Soulbonder.com - for soulbonders, soulbonds, and the curious

Introduction

This site is about soulbonding. Here, I use this word to refer to a particular sort of persistent and intense spirit interaction. You can read more here. There are links to many, many various perspectives that have presented themselves online over the years about this strange and beautiful experience. This site curates links to both current websites and older material from the early 2000s onward. Some new, original writings will likely appear at a later date.

I want to preserve some of the voices and experiences that shaped my understanding of this. Others will, I hope, find this worth browsing, too. Whether you’re a soulbonder, soulbond, or simply curious, feel free to look around. As of mid-September 2024, this site is still in a nascent form, and much has yet to be uploaded. For now, you can visit the Linkage area for links to material, old and new, elsewhere online. Also check out the Community section. Though unfinished, it does already contain some neat things, like symbolism and the Soulbond Code 2.0. The Site Matters area contains site updates, an about section with contact info, and more. The cbox is also available for sharing thoughts and engaging with others.

In addition to the resources here, I kind of want to establish a webring for soulbonders. This would not be limited to sites solely about soulbonding; any site run by a soulbonder is welcome to join. If you have a link, resource, or site that could be a valuable addition, please don’t hesitate to share. I want to remember and celebrate communities that welcomed me online when I was young, as well as preserving info about a phenomena that is important to me.

Caveats

All of my original writings approach soulbonding from a spiritual/metaphysical viewpoint, though. This site was not particularly intended for those who see soulbonding as a mental gestalt or thought experiment, etc, though some links may be of interest. In short: if you don’t believe soulbonds are independent beings (ie, living spirits), much of what I’m writing won’t suit you. I thought it worth giving a bit of notice about that before proceeding to the rest of the site. This is why I use the double-pupil iconography for soulbonding, meant specifically for metaphysically-identified soulbonders.

I also want to note that this site is not meant to reflect experiences of, nor advise about, anything to do with OSDD or similar conditions. I do not see these as cognate with my own soulbonding. I’m agnostic (if the word applies) about most matters of so-called “syscourse,” at least until I learn a bit more about the situation. Other sites share helpful mental health and self-care resources about those topics, but this site has a different focus.

Please. Please. Don’t take anything on this site as gospel. Do not treat this site as an authority on soulbonding. If you’re here already, you’re probably too smart to do that anyways, but still. This site is merely one soulbonder’s perspective, collecting what she can of accumulated online material. My perspective is often called idiosyncratic and heavily influenced by the occult. I just happened to get this domain name at a particular time. There weren’t many sites out there about soulbonding as such from a metaphysical perspective, and it was unsettling. I thought I’d make one, as part of my renewed interest in coding.

This topic is very complex. Take care to approach it with nuance. Pages contain links to other people’s sites, because much of what I need to say has already been said elsewhere, and this saves time. Other pages merely collate significant topical links from the past. Simply linking to a site, particularly archived, does not constitute complete endorsement in any sense on my part. It also doesn’t mean that the site itself or its ownership endorses (or even knows about) this site. I try to contact people I quote directly to make sure it is all copacetic with them, but if I’ve quoted (or even linked) to your site and you disapprove, contact me to have it removed.

Because of the volatile nature of the concept (soulbonding) and the notoriety associated with it, I will do everything I can to protect the privacy of those involved. This obviously means I will not post (or allow commentary containing) personal information, but also that I won’t respond to inquiries about similar matters. In other words, don’t write to me asking for help finding this or that controversial (or popular) soulbonder who vanished years ago, and don’t expect help with invading anyone’s privacy on any level. I’m actively seeking to avoid that.

If any of the sources, sites, bloggers, etc that are linked here are horrible people, please tell me. I’m not exactly able to keep up with some of the more fast-paced internet stuff. If I’ve missed that someone is trash, let me know. I will leave archived links up to provide context for stuff that happened, but I don’t want to link to any present, sketchy sites without warnings or a good reason.

By “trash people” I mean literal fash, redcaps, and adjacent or those who’ve abused others, though - not simply nuanced disagreements about terminology or how phenomena like soulbonding work. The latter is an important topic, clearly, or I wouldn’t run this site, but it’s something we can hopefully discuss as adults, sans trash people, without ripping each other to shreds.

I also do not work within the auspices of purity-testing. By that, I mean that I accept people will grow and change, and we all make constant mistakes during this process. I don’t believe in shunning people unless they are actively dangerous (physically or mentally) in some way (see above). I don’t particularly care if someone used the wrong word at the wrong time and went back on it, or used to involve something unsavory before learning more. I’ve been in similar situations myself. A lot of people have, if you actually think about it. In other words, don’t message me about how someone I’ve linked to made some horrible gaff in 2012 or whatever from which they must never be allowed to recover.

This site isn’t intended for minors. I guess there’s not anything traditionally considered objectionable here. There’s no sex or gore, but my writing is intended for an adult audience. I really don’t believe children should be reading about something volatile like this online. When minors get involved in these sorts of communities and occult concepts, it tends to end poorly. I wouldn’t be willing to discuss (for example) the intricacies of traditional occult practices with minors - nor am I alright with minors involved here. I can’t very well stop minors from browsing, though, so I leave that to parents.

Besides that, though, I won’t post a “DNI” list, etc. If you feel the need to do that on your own site, I will respect your wishes. I myself feel no need on this or my other sites. If I disagree with you on most (but not all, of course) topics, you’re still welcome to respectfully interact. It’s through dialogue that we all learn, after all. I reserve the right to block/remove anyone who’s clearly speaking in bad faith, a minor, or otherwise causing problems.

This site remains agnostic with regards to what’s generally called “syscourse” (ie, whether one might be a plural/multiple system with/out trauma, etc), and where soulbonding might fit into that. I simply don’t know enough about it to address the topic in the detail necessary to do it justice. As you can easily see from the list of links, I have read about it, but I myself am neither plural nor multiple. I do not see my own soulbonding within that framework. If you do, and it is part of your own experience of it, you can explore that, and you’re welcome on my site, just keep in mind that I’m not writing about that specifically. I'm open to talk about this.

What is soulbonding?

Ahh, yes. I ought to provide you with my own, shiny and freshly-written definition of soulbonding, of course. I won’t be doing that, though, at least not yet, because I'm not quite sure how to phrase things perfectly. Instead, I’ll be providing some quotations, I’ll then use these to talk about both what the term means to me and how it has changed over time.

Soulbonding is a type of connection with an external entity, generally fictive, who has a mutual attachment to, or some kind of emotional stake in the wellbeing of the soulbonder who hosts them and vice versa. This is a metaphysical phenomenon the originates outside the mind/body of the soulbonder, who calls or attracts the soulbond to them from another world. Being a soulbonder is like being a channeller or medium, except instead of spirits of the dead, one shares mental space with the spirits of fictional characters.
DoctorCorby, writing on Fictionkin.com

Above, one finds my favorite current definition of soulbonding, courtesy of one of the best sites on the subject of that and similar phenomena. My own definition also includes spirits that are (or seem to be) created and formed by humans (however independent ultimately), but other than that? I like DoctorCorby's definition and site quite a bit.

I do not agree with everything the site has to say, especially on other pages, but the author is eloquent and sensible without loss of intuition. Much respect. They understand soulbonding in a way that resonates deeply with me, and I see no reason to attempt any mediocre duplication of what they’ve already written.

I’ve been unable to discover the date when this definition was written and posted, though, but I suspect it was rather recently. At very least, it was in the last decade, which seems slightly recent for defining a word coined twenty-five years ago.

Still, this is (a good approximation of) what soulbonding means to me. Please note that while that particular definition doesn't directly mention soulbonds created by the soulbonder (or seeming to have been), I myself do apply the term there, as well.

To continue, though, let's look at a much less recent definition of the concept.

soulbond: v. to form and/or experience a robust mental or empathic connection with one or more fictional characters.
Definition of soulbonding proposed by Amanda F., appearing on several sites in the late 1990s.

Sounds quite simple, but at the same time, is rather vague, right?

Maybe that’s a good thing - it’s very, very encompassing. It can include those who simply identify deeply with a character, those who daydream of the character, and other forms of connection.

Gradually, over time, the definition would become more specific and more metaphysical, as we’ll see. Of note above is the unqualified inclusion of the word fiction.

To me, it here implies no real sense of soulbonds originating in another world or existing in their own right, completely independent of the soulbonder. That does not mean that those who first used the term “soulbonder” didn’t believe in the possibility - it just means that the idea wasn’t originally built into the definition.

A soulbond is any kind of mental or sometimes spiritual connection with a person from another realm/place/ect. Soulbonds often times resemble fictional characters because they are the non fictional counterparts from another part of existence separate from our own.

The person from this world/place/ect is known as the soulbonder and the person from the other place is known as the soulbond
@Soulbondinghelp on Tumblr, at an unknown (much) later date.

Quite a complex definition by comparison, speaking of another part of existence, and ultimately referencing other worlds. That is not to say that these things were a part of the beliefs of early soulbonders; only that they were not directly included in Laura G’s broad definition. I include them in my definition, after a fashion, because while I'm not sure where it might be, plenty of my soulbonds over the years seemed to come from their own parts of existence, different from my own.

We can see here that the specificity (as well as the metaphysical nature) of the concept shifted over the years. I’m mostly alright with this, because I do, and essentially always have, conceptualize my soulbonds as spirits.

I talk about this in my section on terminology. I also (rather influenced by an author named BJ Swain, I must admit) see spirits as independent beings rather than any sort of gestalt produced by a human mind. This is true of soulbonds just as much as any other spirit.

There are those who insist on appending the word “metaphysical” to the term “soulbonding” to indicate their belief that their soulbonds are real, rather than mental constructs. I find this silly. If your “soulbonds” are mental constructs, there are many other words you might use for them that fit much better. True, the original definition was quite broad. The way it's defined lately, though, makes it rather pointless to use if you don't actually believe in your soulbonds. Keep that in mind.

Soulbonder: Why the word?

This site approaches soulbonding from a spiritual perspective. I see soulbonds as actual spirits. If you came to this site expecting me to frame this entire thing as a fun little mental exercise, I’m afraid you’re in for disappointment. I believe soulbonds not mere mental “games” or “exercises.” Perhaps mental games and exercises are quite helpful getting to know each other and such, but - my soulbonds aren’t character-building exercises; they’re beings of their own accord.

Plenty of cultures (both postmodern and traditional) provide us with diverse frameworks for understanding our relationships with disincarnate spirits. Arguably, the concept of interacting with spirits (whoever they might be) exists in all cultures. So, why do I call myself a soulbonder, instead of any other word? I’ve, in particular, been asked why I avoid more common internet parlance (“tulpamancer”) and some of the usual occult terminology (simply calling myself a “spiritworker” etc). It’s a complicated story, actually, and I’ll give my reasons.

In my late teens, I was rather spooked by some of the (quite serious) problems that arose in the soulbonding communities I’d once treasured online. In particular, I was added to a lot of group chats (and sent links, etc) by a sketchy spoon cult. I dodged quick, but it still gave me bad vibes, as did some of the trolling and sideshows that were erupting surrounding the usage of the word. To cease soulbonding would’ve been inconceivable, and likely not even possible. I searched for another way to describe the experience, as best I could.

I had been vaguely studying the occult since before learning the word “soulbonding,” though. In the late 2000s, I was drawn to chaos magic of the sort taught by people like Peter Carroll and Phil Hine. I became fascinated by the idea of egregores, thoughtforms, and servitors. Those are all chaos magic terms for spirits, but not just any spirits.

These are spirits produced, or attracted by, human activity, maybe through human magic, through human love, hatred, art, etc. Andrei Vitimus’s Hands On Chaos Magic includes a chapter on creating entities, and gives exercises for the formation of what the author calls “artificial” spirits, including those mentioned. I would never call a soulbond “artificial,” regardless of their origin; it would be awfully rude. Still, some of what these chaos magicians and other occultists were talking about - forming often intentional bonds with spirits - resonated with me.

The differences between the terms (an egregore versus a thoughtform versus a servitor, etc) is fuzzy. To explain in brief: egregores are large, often society-spanning sapient spiritual structures, like the “spirit” of a corporation, a group, or a movement, whereas a servitor is a sort of drone-like entity created to fulfill a specific purpose for a mage. A thoughtform sits in the shade somewhere between the two. Everyone who uses these terms will define them slightly differently, but that’s the essence.

This would make some soulbonds, essentially, thoughtforms, I reasoned at first. Chaos magicians and others like them seemed to only apply these terms to spirits created by the magicians, which made things thorny. As I noted, I do see some soulbonds like that, but not all. I’d have preferred a more encompassing term. And thoughtform itself is such an ugly, utilitarian word to use for such wonderful experiences! I began to consider that perhaps “thoughtform” was close, but not quite the right word, denying the complexity and autonomy of the being in question.

By that point, some folks (mostly from 4chan’s /x/ board and Reddit) had begun using the words “tulpa” and “tulpamancy” for spirits seemingly of this kind. Unlike the earliest to use the term soulbonding (who once quipped that they were “pseudo-pop Wiccans”), the “tulpamancers” were more informed by the Western occult tradition and chaos magic.

The word “tulpa” here seemed only applied to those spirits created by the individual; there was rarely mention of interaction with other entities. The “tulpamancers” were posting elaborate guides for their creation, care, and feeding, so to speak. There were (and still are) a couple of large “informational” sites about how to get started in “tulpamancy,” etc.

Around this time, though spooked a bit from the soulbonding community by mean-spirited types, I kept a vague eye on the “tulpamancers.” Some of what they posted was sound magical advice for interacting with spirits. But wait. Where were they getting these words? What was a “tulpa,” exactly?

Truth be told, a “tulpa” is a complex concept in Buddhism (and, I believe, certain other related religions). It is not a hand-crafted friendly spirit who accompanies and befriends you. It isn’t a mere servant-like spiritual being created by a mage, either, as some older authors (Helena Blavatsky comes to mind) have implied.

I’m not a Buddhist and cannot speak for Buddhists about Buddhism or what “tulpa” truly signifies for them, but I’ve seen repeated discussions about this. It gradually became clear that (surprise, surprise) 4chan and Reddit’s use of the term “tulpa” was a sort of cultural misappropriation, where an almost-completely unrelated word from another tradition had been slapped onto a different concept.

You might think, “Hah! Cultural appropriation? What a silly concept! I am a chaote! I use what I want from wherever I want! It does no harm!”

I hate to break it to you, but it does, and I do not even mean that in an occult, spiritual sense (though it no doubt doesn’t do favors there, either). Look at the Wikipedia page for “tulpa” for a minute. Just skim it. You don’t have to read the entire thing. I sometimes link to Wikipedia if an article has enough sources. Here, though, I’m not linking to it so that you’ll be “informed” about tulpas or something, but for a different reason.

Scroll the article and notice that almost the entirety of it describes the recent Western notion of “tulpamancy”. As practiced by the 4channers, Reddit, and their very-recent online descendants. There’s a small comment near the beginning about how the word originates in Tibetan Buddhism, and a link to a larger page about a related Buddhist concept, but not much else. It cites this (…$22…) article, which most people will never pay for.

It doesn’t give much information on how Buddhists view the tulpa concept, what role it fills in their religion, and who it involves. I am sure the information is out there, but even searching for “tulpa” on your average search engine (regardless of whether you’re at home, logged in, or in incognito), will be about Redditers and “tulpamancy.” This is even true in non-English - I tried it for the language spoken in my own country.

Don’t you think it’s remotely possible that someone out there might want to learn what a tulpa actually is in Tibetan Buddhism? It’s true that the Wikipedia page explicitly says that it describes the theosophical, Blavatsky-influenced version of the concept, but it completely overshadows the actual origins of the word, which just get that one small mention…

In other words, by taking that word, these folks have unintentionally made it much more difficult for Westerners (and anyone, really) to learn about what the word actually meant to the people who coined it, use it, and to whom it has religious significance. Not harmless, not in terms of how information works and how it affects people, as we’ve seen with media manipulation recently.

If you call yourself a "tulpamancer" or something, you are still welcome on this site, but I genuinely believe you should consider what I've said above and do further research into the origins of the terms you are using, the history of them, and their association with groups like the Theosophical Society rather than the culture where they actually originate. In particular, I would be wary of anything associated with Helena Blavatsky, and much of these tales of "tulpas" as mage-created spirits do originate there.

Notice that some definitions of soulbonding include spirits (believed to be) formed without human involvement, whereas others do not. Conversely, I’ve never heard the terms “tulpa” or “thoughtform” used so broadly. It really is a versatile term. Think about it. Perhaps soulbond itself is actually the best word here, and we can also use it in both cases. We needn’t grab a completely-unrelated term that isn’t ours and run off with it. And we also don’t have to go sorting through dusty tomes of occultism for another. There’s no reason some of us (if we want) can’t just use the word soulbond. Heck, I’ve got no problem with people just up and coining a whole new word, either…

I’m sticking with soulbond, hence the title of this site. Perhaps “spirit-bond” might be better, but I won’t give up soulbond. Yes, it’s new, yes, it was coined on the internet, but - does that matter? I call them soulbonds - it’s not an unrelated, appropriated word, nor does it minimize what I’m feeling (like thoughtform or servitor).

Is soulbonding occult?

Note: This section quotes several books about spiritwork within a more traditional occult context. While these include a particular favorite of mine (Familiar Unto Me), I must caution that I do not endorse everything in all of these books. This should be a given, but apparently needs mentioning these days. In particular I disagree with a lot of D'aoust’s perspective on what these spirits are, though her descriptions of the lore surrounding them are fascinating and useful.

The occult is not a scary thing. Let’s look at the dictionary definition of it, like teenagers trying to pad the length of a paper. It’s actually quite illuminating how broad it is…

Matters regarded as involving the action or influence of supernatural or supernormal powers or some secret knowledge of them; used with “the.”
Merriam-Webster definition of “occult.”

Authors throughout the past centuries used this word - both as a pejorative and as a mere descriptor - for a wide variety of practices and phenomena. These have included things like astrology, Tarot, witchcraft, crystal-gazing (also known as scrying), communicating with spirits, and research into phenomena like hauntings and poltergeists. Truthfully, many people disagree on what counts as occult - the definition is broad and fuzzy, but you likely get the concept already.

Some groups, religions, sects, people, etc, do use the term “occult” as a pejorative, and associate it with whatever their personal definition of metaphysical evil might be. That, of course, is not part of my usage of the term. You will also often find that this is a matter of semantics - those same people engage in practices others might call occult, but use different words. In other instances, it is a matter of pure religious taboo, where (for whatever reason) a person’s own concept of their religion forbids any involvement with the supernatural. Almost every religion I’ve encountered has some aspect I would consider occult or adjacent, but sometimes scorned by the majority.

Other religions incorporate intense occult involvement into their belief system and practices, effectively requiring adherents to be practicing mages (or witches, magicians, whatever term one might use).

From my perspective, the occult (or occultism as a discipline) exists independently of most established belief systems and is compatible with lots of them. Admittedly, my own spirituality is highly alternative and idiosyncratic, leaving a lot of room for the occult. I won’t tell those of other religions how to feel about it, though, especially about something like soulbonding. I will say that I’ve met people of several different mainstream religions who engaged in occult practices of different sorts. I’ve also, of course, found that occultists run the gamut from wonderful individuals to absolute trash fires, just like any other group.

In short, the occult is nothing to be frightened about. It’s just a word that people apply, rather liberally, to a set of practices with which you’re probably already familiar and might already know something about. It isn’t limited to witches chanting (supposedly) ancient spells in a shady grove under the full moon, nor spooky experiences with an Ouija board. It’s an extremely broad category that spans cultures, religions, and belief systems, and is, above all, a neutral term, referring to practices with consequences both positive and negative.

The people who coined the word soulbonding weren’t engaging in occult practices when they had those experiences. At least, that’s the impression I’ve gotten. It just happened, and so they coined a term for it. One needn’t be an occultist, after all, to experience occult phenomena. These things can happen with deep spontaneity, and for me, that often makes them even more meaningful.

It’s true that I saw early sites use the phrase (rather jokingly) “pop pseudo-Wiccans.” I’m also not going to pretend that neopaganism, alternative spiritualities, and existing occult paths aren’t overrepresented amongst soulbonders. The phenomena, though, was never limited to those with occult experience - I certainly knew nothing of the occult when I began to experience soulbonding as a child.

Still, is soulbonding in and of itself occult? If one accepts a metaphysical definition or explanation for it, as discussed on this very site, then I argue that yes, it is. You might not like the term occult, and might prefer another one, but by many people’s definition, soulbonding in this sense would be an occult practice.

If you don’t believe your soulbonds are discrete entities that exist on their own (ie, that they’re some kind of mental gestalt or psychological game on your part), then clearly it wouldn’t fall into the “occult” heading. This site, though, isn’t about that - here, I’m focused on, and tailoring my writing towards, those who, like me, believe soulbonds are, to be frank, living spirits. This is true regardless of their origin, complexity, or my relationship to them.

After all, it really does sound akin to channeling, as several sites have mentioned. Channeling would be the most polite, most acceptable term here in the West for it, now wouldn’t it? There are other worlds we can use though, including that terrifying term: possession. I once had someone try to argue that all soulbonding was “problematic” because it resembled such, and “possession is always a bad thing.” They, like many others didn’t seem to grasp the ubiquity of what I’d call “voluntary possession” traditions throughout the world, in cultures both ancient and modern.

Spirit possession is one of the primary modes in which religious and magical workers embody spirits for themselves and others throughout many spirit traditions around the world. When we consider a relationship in which a spirit sits with us, speaks with us, and influences us through our day to day lives, we are still looking at a form of spirit possession, although one which is foreign to most European and American thinking.
Swain, BJ. Familiar Unto Me: Witches Sorcerers and Their Spirit Companions (p. 401). Kindle Edition.

I somewhat draw a parallel between earlier notions of familiar spirits my own experiences as a soulbonder. Not every soulbonder will see things that way, even amongst those who see their soulbonds as spirits. I’m not exactly trying to promote this perspective, but trying to find and connect with others who see things this way. Either way, I think a lot of the experiences we as soulbonders have right now are unique to this era and situation, but the human impetus for spirit communication will always manifest in some way.

I won’t discuss what are generally called “non-Western cultures” because I’m not informed enough about them. Many cultures in the West, though, have lore (and spiritual beliefs) concerning sorcerers who consort with spirits, often helpers and friends. Many also have stories of people who, for whatever reason, end up the brides, husbands, or other relations of disincarnate beings. This has mixed effects on the individual and their lives. Sometimes, the story is a warning against such interactions; other times, it gives instructions and extols one to seek them out.

Some religious texts state that familiar spirits have no worthy information to confer to humanity, but in the majority of origin tales, all areas of knowledge and expertise—language, agriculture, science, astronomy, fine art, music, and architecture—came to the human race via familiar spirits and genius daimon guardians.
D'aoust, Maja. Familiars in Witchcraft: Supernatural Guardians in the Magical Traditions of the World (pp. 57-58). Inner Traditions/Bear & Company. Kindle Edition.

These stories give varying explanation for the origins of these spirits, of course, but the majority are said to come from another world or part of existence. What one might call Faerie often gets mentioned, but it’s awfully hard to say what that meant in the context of the era. While in most of the stories I’ve found, these beings aren’t created by a human, they might be attracted intensely to a human being’s actions, emotions, or creativity. I myself tentatively (these days) believe that at least some soulbonds are created by the soulbonder, and this site reflects that. I use the term soulbond regardless of the spirit's apparent origin, rather than other terms (like tulpa) - read about that here.

There’s plenty who will say that I’ve absolutely no right to compare my experiences to these earlier stories of spirit interaction in the West, but why not? Because soulbonds so often manifest as characters from our stories, and it sounds awfully silly in some places? A lot of occultism sounds silly to some - I hardly worry about that. But what of the opinion of other occultists and those of a mystical mindset, who surely do find it silly and possibly a bit offensive?

The matter of offensiveness or (what one might call) a problematic approach here can easily be put to rest. Spirit “possession” (if we must use this term) is a fixture of human spirituality throughout the world. It is not something that can be appropriated. I’d be concerned if a soulbonder called themselves a “pop culture shaman” 🤮 or something equally colonial and ridiculous, of course. But spirit contact - and indeed spirit “possession” - is ubiquitous, often spontaneous, and in no culture have I ever seen it framed as entirely negative.

The only real issue that some folks have here is that soulbonding is (from today’s perspective), silly, or weird. Just as certain stories of faerie brides would’ve been six centuries ago. Any kind of spontaneous occult experience like that, particularly one lacking the solemnity and constraints of the dominant hierarchical society, won’t be taken seriously until someone finds a way to integrate it into those solemn constraints, sadly.

We’ve seen some success with chaos magic’s rebellion against this longstanding trend in mysticism. Why not let the weirdness in? It always finds a way in, so why not just open the door? Most soulbonders would likely find chaos magic interesting, at the very least. The term may sound a little edgy or even worrisome, but chaos here rarely signifies disorder. A brief summary of the history explains best.

In the late 20th century, more and more magicians sought to escape the well-worn paradigms of traditional occultism, and a period of radical experimentation began. Building on the works of Austin Osman Spare, authors like Peter Carroll and Phil Hine presented magical techniques in a system-neutral and highly adaptable fashion, and this became colloquially known as chaos magic. Practitioners are sometimes called chaotes (pronunciation a source of controversy).

Chaos magicians treat belief as a tool rather than an end in and of itself. They adopt techniques and ideas from other occult paths and create their own do-it-yourself, postmodern approach to the occult. No two chaotes practice in the same fashion, but there are some commonalities. Because chaotes create their own spiritual paradigms, they’re free to include the unorthodox. This sometimes includes elements drawn from popular culture or other sources traditionally seen as non-occult. Sometimes, chaotes pull a fictional system of magic or spirituality into reality.

For example, the Cthulhu Mythos is undeniably the fictional creation of H. P. Lovecraft. It might draw from real-world sources, but sparingly. It really is just fiction, and you’ll never find an “authentic” Necronomicon because Lovecraft made that book, and the concept, up for his stories. Nevertheless, Phil Hine’s chaos magic primer, The Pseudonomicon gives instructions for how a magician might work with Chthulhu and related entities.

Is this soulbonding? I wouldn’t consider it such, since the working doesn’t involve the intense friendship between soulbond and soulbonder, nor the inhabitation, really. It does, though, give us the sense that chaotes sometimes have found reason to treat fictional entities as living spirits, just as I have. While pop culture-inspired magic remains on the fringe of the occult community even today, some published works focus on it.

In any case there are a multitude of occult precedents for what soulbonders like me experience. We needn’t feel othered from the magical community (as it is sometimes called online). We can embrace soulbonding in tandem with occult practices. I believe that for a lot of soulbonders, this can be deeply enriching, too.

It won’t be for everyone; many see soulbonding differently or have no interest in the occult, but this site is rather heavily biased towards metaphysical understandings of soulbonding. I myself gravitate towards that paradigm, after all. This is part of why the double-pupil eye symbol is used. As I understand it, this was meant specifically for those so-inclined. To wrap things up, I’m here including a list of published books about spirits and the occult which address (what I find to be) related or similar phenomena.

Note: As you might expect from mainstream sources, these authors don't address soulbonding as such, but do give advice on general spiritwork and things like developing inner sight, and other occult skills. I doubt most would find the concept palatable without a great degree of qualified explanation, but I'll probably never know for sure.

Familiars in Witchcraft, by Maja D’Aust.
Spirit Speak, by Ivo Dominguez Jr.
Pop Culture Magic 2.0, by Taylor Ellwood.
The Secret Country of Yourself, by Jenya T. Beachy.
Familiar Unto Me, by BJ Swain
Living Spirits, by BJ Swain
Summoning Spirits, by Konstantinos

These works vary in quality. Some (like Konstantinos’s) I include just because they’re “classics” in the genre and give context within the occult community. Plenty contain appropriative material because no author is perfect. Some occult writers (Stephen Flowers, for example) are a blanket no-go for me, of course. The authors here, though, may have some problems and perspectives I disagree with, but do write useful information. In some cases, their work was influential and needs mentioned for that alone. Sometimes you actually do get better information about certain occult topics from the web or other people than books. I especially recommend Swain’s book, though. Some of the others are useful insofar as they give interesting bits of lore and stories from times past about spirit interactions that were spontaneous, much like (typical) soulbonding.

Absent from this list (and, to be quite honest, other parts of this site) are books that present related phenomena in a completely ahistorical, disturbing, or generally cult-related fashion, including those related to “starseeds,” the end of the world prophecies, forced “soulbonding,” (ie, telling someone they must channel an entity), etc. Sadly, the (often bigoted and colonialist) "New Age" movement has monopolized the concept of channeling, but I’m trying to be slightly more selective. I would be a bit wary of some of D'Aust's more outlandish claims, but a lot of what she says about the lore and legends fascinates me.