Is the Enneagram Demonic?

An in-depth look at a recent (but very familiar) controversy in the Christian world

I’ve been nose-deep in the Enneagram for probably eight years at this point. I have worked in ministry for 13. I have been a Jesus follower for as long as I can remember.

So you can imagine the wave of emotions that hit me when there suddenly became a huge uproar among young Christians against the Enneagram, citing its “demonic” roots very shortly after I became a certified Enneagram coach in 2021. A very prominent faith leader/influencer, Jackie Hill Perry, released a video with the claims of its “demonic” history and at one point outright said she “renounced” it.

Side note, because I can’t help myself:

Christians need to learn how silly they sound when they use words like this. It’s a great way to show non-believers you are out of touch with them. No one says words like, “renounce” or “heretic” or “false prophet” without sounding like a religious wacko who has a piety complex. It’s a great way to lose influence with the people you think you’re trying to reach. You sound normal to us churchies, but to others it comes off as super…to ironically put it in church terms…Pharisaical. I know JHP has pure intentions here, and her main audience is other Christians. Just a pet peeve I wanted to get off my chest.

Admittedly, it wasn’t the first time I had heard such claims against the typology system that has done so much good in my life. All I knew about the Enneagram was about how useful it was, how inspirational it became for me, and how it revolutionized the way I see myself and others…in a very positive way!

So naturally I brushed it off. I laughed off the claims. It was a very familiar accusation.

Christians tend to get their panties in a twist with anything that seems spiritual but not rooted in Christianity. My fellow Southern Baptist kids can commiserate about the weird ways in which we “celebrated” Halloween because of its alleged “demonic” origins (but I’m getting ahead of myself).

However, when friends and family members kept bringing it up to me and wanting my thoughts, I realized it would be irresponsible of me to have an unformed opinion. So I did some digging. In this post I will lay out what I discovered as well as give you my full opinion on the matter.

The History

So where did the Enneagram start? It’s a complicated question. I’ll do my best to lay it out for you, but know that since it has ancient beginnings, its origin and its journey into western culture even into the 20th century is hairy and debated.

I’m going to go by what I was taught when going through my certification course (which was through a secular organization), as well as what I’ve been able to make heads or tails of in my own research. Then I will come to the point of contention in question.

Enneagram comes from Greek and basically means “nine figure”. The first appearances of an enneagram symbol date back to the 14th century and a model constructed by philosopher and theologian, Ramon Llull. In his version, he was mapping out the nine vices which are used in modern Enneagram models to this day.

There are other schools and religious/philosophical teachings which appear to have either influence or concurrent ideologies over the next few centuries. I won’t bore you with those details.

The Enneagram symbol as we know it was brought to us in the 20th century by a guy named, George Gurdjieff. He did not use it for personality typing purposes, but rather for his own philosophical teachings through “sacred dance.”

Now I finally know what Ms. Lippy was doing when Billy Madison walked back into the classroom after getting out in dodgeball.

That leads us to Oscar Ichazo.

Potential Demonic Influence #1

Oscar Ichazo established a school in the ‘50s in which he taught lectures on something called, “protoanalysis.” It was here that he taught, using the enneagram model, about the nine different ego fixations one can have due to early childhood traumas, and how that can limit us in our self-image. It was focused on spiritual work.

Ichazo was a philosopher and spiritual guru, not a psychologist.

The institute he started was called the Arica School, where he taught this model. The purpose of it was to essentially bring about spiritual enlightenment by exposing one’s ego, and then undoing it.

It was heavily based in spirituality. Some have called it a straight up cult.

Ichazo alleged that he came up with these concepts by being visited by spiritual beings (though he has contradicted himself on that matter). One of those beings was, according to him, Metatron, who Jackie Hill Perry said is a demon in the video I referred to earlier.

I’m not that well versed in the who-is-a-demon-who-is-not lore or subculture, but by most accounts he/it is less considered a demon, and more considered an angel that may just have been made up…but still has roots in Judaism, not Satanism.

In an account from someone who studied under Ichazo, they write this:

But to Ichazo, these were states of consciousness. Metatron represented a function of higher mind, which gave Ichazo the blueprint of his whole Arica system, while the Green Qutub personified surrender to divine will and receiving baraka, the energy of divine grace.

Given the context clues of the etymology of Metatron, it would seem that this alleged spiritual being is and means different things to different people. To a mystic like Ichazo, that was his reference point to describe what he went through.

Another key thing to point out, here…it appears that Ichazo had done a ton of research on Gurdjieff and other ancient religions like the Sufi and the Theosophical movement. Some Christians argue that any non-Christian religion is demonic. But if his inspiration was actually a result of his deep studies in these topics, that’s way different than actually channeling a “spirit.”

It would seem plausible that Oscar Ichazo simply experienced an “a-ha” moment, and could only explain it in the way he knew how - a spiritual experience. That is not unlike what we Christians do. More on that later.

Potential Demonic Influence #2

While Oscar Ichazo is considered the father of the Enneagram of Personality, Claudio Naranjo, who studied in Chile under Ichazo at Arica, took his concepts, made some changes, and made it mainstream. He’s the one who introduced it into common psychological theory and the Enneagram as we know it is largely due to his continued work.

So Ichazo took the diagram of Gurdjieff and combined it with the nine vices and virtues, as well as the 27 subtypes. For those who don’t know the Enneagram well, that’s, like, 90% of what the Enneagram is.

Naranjo took it, made some alterations, and was pivotal in spreading it through academia and the psychological field at large. It is a dispute that goes back to Naranjo and Ichazo themselves as to how many changes Naranjo made. From what I can find, it doesn’t seem like much, but it was a dispute between the two leading to their dying days.

Ichazo reportedly always wanted to keep his findings a secret, but others took advantage. The modern Enneagram teachings are so similar to what he taught, he tried to sue another Enneagram foundational teacher, Helen Palmer, in the 1990s for publishing a book about it (she wasn’t the only one, and I’m not sure it was even the first…but hers was the most popular).

He lost this copyright suit because he claimed in court that the Enneagram was fact, not a theory. The court ruled that one can’t copyright a fact, so he lost.

Naranjo, in an interview that you can watch on YouTube, said that he came up with his concepts via “automatic writing.” What is that?

Automatic writing is basically the concept of letting spirits control you and speak through you. Like, you yourself have no input, but you let the spirits take over and they write on the paper using your hand.

Kinda like a Ouija board but for demons who prefer a ball point.

So…yeah. That’s it. That’s why all the fuss. And you can understand why. Christians believe that any channeling of spirits that are apart from the Holy Spirit is indeed demonic. I believe that.

Naranjo insinuates that that is just what he did. So what defense is there? Did he literally mean channeling spirits, or was he talking metaphorically?

Understandably, most people take him at his word in that interview. But let’s explore some context…

A Major Point to Consider

It’s important to know that Naranjo was a heavy hitter in the world of psychology, who studied with a bunch of major names in the field, as well as pioneered certain breakthroughs and was highly published (you can go here to get a rundown of his credentials, if you’re a super nerd).

He studied, did trials, taught lectures, had a team who worked with him…they did all the things someone in the professional field would do to hone their findings and hypotheses. There was a lot of testing and fine tuning.

As far as I can decipher in my research, Naranjo saw the potential, but wanted to make it
less spiritual/mystic and more grounded in psychology.

This serves as a clue to me that it’s very plausible that this was the work of someone who was using their own devices, as opposed to taking orders from a spiritual being.

There are a few subjective accounts I’ve read and heard in my research, that those who studied under or worked with Naranjo never mentioned this supposed spiritual influence. At least not until a lot later.

There is one person (posted in the comments section of the infamous interview) that claims she heard him use the “automatic writing” phrase in another lecture before. According to her, Naranjo used metaphors a lot, and in this particular instance he went on to explain what he meant by it:

Naranjo used the metaphor of "automatic writing” during his 1996 Enneagram Intensive but went on to explain what he meant by it. He described it as free associations based on his experience and expertise as a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst. He said the details of the types that Oscar Ichazo had proposed came easily because of his accumulated knowledge of many personality typologies created from research studies by renowned psychiatrists and psychologists he respected. Naranjo said it flowed because all he had to do was sort the data according to Ichazo’s ideas of the 9 Enneagram types. He said that it was easy for him to do because of his familiarity with the research of Karen Horney, Erich Fromm, William Sheldon, and many others.

Now, there’s no real way to confirm this. It’s entirely possible this internet stranger is making all of this up.

What I can say is that this lines up with the other personal accounts of Naranjo that I came across in my research. Any person whose personal account of Naranjo I’ve read has described him as more of an eccentric brainiac rather than a mystic. He also was allegedly an Enneagram 5…which, if you know the Enneagram well, should also be a clue to you that these accounts of him line up.

The picture often painted of Naranjo when he was at Arica with Ichazo, was one of an intellectual who made waves because he wasn’t “spiritual” enough. It’s been reported that Ichazo even told him he wasn’t “ready” yet, so that’s what Naranjo left and did his own thing.

Spirits or Just Gas?

Another thing to consider— Claudio Naranjo was not a Christian. “Yeah, duh!”

Hear me out, because I think this is an important point…

Whenever believers do something, invent something, or say something that they are unsure of its origins, they immediately attribute it to the Holy Spirit. Sometimes accurately, sometimes inaccurately. Sometimes devastatingly.

The longer one follows Jesus, the more they see how people proclaim the Holy Spirit when they shouldn’t have. They misjudge their own hubris, think the Spirit is telling them something, and then go do things that can range from dangerous, to abusive, to despicable.

The late Dr. Timothy Keller, renowned pastor and author, often brings up the story of George Whitefield, who has been known as one of the great preachers in history.

Whitefield lived in the 18th century and traveled the world preaching the gospel. When his wife Elizabeth bore a son, Whitefield was convinced that God was telling him that the child was destined to become a great preacher.

He believed it so much, that he named the son John after John the Baptist (whose mother was also named Elizabeth). This is what Dr. Keller wrote in his book, Prayer, about Whitefield’s experience:

When John Whitefield was born, George baptized his son before a large crowd and preached a sermon on the great works that God would do through his son. He knew that cynics were sneering at his prophecies, but he ignored them.

Then, at just four months old, his son died suddenly of a seizure. The Whitefields were of course grief-stricken, but George was particularly convicted about how wrong he had been to count his inward impulses and intuitions as being essentially equal to God’s Word. He realized he had led his congregation into the same disillusioning mistake. Whitefield had interpreted his own feelings—his understandable and powerful fatherly pride and joy in his son, and his hopes for him—as God speaking to his heart. Not long afterward, he wrote a wrenching prayer for himself, that God would “render this mistaken parent more cautious, more sober-minded, more experienced in Satan’s devices, and consequently more useful in his future labors to the church of God.”

A tragic reminder that ALL “spirits” should be tested.

So why bring this up?

If we Christians often mistake our own impulses, our own emotions, our own ideas, for God’s voice…is it not therefore possible for a non-Christian to do the same?

If someone who doesn’t believe in God has a stroke of inspiration they can’t quite explain, they are likely going to attribute it to one of two things: their own genius, or an unknown “higher power.”

If one is an atheist, they’re likely going to claim the former. If one is agnostic or vaguely spiritual, they’re likely going to claim the latter.

It’s feasible that Naranjo, given what he was taught by Oscar Ichazo, combined with his years of knowledge in the field of psychology, combined with his work that comprised of other experts and experiments/trials, combined with his own brilliance and aptitude, simply was able to arrange what was already out there into a comprehensive structure that became what we know as the Enneagram of Personality.

Then, as the moment came where he pieced it all together, it felt like an out-of-body experience. Like it came to him out of nowhere. And the only way he could describe it was to use a phrase that non-Christians who believe in some form of spirituality use to describe a light bulb moment.

So he called it automatic writing.

But What if I’m Wrong?

If you’re looking for indisputable, concrete proof that Naranjo was just joking or mistook his inspiration for a higher power, you’re just not going to find it.

That means that we do need to face the possibility that Claudio Naranjo literally channeled evil spirits. And, like I mentioned before, Oscar Ichazo before him claimed to be inspired by otherworldly sources.

What do we do with that? Does that mean we run from it? Shun it? Cast it aside as evil?

We could. But this is not the first time we’ve had to ask this question about something that has become popular in western society.

For instance, there’s yoga. It has spiritual, non-Christian roots and dates back hundreds, maybe thousands of years. It traditionally was a practice to achieve oneness with mind, body, and nature. It has been attached to several different non-Christian religions and in history has been used to “connect with spirits.”

But now, it’s a part of the basic white girl starter pack.

It’s also used as a legitimate form of exercise, and largely is accepted by the Christian community as a whole, apart from the legalistic. Why? Because you can do yoga without channeling spirits.

What about Christmas? You know, that holiday where we celebrate the birth of Jesus? That has non-Christian roots. It was a pagan holiday tied to the Winter Solstice. Back then, the legalistic religious types even forbade participating in it. December 25 was a day that Romans celebrated the birth of their god Mithra (not to be confused with the giant flying frienemy of Godzilla). Jesus’s birthday was likely in the spring or summer.

None of that stops us from appropriating what was once a non-Christian event for our own, and turning into a remembrance of the moment our soul felt its worth.

Then there’s the obvious one - Halloween.

Many of us grew up in families that were fearful of this holiday because of its origins. It has roots in the festival of Samhein, in which people would wear costumes and start bonfires to ward off ghosts. Jack-O-Lanterns started from a tale of a guy whose soul was rejected from heaven and hell, and was given a turnip from the devil with a burning coal inside to light his way as he wandered the earth.

That didn’t stop churches from having Trunk or Treats or Hallelujah Harvests, in which there was plenty of costumes and Jack-O-Lanterns, but it somehow made it okay because it was in a church parking lot?

And here we are, posting annual photos on instagram of our family costume ideas. And guess what? Somehow we all avoided being possessed!

Well…maybe not all of us. Who am I to say?

Here’s one, speaking of those of us who grew up in church…specifically Southern Baptist: evil rock music.

I legitimately had to sit through a youth pastor telling me and the other youth in our church about how rock music, and he meant ALL rock music, is evil. He went on and on about stories of people burning Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath records and seeing spirits come out of the fire. He bashed all of the then-current rock bands that were popular, including those who were Christians (like POD).

Then, I’ll never forget it…a kid raised his hand and asked, “What about Christian rock music?”

“Oh, I’ve got a lot to say about that,'“ he replied, “We’ll talk about it next week.”

The following week, he spent the entire time telling us Christian bands were also evil, because they participated in the same profession as secular bands. It confuses people, was his point. Some poor soul is not going to tell a difference between Christian and secular and could get wrapped up in demonic activity.

He then proceeded to show us a promotional VHS of Christian band, DC Talk. He jeered at how they glorified their Dove award and didn’t give enough credit to Jesus.

He played the song, Luv is a Verb, and pointed out the following lyric:

Back in the day there was a man
Who stepped out of Heaven and he walked the land
He delivered to the people an eternal choice
With a heart full of luv and the truth in His voice
Gave up His life so that we may live
How much more luv could the Son of God give?
Here is the example that we oughtta be matchin'
Cause luv is a word that requires some action

Why was this bad? Well, they never mentioned that the man they were talking about was Jesus! How could someone possibly know they’re not talking about Satan!

I promise you…this was a literal point he made with a straight face. Maybe the spirit he was channeling was Dana Carvey’s Church Lady.

This man was a classic example of someone who could not separate intention from action. He looked at all the ways in which a certain type of music was used to glorify sin or demonic activity, and was convinced that it was the music genre’s fault. That because of its methods of melody, fast tempo, or loudness, it was a one-way ticket to hell.

This guy wasn’t an anomaly, either. With my dad being a Music Minister, I witnessed firsthand the conflict he caused and the blow back he received when he *gasp!* incorporated drums during worship. Church congregations were sometimes literally split on the issue of traditional music (piano, organ, maybe some light strings, choir) vs “contemporary” (drums, guitar, a young person on stage). I guarantee you the people who fought hardest against contemporary held much of the same beliefs as my aforementioned youth pastor (though to be fair, he was just an interim youth pastor).

Yep. We live in a world of people who not only refuse to change, but are afraid. And fear is not Christlike.

Scaredy-Cat Christians

There is a book by Dr. Larry Osbourne, pastor of North Coast Church in California, entitled, Thriving in Babylon. There’s a particular chapter in there called, “Scaredy-Cat Christians,” that I often think back on and reference.

In that chapter, he recalls a trip he took deep into the Amazon jungle to visit a couple of missionaries. They were residing with a tribe who “had only recently come into contact with the outside world.”

The night he spent with them, he heard a witch doctor making a series of screams and demonic incantations into the night. The next morning he offered a trade to that witch doctor for his ceremonial spear.

Dr. Osbourne goes on to say that when he hung that spear up in his office back home, people were “aghast.” They were convinced that he brought home a vessel for demons, and that he was inviting all sorts of evil into his life…like this was Loki’s scepter from The Avengers, carrying the soul stone which can control the minds of anyone it touches (nerd reference mine, not Dr. Osbourne’s).

The point he made about this instance in his book stood out to me. He calls people like this, “scaredy-cat Christians,” and reminds us that “He who is in [us] is greater than he who is in the world.”

Dr. Osbourne drives it home with this:

Scaredy-cat Christians forget that Satan is a liar, the father of lies, and deception is his native tongue. They believe his boasts. He can boast all he wants. The fact is, he can’t touch us without the Lord’s permission. He’s only powerful when we believe his lies. He has no power otherwise.

He doesn’t gain a foothold when we participate in, hang around, or touch something that was once his. He gains a foothold when we sin. Evil is not some sort of contagious disease. It’s a conscious choice. We don’t have to worry about being accidentally contaminated.

This hits home with me. If I’m being honest, I am quite often a scaredy-cat Christian. I fall into the trap of thinking I am going to be somehow contaminated if I engage with the spooky, or even just unclean, side of the world.

The problem is Jesus calls us to be a light in darkness. We can’t do that if we’re too scared to enter dark places. We know we’ll be okay. Take it from the Apostle Paul, who frequented dark and demonic places, and reminds us that all we need to do is equip ourselves properly.

Jackie Hill Perry

I think it’s worth addressing some of the other points Ms. Perry made in the video posted above that went viral among young Christians.

She talks about Genesis 3 and how the pursuit of knowledge is the way Satan corrupts us. I agree with this point out of context. If we try to know all the answers to everything and obsess over that, and depend on it to define ourselves and how we operate in the world, then indeed we have missed the point and are allowing the enemy to win.

However, I am curious to know where she draws the line.

Should we not study biology and explore how our bodies work, or the ins and outs of God’s creation around us? What about astronomy, and the pursuit of knowing the vastness of the universe and beyond?

Should we just toss all psychology out the window?

In other words, what is God-approved knowledge and science and what is not?

I view the Enneagram and all other typologies in the same light as the sciences. We’re just trying to understand how things work. Can we make it an idol? Yes. Can we use it to explain away a need for God? For sure. Does that mean it’s evil and gives the devil a foothold? If the answer is yes, then literally all other science and exploration must be.

It’s all about how we use the knowledge and tools we discover.

All astronomy, biology, chemistry, and other sciences do for us believers is accentuate the awe and wonder we have for God’s design. For non-believers, it replaces God. Is that the fault of the sciences, or the inherent sin within us?

She also mentioned the phrase, “demonic wisdom.”

I’m going to say this flat out— no demon is wise. If they were, they would not be on the side that is doomed to fail (credit to my wife Heather for that thought).

Don’t confuse wisdom with knowledge.

JHP also refers to the fact that people take the Enneagram on as their identity, which I agree is misuse of the tool. As I have mentioned in a previous post, there is so much more that goes into who a person is than any typology system can track. The Enneagram is a piece of the puzzle.

It’s interesting to me how she talks about the ways in which the Enneagram can be abused to confuse someone about their identity, but she has no problem using TikTok and other social media platforms, which have been proven to literally affect people’s self image and mental health in a negative way.

Her response to that pushback would likely be something like, “I’m on TikTok to be a light on a platform that desperately needs it.”

So could one not use the same rationale for teaching Enneagram in a way that leads people closer to God? Shouldn’t we encourage MORE Christians to enter the secular world of mapping identity and personality so we can point people to the source of our TRUE identity?

It literally is the reason I started this Substack. The ways in which these tools (not just the Enneagram) have helped me understand and embrace who God made me to be has been so profound, I now have a passion for helping others down the same path.

If that’s demonic “wisdom,” it’s not very wise to give us such knowledge that can be used to further the kingdom of their enemy.

Conclusion

So here’s where I stand.

It’s entirely plausible that Claudio Naranjo didn’t actually engage with spirits when creating the Enneagram of Personality, and I’m on the side of it being very likely that his experience in psychology, his intellect, and his hard work on the subject actually being the inspiration for it.

It’s also concerning that Oscar Ichazo claimed to have gotten inspiration from different spirits. I’d say it’s MORE likely, honestly, that he believes that. What seems to me to be the most plausible is that he simply gave a name to whatever he saw while under the use of psychedelics, and the names he had in his back pocket came from his non-Christian, spiritual and religious studies.

But, if I’m wrong, I’m not afraid to still teach and talk about the Enneagram. It’s because I know there’s a lot of value in it. It has revolutionized the way I see myself and others. It has increased my empathy for everyone. It has enhanced my relationship with my wife.

I have heard of and seen countless examples of it helping people actually get closer to God. I have never once seen it used as some gateway drug to Satan-worshiping.

And here’s the thing…

If it was given to us by a demon, what a victory for Christ it is, that we have been able to take something that was given to us by evil and have turned it into an enormously helpful tool for people to understand and love each other AND themselves AND God’s design!

If indeed it had a demonic beginning, let’s rejoice that once again, God has triumphed over evil.

Questions to consider:

1. In what ways has knowledge and discovery of the sciences enhanced or encouraged your faith? In what ways has your faith been damaged because of learning how things work?

2. Have you found the Enneagram helpful for you in ways that it strengthened your faith, or helped you have more love or empathy towards others? Or has it become an idol for you and replaced Jesus as the core of your identity?

3. Think of times in your past where you may have been a scaredy-cat Christian. How do you think things would have played out differently had you doubled down on your faith that perfect love casts out fear?