post too long:
In the metaphysics of sex he writes
" Love can also include ideal affinities, evotion and affection, the spirit of sacrifice, deep manifestations of feeling; but all of these represent, from an existential point of view, something else or something incomplete wherever there is not present, as a
counterpart, that "physical" attraction resulting in the union of bodies and the trauma of coitus. At this point we have the precipitate ,
the movement to the act, and the consummation ( the natural terminus
ad quern or end purpose) which is the point and purpose of the erotic
experience. When the sexual impulse is aroused by "physical" attraction, the deepest layers of our being, layers existentially elementary by comparison to simple sentiment, are moved. The highest form of love between man and woman is, in a sense, unreal without that short circuit, the coarsest form of which is the climax of
the sexual orgasm; and it is precisely this which encompasses the
transcendental and nonindividual dimension of sex. It is true that
Platonic love can also take us beyond the individual through
continuous and absolute self-denial, but only as a spiritual
disposition. It can bear fruit in a different way, but not in the actual
experience, in a true fission of the being. Let us say it once more: The
depths of a being, in the sphere were are discussing, are reached and
moved only by the actual union of the sexes. "
to answer your question more directly I do not feel like he is making religious/political theory, rather that all of his theories hang from the threads of existentialism and the transcendental.
So don't look at it like a dough that has religion sprinkled everywhere making for a foggy taste.
This interview with evola might answer a lotPost too long. Click here to view the full text.