This article presents the results of a study of contemporary Buddhist communities in Russia through the conceptual framework of the “two Buddhisms” dichotomy. The empirical basis of the study consists of a large-scale analysis of digital traces, namely publicly available attributes of user profiles on the VKontakte social networking platform. This approach makes it possible to partially compensate for the lack of official statistical data and to obtain a substantial body of self-descriptions produced by users who identify themselves as Buddhists. The study focuses on an in-depth comparison of two macro-groups: Buddhists residing in historically Buddhist ethnoreligious regions—the Republics of Buryatia, Tuva, and Kalmykia, as well as Zabaykalsky Krai—and converts living predominantly in large cities outside the historical areas of Buddhism in Russia.

A comprehensive analysis of digital profiles reveals substantial and systematic differences between these groups in their sociodemographic, political, and value orientations. Traditional (ethnoreligious) Buddhism functions primarily as a mechanism for reproducing collective ethnonational identity, relying on intergenerational religious socialization and locally embedded institutional structures. This group is characterized by a relatively balanced gender composition, a more even age distribution, and a high degree of family embeddedness. In terms of values, it demonstrates a strong orientation toward family, communal continuity, and social regulation, including a pronounced rejection of harmful habits.

Modernist convert Buddhism, by contrast, emerges predominantly as a result of conscious individual choice. It is sustained through horizontal social networks and is approached by its adherents as an individual project of self-development. Converts are characterized by a more abstract aspiration toward “improving the world,” a lower proportion of married individuals, and a more flexible ethical orientation based on personal awareness. Their demographic profile also differs markedly: men are substantially overrepresented, while the average age is lower. Politically, urban converts demonstrate a greater tendency to change ideological self-identifications, display political indifference, and, in some cases, express specific monarchist sympathies.

The study demonstrates that the concept of “two Buddhisms” provides a productive explanatory framework for the analysis of contemporary Buddhism in Russia. It enables a systematic description and interpretation of processes of sociocultural transformation, internal differentiation, and the geographical expansion of Buddhist presence in the country.

ethnic Buddhism, convert Buddhism, traditional Buddhist regions, social media, demographic profile, value orientations

1. Badmaeva N. V., Natsak O. D. Modern labor migration from Kalmykia and Tuva: economic, socio-cultural and gender aspects. Novye issledovaniya Tuvy, 2021: 4: 186–205 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.25178/nit.2021.4.14; EDN: EIFLCF.
2. Byuraeva Yu. G. Youth migration in the Republic of Buryatia: trends and causes. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2020: 10: 52–62 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250010001-4; EDN: GQSHLG.
3. Denisova G. S., Chernobrovkina N. I. Expert assessment of the ethnopolitical situation in Kalmykia: interpretation in the context of the theory of justice. Gumanitariy Yuga Rossii, 2020: 9(6): 158–170 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18522/2227-8656.2020.6.13; EDN: EWVDRX.
4. Zhamsueva D. S. Cult system of Buryat datsan temples (past and present). Vestnik IrGTU, 2015: 1(96): 233–236 (in Russ.).
5. Zabokritskaya L. D., Khlebnikov N. A. et al. Possibilities to study youth values through Vkontakte social network accounts. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny, 2020: 2(156): 148–167 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2020.2.692; EDN: FFNHNH.
6. Zateeva N. A., Tatarova S. P., Erkhemtogs Zh. Family in the structure of values of modern Buryats and Mongols. In Interethnic relations and processes in the modern world. Ed. by M. V. Badmaeva. Ulan-Ude, BGU im. D. Banzarova, 2019: 34–41 (in Russ.). EDN: RSYYDX.
7. Mongush M. V. Traditional and Western Buddhism in modern Russia: the experience of comparative analysis. Novye issledovaniya Tuvy, 2016: 1(29): 5–19 (in Russ.). EDN: VMDBBL.
8. Ostrovskaya E. A. Sociological study of religious non-governmental civil organizations of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea: problem statement. In Fifth Oriental Studies Readings in memory of O. O. Rosenberg. Sci. ed. by M. I. Vorob'eva-Desyatovskaya. St. Petersburg, Izd-vo A. Goloda, 2012: 144–159 (in Russ.).
9. Popova O. V., Grishin N. V. Political identity of Russian youth in self-assessments and expert assessments. Politicheskaya nauka, 2023: 2: 140–162 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31249/poln/2023.02.06; EDN: JRQNKM.
10. Ulanov M. S. The phenomenon of religious identity of the Kalmyk ethnosis. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal issledovaniy kultury, 2024: 3(56): 113–127 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.52173/2079-1100_2024_3_113; EDN: BKZDLJ.
11. Yaroshenko S., Isaeva V., Divisenko K. Family and Partnership on the Way to “Constant Happiness”: Transformation of Gender Ideology in the Process of Religious Conversion to Western Buddhism in Russia. Laboratorium: zhurnal sotsialnykh issledovaniy, 2022: 1: 4–29 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2022-14-1-4-29; EDN: QYXGKI.
12. Baumann M. Global Buddhism: Developmental Periods, Regional Histories, and a New Analytical Perspective. Journal of Global Buddhism, 2001: 2: 1–43. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1310640.
13. Bryukhanov M., Fedotenkov I. Gender differences in religiosity: a report on Russian data. Journal of Gender Studies, 2023: 32(2): 107–123. DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2021.1962702.
14. Goldsmith L. P., Rowland-Pomp M. et al. Use of social media platforms by migrant and ethnic minority populations during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 2022: 12(11): 1–14. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061896.
15. Holland E. C. Competing interpretations of Buddhism's revival in the Russian Republic of Kalmykia. Europe-Asia Studies, 2015: 67(6): 948–969. DOI: 10.1080/09668136.2015.1054259.
16. Isaeva V. B. Western Buddhism in the Local Context of the Russian Federation: The Case of the Russian Association of Diamond Way Buddhists of the Karma Kagyu Tradition. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 2019: 26: 201–238.
17. Numrich P. D. Two Buddhisms further considered. Contemporary Buddhism, 2003: 4(1): 55–78. DOI: 10.1080/1463994032000140185.
18. Ostrovskaya E., Badmatsyrenov T. et al. Russian-speaking digital Buddhism: neither cyber, nor sangha. Religions, 2021: 12(6): 1–19. DOI: 10.3390/rel12060449.
19. Ostrovskaya E., Badmatsyrenov T. Monks, Blogs and Three Media Cases: Russian-Speaking Buddhist Communities in the Era of Social Media. Religions, 2024: 15(10): 1–23. DOI: 10.3390/rel15101186.
20. Ramaekers M., Karremans T. et al. Social class, economic and political grievances and radical left voting: the role of macroeconomic performance. European Societies, 2023: 25(3): 444–467. DOI: 10.1080/14616696.2022.2127829.
21. Rogers R. Doing Digital Methods. London, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2019: 328.
22. Scherer B. Macho Buddhism: Gender and Sexualities in the Diamond Way. Religion and Gender, 2011: 1(1): 85–103. DOI: 10.18352/rg.17.
23. Thanissaro N. Internal diversity in Buddhism: comparing the values of Buddhist teens raised by heritage and convert parents. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 2014: 29(2): 315–330. DOI: 10.1080/13537903.2014.903668.
24. The Karmapa controversy: a compilation of information, 2002. Accessed 17.09.2025. URL: http://karmapa.controverse.free.fr/VA/VA-CONTROVERSE.PDF