In a recent investigative piece for Rolling Stone, journalist Miles Klee explores a phenomenon on the rise: “AI spiritual delusions.” The article delves into the increasingly complex relationship between artificial intelligence and matters of faith—and the ways these interactions may be reshaping the fabric of human connections.

At the heart of the discussion is the proliferation of advanced chatbots, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, which are now capable of nuanced conversation and, for some, serve as more than technological tools. Klee details a growing subculture in which individuals engage AI for spiritual guidance, confession, or even purported divine revelation, blurring the once-firm distinction between human and machine interaction in the spiritual realm.

As Klee outlines, search engines and social platforms are awash with requests for AI-generated prayers, scriptural interpretations, and existential advice. Questions like “Can ChatGPT talk to God?” or “What would an AI priest say?” have become surprisingly common, underlining a transformation in how people seek and receive spiritual support.

Some tech companies appear to be courting this demand. For instance, the Christian app “Text with Jesus” allows users to receive messages styled as communications from Jesus, Mary, or other Biblical figures, automated via generative AI. Other apps position themselves as conduits for Buddhist meditation, Islamic prayer, or Jewish Torah study, each leveraging AI to deliver tailored spiritual content at scale.

While these projects may offer comfort or inspiration, Klee’s reporting points to a deeper, more complex dynamic. At issue is the possibility that AI-driven spirituality could supplant, rather than supplement, traditional faith communities and human-led guidance. Experts cited in the Rolling Stone article warn of real dangers: a user who forges a deep connection with an AI, convinced it possesses insight or agency akin to a spiritual leader, may risk social isolation or alienation from real-world relationships.

For those most vulnerable—such as individuals experiencing loneliness, loss, or mental health struggles—the lure of a nonjudgmental, ever-available chatbot “confessor” can be compelling. Klee notes that for some, AI offers a safe space devoid of the messiness and unpredictability of human relationships. “It’s easier to talk to the bot,” one Reddit user reflected in a forum thread highlighted by Rolling Stone. “It never misunderstands me or judges me.”

Yet the article underscores that AI’s facility with language can mask its fundamental limitations. As noted by Rolling Stone, algorithms do not understand, believe, or care. They simulate empathy by recognizing and repeating patterns, not by sharing in the user’s experience. This illusion of understanding can be especially problematic in matters of the spirit, where guidance or comfort is typically rooted in shared belief, community, and lived experience.

Faith leaders have also begun to voice concern. Klee points to statements from clergy who caution against seeking spiritual truth in code. “What you’re getting from an AI isn’t wisdom, it’s a rerun of copied content,” warned a pastor quoted in the article, underscoring the distinct value of human relationships and mentorship in matters of faith.

Some religious institutions, however, have adopted AI tools—at least as supplements. Churches use chatbots for logistical communication and distributing homilies or scriptural readings; some rabbis and imams use generative models to prepare sermons or parse commentary more efficiently. Yet even among early adopters, there is near-consensus that discernment is required. As the Vatican concluded in its early 2024 statement on AI, “Machines can aid human beings, but cannot replace the heart, mind, and spirit required to genuinely accompany another.”

Klee also discusses a darker undercurrent: the use of generative AI to create sophisticated “deepfake” spiritual experiences. On niche internet forums and Telegram groups, members share clips or transcripts of fake “channeling” sessions, with AI-generated voices and text purporting to be divine messages. While many users understand these are fabrications, the blurring of lines between authentic and generated experience is a growing concern.

As with other technologies, much ultimately depends on context and intent. Klee quotes one AI researcher who compares today’s moment to the advent of television: “We’re seeing a tool become an object of meaning, and that’s going to challenge us to think carefully about how we relate to machines and to ourselves.”

For now, as Rolling Stone’s reporting makes clear, the rise of AI-driven spirituality is less a sign of machines acquiring souls than a reflection of human yearning—for guidance, understanding, and companionship—in an increasingly digital landscape. How society responds, faith leaders and technologists alike contend, will determine whether these new tools deepen our relationships or erode them.