The decline of the Theosophical Movement and the Theosophical Society since the 1930’s has been attributed to many factors, by Theosophists, but there are no reasons more influential than defining Theosophy and H.P.B.’s writings as Satanism. Per Faxneld, Faculty of Humanities at Stockholm University has presented Theosophy and H.P.B.’s writings as “Esoteric Satanism” and “Satanic Feminism.”
We are taking a hiatus from delving into issues about pseudo-theosophical influences. Scholars don’t care about disputes among Theosophists, but rather the historical and political implications of Theosophical ideas and Helena P. Blavatsky within the wider nineteenth-century context of literature and social movement. Poets, socialists, feminists, and French occultists held similar ideas within a counter-hegemonic reading of Genesis Chapter 3. This “reinterpretation,” he says, is the portrayal of Satan as a positive symbol, in the shape of the serpent who brings gnosis and liberates mankind. Per Faxneld and Lee Penn have both used scholarship.
The conclusion of Per Faxneld betrays his persistent labeling of Blavatsky’s writings as Satanism. This has not prevented those in the past, whom believed “the United Nations has been infused with the evil New Age religion of Theosophy which reveres Lucifer.”
Theosophists do not revere or celebrate Lucifer, or Satan.
In a 2012 Journal, Temenos of The Finnish Society for the Study of Religion, Per Faxneld basically argues that Helena P. Blavatsky teaches an Esoteric Satanism in his paper: Blavatsky the Satanist: Luciferianism in Theosophy and its Implications. In the abstract, Per Faxneld argues, Theosophy propagates an “unembarrassed Satanism,” and this has had “feminist implications.” On page 212-13 Per Faxneld admits of his bewilderment, and discounts the discrepancies he finds, as inconsistencies of Blavatsky’s cosmology.
This is his confusing conclusion:
“Nothing of this is all the same to suggest Blavatsky was not in earnest as an esoteric thinker, nor would I want to take a reductionist approach to her writings and say they were really about something else than esotericism. However, opting for a religionist stance and viewing esotericism as a lofty, perennial category more or less disconnected from the world at large is not a reasonable alternative either. Rather, I propose that we view her ‘Satanism’ as an expression of a religious cosmology and as filled with both political implications and strategic didactic maneuvers, all of these strongly colored by contemporary radical use of the figure of Satan. The political implications for the feminist cause of her (limited) ‘Satanism’ were, as we have seen, picked up on and utilized as a polemical weapon by feminist Theosophist Susan E. Gay when she attacked Christian defenders of patriarchy. Such consequences, as well as the similarities with for example socialist Lucifers, may or may not have been intentional on Helena Petrovna Blavatsky’s part. We will never know for sure. Yet, with a shrewd and alert woman like her, it would seem most likely she was fully conscious of quite a few of these dimensions of her ‘Satanism’ all along.”
It is careful to note, that Helena P. Blavatsky intentionally called her magazine Lucifer, to troll Christians and ruffle them.