Blogbeitrag Promises and Pitfalls

Scholars of digital religion, Ruth Tsuria and Heidi A. Campbell, define the field as exploring “how religion is taking place in digital environments and becoming informed by the key characteristics and ideology of digital media that can alter not only practice but the meaning-making process” (2022). This blog post specifically examines “digital ritual” within digital religion, focusing on religious rituals where communities and individuals use digital technologies to mediate, enhance, or innovate their experiences.

Since the public debut of the Internet in the 1990s, the integration of digital technologies into religious practices has deepened significantly. The variety and flexibility of digital rituals are demonstrated in the wide array of virtual and online practices and hybrid and offline experiences informed by digital media. For example, Buddhists chant mantras as they count rosary beads on their smartwatch, Hindu communities celebrate Navratri with ritual artists connecting to their audience through live streaming, and pilgrims make virtual pilgrimages along the Camino de Santiago while walking on treadmills at home.

As illustrated above, digital rituals can be asynchronous or synchronous, practiced individually or communally, allowing for real-time and delayed engagement in previously unheard-of ways. With the help of technological affordances, digital formats of ritual participation overcome locational and temporal constraints, enabling innovative forms of engagement and the emergence of diverse sources of authority that support individuality and anonymity. That said, the promises of digital rituals are only sometimes fulfilled under closer scrutiny.

One key issue is accessibility and inclusivity . Digital rituals are welcoming and inclusive, particularly for new participants and converts. Unlike physically entering and leaving a church service, logging anonymously into and out of Zoom meetings involves far less pressure and no need to travel. These merits, however, do not apply to those who cannot afford the necessary devices, are not tech-savvy, or have disabilities – including ritual specialists. The dependence on digital infrastructure and digital literacy became particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic (O’Lynn 2022).

The introduction of digital rituals has also raised concerns over theological legitimacy within religious communities. Ideally, digital rituals foster a sense of togetherness without physical co-presence, but is this enough for those seeking a participatory and communal experience? Who decides whether virtual rosary beads are as authentic and effective as physical ones? What should ritual specialists and devotees make of the computers and routers that enable digital sacraments? These questions are central to the ongoing debate about the authenticity and legitimacy of digital rituals within religious communities (Campbell 2020, Edelman et al. 2021).

Furthermore, as digital platforms enable interfaith dialogues and allow people to explore alternative forms of spirituality, they might also lead users to question established doctrines and ritual practices in their faith traditions. While this poses a challenge to traditional religious authorities, the detachment from an established denomination or religious institution greatly appeals to those who prefer more autonomy in their ritual experiences in the age of social diversification.

Yet, are they truly getting what they seek? Beneath the façade of the digital realm being multicultural and multivocal is the growing reliance on algorithmic recommendations that shape digital sociality (Chayka 2024). Digital rituals, like other forms of digital interaction, may promise open doors but can instead trap people in echo chambers, reinforcing biases and polarizing opinions. As we explore these digital avenues for ritual practice, it might be worth pondering: Are we expanding our horizons or confining them within digital boundaries?