Not relating to the godly, not even when I was a little kid. It goes too far back for me to remember a specific source.
I'm not particularly interested in intentional drawing attention to the unappealing sides of things as much as just not being squeamish about thinking about them where they exist among the other facets of a thing. Not an interest in calling out or in iconoclasm so much as an interest in creating an accurate record. If I seem to focus on the dark, that's because other people (some of whom might be unmovably averse to looking there - those people are what really scares me) have the other side covered with their attentions. Or, I don't find it really that dark. My repulsion threshold is pretty remote.
I don't enjoy blood, and melancholy art has to be pretty subtle or naturalistic, or I won't believe it. I'm more drawn to depictions of monsters more than to human slashers, and even more to real creatures that challenge us to relate to them - bugs, large carnivores, the deep sea. And there's hell - I started out as a child who identified with those who fell to it, and I still have a thing for depictions of underworlds, but now nature's hostilities (at least to our sort of mammal) are more than enough. Places where we can't breathe, remote land to which you have to bring or create your own comfort, arctic winters, desert rays, substances we shouldn't touch, places with no ground. The beginning, interior and end of the planet. Parts of our natural, non-abnormal psychology that we'd rather not own up to. My "morbid" disposition has grown into a drive to learn about that which is physically hard to for this species get close to. The science of the unavailable.
The way I approach this stuff is rather sensing and thinking, if you want to put it into typological terms. My bottom two functions.