Madang: Journal of Contextual Theology (Madang J Contextual Theol)
4
Weeks in Review
2
Weeks to Publication
Madang: Journal of Contextual Theology
Open access, Peer Reviewed
pISSN 1738-3196
eISSN 3091-7824
Weeks in Review
Weeks to Publication
Madang: Journal of Contextual Theology
Open access, Peer Reviewed
pISSN 1738-3196
eISSN 3091-7824
Volume 44, 139-154, December 2025.
Madang: Journal of Contextual Theology 2025;44:139-154. https://doi.org/10.58302/Madang.2025.44.10
Received on December 08, 2025, Revised on December 23, 2025, Accepted on December 23, 2025, Published on December 30, 2025.
Copyright © 2025 Author(s).
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
This paper examines the study of religion by connecting it with two core contemporary themes: Critical Post-humanism and the animal. Critical Post-humanism, which is distinct from technology-focused Transhumanism (Posthuman-ism), re-establishes the relationship with animals through four key features: a powerful critique of anthropocentrism, the deconstruction of the human-animal boundary, the demand for an ethical expansion toward new ethical forms, and its intersections with Human-Animal Studies (HAS).
The paper analyzes how religious studies have been influenced by the Animal Turn, noting the potential for significant contributions to scholarship. However, it also points out the risk that religious studies may treat the animal merely as an ‘object of study’ and fail to overcome anthropocentric bias.
To address this, the paper argues that religious studies must adopt the Critical Post-humanist perspective to critically re-evaluate its content and embrace the study of ‘entanglements’ involving humans and nonhuman entities. It must also actively engage in ethical practice toward the more-than-human world.
Additionally, based on the ontological parity premise of critical post-humanism, the paper explores the possibility of the animal as a subject of religious experience and considers animal religion as an affective, embodied process.
Critical Post-humanism, Animal Turn, Human-Animal Studies, Post-Anthropocentrism, Animals as Subjects of Religion
Among the numerous thematic issues that penetrate the current era, this paper will concentrate on two specific foci and connect them to the study of religion. These two focal points are post-humanism and the animal.
The rapid acceleration of the AI era, marked by the recent emergence of generative artificial intelligence, has made generative AI models such as ChatGPT and Gemini commonplace topics of discussion, while the AI industry has become a paramount national priority. Predictions about the AI age impacting all aspects of life and fundamentally altering human nature have given rise to the philosophical field of post-humanism, and the term “posthuman” has been a subject of considerable discussion for several years.
Concurrently, the burgeoning interest in animals, particularly in South Korea where the companion animal population has surpassed 10 million, correlates with a global increase in animal-themed research across the humanities and social sciences.
How, then, are post-humanism and the animal interrelated? At first glance, they may appear disconnected. This perception largely stems from the popular focus on only one facet of posthumanism—its relationship with technology, such as AI. In reality, however, discussions of the postuhuman fundamentally address not only the relationship between humans and machines but also the critical relationship between humans and animals.
Therefore, this paper will first examine the general characteristics of critical post-humanism— a perspective that is relatively less introduced in the domestic academic sphere—and explore its discourse on the relationship between humans and animals. Subsequently, it will identify the trends and limitations of religious studies influenced by animal studies. Finally, it will analyze the relationship between religion and animals from the perspective of critical post-humanism and discuss the possibility of the animal as a religious subject.
Posthuman thought is not a monolithic philosophical current but rather encompasses diverse ideological backgrounds and perspectives that approach the subject of the posthuman, generating a variety of interpretations. Despite this diversity, posthuman thought is conventionally categorized into two major strands.
The first strand of posthuman thought is closely associated with rapidly advancing science and technology and the discourse surrounding the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Since Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), introduced the 4IR as the key economic theme at the 2016 WEF in Davos (especially in South Korea), it has dominated discourses in the economic, industrial, and related academic sectors.
Over the past decade, posthuman studies conducted under the prevailing narrative of the 4IR have largely focused on the relationship between humans and machines and the transformation or enhancement of human nature through technology.
Groups discussing the posthuman from this viewpoint generally hold an optimistic outlook on technological progress, believing that scientific and technological development can innovate not only society but humanity itself. Since the ultimate goal is the innovation of the human being, this particular lineage of posthumanism can be alternatively termed Transhumanism.
Dilek Tüfekçi Can summarizes the definition of transhumanism concisely: “The term ‘transhumanism’, coined by Julian Huxley in 1957, and then, first defined in its current meaning by Max More in 1990, is a philosophical, scientific, and intellectual movement whose purpose is to make humans superior to their current biological state through innovative scientific and technological tools.”1
In Transhumanism, the human being is understood as an incomplete entity and an “ongoing project” (work-in-progress) that can be improved through technology, specifically the NBIC sciences (Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information, and Cognitive sciences).2 Similarly, Valera describes Transhumanism as a movement for human enhancement through technology. Ultimately, Transhumanism is defined as the process of moving beyond the human toward ‘posthumanity.’3
In this context, a specific condition is required when using the term Posthumanism interchangeably with Transhumanism: it must be read in the hyphenated form ‘Posthumanism’. This is because, predicated on the idea that ‘post’ signifies ‘after’, the term posthumanism implies an enhanced human after the current human state or the reinforcement of anthropocentrism.
The second strand of posthuman thought has evolved within intellectual circles that approach the posthuman from a trajectory distinct from that of trans-humanism, which targets human enhancement. In this iteration of post-humanism, the prefix ‘post’—in stark contrast to the aforementioned trans-humanism—is understood as ‘beyond’ or a form of ‘de-,’ signifying the overcoming of humanism.
This school of thought critiques and seeks to escape the paradigm of humanism or anthropocentrism that represents modernity, instead pursuing coexistence with non-human entities (machines, animals, and objects). Thus, to denote the overcoming of anthropocentrism, it is necessary to stylize the term as post-humanism. Given its engagement in critical inquiry regarding existing currents in the humanities, this variety of post-humanism is often termed Critical Post-humanism.
The discourse of post-humanism can be analyzed as possessing three primary characteristics.
First, ideologically, it critically inherits the anti-humanism inherent in postmodernism. Describing the historical decline of humanism with its Eurocentric and imperialist tendencies, Rosi Braidotti cites the activist anti-humanism led by the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s (feminism, post-colonialism, anti-racism, and post-structuralism) as her intellectual background.4 Citing feminist thinker Luce Irigaray, Braidotti points out that the ‘Vitruvian ideal of Man’—the standard of perfect proportions—is not a universal ideal. Rather, such an image is a representation signifying the “white, European, handsome and able-bodied.”5
Second, post-humanism levels a potent critique against the anthropocentrism deeply embedded in existing culture and thought. Francesca Ferrando, arguing similarly to the distinction made earlier between post-humanism and trans-humanism, notes:
“Posthumanism… criticizes anthropocentric humanism and opens its inquiry to non-human life: from animals to artificial intelligence, from aliens to other forms of hypothetical entities related to the physics notion of a multiverse.”6
According to Braidotti, “the latter [post-anthropocentrism] criticizes species hierarchy and human exceptionalism.”7 Braidotti further points out that the very establishment of the category of ‘human’ inherently implies discrimination,8 criticizing the structural rooting of anthropocentrism and Eurocentrism within the humanities.9 Consequently, Herbrechter defines post-humanism as “the ultimate humiliation of anthropocentrism.”10
Third, post-humanism pursues a relational and multiple post-human subject. The reason posthumanism views the human as a relational subject is that this philosophy moves away from the traditional perspective of the human as the center of the world, emphasizing instead the entanglements between humans and non-humans (machines, animals, and the environment). In other words, the human is no longer the ‘measure of all things,’ but an entity defined within relationships with diverse beings.
Meanwhile, the post-human is described as multiple because, even within a single human, the constituent elements are diverse and often heterogeneous. In this context, Valera explains the post-human subject through the dissolution of boundaries between inside and outside, and through hybridization. “The focal point of posthumanism consists not as such in an a-critical acceptance of the technological promises – like there is for transhumanism – but in a total contamination and hybridization of human beings with other living beings and machines.”11 Furthermore, post-humanists like Steven Benko point out that “[p]osthumanism, emerging as it does from poststructuralism, denies that there is such a thing as human nature.”12
However, Braidotti posits that the denial of an essentialist human nature does not necessarily negate the possibility of subject formation. Rather, she proposes the alternative of the posthuman subject:
In my own work, I define the critical posthuman subject within an eco-philosophy of multiple belongings, as a relational subject constituted in and by multiplicity, that is to say a subject that works across differences and is also internally differentiated, but still grounded and accountable.13
Thus, by defining the posthuman as a positive and relational subject, Braidotti suggests a new ethical framework that bears communal responsibility within the connection between human and non-human, moving beyond anthropocentrism.
Consequently, critical post-humanism emphasizes the relationship between humans and non-humans (‘earth others’), drawing inspiration from diverse intellectual currents such as post-colonial studies, race theory, and ecocriticism.
The ‘animal turn’ observed across the humanities and social sciences in recent decades represents a significant shift in scholarly focus, generating a renewed concentration on animals and animality. This is not merely a fleeting trend but a genuine paradigm shift in research.14 This transition coincided with the crisis of humanism and has substantially catalyzed the intellectual migration toward posthumanism. Its transformative impact on the humanities and social sciences is often compared to the ‘linguistic turn’ that revolutionized thought in these fields during the mid-20th century. 15
As Salzani states, “The so-called ‘animal turn’ of the past couple of decades brought about a new focus on animals and animality that traverses the whole spectrum of the Humanities and the Social Sciences.”As Salzani states, “The so-called ‘animal turn’ of the past couple of decades brought about a new focus on animals and animality that traverses the whole spectrum of the Humanities and the Social Sciences.”16
The animal turn serves as the impetus for an explosion of animal-related research across numerous disciplines, from interdisciplinary discussions with natural sciences (such as ethology) to fields like philosophy, history, sociology, geography, and psychology.
Given the pervasive influence of the animal turn across the humanities and social sciences, one can naturally surmise that it has generated a similar academic impact on the fields central to this paper: Post-Humanism and Religious Studies. This section will briefly examine how this new paradigm is discussed within Critical Post-Humanism and Religious Studies.
As previously noted, the interpretation of post-human thought in South Korea has largely centered on the relationship between humans and machines, or issues of human understanding and adaptation in the age of AI, primarily due to its introduction alongside the discourse of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the rise of the AI era.
However, for Critical Post-Humanism, which seeks co-existence with the Other, co-existence with animals is just as crucial as co-existence with machines. A post-humanist Cary Wolfe rightly states that “the animal question is part of the larger question of posthumanism.”17
Here, I will outline the diverse interpretations of the animal within the Critical Post-Humanism movement by grouping them into four common features.
Critical post-humanism’s critique of anthropocentrism directly leads to the strategy of dismantling the traditional boundary erected between the human and the animal. Donna Haraway is one of the foundational post-humanist scholars who has contributed significantly to the work of demolishing these boundaries.
The last beachheads of uniqueness have been polluted if not turned into amusement parks – language, tool use, social behaviour, mental events, nothing really convincingly settles the separation of human and animal. And many people no longer feel the need for such a separation […]. The cyborg appears in myth precisely where the boundary between human and animal is transgressed. Far from signalling a walling off of people from other living beings, cyborgs signal disturbingly and pleasurably tight coupling. Bestiality has a new status in this cycle of marriage exchange.19
Haraway contributed significantly to this deconstruction by shaking the human/animal dichotomy and bringing the concepts of interspecies entanglement and symbiosis to the forefront. Haraway subsequently supplemented and revised her earlier discussion centered on the ‘Cyborg’—a figure emphasizing the human-technology merge—moving toward the concept of ‘Companion Species.’ This transition highlights her intention to emphasize ‘relationality’ and ‘ethical responsibility,’ which can be easily overlooked in technology-utopian posthuman discourses (often associated with Trans-humanism).20
Krishanu Maiti also points out that post-humanist scholars analyze the representation of animals and the human-animal relationship through various theoretical perspectives (e.g., critical animal studies, posthumanism) with the explicit goal of dismantling the “hierarchical order of beings.”21
Post-Humanism asserts that animals must become objects of moral consideration and necessitates a new ethical framework for the human-animal relationship. Consequently, themes such as animal rights, animal welfare, vulnerability, and empathy frequently appear in posthumanist ethical discussions.
The ethical discourse centered on animals mandates a reevaluation of empathy and anthropomorphism. Traditionally, anthropomorphism was dismissed as unscientific or irrational; however, critical anthropomorphism can be embraced as a tool for expanding ethical imagination.
Nevertheless, post-humanist ethics warns against the danger that “claims of equivalence (animal rights/equality)” might paradoxically result in the erasure of difference (the animal’s unique subjectivity). This happens when such claims transfer human criteria (intelligence, language, reason) onto animals, potentially reverting to an extended form of humanism.22
Therefore, posthuman ethics must transcend the limitations of both simple expansion (equating animals with humans) and exclusive exclusion (maintaining anthropocentrism). It must seek ‘new ethical forms’. As argued by Salzani, “A posthumanist ethics must overcome the limits of the all-too rationalistic traditional ethics and open not only to new forms of subjectivity and alterity, but also to new ways and modes of relation and agency.”23
Crucially, the animal ethics pursued by Critical Post-Humanism does not rely on a model of benevolence toward animals, as charity inherently risks presupposing the superiority of the giver. Instead, post-humanists often employ the strategy of ‘becoming-animal,’ deriving ethical action from an empathetic engagement with the animal from a position of equivalence. This ‘becoming’ fosters a shared ethical space that respects difference while enacting responsibility. Maiti evaluates that Deleuze and Guattari who suggest concept of ‘becominganimal’ in A Thousand Plateau. “They develop this concept to capture the idea of humananimal relationships based on affinity rather than identity or imitation.”24 Following Deleuze and Guattari, Braidotti, who defines “the posthuman as becoming-animal,”25 also suggests an ethical strategy, “the recognition of deep zoe-egalitarianism between humans and animals” for postanthropocentrism.26
Human-Animal Studies (HAS) and Critical Animal Studies (CAS) are fields that mutually influence and are influenced by Post-Humanism. HAS is not simply the study of animals; it focuses on the interactions between humans and animals and how humans perceive and represent animals. Margo DeMello defines HAS as the research of “the spaces that animals occupy in human social and cultural worlds and the interactions humans have with them.”27
HAS has significantly impacted the formation of Critical Post-Humanism. However, while HAS explores the entanglement of humans and animals, Post-Humanism philosophically and politically expands the scope of this relational entanglement.
For example, the post-humanist scholar Donna Haraway, whose background includes the history of science, incorporates research on human-animal relationships from both natural sciences and humanities provided by HAS. Yet, she philosophically suggests that “the ‘significant otherness’ of our ‘companion species’ should always be respected,… If we cannot perceive and value the otherness of animals, we cannot imagine our moral relationship with them.” Haraway thus argues that humans and animals are entangled, and the ‘difference’ of the animal must be respected. 28
To synthesize the points examined thus far, critical post-humanism, through the lens of the Animal Turn, fundamentally critiques anthropocentrism and actively works to deconstruct the boundary between humans and animals. Furthermore, predicated on the notion that humans and animals are connected through corporeality, affectivity, and relationality, post-humanism demands not only a posthuman subjectivity but also new humanities and an ethical system that accounts for this profound interdependence. This shift moves us toward a radical re-imagining of what constitutes life, ethics, and scholarship.
Throughout the long history of humankind, animals have been ever-present in diverse global religious traditions. In many religions, animals are considered sacred beings, and numerous religious narratives depict deities appearing in animal form. Certain animals are prohibited from consumption for religious reasons. While religion certainly harbors traditions that highly value animals, there are simultaneously traditions that deemphasize or even denigrate them. Animals have been used as sacrificial offerings to deities in various religions, and specific animals have been regarded as symbols of evil. There is also a history where religious beliefs or ideologies have been used as justification for the oppression of animals. 29
However, the academic field of religious studies only began a systematic self-reflection on the role of animals following the influence of the Animal Turn across the humanities and social sciences. Now, interdisciplinary research focusing on animals as subjects of study and on the human-animal relationship is being conducted not only by traditional natural sciences (like biology and ethology) but also by humanities fields such as history, geography, and sociology. As mentioned before, this confluence of scholarly work is referred to as Human-Animal Studies (HAS).
This new intellectual current has naturally led religious studies, a field within the humanities, to adopt animals as a significant subject of research. Thus, independently of the Critical PostHumanism discourse detailed above, the interaction of religious studies with other animal studies disciplines has brought animals into focus as a crucial research theme. In this context, scholarly works have been published in recent decades analyzing how animals are treated within major world religions (e.g., Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism) and suggesting directions for desirable animal ethics within those specific religious frameworks. 30
Given the relatively short history of active Human-Animal Studies, the potential for religious studies to contribute to this field appears significant. Several research possibilities emerge:
First, re-reading religious history from the Animal’s Perspective: Religious history is as old as human history itself. Following the Animal Turn, history has begun viewing human history not solely as the history of Homo sapiens but from the new perspective of the human-animal relationship. Hidden stories of animals within human history will not only enrich human history but also reveal concealed religious histories.
Secondly, religious phenomena as Inter-species events: Post-HAS, religious phenomena can no longer be interpreted as solely human affairs. Behind the diverse religious rites, acts, and customs performed by participants in various religious traditions, an animal agent exists—whether the animal is imaginary or a real-world entity. Therefore, research in the phenomenology of religion that presupposes the human-animal interaction is necessary.
Thirdly, Hermeneutics of Animal Textual Presence: Post-HAS, religious hermeneutics must consider the animals appearing in various religious texts as crucial interpretive elements. This requires a historical-critical approach to understand how the animals depicted in a text were perceived at the time of the text’s formation. Concurrently, a reader-response critical approach is needed to explore how readers, standing in their present horizon, should critically receive and interpret religious texts featuring animals.
However, this paper aims to point out one critical caution that religious studies must heed as it pursues interdisciplinary engagement with various Human-Animal Studies fields and develops itself anew.
The following discussion examines some examples of religious studies conducted in the wake of the Animal Turn. Bora Sax, widely recognized as a researcher on the relationship between humans and animals, presents evidence suggesting that animal deities preceded anthropomorphic gods in human history. Prehistoric cave paintings in Europe depict animals far more frequently than humans, and the cave bear shrine discovered in Switzerland is considered one of the oldest known places of worship. Early humans were likely awed by the remarkable physical abilities of animals or revered them as gods due to their profound and mysterious otherness from humankind. 31
Even beyond prehistory, animals have appeared countless times across cultures as religious objects and symbols. In the Egyptian religious system, major deities such as Anubis (jackal), Bastet (cat), and Horus (falcon) were depicted in animal form, reflecting the belief that animals were directly connected to the sacred realm. The existence of millions of animal mummies further demonstrates the conviction that these creatures continued to play spiritual roles in the afterlife. In Greek mythology, Zeus transformed into animals such as the eagle and the bull, thereby dissolving the boundary between divinity and animality. In Rome, the practice of augury—interpreting the will of the gods through the behavior of birds—developed into a significant religious custom.32
Meanwhile, following the era of Animal Turn, renewed emphasis has been placed on the ways in which traditional world religions have treated animals with humanity. Hinduism teaches that all living beings possess a soul (atman) and upholds the principle of ahimsa (non-violence). Within Hindu belief, animals such as cows, elephants, and monkeys are venerated, and divine incarnations (avatars) often appear in animal form. Buddhism, through the concept of Buddhanature, regards all living beings as possessing the potential for enlightenment, extending the scope of compassion (metta) to include animals as well.33
In Christianity, humans are designated as the “stewards” of animals, yet it is also emphasized that all creatures were deemed good in the sight of God. “Scholars like Andrew Linzey have argued for the theological significance of animals as God’s creatures deserving of moral consideration.” 34
Judaism, through the principle of tza’ar ba’alei chayim (the prevention of animal suffering), regards animals as subjects of respect and protection. Islam, guided by the principles of khalifa (stewardship) and tawhid (divine unity), explicitly calls for the humane treatment of animals. Islamic law (sharia) includes prohibitions against cruelty to animals as well as regulations for humane slaughter.35
In Japanese traditional belief, animals were at times revered as divine messengers or sacred beings. However, Katsuhiro Kohara points out the problem in modern society of consuming livestock as food while losing a sense of gratitude toward them, urging the recovery of the wisdom of symbiosis. 36
There is a risk that, even in religious studies after post-Animal Turn, the animal may be used only as a theme for religious research—in other words, merely as an object of study. This encounter between Human-Animal Studies and religious studies might regrettably end up as merely a diversification or expansion of religious studies’ research topics, failing to prevent the discipline from continuing to marginalize animals in the real world, just as they have been historically marginalized in human and religious narratives. The following section will discuss measures to counteract this potential pitfall.
The previous section highlighted the risk that animals might be treated merely as a topic or object of study in religious studies, even after the Animal Turn. To circumvent this danger, this paper asserts that Religious Studies must adopt the perspective of Critical Post-Humanism to re-examine the relationship between religion and animals and seek a new scholarly role for the discipline.
The preceding Section 3.2 outlined four characteristics of Critical Post-Humanism related to the interpretation of the animal. Here, the proposed alliance between religious studies and Critical Post-Humanism will be explained in relation to three of those key features.37
If religious studies is to seriously embrace the perspective of Critical Post-Humanism, the discipline must critically self-evaluate its content and methodology for any contamination by anthropocentric bias. The comparative religion scholar Kocku von Stuckrad points out the discipline’s lukewarm response to the challenge of Critical Post-Humanism, criticizing that: “the study of religion has itself been part of patriarchal, colonial, capitalist, and anthropocentric regimes of mastery and exploitation.”38
Meaghan S. Weatherdon anticipates that animal studies and indigenous traditions will contribute to a new direction for religious studies, stating that “Centering animals”—a core project of critical post-humanism—“invites religious studies scholars to critically reconsider the f ield’s privileging of human beings as the only social, political, and religious actors.” 39
The work of critiquing anthropocentrism leads to the dismantling of the traditional superiority complex between humans and animals. Humans are no longer regarded as inherently special beings distinct from animals; rather, humans and animals are interconnected entities.
However, the relational framework viewed by Post-Humanism is even more complex. This is because the relational network between humans and animals is also interwoven with non-living entities such as the environment, objects, and matter. Following the terminology of Karen Barad, Post-Humanism refers to this as entanglement. .
Stuckrad argues that religious studies should adopt as its research subject the beings (existents) within this entanglement.
…the transversal alliance that can be built around what today is called the academic study of religion would (tentatively) include the following: human agents across the most diverse groups of people, with special attention to underrepresented voices; nonhuman agents, including living subject–objects such as animals and plants, but also subject–objects such as gods, ancestors, or spirits; earth-others (landscapes, waters, ecosystems, stars); nonhuman organic and inorganic agents (plastic, wires, algor- ithms, paintings and art works, but also material products of religious practice); techno- logicallymediated elements (such as archaeological sources, books, TVs, computers, smartphones); diverse soundscapes (without hegemonic differentiation between ‘music’ and other sounds 40
Critical Post-Humanism is not content to remain at the level of theoretical critique of anthropocentrism; it emphasizes ethical responsibility and praxis toward non-human entities.
Therefore, the re-establishment of religious studies from the Critical Post-Humanist perspective cannot halt at theoretical debates about religion. Rather, a post-humanist religious studies actively engages in making ethical judgments regarding real-world issues, such as systems of domination and exploitation toward non-human beings, or colonial violence.
This engagement seeks to achieve animal welfare, the restoration of kinship relations, and the establishment of new horizontal relationships as co-inhabitants of the Earth. Stuckrad describes the ethical action of the religious scholar toward non-human beings as an “active engagement with the more-than-human world.” While Stuckrad defines “the basic feature of religious discourses” as “the active organisation of human entanglements with the more-than-human world,” he asks scholars of religion including himself to “have always taken seriously the active human engagement with the more-than- human world.” 41
As examined thus far, critical post-humanism can be considered a theoretical and philosophical framework capable of guiding religious studies toward a new paradigm following the ‘Animal Turn.’ From this perspective, religious studies overcomes traditional anthropocentrism, expanding its research scope by considering animals alongside numerous non-human entities. Furthermore, a post-humanist religious studies possesses the potential to make an ethical contribution to the world co-constituted by human and non-human beings.
Despite the advantages brought about by this convergence of religious studies and PostHumanism, the latter presents a challenging problem for the former: As discussed previously, post-humanism posits that animals hold an ontological parity with humans and are active agents that co-constitute the world, just like humans. The question then arises: Can animals be conceived of as religious subjects, just as humans are?
While few scholars currently discuss animals as religious subjects, we can explore this possibility through the thesis of a representative figure: Donovan O. Schaefer.
In contrast to traditional religious studies and even post-humanism-influenced religious scholarship, which tends to focus on ethical stances toward animals or the exploration of animal meanings in religious beliefs or texts, Schaefer centers his inquiry on “the religious experiences of animals themselves.”42
Schaefer begins with the findings of cognitive ethology, which establishes an evolutionary continuity between humans and animals like primates, and proceeds to ask whether a continuity of religious experience exists between them.
Additionally, Schaefer analyzes parts of major religious traditions (e.g., Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Indigenous religions) that have recognized animals as religious subjects.
Jewish texts (the Torah and the Talmud) emphasize the affectionate relationship between animals and God, viewing animals as registers of a divine presence that perceive God’s presence before humans do. For example, in the conclusion of the Book of Jonah, God expresses concern not only for the people of Nineveh but also for its “many animals.” This perspective supports the idea that animals, like humans, participate in the sacred community of the Abrahamic tradition, with each creature praising God in its own unique way and thereby contributing to divine perfection. 43
In Hindu and Buddhist traditions, the system of reincarnation suggests a radical ontological continuity between humans and animals. Narratives such as the cow Lakshmi or the elephant leader Gajendra attaining mukti (spiritual liberation) illustrate that animals are collectively included in the cosmic progression toward enlightenment. These traditions imply that humans and animals are fundamentally intertwined within the same religious economy.
44In many Native American traditions, animals occupy central roles in cosmogonic sacred narratives, possessing importance and power equal to that of humans. Including animals, “all beings, human and nonhuman alike, are part of the same continuum of energy that is at the heart of the universe”45
In the Christian tradition, animals appear not merely as symbols but as “a conscious, moral subject.” “The sacred history, though often obscured, suggests that animals may indeed be counted among the holy ones in the Christian tradition.”46
In Islam, it is explicitly stated that all animals form “communities like unto you,” and they are taught to possess a soul as well as resurrection. Moreover, all creatures are understood to praise God, with animals endowed with their own unique languages. Thus, the Islamic tradition can be interpreted as affirming that animals are designed to worship God in ways particular to their own embodied forms. 47 As a result, Schaefer discovers a premise that “animal religion is best understood not as belief, but as an experience, an emotion, an embodied process.”48
According to Schaefer, then the evidence for animal religion found within religious traditions is consistent with the evidence for animal religion found through cognitive ethology. This alignment reinforces the argument for considering animals as genuine religious subjects.
“Animal religion, cognitive ethology suggests, is a product of bodies constructed inside particular evolutionary-historical lineages—affective, pre-linguistic bodies.”49 Shaefer finally reaches a conclusion for animal religion like the following:
An account of animal religion must be inaugurated by diagramming the possibility of invisible systems of bodily affect animating the distinct geographies of animal experience. These geographies emerge directly out of the vast variety of animal bodies and can take observable forms in practices, such as burying of the dead or waterfall dances, or non- observable forms—embedded in the subtle dynamic between bodies and worlds.50
Schaefer’s conclusion does not necessarily imply that the content of animals’ religious experiences is identical to that of humans. Furthermore, even if animals do have religious experiences, Schaefer’s research alone is insufficient to determine whether animals feel sensations similar to those humans have toward their objects of faith.
Nevertheless, if there is a demonstrated similarity in observable affect and behavior between humans and animals, it becomes tenable to speak of the animal as a subject of religion.
Moving forward, religious studies, guided by critical post-humanism, must not only treat the animal as one of its central research themes but also embark on a path of deeper religious inquiry predicated on the hypothetical premise of the animal as a subject of religion.
The intersection of critical post-humanism and religious studies, which this paper has explored, should not only establish animals as a primary subject of religious inquiry but also pave the way for more profound research based on the hypothetical premise of “animals as religious subjects.” As a preparatory step for this next phase, this conclusion discusses the theoretical implications and social contributions of this study.
First, discourse on Human-Animal Studies (HAS), critical post-humanism, and the resulting shifts in religious studies has only recently gained traction within the Korean humanities and social sciences. However, given the burgeoning social interest in non-human animals in Korea, this field holds significant growth potential. Consequently, by examining animal-centered religious research through a post-humanist lens, this study contributes to the enrichment of this emerging academic discourse.
Second, traditional religious studies have been predominantly anthropocentric, rooted in the long-held belief that religious practice is an exclusively human attribute. Yet, in the post-human era, it is imperative to seek a post-anthropocentric transition within religious and theological scholarship. In this regard, this paper signifies a meaningful participation in the paradigm shift of religious studies.
Third, the Sewol ferry tragedy starkly revealed a deeply embedded culture of “disregard for life” within our society. Crucially, the concept of “life” here must encompass non-human entities as well as humans. In this context, this study contributes to fostering a culture of bio-respect by providing an epistemological momentum for recognizing the sanctity of human-animal interconnections and the intrinsic value of all life forms.
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF- 2020S1A5B5A16083943).
Benko, Steven. “Ethics, Technology, and Posthuman Communities.” Essays in Philosophy 6, no. 1 (2005): 1-28.
Braidotti, Rosi. The Posthuman. Polity, 2013.
Braidotti, Rosi. “A Theoretical Framework for the Critical Posthumanities.” Theory, Culture & Society 36, no. 6 (2019): 31-61.
DeMello, Margo. Animals and Society: an Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.
Ferrando, Francesca. “Towards a Posthumanist Methodology: A Statement.” Frame: Journal for Literary Studies 25, no. 1 (2012): 9–18.
Foltz, Richard. Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures. Oxford: Oneworld, 2006.
Haraway, D. J. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century, in Id. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, New York 1991.
Kohara, Katsuhiro. “Japanese Ethical Attitudes to Animals.” Dharma World 44 (January–June 2017): 6–8.
Linzey, Andrew. Animal Theology. University of Illinois Press ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995.
Maiti, Krishanu, ed. Animals in Posthumanist Thought: An Introduction. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2021.
Phelps, Norm. The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights. NY: Lantern Books, 2004.
Rawal, Deepak. “Animals in Mythology, Theology and Culture.” Gradiva Review Journal 11, no. 7 (2025): 283–287.
Salzani, Carlo. “From Post-Human to Post-Animal: Posthumanism and the ‘Animal Turn.’” Lo Sguardo – rivista di filosofia 24 (2017): 97-109.
Sax, Boria. “Animals in Religion.” Society & Animals 2, no. 2 (1994): 167–174.
Schaefer, Donovan O. “Do Animals Have Religion? Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Religion and Embodiment.” Anthrozoös 25 (sup1) 2012. : s173–89. doi:10.2752/175303712X13353430377291.
Stuckrad, Kocku von. “Undisciplining the Study of Religion: Critical Posthumanities and More-than-Human Ways of Knowing.” Religion 53 (4) (2023): 616–35. doi:10.1080/0048721X.2023.2258705.
Toperoff, Shlomo. Animal Kingdom in Jewish Thought. Northvale, NJ: J. Aronson, 1995.
Tüfekci Can, D. “Reinterpreting human in the digital age: From anthropocentricism to posthumanism and transhumanism.” Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning. 6(4) (2023): 981-990. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1341232
Valera, Luca. “Posthumanism: Beyond Humanism?.” Cuadernos de bioética 25, no. 85 (2014): 481-491.
Waldau, Paul. “Guest Editor’s Introduction: Religion and Other Animals: Ancient Themes, Contemporary Challenges.” Society & Animals 8, no. 3 (2000): 227–233.
Weatherdon, Meaghan S. “Religion, Animals, and Indigenous Traditions,” Religions 13, no. 7 (2022).
Wolfe, Cary. What Is Posthumanism? University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
1 D. Tüfekci Can, “Reinterpreting human in the digital age: From anthropocentricism to posthumanism and transhumanism,” Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 6(4) (2023): 984. https://doi.org/10.31681/ jetol.1341232
2 Ibid., 985.
3 Luca Valera, “Posthumanism: Beyond Humanism?,” Cuadernos de bioética 25, no. 85 (2014): 482.
4 Rosi Braidotti, The Posthuman (Polity, 2013), 16.
5 Ibid., 22.
6 Francesca Ferrando, “Towards a Posthumanist Methodology: A Statement,” Frame: Journal for Literary Studies 25, no. 1 (2012): 10.
7 Rosi Braidotti, “A Theoretical Framework for the Critical Posthumanities,” Theory, Culture & Society 36, no. 6 (2019): 2.
8 Ibid., 5.
9 Ibid., 8.
10 Tüfekci Can, “Reinterpreting human in the digital age: From anthropocentricism to posthumanism and transhumanism,” 982-983..
11 Luca Valera, “Posthumanism: Beyond Humanism?,” Cuadernos de bioética 25, no. 85 (2014): 481.
12 Steven Benko, “Ethics, Technology, and Posthuman Communities,” Essays in Philosophy 6, no. 1 (2005): 2
13 Braidotti, The Posthuman, 49.
14 Carlo Salzani, “From Post-Human to Post-Animal: Posthumanism and the ‘Animal Turn’,” Lo Sguardo – rivista di filosofia 24, no. 2 (2017): 97-98.
15 Ibid., 98.
16 Ibid., 97.
17 Cary Wolfe, What Is Posthumanism? (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), xxii.
18 Salzani, “From Post-Human to Post-Animal,” 100-101.
19 D. J. Haraway, A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century, in Id., Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, (New York 1991), pp. 151-152.
20 Salzani, “From Post-Human to Post-Animal,” 98-100.
21 Krishanu Maiti, ed., Animals in Posthumanist Thought: An Introduction (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2021), 1-2.
22 Salzani, “From Post-Human to Post-Animal,” 103-105.
23 Ibid., 106.
24 Maiti, ed., Animals in Posthumanist Thought, 6.
25 Braidotti, The Posthuman, 67
26 Ibid., 71.
27 Margo DeMello, Animals and Society: an Introduction to Human-Animal Studies (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), 4.
28 Maiti, ed., Animals in Posthumanist Thought, 6.
29 Margo DeMello, Animals and Society: an Introduction to Human-Animal Studies, trans. Myounsun Cheon and Joonghun Cho (Seoul: Gongjon, 2018), 397-418.
30 Representative scholarly works focusing on animals within major religious traditions include: Andrew Linzey, Animal Theology (London: SCM, 1994); Shlomo Toperoff, Animal Kingdom in Jewish Thought (Northvale, NJ: J. Aronson, 1995); Richard Foltz, Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures (Oxford: Oneworld, 2006); and Norm Phelps, The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights (NY: Lantern Books, 2004). These studies commonly reveal both the favorable and unfavorable traditions concerning animals within their respective religions and collectively call for the active implementation of animal ethics by the researchers’ religious communities.
31 Boria Sax, “Animals in Religion,” Society & Animals 2, no. 2 (1994): 167.
32 Deepak Rawal, “Animals in Mythology, Theology and Culture,” Gradiva Review Journal 11, no. 7 (2025): 283.
33 Ibid., 284
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 Katsuhiro Kohara, “Japanese Ethical Attitudes to Animals,” Dharma World January–June 2017.
37 The reason for excluding the characteristic of intersections with Animal Studies (3.2.4.) from this section (4.1.) is that the encounter between Religious Studies and Animal Studies has already been discussed in the preceding section (3.3.).
38 Kocku von Stuckrad. “Undisciplining the Study of Religion: Critical Posthumanities and More-than-Human Ways of Knowing,” Religion 53 (4) (2023): 617, doi:10.1080/0048721X.2023.2258705.
39 Meaghan S. Weatherdon, “Religion, Animals, and Indigenous Traditions,” Religions 13, no. 7 (2022): 2.
40 Stuckrad. “Undisciplining the Study of Religion: Critical Posthumanities and More-than-Human Ways of Knowing,” 630.
41 Ibid., 631-632.
42 Donovan O. Schaefer, “Do Animals Have Religion? Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Religion and Embodiment,” Anthrozoös 25 (sup1) (2012): s173. doi:10.2752/175303712X13353430377291.
43 Ibid., S173-174.
44 Ibid., S174–S175
45 Ibid., S175-176.
46 Ibid., S176.
47 Ibid., S177
48 Ibid., S180.
49 Ibid., S185.
50 Ibid., S186.