Cyberhenge examines the use of Internet technology in shaping religious traditions and rituals. Cowan asks how and why Neopaganism has embraced the Internet in such an innovative and imaginative way.
Written in 2005, many parts of this author's perspective are far outdated here in 2013. However, even in looking at the social and technical concepts of the internet as brought forward - the author's disdain for many of the online aspects of Paganism at that time are quite evident. At the start of his book, he picks out a particular online coven - IOW, a coven that practices their teachings and rituals solely online with one another - and proceeds to utilize that as an anvil to pound his points upon. From my own perspective (and I was around and active on the internet as far back as the mid 1990s), I do not see how a Nature-based practice can be properly brought forward in an environment that lives inside the routers, servers, and connective wiring of the internet. However, that's solely my own perspective - if it works for someone else, who am I to downgrade that individual's experience. I would suggest that this particular attitude of my own may have been the primary factor in poisoning my understanding of the cynical (my impression) stance of the author. Considering how out of date this particular book is with today's internet, and with today's online Pagan community (which I have personally found to be quite vibrant), I would note recommend this book for anyone looking for an understanding of today's online Pagan community. Nor would I recommend this book as a good perspective of the online Pagan community of yesteryear, due to my very different perspective of that time frame as well. As a piece of social History on a very narrow window of the online community, its much akin to peeking through a set of closed curtains while standing outside of the house.
This is an important book in both pagan religious studies and the sociology of digital technologies. While many of Cowan's observations have maintained (particularly the distinction between 'religion online' and 'online religion') it's focus on self-identified pagan communities hasn't kept up. My sense is that there is a a very large community of magical practitioners who are doing really innovative things with digital technologies. If they identify themselves as pagan, that's secondary, and their religious identities aren't necessarily interwoven with either their magical or their technological practices. I'd love for a scholar to do a new ethnographic study focusing on magic as a *practice* rather than paganism as an *identity*.