Chris Miller, University of Ottawa
Keywords: death and dying, nonreligion, Death Café, afterlife
Religion has traditionally been a major influence on how people and societies make sense of death. Questions such as why people die, what happens after we die, and what rituals should we perform to mark someone’s death were typically answered by religious authorities. As religion declines, people’s understandings of and responses to death undergoes shifts as well.
As one of the studies conducted by the Nonreligion in a Complex Future project, our research on Death Cafés explores changing conceptions of death and dying. Death Cafés are informal, pop-up events in which people (often strangers) gather to discuss death, dying, and related issues. Events take place in all manner of venues, from coffee shops and restaurants to libraries or churches. Attendees comprise a range of backgrounds, including people in the ‘death care’ field (funeral directors, hospice volunteers, and death doulas), as well as people interested in death for other reasons, whether they are facing a terminal diagnosis, caring for elder parents, or simply curious to explore the topic. Conversations at events flow freely and cover many topics, including navigating healthcare systems, complaining about the funeral industry, and reflecting on how to best remember loved ones.
To better understand these events and their attendees, our team conducted focus groups and interviews with religious and nonreligious individuals who have attended Death Cafés in Canada, the US, and the UK.[i] Although, like Death Cafés themselves, our research explores a range of topics, one common theme that emerged among participants was the afterlife. Lori G. Beaman and I recently explored such changing conceptions of the afterlife that emerge in these spaces. In what follows I will discuss our key findings, from which we identify four categories of ‘afterlife imaginaries’: cessation, energy, unknown, and transition.
Cessation
Death for some is seen as the end of human activity and consciousness. This reflects a concept in afterlife research that is often labelled extinction or annihilation, which was often framed as the default ‘secular’ or nonreligious outlook.[ii] Participants who maintain this outlook often referred to science, suggesting matter-of-factly that, as one participant stated, “when the brain stops working, it seems likely … that will be the end of my own personal experience.” While most of the participants within this category identified as atheist, there were also some religious believers who see death as a finite end.
Energy
Energy was by far the most popular category that we uncovered, but we encountered several different understandings of how people might continue as energy. Some referenced this in a purely scientific manner. Vanessa[iii] talked about the atoms in her body breaking down, then becoming “all of the things that I love, like waterfalls and sunsets.” Others referenced science indirectly, vaguely alluding to quantum physics and a general understanding that “energy never dies.” For others, energy connected to a more poetic outlook, believing that their energy will continue, in some form, to reverberate throughout the world.
Despite the range of perspectives this category includes, it is important to highlight the pervasiveness of the term. Energy was the exact language that many used, whether referencing scientific or spiritual understandings. This malleability may explain the term’s popularity. Considering all our participants attend Death Cafés, the common use of this term may also point towards a specific discourse that emerges in death positive spaces.
Unknown
Some are content with death being mysterious. These participants often defaulted to the idea that no one truly knows what happens after death, so it remains a mystery. While Terror Management Theory suggests that mortality can invoke fear (especially if one doesn’t find a comforting explanation, like heaven), some were “fascinated” or even “excited” about possible outcomes. These ranged from the continuation of human consciousness to complete cessation. Though open to many potentialities, these participants would ultimately resort back to saying they aren’t quite sure, and that they are okay with not knowing.
Transition
The final category we identify encompasses more definite visions of human consciousness carrying on. Some described traditional religious beliefs in an afterlife where they would reunite with loved ones. Others saw death as a transition to some new world, using such allegories as birth or the wardrobe to Narnia. Finally, some who had experienced near-death experiences spoke with certainty about what happens after death, namely, returning to a peaceful place they had already (briefly) experienced.
Conclusion
Each category we identify reveals an immanent understanding of death. Participants all see death as an important event, and they believe that many important things happen when death occurs. However, most do not see death as dependent on some transcendent or external power. Instead, the significant transformations that will occur are connected to the world here and now. Nature is particularly influential in how people understand death. This includes people like Vanessa, who sees her atoms breaking down into waterfalls and sunsets (or a less romantic possibility which she acknowledges: a parking lot). This also includes people like Abigail, who want a green burial so that their ‘energy’ can re-join the Earth. Finally, this includes participants who believe that consciousness will continue, and that one can experience continuing bonds with deceased relatives through the wind, water, or birds. As religion declines and transforms, afterlife imaginaries also evolve. We do not seek to identify which categories or beliefs are religious, and which are nonreligious. Indeed, such an attempt would face the challenge that each of our four categories included both religious and nonreligious participants. By mapping the categories that people posit, we identify strong overlap among both religious and nonreligious people. The perspectives that support each outlook reflect a range of influences, including religion, science, literature, and popular culture. By exploring these imaginaries among people who attend Death Cafés, we also uncover new spaces in which people can explore and reflect on this major life event.
Chris Miller wishes to acknowledge that the research on which this post is based was conceptualized, collected, and analyzed in collaboration with Dr. Lori Beaman
Dr. Chris Miller is a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Nonreligion in a Complex Future project at the University of Ottawa. Through projects that focus on Death Cafés, obituaries, and green burial, his work explores death, dying, and nonreligion. His broader research interests include New Religious Movements, and religion and popular culture
References
[i] At the time of writing, researchers working in Norway, Australia, Argentina, and Brazil have also begun exploring Death Cafés. The present reflections, however, are based only on data from participants in Canada. This research was conducted by a team led by Lori G. Beaman, and I would like to thank Hannah McKillop, Sohini Ganguly, Hinna Hussain, Edmundo Maza, and Mathilde Vanasse-Pelletier for their research assistance.
[ii] For studies that include this category, see for example Walker 2000; Cave 2015; DeSpelder and Strickland 2015; Haimila and Muraja 2021. While Haimila and Muraja note that their participants mainly endorse a view of annihilation, similar to our findings, many also allow for continuation in some form.
[iii] The names of all participants have been replaced by pseudonyms.
NSRN Online 