From the author: The formation of the Shadow occurs as the formation of the Ego occurs. The more crystallized and rigidly formed the Ego with its positions and attitudes, the stronger the “other side” with its rigid positions becomes, since in any case a person will not become only what he considers himself to be and what he identifies with. Analytical psychology sees aggressive fanaticism is precisely that, the shadow of which is uncertainty and doubt. The more fanatical a person is, the more he doubts on an unconscious level. The tension between the Ego and the Shadow is further intensified by the fact that a person forbids himself to doubt. Continuing the conversation about the problem of the Shadow, it should be said that its formation occurs as the formation of the Ego occurs. The more crystallized and rigidly formed the Ego with its positions and attitudes, the stronger the “other side” with its rigid positions becomes, since in any case a person will not become only what he considers himself to be and what he identifies with. Let's say, in adolescence, a person faces a choice whether to accept the value system of his parents or not. And regardless of his choice, the alternative, unrealized, but potentially possible choice will become his “other side.” Thus, the “obedient boy” is the Shadow of the “rebel”, and vice versa. Actually, numerous social groups often have a shadow character towards each other, which is sometimes expressed in outright hatred. A significant contribution to the formation of the Shadow, as analytical psychology understands it, is the adoption of an active religious position - when a person either “hits” that religion to which he already belongs, or becomes a member of some alternative religious organization with strictly fixed rules and values. Looking at representatives of certain religious movements, one cannot help but notice that, while speaking about universal love, they at the same time exude hatred. Actually, a person, taking certain rigid positions regarding the view of the world and the moral assessment of behavior, both his own and those of others, which are required by a certain religious worldview, is unlikely to change immediately. A person, for example, had his own set of desires, motives, impulses - and all this constituted his conscious activity, and did not meet with any negative assessment from his “I”. In general, he lived a kind of life that was familiar to him. But now, he became a member of some church, sect, etc. (so that the reader does not get the wrong opinion, we should immediately make a reservation - analytical psychology has nothing against the religious worldview as such, and Carl Gustav Jung himself appealed a lot to the religious experience of mankind, however, this direction of psychology requires a broader view of religious issues and avoidance any rigid dogmatism). And in this religious organization they tell him that all this is bad, that all this must be abandoned, all this must be fought - in general: “To become a saint tomorrow - otherwise it will be bad.” And he may well begin to believe that he has freed himself from his “vices” and become a “saint.” However, what previously constituted the content of the work of his consciousness did not disappear anywhere, but became repressed and acquired the character of blocked energy. It should be said that although analytical psychology is loyal to the religious worldview, it nevertheless, perhaps, welcomes the adoption of such when relying on some personal mental experience, but not as a result of assimilation of some dogmas imposed by someone. A person who has experienced something does not need to strenuously prove anything. One way or another, some personal experience can be a basis for believing, and not just having rigid positions regarding this or that. It’s another matter when a person is convinced that he must believe in such and such. However, he has no real grounds for this. He, let’s say, doesn’t believe so much as he wants to believe. He may well.