RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE AGE OF AI AND SURVEILLANCE: MAPPING THE FIELD AND CHARTING FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE AGE OF AI AND SURVEILLANCE: MAPPING THE FIELD AND CHARTING FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS By Antonio Quirós-Fons Freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is a fundamental human right enshrined in numerous international legal instruments, most notably in Article 18 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It encompasses the right to hold, change, and manifest religious or nonreligious beliefs individually or collectively, in public or private. In the 21st century, however, the exercise of this right is increasingly mediated by digital technologies. As religious expression, communitybuilding, and worship migrate to online platforms, new opportunities and challenges emerge. Digital spaces offer unprecedented access to religious resources, enable transnational faith communities, and provide platforms for marginalized voices. At the same time, these spaces are governed by opaque algorithms, subject to surveillance, and vulnerable to censorship and bias. The digital age thus reconfigures the landscape of religious freedom, raising urgent questions about how FoRB is protected—or undermined—by technological infrastructures. Among the most transformative technologies shaping this landscape are artificial intelligence (AI) and surveillance systems. AI is now embedded in content moderation tools, facial recognition software, predictive policing, and recommendation algorithms. These systems can amplify or suppress religious content, profile religious minorities, and influence public perceptions of faith-based communities. Surveillance technologies, often justified in the name of national security or public order, © 2025 Institute for Global Engagement the review of faith & international affairs | 104 Abstract: This article surveys the current state of scholarship at the intersection of religious freedom and emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI) and surveillance. It identifies key themes, theoretical frameworks, and methodological approaches in the field, while highlighting significant research gaps. The study argues for a more robust interdisciplinary engagement that includes legal, ethical, technological, and theological perspectives. It concludes with recommendations for future research that can better inform policy and protect the rights to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in increasingly digital societies. Keywords: religious freedom, artificial intelligence, surveillance, digital rights, human rights, technology ethics, freedom of belief have been deployed to monitor religious gatherings, track religious leaders, and collect biometric data from faith-based populations. Such practices have been documented in both authoritarian and democratic contexts, raising concerns about privacy, discrimination, and the chilling effect on religious expression. While these technologies offer potential benefits—such as combating hate speech or facilitating digital worship—they also pose significant risks to FoRB. The ethical, legal, and social implications of these developments demand rigorous scholarly attention. This paper 1 aims to assess the current state of scholarship at the intersection of religious freedom and digital technology, with a particular focus on AI and surveillance. Rather than presenting new empirical findings, the paper synthesizes existing research, identifies key themes and gaps, and offers recommendations for future inquiry. The scope of the paper includes: a review of foundational concepts such as FoRB, digital rights, and AI ethics; an overview of thematic areas including content moderation, algorithmic bias, digital worship, and surveillance; an analysis of methodological approaches used in the field; a discussion of underexplored areas and interdisciplinary opportunities; a set of forwardlooking recommendations for scholars, policymakers, and technologists. By mapping the field and charting future directions, this article seeks to support a global community of researchers committed to advancing religious freedom in an increasingly digital world. Religious Freedom and Technology: Overview of Foundational Concepts and Key Literature Freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is a cornerstone of international human rights law, enshrined in Article 18 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It protects not only the right to hold beliefs but also to manifest them in practice, worship, and observance. In the digital age, this right increasingly intersects with digital rights— such as freedom of expression, privacy, and access to information—which are essential for safeguarding FoRB in online and technologically mediated environments (Greiman 2021; Ünver 2024). Digital rights frameworks emphasize the importance of equitable access to technology, protection from surveillance, and the ability to express beliefs freely in digital spaces (Smuha 2025a). These rights are particularly relevant as religious expression increasingly occurs on social media, in virtual worship spaces, and through digital activism. AI ethics, a rapidly evolving field, addresses the moral and societal implications of artificial intelligence (Quirós-Fons 2025). Key principles include fairness, accountability, transparency, and respect for human dignity (Floridi and Cowls 2019). These principles are vital when considering how AI systems affect religious individuals and communities, especially in areas like automated decision-making (Osasona et al. 2024), surveillance (Almeida, Shmarko, and Lomas 2022; Ünver 2024), and content moderation (Ashraf 2021). As for key literature, Elmahjub (2023) provides a critical intervention by proposing a pluralist ethical framework for AI grounded in Islamic ethics. He critiques the dominance of Western-centric paradigms in AI ethics such as a secular, universalist moral foundation, which marginalizes or excludes religious and nonWestern ethical traditions. Other paradigms are liberal individualism, or technocratic and corporate influence. He therefore calls for the inclusion of diverse religious and cultural perspectives in the development and governance of AI technologies. This pluralist approach is essential for ensuring that AI systems respect the values and rights of religious communities globally (Elmahjub 2023). According to this pluralistic approach to AI ethics, the author advocates for the inclusion of Islamic moral reasoning alongside Western frameworks, introducing the Islamic concept of mas laha(public good or welfare) as a central ethical principle (Elmahjub 2023). This concept can be interpreted in two complementary ways. First, from a welfarist or utility-based religious freedom in the age of ai and surveillance: mapping the field and charting future research directions the review of faith & international affairs | 105 perspective, it supports the development and deployment of AI systems that maximize societal benefit and contribute to the common good. Second, from a duty-based perspective, it emphasizes adherence to moral obligations and divine will, even in cases where such actions may not lead to the greatest utility. This dual interpretation allows for a nuanced ethical framework that balances outcomes with principled commitments. Regarding the digital exercise of FoRB, McClure (2016) explores how digital technologies influence religious belief and behavior, introducing the concept of “religious tinkering”to describe how individuals adapt and personalize their faith in online environments. For instance, users might blend traditional religious texts with personal reflections, digital art, or contemporary music to create Instagram posts or TikTok videos that express their spirituality in a way that resonates with their identity and audience. McClure’sfindings (2017) underscore the transformative impact of digital platforms on religious identity and practice. More recently, Singler and Watts (2024) have provided an authoritative guide to the symbiotic relationship between religion and AI, demonstrating how all religions are now interacting with artificial intelligence. In Christianity, AI-powered applications offer personalized Bible study plans, prayer reminders, and even virtual pastors or chatbots that respond to theological inquiries. Some churches have adopted facial recognition technology for attendance tracking and sentiment analysis during sermons. In Islam, mobile apps use AI to assist with prayer times, Qibla direction, and halal food identification, while scholars explore its implications for Islamic jurisprudence and ethical decision-making. Other traditions are also embracing AI in unique ways. In Buddhism, robotic monks in Japan and China deliver teachings, chant sutras, and interact with temple visitors, merging spiritual practice with technological innovation. Hinduism sees AI tools facilitating remote rituals, interpreting astrological charts, and enabling virtual darshan through livestreams and augmented reality. Meanwhile, in Judaism, AI supports adaptive Torah study platforms and contributes to ongoing debates about its role in halakhic decision-making (Singler and Watts 2024). From a broader point of view, Greiman (2021) highlights the human rights implications of AI, noting that the deployment of AI systems often lacks adequate ethical oversight and accountability mechanisms. This is particularly concerning for religious minorities who may be disproportionately affected by biased or opaque AI systems (Greiman 2021). The European Union is the only region to have developed a comprehensive legal framework for artificial intelligence, from the globally influential General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to the recently adopted AI Act (Smuha 2025b). Methodology To address the core research questions of this paper—namely, where is overall scholarship at regarding religious freedom and technology, especially AI and surveillance, where are the gaps, and what methodologies are needed going forward?—a multi-layered and iterative research strategy was implemented, combining automated tools with manual scholarly review. Database and Research Tools The primary corpus for this review consisted of over 126 million academic papers indexed in the Semantic Scholar database. From this corpus, the 50 most relevant papers were retrieved based on semantic proximity to the research question. Relevance was determined through algorithmic ranking and refined through structured screening. To enhance the comprehensiveness and transparency of the review process, an adapted version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses) framework was applied using the AI-powered research assistant Elicit. This adaptation facilitated systematic documentation of inclusion and exclusion criteria and iterative refinement of search strategies. Additional tools, including Scite and Connected Papers, were employed to trace citation networks, identify influential antonio quirós-fons 106 | volume 23, number 4 (winter 2025) publications, and uncover emerging research clusters. These platforms supported the identification of both foundational texts and recent interdisciplinary contributions. Complementing automated methods, targeted Boolean searches were conducted across academic databases and digital libraries. These searches focused on thematic intersections such as “AI AND religious freedom,”“surveillance AND belief,”and “algorithmic bias AND religion.”The manual approach enabled the multilingual inclusion of other papers, recent books, book chapters, and gray literature, particularly those not indexed in standard academic databases. This hybrid methodology—combining AI-assisted synthesis, manual curation, and multilingual inclusion—ensured a comprehensive and nuanced mapping of the field. Screening Criteria Publications were screened based on the following criteria: Topic Relevance: Does the study examine religious freedom in relation to digital technologies, AI, or surveillance? Research Type: Is the study either an empirical investigation, policy analysis, legal scholarship, or rigorous theoretical analysis? Scholarly Rigor: Does the study present substantial scholarly analysis beyond opinion or commentary? Technological Component: Does the study include analysis of technological components or digital contexts? Religious Freedom Focus: Does the study specifically address religious freedom, practices, or discrimination rather than only general privacy or technology issues? Contemporary Focus: Does the study address current or emerging technological contexts rather than purely historical analysis? Privacy-Religion Intersection: When examining privacy or surveillance, does the study explicitly connect these issues to religious freedom or practices? AI Ethics Relevance: If the study discusses AI ethics, does it specifically address implications for religious freedom or religious practices? Data Extraction and Categorization A large language model was used to extract structured data from each paper, including the extraction instructions shown below for each item: Study design: Identify the type of study design used (theoretical/conceptual analysis, empirical research, case study, policy analysis, comparative study). If multiple approaches are used, list all that apply. Look in the methodology section or research design description. If the design is not explicitly stated, infer from the research approach described in the methods section. Research focus and scope: Extract the specific aspect of religious freedom and technology/AI being examined (content moderation; online privacy; religious practice monitoring; ethical implications; legal restrictions; technological impacts). AI technologies examined: List specificAI technologies, platforms, or systems discussed (content recommendation algorithms; surveillance technologies; monitoring systems; specific AI applications). Provide details about how these technologies interact with religious freedom. Look in methods, results, and discussion sections. If multiple technologies are mentioned, list all. If technologies are described conceptually without naming specific systems, note the general type of technology. Geographical and institutional context: Identify geographic region of study, specific institutions or contexts examined (e.g. specific religious groups, national contexts), and sociopolitical environment relevant to the research. Extract from introduction, methods, and context sections. If multiple contexts are discussed, list all. Key findings on religious freedom: Extract primary findings about AI’s impact on religious freedom, specific challenges or opportunities identified, and potential risks or protective mechanisms. Look in results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Focus on direct statements about religious freedom implications. Recommendations and future directions: Identify policy recommendations, suggested research approaches, ethical guidelines proposed, and strategies for protecting religious freedom. religious freedom in the age of ai and surveillance: mapping the field and charting future research directions the review of faith & international affairs | 107 Extract from conclusion, discussion, and recommendations sections. If multiple recommendations are present, list in order of priority or significance. Preliminary Observations Before presenting the key findings derived from thematic analysis, it is important to highlight some preliminary observations regarding the methodology, geographic scope, and institutional context of the included studies. Methodology: The majority of the studies employed theoretical or conceptual analysis, with many combining these approaches with policy analysis. Notably, no empirical or quantitative studies were identified in the sample. Geographic Scope and Institutional Context: A small number of studies focused on specific national contexts—such as China and other individual countries—or examined particular religious groups, especially within Islamic contexts. However, the majority of the studies addressed issues from a global perspective or did not specify a particular geographic or institutional focus. Thematic Areas of Existing Research AI and Content Moderation: How Religious Expression Is Affected by Automated Systems AI-driven content moderation has become a central mechanism for managing online speech on major platforms, concretely in the digital governance of religious expression (Ashraf 2021). While these systems are designed to detect and remove harmful content, they often lack the cultural and religious nuance necessary to distinguish between hate speech and legitimate religious expression (Bychkov and Prorvich 2021). This has led to the over-removal or suppression of legitimate religious content, particularly from minority faiths (Popova 2024). Ashraf (2021) explains that opaque AI systems— through content moderation and invasive data practices—endanger the visibility and privacy of religious practices online. Popova (2024) highlights that AI moderation tools frequently produce false positives, flagging benign religious content as extremist or offensive. This is especially problematic in multilingual and multicultural contexts where religious terminology may be misinterpreted by automated systems. Bontridder and Poullet (2021)further argue that AI moderation systems, while intended to combat disinformation, often infringe on freedom of expression and belief due to their opaque decision-making processes. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces new obligations for platforms to respect users’rights, potentially reshaping how religious content is treated online (Quintais 2024; Quirós-Fons and García Ull 2022). Moreover, the shift to AI moderation has depoliticized the governance of online speech. As Siapera’s analysis of coloniality and racism in AI moderation shows, these systems often encode dominant cultural norms, marginalizing nonWestern religious expressions (Siapera 2021). Surveillance and Religious Minorities: Case Studies and Global Patterns Surveillance technologies, particularly those powered by AI, are embedded within a legal framework that seeks to maintain public order and territorial integrity but may conflict with international human rights norms, posing a direct threat to FoRB. Surveillance technologies have been deployed by states to monitor religious minorities under the guise of national security. Shumakova and Titova (2023) document how AI-driven tools, including facial and speech recognition and generative technologies, support state surveillance in China, restricting religious activity among ethnic and religious minorities while challenging international legal norms. The study also notes regional variations in the intensity of surveillance and control, with more stringent measures in areas with significant minority populations. Apart from the most cited example—the surveillance of Uyghur Muslims in China (Shumakova and Titova 2023)—there are other documented national cases (Ünver 2024) where facial recognition, biometric tracking, and predictive policing tools have been used to suppress religious practice and identity (Greiman 2021). As already happened with the use of antonio quirós-fons 108 | volume 23, number 4 (winter 2025) deepfakes in armed conflicts (García-Ull and Quirós Fons 2022), AI can be weaponized for disinformation and control, exacerbating the marginalization of religious groups (Brenner et al. 2024). Greiman (2021) further emphasizes the need for robust accountability frameworks to prevent the misuse of AI in ways that infringe on human rights. This pattern is not isolated. In India, surveillance technologies have been used to monitor Muslim communities, especially during periods of political unrest. In Western democracies, Muslim populations have also been disproportionately targeted by counter-terrorism surveillance programs, raising concerns about racial and religious profiling (Greiman 2021; Ünver 2024). In democratic societies outside totalitarian regimes, AI systems may collect and process sensitive data related to individuals’religious beliefs and practices (Ashraf 2021), with ethical implications on AI technologies and mobile applications used for religious purposes (Ty 2023). These practices not only violate privacy but also create a chilling effect on religious expression, as individuals may selfcensor or avoid religious gatherings for fear of being monitored. The normalization of surveillance in religious contexts risks undermining FoRB globally. Digital Worship and Religious Practice: Opportunities and Constraints The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital worship, with many religious communities turning to livestreams, Zoom services, and social media to maintain communal practices. This shift has democratized access to religious services, especially for those in remote or marginalized communities (Bingaman 2020). It is important to distinguish this phenomenon from the establishment of the Way of the Future (WOTF), the first officially recognized church dedicated to the worship of artificial intelligence. Founded in 2015, WOTF represents a significant development in the legal recognition of transhumanism as a form of religion, rather than a digital adaptation of traditional religious practices (Vanoni 2020). However, digital worship also introduces new challenges. Questions of authenticity, ritual integrity, and spiritual presence have emerged, particularly in traditions that emphasize physical gathering and sacramental participation. Moreover, digital platforms are not neutral spaces; they are governed by algorithms and policies that can shape religious discourse and visibility (Ashraf 2021;Bingaman2023). Especially online religious gatherings are often subject to monitoring and data collection, which can chill religious expression, particularly in authoritarian contexts. In this vein, McClure’sworks(2016, 2017) illustrate how digital platforms are reshaping religious practice and identity. There is also the issue of digital exclusion. Not all communities have equal access to the internet or digital literacy, which can exacerbate existing inequalities in religious participation. In this vein, Ty (2023) discusses ethical challenges linked to these technologies and emphasizes the potential role of religious institutions in establishing ethical standards. Algorithmic Bias and Religious Identity: Discrimination in Data-Driven Systems Algorithmic bias occurs when AI systems produce systematically unfair sociocultural outcomes for certain groups (Quirós-Fons 2023). In the context of religion, this can manifest in several ways: facial recognition systems misidentifying individuals wearing religious attire—or poorly performing on nonwhite non-male faces—predictive policing disproportionately targeting religious minorities, or recommendation algorithms amplifying stereotypes about certain faiths. These biases often stem from training data that underrepresents or misrepresents religious groups, as well as from the lack of diversity among AI developers. The result is a digital ecosystem that can perpetuate discrimination and marginalization. THE NORMALIZATION OF SURVEILLANCE IN RELIGIOUS CONTEXTS RISKS UNDERMINING FORB GLOBALLY religious freedom in the age of ai and surveillance: mapping the field and charting future research directions the review of faith & international affairs | 109 Elmahjub (2023) argues for the inclusion of religious ethical frameworks in AI design to counteract these biases and promote more inclusive technologies. His work underscores the importance of pluralism in AI ethics, particularly in protecting the rights and dignity of religious communities. Methodological Approaches in the Literature The interdisciplinary nature of research on religious freedom and technology has led to a diverse array of methodological approaches. Scholars have drawn from legal studies, social sciences, computer science, and theology to explore how emerging technologies affect the right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB). This section outlines the primary methodologies employed in the literature and highlights their contributions and limitations. Legal and Doctrinal Analysis Legal scholarship has played a foundational role in examining how national and international legal frameworks protect or fail to protect FoRB in digital contexts. This includes analysis of constitutional protections, international human rights treaties, and emerging digital rights legislation such as the European Union’sDigital Services Act (Quintais 2024; Quirós-Fons 2025). Legal scholars use doctrinal methods to interpret statutes, case law, and policy documents, assessing how they apply to online religious expression, surveillance, and algorithmic discrimination. Empirical Social Science Research Empirical studies have provided valuable insights into how individuals and communities experience religious freedom in digital environments. These approaches help ground theoretical debates in lived experience and highlight the diversity of religious engagement with technology: Surveys: Used to measure public perceptions of religious discrimination online, digital worship habits, or trust in AI systems. Interviews and Focus Groups: Employed to gather in-depth perspectives from religious leaders, tech developers, and affected communities. Ethnographies: Particularly useful in studying digital religious communities, these methods allow researchers to observe how faith is practiced and negotiated in online spaces (Campbell and Tsuria 2022). Technical Audits and Algorithmic Analysis Computer scientists and digital rights researchers have conducted technical audits of AI systems to assess their fairness, transparency, and impact on religious expression. Such methods are crucial for identifying systemic biases and advocating for more equitable technological design. These audits involve: .Reverse engineering algorithms to understand how content is filtered or prioritized. .Bias testing using synthetic datasets to evaluate how AI systems treat religious identifiers or symbols. .Platform accountability studies that examine how companies respond to flagged religious content or user complaints (Popova 2024). Normative and Theological Reflection Theological and ethical scholarship contributes a normative dimension to the field, questioning not only what technologies do but what they ought to do. Scholars like Elmahjub (2023) argue for the integration of religious ethical frameworks—such as Islamic ethics— into AI governance. This approach challenges the secular and often Western-centric assumptions of mainstream AI ethics and calls for a more pluralistic and inclusive discourse. Theological reflections also explore how digital technologies reshape concepts of sacred space, community, and ritual. These insights are particularly relevant in evaluating the spiritual implications of digital worship and AI-mediated religious experiences (Bingaman 2020). In addition, emerging theological discourse increasingly grapples with the philosophical and antonio quirós-fons 110 | volume 23, number 4 (winter 2025) doctrinal challenges posed by artificial intelligence and the prospect of technological singularity. The predictive capacities of AI complicate traditional understandings of divine omniscience, prompting a reevaluation of the boundaries between algorithmic foreknowledge and theological models of perfect knowledge (Madero 2025). Interdisciplinary and Mixed Methods Approaches Given the complexity of the issues at stake, many scholars advocate for mixed methods that combine legal, empirical, technical, and normative perspectives. For example, a study might analyze legal protections for FoRB, conduct interviews with affected communities, and audit the algorithms of a social media platform. Such integrative approaches are essential for capturing the multifaceted nature of religious freedom in the digital age. The following studies exemplify the value of integrating multiple methodologies to capture the complex dynamics at the intersection of AI, digital governance, and religious freedom. They also demonstrate how interdisciplinary research can inform more equitable and rights-respecting technological development. .Cobbe (2020) conducted a comprehensive study on algorithmic censorship by social platforms, combining legal analysis of platform governance with empirical insights into user experiences and technical evaluations of moderation systems. This study illustrates how automated content moderation can disproportionately affect religious and political speech, and it advocates for more transparent and accountable AI governance. .Bontridder and Poullet (2021) explored the role of AI in disinformation and content moderation, using a mixed approach that includes legal critique, ethical analysis, and policy evaluation. Their work highlights how automated systems, while designed to combat harmful content, often infringe on freedom of expression and belief, particularly for marginalized groups. .Trattner, Jannach, and Motta (2022) examined responsible media technology through a combination of technical audits, user behavior analysis, and ethical reflection. Their study emphasizes the need for inclusive algorithmic design and the importance of understanding how recommendation systems shape public discourse. Gaps in the Literature Despite the growing body of scholarship at the intersection of religious freedom and technology, several critical gaps remain. These gaps limit the field’s ability to fully understand and respond to the complex challenges posed by AI, surveillance, and digital governance in religious contexts. Underrepresentation of Non-Western Perspectives Much of the existing literature is dominated by Western legal, ethical, and technological frameworks. This Euro-American focus often overlooks the experiences, values, and epistemologies of religious communities in the Global South. While Islamic ethics has begun to gain traction in AI discourse (Bakar et al. 2024; Elmahjub 2023), other traditions—such as Hindu, Buddhist, African Traditional Religions, and Indigenous spiritualities—remain largely absent from mainstream discussions (Trothen, Kwok, and Lee 2024). This underrepresentation not only skews the global understanding of how technology affects religious freedom but also risks reinforcing digital colonialism, where Western norms are embedded in global tech infrastructures. Addressing this gap requires intentional inclusion of scholars, practitioners, and communities from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds. Lack of Longitudinal and Comparative Studies Most studies in this field are cross-sectional, focusing on specific events or technologies at a single point in time. There is a lack of longitudinal research that tracks how religious communities adapt to technological change over religious freedom in the age of ai and surveillance: mapping the field and charting future research directions the review of faith & international affairs | 111 time, or how regulatory frameworks evolve in response to emerging challenges. For example, few studies have followed the long-term impact of AI surveillance on religious minorities or the evolution of digital worship practices postpandemic (Greiman 2021). In short, there is a heavy reliance on theoretical and policy analysis, with an absence of empirical research. Comparative studies across regions, religions, or legal systems are also rare. Such studies are essential for identifying patterns, best practices, and context-specific risks. For instance, comparing how different countries regulate religious content on social media could reveal important insights into the balance between freedom of expression and content moderation. Limited Engagement with Religious Communities in Tech Design Another significant gap is the limited involvement of religious communities in the design, development, and governance of digital technologies. Most AI systems are created without consultation with end-users from diverse religious backgrounds, leading to tools that may inadvertently marginalize or misrepresent religious identities (Bontridder and Poullet 2021). One particular threat includes the misuse of AI to instill the values of apostasy, radicalization, and terrorism (Khoirunisa et al. 2023). Furthermore, there is a lack of empirical data on the experiences of religious communities affected by artificial intelligence and surveillance. Participatory design approaches—where affected communities are involved in shaping the technologies that impact them—are still the exception rather than the norm. One promising interdisciplinary initiative is the AI & Society Special Issue on Ethics in AI, which brought together scholars from philosophy, sociology, computer science, and religious studies to explore how ethical frameworks can be made more inclusive and culturally sensitive (Bontridder and Poullet 2021). Insufficient Interdisciplinary Collaboration Finally, the field suffers from a lack of sustained interdisciplinary collaboration. Legal scholars, theologians, ethicists, computer scientists, and social scientists often work in silos, using different terminologies and methodologies. This fragmentation limits the development of holistic frameworks that can address the multifaceted nature of religious freedom in digital contexts. Projects like the MediaFutures research center exemplify how interdisciplinary teams can address complex ethical and regulatory challenges by combining legal, technical, and human rights expertise (Trattner, Jannach, and Motta 2022). However, such efforts remain relatively rare and need broader institutional support. Recommendations for Future Research Develop Cross-Cultural, Comparative Frameworks Future research should prioritize crosscultural and comparative studies that examine how different religious communities experience and respond to digital technologies. This includes comparing: .Legal protections for freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) across jurisdictions. .The impact of AI surveillance on religious minorities in democratic vs. authoritarian regimes. .The role of digital worship in various religious traditions. Such comparative work can uncover patterns, highlight context-specific challenges, and inform more globally relevant policy recommendations. It also helps counterbalance the Western-centric bias in current scholarship (Elmahjub 2023;Greiman 2021). Furthermore, after an examination of Western and Eastern philosophical spectrums, Alkhouri (2025) provides results suggesting that navigating spiritual confusion requires comprehensive frameworks that address both individual religious psychology and institutional adaptation to technological change. Diversify Stakeholder Engagement: Integrate Technical and Theological Expertise There is a pressing need for interdisciplinary collaboration between technologists and scholars antonio quirós-fons 112 | volume 23, number 4 (winter 2025)