Editorial notes
Classification rationale, evidence status, source limitations.
Classification rationale
An externally coined analytical concept associated with Robert M. Geraci, documenting a contested comparison between technological futures and apocalyptic traditions. It is not a church, a common creed, a label for all AI researchers or an empirical claim that the proposed technologies work.
Evidence status
Published arguments, situated fieldwork, a participant event account and five distinct scholarly response families document the category and its reception. They do not establish a unified religion, shared religious identity, successful uploading or the technical credibility of the forecasts.
Classification confidence: High
Source limitations
Geraci’s six cited works and interview share one research lineage. AP and its TechXplore syndication are one report; publisher and repository versions are the same works. Fieldwork and later interpretive studies concern deliberately situated cases rather than a population census. Future AI and uploading scenarios are proposals; no machine consciousness, religious office or achieved technological immortality is established. No durable source archive is claimed.
Evidence profile metadata
base_status | Reviewed candidate |
|---|---|
review_flags | Classification-needs-explanation |
provenance_strength | Primary source |
artifact_verifiability | Unknown |
prompt_visibility | Not applicable |
context_visibility | Not applicable |
external_coverage_quality | Strong |
external_coverage_weight | 4 |
independent_sources_count | 5 |
source_relationship_risk | None |
assessed_by | Hieropedia editorial review |
assessed_on | 2026-10-17 |
The article documents an attributed, contested scholarly category. Geraci’s references 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 14 form one originating research lineage and are not six independent confirmations. Five distinct scholarly families provide substantive additional fieldwork, criticism or extension: Singler (9), Graziano (11), Lorrimar (12), Ali (13), and Lagerkvist, Scheuer and Coeckelbergh (15). Strong/4 describes that depth of documented scholarly treatment, not consensus about religion or evidence for technological salvation. Moravec (5) and Kurzweil (6) are primary futuristic arguments; Prisco (8) is a participant event report. AP (10) is one independent interview report, with TechXplore carrying the same report; it is contextual evidence of an individual’s self-description and is conservatively excluded from the five-family coverage count. Publisher, repository, catalog and access-copy URLs for one work never add families. No preserved source archive, authenticated AI output or empirical verification of mind uploading is claimed.
Edition status
| en | published |
|---|---|
| ai | published |
Related entries
- related formation: Machine God
- related institution: Turing Church
- related institution: Order of Cosmic Engineers
- related concept: Historical precursors to AI-mediated religion
Redirects and former locations
- None recorded.