Cult News

Introduction

I am writing this article as a previous member of the Order of Christ Sophia (OCS) and the Center of Light (COL).When I first encountered the OCS in 1999 I found it to be a supportive and empowering organization.Over time however, I feel that the nature of the group has changed dramatically and I would now describe it as extremely destructive and dangerous. I am gravely concerned for the welfare of anyone currently involved with or considering involvement with the group and it is my hope that what I describe here will bring clarity and insight to others.

Background

I was a “student” in the OCS for several years beginning in 1999 when the organization was first founded.I later trained for the ministry and functioned as a “deacon” for 2 years, a “priest” for 8 years and then a “shepherd” (the highest level of OCS training) for 2 years. I was also a member of the board of directors for 4 years.During my time with the group I had extensive contact with its leaders and became intimately acquainted with its internal dynamics and politics.Because of my familiarity with the OCS I feel that I am in a position to offer credible testimony about the nature of the organization.

Destructive and dangerous characteristics

The destructive and dangerous characteristics of the OCS.

The remainder of this article will describe the characteristics of the OCS that I found to be most destructive and dangerous.I will divide them into four categories and discuss them separately.The four categories are:

1) The leaders of the OCS have exhibited psychologically pathological behavior.

2) The leaders of the OCS have engaged in abusive and unethical practices.

3) The OCS has become an authoritarian and tyrannical organization that encourages loyalty to the leaders of the group rather than to God.

4) Group dynamics within the OCS have created an atmosphere where members come to accept, normalize and even positively reinterpret negative practices which eventually cause severe psychological and emotional trauma including the loss of personal autonomy and identity.

Psychologically pathological behavior

The leaders of the OCS have exhibited psychologically pathological behavior.

The OCS is led by Peter Bowes (photo left) and Clare Watts (photo lower right).Both have made claims that I feel to be delusional and have exhibited behavior that I feel represents psychosis.

Bowes has claimed the following: to be the reincarnation of St. Peter; to be the reincarnation of St. Francis of Assisi; to have been personally instructed by the Buddha; to have received the authority and responsibility for carrying on the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ directly from St. Paul; to possess the highest consciousness of any spiritual teacher alive; to be the most trustworthy person alive; to be the recipient of an Apostolic succession derived from Jesus Christ; that the OCS is the most spiritually evolved organization of all time; that the OCS represents the second coming of Christ; that the Apocalypse will occur within the lifetime of the present generation; that only 30% of the population will survive the Apocalypse; that the OCS will play a pivotal role in bringing the post-Apocalyptic human race into a new consciousness.

Watts has claimed the following: to be the reincarnation of St. Clare of Assisi; to possess the highest consciousness of any spiritual teacher alive; to be the recipient of an Apostolic succession derived from Jesus Christ; that the OCS is the most spiritually evolved organization of all time; that the OCS represents the second coming of Christ; that the Apocalypse will occur within the lifetime of the present generation; that only 30% of the population will survive the Apocalypse; that the OCS will play a pivotal role in bringing the post-Apocalyptic human race into a new consciousness.

Bowes and Watts have also asserted that they can hear the voice of God and accurately discern Gods will through a process they call “receiving guidance.”While they maintain that all people have the inherent ability to do this, they insist that their level of enlightenment affords them the ability to know God’s will with unrivaled clarity.Furthermore, they frequently use this alleged ability to proclaim the will of God for others.

When questioned about the validity of these claims, Bowes and Watts have maintained that they represent the truth.And when criticized for the unethical and abusive nature of the behaviors that will be described below, they have insisted that they are leaders of the highest integrity.Bowes and Watts are convinced that they are messengers sent from God, that their conduct is virtuous and that their actions are divinely guided.I feel that they have both exhibited signs of serious psychological pathology.

Abusive unethical practices

The leaders of the OCS have engaged in abusive and unethical practices.

Bowes and Watts have engaged in unethical and abusive practices with appalling regularity and have persistently defended the moral fortitude of their leadership. Bowes and Watts play a central role in the “spiritual instruction” of anyone who participates in the OCS.They proclaim themselves to be “Master Teachers” and consider all others to be their “students.”Both are trained psychotherapists and it is my opinion that they are able to use their professional expertise to exploit psychological wounds and engineer a dynamic where group members become insidiously disempowered and dependent.Initial interactions with Bowes and Watts are predominantly positive and serve to engender people into continued participation.With deeper involvement, members become progressively immersed in a group dynamic that distorts their perception of ethics and reality.It is within this dynamic that Bowes and Watts become psychologically manipulative and emotionally abusive.

Such behavior is usually hidden from the public eye and occurs in private sessions.However, there have been multiple occasions where Bowes and Watts have publically harassed a group member to the point that they were reduced to tears.To date, countless people have left the OCS feeling that they experienced severe emotional and psychological trauma.Many have reported feeling extremely anxious, hopelessly depressed and profoundly disconnected from themselves and God.Several senior ministers, including some who are currently involved in the group, have reported these same sentiments including being depressed to the point of contemplating suicide.

While Bowes and Watts publicly profess a philosophy of inclusiveness and egalitarianism, behind closed doors they promote an attitude of superiority and disrespect toward humanity.People outside the OCS are often described as animals, useless and a waste of space.Bowes and Watts also insist that Christianity represents the highest form of spirituality and commonly insult the practices and practitioners of other religions.On numerous occasions they have made glaringly anti-Semitic remarks.

Friendships outside of the OCS are discouraged.Ministers are instructed to view people as potential recruits rather than as equals.Ex-members have reported being relentlessly pressured to dissolve previously meaningful relationships.This practice is evidenced by the fact that most longstanding members do not have any close external friendships.Even friendships within the OCS suffer under the weight of Bowes and Watts.As members ascend in rank they are told to stop relating to lower ranking members as peers regardless of the depth of their previous association.Bowes and Watts also inject themselves into relationships in such a way that they become the directive parties.Because of this, relationships within the OCS are in a constant state of flux and lack the autonomy of otherwise healthy fellowship.

Bowes and Watts have taken a particularly antagonistic stance toward familial relationships and have been responsible for the widespread devastation and destruction of countless families. This antagonism has occurred on multiple levels.

Bowes and Watts have been consistently adversarial in regard to the nonparticipating spouses of group members.They have often told members that their spouses were losers, negative, dark or possessed by demons.These malignments, and the many that will be described below, have been unfounded.Bowes and Watts have also frequently instructed members to cease all sexual relations with their partners and warned that such intimacy would cause them to become contaminated.In various cases they have pressured members into divorce.

Bowes and Watts have also behaved abusively toward the children of group members.Several teenage children have reported feeling verbally abused and bullied by Bowes.In one instance, the mother of a teenage boy was told that her son was spiritually lost, didn’t have a spiritual bone in his body and was going to grow up to be a date rapist.There have been multiple instances where members have withdrawn their children from the group and specifically told Bowes and Watts not to contact them only to find that Bowes had:ignored their wishes, contacted their child, told them that their parents’ decision to withdraw them from the OCS was sad and invited them to come back when they were 18.

Bowes and Watts have brutally attacked the relationships of group members with their parents and immediate families.They assert that family bonds are primitive and shallow and that true love can only be found in the spiritual family of the OCS.They describe familial relationships as being unworthy of time and attention and dissuade members from having close relationships with their relatives.Such messaging is incessant and is delivered in both obvious and surreptitious ways.Bowes and Watts spend an inordinate amount of time casting childhood experiences in an exceedingly negative light.Members are commonly told that they were neglected or abused and parents are frequently described in unduly critical and demeaning ways.Bowes and Watts have routinely guided members into meditative states and asked them to relive their most painful childhood memories.In the midst of this emotional vulnerability they have made extremely manipulative comments that have inflamed past hurts and instigated repugnance toward a members’ childhood and parents.They have told members that:there was no love in their childhood, their parents didn’t love them, their parents hated them and that they only received table scraps of love.Bowes and Watts have regularly taken their hostility to the extreme of pressuring members to completely sever ties with their families.On several occasions where a members’ parent has died they have instructed them not to attend the funeral, citing the biblical quote of “let the dead bury the dead.”Separation from family has inarguably become a part of the very fabric of the OCS and the degree to which Bowes and Watts have attacked and devastated families cannot be overstated.Most ex-members have reported feeling emotionally manipulated to the point where they treated their families in unconscionable ways.

Bowes and Watts have also adopted unethical and abusive practices regarding marriages and partnerships existent within the OCS.Bowes and Watts often arrange marriages, claiming that God has guided them to do so.Once the couple is married, they play a central role in directing the marriage.Such direction consists of requiring that each member of the couple has a greater loyalty to Bowes, Watts and the OCS than to their spouse.Bowes and Watts have publically asked ministers what they would do if their partner left the organization and expected the minister to profess organizational allegiance.Bowes and Watts also routinely direct couples in matters of physical and sexual intimacy.Typically, a couple is instructed to sleep in separate rooms for a majority of nights and to be sexually intimate a maximum of once per month.Such governance is not left to the discretion of the couples who are instead expected to obey these instructions as if they came directly from God.Those who have questioned such policies have been chastised and accused of being sex addicts or of being loyal to their primitive desire natures.Ex-members have described feeling abused in regard to sexuality and made to feel ashamed of being physically attracted to their partners.Many have stated that the influence of Bowes and Watts on their marriages was catastrophic.

Bowes and Watts also control the amount of time couples spend together and with their children.Ministers are required to spend excessive amounts of time performing ministerial duties that require late nights and early mornings.As the vast majority of ministers also hold full time jobs, many are overworked, exhausted and lack the time for leisure, exercise, outside interests and socializing.Ministers who have voiced concern over excessive work requirements have been ridiculed and accused of being lazy.In the case of married ministers, partners have very little time to devote to each other or to their children.Ministers who are parenting are directed to spend more time with OCS duties than with their children.Several ex-member parents have reported being told that it was sufficient for them to spend 15 minutes of dedicated time with their child each day.Others have reported being told not to help their children with their homework because that was the responsibility of the child’s schoolteacher.There have even been cases where a surrogate parent was assigned to a ministers’ child and that child was told to consider the surrogate to be their new source of parenting.

In recent months, several well respected and high ranking ministers left the OCS and communicated to Bowes and Watts that they had become tyrannical and abusive and that the organization had become dangerous and destructive.While these ministers were the first to openly criticize Watts and Bowes en masse, they were certainly not the first to leave the organization.A noteworthy statistic is that over 50% of those who have ever been priests in the OCS have left the group and would describe it as negative.Despite this high defection rate, Bowes and Watts have continued to abdicate responsibility.Instead they have maintained that ex-members have resigned exclusively because of flaws of their own.Moreover, they have demonized departed ministers by publically declaring that they: were possessed by demons, were agents of darkness, were riddled with fear and pride, had turned their backs on Jesus and Mary, had betrayed God, had fallen from grace, had led God’s children astray or had thrown their lives away.In one case, Watts told a departing minister that her marriage was shrouded in darkness and that any children conceived in such a marriage would be children of darkness.

Despite the group having a Code of Ethics and Whistleblower Policy that requires a formal investigation of any allegations of misconduct, no such investigation has taken place.On the contrary, Bowes and Watts have deliberately attempted to suppress dissention and have blatantly lied about the ministers who resigned and their reasons for doing so.They have also actively dissuaded members from speaking to ex-ministers.Some who voiced the desire to do so were warned against being lured into temptation.A recent technique that was used to suppress dissent was that Bowes and Watts emailed so called apology letters to select ministers who had left the group and cc’d the majority of OCS members.The content of these emails was misleading.While they were called apologies, they actually implied that the ministers had left for benign reasons and greatly downplayed any wrongdoing on the part of Bowes and Watts.It is my opinion that these emails represented an attempt at subterfuge and damage control and that Bowes and Watts used the forum of an alleged apology to circulate their own explanation for the mass defection of ministers.To further their suppressive efforts, Bowes and Watts had the email addresses of the ex-ministers blocked so that they could neither send nor reply to emails from members with an OCS email address.

There have also been various instances of financial abuses and indiscretions within the OCS.Ministers are not paid for their duties and are required to allocate large amounts of time to the OCS.A high ranking minister might spend between 15 and 30 hours per week performing ministerial duties.Not only do ministers not receive any financial compensation but they are required to contribute 10% of their gross income to the OCS.Furthermore, in order to accommodate group services, many ministers have purchased larger homes than they would have otherwise required and financed the additional expenses without any assistance.Ministers are also expected to work at bi-annual spiritual retreats at the groups retreat center. Again, they are not compensated for their work at these retreats but rather are expected to purchase their own airfare and pay full price for their attendance as well as their children’s attendance.Many ex-ministers who could not afford such expenses or who had difficulty devoting large portions of time to the OCS have reported being reproached and/or threatened with demotion.

It is also noteworthy that while all other ministers are unpaid, Bowes and Watts are each awarded a full salary with health benefits.Furthermore, when Bowes and Watts travel to the different COL locations throughout the country it has become common practice for members to collect money for their expenses.

The OCS has also solicited money both from group members and the general public under the pretense of raising funds for a temple that they claim will be dedicated to world peace.Yet Bowes and Watts have no immediate plans to construct such a temple and have instead funneled money to other construction projects designed to increase revenue.

Bowes and Watts have also displayed favoritism towards ministers who contribute the most financially and materially.Their emotional abusiveness has been greatly lessened in cases where a minister was contributing large amounts of money, covering the cost of an OCS facility or performing a key service.Those who have not been as useful to the OCS have been treated with much greater cruelty.

Finally, Bowes and Watts have commonly engaged in behaviors which have breached the confidentiality of ex-members.They have publically revealed confidential information about ex-members and have spoken about this information and the members in markedly negative ways.

Authoritarian and tyrannical organization

The OCS has become an authoritarian and tyrannical organization that encourages loyalty to the leaders of the group rather than to God.

While the OCS claims that it intends to bring individuals into a closer relationship with themselves and with God, it is my opinion that involvement with the group instead causes people to become less dependent on themselves and God and increasingly dependent on Bowes and Watts.

When the OCS was first established, group members were encouraged to cultivate a personal relationship with God and to live their lives according to what they felt God was directing them to do.Over time, however, Bowes and Watts have slowly supplanted reliance on and dedication to God with reliance on and dedication to themselves.

One of the key ways that this is accomplished is through an obsessive devotion to the process that Bowes and Watts call “getting guidance.”While the principle of seeking Gods divine will through meditation can be found in the teachings of other religions and is not inherently suspect, Bowes and Watts have perverted it in a number of ways.First, they claim that they have an unparalleled ability to discern Gods will and that they can know what Gods will is for an individual with a greater clarity than the individual themself can.Second, they require that all ministers report the guidances they receive to them for final approval.Finally, because of the powerful group dynamic that I will describe below, I believe that most ministers are actually entering into a process of intuiting the will of Bowes and Watts rather than truly seeking the will of God.

Bowes and Watts have repeatedly advertised that when they are speaking it should be assumed that God is speaking.Accordingly, it is commonly accepted that what Bowes and Watts say is the pure and clear word of God.In cases where a minister receives a guidance that is different from that apparently received from Bowes and Watts, it is assumed that the minister is incorrect.Any claim to the contrary is viewed as arrogant and the minister is chastised for committing the sins of pride and disobedience.

There have been many examples where Bowes and Watts have used the principle of guidance to manipulate a group member.In one case, Bowes and Watts attempted to pressure a minister into leaving her spouse.This minister was one of the most senior members of the OCS and had been chosen as the groups’ successor.Yet when the minister reported that the guidance she was receiving was to be faithful to her husband, Bowes and Watts asserted that she was wrong, attacked her character and threatened her with demotion.Another senior minister was informed that God wanted him and his wife to have children.When the minister reported that the guidance he was receiving was that they should not have children, he was also told that he was wrong, his character was similarly impugned and he was also threatened with demotion.There have been many other cases where a minister who sought to follow their own guidance was castigated.And many ex-members have reported being pushed into actions such as disowning their family, selling or purchasing homes, defaulting on loans, quitting jobs, beginning new careers or donating large portions of money to the OCS.Unfortunately, this list is by no means exhaustive.

Another example of the culture of obedience to Bowes and Watts can be seen in the way ministers have been instructed to council group members.Bowes and Watts recently began teaching that ministers should tell students what to do and expect their instructions to be obeyed as if they were issued by God.Ministers are directed to avoid imparting the principles of meditation involved in getting personal guidance with the rationale that only Bowes and Watts should be offering such instruction.Other examples of the exaltation of Bowes and Watts are the recent adoption of a protocol that requires group members to stand when Bowes and Watts enter a room and a ritual which involves members circling and prostrating to them as they are seated in elevated and adorned chairs.

In recent years some ministers have begun to adopt the abusive and unethical practices of Bowes and Watts. Particularly concerning is the fact that this trend applies especially to the ministers who have been appointed to lead the groups’ youth program.Elements of abuse, coercion and manipulation are increasing in the program.Some children have reported feeling bullied and insulted.Others have felt pressured to become more deeply involved in the OCS.Several have been confused and scared by teachings they received about sexuality and dating.Additionally, many of the children have begun to experience the negative repercussions of placing their self-esteem, self-image and self-direction in the hands of the programs misguided leaders.

Also concerning is the fact that due to the group dynamic described below, many otherwise well-meaning ministers are unknowingly serving as integral components of the machinery that has been so destructive to so many. Not only are they suffering themselves but they are also actively recruiting people into a malignant environment.

In summary, it is my observation that Bowes and Watts have supplanted God as the gold standard for the truth and the source of direction in members’ lives and that they have replaced God as the object of worship and reverence.Consequently, while members may claim that they are attempting to follow and worship God, I feel that they have been deluded into following the will of Bowes and Watts and worshiping them.

Group dynamics

Group dynamics within the OCS have created an atmosphere where members come to accept, normalize and even positively reinterpret negative practices which eventually cause severe psychological and emotional trauma including the loss of personal autonomy and identity.

An examination of the psychological and sociological literature will unearth considerable controversy regarding the topics of “cults,” “brainwashing” and “mind control.”Despite this contention, several landmark studies have incontrovertibly demonstrated the power of group dynamics and have been widely accepted by the academic community.The first one, commonly called “The Milgram Experiment,” was conducted by Yale University Professor Stanley Milgram.It examined the phenomenon of obedience to authority and clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of people were willing to deliver high voltage electric shocks to others if an authority figure told them to do so, even when they thought they were causing significant pain and suffering.A second experiment, known as the “Stanford Prison Experiment” was conducted by Stanford University Professor Philip Zimbardo.This study illustrated the psychological effects of being assigned the role of a prisoner or guard and demonstrated that people were willing to either perpetrate or accept psychological and physical abuse when provided with a legitimizing ideology and a social structure that supported it.An internet search of these experiments will yield many good references.Those looking for a single source can find an excellent BBC documentary called “Five Steps to Tyranny.”It discusses these two studies as well as others.Part 1 of 7 can be found on YouTube at. I include these experiments to substantiate the fact that apart from any debate about the legitimacy of “brainwashing,” it is a scientifically accepted fact that people can be powerfully influenced by the currents of group dynamics.I believe that these phenomena are at work in the OCS. The OCS is an organization that initially presents well.A newcomer will typically first encounter the ministers at a Center of Light (COL) rather than Bowes and Watts.These ministers are sincere in their desire to help others and the entry level classes and services that they offer emphasize universally accepted spiritual teachings as well as the traditional virtues of Christianity.The atmosphere is welcoming and supportive and most members have predominantly positive initial experiences.It is not until a member becomes more deeply involved in the OCS that the negative characteristics of the group begin to emerge.Unfortunately, as members increase their participation they also become immersed in a group dynamic which gradually skews their concept of reality and makes it difficult for them to detect negativity.This group dynamic has various components which I will describe below.

One of the primary components of this group dynamic is that the OCS places a tremendous emphasis on the cultivation of a state of openness and receptivity.Lectures focus on the fallibility of rational thought and the importance of trust and faith.Meditative practices encourage letting go and opening the heart.Many rituals and services focus on surrender.These practices and beliefs engender a state of profound suggestibility in the newcomer.Such a cultivation of receptivity is not unique to the OCS.Many religions prescribe it as a means of union with the divine and many new OCS members do initially find it helpful.However, it also makes members susceptible to the negativity of the organization and serves as the initiatory event in the establishment of the very harmful group dynamic.

A second element of this group dynamic is that the OCS places extreme emphasis on the importance of the “spiritual teacher” and the “teacher-student relationship.”Although these concepts are somewhat foreign to westerners, they do appear in many eastern spiritual practices.In these eastern traditions, however, great care is taken to ensure that the student-teacher relationship is grounded in an inherent respect for the autonomy and empowerment of the student.While these foundational elements usually exist when an OCS member first begins working with an OCS minister, the student-teacher relationship becomes inevitably contaminated by undercurrents of manipulation as Bowes and Watts become involved.This contamination is insidious as Bowes and Watts escalate their involvement with group members slowly.

The first activity that is undertaken with a spiritual teacher is an intensive process of self-examination known as a “Life Retrospection.”In the early years of the OCS, ministers guided students through this exercise with impartiality and members experienced positive results.Over time however, the ulterior motives of Bowes and Watts have adulterated the process.Group members past relationships and experiences are now cast in an overly negative light.This also occurs in relation to their present relationships and experiences.In this way, their conception of who they were in the past and who they are in the present is negatively reframed and destabilized.Upon completion of the life retrospection the member is given a new name which they are told represents the person that they will become.This further divorces them from their past and present. With the past and the present destabilized and negatively reframed, the member becomes increasingly dependent on the future.Because the key to this future is held by the OCS, the member is lured more deeply into dependency.

Another aspect of the group dynamic is that members are maneuvered into spending enlarging amounts of time with the group.Upon completion of the life retrospection, a member is offered the possibility of becoming a “spiritual student.”Bowes and Watts exert considerable energy enticing members into such an arrangement and ministers are told to constantly advertise its benefits.Being a spiritual student requires a high level of participation in OCS activities.At a minimum, students are required to attend multiple classes each week, several early morning services, special events, all spiritual seminars and all bi-annual spiritual retreats.They are also obligated to perform spiritual exercises twice daily, to send detailed notes to their teacher weekly and to meet with them biweekly.This necessitates that the member spends vast amounts of time with the OCS and its teachings.Such immersion also results in a growing social isolation and a loss of external cues.In time the group member begins to accept the alternate reality of the OCS as their own.Parenthetically, students are also obligated to give 10% of their income to the OCS and failure to do so results in termination of their studentship.

The adulation of Bowes and Watts further enhances the encompassing power of the group dynamic.As part of this adulatory practice, Bowes and Watts have assumed the titles of “Father Peter” and “Mother Clare.”True to these titles, most ministers feel that Bowes and Watts are their new parents.They are subservient to them and assume the roles of faithfully obedient and trusting children.As a student progresses Bowes and Watts become increasingly involved in their training.And in the wake of the assault that is waged against parents and family, members similarly begin to conceive of Bowes and Watts as father and mother.This establishes a powerful and pervasive parent“child dynamic that further entangles members in the influence of Bowes and Watts.

The group dynamic is also strengthened by a system of reward and punishment.Compliance with OCS dogma and subservience to Bowes and Watts is rewarded with praise and promotion.Defiance is chastised.Because Bowes and Watts have established themselves not only as parent figures but also as the mouthpieces of God, such rewards and punishments carry significant weight.An economy is created where happiness and success are only possible through submission and subservience.

OCS dogma also asserts that the meaning of life is the attainment of a spiritual experience that Bowes and Watts call “Self-Realization.”Because it is commonly accepted that only Bowes and Watts can bring a member into such an experience, members are essentially dependent on their favor for spiritual fulfillment.As a result, members caught in the group dynamic do not have practical recourse to mistreatment.They not only come to accept and normalize abuse but often internalize it as being due to flaws of their own.Bowes and Watts perpetuate this by regularly castigating members for their doubt, fear and disobedience in situations where it is actually appropriate for a member to doubt, fear and disobey them.Over time members even begin to reframe the misconduct of Bowes and Watts as positive or loving.

Another element of the group dynamic is the exploitation of the sincerity of the student and the perversion of the tenets of Christianity.Within the OCS, great emphasis is placed on pursuit of the Christian virtues of faith, trust and hope.Once immersed in the group dynamic, however, it becomes difficult for members to identify the blurring of the line between faith/trust/hope in God as opposed to faith/trust/hope in a person such as Bowes or Watts.The same pattern holds for matters of obedience to God vs. obedience to a person.In time, the sincere striving of a group member is perverted by the group dynamic and the position of God eventually becomes usurped by that of Bowes and Watts.

As the group dynamic continues to take hold, members increasingly place their sense of self in the hands of Bowes and Watts.Their self-image, self-confidence and self-direction are gradually infiltrated and controlled.In time, members experience a loss of personal autonomy and identity.In addition, as their dependence on Bowes and Watts increases, so too does the amount of abuse and unethical council that they experience.Long term members are ultimately left with a fragmented identity and a brutally wounded psyche.Yet, having been so thoroughly blinded by the group dynamic, it is difficult for them to identify that the problem is the very organization that they have been devoted to.

Bowes and Watts also use fear and intimidation to prevent defection.They frequently state that those who leave the OCS lose all consciousness of God and suffer severe negative karmic consequences.They also employ threats of an impending Apocalypse and state that the best chance of survival is affiliation with the OCS.

A final element of the group dynamic is a phenomenon called “cognitive dissonance.”After prolonged membership most members have become emotionally invested in and attached to the group.This investment makes it difficult for them to accept that the group has become destructive.Much like the phenomenon of loyalty to the abuser that occurs in dysfunctional relationships, members who have been the most abused often display the strongest attachments to the group.Many members have also been pressured into actions for which they harbor deep subconscious regret.In these cases it can be difficult for members to consciously face such regrets.Whether driven by emotional attachment or subconscious regret, questions about the legitimacy of the group result in a cognitive dissonance which a member will attempt to resolve by the easiest possible means.For many the easiest means of resolution has been to stay in the group and defend its practices.

All of these elements establish and support a group dynamic which causes participants to accept, normalize and even positively reinterpret the groups’ negative practices.Members eventually experience severe psychological and emotional trauma and a loss of personal autonomy and identity.

In conclusion

The OCS has become a dangerous and destructive organization and has been the cause of widespread devastation to countless individuals as well as to their friends and families.I encourage anyone in the group to carefully reevaluate their participation in it and to seek professional help if needed.And I advise anyone considering involvement with the group to steer clear of it.

[Editor’s note: Cultnews has received repeated complaints abut Perter Bowes and OCS, which are consistent with the observations and points made within this article]

Update: It appears that the organization has split into two school groups. The schools called the “Centers for Light” are led by Clare Watts and another group of schools now known as the “Ruach Center” is led by Peter Bowes. Both groups of associated schools can be accessed at the Order of Christ Sophia Web site under “schools”.

The Daily Pennsylvanian (DP) published an article titled “Some religious organizations on campus show ‘darker side'” (April 5, 2012). This report included information about Rev. Moon’s Unification Church (UC), commonly called the “Moonies”, which is now using a new name “Lovin’ Life Ministries”.

Leaders of the controversial church, which has often been called a “cult”, disliked the DP article and ultimately demanded that it be retracted and removed from the newspaper’s Web site. The Ivy League publication established in 1885 caved in to the pressure and pulled the story. The student newspaper explained this was “due to a combination of factual and editing errors.”

Crescentia DeGoede, the local Philadelphia leader of a UC linked organization called the Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles (CARP), crowed about the results she achieved through her meeting with DP staff. CARP is the UC organization commonly associated with proselytizing at college and university campuses.

DeGoede’s accomplishment was also reported by Dan Fefferman, the president of the so-called “International Coalition for Religious Freedom”, which has been characterized as a UC “front group”.

Rev. Sun Myung Moon

According to full page ads paid for by Moon, which were run in newspapers across the United States during 2002, religious leaders in “Spirit World” had a meeting to confer special heavenly status upon him. Those assembled included Martin Luther, Karl Marx, Confucius, Jesus and God in a meeting during Christmas the previous year. And they unanimously decided that Moon is the “Savior, Messiah and King of Kings of all humanity.”

Moon also can be quite outspoken about his distaste for certain minorities. In one speech he called for a global government with him in charge and said that once empowered, he’d cleanse the world of gays, who he referred to as “dung-eating dogs”, which should be eradicated through a “purge on God’s orders.”

Does this seem somewhat similar to the rants and megalomania attributed to Charles Manson, Jim Jones or David Koresh?

Rev. Moon also was criminally convicted of tax fraud. He served a sentence in federal prison. And despite numerous appeals that conviction was never overturned or pardoned.

Moon’s former daughter-in-law Nansook Hong says, “Father [Rev. Moon] demonstrated contempt for civil law every time he accepted a paper bag full of untraceable, undeclared cash collected from true believers”. She adds, “There was no question inside the church that the Reverend Moon used his religious tax exemption as a tool for financial gain in the business world.” And that “Personally, the Moons had an almost physical aversion to paying taxes. Lawyers for the church spent most of their time trying to figure out how to avoid them. That’s why the True Family Trust fund was based not in a U.S. bank but in an account in Liechtenstein.”

Imagine how hard it must have been for the editors at DP to sit down with and defer to the demands of Moon’s church.

The DP deal

Fefferman announced that DP had “promised” to do the following:

1. Publish in their next issue at least a few of ANY letters to the editor our members submit to the DP before Wednesday, April 25th.
2. Publish a revised version of the “Darker Side” article on the Internet, in which they will correct their use of the terms Moonie and deprogramming¦The original version of the article will cease to be available after this revision has been made.
3. Publish a notification of the revision to the “Darker Side” article in print, directing readers to read the revised article online.
4. Publish a follow-up article featuring our contemporary movement in Philadelphia.
5. Communicate and consult with us each step of the way.
6. Read any quotes they intend to use from interviews with our membership to us before they publish them, upon our request.
7. Meet with Dr. Dunning [the professor who was misquoted by them in the original article] to understand his point of view and take corrective action for the misdeeds against him. They will also be encouraging him to write a letter to the editor, which they intend to publish.

DP has apparently complied with each and every UC demand.

The subsequent article published by DP titled “Creating a new generation of the Unification Church” reads like a “puff piece” based upon a UC press release filled with propaganda, rather than a legitimate news story.

“High pressure tactics” and “brainwashing” 

In this revisionist version concerns about cults are spun by an apologist into when “families feel…robbed of their children”, but children feel that “their families” are “being irrational and not letting them choose their religion the way they want to.”

“Choosing their religion the way they want to”?

The original DP article squelched by UC leaders reported about the “high pressure tactics” used by campus religious groups to recruit Penn students.

The New Zealand Herald reported about a speech made by Moon and published in 2004 on the Unification Church website. Moon said his followers “must cast aside their friends and teachers, even their parents, and follow the True Parents” (meaning Moon and his wife).

“Humanity must mercilessly eradicate all bonds and relationships with the satanic world, not showing even the slightest attachment, and in this way return to the zero point and mark the dawning of a new creation,” Moon added.

Some might even observe that Moon’s goal of reaching “zero point” seems like a cryptic allusion to the net result of what has been called “brainwashing”.

In fact, the UC has been “convicted of brainwashing” in Japanese court.

Of course according to Pastor Iwasaki Shota, supervisor of Lovin’ Life Ministries in Delaware and Pennsylvania, who is quoted in the newly revised article published by DP, this reflects a “situation in Japan”. He sees this as something like a conspiracy, which includes a “whole operation of media, government and police working on the side of the deprogrammers”. Shoto urges students “to work with Congress and ministers in the U.S. to help the situation in Japan.”

However, to better understand the background concerning UC problems in Japan read this “Joint Declaration Concerning the Moon Organization (September 26, 1997).

A former member that grew up in the UC told NPR, “Everything was a system of control…That’s what it seemed to me like. They were kind of breeding us to be a certain way. And if you weren’t that way, there was something wrong with you.”

Moon’s own daughter doesn’t necessarily disagree. “Those of us – myself included – who were born into this movement or born into this family, we had no choice in the matter”, In Jin Moon told NPR.

Another former UC member told NPR, “If you left the church, you fell off the face of the earth…It’s the worst thing you could do. One person told us at Sunday school once, that blessed children who fall out of the church go to a box underneath of hell.”

For more details about what it’s like to grow up in the UC read “Growing up with the Moonies“.

Information control

The DP deal also included making sure that no copy of the offending article remained online.

DeGoede told the UC Newsletter, “The executive editor of the DP told me by phone that she has ordered former deprogrammer Rick Ross to remove the DP article from his website, and he has said he will comply in a couple of days.”

The article as it was originally written had been archived at the Ross Institute Internet Archives (RI) within the Unification Church subsection.

After the DP editor called the previously published article was converted to a news summary, which remains intact within the RI archives.

Apparently encouraged by their success with DP UC leaders thought they might try another news outlet in their ongoing effort at information control.

RI received an email and registered letter from National Public Radio (NPR) about another archived news report titled “Unification Church Woos a Second Generation” (February 17, 2010). NPR requested that this article be removed from the RI archives.

The article was then converted to a news summary, which remains intact within the RI archives.

Why did UC leaders take such an interest in the articles archived at RI?

This probably occurred because both the NPR report and DP article prominently mention a new name now being used by the UC in North America — “Lovin’ Life Ministries”.

Anyone that does a Google search for “Unification Church” will find that the RI subsection devoted to the UC comes up on the first page of results.

This means that it is relatively easy to find out that — “Lovin’ Life Ministries” — is really just another name the UC is using to potentially recruit unwary college students.

Historically, deceptive recruitment tactics have been a frequent focus of complaints about Rev. Moon and his church.

Moon has used literally hundreds of names to promote himself, his agenda and/or pursuits over the years. This name game can be seen as an attempt to obscure the past and/or avoid all the bad press linked to Moon and his Unification Church.

The hateful “M word”

Rev. Moon’s followers now revile as “pejorative” the label “Moonie”, which they once considered a “badge of honor” in the 1970s. Today the “M word” is categorized by the US as “hate language”

It also seems that any criticism of the Unification Church is likely to be labeled “hate language” by UC leaders.

But just last week a British newspaper the Mail noted that “Moonie cult leader Sun Myung Moon” has the dubious distinction of being banned from entering Britain. He shares that honor with Louis Farrakhan and the American white supremacist Dennis Mahon.

Spin control?

Fefferman, a devoted disciple of Moon for decades is looking forward to participating at the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) annual conference in Montreal. He will present a paper titled “Are ICSA, Info-Cult, and the Unification movement ready for mutual dialogue?”

There will also be a panel discussion at the ICSA conference in July titled “Ethics, activism against, and dialogue with cultic groups” moderated by longtime cult apologist Eileen Barker.

Ms. Barker once received $25,000 from Rev. Moon to help fund her book “Making of a Moonie” (published 1984). In her book Barker generally minimized the damage done by the UC. Rev. Moon apparently got his money’s worth. Now it seems Barker may yet again yield further dividends.

ICSA’s Web site also confirms the planned event.

Eileen Barker was also once named prominently by fellow cult apologist Jeffrey Hadden in a memo he prepared proposing a plan to counteract the American Family Foundation, which is now known as ICSA. Hadden queried “whether it might be possible for the UC in collaboration with several other NRMs [new religious movements sometimes called “cults”] to raise a significant amount of money that could go–no strings attached–to an independent group, which in turn, would entertain proposals and fund research on NRMs.”

Can cultic groups really change and become ethical new religious movements?

Can Rev. Moon and the UC be trusted or is this all just contrived spin control?

Nansook Hong once remarked, “They [the Moons and UC] have orchestrated a remarkably successful campaign to win respectability and wield political influence. As usual, they have succeeded by deceitful means.”

Family business

If and when groups called “cults” do genuinely change this is typically precipitated by a dramatic shift in leadership. And if such a group wants to implement real accountability this is most often demonstrated through democratic reforms and meaningful financial transparency.

However, the UC appears to be run more like a family business than a legitimate church organization. There appears to be no meaningful accountability for UC leaders, except to Rev. Moon.

But Moon is 92, so it won’t be long now until his children begin carving up his multi-billion dollar business and spiritual empire.

The church remains essentially a family business ruled over by a hereditary dynasty.

All that appears to be happening is an old Moon is being eclipsed by new Moons.

Someone at the National Post in Canada isn’t exercising much due diligence these days concerning sources for news articles posted at the newspaper’s Web site.

An “uncategorized” article titled “Priest whose church was burned by mob jailed for breach of building code” was picked up on Thursday by the Post from the blog of a fugitive sex offender wanted on a warrant issued for his immediate arrest in the United States.

Former US resident Anton Hein (1996 police file photo left) is hardly a credible source for much of anything, but he runs a blog and assorted Web sites for profit from the Netherlands. Hein relies upon his Internet presence to sell Google ads and other assorted advertising for an income.

The article picked up by the National Post isn’t an original news story and relied heavily upon other sources such as Compass Direct News.

Interestingly,  Crosswalk (an evangelical Christian Web site) chose to go with the report by Compass Direct News rather than Hein, an evangelical and self-proclaimed “expert”.

So why did the secular National Post favor this fugitive sex offender with a link advising its readers to go there if they wanted to “Read the full story”?

CultNews reported about a similar mistake like this before.

The New York Times once recommended  Hein’s Web site as a resource for information about polygamists.

Later the newspaper scrubbed that recommendation.

Don’t the mainstream media have the time or patience to better research sources these days?

Here is a basic tutorial on how to avoid the embarrassment of unknowingly promoting this fugitive sex offender.

1. Click on the link  “About Religion News Blog“. A link at the top of this page appears “Who Operates Religion News Blog“, which states,  “Religion News Blog is published by Apologetics Index”.

2. “Apologetics Index” is Hein’s main Web site. At the top of that page is the link “About Apologetics Index“. And then on that page is the link “About the Apologetics Index Team.” Finally at the end of this list appears the name Anton Hein the site founder and leader of the “team” who was “born and raised in Amsterdam…briefly lived in Switzerland, Germany, and England — as well as 16-years in the USA — before returning to Amsterdam.”

Of course Mr. Hein doesn’t mention his criminal conviction for a “lewd act upon a child” and his stint in jail before being placed on probation. Shortly after his release Hein chose to violate probation by “returning to Amsterdam” without permission, which is why a warrant was issued for his arrest.

3.  A simple Google search of either “Anton Hein” or his site “Apologetics Index” should yield on the first page of results links to articles exposing Hein’s background. Under Anton Hein is “Fugitive sex offender runs counter-cult Web site“.  A search for Apologetics Index yields an index page about Hein.

Mr. Hein has chosen to bury his name behind a virtual labyrinth of links imbedded on a “team” list.

However, you would think that a news outlet like the National Post would take some time and click through a few links to confirm the credibility of a cited source.

And when someone makes such an effort to obscure their name there just might be a reason for it.

Coincidentally,  Hein’s brother Ruud Hein (listed on his team) “is an extraordinarily skillful WordPress Web site programmer and SEO specialist”. A search engine optimization (SEO) specialist is someone that attempts to improve a Web site’s search results. And Anton Hein has launched a number of Web sites such as “Cult Definition.com“, “Cult Experts.org“, “Cult Expert.com” and “CultFAQ.org” in an apparent effort to manipulate search results.

Isn’t it ironic that a man who would most likely be denied entry into Canada due to his criminal record and fugitive status can manage nevertheless to get into a prominent Canadian publication like the National Post as a cited source?

Thousands on Twitter follow a convicted sex offender wanted by authorities in the United States.

Anton Hein (1996 photo right), a self-proclaimed “expert” and “minister” dispenses religious news and advice from Amsterdam. However, the preacher is a probation violator with a warrant issued for his immediate arrest.

Mr. Hein was convicted for a “lewd act upon a child”, his 13-year-old niece, and served jail time in California before being placed on probation. Shortly after his release Hein chose to violate probation by leaving the country to relocate in Amsterdam without permission.

Hein uses his Web site “Apologetics Index” and assorted blogs as profitable platforms for Google ads. The former US resident and Dutch citizen has also managed to collect disability payments in the Netherlands, though he seems to be quite able at managing his Web business.

Despite pleading guilty to sex charges Anton Hein incredibly claims that he is innocent of any crime and calls comments about his criminal conviction “ad-hominem attacks“.

However, Mr. Hein has been listed as a registered sex offender in California. And he also has the dubious distinction of being named at a Web site as one of the “ministers who have sexually abused children”.

Supposedly an evangelical Christian Hein seems to have somehow forgotten the proscribed process for addressing bad behavior according to the New Testament.

The Christian scriptures explain that the first step on a genuine path of repentance requires that the sinner admit the sin and take responsibility, something Anton Hein appears unable and/or unwilling to do.

Instead, Hein bashes the United States judicial system, as if the courts could somehow be blamed for his crime.

Wouldn’t it be a more meaningful response if Mr. Hein summoned up the integrity to exemplify the old adage “practice what you preach”?

Despite all these glaring personal and public contradictions, Anton Hein, sex offender and self-styled preacher, has successfully managed to garner a faithful following on Twitter.

Update: Anton Hein has posted that “RNB’s Twitter stream is edited by David Anderson.” However,  Twitter followers should know that everything at “RNB” including its “Twitter stream” is ultimately controlled and operated by Anton Hein.

Fred Newman (photo above), notorious anti-Semite and purported “cult” leader died late Sunday July 3rd of renal and subsequent cardiac failure, he was 76.

NY1 reported Newman’s death and described him most notably as the “founder of the controversial New York City Independence Party”.

Fred Newman was a philosophy teacher, but was fired from seven colleges. Later he created something that he called “Social Therapy.” According to Newman, who was not a psychologist, this “therapy” helped people to “overthrow” what he labeled the “bourgeois ego.”

However, some former participants called Newman’s process “brainwashing.”

According to Newman his therapy is about “two workers, revolutionary therapist and slave/patient, [and their] struggle together to make a revolution through their practice.” The goal is “helping the slave reach the point of insurrection” and “to make proletarian truth and freedom where there is now bourgeois truth and slavery.”

However, Newman was hardly a “revolutionary” and somewhat “bourgeois” himself, with a four-story townhouse in Greenwich Village. He also often spent his  summers in the Hamptons and was chauffeured about in a Lincoln Town Car.

Newman taught that his therapy should include social activism. The net result of this activism appeared to be people working for Fred for free. This might include fund raising for one of his charities like All Stars, or perhaps petition drives for the Independence Party.
Newman headed a myriad of front organizations populated by his fervent devotees often called “Newmanites.”

“He had a long career of promoting unethical behavior in his clinics, children’s programs and politics in NYC”, explained Cathleen Mann. Mann, a psychologist and court expert witness who once debated Newman on television.

Long-time cult-watcher and researcher Dennis King describes the Newmanites as a “very bad…tightly organized cult composed of psychotherapists and skilled political operatives.”

King credits Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s support as playing a pivotal role in giving the group “access to teenagers in New York and to young adult volunteers whom they recruit…” The researcher’s blog contains critical articles offering detailed information and penetrating analysis about the Newmanites, their fund-raising and political connections.

CultNews has reported about Fred Newman and his followers in the past.

A mental health professional once involved with Newman, but who later left his Social Therapy organization observed, “Therapy should be empowering and inclusive; it should help people build the lives they want. It should not be used as a recruitment tool for a particular movement.” The licensed counselor concluded, “Anyone considering cooperating or working with..and/or practicing Social Therapy should first read whatever historical and critical information is available.”

This week upon learning of Newman’s death the same counselor said, “If there is anything to be relieved about in this, it’s that maybe the group will fizzle out and stop using ‘therapy’ to introduce vulnerable people to their political agendas.”

Psychologist Cathleen Mann warned, “They are a disastrous group posing as legitimate psychology and counseling”. She added, “They still have Dr. Lois Holzman and nationwide recruiting centers, plus a large body of written work, and they might just find another leader”.

Associated Press reports that the conviction of self-help seminar leader James Arthur Ray (photo below) came quickly, after less than 10 hours of deliberation following four months of testimony and hundreds of exhibits. The jury concluded that the man, who once was a guest on “Oprah” and interviewed by Larry King, was ultimately guilty of “negligent homicide” in the deaths of three people, who sought enlightenment through his programs.

Instead of discovering the meaning of life, Ray’s victims lost their lives in his version of a “sweat lodge.”

This is not a new story.

Ray’s seminar format fits well within what is often called “large group awareness training” (LGAT), though its proponents would prefer to generically include it within what is euphemistically referred to as the “human potential movement”.

Since beginning my work in the early 1980s I have received persistent complaints about LGATs like the one Ray led from affected families, former participants and others concerned.

The Ross Institute Internet Archives includes news reports, articles, court documents and research material about LGATs.

LGATs are a burgeoning business and have become a virtual industry in the United States. Now spreading around the world such seminars have generate many millions of dollars in sales. Before beginning his criminal trial James Ray was reportedly worth millions.

Some of the LGATs included at the Ross Institute Internet Archives are Est, Landmark Education, Mankind Project, Sterling Institute of Relationship, Lifespring, Asiaworks, NXIVM and information most recently about James Arthur Ray.

Some LGATs have a long history of bad press, personal injury claims and repeated complaints. Nevertheless, they still manage to draw in new customers, despite the fact that critical information about them is often readily accessible through the Worldwide Web.

That critical information includes suicides, which have been linked to NXIVM and the Mankind Project.

Psychiatric casualties have reportedly been linked to EST and Landmark Education, which has repeatedly been the defendant in personal injury lawsuits. In recent years Landmark training has also been cited as background related to murders.

Litigation filed against Lifespring apparently led to that company’s demise.

LGATs are most often carefully crafted, deliberately planned and scripted programs, which seem by design to preclude or largely inhibit  a participant’s critical and/or independent thinking.  Many new initiates may only have a vague understanding in advance, about what they will actually go through within such training seminars. This ignorance is often reinforced through confidentiality agreements, which preclude the sharing of specific detailed information about the training with p0tential new participants.

Most LGATs appear to have the same inherent, systemic problems.

In a research project psychologist Philip Cushman listed 13 liabilities, which were first identified within encounter groups, but which Cushman later used to explain some of the core issues of concern regarding LGATs.

Cushman referred to LGATs as “mass marathon training” and identified the following key problems:

1. They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.
2. They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.
3. They lack clearly defined responsibility.
4. They sometimes foster pseudo authenticity and pseudo reality.
5. They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.
6. They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.
7. They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.
8. They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.
9. They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of “experiencing” without self-analysis or reflection.
10. They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.
11. They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.
12. They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously “fabricate” a cure.
13. They fail to adequately consider the “psychonoxious” or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.

LGATs also often rely upon coercive persuasion techniques and authoritarian control, rather than careful consideration and independent thinking. That is why the LGAT process has been compared to the established criteria associated with “coercive persuasion” or “thought reform,” commonly called “brainwashing” in popular culture.

Sociologist Richard Ofshe identified the key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other forms of persuasion such as education and advertising and that also frequently seem to typify the techniques used by many LGATs.

Those factors include:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual’s sense of self to promote compliance
2. The use of an organized peer group
3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
4. The manipulation of the totality of the person’s social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton detailed the social control characteristics of organizations that operate what he described as “thought reform” programs.

Lifton identified eight primary themes or properties within rigid reform environments, which taken together contribute to a milieu of manipulation and totalistic control.

These eight criteria are:

1. Milieu Control, through the control of information and communication
2. Mystical Manipulation, or what can be seen as emotional and behavioral manipulation
3. Demands for Purity, which requires absolute conformity to the behavior prescriptions as derived from the ideology
4. Cult of Confession, expressed through the obsessive demands for confession without meaningful boundaries
5. Sacred Science, the implicit agreement that the proscribed ideology is faultless
6. Loaded Language, or the manipulation of language as characterized by thought-terminating clichés, which become a substitute for analytic thought
7. Doctrine over Person, which means the reinterpretation of all human experience and emotion in terms of the group’s doctrine
8. Dispensing of Existence, or the classification of those not sharing the ideology as inferior and not worthy of respect

At least six, but usually all eight of these characteristics, are evident within many LGATs.

Cushman concluded that LGATs can be determined to be dangerous when:

1. Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. And when they should change.
2. Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant.
3. Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation.
4. Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, “blaming the victim.”

Psychologist Margaret Singer noted the differences in various forms of persuasion and determined that programs, which were focused on gaining undue influence over participants, most often included six primary conditions.

These conditions are:

1. Obtaining substantial control over an individual’s time and thought content, typically by gaining control over major elements of the person’s social and physical environment.
2. Systematically creating a sense of powerlessness in the person.
3. Manipulating a system of rewards, punishment and experiences in such a way as to promote new learning of an ideology or belief system advocated by management.
4. Manipulating a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in such a way as to inhibit observable behavior that reflects the values and routines of life organization the individual displayed prior to contact with the group.
5. Maintaining a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure in the organization.
6. Maintaining a non-informed state existing in the subject.

The net result of such coercive persuasion techniques is the virtual shutdown, though a step-by-step process, of critical thinking. This renders victims intellectually defenseless and subsequently quite suggestible and vulnerable to the dictates of the group and/or leader. 

Ofshe and Singer specifically concluded that LGATs “appear more likely to induce mood and affect disorders.”

The researchers also cited miscellaneous reactions often associated with thought reform programs,  which included anxiety combined with cognitive inefficiencies, such as difficulty in concentration, inability to focus and maintain attention, and impaired memory (especially short-term); self-mutilation; phobias; suicide and homicide; and psychological factors affecting physical conditions such as strokes, myocardial infarction, unexpected deaths, recurrence of peptic ulcers and asthma.

Rather than being an anomaly, the tragedy that took place in Arizona under the leadership of James Arthur Ray should be seen as yet another warning about the dangers posed by many LGATs.

Some LGATs are potentially unsafe and may become toxic.

The toxicity of James Ray’s LGAT became so overwhelming it ended in death.

Notes:

“The Politics of Transformation: Recruitment “ Indoctrination Processes in Mass Marathon Psychology Organizations” St. Martin’s Press 1993

“Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change” Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York by Richard J. Ofshe, PhD

“Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism” the University of North Carolina Press Chapel Hill and London by Robert Jay Lifton, M.D.

“Cults in Our Midst” Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco by Margaret Singer, PhD

“Characteristics of participants in the Forum, psychotherapy clients, and control participants: A comparative study” The British Psychological Society 2005

“Psychiatric Disturbances Associated with Erhard Seminars Training: I A Report of Cases” American Journal of Psychiatry March 1977 by Leonard  L. Glass, M.D., Michael A. Kirsch, M.D. and Frederick N. Paris, M.D.

“Cult of Personality” Forbes Magazine October 13, 2003 Michael Freedman

“An Espian’s Brief Life” The Albany Times-Union February 1, 2004

“Robert Jay Lifton’s eight criteria of thought reform as applied to Executive Success Programs” by Paul Martin, PhD published by The Ross Institute of New Jersey 2003

“A Critical Analysis of the Executive Success Programs Inc.” by Paul Martin, PhD published by The Ross Institute of New Jersey 2003

 “Thought Reform Programs and the Production of Psychiatric Causalities” Psychiatric Annals 20:4, April 1990 by Margaret Singer, PhD, and Richard Ofshe, PhD

By Cathleen A. Mann, PhD

Wayne Bent, known to his followers as “Michael Travesser,” leader of The Lord Our Righteousness Church (LOR) in Northeastern New Mexico, recently ended a self-imposed prison protest fast.

 Bent received a 10-year prison sentence for sexual misconduct in December 2008. His criminal conviction was on a single count of touching the breast of a 16-year-old member of LOR during a “healing ritual.” 

 Mr. Bent is the self-proclaimed “prophet” of LOR, which has a small following within its compound known as “Strong City.” The group was the subject of an in-depth investigation televised by National Geographic titled “Inside a Cult.” Despite the fact that Mr. Bent and his followers spoke freely to reporters, the group continues to blame the producers of the documentary for its leader’s travails.

Bent and his church believe that anyone outside of their group is “the Beast.” Mr. Bent declared that he would “not eat at the hand of the Beast” while serving his sentence in prison.

However, on March 2, 2011 the prophet provided an explanation for ending his prolonged fasting, which included lengthy biblical and supposedly prophetic reasons. 

During his fast Bent proclaimed that “God” was going to release him from prison.  But of course that never happened and his sentence won’t end soon. He isn’t eligible for release until 2017. 

So why did Mr. Bent really decide to start eating regular meals again?

This was probably due to more personal, pragmatic considerations rather than anything prophetic and quite possibly health concerns.

 “God told me I don’t need to fast anymore. So my family is buying me food in the store and I eat that. I don’t eat the prison food, since it is not good for me. God wants me to eat things that are good for me,” Bent said in a letter to LOR children (March 2, 2011).

Bent’s age (67 at time of sentencing in 2008) and apparent frailty certainly have made his life in prison more difficult.

And though he may prefer the relative comfort of the prison infirmary to a cell block, Mr. Bent probably doesn’t like the court-ordered forced feeding he has received.

Despite his criminal conviction Bent continues to insist he is a religious martyr. He steadfastly refuses to admit any wrongdoing regarding the females (some underage) he allowed and/or encouraged to lie naked with him in bed, while he stroked their “sternum.” Mr. Bent claims that he did not receive a fair trial. He and his followers say that the prosecutor and judge responsible for his conviction, as well as anyone else who criticizes the LOR prophet, is not on the side of “God.”

Bent explains, “So the purpose of my fast has been accomplished, and it has taken away the authority of the Beast. This little king with no clothes on has been revealed for who he is. But we warned the State early on. Over and over, proud men were given an opportunity to stand down, but their self-righteous boasting can now be seen by souls covered with the righteousness of God, as only farts in the wind.”

Such division, externalization, and refusal to accept responsibility for wrongdoing is a typical ploy of most cult leaders. 

I evaluated an LOR follower in 2009. This also included examining the inside workings of the cult group, which are pretty horrific.

Wayne Bent lacks the character to admit when he is wrong.  Instead he wants everyone to believe that he is the physical incarnation of the “divine.” He continues to write long missives to his followers from prison, which are difficult to comprehend, full of biblical references, but supposedly explain his every action and thought.

For example in his recent letter Bent states, “My fast wasn’t for myself; my fast was for the people. I gave myself for them. I was sacrificed for them. Now all of those who are led by the Spirit and could gain by these events have done so. There is no further need or purpose for my fast. And to those who cannot receive the truth, but willfully remain in their illusions, no amount of fasting would benefit them.”

At this point it’s hard to know how many LOR members actually believe Mr. Bent’s rambling letters and remain totally loyal to their imprisoned leader. 

But in my opinion Wayne Bent fears that he is becoming increasingly marginalized and irrelevant, so he continues to post on an obscure group Web site hoping to garner attention, while he remains incarcerated and isolated. 

Note: During the criminal trial of Wayne Bent cult apologist, Dr. J. Gordon Melton testified that Bent was a misunderstood religious leader. Melton seems to use this same apology for all cult leaders and controversial groups, including Scientology. However, his testimony apparently had little if any effect.

Cathleen Mann, PhD can be reached at cathleenmann@comcast.net

By Rick Alan Ross

During December I attended an international symposium concerning cultic studies in Shenzhen, China, which was sponsored by the Institute of australian pokies online Religious Studies of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. Academics and experts from around the world attended and presented papers.

The papers presented examined everything from the evolution of destructive cults, to the personality characteristics of certain cult members, cult social interaction and various cultic methodologies. My paper was titled “Cult Deprogramming: An examination of the intervention process.”

At the conclusion of the symposium I had the unique opportunity to personally visit with former cult members in China.

The two women I spoke with were once actively involved in Falun Gong.

Falun Gong was founded in China during 1992 by a man named Li Hongzhi, who now lives in the United States.

China officially banned Falun Gong in 1999, declaring it an ”evil cult.” This view of the group was strongly reinforced by a horrific event, which took place on Chinese New Year’s eve January 23, 2001. On this date a small group consisting of seven Falun Gong practitioners set themselves on fire at Tiananmen Square.

A 12-year-old girl and her mother died. A middle aged man Wang Jindong was hospitalized with severe burns. Ms. Liu Baorong sustained no burns. At the last minute she decided not to set herself on fire. Mr. Liu Yunfang also was not injured, but as an organizer of the self-immolation was sentenced to prison. The two women I would meet, Ms. Hao Huijun and her daughter Chen Guo, were hospitalized with extreme injuries.

The story of this tragedy has been reported by the press, both in China and through Western media outlets, such as Reuters. I have read news reports and watched a video produced by “New Tang Dynasty Television” (NTDTV), which is a media outlet essentially run by Falun Gong practitioners.

Falun Gong first denied that those involved in the suicide attempt were even practitioners.

Later Falun Gong promoted a bizarre conspiracy theory, which implied that the tragic event was somehow staged by the Chinese government in an effort to discredit the organization and its leader.

Rather than admit that its intense anti-government rhetoric may have contributed to the tragedy, Falun Gong chose instead to attempt assigning blame elsewhere. Li Hongzhi and his followers refused to accept any responsibility whatsoever.

After requesting to meet with the two women survivors I was told a meeting would be possible after the symposium.

Former Falun Gong practitioners Hao Huijun and her daughter Chen Guo live in Kaifeng, which is near the Henan provincial capital of Zhengzhou. Historically Kaifeng was the capital of China during the Song Dynasty and once the largest city in the world. Today its population is about 800,000.

The two women live modestly in a government welfare housing project. Their simple one-bedroom apartment includes a private bathroom and large common area with a kitchen. There is a bed placed near the kitchen for an attendant. The fire left them both women without hands and disabled. Their faces are obscured by extensive skin grafts, the result of multiple surgeries. They have no ears, noses or lips.  Chen Guo has the use of only one eye. But they can speak, walk and seem to be in stable physical condition.

There are no mirrors in the apartment.

When I arrived Hao Huijun bowed, unable to shake hands.

After our introductions I asked Hao Huijun about her perspective today, what she feels now looking back on the time she spent in Falun Gong. Is there a message she wants to share with current practitioners, particularly those in North America?

“I’ll take this chance to tell the Falun Gong practitioners in Canada and the US to stop practicing,” she stated bluntly. “I suggest they stop practicing Falun Gong and get rid of it,” instructed the former schoolteacher of 28 years who remains well-spoken and articulate.

Influenced by her mother’s commitment Chen Guo (photo above right in red) followed the path of Falun Gong, which ultimately led her to that terrible day at Tiananmen Square. She was a highly accomplished music student and pretty 20-year-old woman at the time of the tragedy. Early in our discussion Chen Guo left the room, explaining that she didn’t feel well.

But in a 2002 interview Chen Guo told Reuters, “I hope those who still believe in this cult can be awakened and throw it away. I don’t want to see another victim like me.”

Her mother explained, “In July 1999 the Chinese Government and the Chinese laws banned Falun Gong. As a citizen, we should have abided by the laws and given up practicing Falun Gong from then on. But we were obsessed at that time. And the suicidal burning occurred later on. We really feel regretful. We all suffered a great deal, brought about by the obsession. So tell [the North American Falun Gong practitioners] to never be obsessed…”

Obsessed?

How could the teachings of Li Hongzhi encourage and/or result in obsessive behavior?

Describing her professional experience with Falun Gong, noted cult expert and clinical psychologist Margaret Singer said that Falun Gong practitioners will “actually say ‘Don’t Think. Just recite the Master’s teaching.'”

That is how groups called “cults” through their teachings and practices can compromise critical thinking, impair reason and rational thought. Hao Huijun appeared to understand this.

“Please pass my words to Falun Gong practitioners: They should use reason in action¦if you look at things in a rational way, you will know what you should do,” she said. “Reason is important. In one’s life, one should never go to extremes whatever you do. One should use reason to learn how to do things, and have a good understanding…”

“Extremes”?

How could the practices of Falun Gong cause people to “go to extremes”?

American communication researchers and cult experts Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman explain in their book Snapping: America’s Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change:

“Almost every major cult and cult-like group we came upon teaches some form of not thinking or ‘mind control’ as part of its regular program of activity. The process may take the form of repetitive prayer, chanting, speaking in tongues, self-hypnosis or diverse methods of meditation¦.Such techniques, when practiced in moderation, may yield real physical and mental health benefits¦.Prolonged stilling of the mind, however, may wear on the brain physically until it readjusts, suddenly and sharply, to its new condition of not thinking. When that happens, we have found, the brain’s information-processing capacities may be disrupted or enter a state of complete suspension¦disorientation, detachment¦hallucinations, delusions and, in extreme instances, total withdrawal.”

Over the years Hao Huijun (photo below) has apparently managed to sort through her experience in Falun Gong. She hopes that current practitioners in the group will do the same.

“Falun Gong caused so many problems. Why did these problems happen? [Falun Gong practitioners] should think about it with reason, with their own senses, and in a dialectical way. When we look at things from a normal sense, without bias, and with reason, we will know what we should do,” she said.

When told about the conspiracy theories propagated by Falun Gong concerning the self-immolation tragedy at Tiananmen Square Hao Huijun responded thoughtfully, placing it within the context of her own experience within the group.

“I thought in a similar way,” she said. “But it’s time for those who are practicing Falun Gong to calm down and think reasonably…Why were we burning ourselves? It was not that the government forced us into suicide, although the rumors went so. This is not the truth.” She concluded, “Before we fully understood, we used the same arguments and same logic in regard to incidents caused by Falun Gong.”

I told Hao Huijun that I have received complaints from families in America that Falun Gong practitioners often refuse medical care and/or discontinue medications based upon their beliefs.

“They should consult a doctor and take medication,” she responded. “Tell them to see a doctor when their children fall ill. Don’t impose what you regard right on your children,” she said. “You can see the disastrous effect this caused my daughter. I really regret that now.”

The regret Hao Huijun feels must at times be overwhelming.

China has mandated a one child per family policy, which means that Chen Guo is her only child.

Hao Huijun’s regret includes living every day with her daughter and seeing the results of that past obsession with Falun Gong. Despite the reclamation of her reason, there is nothing she can do to change the face of this reality. An awful burden, but one that she seems to accept.

Still wanting to fulfill her role as a teacher Hao Huijun hopes that others might benefit by learning from her Falun Gong experience. She wants to share the knowledge that she and Chen Guo have acquired so painfully.

Schenzhen International Symposium on Cultic Studies 2010

Published by the Institute of Religious Studies Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences

By Rick Alan Ross

My work regarding cult deprogramming began in 1982. At that time I was deeply concerned about a group that had infiltrated a nursing home where my 82-year-old grandmother was a resident. The group had specifically asked its members to seek jobs as paid professional staff at the nursing home, with the ulterior motive of targeting residents for recruitment.

My grandmother made me aware of this situation. And working with the executive director of the nursing home we identified the group members on staff, who were subsequently terminated. This personal experience initiated me in the world of radical religious groups and cults. I then became an anti-cult community activist and organizer.

During this period I was appointed to two national committees and later asked to join the professional staff of a social service agency in Phoenix, Arizona. At the agency it was not uncommon for parents to bring an adult child, typically a college student, to my office for consultation regarding involvement in a radical group or cult.

I would work with the families often in conjunction with our staff psychologist and/or caseworkers, in an effort to extricate the individual from any further cult involvement. Little did I know at the time that this process of intervention was called “cult deprogramming”.

During the 1980s I was involved in about 100 interventions regarding cult-like groups. Families would find me through the previously mentioned social service agency, a community educational Bureau that also employed me or were referred by local clergy, educators and community leaders.

During this period I worked largely within the Jewish community, though increasingly through related conferences and professional exchanges, I became of aware of a network of anti-cult activists and helping professionals throughout the United States. It was through my interaction with others doing essentially the same work that I later learned the type of intervention work that I was doing, was known as cult deprogramming.

Margaret Singer often cited as a leading brainwashing and cult expert [I] defined cult deprogramming as “providing members with information about the cult and showing them how their own decision-making power had been taken away from them.”

Over the years that basic process of sharing information and demonstrating to cult members how the power of persuasion may have compromised their critical and independent thinking, has been refined continuously and improved. In fact, the name “cult deprogramming” itself has become something of a politically incorrect term. Today most professionals engaged in cult intervention work prefer other labels to describe their work. For example, “exit counseling,” “thought reform consultation,” or “strategic intervention therapy.” 

Many believe that cult deprogramming can only be applied correctly to involuntary cult interventions.

However, the simple distilled definition provided by Singer remains the most salient and basic understanding of the process of bringing people out of destructive cults through intervention.

Involuntary deprogramming with adults is no longer done within the United States.

The only involuntary interventions that continue concerning cults within North America is done regarding minor children, under the direct supervision of their custodial parent.  Legal concerns have precluded anything else, though for a relatively brief time during the 1970s through a court provision known as conservatorship, involuntary deprogramming did occur legally with adults.

In 1986 I began working privately. That is, working as a private consultant and cult intervention specialist. Over the past 24 years I have been involved in hundreds of intervention efforts. My work has taken me throughout the United States, and to Canada, Italy, Sweden, England, Ireland and Israel.

I have continually developed and refined my intervention approach. The basic foundation as defined by Singer remains the same, but the details of that process has evolved, especially in consideration of improved information technology that has become available, such as the easy access to information through the Internet.

In the 1980s and early 1990s information was provided to cult members during interventions through books, videos and direct interaction with former members.

Today the process of providing information has been directly affected primarily by the advent of the Internet, related streaming video, teleconferencing, DVDs and other technologies. These advancements have made the gathering, organizing and presentation of information for the purpose of an intervention much easier.

My own preparation, presentation and communication approach has been honed and refined over the years.

My hope in presenting this paper is that I can share with you the basic structure and content of my approach in concise language. By sharing my approach with you we can hopefully better understand and further the development of cult intervention work.

Preparation

The first step in the process of any intervention is preparation.

After a family, spouse or someone concerned contacts me requesting an intervention I must evaluate the situation and assemble a file.

This file includes an intake questionnaire [II] which is composed of about 50 questions. These questions relate specifically to the individual cult members background, history of involvement and specific concerns regarding the immediate situation.

Additionally, I will also collect information for my file, which is specifically about the group and/or leader in question.

Most often a series of phone consultations will follow.

Then there will be a sit down meeting, which typically takes place the day before the intervention begins.

In this process of preparation the family identifies who would be most effective for participation at the intervention. That is, which family members and/or friends have the most respect, admiration and emotional hold on the cult-involved individual.

One net result of the preparation process is to specifically determine what people would be best suited as members of the intervention team.

After identifying and assembling the team, here is what is usually discussed at the final preparation meeting:

• What are the rules of engagement?

• What are the boundaries and parameters of participation?

• What roles will each family member or friend play?

• What should they say or not say?

• How will the intervention process begin, proceed and ultimately end?

The basic role of each family member and friend can best be summarized as largely focused upon two primary objectives.

These objectives are:

1. Essentially anchor the cult involved individual. That is, to keep them from leaving, by helping to create an atmosphere of support premised upon historical trust and understanding. Simply put, the cult member will not stay involved in the intervention process for my sake, as I am a total stranger. But the cult member will stay out of respect for their family, friends and others concerned. This is vitally important because any intervention done with an adult is on a voluntary basis and therefore dependent upon their consent and ongoing cooperation. In the preparation process possible scenarios and/or potential situations are discussed. For example, the individual may become angry, get up and begin to leave. How should that be handled? Who would be most effective in persuading him or her not to leave and to stay?
2. The family and friends also are there to provide first-hand eyewitness testimony. That is, what have they seen and observed regarding the cult-involved person’s recent behavior, which has caused them concern? At various times during an intervention a cult member may engage in denial. Since I have not directly witnessed what has occurred, I rely upon the family and friends present to share their experience to counteract any effort to obscure or deny the historical facts surrounding the situation.

We also must discuss and define our roles.

What is the role of the intervention specialist?

When is it appropriate and effective for family and friends to interject their opinions, testimony and concern?

I typically will advise the family to allow me the role of presenting the main body of information, leading and/or facilitating the discussion.

The Intervention

An average cult intervention takes 3 to 4 days, not including travel or preparation.

This means approximately 24 to 32 working hours spread out at eight hours per day not including breaks.

The more time I have, the more likely it is that the cult member will leave the group.

About 75% of my interventions have ended in success. That is, the individual that was the focus of the intervention decided to leave the cult by the conclusion of the intervention process.

Most of my failures have occurred within the first day or 24 hours of the intervention.

Very few cult members I have worked with for 3 to 4 days chose to continue with the group. Ultimately what this means is that the more time that I have the more likely it is that the intervention will be successful.

An intervention is an ongoing dialog or discussion. During such a discussion everyone present offers their impressions, observations and opinions. My role is to lead and facilitate that ongoing discussion, often directing and focusing attention on specific points.

There are four basic blocks or areas of discussion essential for the completion of an effective and potentially successful intervention.

These blocks of discussion preferably can be discussed in the order that follows, but this sequence may be rearranged during the intervention, due to the interest and focus of the cult-involved individual.

The four blocks of discussion are:

1. What is the definition of a destructive cult?
2. How does the process of coercive persuasion or thought reform really work?
3. What is the history of the group and/or leader that has drawn concern?
4. What are the family’s concerns?

First block of Discussion: Defining a destructive cult

The discussion specifically about the definition of a destructive cult is premised upon a definition provided by psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton. Lifton’s definition [III] is precise and objective, based upon the behavior of the group rather than its beliefs.

Lifton states that “Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.”

The first criterion is that the group can be seen as essentially personality-driven. That is, defined by a living and totalitarian leader. He or she is the focus of the group and its driving force. Whatever he or she says is right is right and whatever he or she says is wrong is wrong. Members of the group therefore ultimately abdicate their ability to make many value judgments of their own in deference to the leader.

Within the intervention examples or profiles are given specifically of historical cult leaders and their personal power.

For example, well-known cult figures can be cited such as Jim Jones [IV], David Koresh [V], Shoko Asahara [V] and Charles Manson [VII]. The purpose is to establish a common thread and historical basis of understanding who and/or what constitutes a destructive cult leader.

Documentary DVDs may also be viewed, which report the history of particular cult leaders.

Conversation then is about how the particular group and/or leader, being discussed as the focus of the intervention, may in some way parallel the established definition and the historical examples given.

The discussion might then focus upon what if any meaningful accountability exists, which limits or checks the leader’s power?

Are there explicit boundaries regarding his or her influence?

Is the leader ever wrong?

Can the leader be meaningfully questioned or contradicted?

If the leader can in fact be questioned, contradicted and wrong, what are some specific examples?

At this point some simple observation might be made about the issue of thought reform, such as a pattern of behavior that demonstrates a lack of independent and individual thinking.

A perspective might also be posited that members of the group can be seen consistently doing things that are not in their own best interest, but that are consistently in the best interests of the group. 

The final criterion is that the group does harm and is therefore can be sees as a destructive cult.

The destructive nature of groups varies by degree depending upon the group.

Some groups may be more destructive than others.

The discussion here focuses upon what specific harm the group in question has done.

At this point documentation may be produced to establish a pattern of grievances and harm historically done as evidenced by previously published news reports, court documents and other sources.

Additionally, family members and others concerned attending the intervention may offer their perspectives.

Again parallels may be drawn between well-established historical cults and the group being discussed.

Second Block of Discussion: How does the process of coercive persuasion or thought reform work?

The discussion of coercive persuasion and thought reform techniques is based upon the writings of Robert Jay Lifton [VIII], psychologist Margaret Singer [IX], sociologist Richard Ofshe [X] and professor of psychology Robert Cialdini [XI]. The writings of these experts form a basis for discussion.

In Ofshe’s paper Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change he offers four key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes.

1.      The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual sense of self to promote compliance.

2.      The use of an organized peer group.

3.      Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity.

4.      The manipulation of the totality of the person’s social environment to stabilize behavior once modified.

These basic group factors can then be layered upon and expanded within the discussion. Also examined is Lifton’s eight criteria as outlined within his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, which are used to establish the presence of a thought reform program.

1.      “Milieu control,” which Ofshe describes as the control of the environment and communication.

2.      “Mystical manipulation,” which Ofshe explains as emotional and behavioral manipulation done through the guise of group beliefs and practices.

3.      “The demand for purity,” or what Ofshe describes as demands for absolute conformity to behavior as prescribed and derived from the group ideology.

4.      “The cult of confession,” what Ofshe sees as the obsessive demands for personal and group confession, which ultimately render individual members completely vulnerable, transparent and without a sense of individual privacy.

5.      “The sacred science,” which Ofshe explains as agreement that the group ideology is absolutely perfect, faultless, or what Lifton calls its ultimate vision for the ordering of all human existence.

6.      “Loading the language,” explained by Ofshe as the manipulation of language often characterized by thought terminating clichés, which substitute for critical and analytical thought.

7.      “Doctrine over person,” further described by Ofshe as the reinterpretation of human experience and emotion as seen through the lens and according to the terms of group doctrine.

8.      “The dispensing of existence,” which Ofshe sees as the classification of those not sharing the group’s beliefs as inferior and not worthy of respect.

Distinctions are then must be made between the process of coercive persuasion or thought reform and other forms of persuasion such as education, advertising, propaganda and indoctrination.

Margaret singer provided a chart [XII] in which these distinct forms of persuasions are delineated as expressed in categories such as focus of body of knowledge, direction and degree of exchange, ability to change, structure of persuasion, type of relationship, deceptiveness, breadth of learning, tolerance and methodology.

It is important to discuss these distinctions in order to clarify that thought reform is a unique and separate category of persuasion, which unlike other forms of persuasion, can be seen as both coercive and deliberately deceptive.

In her chart Singer also expanded upon the three stages coercive persuasion as defined by Edgar Schein, an author and expert concerning persuasion techniques. Schein, a professor at MIT, outlined the process of coercive persuasion in three simple steps.

1.      “Unfreezing,” or what Singer describes as “the destabilizing of a person’s sense of self. This process includes “keeping the person unaware of what is going on and the changes taking place. Controlling the person’s time and if possible their physical environment. Creating a sense of powerless covert fear and dependency. And suppressing much of the person’s old behavior and attitudes.”

2.      “Changing,” or what Singer explains as “getting the person to drastically reinterpret his or her life’s history and radically alter his or her worldview and accept a new version of reality and causality.”

3.      “Refreezing,” or as Singer says, “Put forth a closed system of logic; allow no real input or criticism.” Ultimately this culminates in what Singer describes as a person frozen or “dependent upon the organization¦a deployable agent.”

Documentary DVDs may also be shown at this juncture in the intervention process to demonstrate these specific coercive persuasion techniques in action.

These DVDs might include news reports regarding destructive cults, which demonstrate their internal behavior. And also research regarding the suggestible states that can be achieved through hypnosis, trance induction, meditation, yoga, chanting and various repeated physical exercises.

How can such states of suggestibility be manipulated through guided imagery, indirect directives, peer pressure, modeling behavior and emotional manipulation?

The discussion then focuses upon how these criteria and coercive persuasion techniques are expressed by the group in question.

Those participating in the intervention offer their insights and perspectives about how the group demonstrates these criteria.

A review of more general influence techniques is also discussed.

This discussion is premised upon the writings of Robert Cialdini, author of the book Influence. In his book Cialdini, who is a professor of psychology at Arizona State University, offers what he calls the “six principles of influence” which are:

1.      “The rule of reciprocity,” which requires that one person tries to repay what another person has provided. Singer explains that this rule can be twisted by cults. That is, the cult provides a sense of security, salvation, well-being and love, but expects its devotees to repay this through absolute obedience and compliance.

2.      “Commitment and consistency,” expressed by the desire to appear consistent through words, beliefs, and attitudes and deeds, which is valued by society. Singer explains that a cult can turn this rule around and make members feel guilty whenever they fall short regarding their consistent performance of duties and obligations through commitments made to the group.

3.      “Social proof,” a means used to determine what is correct by observing what others around us believe is correct. Within a cult environment Singer explains that “if you look around in the group, you will see people behaving in particular ways. You imitate what you see and assume that such behavior is proper, good, and expected.” Singer further explains that this rule can be used within a cult environment to stimulate compliance. “If you look around in the group, you will see people behaving in particular ways. You imitate what you see and assume that such behavior is proper, good, and expected.”

4.      “Liking,” people prefer to say yes to individuals they know and like. But as Singer explains new initiates within a cult group may be the target of seemingly unconditional love, which is frequently called “love bombing.” This makes members feel wanted and loved, and pushes them to like the people in the group. They then feel that since they like and/or love these people they should comply with their concerns, suggestions and be obedient.

5.      “Authority,” there is strong pressure within society for compliance when requested by an authority figure. Singer explains that this tendency to respect authority can easily be applied to a cult leader that claims superior knowledge, power, and a special mission. Members accept the cult leader as an ultimate authority.

6.      “Scarcity,” people assign more value to opportunities when they appear less available. Singer says if cult members are told that without the group they will miss out on living life without stress; miss out on attaining cosmic awareness and bliss; miss out on changing the world, gaining the ability to travel back in time; or whatever the group offers that is tailored to seem essential. The group may also may exemplify this rule by claiming exclusivity, i.e. no other group exists that can offer the same and/or equal path of fulfillment.

The discussion once again focuses on how the cult specifically being discussed exemplifies these principles or rules of influence.

At this juncture there may be a review of group literature through which examples can be seen. Participants attending the intervention may also offer their first-hand experiences dealing with the group and its leaders, which exemplify these points.

Third block of discussion: What is the specific history of the group or leader?

At this point the specific group that has drawn concern is examined.

What is its unique and particular history?

What is the background and personal history of its leader or leaders?

The objective at this point in the intervention process is to review the history of the group and also to focus upon and discuss whatever might have been hidden by the group and/or its leader from members.

What events have occurred that might have been falsely interpreted or propagandized by the group?

This process is of often currently made easier by the accessibility of information through the Internet.

Whatever file concerning the group and/or leader, which has been developed, will now be discussed.

Various press clippings, historical papers, court documents and televised news reports and/or documentaries may be reviewed that are specifically about the group and/or leader at this point.

The back-and-forth discussion at this juncture increasingly focuses on how the family views the history of the group and the specific involvement of the individual. Those present at the intervention may add additional important first-hand information about what they feel is noteworthy about the group.

This process offers the cult member a unique opportunity to evaluate and critically examine the group and its history outside of what is most likely a largely controlled environment. Possibly for the first time the cult member has an outside frame of reference, and feedback from different perspectives not controlled by the group.

Fourth block of discussion: what are the family’s specific concerns?

At this juncture family members and those concerned express why they feel it was important to stage the intervention and have the discussion.

They explain in detail, based upon their first-hand observations, why involvement with the group seems to them problematic or even potentially unsafe and/or dangerous.

For example, areas of concern might include the financial demands made by the group, diminishing and strained communication, increasing isolation, substandard living conditions, medical neglect, illegal behavior, sexual abuse, child abuse and neglect, present or potential violence and/or seemingly apparent psychological and emotional instability.

Each participant in the intervention at this point offers their personal perspective.

Anecdotal examples explain how these concerns have become evident.

This this is often the most volatile, difficult and emotional phase of the intervention.

My role through this process is to focus attention on how the group may have caused and/or exacerbated personal problems and situations.

For example, the intervention may have been prompted by a particular crisis brought about through cult involvement. This could be a pending separation or divorce, personal bankruptcy, serious but untreated illness and/or some type of pending or anticipated cult-related legal situation.

Case examples

What follows are some specific case examples of recent interventions within the United States and Canada.

This includes two cases that were successful, one that had mixed results and another, which ended in failure.

The [T] Institute

I was retained by a husband concerned about his wife’s involvement in a Neo-Eastern group called the “[T] Institute” located in […], California.

The couple had been married for more than 10 years with two children ages seven and nine.

The 39-year-old wife had been involved in the group for approximately 2 years. She had a master’s degree and had worked in the private sector as a marketing executive. However, in order to raise their two children she had given up employment to become a full-time homemaker. This ultimately caused the wife to experience a lowered sense of self-esteem and blurred her individual identity.

Initially, encouraged by a friend, she attended yoga classes at the [T] Institute. Her motivation was physical fitness, through regular exercise. She did not initially understand that [T] was a religious group.

But as the classes continued it became apparent that the group was not simply a place to exercise, but rather a group with the spiritual leader and particular belief system. The members of the group demonstrated extreme deference and devotion to their guru [Mr. R.], also known as “[D.S.].”

[Mr. R.] maintained a compound in Thailand in addition to his [T] facilities in California.

The wife’s involvement had continually escalated until it caused conflict within the home.

The young children were neglected due to her ever-increasing commitment and schedule at the Institute.

Ultimately, after many heated arguments the couple separated.

The wife moved out of the family home and took an apartment within a building occupied by [T] members.

After being retained I coached the husband to stop arguing about his wife’s involvement with the Institute, apologize for any angry confrontations they may have had and to filter his future conversations, eliminating anything negative.

After he did this for weeks the friction diminished and their relationship became increasingly friendly.

The couple remained separated, but agreed to take a family vacation in Hawaii for Christmas.

Upon their return from Hawaii the husband urgently requested for me to fly to California and undertake the intervention.

His wife had advised him that on January 1^st she would be moving into a more controlled setting within group housing.

I promptly flew to California to begin my work.

Upon my arrival I met with the husband and his wife’s family members, which were included on the team for the intervention. This included both his wife’s parents and her brother.

I coached the family what to say and not to say regarding the parameters of their participation.

The family was encouraged to offer first-hand observations regarding their concerns, but not to be argumentative, accusatory or needlessly confrontational.

We also discussed who had the most emotional pull, to keep the wife from leaving. We discussed and rehearsed how to handle any sudden effort by the wife to abruptly cut off the intervention and leave.

I also reviewed with the family our main blocks of conversation, which we would go through during the days ahead. They asked questions about our schedule, breaks, food and what to do during the intervening evenings between each day of the intervention.

Our preparation process took several hours, the day before the intervention began.

A plan was set in place, which involved the husband requesting that his wife come to their home to watch the children while he attended a business meeting.

But when she arrived at the family home her parents, brother and I were all waiting and the children were being cared for by relatives at another location.

Immediately the wife recognized that this was a type of family intervention. She reacted angrily and initially refused to participate, running back into the garage. The wife was followed immediately by her parents. Prepared from the day before, they pleaded with her to return and talk things out. After about 30 minutes she came back.

At this point the husband introduced me as a consultant retained to facilitate the meeting and offer expert input. The wife asked me questions about my background, experience and the ultimate goal of the meeting.

I explained that the purpose of the intervention was to share information in an effort to present alternative perspectives, opinions and to explain concerns.

It was emphatically stated by everyone present that the final decision to separate, divorce and/or continue with the group was hers to make. We expressed hope that part of her decision-making process would include the consideration of relevant research, our sharing of information and discussion.

I talked about my many years of experience dealing with controversial groups and movements similar to the [T] Institute. And I pointed out that I had reviewed materials produced by the Institute and its leader regarding its history, structure, practices and purpose. I concluded by telling the wife that an organization with nothing to hide has no reason to fear examination.

At this point the wife agreed to stay and participate.

During the first day of the intervention we discussed an array of subjects which included portions of each of the four blocks of discussion previously outlined.

We touched upon the definition of a cult, the process of thought reform, talked about the history of the group and what concerns the family had.

We spent a full eight hours devoted to discussion and review on the first day.

At the conclusion of the first day I asked the wife to meet with us the following day. I also asked her to refrain from having contact in any way, shape, or form with anyone associated with the [T]. This specifically included e-mail, text messaging phone calls and/or communication of any kind. I explained that the many hours of her training at the Institute had been uninterrupted. And that our discussion on balance would also not be interrupted by [T].

The family expressed concern that her response to the information presented be her own thoughts and spontaneous, without any coaching or input from the group.

Once again there was an emotional outburst. The wife became angry and attacked her parents and husband, accusing them of interfering in her life and attempting to control her.

At this point the brother stood up and expressed his feelings. He stated that this situation was so important to him that he had given up time with his wife and children, driving many hours to attend the intervention. This immediately impressed upon the wife the importance of the family’s concerns again.

She then agreed to continue the discussion the following morning, without communication or interference from the group and to stay at the family home overnight.

As the husband drove me to my hotel we went over instructions given during the previous day of preparation. That is, that no one should talk about the group and/or related topics until we gathered together the next day. This must be done to avoid an argument, which might explode without me there.

The following morning we resumed our discussion. During this day we focused on the definition of a cult much more and in-depth. Our conversation frequently focused on examples of cult-like behavior, dynamics, structure and how this was paralleled by the [T] Institute and its leader Mr. R. Building upon these guidelines we also reviewed the group’s published literature and some e-mail communication between members, which had been obtained by the husband.

We watched a documentary DVD with historical footage about an assortment of well-known cults, which included the commentary of former members.

This concluded the second day.

At the end of our second day the wife seemed curious, asked questions and was neither angry nor argumentative about the intervention.

She agreed to meet again for third day without any difficulty.

On the third day we discussed in-depth the thought reform process of coercive persuasion.

This discussion included going over research material previously cited by Lifton, Singer, Ofshe, Schein and Cialdini, which served as a basis for talking points.

Again, there were frequent comparisons made regarding the similarities of [T]’s internal behavior and practices as parallel examples concerning the techniques being examined.

Towards the end of the third day we watched another documentary DVD, which was specifically focused on psychological and emotional manipulation. This included trance induction and related meditation techniques, hypnosis and the use of indirect directives. As altered states of consciousness are a primary focus of [T] Institute, we discussed the suggestibility and vulnerability of individuals while experiencing such altered states of consciousness.

At the conclusion of the third day the wife appeared intensely interested in, though also deeply disturbed by, the information we had covered. She was much more at ease with her family and particularly her husband.

There was no hesitation regarding an agreement to meet for a fourth day.

On the fourth day we discussed in-depth the history of the [T] Institute and its leader [Mr. R.]. We reviewed corporate documents, disclosure statements, real estate records and finally personal e-mail communications between [Mr. R.] and his followers, which the husband had obtained.

A pattern of exploitation began to emerge.

The organization purportedly had a charitable purpose and supposedly sought to improve the human condition. However, it was apparent that the guru lived a life of ease and luxury at the expense of his followers. This was made evident by the documentation, living arrangements at the group compound in Thailand and also through the persistent and personal demands made by [Mr. R.] through e-mails. All of this hardly reflected an “egoless” or “enlightened” being, but rather a selfish opportunist.

We watched additional DVDs illustrating the behavior of an array of cult leaders.

Repeatedly the family interjected their observations about the group and its influence upon the wife’s life.

Near the conclusion of the fourth day the wife was very quiet and finally began to cry.

She asked her family for their forgiveness concerning her “stupidity.”

At this point I interjected that it was impossible for her to realistically evaluate the group given the deceptive way in which she had been recruited and manipulated. And that her harsh self-judgment seemed misplaced.

What about the group and its leader?

What responsibility did they have regarding the negative consequences of their influence?

Didn’t they deserve at least some of, if not most of the blame?

We later discussed follow-up counseling and the various resources available in California for her continuing recovery.

The conclusion was a very emotional, but happy one, for everyone there.

The husband-and-wife reconciled. She had no further contact with the group and/or group involvement in any way.

The wife subsequently contacted me regarding concerns about the group potentially bothering her and/or her family.

[T] Call of God

A 30-year-old website developer, project manager and married mother with two children, ages six and two, became involved with an online religious group known as the “[T] Call of God.”

The group included about 20 to 30 active members connected entirely through the Internet.

The leader of the group, [S.T.R.], claims that he receives revelation directly from God. These revelations are then transmitted in the form of “letters from God” released through and published by [Mr. R.].

The group communicates almost entirely online using teleconferencing, frequent e-mails and website message boards.

Members are located throughout the United States, Canada and Australia.

[Mr. R.] himself runs the organization from his home in the state of […].

Contributions to the [T] Call of God are made primarily through the Internet.

The young mother living in Canada had been a member for two years before her husband and family contacted me. At this point she had recently told her parents and brother that she would no longer communicate with them due to her beliefs.

Her 10-year marriage was also becoming increasingly strained, though she still lived with her husband.

I was retained by the parents for the intervention, which was also supported by the young woman’s husband.

The preparation day meeting included all the family members together. Just as in the previous case preparation time was used to explain and discuss the parameters of our respective roles and what might be reasonably expected.

The following day the young woman arrived at her parent’s home for a special visit, ostensibly to share her beliefs and explain her commitment.

My presence was as usual a complete surprise.

She also did not expect her brother, sister-in-law and husband to be present.

All phones and Internet access within the family’s home had been disconnected.

After several hours of conversation the young woman became visibly agitated and protested that this was an “attack” upon her beliefs. I assured her that no one present wished to criticize her Christian faith, but rather the behavior of the group and its leader.

She calmed down.

At the end of the first day of discussion, which totaled approximately 8 hours, the young woman agreed to sleep over at her family’s home, turn off her cell phone and give it to her mother. We also asked that she make no effort to communicate with or contact anyone associated with the group. She agreed to these terms at the urging of her family and husband.

We spent an entire day discussing the definition of a cult, historical cults and how many cults are supposedly “bible-based.” Aspects of bible-based cults were then outlined in parallel to the [T] Call of God.

For example, David Koresh and the Waco Davidians was discussed, as Koresh had historically claimed special revelations from God.

Jim Jones had a penchant for twisting scriptures and using them to manipulate his followers. We talked about Jonestown and the so-called “Davidians” that followed Koresh in some detail.

The next day was spent examining thought reform and coercive persuasion techniques, but specifically as they might be used within the context of bible-based cults.

Documentary DVDs about the Waco Davidians and Jonestown were viewed and discussed.

We also discussed how a lack of financial transparency and accountability is typical within such groups. That is, how no one but the leader actually knows where the money ultimately goes.

A private investigator’s report commissioned by the family was then reviewed.

The report included a listing of [Mr. R.]’s real estate holdings, some corporate referenced records and his recently declared income, which was substantial. All of this information directly contradicted what [Mr. R.] had been telling the group and his repeated claims that he was not motivated by money.

Finally, on the last day each member of the family shared his or her specific concerns regarding the group and how it had affected the young woman’s behavior.

Her parents expressed profound sorrow concerning her recent decision to stop communicating with them. They explained that regardless of her beliefs, they would always love her and could not understand why she had decided to cut them off.

Her brother talked about the many months that had gone by without any word from her and how he missed her.

In conclusion, the husband explained how her commitment to the group seemed to supersede any other practical consideration, including both her marriage and the care of their children.

During the final two days the young woman increasingly asked critical questions.

On the third day she began to divulge unknown inside and critical information about the group. She talked about others in the group with strained marriages that had neglected their children. The young woman also disclosed that one extremely devoted member was ultimately forced to declare bankruptcy, which she suspected was due in part to excessive contributions made to the group.

These disclosures offered evidence that the group influence and control was fading.

In the end the young woman’s primary concern was how to warn others not to become involved with the group.

We discussed sharing information through the Ross Institute message board and the possibility of contacting others in the early stages of group involvement.

The young woman totally terminated her involvement with the [T] Call of God.

Falun Gong

A 36-year-old married mother with four young children all under the age of 10 became involved with Falun Gong through a close friend.

Initially, she saw the group as an opportunity to exercise and become physically fit.

However, step-by-step the organization manipulated her mind and progressively influenced her personally held religious beliefs.

The young mother came from an ultra-Orthodox Jewish background. Her entire family was devoutly committed to a well-known Hasidic Jewish sect. Their observance included strict dietary rules, observance of the Sabbath and stringent guidelines concerning dress and appropriate relationships between men and women.

Her husband and family were shocked when they discovered her commitment to Falun Gong, which they correctly viewed as a contradiction of the family’s long-held traditions and cherished religious beliefs.

I arrived at the preparation meeting on a Thursday morning. Our meeting took place at her brother’s home where the family had agreed to meet for the Sabbath, which begins at sunset on Friday and concludes at sunset on Saturday.

Orthodox Jews that observe the Sabbath are prohibited from using any electrical appliances or electronic devices, during the Sabbath. Using any form of transportation is likewise prohibited.  We had agreed that the best time for staging the intervention would be at a private home on the Sabbath due to the stringent rules, which would inherently preclude any outside communication with members of Falun Gong.

The preparation meeting was attended by the young woman’s parents, her husband and brother. The parents had flown in from […] and the intervention took place in […].

Everyone present was deeply concerned that if her involvement with Falun Gong continued, a divorce and child custody battle was inevitable.

On Friday I arrived at the brother’s home just before sunset.

I was introduced by the family as an outside expert and consultant. We all sat down in a comfortable den and began our discussion.

I further outlined my background and the purpose for our meeting.

She plaintively asked her family why this meeting was necessary, considering that Falun Gong was a “harmless” and “benign” group?

Each family member individually explained their concerns.

Her parents said that there was a tradition of Orthodox Jewish religious observance within their family and they could not understand why their daughter had apparently rejected this and abdicated her role of an Orthodox Jewish mother.

Her brother expressed similar dismay concerning her choices. He said that for many years his sister had been an inspiration concerning his own involvement in Orthodox Judaism.

The husband was the most pointed, emphatically and flatly stating that they had a Jewish wedding and had made a mutual commitment “before God” to raise a Jewish family and honor “God’s Commandments.” He concluded that she had broken those vows and ignored her promises.

Repeatedly the wife assured everyone that Falun Gong was not a religious choice but rather a exercise practice, which did not contradict her religious beliefs.

She also claimed that there had always been problems in her marriage and then broke down in tears.

The family contradicted her claim and said that though no marriage was perfect, her marriage appeared to have been reasonably happy, until her deepening involvement with the Falun Gong.

[…]

At the conclusion of the first evening we agreed to meet the following day.

There was little need to solicit a commitment to cease communication with the group, due to the rules regulating the Sabbath regarding phones and/or any electronic communication. And everything in the house had been shut down.

The following morning our discussion centered upon the definition of a cult and whether or not Falun Gong fit that description.

We talked about the role of “Master Li,” his supernatural claims and the way in which his personality defined the group.

We also discussed the meditation practices of Falun Gong and the process of trance induction.

Did Falun Gong encourage suggestible altered states of consciousness?

Could some of the group’s exercises be seen as self-hypnosis?

How could any subjective results achieved through Falun Gong based upon a member’s feelings be objectively measured?

Other than anecdotal stories wase there any scientifically measurable results produced by Falun Gong?

How could Li Hongzhi substantiate his supernatural claims?

These points were discussed throughout the day and well into the afternoon.

As sundown approached the young woman pointed out that the supernatural claims made within the context of Judaism could likewise not be proven.

Did the miracles mentioned in the bible really occur?

Did Moses part the Red Sea?

What about Noah’s Ark?

What accounts within the bible were actually proven and historical?

I then asked the young woman if she meant to imply that the supernatural claims made by Falun Gong were to be understood as religious claims based upon faith.

She didn’t readily respond.

I pursued the point and asked specifically if she meant to say that Li Hongzhi’s claims were religious claims. And if they were religious claims, then how could she could she practically hold two religious belief systems simultaneously?

We also discussed the racist statements made by Mr. Li.

Part of her explanation given concerning Li’s racist remarks included a cosmology of many gods assigned to various races. 

I pointed out the problem of holding two belief systems simultaneously, especially when they directly contradicted each other. That is, on one hand Judaism is monotheistic, but Falun Gong is not.

How could she hold two such conflicting belief systems simultaneously?

I also asked her if it was appropriate for Falun Gong to deliberately deceive her in the recruitment process, by withholding and/or obscuring the fact that they are a religious belief system and not simply an exercise practice? Didn’t she deserve to know all the facts before becoming more involved?

As the sun set she seemed to have reached an impasse.

The young woman insisted that somehow her involvement with Falun Gong was possible without any conflict.

She then promised her husband and family that her children would be raised in a “Jewish home.”

I then reiterated that monotheism was the single most important feature of Judaism and therefore the basis for a Jewish home. And how could she reconcile this with the teachings of Master Li?

There are was a kind of meltdown.

At this point the young woman refused to talk further and said that our discussion must be concluded.

Ultimately everyone agreed to honor her wishes and end the intervention, but with the understanding that the couple would participate in professional marriage counseling.

The young woman also agreed to completely terminate her involvement with Falun Gong and/or anyone associated with the group. Subsequently though her actions seemed to indicate that this promise was not fully kept.

The Kabbalah Centre

A Jewish family […] decided after [many] years of committed membership to terminate their involvement with a controversial group known as the “Kabbalah Centre.“

This organization is led by Rabbi Philip Berg, his wife Karen and their sons Michael and Yehuda Berg.

The Kabbalah Centre is not officially recognized by the leadership of the organized Jewish community, nor is it generally considered very credible within the larger community of Kabbalistic scholars.

Instead, the Kabbalah Centre has frequently been referred to as a “cult.”

The father and mother had raised their […] children within the group. When they left, their […] youngest teenage children readily left the group with them. However, their [oldest child] refused to leave. She insisted that the parents were wrong to separate from the organization.

I was retained for an intervention focused on exiting the [adult] daughter from the group.

We met numerous times for preparation meetings.

Finally we gathered for the last preparation meeting in […] the day before the intervention was scheduled to begin. Those present were the parents, an aunt and uncle from […] and a former member of the Kabbalah Centre […].

Within our meeting we determined that the daughter would be most sympathetic to her uncle.

Both parents had numerous arguments for more than a year with their daughter concerning her continuing involvement with the group.

But her uncle had never been critical of the Kabbalah Centre.

We specifically discussed the importance of blocking communication with the group and its subsequent influence for the time we spent together, which had proven to be a problem regarding her behavior before.

It was hoped that the daughter would share a room with her aunt at the […] hotel where the intervention was being staged.

Her parents would be in a room on the same floor.

Shortly after the intervention began the following morning the young woman burst into a rage. She was furious with her parents for not warning her in advance about the meeting.  I explained that this was my decision due to concerns about the Kabbalah Centre’s ongoing influence and potential interference.

She found this very difficult to accept and stormed out of the room.

Her uncle followed her into the hall and eventually persuaded her to come back into the room and sit down.

A former member of the Kabbalah Centre […] shared her experiences. She was once a staffer, though her pay was little more than room and board, without any meaningful fixed benefits, such as health insurance.

The former member explained how staffers like her were exploited by the leaders. She also offered an insider’s view of the harsh treatment often endured through the extremely authoritarian leadership style of the Bergs.

We discussed the definition of a cult and how the Kabbalah Centre can be seen to fit the specific criteria.

The discussion that followed, focused on thought reform and coercive persuasion techniques.

At times both parents and the former member would offer their personal recollections about the Kabbalah Centre and specific experiences, which I then copared to coercive techniques of persuasion.

Throughout the day as the discussion continued there were periodic emotional outbursts, and the daughter would once again leave the room in a fit of rage.

Her uncle would quickly follow her out, talk to her at length in the hall, and ultimately they would return to the room together again.

This happened about three times.

Finally, after eight hours of discussion punctuated by these periodic outbursts we concluded the first day.

But the daughter refused to stay with her aunt or anyone else at the hotel.

She eventually agreed to stay at her uncle’s home in […].

We all agreed to begin again the following morning. And the daughter specifically agreed to have no communication of any kind with the Kabbalah Centre during the interim.

However, the next morning she was gone.

Her uncle had left her alone at his home, when he took his two children to school.

Apparently, shortly after he left she contacted the Kabbalah Centre and then ran away.

Subsequently, for several months, the daughter moved out of her family home, refused to meet with parents and lived instead with a member of the Kabbalah Centre.

Today the daughter continues to be a member of the Kabbalah Centre despite her family’s concerns, though communication with her has resumed and greatly improved.

Conclusion

Hopefully, this basic explanation of my intervention/deprogramming approach has been helpful in gaining a better understanding of the process.

Deprogramming in its various forms has essentially endured for more than 30 years within the United States as the single most effective organized approach used to break through cult programming through an intervention process.

As you can see from the case vignettes offered this process is difficult and not always successful.

It is my hope that by working together, comparing approaches, sharing our collective knowledge and relevant information, we can better serve the many individuals and families adversely affected by destructive cults.

End Notes:

[I] “Margaret Singer, a leading brainwashing expert, dies at 82” the New York Times December 7, 2003 by Anahad O’Connor

[II] Intake Questionnaire located at http://www.culteducation.com/intervention.html

[III] “Cult Formation” the Harvard Mental Health Letter February 1981 by Robert Jay Lifton

[IV] Ross Institute bio located at http://www.culteducation.com/jonestown.html

[V] Ross Institute bio located at http://.culteducation.com/waco.html

[VI] Ross Institute bio located at http://www.culteducation.com/asahara.html

[VII] Ross Institute bio located at http://www.culteducation.com/manson.html

[VIII] “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism” by Robert Jay Lifton University of North Carolina press 1961

[IX] “Cults in Our Midst” Jossey-Bass Publishers 1995

[XI] “Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change” Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1, Macmillan publishing Company, New York

[XII] “Influence” Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D. Quill, NY, 1984 Revised 1993

[XIII] “Cults in Our Midst” Chapter 3 located within the Ross Institute archives at http://www.culteducation.com/cults-in-our-midst2.html

The Ross Institute of New Jersey (RI) has been a pioneer regarding free speech on the Internet and has faced legal challenges over the years, which have set significant precedents.

But before discussing the specific lawsuits filed against RI by controversial groups, some general historical background seems appropriate, to better understand the inception, purpose and function of RI (sponsor of CultNews) and its Internet archives.

Background

In 1995 I (Rick Ross photo below left) launched the Web site, culteducation.com. This was initially a personal effort to share collected files with the general public gathered about controversial groups and movements, some that have been called “cults.”

That Web site grew and evolved to become one of the largest and most comprehensive online sources of information about destructive cults, controversial groups and movements on the Internet.

Today RI contains thousands of articles and documents organized within hundreds of individual group and subject subsections.

RI also features a virtual library with hundreds of books made available online through Amazon.com and a public message board that contains the personal comments and recollections of thousands of people affected by controversial groups and movements.

Thousands of individual unique users visit the site daily.

RI is an educational nonprofit corporation recognized by the United States government as a tax-exempted charity.

The advisory board of RI includes noted cult experts in the United States, such as Ford Greene, a California attorney specializing in cult-related litigation, as well as Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, co-authors of the books Snapping: America’s Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change. Psychologist Margaret Singer, one of the most well-known cult experts of the 20^th Century and author of Cults in Our Midst, was an advisory board member until her death.

RI functions as an online library and an institutional member of New Jersey Library Association (NJLA). Established in 1890, the NJLA is the oldest and largest library organization in the state of New Jersey.

RI is a collection of Web sites, which includes this blog, Cult News Network a links sharing page featuring breaking news stories about cults, controversial groups, movements and CultEducation.com featuring educational DVDs and a virtual library. The “Open Forum” or public message board, which now contains more than 75,000 individual entries in its database.

There is also a “Links” page with hundreds of hyper-links to other relevant resources available on the Internet.

This array of resources provides a multi-layered approach to the subject of cults, controversial groups and movements and related topics. A combination of recent news, personal first-hand accounts and growing permanent archives composed of in-depth articles, research papers and court documents.

The basis for inclusion within the archives is as follows:

1.      A group, movement or leader has become noteworthy by generating interest either through news coverage and/or through an individual/family situation.

2.      A subject, which generates a number of press accounts and/or court documents, may then become an individual subsection within the archives with related material made readily accessible there.

3.      A subsection on the Links page might also be added with listed links to Web sites elsewhere on the Internet with additional information specifically about the subject, which has drawn concern.

4.      A subsection may be added about the subject on the Books page if there are books readily available about the group, topic or leader online.

Some groups such as Scientology, the Unification Church and Falun Gong have large individual subsections, while other groups may only be briefly mentioned and/or have a small subsection that contains a very limited amount of material.

However, the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within the archive does not necessarily define that group as a “cult” and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects, that archived articles and/or research about the group/leader is available.

A disclaimer explaining this explicitly is linked throughout the Internet archives from every page.

Nevertheless RI has been subjected to ongoing harassment through frivolous lawsuits filed in an apparent attempt to eliminate from the Internet whatever criticism may be contained within its substantial database.

The lawsuits filed against RI over the past few years afford a window into the world of groups called “cults,” operating within the United States.

Lawsuits

There have been five lawsuits filed against me personally and/or RI.

This type of lawsuit, typically accusing me and/or the institute of defamation and related torts, is known in various American jurisdictions as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) brought to court not for its merits, but for the specific purpose of silencing a critic, often one who may not have the financial resources for a defense.

Church of Immortal Consciousness

“The Church of Immortal Consciousness” located in Arizona is led by Steven and Trina Kamp (photo right). Ms. Kamp claims that she is “an unconscious trance medium” and that a spirit speaks exclusively through her body. This spirit, which imbues Ms. Kamp with special authority over her followers, is known as “Dr. Duran” and the doctor’s “spiritual teaching and communication” define the group and form its basis of belief.

I have received very serious complaints over the years from former members of this group, alleging that the Kamps controlled, exploited and hurt them. In 1995 during a lecture at Arizona State University and also through a local television news interview in Phoenix, I identified the Church of Immortal Consciousness as a “destructive cult.”

The Kamps promptly filed a lawsuit against me for “defamation” claiming damages. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit in 1999. I was awarded taxable costs. And a subsequent appeal by the church was denied.

One of the largest law firms in Arizona at the time, Brown & Bain, represented me throughout the Church of Immortal Consciousness litigation at no charge “pro bono.” My specific attorneys at Brown & Bain were Paul Eckstein and Daniel Barr.

Pro bono publico (shortened to pro bono) is a Latin phrase meaning “for the public good.” The term is generally used to describe professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment as a public service.

Pure Bride Ministries

“Pure Bride Ministries” is an independent Pentecostal group in Florida led by the Rev. Judy Hammond. Ms. Hammond has no accountability through any denomination and/or significant oversight through a governing body. Rev. Hammond holds herself out as the ultimate spiritual authority for her relatively small flock of believers.

During the 1990s I received and reviewed numerous complaints about the group and was retained to evaluate Pure Bride Ministries for the purpose of a custody hearing in court. This involved a married couple purportedly estranged by the influence of Rev. Hammond.

Ultimately, my client, the husband, was awarded custody of his minor children.

Pure Brides Ministry was initially listed at culteducation.com within a section titled “Other Groups,” on file, but without material archived and available online at the Web site.

Judy Hammond filed a SLAPP suit against me in 2001. Rev. Hammond asked the court to award her $15 million dollars in libel damages. But after six months the pastor decided to drop the action, apparently concerned about the costs of the litigation.

Again, RI was represented pro bono, this time by prominent Florida attorney Robert Rivas, who later became a member of the Ross Institute’s advisory board.

Subsequent to the press exposure related to the litigation Ms. Hammond and her followers left Florida.

NXIVM

A company called “Executive Success Programs” (ESP) now known as NXIVM (pronounced nexium) led by Keith Raniere in Albany, New York, filed a lawsuit against the Ross Institute in 2003.

NXIVM sells self-improvement courses, including a 16-day “Intensive,” which has been compared to thought reform commonly called “brainwashing.”

As reported by Forbes magazine, three NXIVM participants required psychiatric treatment after attending its courses, one was hospitalized.

In 2004 a devotee of the group committed suicide. Her suicide note read in part, “I attended a course called Executive Success Programs based out of Anchorage, AK, and Albany, NY. I was brainwashed and my emotional center of the brain was killed/turned off. I still have feeling in my external skin, but my internal organs are rotting. Please contact my parents … if you find me or this note. I am sorry life; I didn’t know I was already dead.”

RI published three critical professional reports regarding NXIVM training, one by a forensic psychiatrist John Hochman of Los Angeles and two by clinical psychologist Paul Martin of Ohio, one analyzing the company generally and another about how the criteria of thought reform might potentially be relevant to ESP/NXIVM training. 

Both the psychologist and psychiatrist quoted sections of a NXIVM course manual for the purpose of reviewing the techniques used by the company in its training.

NXIVM alleged copyright infringement amongst other claims, insisting that the doctors had no right to quote its materials and that the reports misled readers into thinking of the Executive Success program as a “cult.”

NXIVM filed for emergency relief through an injunction, requesting that the offending reports be immediately removed from the Internet archives.

A New York federal court denied the motion for preliminary injunctive relief made by NXIVM on the grounds that the quotations used by the doctors in their critiques of the course constituted what is called “fair use.”

In 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that ruling on appeal and the United States Supreme Court refused to review the case. The decision read, “in order to do the research and analysis necessary to support their critical commentary, it was reasonably necessary for defendants to quote liberally from NXIVM’s manual.”

NXIVM then filed an amended complaint, parts of which the court dismissed; litigation in this matter currently continues as of this year.

During the course of this litigation it was discovered that NXIVM hired a private investigation company, which illegally obtained my personal banking and private phone records. RI then filed a counter-suit against both the investigation firm and NXIVM.

RI has received pro bono legal assistance in the NXIVM case from attorneys Douglas M. Brooks of Massachusetts, Thomas F. Gleason of New York, Peter Skolnik, Michael Norwick and Tom Dolan of the New Jersey law firm of Lowenstein Sandler, Public Citizen of Washington D.C. and the Berkman Center of Harvard University.

The NXIVM court decisions as cited by law journals effectively expanded free speech through the Internet by establishing new legal precedents.

Attorney Douglas Brooks subsequently became a member of RI’s advisory board.

Interestingly, the exiled Dalai Lama of Tibet has supported both NXIVM and its founder Keith Raniere. In a personal appearance in Albany, New York the religious leader awarded Raniere a scarf (photo above) of honor along with two of his disciples, both heiresses to the Seagram Liquor fortune.

The Albany Times-Union reported that NXIVM devotees traveled to India to visit the Dalai Lama, in an effort to convince him to come to Albany as their “honored guest.”  A spokesperson for the religious leader told the press that the Dalai Lama’s commitment “to supporting the expression of worthy ideals” prompted him to agree to an appearance in Albany.” When questioned about any financial incentive connected to the visit the Dalai Lama’s spokesperson said that whatever money was received would be “used for charitable and other purposes as per His Holiness’ guidance.”

This is not the first time that the Dalai Lama has supported a purported “cult” leader.

Chizuo Matsumoto known to his followers as “Shoko Asahara” founder of Aum, the Japanese cult responsible for gassing the Tokyo subway system in 1995 reportedly donated $1.2 million dollars to the religious leader and subsequently seemed to be rewarded through several high-level meetings and photo opportunities with the Dalai Lama.

Gentle Wind Project

The “Gentle Wind Project,” led by John and Mary Miller (photo right) of Kittery, Maine, sued RI in 2004.

The Millers claimed within paid advertising that they had created special “instruments,” which represent “a new technology that employs scientific principles from classical acupuncture and Tibetan medicine¦designed to offer home users and health care professionals a user-friendly, drug-free option that may produce relaxation and cleansing of the acupuncture meridian system.”

Former members of Gentle Wind “alleged in postings to a Web site that the organization was involved in group sex, mind control, extortion, child neglect and misappropriation of funds” as reported by the Portsmouth Herald.

RI included a link at its “Links” page the former members’ Web site.

When RI refused to remove that link per Gentle Wind’s demands the group filed a lawsuit. This suit was dismissed later the same year.

But as a direct result of the press attention the group received related to the litigation filed against former members, RI and others the Attorney General of Maine began an investigation.

The attorney general ultimately filed suit against Gentle Wind Project, alleging 13 violations of the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act.

“The instruments were sold to consumers via (Gentle Wind’s) Web site and through seminars’ for requested donations’ of often hundreds or thousands of dollars,” read a statement from the attorney general’s office. “The research that (the group) claimed to have done on the instruments does not support their alleged benefits.”

John and Mary Miller were found liable and paid civil penalties of $20,000 and agreed to pay $30,000 to the attorney general’s office for the cost of the investigation and attorney’s fees.

Gentle Wind’s assets were promptly liquidated to pay creditors and victims.

Massachusetts attorney Douglas Brooks assisted by local counsel William H. Leete Jr. of Portland, Maine represented the Ross Institute pro bono in this litigation.

Landmark Education

In 2004 Landmark Education, another private for-profit company similar to NXIVM, which sells self-improvement seminars, filed a lawsuit against RI for “product disparagement.”

Landmark claimed damages of $1 million dollars. 

This company has historically been widely and publicly criticized by many former participants, researchers and the press for using methods that are described as “bullying,” “harassing,” “destructive,” and “potentially dangerous.”

Landmark Education, originally known as EST (Erhard Seminars Training) during the 1970s, initiates its participants through a weekend seminar known as the Forum. Werner Erhard (also known as “Jack” Rosenberg photo left) created the Forum.  Erhard’s sister and brother now run the company, which has branches throughout the United States and around the world.

Landmark purportedly has “58 offices in 28 countries” including both Singapore and Bangkok.

In 1977 an article in the New York Times reported about persons that “developed severe disturbance” after taking EST seminars. Psychiatrists, writing for the American Journal of Psychiatry initially reported these cases. Those examined “developed psychotic reactions, some of them life-threatening, at the time or soon after the training.”

Many persons have also complained that Landmark uses inappropriately aggressive recruiting techniques, and intimidates participants who wish to leave the program. 

RI has received such complaints and critical news articles have been archived as well as negative comments about Landmark, EST and the Forum posted by users of the institute’s public message board.

In an effort to suppress such unfavorable information, Landmark has historically used litigation and threats of litigation as a tool to silence its critics. 

Landmark apparently sued RI largely because the search engine, Google, which ranks web sites by popularity, lists the RI archives on the first page of search results for “Landmark Education.” Thus, anyone seeking information about Landmark’s programs could easily access both the information provided at the company’s Web site, as well as the critical information archived by the Ross Institute.

After Landmark’s legal effort to uncover the identities of those posting critical comments anonymously about its practices on the message board was rebuffed by a federal judge, the company learned that all discovery made through the lawsuit by the defendant about its past litigation and settlements might potentially become part of the court public record.

Landmark subsequently sought to dismiss its own lawsuit.

Landmark’s motion to dismiss was granted on December 27, 2005.

Lawyers Peter L. Skolnik and Michael A. Norwick of the law firm Lowenstein Sandler in Roseland, New Jersey represented the Ross Institute pro bono regarding this litigation.

As can be seen from this list of litigation free speech in the United States can potentially become quite expensive.

However, with the help of dedicated pro bono attorneys over the years RI has prevailed, expanded its archives and legal precedents regarding free speech on the Internet.