) and The Devil’s Notebook (1992). These works concern personal influence, theatricality, aesthetics, practical judgment, and commentary on contemporary culture. Their authority is secondary to The Satanic Bible for many LaVeyan Satanists, but together they form an important body of Church of Satan literature.
LaVey also issued essays and internal materials, while later Church of Satan figures have published further commentary. These writings are not equivalent to an open canon fixed for all time. The Church of Satan’s public literature has changed in emphasis across decades, and individual readers differ over which texts remain most useful or representative.
The Church of Satan and Organisational Authority
For the Church of Satan, texts gain authority partly through their association with LaVey and partly through their coherence with the religion he established. Yet even here, “scripture” should not be understood as infallible divine speech. LaVeyan Satanism is explicitly hostile to unquestioned dogma. Its literature is intended to be read critically, although the Church does maintain defined positions on subjects such as atheism, individualism, and opposition to supernaturalism.
This produces an interesting tension. A religion may reject revelation while still preserving founding texts as uniquely formative. The Satanic Bible functions for many adherents as a touchstone: a text to revisit, quote, debate, and use to distinguish LaVeyan Satanism from other movements. Its cultural authority is real even when its theological claims are non-theistic.
The book’s history also requires care. Portions of its prose draw from earlier sources, most notably Ragnar Redbeard’s Might Is Right (1890), a work marked by social-Darwinist rhetoric, racism, and misogyny. LaVey adapted and revised passages, sometimes without clear attribution in early editions.
Modern readers and scholars rightly note that this inheritance complicates any simple account of the book as wholly original or ethically neutral.
The Temple of Set and Initiatory Texts
The Temple of Set was founded in 1975 by Michael A. Aquino after a division within the Church of Satan. It differs fundamentally from LaVeyan atheism. Setians generally regard Set as a real, pre-human or non-natural intelligence associated with individual consciousness and the process they call Xeper, an Egyptian word often translated as “to come into being.”
For members of the Temple of Set, The Book of Coming Forth by Night is a foundational document. Aquino described it as a communication from Set received during the organisation’s founding period. It is not normally treated as a mass-market scripture for public consumption, and the Temple’s religious life has a strongly initiatory character. Its teachings are developed through degrees, individual study, ritual work, and internal materials.
This restricted character is not unusual in esoteric religion. Some traditions believe that certain teachings can only be understood through preparation, experience, or personal instruction. Such privacy often attracts speculation, but it should not automatically be treated as evidence of secrecy in a sinister sense. It is better understood as a form of religious boundary-making: a way of distinguishing public identity from inner practice.
Setian texts tend to focus less on social provocation than LaVey’s writings and more on metaphysics, disciplined self-creation, magical practice, and philosophical inquiry. The Temple of Set is therefore an important reminder that Satanic and Satan-adjacent literature cannot be reduced to one style or one author.
Luciferian and Theistic Satanic Writings
Outside large organisations, a broad range of Luciferian and theistic Satanic authors have produced books, essays, ritual manuals, online archives, and small-press publications. These traditions are highly diverse. Some treat Lucifer as a liberating angel of knowledge; some distinguish Lucifer from Satan; others identify them. Some draw upon ceremonial magic, Neoplatonism, paganism, Gnosticism, demonolatry, or Left-Hand Path philosophy. Others develop highly personal spiritual systems.
Because these movements lack a single governing body, authority is usually decentralised. A practitioner may value a particular author, ritual corpus, or spirit-working tradition without regarding it as universally binding. Texts often function as tools for reflection and practice rather than as final statements of doctrine.
This diversity calls for caution. The label Luciferian is sometimes used by authors with little connection to organised Satanism, and the label theistic Satanist can encompass mutually incompatible beliefs. A book marketed as “Satanic” may be devotional, magical, philosophical, anti-religious, or simply sensationalist. Its title alone tells the reader very little.
The Satanic Temple and the Authority of Principles
The Satanic Temple, founded in 2013, represents another prominent non-theistic form of Satanism. It uses Satan as a symbol of opposition to arbitrary authority and as a literary figure associated with the defence of conscience. Its public identity is shaped less by a single sacred book than by the Seven Fundamental Tenets.
These tenets address compassion, justice, bodily autonomy, respect for the freedoms of others, conformity of beliefs to scientific understanding, acknowledgement of human fallibility, and the importance of mercy and justice. They serve as ethical principles rather than detailed commandments. In public settings, they are often displayed or cited in ways similar to creeds.
The Satanic Temple has also issued publications, educational materials, ritual resources, and statements explaining its campaigns. Yet its religious authority rests primarily in the shared interpretation of its tenets and the actions of its congregations, not in a closed scriptural canon. This makes it particularly important not to confuse it with the Church of Satan. The two organisations are independent, hold different views of history and practice, and have often publicly disagreed.
Older Sources: Influence Is Not Ownership
Satanic writers frequently engage with older literature, but historical influence should not be mistaken for direct lineage. The Hebrew Bible, New Testament, apocryphal writings, medieval demonologies, Renaissance grimoires, Romantic poetry, and nineteenth-century occultism all contributed images later associated with Satanism. Few of these sources were themselves Satanic.
The biblical Satan develops across different texts. In the Book of Job, ha-satan—“the adversary” or “the accuser”—appears within the divine court and tests Job’s integrity. Later Jewish and Christian traditions increasingly connected Satan with temptation, evil, demons, and cosmic opposition to God. The identification of Satan with the serpent in Eden or with Lucifer rests on layers of later interpretation rather than on a single straightforward biblical account.
John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667) is especially important to modern Satanic imagination. Milton’s poem is Christian in intention: Satan is ultimately a tragic and destructive rebel, not a hero. Yet its eloquent, defiant Satan inspired later Romantic writers, including William Blake and Percy Bysshe Shelley, who saw in him a figure of resistance against tyranny. Modern Satanists often inherit this literary Satan—proud, questioning, and unwilling to submit—even while reading him differently from
Milton.
Likewise, grimoires such as The Lesser Key of Solomon are historical manuals of ceremonial magic, not Satanist scriptures. Their demons are usually controlled through divine names and angelic authority. Modern demonolatry or Satanic ritual may adapt such material, but the adaptation should not erase the original context.
Reading Satanic Texts Responsibly
A responsible reading of Satanic scriptures begins with precision. It distinguishes self-description from accusation, symbolism from literal belief, and historical sources from modern reinterpretations. It also recognises that Satanic literature can contain genuine ethical reflection alongside rhetoric intended to shock.
Readers should resist two equal and opposite errors. The first is sensationalism: treating every Satanic text as evidence of criminality, violence, or occult conspiracy. The second is romanticisation: assuming that any work using Satan as a symbol is automatically humane, liberating, or intellectually sound. Like all religious and philosophical literature, these writings deserve contextual reading and critical judgment.
The most useful question is not, “What do Satanists believe?” as though one answer could settle the matter. It is: “Which Satanic tradition is speaking, through which text, for what purpose, and with what understanding of Satan?” Once that question is asked, the apparent confusion of Satanic scriptures becomes more intelligible. They are not one book but a contested library—part manifesto, part ritual, part philosophy, part literary inheritance—held together by a powerful and endlessly reinterpreted name.
Selected References
• Aquino, Michael A. The Church of Satan. 6th ed., Temple of Set, 2002.
• LaVey, Anton Szandor. The Satanic Bible. Avon Books, 1969.
• LaVey, Anton Szandor. The Satanic Rituals. Avon Books, 1972.
• Lewis, James R., ed. Satanism Today: An Encyclopedia of Religion, Folklore, and Popular Culture. ABC-CLIO, 2001.
• Petersen, Jesper Aa., ed. Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology. Ashgate, 2009.
• The Satanic Temple. “The Seven Fundamental Tenets.” Official organisational statement.