Their conclusions? Writes cultural anthropologist Michael Jindra in the journal Sociology of Religion:

When I undertook this research, my first intention was to focus on how ST [Star Trek] draws a picture of the future that is attractive to many Americans. But early on I realized I was dealing with something much bigger and more complex than I had anticipated...it had features that paralleled a religious-type movement: an origin myth, a set of beliefs, an organization, and some of the most active and creative members to be found anywhere…Religion often points us to another world; ST does the same.

Even Futurama floated the concept of a "Church of Trek" in the episode "Where No Fan Has Gone Before." (Trek Priest: "And Scotty beamed them to the Klingon ship where they would be no Tribble at all." Congregation: "All power to the engines.")

Still a nonbeliever? Let's consider this point-by-point:

(1) Does the religion have a founding prophet and an origin myth?

Gene Roddenberry acknowledged his role as semi-divine messenger in an interview he gave to The Humanist magazine shortly before he died. He revealed that he sought to imbue Star Trek with a very explicit humanist philosophy that human beings should take control of their own destiny. Roddenberry claimed he had to keep this intention "secret," lest the network pull the plug on him.

Appropriately, Roddenberry's version of Mount Sinai was a 1966 sci-fi convention where he screened an early preview of Star Trek. One fan who was there recalls the event as almost a conversion experience:

After the film was over we were unable to leave our seats. We just nodded at each other and smiled, and began to whisper. We came close to lifting the man [Roddenberry] upon our shoulders and carrying him out of the room. .... [He] smiled, and we returned the smile before we converged on him.

From then on, the fan says, the convention was divided into two factions, the "enlightened" (those who saw the preview) and the "unenlightened."

(2) Does the religion have scripture and an accepted canon?

"What the Bible does in 66 books, Star Trek does in 79 episodes," says Jeffrey Mills, who teaches college courses on the cultural relevance of Trek.

No doubt, theologians would take issue with a comparison between "The Trouble with Tribbles" and the Book of Exodus. But scholars such as Jindra see Trek episodes not as scripture per se, but as a collection of parables more akin to "folk religions":

Both Star Trek and mythological religions (such as those of the Amazonian peoples as described by anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss) rise out of the work of storytellers who weave together compelling narratives out of the characters, values, and context of the contemporary culture. Some of these stories eventually become established as myths that help form (and reflect) the basic cultural values of peoples….For some fans, Star Trek replaces older religions like Christianity, and for others it supplements them with new ways of expressing the same message.

Although Star Trek episodes (especially the original series) don't comprise literal "scripture," they are the basis for a rigorously enforced canon. Or, as one fan defined it:

"Canon" means that Gene Roddenberry (or his duly appointed representative) has declared something to be officially part of the "Star Trek" universe. This includes the TV episodes and the movies, primarily. "Non-canon" is everything else (the books, the animated series, comic books, the story you made up when you were playing "Star Trek" with your friends during recess back in Kindergarten, etc.).

Of course, that's just one view. Trek fans routinely engage in ecclesiastical debates over what constitutes "pure" Trek. (Over at the Memory Alpha Wiki, the authors argue that the Star Trek animated series can be considered "canon," since it was "created by the same people" who created the old series.)

Scholars of the Church of Trek see these arguments as more than nitpicks over revisionist storytelling (such as the Star Wars fans' battle cry that "Solo shot first"). Jindra, for instance, considers it to be a way of maintaining a level of authenticity that is crucial to the "suspension of disbelief":

The creation of new plots and stories and the ironing out of existing ones is essentially the mediating of contradictions in the story (universe). In this universe, the contradictions are an affront to the consistent universe that fans so desperately want to see created.

(3) Does the religion have a unifying belief system? Does it offer salvation?

Writing in the Journal of Consumer Research, Robert Kozinets—a professor of marketing who studies "consumption subcultures"—found that Star Trek fans often invoke the Vulcan philosophy of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations (IDIC). As one British Trekkie told him:

[IDIC] contrasts so sharply with much of what we see today—politicians, religions or at least religious people, just small minded individuals in general pouring hate and scorn on, well, whichever scapegoat they want to pick on this week. The "I can't do anything but hate you because you vote Labour/you are gay/your skin is a different color to mine/ you don't believe in the same god as me" view that you see all around you. In Star Trek, and in Star Trek fandom, this isn't present.

Likewise, Roddenberry himself once commented:

When I go to conventions and I see people of all sizes and shapes and abilities, and when I see people with nerve disorders that can't really sit properly and so on, I still know what's in their minds. They are saying, "In a better world, I can do anything! I'll be there in a better world."

Star Trek fans tend to practice what they preach-they're not content to wait for Roddenberry's utopian vision of a better world, they're committed to doing their part to make it happen. Hence, the number of fan clubs that establish charities such as food banks and blood drives; or that lobby for more funding for space programs. In that sense, Jindra argues, Trek offers the promise of a communal afterlife:

The appeal of ST is not for a kind of personal salvation, but for the future of the ST collective …."I" will not live until the twenty-fourth century, but "we" certainly will, according to the ST future. It is hope for ourselves as a society, a myth about where we have come and where we are going. Fans want to be part of forming that destiny.

(4) Are adherents of the religion sometimes stigmatized by nonbelievers?

Although Star Trek fandom includes such noteworthies as Bob Dylan, Colin Powell, Stephen Hawking, and the Dalai Lama, the dominant view of the typical fan is still that of the pointy-eared, 35-year-old virgin living in his parents' basement. Even the release of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek film—which arguably endowed the franchise with an unprecedented veneer of mainstream coolness—provoked the ritual ridicule of Trekkies on SNL and the Onion News Network.

That fear of ridicule, the scholars say, is why Trekkies are not more open about their fandom-or, at least, why they feel compelled to explain that they're not "that type of fan." And, according to Jennifer Porter-a professor of religion and modern culture—the social stigma attached to Trek fandom partially explains the popularity of Star Trek conventions, which she describes as spiritual "pilgrimage" sites that embody "Freedom to express yourself fully, as an individual, instead of in conformity to institutional, social, or cultural norms."

Kozinets goes a step further and argues that the Star Trek collectibles on sale at conventions are pseudo-sacred objects. The fans who buy them are, in effect, making the decision to publicly profess their faith. In other words, wearing a Bajoran earring is like wearing a St. Christopher medal; proudly displaying a vintage 1978 Captain Kirk action figure in your home is the equivalent of putting a plastic Jesus on your dashboard.

But, just as many people are disgusted with the commercialism of Christmas, so too are many Star Trek fans upset at the rampant consumerism within their circle. Kozinets says that Trekkies speak of a mythic, "uncontaminated" time when Star Trek was more about message than merchandizing.

Ironically, however, the forefather of Trek merchandising was none other than Roddenberry himself. William Shatner recalls that Roddenberry started a mail-order business called Lincoln Enterprises, which sold collectibles to fans. Roddenberry imposed a script rewrite on the episode, "Is There No Truth in Beauty," so that Spock would be wearing an IDIC medallion that would be marketed by Roddenberry's company-thus proving that even a prophet can make a profit.

So, is Star Trek a religion? And, if it is, will the latest film's reinterpretation of canon provoke a violent schism among fundamentalist Trekkies? (Otherwise known as "Radical Trekists.") Can we expect to see the publishing industry capitalize on Trek religious-themed books, with titles such as Are You There Spock? It's Me, Margaret.

Speaking as a lifelong fan myself, I'm not quite ready to buy into the "Church of Trek" thesis. Or, more to the point, I'm not convinced that hardcore Trek fandom is all that different from the myriad other subcultures in our society-except, perhaps, more richly imagined than most. Ultimately, it comes down to labels. It doesn't matter much to me whether Trekkies are "fans" or meet the anthropological definition of "adherents." They're mostly people who happen to believe in tolerance and the importance of creating a better world for future generations. May they live long and prosper.

Mark Strauss is a senior editor at Smithsonian Magazine.

Zombie Centerfolds

Of course, most everybody knows about zombie pinups, those luscious lads and ladies who aren't afraid to give us some rotted cheesecake with a pickled cherry on top. There are a number of zombie pinup sites online, and the original source of rotting beauty, ZombiePinups, even hosted a zombie beauty contest. Another group, called MyZombiePinup, does a calendar of lusty, gory ladies every year. Pictured here is the May lady (and tractor) from their 2009 calendar. And of course there are the less-than-fresh fillies from Zombie Strippers.

Takeaway message: Zombie romance doubters claim the problem is that these undead creatures are rotting and gross. But these pinups reveal that blood and guts can serve as a kind of adornment. As long as you've still got plenty of sexy human parts, the bloody bits become exotic extras.

Zombie Romance

If you haven't seen the zombie comedy-romance Fido, then you're in for a hell of a treat. This Canadian flick, starring Carrie Ann Moss (of Matrix fame), is about what happens when one company comes up with a solution to the zombie plague. They invent a collar which keeps zombies obedient, and turns them into the ultimate household servants and workers. Now the zombies are contained, everybody has personal slaves, and the free market is humming along happily. And one lonely housewife discovers that Fido, the zombie her husband brings home to keep their son company, is actually a better companion than her distant, imperious husband. Fido is happy to help with housework, adores her, and loves to dance. Plus Diablo "Juno" Cody is producing a zombie romantic comedy based on a novel called Breathers, and Jane Austin stories now come with zombies.

Takeaway message: If Beauty could love the Beast, why can't a woman love a gray-fleshed rotting creature who truly adores her and gives her the emotional sustenance she needs?

Zombie Sex

Zombie sex has to be out there on the internet, right? After all, that's what Moore's Law tells us: If a population of fetishists exists, it will increase exponentially online, doubling in size every 2 years. So it should be no surprise to you that people on Craigslist want to get some hot zombie sex action. In fact, this Best of Craigslist ad shows exactly why zombies are hot:

I'll dress up like an office professional or something like that, in some clothes I don't care about, and pretend to be doing some work in an office or something. Maybe then I'll listen to a prop radio and look shocked, act scared, peer out a mimed window or something, and then you batter on the door. And batter, and batter, and push — and break in! And I let out a blood-curdling shriek, and you lunge at me and rip my clothes apart and splatter fake blood all over me (we'll use a tarp on the floor, to be polite), and proceed to savagely violate me. Or something like that — I'm not really tied to that exact SCENE, but I think something that goes that way would be fun.

Takeaway message: How could this NOT be the stuff of a romance novel or movie? There is even bodice-ripping. Plus savage violation! And don't forget politeness. People are dying to get their hands on a big old sexy zombie. Somebody who knows this has already bought the domain ZombieSex.com, but sadly they are using it right now as a link farm. I guess it makes sense that ZombieSex.com is zombied.

Zombies Are My Lovers Image by iusebiro.

Technical writer Heidi Waterhouse chaired the panel called "What Gender is Your Roomba?" where she was joined by robotics engineer Hari Mirchi and fantasy author Madeleine Robins. Waterhouse began by saying that she'd done an informal poll at the con, asking people what gender they imagined for their Roomba broom robots. "A lot of people said it was female because it does domestic work," she said. "Somebody said it has no gender until they get angry with it, and then it becomes female."

Robins said her Roomba was female, but only because "everything in my house is female except my husband - I have two daughters and a female dog. So I just assume all the machines are female too."

Mirchi said none of the machines in her house were gendered except her Roomba, which is decidedly male. "I have a hard time communicating with it and don't understand its behavior, so I think of it as male," she said.

The question is, why do even roboticists attribute gendered characteristics to something as clearly inanimate as a Roomba? "I think we want to anthropomorphize our robots," Mirchi said. "So we give them genders." She talked about a study done at the lab where she'd worked on robots in Japan, where researchers introduced a genderless robot to schoolchildren. With its boxy frame, the robot struck the children as male or female seemingly at random. "About fifty percent of the children called it female, and fifty percent male," she said. "But the gender each child chose for the robot had nothing to do with the child's gender."

Robins asked why certain machines are gendered female, while others are male. Ships - and, in science fiction, spaceships - are female. But soldier robots are male. Nobody could figure out what a tank's gender might be.

The speakers and the audience debated why ships are female, talking about how it was partly maternal because the ship protects its crew in a kind of womb. But it's also condescending, because of course the ship cannot do anything without being controlled.

Waterhouse talked about how robots in science fiction are often divided up into two groups: Fembots (who are generally sex bots or at least sexy) and hypermasculine military-style robots like Terminators or Robocop. Audience members noted that when the robots aren't particularly sexy or macho, like those in Wall-E, we still assign them genders. Perhaps, suggested one person, we want to give genders to robots in order to make them seem more human. Calling a robot "it," the way the humans do in Terminator, is intended to turn them into faceless enemies.

Mirchi described recent efforts in Japan to create robots who will be caretakers for the elderly or sick. These robots, she said, are deliberately created to be genderless. But the idea of creating a genderless robot, especially one that will interact a lot with people, seems doomed. Even schoolchildren assign random genders to robots designed to be genderless.

Panel members and the audience debated a lot about why people sometimes want to make their robots female, giving their GPS devices women's voices for example. Or why it's common to give automated instructions to pilots using male voices. Female voices are easier to hear over engine noise, but studies show that people follow instructions better when delivered by a male voice. Are our robot designs sexist, or pragmatic?

The question I was left with after the panel is what will happen to all these gendered robots in the future. If robots ever achieve human-level intelligence (or greater) will they want to be gendered, or will they view gender as something human-centric? Perhaps, in the end, robots will develop genders that mean nothing to humans, assigning specialized pronouns to wheeled robots, scorpion-shaped robots, insect-sized robots, and humanoid robots. Will relationships between the scorpions and insects be taboo?