In their reactions to A. Kyrlezhev’s and M. Shakhnovich’s reviews, the authors of the volume under discussion provide further clarifications of key methodological issues. They stress that the volume pursued academic goals rather than engaging in a wider public debate. Speaking of the Soviet science of religion, they prefer the concept of «extreme science» instead of «pseudoscience» or «normal science in extreme conditions». The volume focused on creating a framework of understanding the phenomenon and did not claim to cover the variety of archival materials. The authors outline further ways of developing the historiography of religious studies in Russia, in connection with the broader intellectual history, as well as the extension of the sources.