Faith in the Flames: A Review of The Heretic and the Dangers of Secular Nihilism

The Spiderman quote at the beginning gives it all away

What follows are my thoughts and reactions to the themes present in the movie The Heretic. I’m assuming you’ve seen it already as there are spoilers and this “review” is not going to recap the plot. If you are interested in seeing it, the movie is available to purchase and stream from Amazon Prime Video.

Heretic was a psychological thriller released in the fall of 2024. Some of the buzz, as I understand it, is due to the inclusion of Mormon sister missionaries as major characters in the film. Something that has not been done before. But this is not actually a movie about Mormonism.

The opening scene sets the stage for what the movie is about. It has Sister Paxton essentially repeating a commonly held maxim in the atheist movement - that people only believe in religion because they were born into it and taught to believe it when they were young and that if they were not indoctrinated as children, they likely wouldn’t believe it. Of course, the audience is distracted from this by the ladies talking about condoms, penis sizes, and Sister Paxton’s confession that she watched a pornographic movie.

The Power of Suggestion

The opening scenes with the discussions with Mr Reed and that whole farce about blueberry pie is also interesting and I think the film is exploring the themes about the powers of suggestion. He says his wife is cooking a pie and asks the girls what kind of pie she’s cooking and Paxton answers blueberry pie. It’s then later revealed that the scented candle he’s burning is scented “blueberry pie.” He further drives this point home, purposely after asking Sister Barnes how her father died. She says Lou Gherig’s disease, and he replies, “Blueberry disease?” highlighting how that how we interpret what we experience through our senses is quite subject to manipulation and suggestion. In the second act of the movie, Mr Reed hammers this point home when tells the girls “I put the scented candle on the table because I wanted you to think about the things you believe just because someone asked you the believe them.”

This theme is back on display in the third act with the sham “prophet.” Where it becomes clear the “prophet” and the “prophecy” are both farce. I think this also serves another purpose: to tip audiences off to the fact that they should not take what they are watching at face value and that the filmmaker is purposely going to be manipulating them so be careful with what you assume you know to be true - esp. if its information that Mr Reed had delivered.

The curious case of the butterfly

(This part comes from a Reddit user review. This is not my connection)

Near the movie's beginning, in the initial discussion with Mr Reed, Sister Paxton states when she dies, she wants to come back as a butterfly just to follow around the people that she loves. And that she’ll land right on their hand so that they know it’s her. Near the movie’s end, as a critically injured Sister Paxton escapes, a butterfly lands on her hand. We are then left to answer the question: Is Sister Paxton dead? We are shown a phone searching for service, which might be interpreted to indicate that Sister Paxton has escaped and will soon be reconnected with the outside world. Alternatively, we might take this to indicate that this is all merely a near-death hallucination. There is no cell service because Sister Paxton does not escape, and the butterfly indicates she has died. Or is the butterfly just a message telling Sister Paxton someone loves her? Maybe Sister Barnes is the butterfly?

However, we must remember the callback to the butterfly dream mentioned earlier by Mr. Reed. Zhuang Zhou dreams he is a butterfly, floating about, fluttering his wings, unconcerned with the tortuous inquiries of man, happy and content. Zhuang Zhou forgets he is a man. Yet suddenly Zhuang Zhou wakes up, only to find himself: his body, his limbs. But Zhuang Zhou doesn’t know if he is a man who has dreamt he is a butterfly or if he is a butterfly who is dreaming he is Zhuang Zhou.

How are we to know the truth? The message is that truth is whatever we believe it to be, and aside from that, we cannot know. Is Sister Paxton dead, dreaming she is alive? Or has Sister Paxton indeed escaped, and the butterfly is but a coincidence? Will Sister Paxton be reborn as butterflies are?

Thus, perhaps the movie's message is, in fact, the postmodernist assertion - that there is no ultimate truth, that it’s true if you believe it is. This certainly makes sense of the scene where Mr. Reed makes the girl choose a door to leave by. Door A - Belief, Door B - Disbelief. But then we find that both doors lead to the same place. So perhaps the message is, choose to believe or choose not to believe b/c in the end it doesn’t really matter and you end up in Hades anyways?

This postmodernist assertion is one that I remember being taught in college in an Anthropology class. It was presented first with the idea of moral relativism. To a young, impressionable mind that had never before been exposed to those ideas and lacked the life experience to think critically about them, they appeared initially to be self-evidently true. I do remember some classmates challenging the teacher on these points and disagreeing with her, but they were shouted down by the rest of the gullible/impressionable class in the form of a vote of the audience, and the professor moved on, seemingly triumphant. The ideas that reality/identity and morality are whatever you choose them, that nothing is true, and that everything is true all at once (and everyone has their own “truth.”) have led to societal and moral chaos and strife, with dark outcomes, which is what we’ll explore more in the rest of this review. Now, 30+ years later, it is very plain to see that while these ideas seem legitimate on the surface, counter-intuitively, they are not and are, in fact, incredibly destructive. They are pernicious evils meant to make us feel good by validating our feelings and thus playing into our egos but are ultimately the deceptions of devils meant to lead us into hell.

I think it is not a coincidence that at this point in the movie after Sister Paxton has made her statement about butterflies, the lights go out, Mr. Reed can no longer see clearly, and he has to put his glasses on. He then declares that it’s time for Pie and time for Enlightenment - when he starts diverging into his enlightenment-based philosophies.

Enlightenment ideas

The film dives into these enlightenment ideas early on. After a short diatribe about his belief that Joseph Smith's polygamy was just an excuse to cover up affairs with other women (which references the Fanny Alger affair.) Mr Reed (the movie's monster) says, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Sister Paxton says, “Spiderman.” (I laughed when she said that b/c since the Spiderman movie came out, and Uncle Ben says that, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that phrase repeated in LDS sacrament meeting talks.)

Mr. Reed corrects her and says, “Voltaire.” (there is no evidence that Voltaire ever said this, but it is often attributed to him b/c it is in line with many of his ideas.) It attempts to establish that Mr. Reed is much better read and educated than the girl and has superior intellect - something on display for much of the movie. If you know who Voltaire is and what his perspectives are/were, this is a huge clue to how the rest of the movie is going to play out and that Mr. Reed - far from being a “Golden” investigator, is actually a horrible and creepy man, jaded and twisted from his total deconstructing of faith.

Voltaire (1694-1778) was a French Enlightenment writer and philosopher. He strongly advocated for the freedom of religion, expression, and the separation of Church and State. He was also highly critical of the Roman Catholic Church, its corruption, and its power. Voltaire emphasized the moral obligations of leaders and those in positions of power to act in ways that benefit society. A similar sentiment appears in a speech given by Gabriel comte de Mirabeau during the French Revolution: “Ils doivent envisager qu’une grande responsabilité est la suite inséparable d’un grand pouvoir.” (“They must consider that great responsibility is the inseparable result of great power.”) Voltaire’s ideas significantly impacted the development of Enlightenment thinking and influenced both the French and American revolutions.

Should Mormons watch this Movie?

While including a Mormon element and sister missionaries might seem interesting to LDS viewers or readers, my assessment is that Mormonism is included more to help the writers advance their plot than anything else and to create dramatic horror tension through the inclusion of not one but two seemingly naive, helpless and vulnerable white women. The movie also needed a religion to pick on that many/most viewers would already view as false (to help make the movie's secular atheist point.)

Enter Mormonism - everyone’s favorite and most acceptable religious “whipping boy.” If they had used Islam, criticized Mohammed instead of Joseph Smith, and attempted the murder of 2 Islamic women or imams, the outcry from the liberal media would have been deafening. The liberal left is so hypocritical. Mormons, this treatment isn’t going to end until Mormons stand up for themselves, and there are consequences for mocking your religion. I’m not saying to go out and behead anyone, but there needs to be pushback and action. However, I found the part where Mr Reed compares Mormonism to the Bob Ross version of Monopoly quite funny. My TBM LDS son was less than impressed.

The film's presentation of Mormonism and the sister missionaries is somewhat shallow and stereotypical. During the movie's opening scene, my son objected, saying, “Sister missionaries would never say that or act like that.” Maybe, I don’t know. Neither of us has been sister missionaries, so I’m not sure we can say that, but I suspect he’s correct. In any event, the movie isn’t about Mormons or Mormonism at all it’s really about a worldview based on Faith/Belief vs one based on Secular Materialism and Nihilism. There is some criticism of Mormonism presented in the movie, but it’s the old “dime-store variety” version that Joesph Smith created polygamy as an excuse to have sex with other women. Most Mormons have heard some version of this many times, and it’s less likely to be offensive or faith-challenging than to provoke profound eye-rolling.

There is nothing of interest in this movie for the believing LDS. They can safely ignore it.

Voltaire’s Views on Religion

Please note that I’m not an expert on Voltaire, neither have I read any of his works, so what follows is based on internet research and answers from claude.ai.

Voltaire was not strictly anti-religious but was highly critical of organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church, and the abuses he perceived within institutional religion. His views were shaped by rationalism, skepticism, and deism, leading him to challenge many aspects of religious authority and dogma. He accepted the idea of God (he wasn’t an atheist) but was a fierce critic of what he saw as superstition, fanaticism, and clerical corruption.

Key Philosophical Positions and Critiques:

1. Deism and Critique of Organized Religion:

• Voltaire was a Deist, believing in a rational, impersonal God who created the universe but did not intervene in human affairs. He seems to become more agnostic in later writings.

• He rejected revealed religion and the authority of sacred texts, arguing that divine truths could be discerned through reason rather than revelation.

• Voltaire criticized the Catholic Church for its institutional corruption, wealth accumulation, and political power, famously coining the phrase:

• “Écrasez l’infâme!” (“Crush the infamy!”) — a call against religious oppression and superstition, primarily targeting the Catholic clergy.

2. Skepticism and Rationalism:

• Influenced by Enlightenment rationalism, Voltaire was deeply skeptical of miracles, superstition, and dogmatic belief.

• He argued that beliefs should be grounded in empirical evidence and reason rather than tradition or blind faith.

3. Opposition to Theocracy and Clerical Power:

• Voltaire opposed the merging of church and state, seeing it as a source of oppression and intellectual stagnation.

• He critiqued the Inquisition and other forms of religious persecution, arguing that clerical power often led to violence and the suppression of individual freedom.

4. Critique of Biblical Literalism and Dogma:

• Voltaire questioned the Bible's historical accuracy and moral integrity, especially the Old Testament, which he saw as filled with violence and contradictions. He was equally critical of the New Testament. His work "The Bible Finally Explained" (La Bible enfin expliquée) offered detailed criticism of both testaments, challenging their historical accuracy and internal consistency.

• He viewed doctrines such as eternal damnation and original sin as irrational and harmful to human progress.

5. Religious Tolerance and Pluralism:

• While critical of organized religion, Voltaire was a proponent of religious tolerance. His work Treatise on Tolerance (1763) condemned the execution of Jean Calas, a Protestant wrongly accused of murdering his son to prevent a conversion to Catholicism.

• He advocated for a secular society where diverse beliefs could coexist without persecution.

6. Critique of Fanaticism:

• Voltaire believed fanaticism was the most dangerous consequence of religious dogma. He saw it as a source of violence and societal division, as demonstrated in his play Mahomet, a critique of religious extremism. Regarding Mahomet the play was primarily a critique of religious fanaticism. Voltaire explicitly criticizes Islamic beliefs and practices, not just religious extremism in general. The play caused significant controversy both for its portrayal of Muhammad and its implicit criticism of Christianity.

All together we know where Mr Reed is coming from as the movie gets rolling.

I watched this movie with my son, who chalked it up to some liberal atheists in Hollywood (quel suprise) trying to produce an anti-religious film to try to destroy faith via Mr. Reed’s long anti-religious monologues. He’s not wrong for thinking that. I mean, Hollywood is pretty well established, I dare say, as being a bunch of anti-Christ devil worshippers. Nothing garners their ire more than the Christian truth!

Mr. Reed’s Secular beliefs create a Hellish Reality.

I interpreted the outcome of the movie differently. Having experienced a period of atheism myself after deconstructing Mormonism—a time when I became the worst version of myself—I saw Mr. Reed and the horrific world he creates as the inevitable destination of his beliefs. Mr. Reed embodies the dark, twisted consequences of a worldview rooted in modern secularism and the anti-religious zealotry often associated with the new atheist movement. Rejecting divine guidance as mere tools of control and power, (a theme common in recent Hollywood blockbuster movies like Denis Villeneuve’s excellent rendition of Frank Herbert’s Dune.) his perspective aligns with the philosophies of Nietzsche, Foucault, and Lyotard, where concepts like the “will to power” replace faith and morality as the driving force of human behavior. His character illustrates a life devoid of spiritual or ethical constraints, spiraling into manipulation, control, and nihilism.

Thoughts on Mr. Reed and His Worldview

Mr. Reed’s obsession with power, stripped of compassion or empathy, creates an environment of spiritual emptiness and moral decay. This “living hell” consumes not only those trapped within it but also Mr. Reed himself. His home, with its curious design, becomes a metaphor for his worldview: a trap engineered for control and dominance. Its descent into progressively darker and more oppressive levels mirrors the descent into hell, reinforced by a diagram on the wall—presumably from Dante’s Inferno—in the “Fake Chapel in the Study.” The home is both a manifestation of his ideology and a representation of its inevitable, destructive consequences.

A Reflection on Secularism and Faith

For me, the film highlights the dangers of godless, anti-Christian philosophies. Mr. Reed’s reality, filled with manipulation and cruelty, illustrates how proximity to these beliefs can draw people into moral and spiritual ruin. While Voltaire critiqued religious dogma, arguing against blind faith, the movie seems to suggest that even blind faith may be preferable to no faith at all. Without any spiritual anchor, individuals risk losing their humanity, reverting to base instincts, and descending into corruption and moral decay while they grasp, for power.

The Film as a Cautionary Tale

Rather than advocating for atheism, I saw the film as a stark warning about the perils of secularism and materialist ideologies. Mr. Reed’s world reflects the consequences of a society unmoored from faith, meaning, and a belief in Truth: a descent into chaos, cruelty, and self-destruction. The movie serves as a reminder that without faith or moral grounding, individuals and societies risk losing their way, creating a reality as hollow and hellish as the one Mr. Reed inhabits.

“the point of the film seems to be to show the vile, twisted existence that is inevitable if you really, truly embrace these secular, faith-less world views.”

- Concurring feedback from reader Mr. Robertson.

Faith and Survival

At the beginning of the show, I assumed that Sister Paxton, portrayed as the stereotypically naive Utah girl, would be the first to die, leaving her more confident and mature companion, Sister Barnes, as the survivor or the last to fall. However, the writers defied this expectation with clever twists. Early in the story, Sister Paxton awkwardly confesses to having watched a pornographic video, while Sister Barnes seems indifferent to this confession from her companion. Later, we discover Sister Barnes has a birth control implant—an unlikely item for an LDS missionary—suggesting a divergence from the strict values expected of missionaries. This hints that while Sister Paxton is curious but principled, Sister Barnes may not have entered the mission with authentic faith, a revelation that resonates by the film’s end.

As the story unfolds, Sister Paxton proves to be far more perceptive and resourceful than initially assumed. Despite her apparent naivety, she absorbs enough from her surroundings to eventually outwit Mr. Reed. Her faith emerges as a source of strength and resilience, enabling her to endure Mr. Reed’s psychological and physical torment. Rather than breaking under pressure, her steadfast belief provides her with purpose and hope, embodying the transformative power of faith. This aligns with Voltaire’s acknowledgment of the positive aspects of personal faith, even as he criticized organized religion.

The film’s climax features a dramatic moment where Sister Barnes returns from the dead to save Sister Paxton. While the prophecy element was entirely farce, this act of salvation may have been symbolic of divine intervention, perhaps echoing the salvific nature of the resurrection. It underscores the triumph of faith, as Sister Paxton’s prayers and faith are ultimately rewarded.

By the film's end, despite what the filmmakers may have intended, ironically, it is Sister Paxton, the missionary with genuine faith, who survives. Her simple yet authentic belief triumphs over Mr. Reed’s intellectual arrogance. Despite admitting that prayer “doesn’t work,” Sister Paxton continues to pray, expressing gratitude even for her trials, maybe even praying for Mr Reed. This reflects the essence of true faith: belief and trust in God, even amidst doubt and suffering.

In a poignant scene, Sister Paxton prays while Mr. Reed, who prompts her to pray for them, weeps on her shoulder. His tears could stem from despair at his failure to shake her faith, fear of death and the finality of atheism, or the crushing realization that his so-called intellectual superiority has led him into an abyss from which there will be no return. As I rewatched this scene later, I was struck by the idea that Mr Reed is the very embodiment of the dark and vile, twisted existence these secular atheist values lead to, existing without hope, light, or joy. And as a result, he can only weep in the face of the light and hope of true faith (maybe he is finally touched by the spirit in this moment) before his evil all-devouring beliefs drive him to attempt to finish her off. Maybe that’s the cause of the weeping? Having come to the end of a life of darkness, he finally experiences some small measure of the light and Grace that Sister Paxton willingly shares in the face of his horror. He knows in his dark, twisted soul that his final act will be to try to extinguish that light, and it pains his soul to the core—so earlier digs at Mormonism aside - this is a point for the Mormon Sister missionary.

Mr. Reed’s despair starkly contrasts Sister Paxton’s resilience, highlighting the emptiness of his godless philosophy. When I look back at my past, I have to admit with horror that I was Mr. Reed for many years (in that I tried to live/experience and make sense of religion and faith solely through an intellectual/materialist¹ framework), saved only by Christ coming to me directly to redeem me and call me back to him. (What an amazing miracle and act of love and redemption by Him. I Stand All Amazed…. at the love Jesus offers me…. (that's an LDS hymn, btw).

Though the film appears to moralize in favor of atheism, its ultimate message may suggest the opposite. Sister Paxton’s survival and Mr. Reed’s defeat underscores the power of authentic faith to endure and transform, even in the face of nihilism. To me, the story serves as a cautionary tale: secular philosophies, relativistic morality, and relativistic “truth” lead to a Hell full of despair and destruction, while true conviction and authentic faith lead to hope and light, even in the darkest moments. Instead of ridiculing religion, the film may challenge viewers to reflect on the dangers of abandoning faith for the false promises of secularism. Perhaps I’m just reading into it what I want to see, but thankfully, the film is ambiguous enough to allow me the space to do that, so why shouldn’t I?

After all, the film’s tagline is “Question Everything.”

Rightly so, I say, and what better place to start than with this film and its superficial attack on faith? By the very nature of its relativism, the postmodernist message defeats itself.

Thumbs up or Thumbs down?

I liked this movie. I like movies that present interesting/complex themes and then play with them, test them, and trust the audience enough to let them draw their own conclusions, especially if the film is comfortable leaving enough space in ambiguity for audiences to fill the gaps themselves, and don’t feel the need to spell everything out. I also liked it because it could, perhaps, be classified as a “theological thriller.”

However, I suspect many other people will not find the film as interesting as I did. My son didn’t like it at all, seeing it as yet another cheap Hollywood attack on faith. They do it all the time, so it makes sense that one would see it this way.

However, if even half of the themes I raised in this review are accurate, then it’s a clever bit of writing - and made more impressive that it became a halfway cogent movie. Therefore, I do think it’s worth a watch.

1. Where marterialist/materialism here is used to refer to the philosophical viewpoint asserting that the only thing that exists is matter; everything—including consciousness, thoughts, and emotions—can be explained in terms of physical substances and their interactions.. This is certainly taught in universities, it was taught to me, along with postmodernism and other enlightenment ideas - which is why perhaps, I’ve recently heard a Jordan Peterson discussion where he asserted that this is the petering out of the enlightenment and at the end we see that these enlightenment ideas, which have for so long been wildly successful, has with regards to God and Religion, failed us. https://youtube.com/shorts/ZZ3rhBuNmUc?si=7VpFTZzEAPMTvIHg and