Beyond Disenchantment: Science, Technology, and New Religious Movements

On 16 April 2020, The New York Times ran an article titled “Inside the Fringe Japanese Religion That Claims It Can Cure Covid-19.” “Happy Science,” the article continues, “which boasts millions of followers, is led by a man who channels Buddha (and Jesus and Freddie Mercury) and says he can defeat the coronavirus. For a fee.”¹ The reporting was basically critical, juxtaposing the founder’s wealth with his belief in UFOs, his spirit-channeled publications, and the organization’s claims that its prayers are capable of curing the coronavirus. But this was not the first time that “Happy Science” (幸福の科学, Kōfuku no Kagaku, also known as “the Institute for Research in Human Happiness”) had attracted public controversy. Since its rise to national prominence in Japan in 1991, Happy Science has drawn significant critical coverage both domestically and then internationally. It has been accused of being a fraud, a pyramid scheme, a “pseudoscience,” a “pseudo-religion,” a superstition, and repeatedly by members of the international press, a “cult.”² Yet, by some measures it has also been incredibly successful, boasting 12 million followers with branches in 86 countries.³

By way of background, according to the group’s official account, Happy Science began on 23 March 1981 when a recent Japanese college graduate Nakagawa Takashi had an unusual experience, in which he suddenly “sensed an invisible presence” that wished to communicate with him by way of automatic writing. The presence revealed itself to be a famous thirteenth-century Buddhist monk named Nikko. Soon, Nakagawa exchanged automatic writing for channeling and began receiving spiritual communications (霊言, reigen) from increasingly important entities including the Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, Nostradamus, Margaret Thatcher, and ultimately the supreme deity itself who was revealed to be “El Cantāre” (literally “the singer” in Spanish).⁴ Nakagawa formed a small study group to discuss these revelations and research human happiness. From the beginning, Nakagawa emphasized the “scientific” (科学) nature of his movement and its connection to the lost spiritual technologies of Atlantis, Mu, and various ancient aliens. By 1991, Nakagawa, now renamed Ōkawa Ryūhō大川隆法, was claiming to be the incarnation of El Cantāre and his organization’s membership was only growing.⁵ At the very least, two of Ōkawa’s books, The Great Warnings of Allah (Arā no dai-keikou) and The Terrifying Revelations of Nostradamus (Nosutoradamusu senritsu no keiji) had become Japanese best sellers. Although there is some evidence that the group’s membership peaked in the mid-1990s, it seems to be still going strong, and they have formed a political party that has managed to have some (albeit very small) electoral successes.⁶

Here is the thing—in many respects Happy Science is a typical contemporary new religious movement, but it highlights in stark contrast the main themes we aim to explore in this special issue of Nova Religio. Many new religious movements claim to occupy a hybrid position between religion and science. In addition to Happy Science, one might think paradigmatically of Scientology, Christian Science, Raëlism, and Heaven’s Gate, but also many others. One might ask therefore—why are so many new religious movements drawn to this particular conjunction? This becomes even more puzzling when one recognizes that this hybrid position is particularly fraught. Intersections of religion and science are policed both from the side of traditional religious authorities and typically by scientific elites, but also by journalists, pundits, and the popular press. So why are so many contemporary movements drawn to this position? The case studies presented here go some distance in answering this question on a closer scale of analysis, but the broader theoretical framework that contextualizes our collective efforts has been provided by Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm.

Since 2012, Storm has been working to challenge the putative binary between religion and science by introducing a third term—“superstition”—into the model. Succinctly put, since the formation of the modern categories, “superstition” (typically identified with magic) has often been seen as both the false double of “religion” and a crucial enemy of scientific truth. By way...