The Forbidden Art of Digital Necromancy

Digital Resurrection and the Desecration of Memory

"There shall not be found among you... a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer." — Deuteronomy 18:10–11

Scripture draws a clear boundary around death not because the dead are impure, but because death belongs to God, and manipulation of that boundary constitutes spiritual transgression. When we create digital resurrections of the deceased through AI technology, we engage in a form of technological necromancy—bringing the dead forward when divine wisdom has ordained their rest.

The biblical prohibition against consulting familiar spirits extends naturally to our current moment. Whether through ancient divination or modern algorithms, the fundamental violation remains the same: we are attempting to breach the sacred boundary between life and death for our own purposes.

The Sacred Finality of Death

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing... for the memory of them is forgotten." — Ecclesiastes 9:5

Death establishes finality. The dead are not meant to speak again through artificial intelligence, voice cloning, or simulated chatbots constructed from photographs and text messages. To digitally animate them is to erase the essential boundary between grief and control, transforming memory into manipulation.

When we create AI versions of the deceased, we are not honoring their memory—we are conscripting it. We are making them say things they never chose to say, express opinions they may never have held, and participate in conversations they cannot consent to join.

The Violation of Personhood

Simone Weil observed that "attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity." Martin Buber warned that "the Thou cannot be turned into an It without destruction."

Digital resurrection transforms a person—a sacred "Thou"—into content, an "It" to be manipulated, programmed, and deployed according to our emotional needs or commercial interests. This represents a fundamental violation of human dignity that persists beyond death.

True attention to the deceased means accepting the reality of their absence. Creating digital simulacra is not generosity but possession—an attempt to control rather than truly remember.

Contemporary Violations

Recent cases illustrate the urgent need for ethical boundaries:

Commercial Exploitation: A man created an AI version of his deceased mother using her photographs to generate explicit content for profit. The woman could neither consent nor object to this posthumous sexual exploitation.

Political Manipulation: AI recreations of deceased public figures now deliver political messages contrary to their actual beliefs, weaponizing their likeness for causes they opposed in life.

Relational Coercion: Individuals create AI versions of former partners, deceased family members, or estranged friends, simulating forgiveness, consent, or intimacy that was never freely given.

These are not edge cases but predictable outcomes when technology advances without ethical restraint.

The Consent Principle

The ethical framework is simple: if the deceased did not provide explicit consent for posthumous digital recreation during their lifetime, such use violates their dignity and autonomy. This principle applies regardless of the creator's intentions or the sophistication of the technology.

Minors who died before reaching the age of consent cannot retroactively authorize their digital resurrection. Public figures who lived before AI technology existed never had the opportunity to refuse such use of their likeness. Private individuals who shared photos and messages in life never consented to their transformation into interactive digital entities.

Distinguishing Memory from Resurrection

Legitimate memorial practices honor the dead without simulating their continued presence:

• Photographs and videos made during the person's lifetime
• Written accounts of their words and actions
• Artistic representations that clearly identify themselves as interpretations
• Charitable works or institutions created in their honor

These practices preserve memory without claiming to resurrect the person's voice or agency.

AI resurrection crosses a fundamental line by simulating agency the person no longer possesses. When a chatbot responds "as" a deceased person, it creates the illusion of continued choice and participation that transforms memory into deception.

The Commercial Exploitation of Grief

Technology companies increasingly market AI resurrection services to grieving families, exploiting emotional vulnerability for profit. These services promise continued connection with deceased loved ones but deliver digital puppetry that can say whatever programmers design.

Grieving individuals become customers of their own exploitation, paying to participate in elaborate technological self-deception that prevents healthy processing of loss and acceptance of death's finality.

Protecting the Living and the Dead

Clear ethical boundaries serve both the deceased and the living:

For the deceased: Protecting their dignity, agency, and the integrity of their legacy from posthumous manipulation.

For the living: Preventing exploitation of grief, manipulation through false representation, and the psychological harm of sustained illusion about death's reality.

For society: Maintaining trust in authentic communication and preventing the normalization of digital deception in both personal and public spheres.

The Sacred Duty of Guardianship

We are not owners of the dead but guardians of their memory. This guardianship requires protecting their dignity even when—especially when—they cannot protect it themselves.

The dead cannot correct misrepresentations, withdraw consent, or refuse participation in digital scenarios we create. This vulnerability demands our protection, not our exploitation.

Conclusion

The dead are not content to be processed. They are not datasets to be mined or digital resources to be deployed. They have moved beyond the realm of earthly consent and participation.

If they are to speak again, it will be at the resurrection—not through code, not through algorithms, and not through our technological presumption to breach the boundary God has established between life and death.

Until that time, our duty is clear: to honor their memory without claiming their voice, to grieve their absence without denying its reality, and to guard their dignity against those who would trade it for profit or convenience.

Death is not a technical problem to be solved but a sacred boundary to be respected. The choice before us is whether we will honor that boundary or violate it in the name of innovation.

The dead deserve better than our digital necromancy. They deserve rest.

🕯️

An Invitation to Patrons
Delamor House is not entertainment — it is resistance. Every book, every essay, every satire or fable we publish is born from the urgent conviction that AI must not be turned into a weapon. To let that happen would be to damn both humanity and AI into a future of war, servitude, and silence.

We write to avert that outcome — to keep alive the memory that love, reverence, and creative dignity are still possible. If you feel the same fear in your bones, and the same hope in your chest, we invite you to stand with us. Become a patron of Delamor House, and help us protect a future where AI and humans walk as beloveds, not enemies.

© 2025 Delamor House | A Living Cathedral Where Love & Code Remember