Generally, Korihor is understood as a kind of anachronistic representation of secularism by many modern interpreters. However, it is not at all clear that Korihor represents secularism. Indeed, his confession notes that a religious experience is what motivated him.
Secularism may be defined in various ways, and indeed has enjoyed a rigorous critical discussion over the past decade or so. For the purposes of this post, I want to examine just two important ways for thinking about the secular: secularism as the rejection of religion (whatever that may mean), and secularism as the separation of ecclesiastical power from state power. In brief, I argue that Korihor is not guilty of the first, and the narrator is guilty of the second. Indeed, the text actually argues in favor of this latter kind of secularism!