How Religious Indoctrination Fuels Conspiracy Theories
I often come across this question in religious harm recovery spaces—“Why are religious people so prone to falling for conspiracy theories?”
It’s a scary trend I’ve noticed too, especially since stepping back and realizing how much my own religious indoctrination influenced the way I processed information.
To be clear, I’m not talking about all religious people. I’m talking about folks who were influenced by high-control religious environments that require absolute compliance to their rules and doctrines.
And to be clear, skepticism toward institutions is sometimes completely rational. What I’m talking about here are fear-based narratives that discourage evidence-checking and pressure people into faith-aligned certainty.
I’m going to give you the short answer, and then we’ll unpack it further in this article.
In my opinion, people who have experienced religious indoctrination can be more susceptible to conspiracy theories because the mind control tactics they were subjected to conditioned them to defer to authority, avoid skepticism, and interpret fear as meaningful “evidence.”
Over time, that type of conditioning can make it easier to accept claims that would normally get questioned.
In the rest of this article, I’m going to break down a few specific dynamics that tend to show up in high-control religious groups, and how those same dynamics can make conspiracy narratives feel believable.
We’ll start by looking at the impact of authoritarian control and then move into how religious indoctrination disrupts healthy cognitive processing.
What We’ll Be Covering:
Authoritarian control
Before we talk about conspiracy theories directly, it helps to look at the authority structure people were conditioned in.
In high-control religions, “truth” is often treated as something that flows downward from god, scripture, and leadership, and outside perspectives are viewed with suspicion.
This is not to suggest that every gut feeling about leadership is wrong. In fact, in a system with power imbalances, discomfort can be an important signal that something is off.
The concern is that in high-control settings, people are often conditioned to bypass their own discernment and outsource interpretation to authority, instead of slowing down to examine the structure, the incentives, and the evidence.
This conditioning sets the stage for people to simply accept whatever an authoritative (and especially godly) voice tells them.
Rigid hierarchy of authority
In high-control religion, hierarchy functions as a key tool for controlling behavior.
It shows up in how obedience gets rewarded, how questions get shut down, and how people learn who they are expected to submit to.
In these contexts, submission is treated as humility, and questioning gets treated as pride, rebellion, or a lack of faith.
At the top of that hierarchy sits god, and in many fundamentalist settings, the “literal word of god” gets treated as a final authority that cannot be challenged.
This often means leaders position themselves as the trusted interpreter of what god “really means.”
The pastor, elders, or husband-as-spiritual-head may not claim to be god, but they often function as the gatekeeper between a person and what they’re allowed to believe.
That gatekeeping usually includes access to information describing competing viewpoints.
A lot of high-control groups use “safety” language to narrow what sources are considered trustworthy.
This can look like warnings about “deception,” “worldly influence,” or “being led astray.” And it can also look like an expectation that people stick to approved teachers, approved media, and approved interpretations of current events.
Over time, people become conditioned to distrust outside expertise and treat doubt as a spiritual problem, rather than a signal to pause and verify.
And it can also cause people to treat authority as a shortcut for truth.
Instead of weighing claims based on evidence, people learn to weigh them based on who is saying them, whether that person is considered “anointed,” and what it will cost them socially or spiritually to disagree.
When leadership gets positioned as the main gatekeeper of truth, conspiratorial thinking does not feel like a huge leap. A claim can start to feel believable simply because it was delivered with confidence by the “right” person.
Authority systems like this create the exact conditions where conspiracy narratives can spread quickly because claims are evaluated based on who says them rather than how well they are supported.
Social consequences for doubt
People learn quickly what happens when someone asks the wrong question or pushes back on something in a high-control setting.
They might get pulled aside for a “concerned” conversation, get labeled as rebellious, lose access to leadership roles, or become the subject of gossip disguised as prayer requests.
This dynamic is also why fear-based interpretations about situations or world events can spread so fast.
I was emerging into adulthood during Obama’s first presidential candidacy, and this was the first election I would be old enough to vote in.
At the time, I was attending a Baptist church where the pastor routinely pushed a political agenda from the pulpit.
He regularly tried to draw connections between Obama and the “antichrist,” and he framed current events as proof that the “end times were drawing nigh.”
Looking back, I’m not sure whether I’d call that a conspiracy theory in the strictest sense, but it does show how easily religious authority can launder political fear into “spiritual truth.”
When a pastor can interpret the news for you, interpret the Bible for you, and imply that disagreement is rebellion against god, people will rarely do their own fact-checking in order to feel certain.
And the reality is, many high-control religions capitalize on whatever is in the headlines because current events make an easy hook for fear-based messages.
Disruptions to healthy cognition
Over time, religious authoritarianism goes beyond controlling someone’s behavior to also conditioning them to process information in ways that make certainty feel safer than investigation.
The main reason this conditioning is so harmful is because it ends up influencing how people interpret situations, tolerate uncertainty, and make meaning out of fear in ways that can have a negative impact on their own lives and the lives of those around them.
In this next section, I’ll walk through a couple of common cognitive dynamics that tend to get reinforced in high-control settings.
These dynamics make conspiracy narratives feel appealing because they offer certainty, simplicity, and a clear “good vs evil” storyline.
Suppression of Critical Thought
Another reason conspiracy theories can spread so easily in high-control religious communities is that critical thinking itself gets treated with suspicion.
In a lot of these settings, asking for evidence gets interpreted as distrust, pride, or spiritual danger, rather than simple curiosity.
It’s worth saying explicitly: critical thinking is not the enemy of intuition. When your nervous system is picking up on a real power imbalance, that internal alarm can be an important starting point.
The issue is what happens next. In high-control settings, people are conditioned to treat fear and urgency as proof, rather than as information that should be checked against context, evidence, and who holds power.
Over time, that kind of conditioning can leave people without the mental “muscle” to slow down and evaluate a claim, especially when it’s packaged as a warning, a prophecy, or a moral emergency.
The next few sections break down what that can look like in real life.
Rejection of Skepticism
Critical thinking includes healthy skepticism and a willingness to ask, “How do we know this is true?”
In high-control settings, that question can be punished directly or indirectly. People may get corrected, shamed, or told they are being deceived.
That social pressure teaches a simple lesson: stop asking questions.
And when someone has been conditioned to stop asking questions, conspiracy claims can feel oddly familiar because they also come with certainty, urgency, and an implied moral duty to believe.
This dynamic gets even stronger in groups that reject science and evidence-based thinking.
If “faith” is defined as believing without proof, then a lot of conspiracy content fits neatly into the same mental framework.
Censorship of Dissenting Views
Suppression of critical thought also shows up through information control.
Leaders may discourage certain books, podcasts, news outlets, or even entire categories of expertise, and dissenting voices inside the community can be dismissed as rebellious, worldly, or under spiritual attack.
Sometimes this gets reinforced through “discernment” language, approved reading lists, or warnings about “deception” that make people feel anxious for even considering outside sources.
That creates an echo chamber where people rarely hear calm counterarguments.
It also reduces the chance that someone will be exposed to a more boring but accurate explanation for what’s happening.
Vulnerability to Manipulation
When critical thinking is discouraged, it becomes much easier for leaders to steer people’s beliefs and behavior.
Members may default to, “My pastor said it,” or “Our church teaches this,” instead of checking sources or sitting with uncertainty.
That kind of dependency can be exploited.
A leader can float a claim, repeat it confidently, and watch it spread through the community, even when there is little evidence behind it.
Over time, people may lose confidence in their own judgment and rely more heavily on authority to decide what is real.
Black & White Thinking
Black and white thinking is a rigid cognitive pattern that can make people in high-control religions more vulnerable to conspiracy theories.
Because beliefs are often presented as absolute truths, people can become conditioned to automatically reject anything that challenges those beliefs.
It can also flatten legitimate concern. When a community has real power imbalances, your discomfort might be pointing to something important.
The problem is that black and white thinking tends to rush that concern into a pre-made storyline, instead of asking slower questions like: Who benefits from this interpretation? What is the evidence? What does the structure reward? Who is vulnerable here?
Over time, that kind of conditioning can make it feel safer to sort everything into “right” or “wrong,” “good” or “evil,” “with us” or “against us.”
When that becomes the default, there is very little room left for slow, skeptical evaluation.
Conspiracy theories tend to do well in environments where complexity feels uncomfortable and ambiguity feels threatening because they offer a clean storyline for messy events, a villain to blame, and a sense of order when life feels chaotic.
For people who were conditioned to look for certainty, that kind of story can feel stabilizing, especially during crises.
This also nudges people toward more polarized media habits.
People may seek out sources that affirm what they already believe, and they may avoid sources that complicate the story.
Over time, the conspiracy framing can start to feel increasingly “obvious” and increasingly urgent.
Suspension of Reality
Suspension of reality is what happens when people get conditioned to accept claims that do not hold up to evidence, and to treat that acceptance as a virtue.
In high-control religions, many core beliefs require members to override ordinary doubt from the very beginning. That “faith over facts” posture can make conspiracy narratives feel familiar later, especially when they come packaged as a warning or a moral emergency.
I want to distinguish this from the kind of internal alarm you might feel when something is unsafe or coercive. Intuition can be a useful signal, especially in environments with unequal power.
Red flags begin to appear when a system teaches people to interpret fear as a shortcut to certainty, rather than as a cue to slow down, examine power dynamics, and check what is actually true.
A lot of this relies on logical fallacies that get repeated until they feel like common sense. Over time, those fallacies can become part of a person’s default reasoning, and that creates cognitive vulnerabilities that conspiracies can easily exploit.
The required belief in the supernatural can also contribute to this.
When people are routinely asked to believe in miracles, divine intervention, prophetic warnings, and an invisible spiritual war, extraordinary claims start to feel normal.
We saw this dynamic clearly during the pandemic, when some churches framed the COVID vaccine as the “mark of the beast,” or when QAnon narratives were absorbed into prophetic language about hidden evil and secret cabals.
Those claims did not feel foreign in a worldview already organized around spiritual warfare and apocalyptic certainty.
And if doubt gets treated as dangerous or disobedient, people learn to shut down the part of themselves that would normally pause and ask for proof.
Manipulation of Emotions
Conspiracy theories often rely on emotional appeals, playing on people’s fear, anger, or a sense of injustice.
They usually do not begin with careful evidence and then invite you to decide how you feel. More often, they create a feeling first, and then they supply a story that “explains” why that feeling makes sense.
In high-control religion, this dynamic is familiar territory.
Fear itself is not the problem. In a church or community where there are power imbalances, fear can be an important internal alarm.
The problem is when people are conditioned to treat fear as a spiritual warning that must be obeyed, or to treat certain emotional reactions as proof that something is true or not true, instead of as information to examine with critical thinking.
When that kind of conditioning is already there, conspiracy narratives can slide into place quickly.
How fear is manipulated
In many fundamentalist settings, fear gets moralized. People may learn to read their own nervous system as a spiritual signal, especially when leadership repeatedly links fear to obedience.
Feeling afraid can get interpreted as god “showing you” something. Feeling uneasy can get interpreted as “discernment.” If fear is not present, that can get treated as naïveté, deception, or a lack of seriousness about the stakes.
This is one of the reasons conspiracy theories can spread so fast during moments of uncertainty.
They keep the nervous system activated while also offering a target for that activation, which can feel more tolerable than sitting with ambiguity. Over time, people can get pulled away from, “This is complicated and I don’t know yet,” and toward a storyline that feels certain and urgent.
What makes this tricky is that many people have learned that fear was signaling something, but the call was coming from inside the house.
It’s important to assess whether fear is being intentionally activated by the group to mobilize you into listening to what they say, especially in a hierarchy where questioning has consequences, or whether it’s a signal inviting you to slow down and use your intuition and critical thinking to check what’s actually happening.
How anger is manipulated
Conspiracy content also leans hard on anger.
Anger can be an important signal, especially in communities with real power imbalances. Sometimes it’s the part of you that knows something is unfair, coercive, or unsafe.
However, anger can also feel like enlightenment for people who spent years being taught to suppress it. If a conspiracy theory can direct that anger toward the “right” enemy, it can start to feel like moral strength, or even like spiritual maturity.
The issue here is that this emotional intensity can become a shortcut.
Instead of using anger as information that invites you to slow down, assess power, and check sources, the story can push you toward immediate certainty and performative loyalty.
It can make people less likely to pause, check sources, or notice when a claim is built on exaggeration, misquotes, or half-truths.
It can also create pressure to perform loyalty. When everyone around you is furious, calm skepticism can start to look like you’re just being “difficult.”
How empathy is manipulated
A lot of conspiracy narratives are built on a predator/victim mentality.
Religious folks are often conditioned to think in that category, especially if they were taught that the world is full of hidden evil and that it’s their job to stay vigilant.
Empathy is not the problem. In communities with unequal power, empathy can help you notice who is being harmed, who is being protected, and who is being silenced.
The concern is when a high-control group uses empathy to fast-track loyalty. When someone believes they are “saving” a victim from a predator, urgency tends to override curiosity.
People can end up defending a storyline without examining whether it is accurate, whether it is being used to manipulate them, or who benefits from their fear. In these moments, critical thinking is part of care.
This one was particularly significant for me during my time in Evangelical Christianity because the group often preyed on my empathetic nature in order to influence my beliefs and behaviors into a sort of white saviorism that felt urgent and righteous at the time.
There are absolutely real victims and real predators in our world, and at the same time, it’s important to carefully examine religiously motivated victim/predator narratives, especially when they are being used to protect leaders, maintain a hierarchy, or align the group with greater power.
Final Thoughts
If you’ve made it this far, you can probably see why conspiracy content tends to “fit” so easily inside a high-control religious worldview.
In this article, we looked at how authoritarian hierarchies condition people to submit to authority, treat leadership as the gatekeeper of truth, and distrust outside perspectives.
We also explored how indoctrination can disrupt healthy cognition through suppressed critical thinking, black and white thinking, and suspension of reality.
And finally, we talked about how conspiracy movements often hook people through emotional intensity, especially fear, anger, and a predator/victim storyline.
If any part of this feels familiar, I want to offer some encouragement.
Recovery often starts with small, steady acts of reclaiming your inner authority.
That can mean noticing when a harmful hierarchy is asking you to override your own judgment.
It can also mean practicing more flexible thinking when a story tries to pull you into “all good” or “all evil.”
And it can mean learning how to regulate your nervous system so fear or outrage do not get to decide what is true.
None of this is easy, especially if you were taught that doubt is dangerous and obedience is the measure of goodness.
At the same time, it is possible to cultivate healthier thinking, more grounded emotional regulation, and a stronger ability to confront control dynamics when they show up.
Over time, conspiracy narratives usually lose their intensity because they do not stand up well to calm scrutiny.
Some Possible Next Steps:
If this article resonated with you and you’re wondering where to go from here, you might consider the following options:
Related Articles:
-
How Loyalty to a Narcissistic God Damages Mental Health
It’s common knowledge that narcissists can take a real toll on the mental health of those they’re close to, but have you considered that perhaps the god you once served was a narcissist?
-
Understanding Religious Cult Programming + How to Recover
This article provides a detailed overview of how religious cults use programming techniques to control their members, and it also breaks down some effective strategies for deprogramming and recovery.
-
7 Subtle Signs of Spiritual Abuse
When I first began to deconstruct my faith, I struggled to make sense of my experiences. I struggled because nothing in my religious past seemed to fit the conventional idea of trauma or abuse. I hadn’t been physically or verbally…