Religiosity and Neopagans: Testing the Use of FAITHS on Alternative Spirituality

Abstract

In the United States, Christianity’s customs, calendar, and behaviors have long influenced scholarship on what religion looks like. Is this template useful for studying other religions, such as Neopaganism? Neopaganism is a set of earth-based, often polytheistic or animistic religions that lack a central authority, organized structure, or accepted texts, and often accept diverse relationships as “families” beyond heteronormative monogamy. In this research, I explore whether measures of religiosity developed on a Christian template can be applied to Neopagans. I utilize Faith Activities In the Home Scale (FAITHS). I apply FAITHS in self-administered questionnaires to a sample of Neopagans from attendees at gatherings called “festivals”, asking about both individual and family experiences. My results indicate that FAITHS can be useful; however, the principal component analysis reveals different item scaling for Neopagans than in the original analysis. My results also support the individualistic nature of Neopaganism when comparing both individual and family-setting results.

1. Introduction

Religion as a social institution organizes and shapes the direction of society at large and in the smaller setting of the family (see Mahoney et al. 2003). It is a backdrop against which families make meaning of morality and right action, a calendar around which family activities are organized, and a space for families to interact. The United States is an overwhelmingly Christian nation in terms of religious identification. The American Religious Identification Survey in 2008 indicated that 76 percent of the US population self-identified as Christian (Kosmin and Keyser 2009). In 2014, the Pew Research Center indicated 70.6 percent of their respondents identified as some form of Christian (Pew Research Center 2014). More recently, “The 2020 Census of American Religion” conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI 2021) found that 69.5 percent of Americans self-identified as Christian. While this drop in self-identification could be the result of changes in behavior or different survey methods, Christianity is still the dominant religion in the country. As such, the structure of Christianity has been interpreted as applicable to any religion; however, that is not always the case.

For a minority of people in the United States, their religion has no central authority, buildings or other permanent structures, or even social legitimacy. Are their experiences the same as our mainstream religions? How do families “do religion” absent those “normal” structures? The broader purpose of this research is to explore the religiosity and religious expression of families who claim membership in one of several spiritual traditions that can loosely be categorized under the umbrella term of Neopaganism1.

In this research, I administer questionnaires to Neopagans at several gatherings called “festivals” (described below) to assess how respondents live their spirituality in the domestic sphere outside of what many would recognize as religious structures. I explore a population whose religiosity has been under-studied in this way, differs in terms of both belief systems and structural characteristics from mainstream religions, and has historically been “deviantized” by mainstream culture, using scales constructed to be broadly applicable. I begin by describing Neopaganism and then review some of the literature on religiosity, focusing on the family context. I then explain two limitations of this research exploring religiosity among Neopagans and describe Neopagan religions themselves.

2. Neopagan Religion

A colloquialism in the Neopagan community is that if you get three Neopagans in a room, you will get six different opinions on any question about their faith, which can make any generalizations difficult (Bray 1995). There are often a variety of self-identifiers, such as “general pagan, environmental pagan, shaman, druid, Asatru, runester, ceremonial magician, Thelemite, setian (sic), magician, voudoun, witch, and wiccan” (Hume 1995, p. 6). Many do not define themselves by a single tradition at all, simply calling themselves “eclectic” and customizing their faith to fit their needs (Pike 2001; Rountree 2006). However, some characteristics may have enough agreement that we can safely call them common features of Neopaganism.

First, most types of Neopaganism (called “traditions”, akin to denominations) support some form of polytheism, with gods and goddesses on equal footing (Hume 1995; Possamai 2002; Rountree 2006; Smith and Horne 2007). This egalitarianism is reflected in acceptance of women or men as spiritual leaders and extends to the variety of sexual experiences, such as homosexuality, bisexuality, gender fluidity, and polyamory (Pike 2001; Smith and Horne 2007). Second, there is an emphasis on personal experience rather than external authority as paramount in religious expression and experience (see Hume 1995; Possamai 2002; Lundskow 2005; Smith and Horne 2007). While the Abrahamic faiths that dominate the West have holy scriptures and established hierarchies to interpret them, no such things exist in Neopaganism in general. One’s experience is as, if not more, important as any written text (Pike 2001). Third, Neopagan traditions often focus on the sacredness of the Earth (Pike 2001; Possamai 2002; Rountree 2006; Ray 2011). In one sense, Earth is sacred, a goddess or a living entity to be worshiped and thanked for all she provides, rather than a source of resources to be used. In another, Earth is real, rather than illusory, and so it is what one does in this life on this real Earth that matters most (although for some Neopagans, there is a concept of an afterlife with rewards, or reincarnation, or both).

This framework sets up a quite different spiritual life from mainstream religions. Religious observances are often focused on the solstices and equinoxes, in addition to what are known as the “cross-quarter days”, falling equidistant between the solstices and equinoxes. The names of these holidays were standardized from many earlier influences in 1974 (Kelly 2017), although there is considerable variation in terminology and observances. Many Neopagans may also observe moon phases, most often the full moon but occasionally new moons. These observances are far less frequent than the usual weekly attendance of Abrahamic groups. If one were to gather with others for all eight of the common holidays, and then both lunar phases (roughly 26 each year), that would mean one’s attendance at services would be a maximum of 34 days a year, as opposed to Christianity’s 52 Sundays in a year plus other holidays. “Frequent” attendance would be around two to three times a month, depending on the holidays, rather than weekly (Fennell and Wildman-Hanlon 2017).

With respect to “sacred” writings, one can find a variety of books in the “New Age” section of any bookstore that give examples of rites for holidays and other rites of passage, but little other guidance. Many popular press books have examples of prayers and rites (i.e., Cunningham 2004; Three Cranes Grove 2010; Hunter 2016, 2019; Serith 2020), with a few emphasizing children’s participation (Starhawk et al. 1998; Avende 2021). Science fiction and fantasy novels (such as by Diana Paxson, Mercedes Lackey, Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Robert Heinlein) also provide inspiration (Ringel 1994). Finally, both the Internet and Neopagan festivals (discussed below) can be important sources (Pike 2001; Berger 1995; Berger et al. 2003). With the advent of the Internet and popular press books, Neopagans in various parts of the country recognize the rites and worship of others (see Berger 1995). Therefore, while there is no scripture per se, there are plenty of scripts (Goffman 1959) available for people to use or adapt.

While some Neopagans claim membership in a tradition that may provide some guidance, many do not, merely using the term “Neopagan”. They may not identify with any group at all and practice their religion alone, calling themselves “solitaries”, or informally with others at larger gatherings or festivals. Estimates are that half of all those self-identifying as Neopagan are solitaries (Jorgensen and Russell 1999; Berger et al. 2003), although this trend of solitary practice appears to be growing, to around 75 percent in later work (Berger 2019). The solitary phenomenon is a result of the lack of a universal liturgical calendar, common sacred texts, and emphasis on individual experiences, all contributing to a setting where Neopagans need not interact with anyone for guidance or validation. Neopaganism exemplifies what Dollahite et al. (2004) predict as increasing “religions of one”, as a New Age spirituality. It is therefore important to keep in mind what Berger concludes in her work: Neopaganism is thus a religion that differs in some important ways from mainstream religions. The Neopagan family must determine for themselves how to “do Neopaganism” in the context of their home lives, having to balance both secular career and family responsibilities with the spiritual need to create rituals and experiences (Berger 1995).

3. Religiosity

There are many ways to study religiosity, and occasionally, they can be conflicting and contradictory. In this section, I will briefly describe some of the research on dimensions of religiosity. The literature recognizes that religiosity can differ in terms of both behavior and salience, or importance. Researchers have given various terms to these two dimensions: public and private religiosity (see, for example, Escobar and Vaughan 2014; Ronneburg et al. 2016; Pickard et al. 2021); distal and proximal religiosity (see Pargament 1997; Rostosky et al. 2008; Braithwaite et al. 2015; Porche et al. 2015); extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity (Miller et al. 2012 but see also Allport and Ross 1967 for a different use of those terms); and even religiosity and spirituality (Egbert et al. 2004). This multifaceted nature of “religiosity” means there can be differing conclusions of how religion affects a person’s or family’s life, depending upon how it is measured.

Researchers found that religion does have, in general, a positive effect within the family setting on the behavior of children, but there can be some variation depending on what type of religiosity is being assessed. In some cases, any type of religiosity can directly or indirectly (Wagener et al. 2003) reduce problematic behavior in children. In others, public religiosity may have the opposite effect, increasing delinquency (Roberts et al. 2011). In others, religiosity reduced tantrums and other “externalizing behaviors”, although a strict religious setting may increase depression in children and other “internalizing behaviors” (Petts 2011, pp. 395–96). Often, it is the private religiosity that has the more profound effect on prosocial behavior (Furrow et al. 2004; Burdette and Hill 2009).

Aside from behavior, parents who are religious tend to also have children who are religious (Myers 1996; Rafford 2011), although this relationship may be challenged when children seek a different path, as in second-generation immigrants looking to assimilate (Zhai and Stokes 2009). The relationship between religious attendance, religious salience, and family formation is complicated and operates differently for men and women. Having children increased the salience of religion for women, which led to increased participation, whereas children increased participation for men independent of salience (Becker and Hofmeister 2001).

Many researchers point to the importance of measuring private and public religiosity in different variables or scales, to examine the differential influences of each (Myers 1996; Wagener et al. 2003; Burdette and Hill 2009). Some of the effects of family spirituality and religious activity may not be as immediately visible as public activities and customs. The effects of private religiosity are less tangible, affecting well-being and other emotional benefits. For example, in a study whose respondents belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), interviews revealed that those who engaged in home-based religious practice felt they had a positive family experience (as in stronger relationships, better communication, and less conflict; Loser et al. 2009). Marks’ (2004) found in his study that families said it was important to reinforce their religions’ values at home, such as engaging in prayer and service work, making time for religious meals (Shabbat and Ramadan customs), studying sacred texts, and other activities that symbolically support the expectations of their religions, to teach their religious beliefs and morals to their children, set good examples, and provided their children with coping skills.

Home-based practices may operate in an intermediate area of religiosity, neither wholly public nor completely internal. This thread of research focused on what people do in between structured participation in the family setting. Chelladurai et al. (2018) developed six themes (time, space, teaching and learning, content, conflict, affective outcomes, and struggles) which bring much more depth to how religions are expressed in family life. David and Stafford (2015) measured “joint religious communication” in this realm in families and found it to be positively related to quality of marriage. Lambert and Dollahite (2010, p. 1444) separated the traditional measures of religiosity (often church attendance) from “sanctification” (Mahoney et al. 2003), where families may engage in religious-based activities inside the home to enhance the family religion connection. They developed the “Faith Activities in the Home Scale (FAITHS)” to address family religiosity that does not center solely around attendance at religious services, as “what families do in the home of a religious character may be equally important” (Lambert and Dollahite 2010, p. 1444) to what is done in church. This scale included both the frequency and the importance of a variety of home-based religious activities.

Research using FAITHS showed that while being developed using “highly religious” respondents, it was a useful measure of family- or home-based religiosity. Jorgensen et al. (2016) found it a useful predictor of parental ability to connect with their children, serving as a “gateway” for parents and children to spend time together. Family religiosity measured with FAITHS was positively associated with student religiosity and negatively associated with several types of adolescent sexual behavior (Quinn and Lewin 2019). Day and Acock (2013) found the behaviors measured in the scale (in combination with two other measures) indirectly affected marital stability through positive impacts on measures of forgiveness, sacrifice, and commitment. Goodman and Dyer (2020, p. 186) found that parents who were active with religious practices at home were “more successful at transmitting their religious faith to their adolescents”. Some research is more mixed; FAITHS was associated with later prosocial behavior towards strangers, but not towards family and friends, once earlier prosocial behavior was controlled (Barry et al. 2018), and personal religiosity was a more important deterrent to sexual behavior than was family religiosity, measured by FAITHS, although this was complicated by how much family and personal religiosity coalesce and the presence of sexually permissive attitudes (Barry et al. 2015).

The previous review illustrates the importance of religiosity, however it is measured, in family life. There are, however, inherent in this literature two important limitations when applying these results on a broader scale that are important to address for research on non-Abrahamic religions.

4. Limitations of Prior Research

4.1. Limited Family Types

Much research on family religiosity has focused on heterosexual and monogamous family structures as the definition of “family” (Myers 1996; Becker and Hofmeister 2001; Loser et al. 2009; Houltberg et al. 2011; Edgell et al. 2013). The implication of this research was the persistence that two-person, heterosexual, and monogamous partners are the ideal. Houltberg et al. (2011) and Edgell et al. (2013) specifically included families that are blended, single-parent, adoptive, cohabiting, or experienced some form of marital disruption (divorce, widowhood), but this is more the exception to the rule in the research. Myers (1996) concluded it is this “traditional” family structure which enhanced transmission of parental religiosity to their adult children’s religiosity in the Abrahamic faiths (see also Becker and Hofmeister 2001; Day and Acock 2013; David and Stafford 2015; Barry et al. 2015). There was no research I found that specifically targeted same-sex marriages, non-monogamous, or nonreproductive-centered family structures. An exception was Edgell and Docka (2007), who indicated that the type of Christian church very much affected what counted as “family”, traditional or nontraditional. Dollahite et al. (2004, p. 422) pointed out the lack of family diversity as a limitation of studies on religion and family, calling for research on “single-parent families, stepfamilies, and families with gay and lesbian parents”. Neopaganism, as described above, is accepting of multiple family structures, including same-sex unions, multiple-partner unions, or childless by choice. Prior research assuming a heterosexual, procreative monogamy therefore may not be applicable.

4.2. Abrahamic Faiths

Dollahite et al. (2004, p. 425) also found the lack of non-Christian religion representation a limitation, especially as they predicted the “continuing increase in ‘religions of one’ and New Age and congregation-free spirituality” (see also Abo-Zena and Midgette 2019). Most research, however, placed non-Abrahamic religions into the category of “other” (Myers 1996; Becker and Dhingra 2001; Burdette and Hill 2009; Petts 2011; Day and Acock 2013; Barry et al. 2018; Goodman and Dyer 2020; see Zhai and Stokes 2009 as an exception, with Buddhism as its own category). Any diversity of religious denomination came from the various denominational clusters of Christianity, as in Mormon (Marks 2004; Loser et al. 2009), liberal, moderate, or conservative Protestant (Myers 1996; Becker and Dhingra 2001; Hartmann et al. 2011; Edgell et al. 2013), evangelical, mainline, or Black Protestant (Petts 2011), African American, and White liberal Protestant (Edgell and Docka 2007), and Catholic (Myers 1996; Becker and Dhingra 2001; Furrow et al. 2004; Edgell and Docka 2007; Hartmann et al. 2011; Petts 2011; Edgell et al. 2013). Burdette and Hill (2009) also included “no religious involvement” as a choice (see also Becker and Dhingra 2001; Petts 2011; Hartmann et al. 2011; and Edgell et al. 2013, who further differentiated between agnostic, atheist, and none).

While this is not surprising, given the domination of Christianity in the United States (Pew Research Center 2014; Kosmin and Keyser 2009; PRRI 2021), many operationalizations of religious activity commonly used are not appropriate for Neopaganism. As described, the frequency of “church attendance” in many surveys will yield responses showing far less temporal involvement if there are fewer services to attend. Most expectations of Abrahamic religious life were assumed to be “global indicators of religiousness” (Wagener et al. 2003; Zhai and Stokes 2009; see also Houltberg et al. 2011; Petts 2011) such that surveys asking about church or scripture (Famer et al. 2008) or Western religious holidays (Roberts et al. 2011) would yield less “religiosity” for Neopagans (see also Fennell and Wildman-Hanlon 2017).

The present research, then, aims to address these two limitations while exploring family religiosity among Neopagans. FAITHS includes questions about attendance, scripture reading, and prayer, along with other items that can be important such as clothing choices and food options (Abo-Zena and Midgette 2019), so researchers can explore if Neopagan religiosity may be more appropriately studied including these other practices. We can also begin to explore whether there is even a desire for more structure, as expressed by one of the respondents of Berger et al. (2003):

It seems like an important need of many of ‘us’ to find a ‘church’ or meeting place—to be more visible, accessible, a part of the community… Also, emphasis on raising children, especially boys, in a spiritual way, teaching our craft and reverence for nature.

(p. 15)

5. Results

5.1. Contextual Variables

I present the demographic results in

Table 1. Characteristics of the full sample (n = 143) and family sample (n = 84).

			Full Sample	Family Sample
Biological Sex
Female			60.1%	59.5%
Male			39.9%	40.5%
Gender Orientation
Masculine			37.1%	39.3%
Feminine			51.7%	51.2%
Other			11.2%	9.5%
Sexual Orientation
Asexual			3.5%	2.4%
Heterosexual			46.9%	47.6%
Bisexual			29.4%	29.8%
Homosexual			9.8%	9.5%
Other			10.5%	10.7%
Marriage orientation
Monogamous			48.9%	44.6%
Polyamorous			36.9%	42.2%
Other			14.2%	13.3%
Age			$\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 42.4 (s = 13.024)	$\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 44.12 (s = 11.956)
Legal Marital Status
Single			40.1%	31.3%
Married			44.4%	54.2%
Divorced			12.0%	13.3%
Widowed			3.5%	1.2%
Living circumstances
Living alone			25.6%	22.7%
Non-partnered roommate			17.1%	10.7%
Cohabiting with partner(s)			57.4%	66.7%
Children living at home
No			52.9%	46.3%
Yes			47.1%	53.7%
Ethnicity
European American	97.2%	97.6%
African American	0.7%	0.0%
Asian American	0%	0.0%
Latinx	3.5%	4.8%
Arab American	0.7%	0.0%
Native American	2.1%	1.2%
Other ethnicity	2.8%	2.4%
Multiethnic	6.3%	6.0%
Education
None/some	0.7%	1.2%
HS diploma/GED	11.3%	7.2%
Some college	23.2%	19.3%
Bachelor’s degree	36.6%	37.3%
Master’s degree	19.0%	21.7%
Ph.D./Terminal degree	9.2%	13.3%
Employment
Unemployed	6.4%	4.8%
Part-time employment	28.9%	30.1%
Full-time employment	61.3%	60.2%
Student	6.3%	4.8%
Retired	6.3%	6.0%
Homemaker/caregiver	6.3%	7.2%
More than one	13.4%	10.8%
Tradition (denomination)
Wiccan	8.6%	9.9%
Pagan	27.3%	23.5%
Druid	18.7%	25.9%
Asatru	10.8%	9.9%
Other reconstruction	2.2%	3.7%
Shamanic	3.6%	2.5%
Something else	28.8%	24.7%

. Despite the small, convenience sample, the demographics of my respondents do not diverge from that described in other research (see Berger 1995; Orion 1995; Jorgensen and Russell 1999; Berger et al. 2003; Kosmin and Keyser 2009; Berger 2019) and are similar to these other studies. Sixty percent of the sample define as female, and fifty-one percent define as feminine in gender orientation. Sixteen percent define a different gender orientation from their biological sex, in an estimate of transgender or gender-fluid identification, higher than those who chose “other” for gender orientation (11.2 percent). Just over half identify as something other than heterosexual (54 percent) and participating in or open to the possibility of participating in polyamorous relationships (50.4 percent). The average age is 42.4. In terms of marital status, 40.1 percent are single, 44.4 percent are legally married, and 57.4 percent are currently cohabiting with their partner. Just under half (47.1 percent) have ever had children living at home with them for over six months.

My sample is also similar to the other research cited above in that the vast majority identify as White (97.2 percent). Nine respondents who define as multiethnic identify as White and Hispanic, Chicano/a, or Latino/a (3); White and Arab/Arab American/Middle Eastern (1), White and Native American/First Nations/Aleut (2); White, Hispanic, Chicano/a, Latino/a, and Native American/First Nations/Aleut (1) or White and other (2).

With respect to socioeconomic factors, 64.8 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher. The majority are currently employed, 28.9% part-time and 60.8% full-time. Those that chose multiple statuses are working a combination of part-time and full-time jobs or are also students or homemakers in addition to working.

Finally, the vast majority selected “Pagan” when asked to choose one thing to self-identify with (27.3 percent). The next-most common traditions in my sample are Druids (18.7 percent) and Asatru (10.8 percent). Wiccans are only 8.6 percent of the sample. This is where my sample diverges from others and is likely due to two of the festivals focused on those traditions (even though technically open to all).

Eighty-four respondents answered the survey items that indicated if they practice as a family. There are no large differences between those that did and did not practice as a family in terms of sex (60.0 percent of females practicing as a family as compared to 60.3 percent not female). Slightly more participants in the family subsample define as masculine (38.3 percent) and fewer as something else (9.4 percent). The largest differences are that the family subsample was less likely to be living with someone (10.7 percent with a non-partnered roommate and 66.7 percent with a partner) and more likely to be Druids (25.9 percent). In general, though, the family subsample is not appreciably different from the full sample.

5.2. FAITHS

5.2.1. Individual Practice and Importance, Full Sample

Table 2. Principal component analysis item means (factor loadings), scale means, variance explained, and reliability for both the full sample and family subsample.

Original Long Scale (Short Scale in Bold)	Individual Practice	Individual Importance
Prayer (other than at meals)	3.68 (0.688)	2.00 (0.679)
Reading of scriptures or other religious texts	2.16 (0.649)	1.51 (0.611)
Singing or playing religious music/instruments	2.45 (0.612)	1.61 (0.621)
Religious gatherings/activities/celebrations
Use of religious media (e.g., videos, radio, TV)
Giving/speaking religious blessings to others	2.20 (0.711)	1.54 (0.673)
Religious meals
Religious conversations at home	3.17 (0.748)	2.41 (0.579)
Attending religious services/meetings together
Saying/singing a blessing/grace/prayer at meals
Praying with others or listening to prayers
Praying with a romantic partner
Eating/drinking or abstaining from food/drink for religious reasons
Using religious objects in your home	3.81 (0.779)	2.43 (0.737)
Wearing clothing/jewelry or dressing in a certain way for religious reasons	3.20 (0.651)	1.90 (0.598)
Contributing financial resources for religious reasons
Inviting others into the home for religious purposes
Helping/serving others for religious reasons	2.14 (0.685)	2.31 (0.696)
Notes	N = 133 Var exp = 47.9% Scale mean = 2.801 Cronbach’s α = 0.830	N = 136 Var exp 42.4% Scale Mean = 1.90 Cronbach’s α = 0.757

presents the principal component analysis (PCA) of FAITHS for the full sample. The left column includes all 18 items. Those in bold are those that were included in Lambert and Dollahite’s (2010) shorter scale, to allow comparisons with my results. I present item means and factor loadings for individual practices in Column 2. Of the original 18 items, my analysis retains only eight items through the PCA process. For individual participants in the full sample, they are most likely to engage in personal prayer ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.68), have religious conversations ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.17), use religious objects at home ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.81), and wear clothing or jewelry for religious reasons ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.20) weekly or more than once a week on average. Less often, they read religious texts ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.16), sang or played religious music ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.45), gave blessings to others ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.20), and engaged in service for religious reasons ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.14) weekly or a few times a month. These items together explain 47.9 percent of the variance with a Cronbach’s α reliability of 0.830. Overall, participants engage in these behaviors on an almost weekly basis ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.80).

For the sake of consistency, the items I chose for the individual practice scale are automatically included in the importance scale, even though all 18 items had the full range of responses. I present those item means and factor loadings in Column 3. Items that are more frequent are also viewed as important to very important: personal prayer ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.00), religious conversations ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.41), using religious objects ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.42), and service for religious reasons ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.31). Not surprisingly, those things that are less frequent are seen as somewhat important to important: reading religious texts ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.51), giving blessings to others ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.54), and wearing clothing or jewelry for religious reasons ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.90). Singing or playing religious music is an exception, being seen as somewhat important to important ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.61) despite its average frequency. These items together explain 42.4 percent of the variance with a Cronbach’s α of 0.757. On average, my respondents see the items on the scale as important ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.90).

5.2.2. Individual Practice and Importance, Family Sample

It is likely that the impact of having a family would alter Neopagans’ personal religious practices and the importance placed on it. I re-analyzed the items for the personal practices and importance scales for those participants who indicated they practiced their Neopaganism within a family context, as presented in

Table 3. Principal component analysis item means (factor loadings), scale means, variance explained, and reliability for the family subsample.

Original Long Scale (Short Scale in Bold)	Individual Practice	Individual Importance	Family Practice	Family Importance
Family prayer together (other than at meals)	3.89 (0.653)	2.34 (0.615)	1.32 (0.814)	1.27 (0.804)
Family reading together of scripture, religious texts, books	2.37 (0.631)	1.72 (0.544)
Family singing or playing religious music/instruments	2.66 (0.653)	1.82.74 (0.600)
Family attending religious gatherings/activities/celebrations
Family use of religious media (e.g., videos, radio, TV, blogs, podcasts)
Parent/Caregiver giving/speaking blessings to child			0.90 (0.578)	1.30 (0.772)
Religious meals together as a family			.81 (0.692)	1.24 (0.782)
Family religious conversations at home	3.30 (0.689)	2.55 (0.453)	2.18 (0.695)	2.06 (0.681)
Attending religious services/meetings as a family
Saying/singing a blessing/grace/prayer at family meals	1.84 (0.691)	1.21 (0.714)	1.19 (0.726)	0.97 (0.734)
Parent/Caregiver praying with child or listening to child’s prayers	1.86 (0.683)	1.49 (0.771)	0.74 (0.641)	1.27 (0.792)
Praying with a romantic partner/spouse	1.18 (0.637)	1.23 (0.692)	0.97 (0.688)	1.32 (0.784)
Eating/Drinking or abstaining from food/drink for religious reasons
Using religious objects in your home			2.49 (0.583)	2.06 (0.710)
Wearing clothing/jewelry or dressing in a certain way for religious reasons	3.54 (0.613)	2.09 (0.546)
Family contributing financial resources for religious purposes
Inviting others into the home for religious purposes
Family helping/serving others for religious purposes
	N = 83 Var exp = 43.2% Scale mean = 2.58 Cronbach’s α = 0.808	N = 82 Var exp = 39.02% Scale mean = 1.805 Cronbach’s α = 0.770	N = 77 Var exp = 48.0% Scale mean = 1.326 Cronbach’s α = 0.835	N = 79 Var exp =57.6% Scale mean = 1.44 Cronbach’s α = 0.893

. Following the same procedures as above, for the individual practice scale, my analysis yields eight variables with some important differences (Column 2). As far as individual practice, Neopagans with families still engage in personal prayer ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.89), have religious conversations ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.30), and wear clothing or jewelry for religious reasons ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.54) almost more than once a week. They also read religious texts ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.37) and sing or play musical instruments ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.66) slightly more than a few times a month. However, the family sample adds three more items of importance. Between a few times a year and a few times a month, participants say a blessing, grace, or a prayer at mealtime ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.84), pray with or listen to another’s prayer ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$= 1.86), and pray together with their partners ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$= 1.18). Giving blessings to another outside of those contexts did not meet the standards to be included in the scale. These items together explain 43.2 percent of the variance with a Cronbach’s α of 0.808. On average, Neopagans with families engage in these individual practices between a few times a month and weekly ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.58).

Most of the items on the individual practice scale are important according to my participants (Table 3, Column 3). Personal prayer ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$= 2.34), religious conversations ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.55), and wearing religious clothing or jewelry ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.09) are between important and very important. The remaining items are between somewhat important and important: reading religious texts ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.72), playing or singing religious music ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.82), saying prayer or grace before meals ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.21), praying with another ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.49), and praying with a romantic partner ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.23). Together, this scale explains 39.0 percent of the variance, with a reliability of Cronbach’s α of 0.770. On average, participants with families find these practices to be important to very important ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.805).

5.2.3. Family Practices and Importance

I present the results for the PCA for those participants who indicated they participate in Neopaganism with their families in Table 3, Columns 4 and 5. Family prayer occurs between a few times a year and monthly ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.27). Family religious conversations at home occur on average monthly ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.06). The remaining items center upon behaviors that one may expect in a family or home setting, but the average occurrences are at the low end of the scale, a few times a year to monthly, with some perhaps only yearly: parents giving blessing to children ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 0.90), having religious meals together as a family ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 0.81), praying with children or listening to their prayers ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 0.74), and praying with a spouse or romantic partner ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 0.97). Saying grace or a blessing before a meal occurs on average a few times a year to monthly ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.19). Together the items explain 48.0 percent of the variance with a reliability of Cronbach’s α of 0.835. On average, families engage in these practices a few times a year to monthly ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.326).

Finally, I assess how important these items are to those families that practice them (Table 3, Column 5). It is between important to very important for families to pray together ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.27), parents to give blessings to children ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.30), have religious meals together as a family ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.24), parents listening to children’s prayers ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.27), and praying with romantic partners ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.32). Participants say it was somewhat important to important to say grace or a blessing before a meal ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 0.97). It is important to very important to have religious conversations at home as a family ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.06) and use religious objects at home as a family ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.06). Together, the scale explains 57.6 percent of the variance and is reliable with a Cronbach’s α of 0.893. The participants on average consider these practices to be somewhat important to important ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.44).

6. Discussion

From a strictly quantitative perspective, the items in Lambert and Dollahite’s (2010) original scale appear to be useful to explore the religiosity of a group whose religious structure is different in some significant ways from that of the majority of the population. Importantly, my results mirror theirs on two items. Prayer and religious conversations are practiced and important both as individuals and as families. In all three analytical cases (individuals, individuals with families, and families), these two items persist in being included in the final scales. There are some differences, however. On an individual basis, the reading of scriptures and other religious texts are included as they were with the Lambert and Dollahite (2010) short scale for individuals in the full sample and family subsample, but not as a family practice. Attending religious gatherings and activities, using religious media, and making food choices based upon religion (“eating/drinking or abstaining from food/drink for religious reasons”), however, were not included as they were in Lambert and Dollahite’s short scale. It is not that none of my respondents engaged in these things or found them important: they did not meet the criteria of the full range of response and enough correlation with other items for inclusion. In comparison with other research, the FAITHS measure of religiosity in terms of practice is in similar ranges. Barry et al. (2015) used the 9-item scale and received an average of 1.11 (yearly to a few times a year). Quinn and Lewin (2019) argued that their respondents indicated low family religiosity (10.56 on a scale from 0 to 54, around 1.17, or also yearly/a few times a year). Jorgensen et al. (2016, p. 169) did not give a specific data point of their results, merely saying that “the religious practices items were somewhat skewed in that many respondents did not participate in at least some of the religious practices mentioned”. Even with full ranges, many items in my sample were also skewed towards “never” (0) or “yearly” (1). While comparing nonrepresentative samples is ill-advised, my results suggest that Neopagans and mainstream religious people could have this in common also, with this sample of Neopagans being slightly more active.

It is important to go beyond the simple quantitative comparison. As discussed previously, two things about the qualitative nature of Neopaganism are apparent in these results. The first is the average activity is centered around a few times a year to monthly in frequency. Neopaganism’s eight holidays are spaced around six weeks apart, putting it squarely in the range of the response set (a few times a year). While these items do not capture just liturgical behavior, it may be that specifically Neopagan activity is centered on and around those holidays. If we also include full moons, that would make activity more monthly. Instead of appearing to not be involved in their religion, on average, my participants appear to be in line with the “usual” activity of the liturgical calendar. The importance of “using religious objects in the home”, which is not included in Lambert and Dollahite’s (2010) short scale, may be related to the tendency for many of my respondents to keep altars in their homes, ranging from a small shelf to entire temple rooms. Wearing clothing or jewelry for religious reasons could reflect the love of jewelry that is in evidence: many vendors at the research sites had some form of jewelry, usually necklaces, with Neopagan themes (pentagrams, Thor’s hammers, etc.).

Secondly, comparing individual practice in the full sample with that in the family sample, there are clear differences. The family subsample brings in saying grace, listening to others’ prayers, and praying with partners for individuals that is not evident in the full sample. Individuals within the family subsample actually formed two scales in the PCA before forced into one. The first was essentially individual-focused practices: prayer, reading sacred texts, having religious conversations, and wearing religious clothing or jewelry. The second concerned individual activities that had a family context: singing/playing music with others, saying grace at meals, listening to and praying with others, and praying with a romantic partner. It may be those individuals with families included their family practice in their thoughts about their individual practice when responding. However, in looking at the averages, all these things happened less often on average in family practice than when just speaking of individual practice. Recall that many Neopagans, even as they may include their children in their practices, also feel that they should not dictate what religion their children should practice, if any. This may account for the discrepancy. And, when comparing the individual full sample and the individual family sample, the existence of family does make it easier to practice with others, children or not. The importance of setting a good example may be enough religious socialization for Neopagan families who want their children to be free to explore all religions.

One thing that is overwhelmingly clear is that my results reflect the individualistic nature of Neopaganism. Given the lack of uniformity in the structure of Neopaganism and Berger’s (2019) estimate that more than half of all Neopagans are solitary, not joining a group or organization suggests that Neopagan practices largely take place alone, or at least outside of a group context, and do not always involve children and other family members. My results also support this conclusion, as there was on average less family practice than individual practice, even among respondents that indicated a family practice. Someone wrote in the margins of one survey that they would “not force their religion on [their] children”, and this was echoed in a couple of my early interviews, which contradicts some of the respondents of Berger et al. (2003). This highlights the diversity of religious thought in even small samples. Some Neopagans may also see value in both allowing children to explore and choose their own religious path and have family practices, even if they may not be highly prioritized. Fennell and Wildman-Hanlon (2017) indicate that this can depend on denomination or tradition, with those in more religious settings growing up retained their religiosity into adulthood. If they were not very religious, they were not likely to still be Neopagan once grown.

It is also clear that among my sample, many Neopagans would be considered “devout” when considering the limited liturgical calendar. The use of common measures of “public” and “private” religious activity may indicate otherwise, and so measurements designed for Abrahamic religions would give an inaccurate portrayal of Neopagan religiosity. Even in a solitary environment, devotion that appears absent may not be. Like the Buddhist who meditates alone daily or the Christian who no longer attends a church but reads scripture and prays daily, solitary Neopagans (as individuals or in a family) express their devotion. Likewise, the variation in family types may also remove Neopagan families from consideration. What mainstream religions may consider “roommates” or “close friends”, Neopagan family forms include these options and others. It remains to be seen if Neopagan homosexual marriages have the same patterns of religiosity as those in Abrahamic religions (if they are accepted as such). The small but important number of multiple-partner long-term relationships is another family type, although legally they do not constitute marriages. Even so, it seems their religiosity is no different from monogamous marriages and partnerships.

Limitations

One obvious limitation is the small and nonrepresentative sample size. While I am grateful that, at least demographically, my sample does not differ appreciably from other research on Neopagans (Berger 1995; Orion 1995; Jorgensen and Russell 1999; Berger et al. 2003; Kosmin and Keyser 2009; Berger 2019), there is no way to know at this stage if the religiosity of my sample is the same or different from other Neopagans. The self-selection of the both the desire and the ability to attend festivals (to say nothing of participation in the survey) should indicate interpreting these results with caution, even above and beyond the usual lack of representativeness of convenience samples. Small sample sizes lead to small subsamples, and as such, the scaling patterns reported here may not be replicated in other populations, Neopagan or otherwise. It is impossible to say whether or not the differences between my scaled items and Lambert and Dollahite’s (2010) is due to important differences between the two religions or due to the small size. I am inclined to believe it is both, given the differences in the two types of religions as already discussed, but that conclusion has to remain tentative for now.

Finally, quantitative research can only approximate the depths of meaning that is reflected in most concepts of religiosity. I can assume that people would not undertake a behavior or practice or consider it important if it had no deeper meaning for them, but these data cannot address that. Future research should continue the work begun by Dollahite and colleagues (Marks 2004; Chelladurai et al. 2018) in developing FAITHS, using it as a tool to explore religiosity and religious experience, in addition to other methods. Specifically, it would be useful to explore themes suggested by Chelladurai et al. (2018)—time, space, teaching and learning, content, conflict, affective outcomes, and struggles—as they apply to Neopaganism.

7. Materials and Methods

7.1. Research Setting and Sample

Because there are no established churches or temples with membership rosters, I instead looked for events where large numbers of Neopagans gather. I attended eight multi-day festivals in the summer of 2016 and the summer and fall of 2018 to distribute questionnaires and conduct interviews. The festivals I attended were similar to those described by Pike (2001) (see also Berger et al. 2003). They ranged from several years to several decades in operation, on land that is either owned by Neopagans or at private camps (4H or Scouting) rented for the event. Amenities range from the very primitive with little electricity and only portable toilets, to modern, but rustic, bathroom facilities. Participants must bring their own shelter (often tents) or rent space in cabins where available. Wi-Fi has become common, although not always reliable, and cell phone coverage can be spotty. A central location houses first-aid, information, entertainment, and the sale of snacks, coffee, beverages, and event t-shirts and, in some locations, a full meal plan. Over the course of the event, festivals begin to resemble villages, a “town square” of the central location with vendors’ booths and “residential” campsites scattered around them (see Pike 2001; Berger et al. 2003). Personal campsites can be small and individual; others are groups pooling their resources with solar-powered lights and large pavilions for socializing and common meals. Orion (1995, p. 146) quoted an event founder, Jeff Rosenbaum, describing the festival’s purpose:

… for people to have sort of ‘space stations’ or safe places where they can go to learn and to become illuminated, to recapture that sense of being in reality rather than being asleep and dreaming in this world of illusion that we get fed by various people that are giving us the information that we base our reality-view on.

Festival attendees in my research should not be seen as representative of all Neopagans. First, the festivals I attended are limited to the northeast United States. Second, festivals are not free; those who can afford the travel, food and gear purchases, entry fees (work-barter is sometimes available), and meal plans, not to mention time off from work, family, or other “mundane” responsibilities, are more likely to attend. Third, the outdoor, natural setting allows for a connection with nature and the Earth that is the core of most Neopaganism, but automatically omits those who cannot take extremes of heat or cold, lack of electricity, or sometimes rough and uneven terrain, in addition to the economic costs. Those that do attend though may be seen as “among the most devoted and active members of this movement, and they may differ in other ways from the larger Neopagan population” (Jorgensen and Russell 1999, p. 329). There is, however, no reason to believe they are the only devoted, active members. They may still align with the “highly religious” subjects in Lambert and Dollahite (2010), although it should be noted that some Neopagans criticize festivals as potentially “diluting” the movement due to their accessibility to all who pay the entrance fee, Neopagan or not (Berger et al. 2003). Berger et al. do find that “those who attended a festival in the previous year [of their research]… tend to encourage their children to follow their spiritual path, to have a higher rate of voting, and to be politically active” (Berger et al. 2003, p. 209) when compared with non-attendees.

I first contacted organizers both by mail to their physical addresses and via email. As the time for the event approached, I reached out by phone and email, and then also contacted organizers in person once on site. I was greatly aided by being either already known to many organizers or having other attendees vouch for me. At nearly every site, often no one remembered my queries, but everyone assumed they just forgot about it (organizing festivals can be very mentally taxing) and gave verbal permission. In some cases, they asked me to come back to share my results. At each site, I located a central place to distribute surveys and be available for questions. I made announcements at communal meals and relevant workshops requesting respondents and posted signs advertising the survey wherever possible, including announcement boards and the inside doors of portable toilets.

The activities of festivals were stiff competition to sitting in the shade (usually) and filling out a survey. The final sample was 143 respondents from nine research sites. Unfortunately, it is impossible to estimate the response rate, given that total festival numbers fluctuate (becoming larger towards the weekends for the longer festivals). A generous estimate would be a response rate of less than one percent. This is an additional reason my results should not be viewed as representative of Neopaganism in general but indicative of the usefulness and applicability of FAITHS.

7.2. Variables

7.2.1. Contextual Variables

Given the small sample size, it was necessary to see how my convenience sample compares to that of other researchers on Neopaganism. To that end, I included several questions on my survey to record respondents’ social locations. Neopagans are generally accepting of sexual diversity, so I asked respondents both about their biological sex and their gender identification. For biological sex, I asked them to indicate “Male”, “Female”, or “Other”, with a space to describe themselves. For gender, I asked them to describe themselves as “Masculine”, “Feminine”, or “Other”, again with a space for description. I further asked respondents their sexual orientation, with the options being “Asexual”, “Heterosexual”, “Bisexual”, “Homosexual”, and “Other”, with a space to indicate their orientation.

For ethnicity, I asked participants to choose all racial or ethnic groups that applied to them from the following list: “White, Caucasian, or European American”; “Black, African American, or Caribbean Islands”; “Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander”; “Hispanic, Chicano/a, or Latino/a”; “Arab, Arab American, or Middle-Eastern”; “Native American, First Nations, or Aleut”; and “Other”, with space to describe.

Additional demographic questions included age, to help ensure respondents were over the age of eighteen. I asked respondents to report their employment status, with options of “Unemployed”, “Part-time employment”, “Full-time employment”, “Student”, “Retired”, or “Full-time homemaker/caregiver”. For part-time and full-time employment, I asked respondents how many of each type of job they had. Finally, I asked respondents to identify their education levels in the ordinal categories of “No/some schooling completed”, “High school diploma/GED”, “Some college completed”, “Bachelor’s degree”, “Master’s degree”, or “Terminal degree (MD, JD etc.)/Doctorate degree (PhD)”. Contextual variables that are more germane to this research were related to family and religion. I asked what their legal marital status was (“Single”, “Married”, “Divorced”, or “Widowed”). I then asked about their actual living circumstances apart from their legally recognized status, with options of “Living alone”, “Living with non-partnered roommates”, “Cohabiting with partner(s), legal marriage or not”, and “None of the above apply”. Some Neopagans practice polyamory, so in the last question for this section, I asked, regardless of their legal status or living circumstances, if they identified as “Monogamous”, “Polyamorous”, or “Other (Please explain)”. The last two questions in this section were open-ended and asked respondents first to freely describe their family and living structure. The second asked them to describe any children that are currently living with them, or have lived with them for at least six months, and for whom they had caregiving responsibilities. For the sake of this quantitative analysis, this variable was coded as either having children (1) or not having children (0).

The last section focused on describing the respondents’ spiritualities. The first question was open-ended, inviting them to merely explain their spirituality. As noted above, Neopaganism is a very fluid set of religions, often resistant to categorization. However, I also include a closed-ended question after this, asking respondents to choose only one term to describe their spirituality. The options were “Wiccan”, “Pagan”, “Druid”, “Asatru/Heathen”, “Other Reconstructionist (with space to describe)”, “Shamanic”, or “Something else” (with space provided).

7.2.2. FAITHS

Lambert and Dollahite (2010) developed the Faith Activities in the Home Scale (FAITHS) to address a lack of research on family religiosity that does not center solely around attendance at religious services. I propose that FAITHS could be useful for studying Neopaganism, by tapping into a broader range of activities than church attendance. The scale asks two series of questions about 18 religious activities. The first set asks about how often respondents engage in these activities, choosing from “never”, “yearly/a few times a year”, “monthly/a few times a month”, “about weekly”, “more than once a week”, “about daily”, and “more than once a day”. Then, respondents are asked about how important those activities are (“not important/applicable”, “somewhat important”, “important”, “very important”, “extremely important”). In this way, respondents are asked about both participation in and the importance and meaningfulness of family- and home-based religious activity.

Prior research (Berger et al. 2003), anecdotal contact, and marginal comments on my surveys suggested that parents are open towards letting their children or other family members explore spirituality for themselves, not requiring their children or spouses to be Neopagan. However, the percentage of Neopagans who are explicitly raising their children as Neopagan has increased (Berger 2019). Additionally, I knew I would still have single and childless Neopagans in my sample. Therefore, I asked one set of FAITHS questions (frequency and importance) for the respondents’ personal activities and a second set asking about family practices (frequency and importance). Respondents who did not practice with their families or did not have a family were asked to skip the participation questions on the second set but encouraged to still answer the second questions about how important such activities were for families. Thus, I presented respondents with four sets of FAITHS items.

I stay otherwise true to the wording provided by Lambert and Dollahite (2010). For the individual items, the wording was changed to focus on individual rather than familial activities. There were still some potential problems that I did not recognize until after approximately eighty questionnaires had been returned. There are two items that should have been altered to reflect the nature and setting of Neopaganism. The first is the item that asks, “How often/important are reading of scriptures or other religious texts?” While this implies any number of religious readings may count, respondents may not think to include the mythological, anthropological, archaeological, historical, and even popular press texts that are often sources of religious knowledge and inspiration for Neopagans. Secondly, another item asks about the frequency and importance of the “use of religious media (e.g., videos, radio, television)”. With entire networks devoted to Christian broadcasting, and Christian clergy with weekly shows on radio and television, this makes sense; however, Neopagans do not have this form of media at their disposal. The few magazines that have been created are slowly succumbing to a new form of media: the Internet. In the second version of the survey, I reworded this item to give examples such as web sites, blogs, and podcasts. Additionally, I added greater clarity to the directions for all four FAITHS items. For the ones specifically discussing individual practices and importance, I emphasized “your” in the instructions. I altered the directions for FAITHS practices in a family setting to say, “please skip JUST this page”, and for the scale measuring the importance of family practices, I emphasized “whether you engage in them as a family or not”.

In their research, Lambert and Dollahite (2010) drop 9 of their 18 items based on analysis that showed a “restricted range of responses”, and I follow that pattern here. For the personal religiosity frequency scale, out of the 18 original items, 13 had a full range of responses. Even so, the distributions were heavily skewed towards “never” or “yearly/a few times a year”, with the exceptions of “prayer (other than at meals)”, “having religious conversations”, “using religious objects in your home”, and “wearing clothing/jewelry or dressing in a certain way for religious reasons”. For the remaining items, I ran principal component analyses and dropped items with loadings of less than 0.6 or loaded onto more than one factor. I repeated this process for both the full sample and the family sample, to see if the family sample would have a different pattern from the full sample with respect to individual activities. For the family religiosity variables, I followed the same strategy (full range of responses and adequate factor loading). In the results below, I give a profile of respondents and how they compare with other research on Neopagans. I also present respondents’ responses to FAITHS measuring the frequency and importance of personal religious home practice and family religious home practice.

8. Conclusions

This research is one part of a larger project, exploring the experience of religious socialization in Neopaganism. My results reveal that for this small group, Neopagans engage in a variety of religious practices at many levels of frequency and importance. Using FAITHS uncritically and without attention to context, though, may give the impression that Neopagans are less devout than practitioners of mainstream religions. Future research has begun and involves interviews of survey respondents and others, so that they may expound upon their responses, to further explore the salience and personal experience of their spirituality. Spickard’s (2017) critique of the Christian bias in the development of concepts in the sociology of religion also suggests new concepts, such as sacred communities, the religious/ethnicity nexus, and ritual community healing, that on the surface may be applicable to study of Neopaganism and perhaps other alternative religions.

One interesting line of further research is exploring whether children or grandchildren of Neopagans stay involved in Neopaganism in some way, personally, publicly, or not at all. This research does not directly address discordance between parents’ alternative spirituality and the religious mainstream that they encounter at school, work, through friends, and mainstream culture. It may be the process is akin to that experienced by children of immigrants with non-Christian faiths. Zhai and Stokes found that “first-generation immigrant adolescents report higher levels of religiosity than their native-born [third-generation] counterparts” (2009, p. 219), especially if the parents had converted to or were already Protestants and the teenagers shared that religion. Fennell and Wildman-Hanlon (2017) suggest that since Neopagan subcultures share many characteristics with ethnic subcultures, teenagers may feel less committed to pursuing a Neopagan religion, especially as many of the beliefs and practices are degraded as superstitions, or worse, and thus be less attractive to adolescents concerned about fitting in. Future research could explore these issues of transgenerational Neopaganism.

While the present research does not focus on adolescents, it does focus on the place of spirituality in the lives of potential, current, or former parents of adolescents, to explore the setting more adequately in which family religious socialization takes place. Future research should build upon this by asking current or now-adult Neopagan children how the religious expression of parents (or lack thereof) impacted their spiritual lives.

My research lays the groundwork for continued conversations with my respondents and other scholars about the similarities and differences in religious experience among alternative spiritualities. Missing from this data is something that has begun to be illuminated in interviews, “doing Neopaganism” in terms of other more secular activities, including type of occupation, living arrangements, and perhaps many other more mundane things. How well does “being Neopagan” integrate with the more mundane parts of life? How does this differ from mainstream religions? Further and sustained exploration of these issues in Neopaganism, and others, will illuminate further important concepts about religiosity and enhance our understanding of all such experiences.