It also covers groups that have faced more dubious allegations of being suicide cults, such as the Branch Davidians and the Falun Gong.

James R. Lewis (of the University of Tromsø) was an academic focusing on new religious movements; he had previously edited several other anthologies on the topic of violence and NRMs.

Carole M. Cusack was a professor of Religious Studies at the University of Sydney, and the author of several books on religion.

[2] The contributors to the book are, alongside the two editors, Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Thomas Robbins, Henrik Bogdan, Rebecca Moore, John Walliss, Jan A. Ali, Mattias Gardell, Katarina Plank, Lorenz Graitl, Helen Farley, Lynn S. Neal, and Christopher Hartney.

Robbins covers the Old Believers, a group of Russian schismatic Christians, tens of thousands whom committed suicide through self-immolation over a decades long period from the late 1700s on.

Wallis notes the confused evidence of many aspects of the case, and how basic details are to this day uncertain, though of the many competing theories largely concurs with Richard Vokes's analysis of the group.

Ali explores Islamist terrorism as a sociological phenomenon, noting Muslim terrorist's connections to their broader social groups and their status as a form of resistance.

Lynn S. Neal discusses America television's portrayal of cults and suicide; analyzing episodes of several TV shows, she argues that the episodes, by blending elements of many groups, create a cultural memory of cults, and that they present an idealized history where both the government and supposedly real religious groups acted ideally.

They said its essays "enhance understanding" of the connection between religion and violence, and praised the bibliography sections included in each chapter.

[2] Sarah K. Pinnock highly recommended it, praising its format as convenient for research purposes as the chapters stand alone, and for its accessibility.

[5] Benjamin E. Zeller, an academic studying Heaven's Gate, called the book "very refreshing" in his review in the Journal of Religious History, as well as a "major contribution to the field".

[6] Pinnock argued the volume was strongest in its dealing with contemporary movements, and complimented its structure in opening with historical cases and ending with discussions of modern media portrayals.

[5] Bernard Doherty criticized the choice of cover (depicting a person who had set themself on fire), arguing that there was likely art relating to suicide that would be more appropriate and "far less visceral" than a picture of self-immolation, but praised the work overall.