Is Neil Gaiman currently a scientologist?

January 3, 2005 7:03 AM

Is Neil Gaiman currently a scientologist? The established facts I've been able to find are that his father was deeply involved with the CoS, but everything on Neil seems to be about fourth hand on message boards: he is, he isn't, he never was, he refuses to talk about it one way or another, etc. Anyone have a reputable source for a definitive answer?
posted by PinkStainlessTail to religion & philosophy (18 comments total)

You could just ask him.
posted by Capn at 7:12 AM on January 3, 2005

I was under the impression that Gaiman's family was Jewish, by heritage if not by practice. I could, of course, be completely wrong.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:30 AM on January 3, 2005

His father was pretty high ranking in CoS in Great Britain, but I've heard that Neil isn't.

I saw something or other a few years ago where he said it gets a bum rap and he has nothing against it, having grown up a Scientologist, but didn't really say whether or not he followed it. Sounded like he didn't, to be honest.
posted by taumeson at 7:34 AM on January 3, 2005

I thought that celebrity Scientologists never.shut.UP about it. If Gaiman hasn't mentioned the topic frequently enough to register in public consciousness, then he probably isn't a clam. A search of his site never turns up the terms "scientology" or "scientologist".

I did a Google search and found claims that his Dad was very CoS, that Neil was CoS, and that Neil was recognized as SP in 1983. It's plausible to me that his father could have been part of the cult, but that whatever Neil once did, he's no longer actively involved, being schtum and all, right? The claims that Neil did this and that in the CoS could just be misattributions of what his father did.

But you can go ahead and ask him if you like, although if you actually like the guy and don't want to cause him any awkwardness or embarrassment, maybe you'll decide to just let it drop.
posted by maudlin at 7:44 AM on January 3, 2005

Sounded like he didn't, to be honest.

Yeah, I actually doubt that he's currently a member as he'd probably be public about it, but all the references I can find to Neil and Scientology seem to be lacking an initial source. Everything's just what some people on the internet have said (even down to my "fact" that David and Neil Gaiman are related, now that I think about it).

I used Capn's link to ask Neil a question, but I don't really expect an answer: he gets thousands of questions and this one is silly, irrelevant, and really none of my business one way or another.

But you can go ahead and ask him if you like, although if you actually like the guy and don't want to cause him any awkwardness or embarrassment, maybe you'll decide to just let it drop.

Well, at worst it's come up before and his PA will just not pass the question on. There's no way Neil personally reads all the questions he must get.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:55 AM on January 3, 2005

Questions that are answered are answered here, by the by.
posted by Capn at 8:05 AM on January 3, 2005

According to this out-of-date Who's Who list, Neil was declared a "Suppressive Person" in 1983. He was 23. Neil's CV lists nothing prior. Coincidentally, 1983 was the year that Neil discovered the comics of Alan Moore.
posted by grabbingsand at 8:05 AM on January 3, 2005 [1 favorite]

Re the 1983 SP declaration: at least one source claims that was against David Gaiman, not Neil.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:11 AM on January 3, 2005

Having actually met the man, and had tea with him, and also a very civil conversation, I would have to say I don't think he's a scientologist. I've read his site regularly for a long time now, and I would have thought it would have come up already. He's talked about everthing else under the sun.
posted by Medieval Maven at 10:40 AM on January 3, 2005

Let's all ask him and see if he answers it in his blog. If a bunch of people ask him at once, he's more likely to answer! Seriously.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:06 PM on January 3, 2005

Also, you might try asking the question in the comments to the LiveJournal RSS feed of his blog; he doesn't read it himself, but people who know him IRL do seem to lurk there (I've met him several times IRL but only in large professional settings).
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:09 PM on January 3, 2005

guys, the church of scientology isn't known for its...niceness. Maybe it'd be better if we didn't force him to answer that in the negative, as it could result in not-good stuff.
posted by u.n. owen at 12:09 PM on January 3, 2005

For heaven's sake, u.n. owen. Saying, "I am not personally a member of the Church of Scientology" and letting it go at that is not going to bring their wrath down on him.

Also, he doesn't have to answer if he doesn't want to.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:16 PM on January 3, 2005

I should also say that if it were I, I would rather make a carefully-considered public statement than having speculations floating all over the internets about it.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:46 PM on January 3, 2005

I should also say that if it were I, I would rather make a carefully-considered public statement than having speculations floating all over the internets about it.

Dunno if I agree with that: Neil's career and rep seem to be just fine. The internets don't always have that much influence.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:58 PM on January 3, 2005

If it were about anything other than the Church of Scientology, I would agree, PST. But they get all worked up about what they read on the internets and it often takes attorneys and money to straighten it out.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:13 PM on January 3, 2005

I'm not sure the CoS could take the massive onslaught of Neil fans who would innundate them with email, faxes, and letters, a la the Sim's-Free-Cerberus offer . . .
posted by Medieval Maven at 6:22 PM on January 3, 2005

I think that he is a lover of lore and myths of all kinds, and he enjoys the play between myth and reality, and it's probably just not in him to point to any given religion and say that it's just plain wrong.

I also think that the Sandman books could not have been written by someone who had chosen a specific faith and was following it dogmatically.
posted by bingo at 9:05 PM on January 3, 2005 [2 favorites]