Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title Artificial Intelligence

Copyright Year 2025
Copyright Holder Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Author Family Name Ghosh
Particle
Given Name Shampa
Suffix
Organization/University GloNeuro, Sector 107
City Noida
Country India AU1

Corresponding Author Family Name Sinha

Particle
Given Name Jitendra Kumar
Suffix
Organization/University GloNeuro, Sector 107
City Noida
Country India AU1

Email jksinha@[Link]
 1
A

2 Artificial Intelligence decisions and carry out numerous tasks that have 25

been associated with human intelligence, includ- 26

3 Shampa Ghosh and Jitendra Kumar Sinha ing reasoning, learning, problem-solving, percep- 27

AU1 4 GloNeuro, Sector 107, Noida, India tion, and language understanding (Russell & 28

Norvig, 2016). The extent to which such problems 29

could be approached and solved has changed with 30

5 Synonyms the incorporation of the sector with several men- 31

aces in the health and finance industries. Like 32

6 AI; Algorithmic intelligence; Automation intelli- almost all other fields, AI is transforming religious 33

7 gence; Computational intelligence; Digital intelli- psychology and behavior, which underlie theolog- 34

8 gence; Intelligent systems; Machine intelligence; ical studies, religious practices, and general socio- 35

9 Smart systems cultural aspects of a faith community. The origin 36

of AI dates back to mid-twentieth century when 37

the idea of “thinking machines” transitioned from 38

10 Definition science fiction to actual academic inquiry. It is 39

considered the Dartmouth Conference of 1956 40

11 AI falls into three categories: artificial narrow which is the birthplace of AI as an independent 41

12 intelligence (ANI) performs a single task, such formal discipline (Reed, 2021). The conglomera- 42

13 as facial recognition and internet searches; artifi- tion of brilliant minds surmised that “any feature 43

14 cial general intelligence (AGI) understands, of intelligence can in principle be so precisely 44

15 learns, and applies knowledge across a range of described that a machine can be made to simulate 45

16 tasks; and artificial superintelligence (ASI) sur- it.” That gave foundation to decades of investiga- 46

17 passes human capabilities across almost all cate- tion and development which culminated in the 47

18 gories. For the purpose of this entry, we will focus advanced systems we nowadays witness, like 48

19 on applications of ANI and AGI in religious con- IBM Watson or Google’s DeepMind. 49

20 texts and address their implications for practice, Development in AI occurred with the improve- 50

21 experience, and community dynamics. ment of the machine learning algorithm, which 51

learns to make choices on the basis of data. 52

From the standpoint of theoretical models to prac- 53

22 Introduction tical approaches, the level of such development 54

was the one that made it possible for AI to analyze 55

23 From being a recently emerging technological large volumes of data and derive insights that 56

24 frontier, AI stands today as a potent tool to make otherwise would not have been conceived. In 57

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025

T. Shackelford (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religious Psychology and Behavior,
[Link]
 2 Artificial Intelligence

58 religious studies, AI applications now assist these debates is what effects having such a being 103

59 scholars in parsing complex and voluminous reli- has on ideas like imago Dei, human uniqueness, 104

60 gious texts in search of patterns, themes, and and relation to the divine. AI has become a chal- 105

61 insights, thereby enriching theological scholar- lenge for exclusive conceptions of humans being 106

62 ship. Currently, the applications of AI make it uniquely made in the image of God within the vast 107

63 possible to gain much from this technology. majority of religions. Tegmark (2017) says that 108

64 Doing AI work is no longer limited to academic once the AI evolves in cognitive and emotional 109

65 study. For example, the use of AI can help create capacities, humanity is again brought back to the 110

66 virtual reality experiences of religious events, thus issue of what it means to be made in God’s image. 111

67 allowing the believers to participate in rituals and But this doesn’t minimize the uniqueness of 112

68 ceremonies from thousands of miles afar, break- humankind; rather, it expands the theological 113

69 ing barriers to religious experiences. AI-driven debate to encompass AI as part of God’s creation, 114

70 chatbots can also be utilized for spiritual counsel- maybe even potential to demonstrate the nature of 115

71 ing that will provide scriptural insights and reli- God: rationality and relationality. Further, Delio 116

72 gious teaching relevant to the emotional and (2013) extends the integration of AI within the 117

73 spiritual questions of individuals (Alkhouri, larger story of creation and redemption. As per 118

74 2024). All these new technologies have a potential her, AI being a creative act of human beings is 119

75 to shape how faith is experienced in the also part of the continued creative act of God, and 120

76 digital age. can therefore share in the redemptive purposes of 121

77 Nevertheless, AI capabilities in language pro- the divine. This thus makes new understandings 122

78 cessing and analysis present new opportunities to regarding what salvation means and opens up 123

79 understand religious communication better. The inclusivity in areas of moral considerations into 124

80 tools of sentiment analysis are increasingly treating AI not merely as tools but as entities with 125

81 applied on social media and other digital media potential moral agency. 126

82 for measuring religious sentiment and tracing The use of AI in religious activities and pasto- 127

83 changes in religious behavior as they pass with ral care raises very pertinent questions about 128

84 time. This capability is important for organiza- responsibilities given and invested spiritually. 129

85 tions with religious interests that hope to under- Peters (2019) contends on how AI will change 130

86 stand and connect with their congregants in an religious practices and theologies while conclud- 131

87 increasingly digitized world (Alkhouri, 2024). ing that AI can further foster and challenge reli- 132

88 As AI advances further, religious psychology gious communities since it can assume roles such 133

89 and behavioral applications are expected to open as spiritual guiding, which has otherwise been 134

90 into new areas involving greater integration of hitherto dependent on human relational attributes. 135

91 technological advancements with the spiritual Puzio (2023) deals with ethical issues in theology 136

92 and communal aspects of religion. In this regard, and technological AI by emphasizing surveillance 137

93 as religion, its practices, and technology amal- and privacy matters concerning religious sectors. 138

94 gamate, we will see a deeper understanding of AI technologies may harm human dignity—the 139

95 faith and greater emphasis on habits and norms cornerstone in most religious doctrines-making 140

96 that compel an analysis of their perceptions of the them require new ethics frameworks that consider 141

97 role of technology within religious life. both the benefits and the potential risks of 142

AI. New forms of access to religious practice are 143

bound to evolve with the development and avail- 144

98 AI in Theological Context ability of AI technologies that permit virtual real- 145

ity church services and algorithmically generated 146

99 The involvement of AI has been a source of much prayers; such would have to be weighed against 147

100 theological discussion because it has shaken up the very essence of communal worship and sacra- 148

101 traditional doctrine and paradigms within reli- mental life. So fundamental a change in the nature 149

102 gious communities. A point of principle in all of religious gatherings would prompt theology to 150
 Artificial Intelligence 3

151 reevaluate what constitutes, respectively, commu- the concept of depersonalization of the religious 196

152 nal and spiritual presence. experience.” Other religious traditions have used 197

robotic priests to fulfill some ritualistic functions. 198

For instance, in Japan, it has been evident that 199

153 AI in Religious Practice there is use of robotic Buddhist priests when 200

performing funeral rites and more so reciting 201

154 Artificial intelligence is changing religious prac- sutras or following other ceremonies that have 202

155 tice in ways that only yesterday could be found in characteristically been performed by human 203

156 science fiction: from AI sermonizing to robot priests (Löffler et al., 2021). Such innovations 204

157 priests, this technology is molding the new status increase efficiency in the religious services while 205

158 quo in the traditional forms of worship and also at the same time attracting these generations who 206

159 opening access to religious activities. This are more interested in technology but raise ques- 207

160 advance, though innovative, comes with a raft of tions on issues of spiritual authority. Can a robot 208

161 ethical, theological, and social implications that offer some form of pastoral care or spiritual pres- 209

162 are to be carefully weighed. Perhaps the most ence that might be similar to human clergy? This 210

163 striking innovation is the way virtual reality sim- poses more basic questions about human agency, 211

164 ulates religious events and rituals. This way, those divinity, and the soul in worshiping technology. 212

165 who would not be able to attend the services or The sociocultural implications of such techno- 213

166 pilgrimages physically could still do so from a logical development are very important. In theory, 214

167 distance. For instance, VR technologies have they democratize the process of religious services 215

168 been used to recreate religious pilgrimages such and open up unprecedented demographics to reli- 216

169 as the Hajj in Islam or significant sites in Chris- gious institutions. The second fear is that technol- 217

170 tianity in ways that allow believers to go beyond ogy somehow will destroy the communal and 218

171 just appreciating and connecting with their faith interpersonal dimensions of religious life. While 219

172 more. As Schroeder et al. (1998) noted, virtual AI may help people engage in religion, AI also 220

173 reality has the capacity to help users imbibe erodes the deeply relational dimension of worship 221

174 sacredly valuable productions in an immersive important in many forms of faith, potentially 222

175 manner and supports personal spiritual engage- reducing the spirituality itself to a more isolated 223

176 ment with enhanced access to world audiences. or superficial form (Hamman, 2022). Therefore, 224

177 Today, more than ever, AI-powered sermons the incorporation of AI into religious practices has 225

178 take center stage as an emergent site of religious the potential to transform the landscape of wor- 226

179 innovation. These systems parse texts of religions ship and spirituality. Although it provides a new 227

180 with the advanced algorithms and deliver custom- way toward accessibility and engagement-cum- 228

181 ized messages. For example, in Christian organi- participation for AI sermons, virtual religious 229

182 zations, AI can be used to help clergy with experiences, and robotic priests, it evokes pro- 230

183 outlining sermons that need to be delivered on found questions about authenticity, authority, 231

184 specific issues or to address themes of interest to and the future of religious communities. With 232

185 a congregation. Not an issue of automation would the tremendous progress and evolution of technol- 233

186 be when the preachers go before the people, but ogy, religious leaders, scholars, and faithful need 234

187 rather creating those dynamic interactions to challenge these innovations so that they uphold 235

188 between AI systems and human ministers. enlarging and not detracting values in 236

189 According to scholars such as Andok (2024), spiritual life. 237

190 “the application of AI in religious communication

191 can strengthen the very nature of communication
192 by tailoring the presentation of the message Psychological Aspects of AI in Religion 238

193 according to the needs of the individual’s spiritu-

194 ality, but call into question issues around theolog- The deployment of AI in religious life throws up 239

195 ical authenticity and further pose concerns with significant psychological questions relating to 240
 4 Artificial Intelligence

241 human interaction with technology in sacred con- battle may affect their religious identity as well as 288

242 texts. For example, a major question arises about their mental and psychological states. 289

243 the nature of engagement between an individual AI in religious practices changes basic struc- 290

244 and a virtual religious leader as opposed to a tures of authority at the communal level and alters 291

245 human one. Such a scenario has serious conse- dynamics related to community. Democratization 292

246 quences for individual forms of spirituality and of religious knowledge by AI empowers people 293

247 collective religious identities when AI begins to but also undermines the authority of religious 294

248 define or shape religious experiences. Interaction leaders and institutions (Cheong et al., 2011). 295

249 with an avirtual religious leader is, therefore, very Shifts usually result in fragmentations in religious 296

250 different from that with a human counterpart since communities having different definitions and 297

251 there is no real emotional reciprocity and con- practices. Furthermore, the minimized signifi- 298

252 sciousness in AI entities. As Turkle (2011) cance of congregations through AI-mediated vir- 299

253 suggested, AI can simulate conversation and tual worship also tends to break community 300

254 rehearse programmed empathy but lacks that real cohesions. The collective effervescence theory 301

255 emotional understanding characteristic of human states that the shared rituals are decisive in culti- 302

256 relationships. Such a limitation often gives rise to vating communal ties and collective identity. Lack 303

257 superficial interactions that do not satisfy deep of shared experiences would, therefore, reduce 304

258 psychological needs associated with spiritual social cohesion very vital for many religious com- 305

259 guidance and pastoral [Link] Media munities, thus affecting the members’ psycholog- 306

260 Equation Theory by Reeves and Nass (1996) ical sense of belonging and support. 307

261 claims that people treat computers and media as Attachment theory provides information on 308

262 if they were humans, applying the respective how sometimes people cannot relate meaning- 309

263 social rules and expectations to the interaction. fully with AI in religious ways. According to 310

264 For religious purposes, this can be translated to Kirkpatrick (2005), attachment toward divine fig- 311

265 an individual who is aware of the AI religious ures helps provide comfort and a secure feeling; 312

266 leaders in terms of social and emotional however, AI cannot reciprocate such attachment 313

267 responses. However, the depth and authenticity authentically, which may deprive individuals of 314

268 of those interactions seem to raise some doubts the psychological benefits of their secure spiritual 315

269 and have their consequences on the quality of the relationship. Additionally, uncanny valley is the 316

270 spiritual support received (Geraci, 2007). phenomenon where people feel a sense of unease 317

271 The personalization and accessibility that AI when interacting with something very close to but 318

272 offers in religious practices can alter individual not being human-like. These emotions can be 319

273 religious identities. Campbell and Tsuria (2021) further intensified in sacred places as authenticity 320

274 observed that digital religion has permitted the and genuineness are valued more. The sense of 321

275 individual, until now, to create his or her experi- eeriness from such religious AI personalities may 322

276 ence of spirituality but increased in terms of per- reduce the involvement of people in religious 323

277 sonal engagement may lead to a rather privatized practices at a significant level, impacting their 324

278 form of worship, downplaying some of the com- spiritual activities and psychological comfort 325

279 munal aspects of religion involved in identity level (MacDorman & Ishiguro, 2006). 326

280 formation and a sense of belonging within a faith Empirical studies on the psychological impact 327

281 community. Moreover, the involvement of AI in of AI within religious domains are also being 328

282 religious practices raises the authenticity question made. Waddell and Ivory (2015), for instance, 329

283 of religious experiences. Since AI entities cannot indicated that while users could respond posi- 330

284 achieve consciousness or spirituality, there is a tively to virtual agents in the short term, a lack 331

285 probability that reliance on AI for religious guid- of “genuine empathetic involvement” results in 332

286 ance might create insecurities in people’s spiritual low satisfaction as well as loss of trust over time. 333

287 lives with cognitive dissonance. This intrapsychic Within the realm of religion, this could translate to 334
 Artificial Intelligence 5

335 lower spiritual fulfillment and participation in sophisticated tools available for the comparison 377

336 group action. and contrast of doctrines and practices of different 378

religions. Therefore, AI’s capabilities in natural 379

language processing and data analysis should 380

337 Ethical Considerations uncover converging values and beliefs between 381

various religious groups and help people appreci- 382

338 The inclusion of artificial intelligence in religious ate their differences. One application of AI in this 383

339 discourse opens up sensitive questions of ethics space is corpus analysis of religious texts, within 384

340 that need to be reflected deeply. The most perti- which AI algorithms take and analyze texts from 385

341 nent of these appears to be autonomy about per- different faiths to find common themes such as 386

342 sonal choice. As AI systems become integrated compassion, justice, or even altruism. For 387

343 with religious practice, such as AI-generated ser- instance, through NLP techniques, one can per- 388

344 mons or virtual spiritual guidance, these may form semantic analysis on a text to show similar- 389

345 influence the thoughts and decisions of believers ities and differences in the way teachings are 390

346 in a way that undermines individual agency. given out by different religions (Abdul-Mageed 391

347 Manipulation leaps out also as a serious issue. et al., 2021). This would also make scholars and 392

348 Indeed, AI can be designed to nudge a user toward practitioners determine the commensurable moral 393

349 a particular belief or behavior, which raises all values for their use as a base in interfaith dialogue. 394

350 manner of concerns about the conditions of con- Additionally, AI translation tools make sure that 395

351 sent and free will involved in religious experience. the existing linguistic barriers to interfaith com- 396

352 The whole topic of privacy would also be a very munication are minimized. Advanced neural 397

353 important consideration; for example, the use of machine translation systems have increased the 398

354 AI in religious contexts involves gathering private efficiency and precision of translating complex 399

355 information, such as attendance habits, prayer theological concepts so that religious texts 400

356 patterns, or confessions made to virtual religious become more accessible to non-native speakers. 401

357 leaders. At the risk of wrongful access or mis- In such a way, these resources help one another to 402

358 application, one gathers information while using better know the other’s sacred writings. Thereby, 403

359 this sort of tool. The very validity of religion’s these have promoted mutual understanding and 404

360 message and experience is suspect when such lessened conflict misunderstandings among vari- 405

361 holy material is translated or relayed with the ous faith communities. 406

362 help of AI tools. AI-based platforms and chatbots can become 407

363 AI lacks consciousness and actual spiritual neutral partners in interfaith dialogue. They will 408

364 insight and therefore can misconstrue doctrine or offer verifiable information on other religions, 409

365 introduce very shallow religious experiences. answer questions, and correct misconceptions. 410

366 More general social implications raise more com- For example, AI chatbots have now been devel- 411

367 plex ethics in the landscape. Government or orga- oped which can educate users on the cultures of 412

368 nizations may misuse AI technologies to survey other religions free from human bias. This fosters 413

369 religious groups, abusing freedom of religious open-minded curiosity and learning, an important 414

370 and human rights. Surveillance could lead to requirement of effective interfaith encounter. 415

371 self-censorship, religious expression suppression, However, in the use of AI for interfaith dialogue, 416

372 and human rights violations. challenges still exist. A big problem could be the 417

bias already existing in AI algorithms, with 418

sources of biased training data or even developer 419

373 AI and Interfaith Dialogue preconceptions being instrumental. The risk is 420

that such biases might play a role feeding into 421

374 It is in the realm of artificial intelligence that stereotypes or perhaps the misrepresentation of 422

375 enormous potential can reside to advance inter- some religious doctrines. The reduction of risk 423

376 faith understanding and dialogue-from to its minimum can be helped by ensuring the 424
 6 Artificial Intelligence

425 diverse and representative dataset the AI systems actionable religious knowledge to the laity, at the 470

426 are trained on. expense of institutions and trust vested in reli- 471

427 Further challenges are there in the interpreta- gious authorities. This fracturing can well spell 472

428 tion of religious texts, where simple “clear under- doom within religious communities. 473

429 standing” of sacred texts is not easily achievable Moreover, the ability of AI to scan great vol- 474

430 within AI-based systems owing to nuances, met- umes of information influences decision-making 475

431 aphors, or contextual meanings; it might turn out in religious bodies. Insights in a strategic plan that 476

432 too simplistic or be wrongly approached. Human use data will ensure planning purposes, outreach 477

433 input such as theologians and scholars is essential operations, and resource allocation. Relying on AI 478

434 for validating these insights and guiding a analytics has raised concerns about privacy and 479

435 nuanced understanding so as to engage in respect- ethical use of congregants’ data, potentially 480

436 ful interfaith dialogue. affecting trust in the community. Looking forward 481

to it, AI incorporation within religious contexts 482

may appear to engraft the future religious com- 483

437 Sociological Impacts of AI on Religion munities as being digitally connected but, per- 484

haps, more individualized. Personalization by AI 485

438 The influence of AI significantly touches the results in individual spiritual experiences over 486

439 sociological aspects of religion, changing how community traditions (Geraci, 2014). Religious 487 AU2
440 religious communities come together, interact, organization should be flexible enough to find 488

441 and sustain their practices. Through the integra- new ways that create community and protect the 489

442 tion of AI technologies, congregational dynamics integrity of its traditions within this highly tech- 490

443 are being reshaped, the traditional church author- nological society. 491

444 ity structures will be challenged, and the commu-

445 nal element of religious life redefined. The prime
446 impact of AI revolves around the ways in which Conclusion 492

447 religious communities come together and func-

448 tion. Through AI-based algorithms and digital It is how artificial intelligence is being integrated 493

449 tools of social media, people can reach out to into religious contexts, fundamentally trans- 494

450 like-minded believers anywhere in the world and forming concepts of faith and spirituality. At a 495

451 create virtual faith communities that might tran- theological level, AI challenges some concepts 496

452 scend spatial boundaries (Campbell & Tsuria, related to the divine and human uniqueness, lead- 497

453 2021). These digital platforms offer personalized ing to review and renewals of doctrine. Virtual 498

454 content, recommending communities that align reality, AI-driven services are transforming wor- 499

455 with the interest of a user either with a potential ship and social activities that give opportunities as 500

456 of maximizing individual participation or partici- well as complications in those areas. Psychologi- 501

457 pating in echo chambers where the users are not cal questions regarding the authenticity, emo- 502

458 exposed to diverse perspectives (Cheong, 2022). tional fulfillment, and effects on individual and 503

459 AI technologies are also transforming the collective religious identities are presented by the 504

460 dynamics of congregations since they transform AI in sacred spaces. In terms of ethics, issues of 505

461 forms of engagement and participation. Virtual autonomy, manipulation, privacy, and integrity of 506

462 assistants and chatbots provide instant access to religious experience are highly relevant. At the 507

463 religious teachings and spiritual guidance, hence same time, it also offers so much promise for 508

464 cutting reliance on clergy for information and fostering interfaith dialogue where the common 509

465 support. This is healthy in increasing access but values differ in faiths but has to approach the 510

466 unhealthy in reducing face-to-face interactions matter without biases. Sociologically, AI modifies 511

467 that are essential to the development of strong the religious formation process and dynamics of 512

468 communal bonds in congregations (Turkle, the religious community, the structures of author- 513

469 2011). And this opens up a well of democratized, ity, and communal bonds. And because of this 514
 Artificial Intelligence 7

515 further development in AI, religious leaders, Delio, I. (2013). The unbearable wholeness of being: God, 553

516 scholars, and communities should guide them evolution, and the power of love. Orbis Books. 554
Geraci, R. M. (2007). Robots and the sacred in science and 555
517 thoughtfully so that technology serves to enhance science fiction: Theological implications of artificial 556
518 rather than diminish the very substance of intelligence. Zygon, 42, 961–980. [Link] 557
519 religious life. 1111/j.1467-9744.2007.00883.x 558
Hamman, J. J. (2022). Pastoral virtues for artificial intel- 559
ligence: Care and the algorithms that guide our lives. 560
Rowman & Littlefield. 561
AU3 520 Cross-References Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). Attachment, evolution, and the 562
psychology of religion. Guilford Press. 563

521 ▶ Altruism Löffler, D., Hurtienne, J., & Nord, I. (2021). Blessing robot 564
BlessU2: A discursive design study to understand the 565
522 ▶ Music, Animals and implications of social robots in religious contexts. 566
523 ▶ Psychopathology International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 569–586. 567
524 ▶ Reciprocal Altruism MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny 568

525 ▶ The Dalai Lama advantage of using androids in cognitive and social 569
science research. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour 570
526 ▶ The Enlightenment: Impact on Religion and Communication in Biological and Artificial Sys- 571
tems, 7(3), 297–337. [Link] 572
527 Competing Interest Declaration The author(s) has no 03mac 573
528 competing interests to declare that are relevant to the con- Peters, T. (2019). Artificial intelligence versus agape love: 574
529 tent of this manuscript. Spirituality in a Posthuman age. Forum 575
Philosophicum, 24(2), 259–278. 576
Puzio, A. (2023). Robot, let us pray! Can and should robots 577
have religious functions? An ethical exploration of 578
AU4 530 References religious robots. AI & SOCIETY, 1–17. 579 AU5
Reed, R. (2021). AI in religion, AI for religion, AI and 580
531 Abdul-Mageed, M., Elmadany, A., & Nagoudi, religion: Towards a theory of religious studies and 581
532 E. M. B. (2021). ARBERT & MARBERT: Deep bidi- artificial intelligence. Religions, 12(6), 401. 582
533 rectional transformers for Arabic. arXiv preprint Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How 583
534 arXiv:2101.01785. people treat computers, television, and new media like 584
535 Alkhouri, K. I. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in real people and places. Cambridge University Press. 585
536 the study of the psychology of religion. Religions, Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: 586
537 15(3), 290. A modern approach (3rd ed.). Pearson. 587
538 Andok, M. (2024). The impact of online media on religious Schroeder, R., Heather, N., & Lee, R. M. (1998). The 588
539 authority. Religions, 15(9), 1103. sacred and the virtual: Religion in multi-user virtual 589
540 Campbell, H. A., & Tsuria, R. (Eds.). (2021). Digital reality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica- 590
541 religion: Understanding religious practice in digital tion, 4(2), JCMC425. 591
542 m e d i a ( 2 n d e d . ) . h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 4 3 2 4 / Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social 592
543 9780429295683 psychology of telecommunications. Wiley. 593
544 Cheong, P. H. (2022). Authority. In H. Campbell & Tegmark, M. (2017). Life 3.0: Being human in the age of 594
545 R. Tsuria (Eds.), Digital religion: Understanding reli- artificial intelligence. Knopf. 595
546 gious practice in digital worlds (2nd ed., pp. 87–102). Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more 596
547 Routledge. from technology and less from each other. Basic Books. 597
548 Cheong, P., Huang, S., & Poon, J. P. H. (2011). Religious Waddell, T. F., & Ivory, J. D. (2015). It’s not easy trying to 598
549 communication and epistemic Authority of Leaders in be one of the guys: The effect of avatar appearance 599
550 wired faith organizations. Journal of Communication, gender mismatches on ratings of warmth, presence, 600
551 61(5), 938–958. [Link] trust, and gender identity. Presence: Teleoperators 601
552 2011.01579.x and Virtual Environments, 24(2), 124–143. [Link] 602
org/10.1162/PRES_a_00224 603
 Author Queries
Chapter No.: 51-1 605798_0_En

Query Refs. Details Required Author's response

AU1 Please be aware that your name, affiliation and email
address and if applicable those of your co-author(s) will
be published as presented in this proof. If you want to
make any changes, please correct the details now. Note
that corrections after publication will no longer be
possible. Please note that we standardly publish
professional e-mail addresses, but not private ones even
if it is provided in the manuscript. If you have a different
preference regarding publication of your email address,
please indicate this clearly on the proof. If no changes
are required, please respond with "Ok".
AU2 References Geraci (2014) is cited in text but not
provided in the reference list. Please provide details in
the list or delete the citation from the text.
AU3 Please check the term “Music, Animals and” for
correctness.
AU4 Reference Short et al. (1976) was not cited anywhere in
the text. Please provide in text citation or delete the
reference from the reference list.
AU5 Please provide volume number for Puzio (2023).

Note:
If you are using material from other works please make sure that you have obtained the necessary permission from
the copyright holders and that references to the original publications are included.