What to Say When Family Asks About Your Practice
Contents
You are not required to explain your practice, and the amount you disclose should be set by what you want rather than by how insistently you were asked. The most workable answer is short and concrete: name an activity rather than an identity, say what it does for you in plain language, decline the debate explicitly, and stop talking. Disclosure is not one decision but a series of small ones, it is not reversible, and a holiday table with relatives listening is the worst available venue for the first one. Nothing here guarantees a good reception, and some families will not give one.
Selective disclosure — telling some people and not others, and controlling the timing — is a documented strategy for managing a stigmatised identity rather than a form of dishonesty.
Source/tradition: Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (1963); Pike, New Age and Neopagan Religions in America (2004)
Households of mixed religious affiliation are common in the United States, and religious switching within families is widespread.
Source/tradition: Pew Research Center, Religious Landscape Study (2024)
Most solitary practitioners disclose their practice selectively rather than universally, and many do not disclose to family at all.
Source/tradition: Berger, Solitary Pagans (University of South Carolina Press, 2019), survey data
Naming a concrete activity rather than an identity label produces shorter and less heated family conversations.
Source/tradition: Consistently reported by practitioners; the most repeated practical advice in the community
The reaction is frequently delayed: nothing is said at the time, and the person who said least makes contact days later.
Source/tradition: Commonly reported pattern, offered as something to expect rather than as evidence
Holding a small object during a difficult conversation gives the hands and attention somewhere to settle.
Source/tradition: Widely practised; a modest and practical effect
Lapis lazuli causes truthful or clearer speech.
Source/tradition: The association with truthful speech is long-standing tradition; no effect on speech has been demonstrated
VERIFIED = verifiable in scientific or official sources · TRADITIONAL = historically or culturally recorded · LIVED PRACTICE = widely practiced, experiential knowledge · NOT PROVEN = spiritual interpretation, not scientifically established.
Someone notices the candles, or the deck on the shelf, or that you were up before sunrise on a Tuesday. Then comes the question — at a kitchen table, usually, and usually with an audience.
This is about what to say, what not to owe anyone, and how to tell the difference between a family member who is curious and one who is recruiting. It is written for adults. It does not contain a script that makes everyone comfortable, because no such script exists.
Quick answer
You are not required to explain your practice, and the amount you disclose should be set by what you want, not by how insistently you were asked. The most workable answer is short, concrete and unembarrassed — name an activity rather than an identity, decline the debate explicitly, and stop talking. "I light a candle and write on Sunday evenings. It steadies me. I'm not looking to discuss whether it's real" does more work than a paragraph of theology. Disclosure is not one decision but a series of small ones, it is not reversible, and a holiday table with relatives listening is the worst available venue for the first one. The limit: nothing here guarantees a good reception, and some families will not give one.
Decide what you actually want before you decide what to say
Almost every difficult version of this conversation starts with the same error: answering the question that was asked instead of the question you want to be answering.
There are only a few things a person can want here, and they call for different answers.
| What you want | What that sounds like | What it costs |
|---|---|---|
| To be left alone | "It's a private thing. I'd rather not get into it." | Almost nothing. Reads as evasive to some, which is survivable. |
| To be known, without a debate | Name the activity, say what it does for you, close the topic in the same breath. | You give up deniability. You do not give up the argument. |
| To be understood | A longer conversation, one person, not at a gathering. | Time, and the risk that understanding does not arrive. |
| To be accepted out loud | Asking for something specific: "I'd like you not to bring it up in front of the others." | The highest risk, because it can be refused explicitly. |
| To stop hiding, for your own sake | A statement, not a question. No approval sought. | Depends entirely on the family. Worth naming as your reason anyway. |
Notice that only one row is about them. The rest are about you, and they are better goals, because they do not require anyone else to cooperate in order to succeed.
The short answer that works most often
Three parts, in this order. It takes about eight seconds.
- Name an activity, not an identity. "I light a candle and write on Sunday evenings." Not "I'm a witch." An activity is concrete, unalarming and hard to argue with — it is a description of a Sunday. An identity is a category, and people argue about categories.
- Say what it does, in ordinary language. "It settles me." "It's how I mark the year." "It's the one hour nobody needs anything from me." Plain benefit, no cosmology. This is the part that makes it legible.
- Close the topic explicitly. "I'm not looking to discuss whether it's real." Said evenly, this is not rude. It tells the other person what shape the conversation has, which most people accept if you are the one who names it.
Then stop. The silence after the third part is uncomfortable and it is doing the work — filling it is how an eight-second answer becomes a forty-minute argument. If the other person is genuinely curious they will ask something specific, and you can answer that. If they were looking for a debate, the closed topic gives them nowhere obvious to go.
For the conversation itself
Lapis Lazuli Tumbled Pocket Stone — Truth, Wisdom & Clear Speech
The stone the tradition attaches to plain speaking. Pocket-sized and unremarkable to anyone who sees it — something to close your hand around under the table while you say the short version. $7.95.
See the stoneThe four questions you will actually be asked
"Is this Satanism?" The most common first question in the United States, and it is nearly always fear rather than accusation. A flat, unoffended "No" is the whole answer. Do not deliver a lecture on the history of the association — it signals that the question was more loaded than it was, and length reads as defensiveness. If they want more, they will ask.
"Do you still believe in God?" This is rarely a theological question. It is usually a question about whether you are still theirs. Answer the real one if you can: "I haven't gone anywhere." If your answer to the literal question is no, you are still allowed to decline it — "That's a bigger conversation than I want to have at the table" is honest and true.
"Where did you get this from?" Often the friendliest question in disguise, and the easiest to answer well. Books, a class, a friend, the internet, curiosity. Naming a mundane origin does more to normalise a practice than any explanation of what it means.
"Can you do something? Read my cards?" The one that catches people off guard, because it looks like acceptance. You are allowed to say no. A practice performed on demand to prove it is harmless becomes a party trick, and the frame is hard to get back. "Not here" is a complete sentence.
Temple Tip
Choose the venue before you choose the words
Nearly every account of this going badly has the same setting: a holiday meal, several relatives, an audience. Nearly every account of it going well is one person, one room, no table. If you have a choice, take the version with fewer witnesses — people defend positions in front of family that they would not hold in private, and the relative who would have been curious alone will often perform certainty in a group. If you do not have a choice and the question lands at the table, the eight-second answer is designed precisely for that moment: it is short enough to survive an audience.
Curiosity and recruitment are different, and you can tell them apart
The single most useful distinction in this whole subject. Curiosity asks questions to find out; recruitment asks questions to open a door.
The tells are reliable. Curiosity asks about the practice — what do you do, when, does it help. Recruitment asks about the premise — do you really think that works, what if you're wrong, aren't you worried. Curiosity follows your answer. Recruitment returns to its own point regardless of what you said. Curiosity is content with a small answer; recruitment treats a small answer as an opening.
You are not obliged to keep playing once you have identified which one you are in. "I think we want different things from this conversation" is a sentence that ends it without insult and without conceding anything. It is also usually accurate.
And the harder case: people who love you and are frightened for you often sound exactly like recruitment, because fear produces the same script. That does not oblige you to relieve the fear by changing what you do. It might oblige you to say the thing underneath — "I know you're worried. I'm alright" — which addresses the actual content of the conversation, which was never really about candles.
What you are allowed not to explain
A list, because people rarely give themselves permission for these.
You do not have to explain what you believe happens. You do not have to justify a practice by its results, or produce evidence, or agree that if it cannot be measured it must be decoration. You do not have to accept "as long as you don't take it too seriously" as the price of being tolerated. You do not have to say the word "witch" if it does not fit or if it will cost more than it buys. You do not have to disclose to everyone simultaneously — telling one sibling is not a promise to tell a parent. And you do not have to disclose at all. A private practice is not a dishonest one; most people's inner lives are not family business, and yours is not less legitimate for staying yours.
The other side of that: you do have to accept that other people get to have reactions you do not like, including sustained disapproval. Disclosure buys the chance of being known. It does not buy agreement, and treating agreement as owed to you will make the conversation worse.
When the reaction is worse than awkward
Most of this article assumes a family that is startled, or clumsy, or a bit cold for a while, and then adjusts. That is the common case and it is worth saying so, because the anxiety beforehand usually predicts something much worse than what arrives.
Some situations are not that. If disclosure could put your housing, your income, your immigration or custody position, or your physical safety at risk, then the calculation is not about honesty at all and no article about conversation technique applies. Privacy is a legitimate and sometimes necessary strategy, and choosing it is not cowardice or self-betrayal.
If a family reaction leaves you with lasting distress — not a bad evening but weeks of it — that is worth taking to a therapist or a doctor rather than solving alone or with practice. Religious and family rejection is a well-documented source of real harm, and it is not the kind of thing a ritual is built to carry. Our piece on what shadow work actually is is honest about the same boundary: there is a point where this material stops being self-inquiry and becomes something clinical support is better at.
And if what you need is simply not to be visible at home for now, the practical side of that is covered in keeping an altar in a shared room.
Voices from practice
We do not invent quotes or attribute them to people who do not exist. What follows is what practitioners commonly report, offered as patterns to test rather than as evidence.
The most frequently described outcome is anticlimax. People report rehearsing for weeks and then receiving a short, mild response — a shrug, a change of subject, a question about something practical — followed by the topic simply never coming up again. Those who expected a confrontation often describe this as unsatisfying rather than relieving, which is worth expecting.
A second common report is the delayed reaction: nothing at the time, and a phone call days later from the person who said least. Practitioners who know this happens tend to handle the call better than those who thought the matter was closed.
Third, and consistently: people say the identity word costs more than the activity description. Those who led with "I'm a witch" describe longer and more heated conversations than those who led with what they do on a Sunday evening — same practice, same family, different opening. This is the single most repeated piece of practical advice in the community, and it matches the structure of the short answer above.
What we don't promise
We cannot promise this goes well. There is no arrangement of words that makes a family accept something they have decided not to accept, and any article implying otherwise is selling you a script that will leave you blaming your delivery for someone else's reaction.
We are not going to tell you that honesty is always the right choice. It usually is, for the person disclosing, and it sometimes is not. That depends on facts about your family that we do not have.
Nothing here is psychological advice, and it is not a substitute for it. Family conflict about belief sits close to much older material, and a conversation guide is not the right tool for that depth.
We also do not promise that a stone helps you speak. Lapis has been associated with truthful speech for a very long time, and it will not change what you say or how it is received. What a small object in your hand reliably does is give you somewhere to put your attention in a moment when your attention wants to scatter, which is modest, real, and not the same as magic doing the talking for you.
Practically: how to work with this
- Write down which row of the table you are in. Before any conversation. Wanting to be left alone and wanting to be accepted are opposite goals and they need opposite sentences.
- Draft the eight-second answer and say it out loud. Once, alone. The point is not to memorise it but to find out where it feels false — that is the part to rewrite.
- Pick the person, not the occasion. One relative, chosen because they are the likeliest to take it well, in a room without an audience.
- Decide your exit sentence in advance. "I think we want different things from this conversation." Having it ready is what lets you stay calm, because you know you can leave.
- Expect the delayed call. Give it a few days before concluding anything about how it went.
- Do not change your practice that week. Neither expand it in defiance nor shrink it in apology. Let the conversation be a conversation.
- Put something small in your pocket. Not for its properties — because having one hand occupied is a practical help when you are nervous. Any of the tumbled pocket stones will do the job.
Quiz: what should you actually say?
Three questions. Answer about your family as it is, not as you wish it were.
1. What do you want out of this?
2. What happened last time belief came up in your family?
3. Where would this conversation happen?
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to tell my family about my practice at all?
No. A private practice is not a dishonest one, and most people's inner lives are not family business. Disclosure is worth doing when you want something from it — to stop managing a secret, or to be known by a particular person. It is not owed to anyone who asks, and it is not a test of sincerity.
What is the best thing to say when someone asks directly?
Three parts, about eight seconds: name an activity rather than an identity ("I light a candle and write on Sunday evenings"), say what it does in plain language ("it settles me"), and close the topic ("I'm not looking to debate whether it's real"). Then stop talking. Length reads as defensiveness and gives the conversation somewhere to go.
How do I answer "is this Satanism?"
"No." Flat, unoffended, and short. In the United States it is usually the first question and it is almost always fear rather than accusation. A long historical explanation signals that the question was more serious than it was. If they want more, they will ask a second question.
Should I tell them at Thanksgiving or Christmas?
If you have any choice, no. Nearly every account of this going badly involves a holiday table and an audience; nearly every account of it going well involves one person and no witnesses. People defend positions in front of family that they would not hold privately. If the question lands at the table anyway, keep the answer to the eight-second version and arrange the real conversation separately.
How can I tell if a relative is curious or trying to talk me out of it?
Curiosity asks about the practice — what you do, when, whether it helps — and follows your answer. Recruitment asks about the premise — whether you really think it works, what if you are wrong — and returns to its own point regardless of what you said. Once you have identified which one you are in, "I think we want different things from this conversation" ends it without insult.
What if telling them would actually be unsafe?
Then conversation technique is not the relevant question. Where disclosure could affect your housing, income, custody or physical safety, privacy is a legitimate strategy and not a failure of nerve. If a family reaction has already left you with lasting distress rather than a bad evening, that is worth bringing to a therapist or doctor — religious and family rejection is a documented source of real harm and is not something a practice is built to carry alone.
Sources & further reading
- Helen Berger, Solitary Pagans: Contemporary Witches, Wiccans, and Others Who Practice Alone (University of South Carolina Press, 2019) — survey data on disclosure and family reaction among solitary practitioners.
- Pew Research Center, Religious Landscape Study — on religious switching in American families and the prevalence of households with mixed affiliation (2024 edition).
- Sarah M. Pike, New Age and Neopagan Religions in America (Columbia University Press, 2004) — chapter on stigma management and selective disclosure.
- Erving Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (Prentice-Hall, 1963) — the source of the "passing" and selective-disclosure framework used throughout this article.
- American Psychological Association, Building Your Resilience — on support networks and when to seek professional help after family conflict.
Questions about an order or a ritual service? Write to 28@templeofdesire.com.