Is an unfamiliar new deity name necessarily false?

We cannot immediately call a deity false just because we have never heard the name. Nor should we accept everything without inquiry simply because someone calls a figure a deity. I would first ask about the origin, then consider the teachings and moral character.

On the program, we discussed a news report about a statue that a temple said depicted a new deity whose carving had been ordered by its principal deity. I did not know what they had actually perceived spiritually, so I did not pass judgment on that temple’s account. In terms of faith, it is theoretically understandable that deities might manifest different forms in response to the needs of living beings. However, that possibility does not mean this particular case has been confirmed.

If the background can be explained clearly—who holds this role, what their history is, and why they have this title—people can understand more easily. An unfamiliar name alone does not answer all these questions.

We still need to see whether the teachings encourage goodness, compassion, and quietness of mind, and whether there is something worth learning. Respecting another place’s culture and deciding whether to approach or follow its faith can be considered separately. You do not have to join in worship to show respect, nor do you have to reject everything from the outset.