We found that agreement with messaging about desecration by sexual minorities was indirectly associated with lower social quality of life through a series of linked psychological and behavioral experiences. Specifically, sexual minorities who more strongly agreed with messaging about desecration reported lower internalized affirmation of their sexual orientation, which in turn predicted less openness about their sexual orientation in religious/Christian settings. Reduced outness in these religious contexts was then associated with lower social quality of life.

Our findings suggest that stigmatizing religious narratives may shape internal self-perceptions, erode sexual orientation identity affirmation, and reduce authenticity in religious spaces. As a result, individuals may experience diminished interpersonal connection, belonging, and social support. Complicating the matter, these non-affirming and discriminatory (i.e., desecrating) messages, often originating within obstructive Christian communities (e.g., families of origin, churches), are endorsed as theological and doctrinal truths (Killian & Fredrick, 2024; Killian et al., 2021, 2022). Coercing compliance with harmful messaging, whether explicitly or implicitly, as a condition for social acceptance and emotional or physical safety within non-affirming or discriminatory spaces (Killian & Fredrick, 2024; Killian et al., 2021, 2022) can foster a cyclical pattern of internalized self-invalidation.

In contrast, internalized affirmation refers to an individual’s recognition of their inherent self-worth and dignity; in this context, it specifically pertains to one’s identity as a sexual minority (Li et al., 2025). Specifically, internalized affirmation refers to one’s sense of pride and self-worth in embracing both one’s sexual orientation and a connection to LGBTQ + communities (Li et al., 2025), not merely the absence of shame. In this sense, we believe that repeated exposure to conservative or fundamentalist theological and ideological perspectives that reject the existence of sexual minorities or their social and religious/spiritual participation, including Christian perspectives expressed with varying levels of intensity, can gradually erode internalized affirmation (Barnes & Meyer, 2012; Boppana & Gross, 2019; Lewis, 2015). Furthermore, we believe that diminished internalized affirmation can weaken resiliency and increase vulnerability to identity devaluation (Killian & Fredrick, 2024; Killian et al., 2021, 2022), which may influence how individuals respond to or participate within Christian spaces.

We argue that determinations to disclose sexual orientation (i.e., coming out to others) within Christian environments are largely shaped by the perceived risk and the strength of one’s internalized affirmation (Hollier et al., 2022; Skidmore et al., 2024; Suen & Chan, 2020). Consequently, concealing one’s sexual orientation can serve as a protective mechanism in Christian contexts perceived as hostile or unsafe (e.g., fundamentalist communities; Skidmore et al., 2024). Importantly, when affirmation is absent or passive in nature, individuals are more likely to conceal their sexual orientation as a means of avoiding both personal rejection and broader social exclusion (Skidmore et al., 2024). As a protective strategy, identity concealment may offer short-term safety but is associated with decreased well-being (Benson et al., 2018; Pachankis et al., 2020; Pingel & Bauermeister, 2018). This dynamic becomes particularly complex when sexual minorities find social support within faith-based communities (Foster et al., 2015; Holleman, 2025; Lampe & McKay, 2025; White et al., 2019) as these connections often extend beyond formal institutions (e.g., churches or faith centers) and are deeply embedded in broader sociocultural and political systems shaped by Christianity’s pervasive influence (Fredrick et al., 2024).

There is an identified relationship between social support and quality of life, in which relational authenticity, sense of belonging, and meaningful interpersonal connection contribute to physical and social-emotional well-being (Haim-Litevsky et al., 2023). However, our findings suggest that social quality of life is eroded when individuals internalize negative Christian messaging about sexual minorities (Sowe et al., 2017) and as a result may conceal their identities within religious environments. Consequently, we contend that authenticity (i.e., the ability to express one’s true self without fear of judgment or rejection) and self-perceived acceptance are essential to developing and maintaining supportive, affirming, and meaningful social relationships (Shah et al., 2024; Wang, 2016). Non-affirming or discriminatory Christian environments that hinder authenticity or extend acceptance only under certain conditions may contribute to feelings of alienation and social disconnection (Beagan & Hattie, 2015; Benson et al., 2018; Foster et al., 2015; Holleman, 2025; Pingel & Bauermeister, 2018; Rosati et al., 2020; Skidmore et al., 2024; Suen & Chan, 2020; White et al., 2019).

We believe that our findings highlight strategies to support broader LGBTQ + communities in navigating the complex intersection of LGBTQ + identity and faith-based experiences. These strategies have implications for mental health professionals, including for pastoral care, training and practice, engagement with Christian communities, and advocacy. Mental health professionals can address the impact of repeated exposure to anti-LGBTQ + Christian messages on identity development and self-affirmation. Specifically, they can use affirmation-focused interventions (e.g., cognitive reframing to challenge internalized messaging). As a result, these professionals can support clients in discerning and, when necessary, navigating non-affirming, discriminatory, or ambiguous Christian spaces. For example, this can include helping clients explore decisions around self-disclosure, setting boundaries with family members or specific faith communities, and finding spaces where their LGBTQ + identities are recognized, affirmed, and celebrated.

Mental health professionals can also assist clients in processing religious/spiritual trauma, such as feelings of divine rejection or spiritual contamination that stem from doctrinal interpretations portraying LGBTQ + identities as sinful or incongruent with Christianity. Within brave and affirming spaces, mental health professionals can encourage critical reflection. For example, they can assist clients in identifying and challenging theological or doctrinal teachings (e.g., interpretations of sexuality as inherently sinful, prescribed binary gender roles, or punitive conceptions of divine judgment) that contribute to shame, fear, and identity concealment. This process may also include introducing clients to affirming faith-based resources, such as supportive texts, clergy, or congregants who affirm the intersections of their Christian and LGBTQ + identities.

However, professionals must also examine how Christian-based stigma and shame contribute to LGBTQ + clients’ experiences of social isolation and the pressure to conceal their identities within these faith-based contexts. Specifically, this requires mental health professionals to develop self-awareness around how their own religious/spiritual experiences influence their attitudes and beliefs, worldviews, values, and assumptions about human sexuality, gender identity, and religiosity/spirituality. For instance, mental health training programs and clinical supervision can support this reflective practice by incorporating structured discussions and case consultations that explore these psychological undercurrents.

Furthermore, religious/spiritual leaders can play an integral role in the dissemination and reinforcement of LGBTQ + messaging, including challenging and dismantling discriminatory narratives due to their perceived authority. For example, Christian leaders can use their interpretations of scripture to affirm LGBTQ + identities, inclusion, and participation. By explicitly advocating for inclusive theology, these leaders can create atmospheres that affirm LGBTQ + existence and participation and support authentic and uninhibited identity expression. Additionally, given their influence and active involvement in surrounding communities, religious/spiritual leaders can also endorse and facilitate community-level practices that enhance LGBTQ + belonging. For example, this could include hosting inclusive interfaith events (e.g., pride-affirming worship services, panels on theology and LGBTQ + identity, or dialogues addressing religious/spiritual harm), supporting and lobbying for LGBTQ + rights in public forums, or actively partnering with local and national LGBTQ + organizations.

Finally, LGBTQ + advocates and allies can partner with affirming religious/spiritual organizations to counteract non-affirming and discriminatory narratives and to increase LGBTQ + inclusion and engagement. For example, they can work to ensure LGBTQ + representation in various levels of Christian leadership (e.g., ordination and clergy appointments, seminary faculty and administrative roles, leadership positions within church boards and ministries), advocate for changes in denominational policies, or form inclusive theological education campaigns. Importantly, these partnerships can enhance social-emotional well-being by helping LGBTQ + individuals feel seen and supported within religious/spiritual spaces, thereby contributing to broader efforts to identify and deconstruct non-affirming and discriminatory Christian spaces while reconstructing environments where LGBTQ + individuals are fully visible, welcomed, and celebrated.

This study is not without its limitations, which include considerations of study design, sampling, and the exclusion of additional relevant variables. For instance, future scholars might consider the impact of longitudinal studies to examine how recurrent negative religious-based messaging about sexual minorities affects factors such as sexual orientation identity development, identity concealment, and social well-being over time. Additionally, designs and analysis can be used to identify and disrupt pathways related to agreement with messaging about desecration by sexual minorities, as well as to increase identity affirmation and disclosure within affirming contexts. This could also include the evaluation of both long-term clinical (e.g., LGBTQ + -affirming therapy models, trauma-informed pastoral counseling, group interventions addressing religious-based shame) and community-based strategies (e.g., peer-led support groups, inclusive faith-based initiatives, public education campaigns within religious communities) for effectively mitigating internalized shame and stigma, thereby improving social quality of life.

Our sample was fairly homogeneous in terms of race and cisgender identity and was more highly educated than the general population, which limits the generalizability of our findings. These relationships may operate differently for people of color, TGNC individuals, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In particular, the limited representation of racial and gender diversity constrains the applicability of the results to Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color, as well as TGNC individuals, whose experiences at the intersection of religion and sexual or gender identity may differ meaningfully (see Benson et al., 2018; Cull et al., 2025; O’Connor et al., 2025; White et al., 2019). For example, the cultural and spiritual role of the Black church may uniquely shape experiences of internalized affirmation, outness, and social quality of life. This lack of representation was likely influenced by the study’s recruitment strategy and topical focus.

This study also only examined Christian beliefs about desecration, so findings cannot be assumed to be true for other religious groups. Future research could broaden the religious/spiritual identifications of participants to include a wider array of traditions beyond Christianity (e.g., Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Indigenous spiritualities). This would allow for a richer analysis of differing doctrinal influences (e.g., teachings on gender variance, sexual ethics, purity laws, and communal belonging) on LGBTQ + lived experience, including the inclusion and visibility of LGBTQ + individuals in both social (e.g., family dynamics, community acceptance, public presence) and religious/spiritual (e.g., worship participation, ritual roles, leadership opportunities) contexts. Doing so would enhance the generalizability of the findings and diversify the sample to reflect an array of intersecting social locations (e.g., race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigration status, ability status, education level), allowing for examination of how these intersections influence factors such as internalization, exposure, and resilience. Furthermore, future studies could expand their geographic scope to evaluate contextual influences, such as regional religiosity (e.g., Bible Belt conservatism, secular urban centers, areas with a strong evangelical or Catholic presence), community attitudes (e.g., local support for anti-discrimination policies, prevalence of hate crimes, visibility of LGBTQ + advocacy), and access to affirming spaces.