How to Worship in the Metaverse: Religious Experience and the Affordances of a New Medium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent to which the metaverse will become a site for religious and spiritual experience depends on how the aims of users align with the new medium’s potentialities for action, or “affordances”. Affordances are formed as the social, technological, and contextual capacities of a medium are recognized and then enacted by users. This exploratory essay argues that the metaverse’s affordances, which overlap with those of already existing virtual reality (VR) environments, can deepen a sense of belonging for users of online religious spaces and mediate new ways of being present in those spaces. The following affordances of the metaverse (and of VR) are discussed analytically in the essay: immersion, presence, embodiment, usability, empathy, and contemplation. The phases of the continuing “buildout” of the metaverse are also assessed to uncover their likely effects on the metaverse’s affordances. These phases are massive scale, system interoperability, robust rendering, and persistent continuity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".