Hubbry Logo
Classification of demonsClassification of demonsMain
Open search
Classification of demons
Community hub
Classification of demons
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Classification of demons
Classification of demons
Classification of demons
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Temptation of St. Anthony by Martin Schongauer; Anthony is depicted being attacked by demons

There have been various attempts at the classification of demons within the contexts of classical mythology, demonology, occultism, and Renaissance magic. These classifications may be for purposes of traditional medicine, exorcisms, ceremonial magic, witch-hunts, lessons in morality, folklore, religious ritual, or combinations thereof. Classifications might be according to astrological connections, elemental forms, noble titles, or parallels to the angelic hierarchy; or by association with particular sins, diseases, and other calamities; or by what angel or saint opposes them.

Many of the authors of such classifications identified as Christian, though Christian authors are not the only ones who have written on the subject.

Classification by domain

[edit]

The Testament of Solomon

[edit]
Main article: Testament of Solomon

The Testament of Solomon is a pseudepigraphical work, purportedly written by King Solomon, in which the author mostly describes particular demons who he enslaved to help build the temple, the questions he put to them about their deeds and how they could be thwarted, and their answers, which provide a kind of self-help manual against demonic activity. The date is very dubious, though it is considered the oldest surviving work particularly concerned with individual demons.[1][2]

Psellus' classification

[edit]

Michael Psellus prepared the influential De operatione dæmonum (On the Operation of Demons) in the 11th century, with a taxonomy dividing demons into six types: Leliurium (Igneous), Aërial, Marine (Aqueous), Terrestrial (Earthly), Subterranean, and Lucifugous (Heliophobic).[3]

Lanterne of Light

[edit]

In 1409–1410 The Lanterne of Light (an anonymous English Lollard tract often attributed to John Wycliffe)[4] provided a classification system based on the seven deadly sins, known as the "seven deadly devils" or "seven princes of Hell", with each demon tempting people by means of those sins, as follows:[5][6]

Þe firste is Lucifer þat regneþ in his malice.̉ ouer þe children of pride
Þe secounde is clepid Belzebub.̉ þat lordiþ ouer envious
Þe þridde deuel is Sathanas.̉ & wraþþe is his lordschip
Þe fourþe is clepid Abadon.̉ þe slowȝ ben hise retenwe
Þe fifþe deuel is Mammon.̉ & haþ wiþ him þe auarouse
and also oone þat is his feere.̉ a foule synne couetise
Þe sixte is clepid Belphegor.̉ þat is þe god of glotouns
Þe seuenþ deuel is Asmodeus.̉ þat leediþ wiþ him þe leccherouse

—The Lanterne of Light in original Middle English, p. 60
Translation:

The first is Lucifer that reigns in his malice over the children of pride
The second is called Beelzebub that lords over [the] envious
The third is Satan and wrath is his lordship
The fourth is called Abaddon, the sloth[ful] be his retinue
The fifth is Mammon and has with him the avarice [avaricious]
and also fittingly, a foul sin, covetousness, is with his company of subjects
The sixth is called Belphegor, that is the god of gluttons
The seventh is Asmodeus, that leads with him the lecherous

—Translation: Collette and Garrett-Goodyear[7]

This list was later used in the works of John Taylor, the Water Poet.[8] Later writers, such as Peter Binsfeld, assigned different demons to the respective sins and should not be confused with this list.[9][10] The two classification systems are shown side-by-side below:

The Lanterne of Light
  1. Lucifer: Pride
  2. Beelzebub: Envy
  3. Satan: Wrath
  4. Abaddon: Sloth
  5. Mammon: Greed
  6. Belphegor: Gluttony
  7. Asmodeus: Lust
Translation:
Binsfeld's classification
  1. Lucifer: Pride
  2. Mammon: Greed
  3. Asmodeus: Lust
  4. Leviathan: Envy
  5. Beelzebub: Gluttony
  6. Satan: Wrath
  7. Belphegor: Sloth

Spina's classification

[edit]

Alphonso de Spina, in 1467, prepared a classification of demons.

  • Incubi and succubi
  • Wandering groups or armies of demons can include multiple regions in hell
  • Familiars
  • Drudes
  • Cambions and other demons that are born from the union of a demon with a human being.
  • Liar and mischievous demons
  • Demons that attack the saints are rogue demons
  • Demons that try to induce old women to attend Witches' Sabbaths

This classification is somewhat capricious and it is difficult to find a criterion for it. It seems that Spina was inspired by several legends and stories. The drudes belong to German folklore. Familiars, goblins, and other mischievous demons belong to the folklore of most European countries.

The belief in incubi and succubi (and their ability to procreate) seem to have inspired the fifth category, but it could also have been inspired in the Talmudic legend of demons having sexual intercourse with mortal women and men (see also Mastema).

The visions of tempting demons that some early (and not so early) saints had, perhaps inspired the eighth category (e.g. the visions of Anthony the Great).

The idea of old women attending Sabbaths was common during the European Middle Ages and Renaissance, and Spina mentioned it before the Malleus Maleficarum.

Agrippa's classification

[edit]
16th Century Soldier Demons by Georgios Klontzas

In De occulta philosophia (1509-1510), Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa proposed several classifications for demons, based on numeric scales, like his whole Cosmology.[11] Francis Barrett, in his book The Magus (1801), adopted this classification of demons.[12][13]

Scale of unity

[edit]
  • One prince of rebellion, of angels, and darkness:

Scale of binary

[edit]

Scale of ternary

[edit]

Scale of quaternary

[edit]

Despite listing these separately, Agrippa mentions that these groups are identical, making the first as the Hebrew equivalent of the names of the latter.[14] The same four demons appear in the Semiphoras and Schemhamforas.[15][16]

Scale of six

[edit]

Scale of novenary

[edit]

Binsfeld's classification

[edit]

As part of his 1589 Treatise on Confessions by Evildoers and Witches, German theologian Peter Binsfeld prepared a classification of demons known as the Princes of Hell. Like the Lanterne of Light, Binsfeld used the seven deadly sins as a basis, though the two schemes differ in various ways and methodic construction.[9][10][18]: 127 

  1. Lucifer: pride
  2. Mammon: greed
  3. Asmodeus: lust
  4. Leviathan: envy
  5. Beelzebub: gluttony
  6. Satan: wrath
  7. Belphegor: sloth

King James classification

[edit]
Main article: Daemonologie

King James' dissertation titled Daemonologie was first published in 1597, several years before the first publication of the King James Authorized Version of the Bible. Its three short books which are in the form of a philosophical dialogue, making arguments and comparisons between magic, sorcery, and witchcraft. Within them, James classified demons into four sections:

  • Lemures or Spectra: Spirits that trouble houses or solitary places[19]: 69 
  • Obsession: Spirits that follow upon certain people to outwardly trouble them at various times of the day[19]: 79 
  • Possession: Spirits that enter inwardly into a person to trouble them[19]: 84 
  • Fairies: Spirits that prophesy, consort, and transport[19]: 87 

His classification was not based on separate demonic entities with their names, ranks, or titles, but rather categorized them based on four methods used by any given devil to cause mischief or torment on a living individual or a corpse. The purpose was to relay the belief that spirits caused maladies and that magic was possible only through demonic influence. He further quotes previous authors who state that each devil has the ability to appear in diverse shapes or forms for varying arrays of purposes as well. In his description of them, he relates that demons are under the direct supervision of God and are unable to act without permission, further illustrating how demonic forces are used as a "Rod of Correction" when men stray from the will of God and may be commissioned by witches, or magicians to conduct acts of ill will against others but will ultimately only conduct works that will end in the further glorification of God despite their attempts to do otherwise.[19]

Michaëlis's classification

[edit]

In 1613 the Dominican prior and French inquisitor, Sébastien Michaëlis wrote a book, Admirable History, which included a classification of demons as it was told to him by the demon Berith when he was exorcising a nun, according to the author.[a] This classification is based on the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchies, according to the sins the devil tempts one to commit, and includes the demons' adversaries (who suffered that temptation without falling).[18][21]

First hierarchy

[edit]

The first hierarchy includes angels that were Seraphim, Cherubim, and Ophanim/Thrones:[18]

  • Beelzebub was a prince of the Seraphim, second to Lucifer, founder of Hell’s Order of the Fly. He tempts men with envy and is opposed by St. Francis.
  • Leviathan was also a prince of the Seraphim who tempts people to give into heresy, and is opposed by St. Peter.
  • Asmodeus was a prince of the Ophanim/Thrones, burning with desire to tempt men into wantonness. He is opposed by St. John the Baptist.
  • Berith was a prince of the Cherubim. He tempts men to commit homicide, and to be quarrelsome, contentious, and blasphemous. He is opposed by St. Barnabas.
  • Astaroth was a prince of Thrones, who tempts men to be lazy and is opposed by St. Bartholomew.
  • Verrine was also a prince of Thrones, just below Astaroth. He tempts men with impatience and is opposed by St. Dominic.
  • Gressil was the third prince of Thrones, who tempts men with impurity and is opposed by St. Bernard.
  • Soneillon was the fourth prince of Thrones, who tempts men to hate and is opposed by St. Stephen.

Second hierarchy

[edit]

The second hierarchy includes Powers, Dominions, and Virtues:[18]

  • Carreau was a prince of Powers. He tempts men with hardness of heart and is opposed by St. Vincent.
  • Carnivale was also a prince of Powers. He tempts men to obscenity and shamelessness, and is opposed by John the Evangelist.
  • Oeillet was a prince of Dominions. He tempts men to break the vow of poverty and is opposed by St. Martin.
  • Rosier was the second in the order of Dominions. He tempts men against sexual purity and is opposed by St. Basil.
  • Belias was the prince of Virtues. He tempts men with arrogance and women to be vain, raise wanton children, and gossip during mass. He is opposed by St. Francis de Paul.

Third hierarchy

[edit]

The third hierarchy Principalities, Archangels, and Angels:[18]

  • Verrier was the prince of Principalities. He tempts men against the vow of obedience and is opposed by St. Bernard.
  • Olivier was the prince of the Archangels. He tempts men with cruelty and mercilessness toward the poor and is opposed by St. Lawrence, patron saint of the poor.[22]
  • Iuvart was the prince of Angels. At the time of Michaelis's writing, Iuvart was believed to have possessed a young novice nun of the Ursulines, Madeleine Demandols de La Palud, from whom it was exorcised.[23]

Many of the names and ranks of these demons appear in the Sabbath litanies of witches, according to Jules Garinet's Histoire de la magie en France, and Collin de Plancy's Dictionnaire Infernal.

Classification by office

[edit]

In the study of demonology, many spirits are classified by office, rank, or titles which theologians believe were once held in heaven before the fall, or which they currently hold in their infernal dwelling. These offices are usually elaborated in several grimoires which determines their authority in hell or abilities. Demons categorized by office are often depicted in a militant hierarchy, in which a general may hold command over some designated legion for a specialized function which they may trouble men. Other theologians have determined the classification of a spirit's office depending on the times or locations which they roam the Earth.

The Book of Abramelin

[edit]

The Book of Abramelin, possibly written in the 14th or 15th century, lists four princes of the demons: Lucifer, Leviathan, Satan and Belial. There are also eight sub-princes: Astaroth, Magoth, Asmodee, Beelzebub, Oriens, Paimon, Ariton (Egin) and Amaymon. Under the rule of these there are many lesser demons.

Le Livre des Esperitz

[edit]
Main article: Livre des Esperitz

Written in the 15th or 16th century, this grimoire was a likely source for Wierus hierarchy of demons, but while Wierus mentions 69 demons, Le Livre des Esperitz has only 46. Wierus omitted, however, the four demons of the cardinal points: Oriens, Poymon, Amaymon and Equi (see Agrippa's classification) and the three great governors of all the other demons: Lucifer, Beelzebub and Satan.[24]

The Munich Manual of Demonic Magic

[edit]
Main article: Munich Manual of Demonic Magic

Written in the 15th century, this manual includes a list of eleven demons.[25]

Fasciculus Rerum Geomanticarum

[edit]

Written in 1494, this grimoire contains a list of 37 demons.[26]

Le Dragon Rouge (or Grand Grimoire)

[edit]
Main article: Grand Grimoire

Like many works of mystical nature, Le Dragon Rouge (or the Red Dragon) claims to come from Solomon and his priests and is said to be published in 1517 by Alibeck the Egyptian. However, it was most likely written in France in the 18th century.

The grimoire details the different hosts of hell and their powers, describing how to enter a pact with them to attain the magicians' goals. The demons of hell are classified by three different tiers from Generals to Officers.[27]

Pseudomonarchia Daemonum

[edit]
Main article: Pseudomonarchia Daemonum

Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, by Johann Weyer, is a grimoire that contains a list of demons and the appropriate hours and rituals to conjure them in the name of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost (simpler than those cited by The Lesser Key of Solomon below).

This book was written around 1583, and lists sixty-nine demons. The demons Vassago, Seir, Dantalion and Andromalius are not listed in this book. Pseudomonarchia Daemonum does not attribute seals to the demons.[28]

The Lesser Key of Solomon

[edit]
Main article: The Lesser Key of Solomon

The Lesser Key of Solomon or Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis is an anonymous 17th century grimoire, and one of the most popular books of demonology. The Lesser Key of Solomon contains detailed descriptions of spirits and the conjurations needed to invoke and oblige them to do the will of the conjurer (referred to as the "exorcist"). It details the protective signs and rituals to be performed, the actions necessary to prevent the spirits from gaining control, the preparations prior to the invocations, and instructions on how to make the necessary instruments for the execution of these rituals.

The author of The Lesser Key of Solomon copied Pseudomonarchia Daemonum almost completely, but added demons' descriptions, their seals and details.

The Ars Goetia

[edit]
See also: List of demons in the Ars Goetia

Ars Goetia is the first section of The Lesser Key of Solomon, containing descriptions of the seventy-two demons that King Solomon is said to have evoked and confined in a bronze vessel sealed by magic symbols, and that he obliged to work for him.

The Ars Goetia assigns a rank and a title of nobility to each member of the infernal hierarchy, and gives the demons "signs they have to pay allegiance to", or seals.

List of Demons
Kings Baal, Paimon, Beleth, Purson, Asmodeus, Vine, Balam, Zagan, Belial
Dukes Amdusias, Agares, Valefar, Barbatos, Augusyon, Eligos, Zepar, Bathin, Saleos, Aim, Buné, Berith, Astaroth, Focalor, Vepar, Vual, Crocell, Allocer, Murmur, Gemory, Vapula, Flauros, Dantalion
Princes Vassago, Sitri, Ipos, Gaap, Stolas, Orobas, Seir
Marquis Gamigin, Aamon, Leraje, Naberius, Ronové, Forneus, Marchosias, Phenex, Sabnock, Shax, Orias, Andras, Andrealphus, Kimaris, Decarabia
Earls Furfur, Malthus, Raum, Bifrons, Andromalius
Knights Furcas
Presidents Marbas, Buer, Botis, Morax, Glasya-Labolas, Foras, Malphas, Haagenti, Camio, Ose, Amy, Valac

Dictionnaire Infernal

[edit]
Main article: Dictionnaire Infernal

The Dictionnaire Infernal (English: Infernal Dictionary) is a book on demonology, organised in hellish hierarchies. It was written by Jacques Collin de Plancy and first published in 1818. There were several editions of the book, but perhaps the most famous is the edition of 1863, in which sixty-nine illustrations were added to the book. These illustrations are drawings that depict the descriptions of the appearance of a number of demons. Many of these images were later used in S. L. MacGregor Mathers's edition of The Lesser Key of Solomon though some of the images were removed.

The book was first published in 1818 and then divided into two volumes, with six reprints and many changes between 1818 and 1863. This book attempts to provide an account of all the knowledge concerning superstitions and demonology.

Collin de Plancy presented a hierarchy of demons based in modern European courts:

  • Princes and dignitaries:
    • Beelzebub, supreme chief of the empire of hell, founder of the order of the Fly.
    • Satan, prince dethroned and chief of the opposition party.
    • Eurynome,[29] prince of death, Grand Cross of the order of the Fly.
    • Moloch, prince of the country of tears, Grand Cross of the order.
    • Pluton, Prince of Fire, also Grand Cross of the order and governor of the regions in flames.
    • Pan, prince of incubi.
    • Lilith, princess of succubi.
    • Leonard, the great lord of the Sabbath, Knight of the Fly.
    • Balberith, great pontiff, lord of alliances.
    • Proserpina, archdiablesse, princess of evil spirits.
  • Ministers of the Office:
    • Adrammelech, Grand Chancellor and Grand Cross of the Order of the Fly.
    • Ashtaroth, general treasurer, Knight of the Fly.
    • Nergal, chief of the secret police.
    • Baal, commander in chief of the armies of Hell, Grand Cross of the Order of the Fly.
    • Leviathan, Grand Admiral, Knight of the Fly.
  • Ambassadors:
  • Justice:
    • Lucifer, chief of (in)justice, Knight of the Fly.
    • Alastor, executor of his sentences.
  • House of the princes:
  • Secret expenses:

Alexis-Vincent-Charles Berbiguier used some of these names and ranks for the demons who tormented him, in his autobiographical work Les farfadets ou Tous les démons ne sont pas de l'autre monde (1821).

The Satanic Bible

[edit]
Main article: The infernal names

LaVey utilized the symbolism of the Four Crown Princes of Hell in The Satanic Bible, with each chapter of the book being named after each Prince. The Book of Satan: The Infernal Diatribe, The Book of Lucifer: The Enlightenment, The Book of Belial: Mastery of the Earth, and The Book of Leviathan: The Raging Sea.[30] This association was inspired by the demonic hierarchy from The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abra-Melin the Mage.

  • Satan (Hebrew) "Lord of the Inferno":

The adversary, representing opposition, the element of fire, the direction of the south, and the pentacle (which takes the form of the Sigil of Baphomet) during ritual.

  • Lucifer (Latin) "The Morning Star":

The bringer of light, representing pride and enlightenment, the element of air, the direction of the east, and the stick (which takes the form of candles) during ritual.

  • Belial (Hebrew) "Without a Master":

The baseness of the earth, independence and self-sufficiency, the element of earth, the direction of the north, and the sword during ritual.

The great dragon, representing primal secrecy, the element of water, the direction of the west, and the chalice during ritual.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Classification of demons

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The classification of demons refers to systematic categorizations of malevolent entities within theological, mythological, and frameworks, primarily in , where such beings are arrayed by rank, function, elemental affinity, or association with human vices. These schemas, derived from scriptural interpretations, visionary experiences, and exegetical traditions rather than empirical observation, often invert angelic hierarchies to depict infernal orders led by principalities like or commanding legions of subordinates. In early Christian thought, influenced by Greco-Roman daimones and Hebrew , demons were understood as with aerial forms, temptresses of specific logismoi (evil thoughts) such as or , with overseers directing lesser spirits. Prominent systems emerged in medieval and demonology, including Alphonsus de Spina's 1467 taxonomy dividing demons into ten species—such as incubi and succubi for nocturnal assaults, familiars for aid, and drudes for nocturnal pressures—based on reported phenomena of possession and . Weyer's Pseudomonarchia Daemonum (1577), appended to his skeptical treatise on demonic illusions, cataloged 69 demons in a monarchical structure of kings, dukes, princes, and marquises, each governing legions and linked to conjuration s, influencing later grimoires like the Ars Goetia. Jewish demonology, drawing from Talmudic and Kabbalistic sources, classified entities like as child-stealing succubi haunting ruins, as idolatrous spirits, and mazzikim as harmful agents created on eves, often tied to environmental or ritual vulnerabilities rather than strict hierarchies. These classifications fueled exorcism practices, inquisitorial trials, and esoteric summonings, yet faced critique even contemporaneously—Weyer argued many "demonic" pacts stemmed from human or herbal intoxication—reflecting tensions between literalist interpretations and rational amid absent causal verification of demonic agency. Defining characteristics include attributions of elemental powers (e.g., fire demons igniting strife) and sin-princes (e.g., for lust), which underscored moral cosmologies but varied across traditions, with Islamic offering parallel yet less rigidly hierarchical arrays.

Ancient and Pre-Christian Classifications

Mesopotamian and Near Eastern Origins

In ancient Mesopotamian cosmology, spanning Sumerian (c. 3000–2000 BCE) and Akkadian (c. 2334–2154 BCE) periods onward into Babylonian and Assyrian eras, demons were conceptualized as malevolent supernatural beings originating from the or chaotic realms, responsible for inflicting diseases, nightmares, and untimely deaths. Unlike gods integrated into temple worship, demons featured predominantly in apotropaic incantations and medical texts, where they were enumerated and categorized by their modes of affliction rather than a rigid ontological . These classifications emerged from rituals aimed at , reflecting a pragmatic worldview tying demonic agency to observable misfortunes like or . Primary categories included the utukku (Sumerian udug), versatile spirits embodying both potential benevolence and harm but frequently depicted as restless ghosts afflicting the living with possession or generalized evil; they headed lists in incantations against unclean forces. Underworld agents known as gallû served as enforcers of the netherworld, dragging mortals to the realm of the dead and associating with deities like Ereshkigal, as seen in myths of descent such as Inanna's. The alû, faceless and earless entities, specialized in nocturnal terrors, inducing sleep paralysis and strokes by lurking in darkness or assuming animal forms like bulls or scorpions. Disease-oriented demons, such as the asakku or asag, manifested as hybrid monstrosities causing fevers, seizures, and infections, often portrayed as winds or floods embodying divine wrath. Prominent exemplars illustrated these functional roles without supplanting broader classes. , a lion-headed demoness daughter of , targeted pregnant women and newborns, devouring fetuses or blood, countered by amulets invoking —a southeast demon with canine features who, despite his fearsome nature, repelled her through antagonistic winds. Groups like the Sebettu, seven cosmic demons born of primordial chaos, embodied collective evil in series, serving underworld gods like and invoked in spells against epidemics. ("lurkers") added stealthy ambushers lying in wait for the unwary. These entities lacked moral dualism seen in later traditions, often blurring with protective sages or minor deities, emphasizing ritual neutralization over ethical condemnation. Near Eastern extensions, including Hittite adaptations of Mesopotamian motifs, incorporated similar and plague demons but subordinated them to gods like Tarhunna, while Canaanite parallels featured resheph-like pestilence bringers without systematic taxonomy. Core Mesopotamian texts, such as the "Evil Demon Series" from the first millennium BCE, preserved these categories in bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian formats, influencing exorcistic practices across the region until the Achaemenid conquest (539 BCE).

Greek Daimones and Classical Influences

In ancient mythology and , the term daimōn (plural daimones) denoted a being or divine power intermediate between gods and mortals, often responsible for allotting fate, inspiring actions, or guiding individuals. Unlike the uniformly malevolent demons of later Abrahamic traditions, Greek daimones were typically morally ambivalent entities, capable of benevolence or harm depending on context, with the word deriving from a root meaning "to divide" or "apportion," reflecting their role in distributing destiny. , writing around 700 BCE in , portrayed daimones as the transformed souls of the humans—thirty thousand aerial spirits appointed by to oversee mortal justice, rewarding the righteous with agricultural bounty while punishing injustice. Philosophical developments refined this concept into more systematic classifications. (c. 428–348 BCE), in dialogues such as the and , described daimones as interpreters and messengers facilitating divine-human communication, embodying a personal guiding force as exemplified by ' daimonion—an inner divine voice that warned against moral error without commanding positive actions. , a successor to at the (c. 396–314 BCE), advanced a binary distinction, categorizing daimones as either beneficent (agathodaimones or eudaimones) aligned with and the gods, or maleficent (kakodaimones or cacodaimones) prone to vice and disruption, viewing them as corporeal beings susceptible to passions yet immortal. This framework echoed earlier poetic personifications of abstract forces as daimones, such as those embodying emotions (e.g., Eris for strife, for madness) or natural states, grouped into categories like psychological drives, cosmic principles, or punitive agents. These classical notions of typed daimones—differentiated by function, moral alignment, and hierarchical position—influenced subsequent Hellenistic and early demonologies by providing a model of intermediary spirits subject to categorization. Neoplatonists like (c. 46–119 CE) expanded on ' good-evil dichotomy, positing daimones as overseers of earthly affairs with varying degrees of purity, a schema that bridged pagan and monotheistic . In the transition to Christian thought, Greek daimones were increasingly equated with fallen or deceptive entities, as seen in patristic reinterpretations where pagan intermediaries became prototypes for demonic hierarchies, though retaining traces of classical ambiguity in texts like the Septuagint's rendering of neutral spirits. This evolution underscores how Greek classifications prioritized causal roles in fate and ethics over inherent evil, contrasting with later systems' emphasis on opposition to divine order.

Testament of Solomon

The is a pseudepigraphical Jewish-Hellenistic text, likely composed between the first and third centuries CE, purporting to record King Solomon's interrogations of demons compelled to labor on the Jerusalem Temple through a magical ring bestowed by the archangel Michael. In this narrative, Solomon binds and questions over three dozen demons, extracting confessions of their names, hierarchies, astrological thrones, physical forms, causative roles in human diseases and misfortunes, and the angelic names or seals required to neutralize them. Unlike later hierarchical systems, the classification here is primarily functional and catalogic, organizing demons by their operational domains—such as aerial, terrestrial, or subterranean abodes—and their targeted afflictions, including , strangulation, seduction, and madness—rather than rigid ranks or moral sins. The text opens with Ornias, a deceptive aerial demon who shapeshifts to steal wages from Temple laborers and drains youthful vitality by sucking thumbs, symbolizing economic and physiological predation; subjugates him via the ring, forcing labor in stone quarries. Beelzeboul emerges as the preeminent , self-described as prince over all demons and terrestrial spirits, responsible for demonic apparitions, idol worship, and oversight of subordinate legions; he claims authority from to test humanity until the eschatological wind scatters evil, but yields to 's command after revealing the names of the seven arch-demons ruling heavenly bodies. Other notable spirits include , a wrathful three-headed demon linked to marital and linked to the biblical slayer of Sarah's husbands, who confesses vulnerability to Raphael's angelic intervention and the liver of a . Female demons feature prominently, such as Onoskelis, a cave-dwelling, donkey-legged seductress who strangles men in their sleep and associates with the fullness of the moon, thwarted by the Bazazath; and Obizuth, a airborne spirit causing , bound by invoking the amulet of and the Afarotp. Astrological elements underpin much of the , with demons throne-sitting over zodiac signs or the 36 s—Egyptian-Hellenistic divisions of the —exerting influence strongest in specific seasons or hours; for instance, the lion-shaped Ephippas, who claims power over winds and obedience from a subterranean counterpart in the , collaborates in lifting a massive for the Temple. Chapter 18 enumerates the decan demons explicitly, each tied to a 10-degree celestial segment, causing ailments like quartan fevers or miscarriages, and countered by corresponding angels such as Iameth or Barsafael. Some demons command legions, implying loose hierarchies—e.g., the "lion-shaped " oversees 666 subordinate spirits who infiltrate homes to incite strife—but the emphasis remains on individualized countermeasures, blending exorcistic praxis with proto-grimoric lore. This demonological framework reflects syncretic influences from Jewish lore, Greek daimonology, and Near Eastern astral magic, predating Christian adaptations while prioritizing empirical control through divine names over speculative ; later recensions show Christian interpolations, such as eschatological judgments, but the core preserves a pragmatic typology focused on and remediation. The text's credibility as a historical account is nil, deriving from legendary Solomonic traditions rather than verifiable events, yet it furnishes one of the earliest systematic Western enumerations of demon operations, influencing subsequent magical texts like the .

Jewish Demonology

Biblical and Talmudic Classes

In the Hebrew Bible, demonic entities are referenced sporadically without a formalized classification system, often conflating them with idolatrous foreign deities or wilderness spirits rather than portraying a structured hierarchy. The term shedim appears twice, in Deuteronomy 32:17 describing sacrifices offered by Israelites to "demons" instead of God, and in Psalm 106:37 recounting child sacrifices to the same entities, which scholars interpret as polemics against Canaanite or Mesopotamian cults equating them with powerless "no-gods." Similarly, se'irim ("hairy ones" or goat-demons) are prohibited from receiving sacrifices in Leviticus 17:7, with further allusions in Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14 to desolate places inhabited by these beings, reflecting nomadic or satyr-like spirits from ancient Near Eastern lore. Isaiah 34:14 also mentions lilith, a night-haunting creature translated variably as screech owl or demon, derived from Mesopotamian lilu wind spirits but lacking elaboration as a ruling figure. These sparse mentions prioritize monotheistic rejection of polytheistic rivals over ontological categorization, with no evidence of ranked orders or domains. Talmudic demonology, as developed in the Babylonian Talmud (completed circa 500 CE), incorporates Babylonian influences to expand on biblical terms, positing demons as created beings incomplete due to the Sabbath's onset—formed from twilight clay but lacking final animation—resulting in their semi-material nature with wings for flight, ability to eat, procreate, and die like humans yet invisible unless revealed. Primary classes include shedim (field or house demons, akin to protective yet perilous spirits), mazzikim (harmers or injurers, invisible agents of physical affliction like disease or accidents, often overlapping with shedim but emphasized for causal damage), and ruhot or ruchin (disembodied evil spirits or ghosts, wandering souls prone to possession or mischief). These categories are not rigidly hierarchical but functionally descriptive, with shedim portrayed as numerous (e.g., 10,000 attending demon queens) and interactive—susceptible to rituals like salt offerings or protective incantations—while mazzikim and ruhot underscore demonic agency in everyday perils, as in Berakhot 6a warning of shedim in unprotected spaces. Prominent figures include , king of , depicted in 68a as intellectually formidable yet bound by divine limits, and , queen of lilim (female night-demons or succubi), who seduces men and harms infants, originating as Adam's rebellious first wife per midrashic expansions but rooted in Talmudic warnings against her nocturnal threats. Rabbinic texts treat these entities realistically within a blending empirical caution (e.g., avoiding shadows at to evade mazzikim) and theological subordination to , who deploys demons for testing or , as in the 130-year exile of Adam's "ghosts" producing demon progeny. This framework influenced later Jewish thought but remained pragmatic, emphasizing apotropaic measures over speculative taxonomy.

Kabbalistic and Folkloric Demons

In Kabbalistic demonology, demons are conceptualized as entities belonging to the Sitra Achra ( for "the Other Side"), a realm of impurity and opposition to the divine , often manifesting through the qlippot—husks or shells that encase unholy forces and trap divine sparks awaiting redemption. These qlippot parallel the ten but invert their attributes into vessels of imbalance, such as Thaumiel (duality and opposition to ) or Golachab (wrath mirroring ), with demons serving as their governors or agents. The , a foundational 13th-century Kabbalistic text attributed to , details demons' origins in liminal times like twilight or the Sabbath's eve, when creation's incompleteness allowed impure forms to emerge, including hairy, winged beings that propagate through human interaction. Prominent Kabbalistic demons include , prince of demons and accuser, paired with as rulers of the demonic , where oversees male mazikim (harmful spirits) and female equivalents like the lilin. Naamah, another demoness, is portrayed in the as a seductress birthing demons via intercourse with men or angels, embodying nocturnal temptations. , developed by in the , expands this by viewing demons as byproducts of cosmic "shattering" (shevirat ha-kelim), where vessels broke, scattering sparks into qlippotic realms inhabited by entities like (Asmodeus), king of demons. Jewish folkloric demons, drawn from medieval and early modern oral traditions across Ashkenazi and Sephardic communities, emphasize practical perils over metaphysical cosmology, classifying spirits like —invisible, shape-shifting entities akin to , dwelling in ruins or fields and causing misfortune unless appeased with rituals. persists as a child-strangling , warded by amulets inscribed with angels' names (Senoy, Semangelof, Sangariel), her lore amplified in texts like the 8th-century Alphabet of Ben Sira, where she refuses submission to and spawns demon offspring. Dybbuks, prominent in 16th-19th century Eastern European tales, represent transmigrated sinful souls () possessing the living, often exorcised by Hasidic rabbis through commands in divine names, as documented in S. Ansky's 1914 play . Other folk classes include mazikim, daytime harm-bringers invisible except at crossroads, and ruhot (wandering spirits), countered by folk practices like salt circles or Psalm recitations, reflecting a where demons exploit human vulnerabilities like unburied dead or moral lapses.

Christian Hierarchical and Domain-Based Classifications

Early Byzantine and Medieval Systems

In early Byzantine Christian thought, monastic writers developed classifications of demonic influences primarily through their association with human vices and temptations. (c. 345–399 AD), a foundational figure in Desert monasticism, outlined eight logismoi or evil thoughts—, , avarice, , (listlessness), , vainglory, and —each instigated by specific demons targeting the monk's soul. These demons operated hierarchically, with pride's demon as the most subtle and commanding, capable of mimicking divine visions to ensnare the ascetic; subordinate demons followed in sequence, escalating to collective assaults manifesting as illusory mobs. This schema, rooted in empirical observations of spiritual combat, influenced Eastern Orthodox demonology by framing demons as organized tempters exploiting natural inclinations rather than arbitrary chaos. By the 11th century, Byzantine scholar Michael Psellus (1017/18–c. 1078) advanced a domain-based in On the Operation of Daemons, dividing demons into six genera corresponding to elemental realms: empyreal (fiery, dwelling in the heavens and inciting prophetic delusions), aerial (inhabiting the atmosphere, causing storms and apparitions), terrestrial (earth-bound, provoking earthly lusts and illusions), marine (aquatic, linked to sea perils and seductive phantasms), subterranean (underground, associated with earthquakes and chthonic horrors), and lucifugous (light-fleeing, nocturnal entities fleeing daylight and specializing in physical afflictions like suffocation or ). Psellus attributed this system to pre-Christian sources like but adapted it to Christian , positing demons as incorporeal yet capable of assuming bodies from their domains for interaction; higher genera excelled in subtlety and power, reflecting a loose hierarchy tied to proximity to the divine realm. Such classifications emphasized causal mechanisms—demons' elemental affinities dictating their —over moral abstraction, informing Byzantine views of as countering domain-specific incursions. In Western medieval theology, demonological systems shifted toward hierarchical models mirroring unfallen angelic orders, as articulated by (1225–1274) in the Summa Theologica. Aquinas posited that demons, as , preserved their relative ranks post-apostasy, with superior demons (e.g., those from higher choirs like seraphim or cherubim) possessing greater intellect, power, and dominion over inferiors; this order facilitated coordinated temptation, where leaders enlightened subordinates on human weaknesses while prohibiting internecine conflict to maximize efficacy against humanity. Drawing from scriptural references to "principalities and powers" (Ephesians 6:12), Aquinas rejected egalitarian demonic society, arguing natural hierarchies endured due to immutable angelic essences, though sin rendered all collectively subordinate to . Earlier figures like (c. 560–636) laid groundwork in , describing demons as aerial spirits of compelled to divine service yet prone to deception via illusions and oracles, without enumerating ranks but implying functional gradations by role in pagan cults. Medieval domain classifications echoed Byzantine precedents, often integrating vice-based with elemental locales; for instance, demons were grouped by sins (e.g., lust-linked aquatic entities) or offices (e.g., rulers of darkness overseeing cosmic disruptions), but Aquinas subordinated these to ontological , cautioning against over-speculation absent . This framework influenced scholastic , prioritizing empirical discernment of demonic operations—via or —over speculative lists, while attributing persistent human error to demons' superior knowledge of natural causes rather than . Such systems underscored causal realism: demons exploited created orders without transcending them, their efficacy bounded by permitted divine allowance.

Renaissance Numerical and Sin-Based Systems

In Renaissance demonology, numerical classifications emphasized the hierarchical organization of demons through quantifiable measures of authority, particularly the number of legions each commanded, portraying as a structured infernal army. Johann , a Dutch physician and skeptic of widespread , appended the ("False Monarchy of Demons") to the 1577 edition of his , listing 69 principal demons ranked by titles such as kings, dukes, marquises, earls, presidents, and knights. Each entry detailed the demon's appearance, powers, and numerical subordination, with legions serving as a metric of influence; for instance, the king Baël commanded 66 legions and could render men invisible or grant wisdom in arts and sciences, while the duke oversaw 31 legions, taught languages, and provoked earthquakes. , another king, directed 80 legions and distributed senatorial or governmental honors, often requiring offerings for compliance. This catalog, drawn from earlier Solomonic traditions like the , underscored a pseudo-military chain of command, with four cardinal kings ( in the East, Corson in the South, in the North, and in the West) presiding over directional domains. Sin-based systems, by contrast, categorized demons according to their role in tempting humanity toward the seven deadly sins, framing them as vice-specific overlords. The German theologian Peter Binsfeld, in his 1589 treatise Tractatus de confessionibus maleficorum et sagarum, assigned a prince of Hell to each sin, building on medieval precedents but refining them for contemporary witch-hunting discourse: Lucifer governed pride, Mammon avarice (greed), Asmodeus lust, Satan wrath, Beelzebub gluttony, Leviathan envy, and Belphegor sloth. This pairing portrayed demons not merely as chaotic entities but as systematic corrupters, each leveraging their affiliated sin to ensnare souls, with Lucifer as the apex figure embodying hubris. Binsfeld's schema influenced later demonological works by emphasizing moral causation in demonic influence, aligning infernal hierarchy with Christian ethical theology amid the era's intensifying scrutiny of possession and sorcery. These numerical and sin-oriented approaches coexisted with broader occult explorations, such as Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa's De occulta philosophia (1509–1510), which analogized demonic orders to numeric scales (e.g., unity for singular potentates, binary for dualistic oppositions, ternary for triadic divisions), integrating Pythagorean into infernal cosmology. While Weyer's catalog prioritized empirical-like enumeration of powers for skeptical critique of excesses in prosecution, Binsfeld's sin linkages reinforced prosecutorial zeal, reflecting tensions between rational inquiry and confessional orthodoxy in 16th-century Europe.

Seventeenth-Century Hierarchies

In the early seventeenth century, French inquisitor and theologian Sébastien Michaelis documented a of demons derived from interrogations during the 1610 exorcisms of Ursuline nuns in , as detailed in his 1612 treatise Histoire admirable de la possession et conversion d'une penitente. The demon Berith, speaking through the possessed, purportedly revealed an infernal order mirroring the Pseudo-Dionysian angelic hierarchies but inverted to reflect fallen states and temptations to specific vices. This system organized demons into three descending tiers—princes, ministers, and subordinate demons—each tied to angelic choirs and sins, emphasizing a structured command for infernal operations rather than mere enumeration. The first tier, comprising princes fallen from the highest angelic orders (Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones), included as second-in-command to and tempter toward pride; , associated with self-exalting pride; , who undermines faith; and Balberith, patron of sorcerers' inventions and false testimonies. The second tier, ministers of drawn from middle angelic ranks (Dominions, Virtues, Powers), encompassed Verin (impatience), Sonneillon (hatred), Carreau (hard-heartedness), Carniveau (filthiness), Elle (tempests), and Rosier (carnal desires). The third tier, lesser demons from the lowest orders (Principalities, Archangels, Angels), featured (arrogance in sciences), Olivier (mercilessness), Iuvart (quarrels), Silcharde (cruelty toward the poor), Dantalion (delusions), and Succorbenoth (impurity). Michaelis' framework, while influential in Catholic for identifying possessing spirits by , relied on testimony under duress, raising questions of reliability amid the era's witch-hunt fervor. Mid-century saw the compilation of the Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis (), a pseudepigraphic circulating in European manuscripts around 1641–1650, whose Ars Goetia section enumerated 72 demons in a feudal to facilitate . Demons were ranked as kings (e.g., Bael, , ), dukes (e.g., , Valefor, ), princes (e.g., , Sitri), marquises (e.g., Samigina, Amon, Leraje), presidents (e.g., Marbas, Buer, Botis), earls (e.g., , Berith, ), knights (e.g., ), and hybrids bearing multiple titles, each commanding legions from 3 to 66 and possessing specialized knowledge or powers like revealing secrets, inducing , or teaching arts. This rank-based system, expanding on Johann Weyer's 1577 , portrayed hell as a militarized under , with seals and rituals for control, though its efficacy rested on unverified claims rather than doctrinal consensus. These seventeenth-century schemes reflected broader efforts to systematize demon confronting, blending theological speculation with practical manuals, yet they diverged from empirical validation, prioritizing hierarchical metaphors for over observable evidence. Michaelis' sin-oriented order influenced later Catholic texts, while the Ars Goetia's ranks persisted in esoteric traditions, underscoring the period's fusion of medieval inheritance with occultism.

Christian Functional and Office-Based Classifications

Medieval Grimoires

Medieval grimoires classified demons primarily by their practical utility in ritual operations, grouping them according to the specific tasks they could be compelled to perform, such as divination, treasure acquisition, or influencing human affairs, rather than emphasizing rigid infernal hierarchies. These texts, often termed necromantic manuals, instructed practitioners in invoking demons through protective circles, divine names, and seals to enforce obedience, reflecting a functional taxonomy tied to the operator's intent. The Sworn Book of Honorius (Liber Juratus Honorii), dated to the late 13th or early and attributed to Honorius of Thebes, exemplifies this approach by detailing conjurations of demons aligned with planetary or rulers for operations like visions of divine secrets or material gains. Demons therein are subordinated to kings such as Maymon, associated with waters and the east, under whom subordinates like Alchibany serve specific offices, including revelation of hidden knowledge or command over forces. The stresses preliminary fasting and oaths to ensure the demons' subjugation, classifying their roles by the celestial or directional affinities that amplify their compelled functions. Similarly, the Munich Manual of Demonic Magic (Codex Latinus Monacensis 849), a 15th-century of rituals, organizes demons into "experiments" categorized by purpose, such as summoning for guardianship, love inducement, or treasure revelation, with each invoking entities by name, seal, and appointed office within the rite. Demons are depicted as hierarchical in service to higher spirits but primarily differentiated by operational domains, like aerial or terrestrial influences, to achieve ends including or enmity against foes; includes over 40 such procedures, each specifying the demon's functional role under ritual constraints. This office-based schema in medieval texts drew from earlier Solomonic traditions and astrological lore, adapting demons to pragmatic while warning of spiritual perils, as practitioners invoked them not as autonomous rulers but as bindable agents for earthly or theurgic aims.

Renaissance and Early Modern Grimoires

During the Renaissance, demonological classifications in grimoires shifted toward practical, office-based systems intended for evocation rituals, emphasizing demons' ranks within infernal hierarchies and their specific functions in granting knowledge, power, or material benefits to conjurers. Johann Weyer's Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, published in 1577 as an appendix to his De praestigiis daemonum, cataloged 69 demons with detailed descriptions of their titles—such as kings, dukes, princes, and marquises—alongside the number of legions they commanded and their purported abilities. For instance, Bael, the first demon listed, was depicted as a king ruling 66 legions, capable of granting invisibility and appearing in multiple forms including a cat, toad, man, or combinations thereof. These classifications drew from earlier traditions like the Liber Officiorum Spirituum, adapting them into a structured roster for summoning under divine authority, reflecting Weyer's skeptical view of witchcraft as illusion rather than genuine demonic power, though the list served occult purposes. In the , the Ars Goetia, the first section of the Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis (), expanded this framework around the , enumerating 72 demons with assigned ranks mirroring feudal nobility, such as earls, presidents, and knights, each tied to functional roles like revealing secrets, inciting love, or teaching liberal . Demons like , a commanding 31 legions, were said to teach all languages, return runaways, and provoke earthquakes, while providing seals (sigils) for safe conjuration. This system, pseudepigraphically attributed to King Solomon, prioritized utility in evocation over theological sin-based hierarchies, with demons' offices categorized by their obedience to summoners using protective circles and . The Ars Goetia influenced subsequent grimoires by standardizing demons' appearances, subordinates, and specialized competences, such as ’s mastery of and sciences or ’s skill in arithmetic and invisibility. Other early modern texts, like the (attributed to 1517 but likely circulating in 18th-century manuscripts), organized demons under three superior spirits— as emperor, as prince, and as grand duke—followed by subordinate ministers with niche functions, such as Clauneck's control over wealth or Frimost's influence over women. These grimoires classified demons not merely by domain or vice but by operational roles in a bureaucratic infernal order, enabling practitioners to select entities for targeted invocations, such as treasure-finding or enmity-causing, often requiring pacts or offerings. Such systems persisted amid church condemnations, blending Christian angelology with folk magic traditions, yet their credibility rested on unverified anecdotal claims rather than empirical validation.

Islamic Demonology

Jinn Categories in Quran and Hadith

In Islamic scripture, jinn are depicted as an independent creation of , formed from a smokeless , distinct from humans (made from clay) and angels (from ), and endowed with , , and for their actions. The addresses them collectively without an exhaustive taxonomy, emphasizing their moral agency: some submit to divine worship, while others rebel, mirroring human divisions between believers and disbelievers. Surah al-Jinn ( 72) narrates how a delegation of jinn encountered the Quranic during the Muhammad's lifetime in around 615 CE, recognized its truth, and converted to , thereby establishing the existence of believing jinn who affirm and prophetic mission. These Muslim jinn are portrayed as capable of righteousness, , and even congregational prayer, though invisible to humans under normal circumstances. Disbelieving , conversely, form the category of shayatin (devils), who actively oppose God's commands and incite humans toward through whispers and deception. , the archetype of such rebellion, is explicitly classified as a rather than an angel, having refused prostration to out of arrogance during the primordial covenant, which led to his curse and role as tempter of humanity. The warns of shayatin from both and human origins collaborating to hinder truth, as in the appointment of devils to inspire poets and others with falsehoods. This bifurcation by faith—Muslim jinn versus (unbelieving) shayatin—constitutes the primary ethical and soteriological classification in the , underscoring causal accountability where disbelief incurs eternal consequences akin to human . Hadith literature, drawing from the Prophet Muhammad's , supplements the with descriptions of morphology and locomotion, though without rigid hierarchies. A sahih narrated by Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani reports the Prophet stating: "The are of three types: a type like dogs and snakes, a type that flies through the air, and a type that comes and goes [on foot]." This classification, authenticated in collections like (no. 6156), highlights functional diversity: terrestrial, serpentine or canine forms for grounded mischief; aerial capabilities for swift traversal; and ambulatory types resembling human travel patterns, potentially enabling infiltration of human spaces. Such forms align with reports of manifesting as or snakes in prophetic warnings against keeping them as pets or killing indiscriminately. Specific exemplars appear in Quranic narratives, such as an 'ifrit (a term denoting a powerful or rebellious jinn) in the story of Solomon, who volunteered to fetch the throne of Bilqis (Queen of Sheba) before Solomon's glance returned, showcasing superhuman strength granted by God. While 'ifrit signifies potency rather than a separate species, it illustrates variance in abilities among jinn, subordinate to divine permission. Overall, Quran and Hadith prioritize jinn's spiritual alignment over elaborate subtypes, cautioning against excessive speculation that veers into pre-Islamic folklore, and affirming their subjection to Allah's sovereignty.

Sufi and Folk Classifications

In Sufi traditions, jinn are often viewed through an esoteric lens as part of a spiritual hierarchy, with classifications emphasizing degrees of power, age, and magical aptitude rather than strict moral binaries. One such schema delineates five ascending classes: jann, the weakest and youngest, capable only of minor spells and inhabiting unclean places; djinn, more common but still limited in potency, often depicted as tormenting humans playfully; shaitans, possessing respectable magical knowledge (up to eight types) and assigned to incite evil in humans, countered by ; ifrits (or afrits), stronger shapeshifters rarer in lore; and marids, the most powerful, ancient (over 2,000 years old), oceanic entities serving kings or priests with vast abilities like , illusions, and curses. This framework, rooted in mystical interpretations, underscores jinn's akin to humans, allowing for both malevolent and potentially redeemable roles within cosmic orders, though Sufi texts prioritize spiritual discernment over demonic subjugation. Folk classifications in Islamic cultures, blending Quranic references with pre-Islamic Arabian lore, categorize by form, habitat, and behavior, often portraying them as shape-shifters or forces. A prophetic divides them into three primary types: those with wings that fly through the air; those resembling snakes or dogs; and nomadic ones that pause journeys before resuming, reflecting varied lifestyles and mobilities. Specific subtypes include the ghul (), a graveyard-dwelling cannibal that lures and devours travelers; , cunning fire-born rebels mentioned in as strong adversaries subdued by prophets; , gigantic and rebellious water-associated giants from ancient myths; jann, desert whirlwinds or camel-like nomads; and lesser forms like hinn (dog-like), shiqq (half-formed weaklings), (one-legged hybrids), and palis (blood-licking desert pests). These folk categories, amplified in tales like the , emphasize peril in remote areas but lack scriptural uniformity, varying by region and incorporating Persian or elements.

Eastern and Non-Abrahamic Traditions

In Vedic literature, such as the and layers, Asuras originally denoted a broad class of powerful spiritual beings, encompassing both benevolent and malevolent entities without inherent moral opposition to Devas. This early usage reflects a neutral term for divine or superhuman powers, akin to lords or mighty ones, with figures like classified as an Asura alongside Devas. Over time, in post-Vedic texts including the Brahmanas and , Asuras evolved into primarily adversarial anti-gods, characterized by rivalry with Devas through perpetual cosmic conflicts, often driven by quests for boons via severe austerities (tapasya) that granted immense power but fostered arrogance and opposition to divine order. Puranic classifications subdivide Asuras by patrilineal descent from primordial progenitors like , distinguishing Daityas (offspring of ) and Danavas (offspring of Danu), both emphasizing their titanic strength, illusionary powers (maya), and frequent alliances against Devas in battles detailed in texts like the and . Notable Asuras include , slain by Vishnu's avatar around 5000 BCE in traditional chronologies, and , defeated by , illustrating their role as chaos-inducing forces subdued to restore . Exceptions exist, such as the devout Asura , underscoring that Asura status denotes lineage and opposition rather than absolute evil, though textual narratives consistently portray them as threats requiring divine intervention. Rakshasas represent a distinct class of demonic entities in Hindu epics, depicted as nocturnal, shape-shifting cannibals with sorcerous abilities, originating from lineages like that of sage and inhabiting realms such as , where they prey on humans and obstruct Vedic rituals. In the , composed circa 500 BCE to 100 BCE, Rakshasas under —possessing ten heads and boons rendering him invincible to gods and most beings—exemplify their ferocity, with traits including illusion-casting, flight via Pushpaka , and flesh-eating habits that position them as disruptors of cosmic harmony. Unlike Asuras' grand-scale wars, Rakshasas engage in guerrilla-like antagonism, as seen in their abduction of and battles with Rama's forces, culminating in 's defeat by Rama's on the battlefield of . Related beings include Pisachas, lower-tier ghoulish demons classified as flesh-devouring ghosts haunting cremation grounds, distinct from Rakshasas by their parasitic possession of corpses and association with disease in texts like the . These entities, alongside (vampiric spirits inhabiting cadavers, as in the tales), form a spectrum of malevolent supernatural classifications in Hindu lore, often countered through rituals like homa or mantras rather than direct combat, reflecting a pragmatic based on habitat, diet, and interference with human affairs rather than hierarchical infernal ranks. This framework prioritizes causal antagonism to over moral absolutism, with no unified "demonic" equivalent to Abrahamic .

Buddhist Mara and Pretas

In Buddhist cosmology, Māra represents the principal demonic adversary, personifying the forces of temptation, death, and cyclic existence (saṃsāra) that obstruct spiritual awakening. Described in early scriptures like the Pali Canon's Samyutta Nikaya as a deva-king ruling the highest heaven of the sensuous realm (kāma-dhātu), Māra deploys armies of yakṣas and other demonic attendants to assail practitioners, most notably attempting to disrupt Siddhartha Gautama's enlightenment under the Bodhi tree through arrows of desire, fear, and doubt. Māra's name derives from the root mṛ, connoting or killing, underscoring its role as the "Lord of Death" who perpetuates rebirth via attachment. Buddhist texts classify Māra into four interdependent forms, known as the "four Māras," which encompass both external and internal demonic influences: the Māra of afflictive emotions (kleśa-māra), arising from , , and ; the Māra of the aggregates (skandha-māra), embodying impermanence and mortality; the Māra of the divine (devaputra-māra), manifesting as sensual temptations from Māra's realm; and the Māra of nirvāṇa, a subtle distortion misconstruing liberation as annihilation. These categories frame Māra not merely as a singular entity but as a systemic obstruction to nirvāṇa, with canonical accounts treating it as a literal being while later interpretations, particularly in Vajrayāna traditions, psychologize it as mind's self-sabotaging projections. Pretas, translated as "," form another class of tormented beings in the sixfold realm of rebirth, reborn there due to karmic residues of miserliness and attachment, resulting in insatiable hunger and thirst despite repulsive or minuscule orifices for sustenance. The Abhidharmakośa and related sūtras delineate pretas into subtypes, such as those with needle-like throats unable to swallow, excrement-eaters (eka-mukha), or guardians afflicting humans, numbering up to thirty-six varieties in texts like the Sūtra on the Division of . Unlike Māra's proactive malice, pretas primarily evoke pity as passive sufferers, yet certain classifications align them with demonic activity when they haunt or harm the living through envy-driven interference, as seen in Tibetan and East Asian where they demand offerings during the seventh lunar month. In broader Buddhist , pretas occupy an intermediate status between hell-dwellers (narakas) and asuras, their ethereal forms enabling occasional worldly incursions, though redemption via merit transfer distinguishes them from irredeemably antagonistic entities like .

Other Cultural Examples

In , daevas constitute a primary class of malevolent entities opposed to the benevolent ahuras, originating as false gods or divinities who aligned with Angra Mainyu, the destructive spirit embodying chaos and falsehood. These daevas, numbering in the thousands according to later texts like the , are categorized by their domains of influence, such as (wrath and violence), Akoman (evil mind and doubt), and (apostasy and rebellion), functioning as agents of moral corruption, , and natural disasters. Unlike independent creators, daevas derive their power from Angra Mainyu's opposition to , with rituals emphasizing their subjugation through fire and purity to prevent affliction. Mesoamerican traditions, particularly Aztec and Maya cosmologies, feature skeletal star demons known as tzitzimimeh, which descend from the heavens during solar eclipses or the world's end cycles to devour humanity, classified as skeletal warriors armed with obsidian blades and associated with cosmic disorder rather than moral evil. In Maya lore, the underworld houses lords of structured by punitive domains, including Hun-Came and Vucub-Came (raw ), Ahalpuh and Ahalgana (pus and jaundice demons causing infectious demise), and Chamiabac with Chamiaholom (bone and skull staff wielders enforcing skeletal torment). These entities, depicted in codices like the , test heroes through trials of disease and illusion, reflecting a dualistic balance where destruction sustains renewal, without the Abrahamic hierarchy of . Among Native American traditions, Algonquian identifies the as a gaunt, insatiable ice demon embodying and winter , transforming humans via into emaciated giants with hearts of ice that possess others to perpetuate starvation cycles. beliefs classify skinwalkers (yee naaldlooshii) as malevolent witches who shapeshift into animals through rituals, invoking evil by desecrating kin corpses to gain speed, strength, and for harm. These classifications emphasize opportunistic malevolence tied to human violation of s, countered by medicine people via chants and pollen barriers, differing from centralized demonic legions by their localized, transformative nature.

Modern and Occult Developments

Nineteenth-Century Compendia

The , authored by and initially published in 1818, with a revised and illustrated edition appearing in 1863 featuring engravings by , functioned as a primary nineteenth-century reference compiling demon classifications from earlier European grimoires and theological sources. This encyclopedic work alphabetically catalogs over 400 entries on infernal entities, detailing their attributes, sigils, and roles in hierarchical structures such as the legions under , , or , often synthesizing descriptions from texts like the and the . De Plancy's compendium emphasized visual depictions, with the 1863 version including 69 specific illustrations of demons in , anthropomorphic forms to aid recognition in practices, reflecting the era's romantic fascination with the amid declining ecclesiastical authority. While de Plancy's initial intent blended satire with erudition—drawing from pseudepigraphic and folkloric traditions—the later editions adopted a more systematic tone, classifying demons by function (e.g., tempters of lust like or deceivers like ) and rank, without empirical validation but grounded in historical attributions to summonable spirits. This approach perpetuated pseudo-hierarchies, such as the nine orders of adapted from pseudonymous works like the , positioning entities like the 72 Goetic demons as subordinates in a infernal . Critics of the period, including rationalist scholars, dismissed such compilations as curiosities rather than ontological realities, yet they influenced subsequent occultists by preserving pre-Enlightenment taxonomies. Concurrent works, such as Walter Scott's Letters on and (1830), offered supplementary historical overviews rather than exhaustive lists, referencing classifications from and continental treatises like Michael Psellus's Byzantine schema of aerial, terrestrial, and subterranean demons, but prioritizing narrative anecdotes over rigid categorization. These texts collectively represented a transitional phase in , bridging medieval with Victorian revival, though lacking causal mechanisms beyond anecdotal evidential claims from records or visionary accounts.

Twentieth-Century Occult and Satanic Systems

In the early twentieth century, advanced demon classifications through his integration of traditional Goetic spirits into Thelemic and Qabalistic frameworks. In his 1904 edition of The Goetia of Solomon the King, Crowley preserved the hierarchical structure of 72 demons as kings, dukes, princes, and marquises, each commanding legions and associated with specific sigils, offices (e.g., revealing secrets, inciting love), and planetary attributions, drawing from grimoires like . He interpreted these entities not merely as malevolent but as praeterhuman intelligences or "portions of the human brain," amenable to for knowledge and power, reflecting a shift toward psychological naturalism influenced by contemporary . Crowley's Liber 777 (1909, revised 1930s) further systematized demons via Qabalistic correspondences, assigning infernal kings and orders to the Sephiroth and paths of the , such as Nahema to and demon-kings like and to the qliphothic "shells" opposing divine emanations. This mirrored angelic hierarchies inversely, positing demons as forces of dispersion and illusion, encountered through ritual magick as objective yet subjective phenomena—evidenced by his 1909 scrying of the 10th Aethyr, where he confronted , described as the "demon of dispersion" and guardian of , manifesting chaos and ego-dissolution. Such classifications emphasized pragmatic utility over theological condemnation, with demons evoked via calls for initiatory breakthroughs rather than worship. Franz Bardon's The Practice of (published posthumously 1956–1971) outlined a hermetic system classifying spirits into , planetary, zonal, and fluid spheres, including negative entities akin to bound to malefic influences like the lunar or Saturnian bands. Bardon warned of their deceptive nature, advising only after mastering positive forces, and withheld specific demon names to prevent misuse by unprepared practitioners, focusing instead on their functional roles in illusion, destruction, or earthly power. This approach prioritized ethical discipline and akashic perception, viewing demons as real but subordinate cosmic intelligences exploitable through will. Twentieth-century Satanic systems, particularly Anton LaVey's , eschewed literal demon hierarchies for symbolic and psychodramatic archetypes. Founded with the in 1966, LaVey's (1969) compiled a list of over 60 "" drawn from global mythologies—such as , , and —used in rituals like the "Invocation of Infernal Names" to channel carnal instincts and rebellion against dogma, without positing ontological reality. Demons here represent humanistic individualism, with no structured command legions or evocation protocols beyond theatrical catharsis, critiquing supernaturalism as priestly control. Later theistic offshoots, like Michael Aquino's (1975 schism), reclassified Set as a predatorial prince over self-deific "Black Magicians," demoting traditional demons to subjective psychic predators rather than independent hierarchies.

Debates on Demonic Nature and Classification

Origins: Fallen Angels versus Independent Entities

In , demons are predominantly regarded as who rebelled against alongside , an interpretation derived from passages such as :7-9, which describes a war in heaven resulting in the casting out of the dragon () and his angels. This view posits that these entities, originally created as holy angels, forfeited their status through willful disobedience, becoming malevolent spirits bound for judgment, as referenced in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6, which allude to angels who sinned and were reserved in chains of darkness. Proponents argue this aligns with the biblical emphasis on angelic rebellion as the source of evil spiritual opposition, though the text does not explicitly equate all demons with these fallen beings, leading some scholars to infer additional origins, such as disembodied spirits of the from Genesis 6:1-4, where "" intermingled with humans, producing giants whose souls persisted as demons post-flood. Jewish demonology presents a more diverse perspective on (demons), often tracing their origins to pre-Abrahamic Mesopotamian influences rather than a singular angelic fall, with the term "" appearing in Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37 to denote entities sacrificed to by idolaters, implying independent spiritual beings akin to foreign deities or chaotic forces. Medieval Jewish thinkers like Nahmanides viewed as inhabiting desolate or northern wastelands, created partially during the twilight of the sixth day of creation (as in the Babylonian , Pesachim 112b), distinct from angels formed on the second or fifth day, suggesting they are neither fully fallen celestials nor human souls but autonomous entities with physical and ethereal traits, vulnerable to rituals yet capable of harm. This framework avoids equating demons wholesale with rebel angels, incorporating folklore where arise from unions involving or serpentine forms, reflecting a causal multiplicity beyond a binary heavenly revolt. In Islamic tradition, —often analogous to demons when malevolent—constitute a separate order of creation from angels, formed from smokeless fire ( 55:15), possessing free will to obey or defy , unlike angels crafted from light and inherently obedient ( 66:6). (), identified as a jinn rather than an angel in 18:50, exemplifies this distinction, refusing to due to pride, thus leading rebellious jinn without implying a fall from angelic ranks. collections, such as 2996, reinforce jinn as a parallel sentient species predating humans, capable of or shaytanic paths, underscoring their independent ontological status rather than derivative corruption of angels. The debate hinges on interpretive tensions: the fallen angel model emphasizes monocausal rebellion from a unified angelic host, supported by intertestamental texts like the (1 Enoch 6-10), which details Watcher angels descending and spawning demonic progeny, influencing early Christian views but absent from canonical Hebrew scriptures. Conversely, independent entity theories, prevalent in and , invoke scriptural polygeny—multiple creation events yielding diverse spiritual classes—averting issues like why not all fallen angels manifest as demons or possess bodies, as demons reportedly seek in accounts (e.g., Mark 5:1-13). Empirical scrutiny of demonological claims reveals inconsistencies favoring separation: fallen angels retain power and visibility in lore (e.g., 28:12-19), while demons exhibit parasitism and hierarchy, suggesting distinct causal origins rather than uniform .

Empirical and Theological Realities versus Skeptical Dismissals

Theological traditions, particularly within , affirm the existence of demons as or spiritual entities capable of influencing or possessing humans, grounded in scriptural accounts such as those in the where performs exorcisms. The maintains that demonic possession is a rare but genuine phenomenon, requiring solemn rites authorized by bishops to expel such entities through Christ's authority, as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 1673). This stance persists officially, with the Vatican training exorcists amid rising global demand reported since the early 2000s, including a 2018 "pastoral emergency" declaration by the . Empirical claims supporting demonic realities often involve anomalies observed by medical professionals during alleged possessions, such as victims exhibiting , knowledge of hidden information, or speaking unlearned languages like Latin—phenomena documented in cases consulted by Dr. Richard Gallagher over 25 years. Gallagher, a board-certified , distinguishes these from psychiatric disorders after ruling out conditions like or , citing instances of , objects levitating, and aversion to sacred items unresponsive to medication. Exorcism practitioners like Fr. , who performed over 60,000 rituals from 1986 until his death in 2016, reported consistent patterns of demonic behavior yielding only to religious intervention, not therapy. Such accounts, while anecdotal, draw from multidisciplinary evaluations, with a 2023 compendium estimating a low but nonzero probability (0.0031) of unexplained possession cases persisting after scientific scrutiny. Skeptical dismissals predominate in secular and academic circles, attributing possession phenomena to psychological factors such as , , or cultural , with symptoms like hallucinations and antisocial behavior aligning with known psychiatric profiles. Critics argue that apparent successes in exorcisms stem from effects, role-playing influenced by media like (1973), or misdiagnosis, noting that drugs often resolve symptoms in purported cases without invoking causes. Mainstream science demands reproducible, falsifiable evidence absent in possession claims, viewing theological interpretations as unfalsifiable and prone to , particularly given institutional that prioritizes naturalistic explanations over spiritual ones. This perspective, while empirically grounded in observable pathologies, may overlook residual anomalies in vetted cases due to presuppositional rejection of non-physical causation, as noted by proponents like Gallagher who collaborate with only after exhausting medical avenues.

References

  1. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-8290
  2. https://spookysight.com/hierarchy-of-hell-classification-of-demons/
  3. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_False_Hierarchy_of_Demons.html?id=HLLgjwEACAAJ
  4. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/demons-and-demonology
  5. https://www.academia.edu/24611778/ASAKK%C3%9B_DEMONS_AND_ILLNESS_IN_ANCIENT_MESOPOTAMIA
  6. https://www.deliriumsrealm.com/babylonian-assyrian-demonology/
  7. https://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/DaimonesKhryseoi.html
  8. http://www.bibleorigins.net/Demons.html
  9. https://mythopedia.com/topics/daemons
  10. https://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/personifications.html
  11. https://www.teemingbrain.com/2007/03/19/the-greeks-and-their-daimones/
  12. https://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/testamen.htm
  13. https://readingacts.com/2017/07/18/testament-of-solomon-a-catalog-of-demons/
  14. https://www.gotquestions.org/Testament-of-Solomon.html
  15. http://www.crivoice.org/demonsot.html
  16. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5085-demonology
  17. https://www.biblestudy.org/bible-study-by-topic/types-of-demons.html
  18. https://theomagica.com/on-the-nature-of-the-qlippoth
  19. https://www.hermetic-academy.com/kabbalah-qliphoth/
  20. https://inner.org/chasidic-psychology-and-demons/
  21. https://www.mayimachronim.com/tag/gershom-scholem/page/2/
  22. https://blog.nli.org.il/en/naamah/
  23. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/demons-dybbuks-ghosts-golems/
  24. https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/evagrius_of_pontus_eight_logismoi.htm
  25. https://thesideview.co/journal/evagriuss-demons/
  26. http://learningsources.altervista.org/On_the_operations_of_daemons.pdf
  27. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1109.htm
  28. https://bartholomew.stanford.edu/onangelsranksthomas/intro.html
  29. https://marklord.info/magic-in-the-middle-ages/primary-sources-for-magic-in-the-middle-ages/isidore-of-seville-on-demons/
  30. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1108.htm
  31. https://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/weyer.htm
  32. https://www.thenotsoinnocentsabroad.com/blog/the-seven-deadly-sins-and-binsfelds-classification-of-demons
  33. http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Classification_of_demons
  34. https://www.ecosophia.net/blogs-and-essays/the-well-of-galabes/the-scope-of-occultism-part-three-occult-philosophy/
  35. https://ritualsgodsanunnaki.com/demonology/classifications-of-demons/demon-hierarchy/
  36. https://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Classification_of_demons
  37. https://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/lemegeton.htm
  38. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-hierarchy-of-demons
  39. https://www.sciencia.cat/temes/medieval-necromancy-art-controlling-demons
  40. https://frombeyondpress.com/blog/specific-knowledge-viktor-athelstan-on-medieval-magic/
  41. https://occult-world.com/sworn-book-of-honorius/
  42. https://issuu.com/llewellyn/docs/9780738723068/32
  43. https://astonishinglegends.com/astonishing-legends/2020/6/15/the-munich-manual-of-demonic-magic
  44. https://www.occult.live/index.php?title=Munich_Manual_of_Demonic_Magic
  45. https://www.historicmysteries.com/history/sworn-book-of-honorius/32001/
  46. https://www.deliriumsrealm.com/wier-demons/
  47. http://www.ptmistlberger.com/grimoires-of-old-magic.php
  48. https://www.deliriumsrealm.com/demons/magick-demons/
  49. https://ritualsgodsanunnaki.com/demonology/classifications-of-demons/
  50. https://the-demonic-paradise.fandom.com/wiki/Ars_Goetia
  51. https://occult-world.com/grimorium-verum/
  52. https://blackwitchcoven.com/demonology/demons-to-worship/grimorium-verum-demons/
  53. https://sacred-texts.com/grim/bcm/bcm51.htm
  54. https://www.abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2019/12/22/three-forms-jinn/
  55. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/2340
  56. https://sunnah.com/search?q=jinn+dog
  57. https://shaikhsohail.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/classifications-of-jinn/
  58. https://lifeinsaudiarabia.net/types-of-jinn-according-to-islam/
  59. https://www.medievalists.net/2020/10/demons-djinns-devils/
  60. https://www.hindupedia.com/en/Asura
  61. https://sanatanadhara.com/veda/veda-asuratva/
  62. https://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/suras-and-asuras
  63. https://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Category:Hindu_demons
  64. https://www.motilalbanarsidass.com/blogs/news/list-of-hindu-demons-mythological-asuras-rakshasas-and-their-divine-defeats
  65. http://www.ocerint.org/socioint15_epublication/papers/216.pdf
  66. https://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/rakshasa
  67. http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/rakshasa.htm
  68. https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/33611/do-demons-asuras-rakshasas-pisachas-nagas-etc-reveal-false-religions-to-hu
  69. https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/km08ec/are_the_asuras_like_the_demons_of_christianity/
  70. https://www.learnreligions.com/the-demon-mara-449981
  71. http://romanpagan.blogspot.com/2023/07/demons-in-buddhism.html
  72. https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/lam-rim/samsara-nirvana/demonic-forces-the-four-maras
  73. https://buddhasartofhealing.com/blogs/thangka/mara-in-buddhism
  74. https://books.openedition.org/pressesinalco/2120?lang=en
  75. https://alanpeto.com/buddhism/ullambana-hungry-ghosts/
  76. https://kashgar.com.au/blogs/tribal-culture/hungry-ghosts-their-history-and-origin
  77. https://www.deliriumsrealm.com/daevas/
  78. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/44270/research.pdf?sequence=1
  79. https://genies.fandom.com/wiki/Daeva
  80. https://www.facebook.com/Mythopia1/posts/the-lords-of-xibalba-beings-of-the-mayan-underworldxibalba-the-name-of-the-under/2385972001528369/
  81. https://www.manzanillosun.com/minor-gods-and-aztec-demons/
  82. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2320/ten-native-american-legendary-creatures-you-need-t/
  83. https://www.deliriumsrealm.com/demons/american-demons/
  84. https://www.vogimprayerland.org/native-american-evil-spirit/
  85. https://www.deliriumsrealm.com/deplancy-demons/
  86. https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/defining-the-demonic/
  87. https://www.llewellyn.com/journal/print.php?id=2149
  88. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18302600
  89. https://heterodoxology.com/2010/06/14/more-on-goetic-magic-three-20th-century-developments/
  90. https://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib500
  91. https://www.billheidrick.com/works/mcor.htm
  92. https://archive.scarletwoman-oto.org/scarletletter/v2n1/v2n1_review.html
  93. https://mitch-horowitz-nyc.medium.com/never-underestimate-anton-lavey-626e488ed1d0
  94. https://www.gotquestions.org/fallen-angels.html
  95. https://www.logos.com/grow/bsm-are-demons-fallen-angels-and-2-other-misconceptions/
  96. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13523-shedim
  97. https://occult-world.com/shedim/
  98. https://www.abuaaliyah.com/2014/10/19/the-difference-between-the-angels-and-the-jinn-2/
  99. https://researchguides.ben.edu/angels-jinns
  100. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38693/origin-of-the-idea-that-demons-and-fallen-angels-are-the-same-thing
  101. https://www.davidhernandezministries.com/blogarchive/demons-fallen-angels
  102. https://www.anthonydelgado.net/blog-1/demonology-doctrine-of-fallen-angels-origin-of-demons-watchers-nephilim-traditions-etc
  103. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19750626_fede-cristiana-demonologia_en.html
  104. https://apnews.com/article/portland-san-francisco-oregon-cff13a56cd41997553ea3e9a8fc21384
  105. https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/exorcism-doctor
  106. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a34226478/dr-richard-gallagher-demonic-possession-expert-isnt-trying-to-convince-you/
  107. https://www.amazon.com/Demonic-Foes-Psychiatrist-Investigates-Possessions/dp/0062876473
  108. https://pres-outlook.org/2023/05/gabriele-amorth-conducted-over-60000-exorcisms-and-believed-hitler-was-possessed-meet-the-man-who-inspired-the-popes-exorcist/
  109. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376941644_Interdisciplinary_Review_of_Demonic_Possession_Between_1890_and_2023_A_Compendium_of_Scientific_Cases
  110. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/pn.42.6.0012a
  111. https://www.livescience.com/27727-exorcism-facts-and-fiction.html
  112. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/token-skepticism-about-exorcism/
  113. https://skepticalinquirer.org/2017/02/superstition-masquerading-as-science/
  114. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23312521.2024.2441435
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.