Somehow, I'd never come across this before, but there are people who are way more into Bayesian Theory than I am. I guess I shouldn't be surprised - applying Rule 34 of the Internet (somewhat Not Safe For Work) would take this to an extreme that I can't quite picture.
The International Society for Bayesian Analysis seems to be almost entirely focused on serious scholarship. I think this is unfortunate - my point in Volume 7 was that Bayes should be accessible to everybody. It's useful to people who do not attend mathematical conferences professionally (and that's nothing against those who do).
In any case, even if I wish Bayesianism had more help in reaching the rest of us, I'm amazed by looking at the ISBA site just how much interest there is among academics. There are conferences on Bayesian applications to archaeology, public health among and many other topics you wouldn't consider. Maybe the path to wider use among us all starts with wider use among academics in other fields.
Criminology is a famous "other field" in which problems are posed in a Bayesian language. To that end, I found an interesting Bayesian problem on this blog:
Two people have left traces of their own blood at the scene of a crime. A suspect, Oliver, is tested and found to have type O blood. The blood groups of the two traces are found to be of type O (a common type in the local population, having frequency 60%) and of type AB (a rare type, with frequency 1%). Do these data (the blood types found at the scene) give evidence in favour [sic] of [sic] the proposition that Oliver was one of the two people whose blood was found at the scene?
I'll fully admit that I had to break out a piece of paper to figure this one out. Have fun!