This article traces the valuation of the ludic themes of laughter and play in the work of Jonathan Z. Smith, as debated by two of his interpreters. The question at stake is whether “religious” or “secular” thinking is more playful and open to humor. Sam Gill argues that a special form of play animates both certain forms of religion as well as an ideal form of secular theory. Tyler Roberts counters that Gill “domesticates” the ludic, and in doing so misconstrues (...) the playfulness of religion. However, lurking behind the religious/secular dichotomy is a more fundamental question about the nature of the ludic, and what sort of power it possesses to transform human life. I show that the claim that theory is “secular” stabilizes certain ontological parameters about what human life could be. I turn finally to Nietzsche to interrogate an expression of ludic thought that pushes decisively beyond the human. (shrink)