1. Deprogrammer

Never use that term to me again... I am an exit counselor for victims of mind control..

A character named Diamond (actor James Earl Jones) spoke those words in a British film called Signs and Wonders released in 1994. The film was significant because it was the first time, to my knowledge, that a major film production about cults and deprogramming made the distinction between deprogrammer and exit counselor. Deprogramming, as it appeared in the English language in the 1970s, referred to actions taken to persuade a person to abandon allegiance to a controversial group or cult.[1] The neologism exit counseling appeared in the early 1980s to distinguish coercive and oppositional deprogramming models of cult intervention from a non-coercive, educational approach.

In the film, a middle-aged housewife and mother Elizabeth (actor Prunella Scales) comes to America from England to meet Diamond. Elizabeth hired Diamond to convince her estranged daughter to leave a controversial group led by an Asian messiah. While Diamond drives Elizabeth to a hotel, he questions her perception of what he does and asks her who is likely to join a cult. The perplexed mother says that Diamond is a deprogrammer and she blames herself and her husband for not raising her daughter well enough.

The car screeches to a halt as Diamond pulls over to park it by a curb. He orders his client to get out of the vehicle. He stands up to the bewildered woman inches from her face to ask her what her people told her that he does. She says that he is a “deprogrammer who gets people out of cults.” Not so clear to her is whether he will resort to kidnapping. Diamond berates her for implying that he is a deprogrammer: “Never use that term to me. I am an exit counselor,” he insists. Then he aggressively explains how he educates people using highly ethical standards. Utter irony prevails here because Diamond’s team has already kidnapped Elizabeth’s daughter who they have in a secret location and he knows it.

You will have to see the film to appreciate the intricate subplots intertwining Elizabeth’s concern for her frustrated Anglican minister husband who drinks too much and her adult son who is infatuated with an egotistical philosopher of deconstruction. My concern here is with Diamond’s dilemma. After one of Diamond’s assistants infiltrates the cult, the team determines that there is no other way to help the daughter. Elizabeth is already on her way from the UK. Diamond and his team abduct th young woman by forcing her into a van from a sidewalk where she was fundraising for the cult.

The old deprogramming stereotype in films about cult intervention since 1980 is all we see again.[2] Non coercive interventions are too boring for the film industry and could hurt ratings. In any case, the “ethical” exit counselor Diamond is in an old dilemma: There is no happy alternative if they are to spare the daughter from coming under the direct control of a leader known to have sex with vulnerable female members. And who can resist a wonderful mother who borrowed money to save her daughter? I can sympathize with Diamond because I’ve been in that very situation many times. But Diamond’s chiding of Elizabeth has merit. Most deprogramming interventions, and nearly all since 1992 in America, have been open meetings that the cult member can choose to end and leave at any time. 

The confusion regarding deprogramming and exit counseling among the general public extends to a definition of cult. I often hear people use the “c” word as if they know what it means. Upon questioning, the average person entertains a basic notion of cult as a weird, possibly dangerous group with weird rituals and weird people. Less common yet persistent perceptions are associations with Satanism, witchcraft and demon possession. Dictionaries are some help but most indicate that cult is an intense devotional system directed toward a person, idea or object. That covers a wide, somewhat innocuous spectrum of religious activity. The definition also includes “spurious group” which is how most folks understand it. A lesser definition alludes to cult as a healing system based on someone’s dogma or to an alternative treatment as in shamanic healing. The International Cultic Studies Association adopted a definition that fits their purposes to describe manipulative groups that harm some or most members:

Cult (totalist type): A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.), designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.[3]

NB: In this paper, I may use cult in its lesser definition as adopted by ICSA although this violates the primarily neutral, academic application of the word.

Below I propose a working model of the totalist cult as it applies to what I do as a deprogrammer or exit counselor. I often use deprogramming to cover all types of intervention with cult members including the non-coercive, open sessions that I now use exclusively, especially since 1992. I realize that this might irritate my exit counselor colleagues who have fought long and hard to set a standard name for non-coercive approaches. Deprogrammer like cult has popular pejorative implications. Unfortunately, as the film mentioned above indicates, most people like the lady that hired Diamond continue to relate to deprogrammer and not to exit counselor and much less so to the more obscure thought reform consultant adopted by a few of my colleagues.

Unlike established psychotherapies that enjoy support with university degrees and professional licenses, exit counseling by any name has no specific support or professional validation. Anyone can call himself an exit counselor or deprogrammer, as the field has no enforceable professional standards. Nevertheless, anyone serious about exit counseling as a profession should have an educated interest in social psychology, comparative religion, and family counseling. Perhaps this is social irony that controversial maverick movements attract maverick remedies. My hope is to add to a professional and general understanding of what has developed as the purpose and process of deprogramming based on my extensive experience in the field since 1980. To put this in context, I wish to introduce a four-point model of what this deprogrammer recognizes as harmful enough cult activity for me to agree to intervene.

 

 

2. Cults: healthy and harmful

Facets of potentially harmful cult activity as a closed system:

§                     Transpersonal attraction

§                     Exclusive leadership

§                     Circular tension

§                     Exit perils

 

Before I describe what I mean by unhealthy cult, yes, I believe that cult can indicate a healthy devotional activity. Healthier cults remain open to a wider frame of social moderation and reference. By any definition a typical Catholic monastery or cloistered order of nuns qualifies as cultic but due to the wider moderation of a less radical authority these devotional organizations tend toward stability and have checks and balances. Moderation for monasteries flows from a presiding bishop and, in the case of nuns, “outsider” priests as spiritual directors and confessors under the even broader authorities of the Vatican and the surrounding secular government. Healthy monasteries abide by local laws. One could argue the same for healthier Buddhist, Sufi, and Hindu orders based on more intense devotional systems than expressed by the overall religious culture in which they occur.

In healthy cults the members have appeals to authority with power outside of the leader and the means power to dismiss the leader if necessary. The transcendental purpose or organizing principle is not identified with the leader or totally controlled by the leader for life. For example, in my embattled tradition of Catholicism, the pope, especially since the Vatican II clarifications for decades ago, is no more essentially holy or “saved” than any Christian. The tradition reveres many “saints in heaven” who were in life persecuted by the very Church they served. I view this as a healthy feature of the Catholic “cult of the pope” because common folks share equally with popes in the transcendent principle as held in the Catholic “cult of the Eucharist.”

In secular society devotional cults form around sports teams and these cults have some radical fans. The moderating influence of the team and the surrounding society prevents a radical fan from controlling the team and most the other fans. In harmful cults that operate within self-sealing or closed systems the moderating influences fade as effective social and psychological controls over the power and often malignant narcissism of the leaders. (See illustration for “Cult: healthy type” below).

The model I propose borrows heavily from many earlier approaches. For references I recommend Bounded Choice by Janja Lalich, Them and Us by Arthur Deikman, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert J. Lifton, Cults in Our Midst by Margaret Singer with Janja Lalich, Releasing the Bonds by Steve Hassan, and Brainwashing by Kathleen Taylor. Also, you should read Benjamin Zablocki’s work on “exit costs” and brainwashing as included in Misunderstanding Cults edited by Zablocki and Thomas Robbins. In borrowing from the named authors, I lay no claim to representing their ideas with mine. Each approach stands or falls on its own merits though all interrelate. My perspective comes from practice and direct observation more than any model proposed by the social science community.

With my model, I do not impugn every group that has a closed milieu, but history and experience tells me that the more closed a social system becomes, the greater the potential for deceit and abuse of power. The four elements in concert create a matrix or process for some degree of potentially harmful cult activity. Each element is a red flag, so to speak. If all four appear as described, then the red flags should be waving. If there is harm, the degree of harm can be subjective and/or objective. Subjective harm includes how much an ex-member has lost in perception, perspective, and self-esteem. Objective harm regards loss in investments, health, relationships, education and employment. While some former cult members have to start over alone and broke, others have careers and families intact. In every case, what I look for as a deprogrammer before I deign to cut short a true believer’s cult membership is in the following model. Although I parsed the facets or elements to four, they could easily extend to eight or sixteen but experience with audiences has taught me to economize any definition of cult and to elaborate from there.

 

 

·        Transpersonal attraction

You might be happy, you might be sad, you might be seeking the truth, or you might be seeking nothing at all. You encounter a philosophy, group or teacher that suggests or even confirms that your performance, self-concept or ego needs improvement, purging or perhaps extinction so that you can better serve a grand purpose. The encounter unnerves you yet makes you curious. You might experience, feel or dream something mystical that magnifies the transcendent encounter. You feel taken beyond your person—to a transpersonal awareness.

The new path promises a way to eternal salvation, permanent health, great fortune, or ultimate freedom. Possibilities emerge to control sacred territory, to reduce global warming or to gain political protection for migrant workers. You become intrigued with saving the planet from sin or karmic retribution, tapping latent powers of the mind to heal self and others or, simply, to help a personal partner to make his or her dream of any of the above come true.

You soon learn that your self-concept and achievements are not good enough. You must change. You must transcend the limits imposed by society, religion and family. A call for change is always a risk but perhaps no more a risk than a refusal to change. We all know that but what we know to do about it is another matter. Totalist cults seek to exploit our confusion and ambivalence about “what to do” with core insights, intriguing answers and promising techniques.

To achieve this new and interesting purpose you realize that you will have to make changes. The new system or authority figure will help you transcend your limitations with a variety of techniques that can include confession and intimate self-revelations, chanting prayers or mantras, transformative workshops or intensives, submission or contract requirements, outdoor survival games, initiation rituals, ritualistic breathing, trance dancing, fire walking, sweat lodges, secret ordeals, changes in appearance and name, etc. The idea here is tapping the potential of the caterpillar and transformation into a butterfly—to change from an earthbound slug to a free and heavenly angel. But first you must enter the cult’s cocoon.

The cult member in this model is proverbially stuck in the chrysalis stage seeking to transcend the normal, boring or limited self. The cult doctrine and leader will tell you that without the effort to transmute the self, the service to the purpose cannot gain power and reach perfection. But who knows how much effort is sufficient? By what evidence is the devotee free, saved, or enlightened? Does anyone in the group ever get to fly? Who really benefits? Are you a chrysalis or merely a bug wrapped in a spider’s cocoon? Are you merely fodder for a predatory leader and a parasitic system?

The group may use archetypal models to encourage you. Jesus and Buddha sacrificed all and even family to serve, did they not? Jesus gave his very life. What are you doing with yours? Stories about St. Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, and Milarepa underscore the sacrificial life of heroes. Jesus fasted for forty days and Buddha practically starved himself to death before they acted on a purpose. St. Francis gave up a fortune to better serve his divine inspiration. Milarepa worked his butt off building and rebuilding a stone house many times for seemingly no reason to obey his Buddhist guru who promised to teach him ‘when the student was ready.’

The group will suggest that the transpersonal and true self can be accessed, perhaps more quickly, through altered states of consciousness. Drugs or entheogens are useful for some groups but most never use mind-altering substances. There are better ways to induce a sense of ecstasy. As a rule, cult members function best as deployable agents without drug influence whether or not the leaders find personal exceptions to this rule. The techniques already mentioned have the secondary effect to create intimate bonds with the group. Ingeniously, this seemingly spontaneous satori or euphoria evokes appreciation for and devotion to the group and leader that made it possible. Robert J. Lifton called this mystical manipulation.

After an ecstasy, the new devotee looks to the group for interpretation and support. Most cults realize this, so they will link you with a contact person or to the leader’s explanation. You become a potential cult recruit if you have an unsettling ecstasy independent of a group or leader. The spiritual experience may seem to come from nowhere or during an individual crisis caused by illness or environmental catastrophe or even incarceration. A weird epiphany can cause one to seek a system or group for context to help explain, contain, and sustain it. Without context the ecstasy (to stand outside oneself or seem out of place) might feel like a psychotic break with reality.

A cult leader might suggest that you are not insane but merely having a spiritual emergency, a karmic cleansing, or kundalini experience. However, as with hypnotic suggestions, the resulting insight must be reinforced or it will fade. Reinforcement requires bonds to a sympathetic group. The group recognizes and approves the transpersonal experience and it offers an opportunity for a purposeful life with that experience. You cannot see that you may have just followed a white rabbit down the hole into Wonderland. Once you enter that new, mysterious world the bonds are reinforced and even tightened through the next three elements.

 

·        Exclusive leadership

Charisma attends leaders whether they have one follower or millions. No person has more or less charisma. Charisma depends on a given relationship. One neurotic woman might experience a high level of charisma with a narcissistic man that everyone else finds obnoxious. Ten thousand fans at a music concert might feel a charismatic attraction to one lead singer as a few fans walk out in disgust. Jim Morrison of The Doors had a dark charisma when I first saw the band appear on a Philadelphia stage in 1967—or was it 1966? The entire audience, as I recall, was transfixed, even mesmerized during the entire concert. I was too. The talented band was at the top of its game in those years.

A year or two later I slept through an entire Doors concert. Admittedly, I was tired from lack of sleep and no lack of wine and cannabis but I was among thousands of cheering fans again in Philadelphia. The pounding drums had no effect on me slumped in my stadium seat. One of my friends woke me when it was over. I became the brunt of their jokes on the way home. In any case, for me the band’s charisma had worn off. When I first encountered him, Jim Morrison intrigued me as the dark shaman on stage with his mystical lyrics but later he was merely another good entertainer whose stage antics turned stale. His was a cult of personality driven by the ephemeral spirit of the Sixties.

The charisma of a guru or transformational group leader is different than that of a music idol because the purpose is different. Add to the guru an elitist cult of devotion as to a singular avatar or messiah and you have a social island of charisma that offers a life choice and not mere temporal entertainment. However, charisma exists in a relationship of perceived qualities. Although the group or devotee invests the lion’s share of power in the leader, the leader nevertheless depends on responses and cues from his audience to manage that power. A clever narcissist will feed his admirers with what they want to perceive and feel.

If the guru wants to maintain power he must manage the demands of his cult and he must perform convincingly. His identity depends on how well he evokes devotion from his cult following. It is a job with intense duties. All living rivals must be devalued. In totalist cults the demands can be overwhelming even on the most narcissistic of gurus. Like rock music idols and entertainers charismatic gurus need breaks from performing for devotees. It is not unusual for well-established gurus to create devotional tension by remaining inaccessible to their cults for long periods.

Charisma once established acts like a psychic leash on a devotee’s emotional and spiritual life. This powerful link with the leader is one-sided as only one can control the leash. Some folks in my business call this mind control. A system of managed beliefs, rituals and regulations sustains the personal connection with the central figure, idea or object of devotion. Ironically, in cults the devotee often agrees to the leash arrangement because he is convinced that he needs one.

The leader and group will supply the new recruit with an interesting foundation myth that supports the leader’s claims to authority. The foundation myth generally reflects a profound spiritual experience and private journey taken by the leader. As a full-fledged guru the leader’s story often contains an initial reluctance or confusion to take on his or her mission. This indicates that the leader was not merely naive—he actually applied some skepticism and tested the spirits!

Once enlightened about the calling as a new messiah, prophet, or avatar the leader exhibits courage against all odds to proclaim his mission. Like Christ or Joan of Arc the leader experiences barbs of criticism and social persecution. He or she is often quick to point to that similarity, “They persecuted Jesus too!” The popular press as well as rival groups can be especially cynical and demeaning about the grandiose claims of cult leaders, thus fulfilling the persecuted god complex.

As to the leader’s magical self-story of enlightenment or entitlement, we can take or leave a collection of extraordinary tales that no one can readily prove. If there is a counter history to the leader’s claims then the group’s job is to deflect any and all disconfirmation. This is not easy if the basis of the irrational claim or the evidence for it comes solely from the leader’s testimony. Thus the circular ideation of most cult leaders: “If you do not believe me, just ask me.” Similar justifications based on solipsism come from the devotee: “It is my experience that it is true because I resonate with the leader and the path works for me.” Whether you can judge a cult leader by his fruits is a loaded question but it remains the primary avenue for critics. Devotees on the other hand will argue that outsiders cannot grasp the true value of the leader or group experience by what it appears to do. In the devotee’s mind the grand purpose is possible no matter what appearances indicate to outsiders.

 

·        Circular tension

I can never get people to understand that poetry is the expression of excited passion, and that there is no such thing as a life of passion any more than a continuous earthquake, or an eternal fever. Besides, who would ever shave themselves in such a state?     Lord Byron, in a letter to Thomas Moore, 5 July 1821

 

We often use phrases like circle of friends, family circle, and circle of influence to describe social contracts and relationships. A gang can be a ring of thieves. The implication is that the bond surrounds something or someone. The bond is an organizing principle. We as outsiders sense that the system is closed up within the circle. To enter it one must join by enduring some kind of initiation. We prepare to climb through levels of improvement and awareness. I will suggest here that participating in a harmful totalist cult is not so much being inside a circle as moving on one. Circular tension is a perversion of that proverbial “razor’s edge” known to seekers familiar with Eastern religion and Somerset Maugham’s 1944 novel by that name. Maugham quotes Hinduism’s Katha-Upanishad (III: 14) for the epigraph of The Razor’s Edge:

“The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard.”

Another translation by Sri Aurobindo says it this way: “Arise, awake, find out the great ones and learn of them: for sharp as a razor’s edge, hard to traverse, difficult of going is that path, say the sages.” [4]

Cults that concern a deprogrammer manipulate dynamic relationships to keep members focused on a dubious purpose. Members do “the work” constantly, sustain rituals of self-improvement, maintain doctrinal thoughts, and strive to serve a transcendent ideal. That ideal is never completely understood (as well as the leader or managers apparently understand) but one can certainly approach that goal by doing certain things. In fact, most cults rely on a leader’s progressive exposition of the foundation myth that has many irrational therefore questionable features.

The apparent upward climb to enlightenment or deeper relationship with God soon reaches a plateau. This plateau may have more to do with common human limitations—there is no evidence that psychic powers are repeatable under test conditions, for example—than any thing else. Veteran cult members and even the leader seem to be no more enlightened at this “advanced” stage of membership, yet you persist because you made a commitment and continue to hope for new gains and revelations. Your brain may have the capacity to question or doubt your spiritual attainment but a powerful cult suggestion tells you “do not go there” or you will fall prey to the exit perils.

The leader is the only one that represents a fully enlightened being so only the leader can act as a guide to your enlightenment. The catch here is that unless you are enlightened like the leader you cannot grasp and achieve the full mystery of the revelation, a revelation that the leader changes from time to time to suit his needs anyway. So you continue meditating, chanting, taking workshops, performing seva or services, adjusting your attitude, praying, and adapting to new revelations.

Fear and doubt are the devils you suppress daily. As my hippie era colleagues used to say, “You just keep on truckin! But the illusion in deceptive cults is that you are on a path to climb the highest mountain, to move up a ladder to total freedom, or that the path as journey is the truth—you are already there if you are on the way! Just keep going. From the deprogrammer’s perspective harmful cults tie people to a circular path that seems never ending and yet never quite fulfills promises.

One might argue that most of life is repetition anyway with rounds of workdays and social functions, so why should cults be any different? Native American jargon says that we live in a hoop as indicated by the sun, moon and stars going around us with seasons coming and going regularly. Major religions all have cycles of devotion and repeat rituals. New Agers like to point to the “non-linear” circle of life. The circle of cult life by that standard seems normal and natural. Indeed, cults as devotional circles are natural to human social function and may indeed be necessary in the larger scheme of human development. That is my point. Deceptive cults imply that one can break free of this humdrum hoop of a world but to do that one must join an even tighter, more extreme form of hoop as defined by that cult. One can not be normally or naturally circular. Being intelligently if moderately Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Christian is not good enough. Did not Jesus say, “The lukewarm I will vomit from my mouth?” Of course, being moderate has nothing to do with being lukewarm—which is an equivocation—which is the point of this third element of tight circular regulation or ideation.

Over the decades I have engaged in thousands of intense discussions with members of hundreds of different cultic groups. Many hundreds of these discussions ranged over a period of days during interventions with family members present. Most cult members I meet are educated, have good reading abilities and can function rather well as citizens in the surrounding community. However, they follow a conditioned urge to use their considerable mental skill to justify being on a controversial path in the face of criticism. The cult member talks in circles, so to speak, or loops of jargon to deflect troubling evidence. Lifton identifies this as the “thought terminating cliché.” If you dare to challenge fragile but stubborn beliefs you may have to deal with equivocation (they persecuted Jesus too), solipsism (this is my truth and it is my experience that it is true), and tautology (those who know, know) followed by scientific and historical nonsense (Tesla’s invention of free electricity was eradicated by big oil and the Catholic Church destroyed the manuscripts that contain the true teachings of Jesus).

Case History: An elderly doctor who was also a college professor called me to express his frustration that he could not talk with his thirty-seven year old son any longer about his son’s cult. He had stopped trying to reason his son out of the group years before because it merely led to ugly argument. The father used his considerable knowledge of science, religion and history to no avail. The son, also a medical doctor, was involved with a New Age cult for six years and was about to leave his clinic to personally serve the leader at her suggestion. This was a much deeper leap of commitment for him on his spiritual journey. He was finally becoming “serious” about his spiritual life.

The family engaged me to try to repair open discussion between father and son. When the son came home for a short visit I walked in with a sister for breakfast. The father introduced me as the surprise guest. I introduced myself and my purpose for being there. The son agreed to meet for a few hours. After two or three days with me guiding a family discussion and after getting him to talk to an ex-member on the phone he left the group.

When it was all over the father called me “a magician” because he watched his son change from a true believer to a former member right before his eyes. What I did had nothing to do with magic. I merely drew the young doctor into a wider frame of reference than his cult allowed. I tapped his suppressed ambivalence about the group—deep inside he struggled with many of the irrational demands but that he could never acknowledge before meeting with me. After accepting the group, he became committed to his commitment, thus the circular ideation. After six years he still had a difficult time explaining to his father why he was loyal to the leader—he just was. The week before I met him he proclaimed to his girlfriend that he would do anything the guru asked. In his mind, he had achieved a state of total submission and he stopped questioning why.

During the first five to ten hours it appeared we were getting nowhere with this young, sensitive doctor. The father had heard all of his defenses before but there was a difference. I could sympathize with the son’s philosophy and could add to it by explaining origins of the foundation myth. I entered his circle of thought rather than attack it. I offered insights into the leader’s life without criticizing the system. Criticism came much later. Those first hours were dominated by the circular ideation that can frustrate a critic that engages a cult member. The young doctor could have left the discussion at any time but did not out of respect for his father. That was the only leverage we needed in this case initially. The rest came when I piqued his interest with new and non-threatening information.

Many a skeptic that confronts a hard core cult member will tell you, “I tried to reason with him but got nowhere. We just went round and round about the same things it seemed.” Circular arguments end when one party says, “Well, you have your reality and I have mine. We will just have to agree to disagree. Unless you have my experience you cannot know if this is true or not. You are coming from your head and to know my truth you have to come from your heart. If you doubt it you cannot know the truth. If you are not enlightened you will not understand.” These statements are thought stopping clichés that end discursive thinking as well as dialogue. Self-expression becomes a monologue. At this stage the frustrated skeptic has images of hitting his opponent over the head with a hammer to knock some sense into him. The cult member feels that he or she has just won and continues truckin’ merrily along. All so-called seeds of doubt the skeptic tried to sow soon burn up in the heat of ritual or blow away in the winds of dogma.

If anything defines mind control it is circular ideation or a fixed mind set. Tethered ideologically to a leader’s revelation the devotee will adjust his or her thoughts and impulses to sustain the least resistance and to stay in a flow. Leadership or cult management can jerk the chain of influence to get the member back in line if he drifts too far. Management can snap a whip if the devotee comes too close. The leader’s domain of authority is inside the circle—no one else is allowed there without permission. Think of a dressage trainer with a young or untamed horse in a ring (I was introduced to training horses this way, so I have some idea). A well-trained or experienced horse will hardly tug on the lead and needs only subtle movement from the whip to guide.

Of course, this is a metaphor. Human beings are not horses but ex-members of controversial cults with totalist features can identify with the metaphor. To carry it further, every member felt the all-seeing-eye of the leader on their backs whenever they ventured forth to work in society, fundraise or recruit new members. Internalizing the guru or leader who acts in the place of God or as God is a common cult experience. “I live now, not I, but Christ lives in me,” said St. Paul and members of Bible cults who believe that their “anointed” preacher speaks for Christ. “The guru is greater than God,” say Sant Mat related cult devotees. “The guru arranges everything.”

It is a mistake to think that cult members are stupid. Most of them will argue circles around you. Unless you are well-prepared and very patient you might end up feeling stupid after a session with a cult member. Muslim fanatics for example include doctors and other professionals who know very well how to justify a Muslim Brotherhood version of Sharia or Muslim law. The question is why? Part of the answer is in my first point of transpersonal purpose. The devotee comes to a belief that a grand purpose is not only necessary but is also attainable. Therefore, he or she will act in faith to further the process through self-sacrifice and ego-extinction (if that were possible). The other half of this bargain regards what is outside of the circle or that perilous area of social and psychological interaction that continually tests the devotee.

 

·        Exit perils

To leave this path is like a dog returning to eat its vomit.

Now that I’ve found God, Satan is everywhere trying to take me back.

Satan acts through the ones you love.

Now that you are on the Path, dark forces will attempt to dissuade and harm you. Your own mind will rebel with doubts and counterarguments.

It would be better for you to have never found the truth than to abandon it. Traitors will suffer ten-thousand lifetimes without another chance for redemption.

If you reject the protection of the master your karma will descend and you will be vulnerable to accident, illness and insanity. The dark forces will roost on you like ravens on a corpse.

The greatest tests appear when you are on the verge of victory.

Ah, the adventure of it all. Imagine life without all that drama. A totalist cult devotee cannot. He or she is on a razor’s edge of self discovery and service. It is a thin line that sustains a loyal circle around a leader’s high demands. Like the tightrope walker the cult member fears falling to personal harm without the group safety net. If you fail to serve well or express doubts, the leader just might pull the net and sever your leash. You will spin out into the social quagmire that only wants to swallow you into rounds of fast food, popular television, mundane jobs, unbridled sex, and worst of all you will become part of that ignorant mass of clueless humans on their way to perdition.

Your immediate instinct will be to find a way back into the graces of the group and guru. If you do return you will be treated not like a prodigal son but more like a neophyte with suspicion and higher demands on your loyalty. Yes, every sane religion or ethical society will warn members of these same materialistic distractions to a good life and, yes, some ex-members do fall into a self-destructive lifestyle by living it up after leaving a restrictive cult life. Most do not and most become productive citizens after making some difficult adjustments. But in all cases the exit perils are very real and not just threats.[5]

Many members of totalist cults decide to leave the group years before making a physical break and announcing it to the group. Why is this? Can they not just walk away? No they cannot because the exit costs are usually very high. Can you just walk away from your promises, job, property, investments, closest friends, marriage, children, or God even if you had a good reason? What would it take? How would you prepare? When would you be ready? During the process of deciding, how many times would your ambivalence kick in to change your resolve? What are you prepared to lose? How would you know that the alternative is any better? What if the guru is right? The very thought of going through with such a decision could drive you temporarily insane. The guru warned you about that, did he not?

Who can you trust for information about spiritual matters, career, identity issues, or medical needs? For years you absorbed the cult’s spin on all of that and now everything is in doubt. Who are you now and what is your purpose in life? Those same questions got you into this mess to begin with. Someone gave you ready answers or at least a way to find them—now what? Dare you ask those same questions again?          

The reality of the closed system shows its power over you when you dare to defect. Benjamin Zablocki suggests that brainwashing is most apparent when cult members consider leaving the group or belief system.[6] Your very life and mind are in peril when you choose to leave a totalist cult. In some cases death threats are literal but most are metaphorical. Cults that arbitrarily without due process decide who is saved and who is not, or who has rights and who does not, “dispense existence.” The dispensing of existence is the last of Robert J. Lifton’s eight themes that comprise a thought reform milieu or process (See his eight themes in the appendix). In his final analysis this one theme practically defines a cult. It is the “them verses us” mentality defined by Arthur Deikman in his book by that name.

In choosing to defect the group member must come to grips with what happened. Spiritual rape is a common description. For some rape may be too strong an image but it is nevertheless very unsettling to realize that you have shared your most intimate self for years with a deceitful, perhaps nutcase guru that is incapable of truly guiding you. Then there is the peril of facing your own functional integrity. A body of believers can participate wholeheartedly in the delusions of the lead person—cults, like persons, can have personality disorders with delusional features (for example, grandiosity) albeit shared ones as in ‘folie a groupe.’ Thus, a doubting devotee may feel imperiled by the very possibility of recognizing that his behavior in the cult was madness in action.

Deprogramming works when it reduces the perils of the exit process. Deprogrammers do this by reality testing questionable beliefs and perceptions with the client. Insights from the lives of ex-members from the same and other cults help. If they survived and thrived under worse perils then so can you. Undermining the authority of the leader with solid scholarship and accurate history brings the ex-member not only to eye-level with the leader but also takes the leader out of the center of the circle, thus removing the illusion of him or her being transcendent.

The living leader is no more transcendent than you are. At eye-level one can assume authority and control over personal choice. Life feels perilous when we are not in control and dependency increases. With self-reliance restored we can take the reins of our horse, so to speak. The deprogrammer is like a coach or “horse whisperer” that convinces the wary animal that crossing a creek to leave an enclosed area is not so dangerous. The creek is a metaphor for all the phobias and imagined threats that cult members avoid. Some of these phobias remain even after crossing the “most dangerous” waters. This is not an easy process if we are not used to riding alone [taking back your life], especially on a skittish horse, but it is a clearer one with known possibilities after a successful intervention.

You, as an ex-member, may notice a wide variety of people, average folks you used to look down upon from your elite cult position, that are doing quite well. At eye-level you find it easier to identify with them again or maybe for the first time if you were raised in an elitist cult. Normal life and plain religion now appear very exciting when you realize that salvation and enlightenment are still possible and probably more so. You no longer have to wear a social and intellectual straightjacket, converse with angels or be able to read auras for God to love you. You no longer need to pursue a grandiose future to feel good in this normal life.

If your leader and cultic group were unhealthy, then, by contrast there can be healthy groups and leaders out there. The deprogrammer should offer some guidelines to get you started but he or she will not direct your specific choice of healthier circles. The deprogrammer’s invitation is for the cult member to get off the tiny merry-go-round of a haunted and badly managed theme park. The deprogrammer encourages the client to exit into a greater circle of life. Yes there will be problems and risks but it is really not that dangerous once you learn to ride on your own.

 

3. Images of cult formation

The illustrations below present the unhealthy and healthy models of cult activity as I see it. By surround I mean to indicate the social environment assuming that it is reasonably democratic and not a totalist political system or abusive dictatorship. Ironically, more cults tend to appear in open political climates that tolerate social experimentation than under dictatorships that do not, but they tend to thrive in chaotic cultures. In my view, cult formation is an essential human trait and not an aberration. Unfortunately for scholars, the popular mind fueled by media reports and anti-cult literature has identified only aberrant social groups as cults.

 

First we will glance at a few symbols used to illustrate the structure of a cult.

Starting from the left side, one common symbolic structure for cult formation is the triangle. It indicates a dominant management force or leader at the top overseeing or lording over a sequence of social layers with a mass of subservient devotees on the bottom. Next is the square that symbolizes folks being “boxed in” by many or four facets. Arthur Deikman posited four sides of this box: Compliance with a group, Dependence on a leader, Avoiding dissent, and Devaluing outsiders. Janja Lalich with her “bounded choice” theory defines a cult with four attributes that form a self-sealing system: Charismatic authority, Transcendent belief system, Systems of control, and Systems of influence. Steven Hassan offers four attributes of “cult mind control” in his BITE model: Behavior control, information control, thought control, and emotional control.

The circle is perhaps the obvious and most elegant illustration, both as a symbol and a metaphor for cult formation: circle of friends, inner circle, sphere of influence, encircled, etc. The model I propose expands on the circle to help me explain the reality of harmful cult experience. Below, a conical shape illustrates the “ideal path” that seekers are led to imagine when entering a transcendent belief system that promises total freedom, enlightenment, or a way out of mundane or sinful earthly life. The ideal path appears to spiral up, up and away into heaven, infinity, or nirvana. The guru is already “there.” The devotee strives to make his way to salvation guided by a guru. In harmful systems the devotee feels progress in the beginning but soon gets stuck between the perilous “fall” back to where he started and the impossible or inaccessible space ostensibly occupied by the leader. The devotee remains on a narrow ledge [mimicking the razor’s edge of Buddhism] feeling the tension and excitement of being on a “high” path. 

 

 

Looking at the illustration on the right from above we see something like the models below. The first illustrations offer the actual view an outsider or critic will have of someone in a harmful cult. The circular path that the group member believes is a spiral upward is actually a pit or rut wherein a restrictive lifestyle keeps the member sealed off from both the social surround and the sacred domain of the leader.

 

 

The unhealthy cult devotee perceives the path as progressing toward enlightenment and perfection while rising “up” to spiritual freedom, ascension and immortality. Circular movement gives the illusion of progress.

Moving to a healthier cult system, we see an expansion into the surround with less restriction. We find that devotees recognize a more democratic relationship with leadership with mechanisms to replace leadership when necessary. The transcendent reality remains as transcendent to a living leader as it does to devotees—all can fall, all can rise equally, all can find inspiration, none are “God.” After writing an earlier draft, I came upon this same concept by authors David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen (1991) in their analysis of abuse in Christian churches. Their illustration has the same democratic relationship that leaders and members should have with the transcendent (Jesus in their illustration) and with one another.[7] 

The first illustration shows the harmful cult system as closed around the membership if they are to sustain a transpersonal purpose and avoid peril. Doing rituals, transformational sessions, recruiting, and fundraising always trump the discursive activity of examining internal doubts and entertaining surrounding criticism. In the expansive, second model of a healthy cult (yes, there is such a thing) we clearly see an enclosed arena of activity that nevertheless sustains easy access both socially and intellectually with the surround (the social and intellectual environment). I borrow the term surround as applied by self-psychologists that follow the work of Heinz Kohut (1913-1981) who significantly advanced Freud’s analytic approach to psychotherapy. “Narrowly conceived, self-psychology consists of ideas of Heinz Kohut, ideas that apply to the understanding and treatment of narcissistic disorders.”[8]

Narcissism as both a behavior trait and a disorder appears in discussions about cults and cult leaders,[9] thus my interest in Kohut and how he used the surround to augment assessments of self. In Kohut’s psychology, some measure of narcissism may be healthy just as in my discussion here certain cult formations can be healthy. Malignant narcissism appears in totalist systems that harm participants and society. Cults as closed authoritarian systems create perceptions about the social environment and greatly influence interactions with that environment. In that process a manipulative cult will tap and feed the narcissistic tendencies of recruits with grandiose transpersonal causes and infect the recruits with flawed perceptions of peril projected on the surround. I am not about to elaborate on Kohut’s ideas here (even if I could) but I believe his insights regarding the self as part of an interactive social structure can add value to this discussion. I only wish to alert the reader why I use surround in my illustrations.

In the healthier version, the group member has ease of contact with the surround as well as reasonable entry and exit with no hidden agendas either way. The transpersonal purpose is not confused with the person of the living leader or guru. In other words, until the leader is dead and gone he is just as human as his followers albeit with a special role. He must serve the purpose, not have the purpose serve him as if he were God or a god. There is no such thing as a living god. Gods are spirits if they exist at all. Even in Christianity, a religion that claims a living deity in the historical Jesus, we read of the struggle among the Apostles to recognize “God” as Jesus until after his death and reported resurrection. Similarly, the avatars of Hinduism exist as divine creatures only in Hindu scripture and on some devotional levels. Any claim by a living guru to be the tenth or Kalki Avatar, for example, is bogus until he dies and “earns” it through a living testament to the fruits of his labor. The quality of the tradition is what we can criticize when the “divine” person is gone.

For example, the Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) founded by Swami Yogananda in 1925 posits the mysterious, a-historical Babaji as the divine root inspiration for the lineage of SRF gurus. Babaji can function as the traditional embodiment of the transpersonal much like Jesus does in Christianity but the embodied or living leader cannot in my view. The extent that any devotee sees the living guru as having achieved a transpersonal state is the extent to which the devotee risks living in a closed system controlled by the guru. The only humans I know that handle divine power well are those that can hold molten steel in their bare hands indefinitely.

I remind the reader that these are my models that assist me to help my clients assess their group experience. I do not make exceptions regarding the God confusion. No living leader is God or a god. Many traditions have deified a living leader like Caesar but during Roman inaugurations a slave stood behind a triumphant general and chanted, “Memento mori [remember, thou art mortal; remember, you will die].” In a similar vein during papal coronations a plain Catholic monk holds a pole on which burns a common piece of flax. Once it stops burning the monk thrice repeats, “Pater sancte, sic transit gloria mundi [Fame is fleeting, Holy Father; remember, you are mortal].” Cult leaders and dictators that take center stage as objects of devotion tend to avoid this admonition.

As self-object to his adoring throngs within a cult circle, any leader can be caught up in a divinization mood. If that leader already has unfulfilled needs for adulation, a disorder of malignant narcissism, then the totalist cult emerges readily but the fan or devotee is just as responsible for the deification. This is always a two-way process. Robert Lifton called this “ideological totalism” wherein the immoderate desires of a group meet the grandiose ideas of a leader. The leader presents a convincing possibility that he has attained transcendence or embodies the transcendental purpose and the group says, “We want that too. Show us the way.” This meeting ground takes on a “momentum of its own” says Lifton beyond the initial goals envisioned by the leader or the followers.[10]

Feeding his narcissism the leader accommodates the devotion and finds ways to control the play of forces surrounding his position. The more cult members get “caught up” in the irrational nets of devotion the less likely they will have their rational feet on the ground. This is an unstable position because humans are not gods. To sustain the god illusion the group and guru must devise strategies to frame perception. Phobias and paranoid responses inevitably arise due to conflicts with reality thus creating the circle of peril. Critical responses from the surround inadvertently feed the peril by fulfilling cult-induced perceptions of an enemy ready to destroy the seeker’s soul by creating doubt and inviting defection from the divine path.

Acknowledging the transcendental goal does not mean it is achievable, necessary or even desirable. How we live with God may be more valid and viable than becoming God. To use a metaphor, we can acknowledge that the sun is necessary for our existence but that does not mean that being closer to the sun increases our existence. Narcissistic leaders would have us believe that their techniques can hurtle us toward that sun of transcendence while skeptics ridicule their antics and opponents curse their lies. One image of pseudo-transcendence comes from Transcendental Meditation devotees (TMers) that claim to “fly” as they hop around while holding a seated lotus position. The group members call this the first stage of “yogic flying” and will produce many pseudo-scientific studies to support their sacred claims. Manipulative cults have come up with a wide variety of Towers of Babel for millennia.

To expose the false beliefs, the deprogrammer must convince the cult member that his perceptions are not only defective but also how the group managers and leader have manipulated those very perceptions and behaviors. Moreover, a cult member will choose to defect only with a realization that a less restricted mind offers better options for a better life. My job, the deprogrammer’s job, is to reinforce healthy ways of using information. Brain science indicates that a healthy brain is one that continues to stop and think. As Kathleen Taylor indicates in her book Brainwashing, a healthy brain function is not stuck in thought patterns or on a fast neuro-track to a flawed organizing principle like an addiction to a drug, a false belief, or a highly constrained social system.

In effect, the deprogrammer’s job is to raise the seeker’s awareness back to eye-level with reality thereby both reducing the perception of exit peril and exposing the false authority of a leader. He does this to some extent by repeating the process that got the cult member into the closed system. After gaining rapport the deprogrammer unveils new ways of seeing cult experience and behavior. New information may surprise, intrigue and attract the cult member to want to hear more. The result is a wider frame of reference with clearer options for choice. With access to reliable, reasonable evidence and insight into better options, the member can navigate safely through an exit and beyond.

 

 

4. Interventions vary

Interventions vary in intent and intensity based on need and the current status of the cult member. I am not about to describe the process of exit counseling in depth here. For that the reader can turn to other sources (Giambalvo, Hassan, Langone). My purpose is to merely suggest that an exit counselor must determine which stage a cult member is in to better advise a client as to approach for intervention 

1. Rabbit in the hat stage: The seeker expresses curiosity after reading literature, attending one meeting, or trying a new technique for first time. He has an attraction to but expresses no identification with the group or movement yet. Locus of control remains in the self that continues to make choices with wide frame of reference to the environment, family and friends. Intervention at this stage is relatively less intense. A good internet exposé of the cult, a critical book about it, or a conversation on the phone with an ex-member or exit counselor can all work to curtail that attractive “leap” of faith or entry into a manipulated experience at a workshop or service.

2. Rabbit out of the hat stage: The seeker has gone to a week-end or week-long intensive and comes back glowing with affirmation. The seeker now member engages in positive talk about the group and makes effort to recruit. The member deflects any negative information and may not engage in argument. At this “honeymoon” stage, the exit counselor will advise the concerned persons against argument or sharing negative information. A formal intervention will require significant preparation of the concerned persons prior to any meeting between the exit counselor and cult member. “Preps” vary according to the style and approach of an exit counselor. Some may require several days of therapeutic sessions and even months of effort to regain rapport with the cult member prior to intervention. Of course, non-coercive access to a meeting with the cult member must be possible to arrange. Typically, the actual exit session can last two or more days, and maybe a week if it is to succeed.

3. Rabbit on plateau stage: At this stage the cult member has been in for enough time (usually years) to have reached saturation point as to what the group actually offers. The member may even be one of the sub-leaders or elders and has seen and experienced much of the inside conflict and abuse but will not define it as such. The member may even be aware of many ex-member stories yet has no emotional empathy and intellectual integrity to see any criticism as significant. As above the concerned persons must refrain from argument about the group for intervention to be possible. Preparation with the exit counselor and intervention team is crucial.

4. Rabbit weary of cult life stage: Many long-time cult members grow weary of core group life but have become so identified with it and accustomed to ritual that the alternatives still feel worse and perhaps even dangerous. Sometimes these well-seasoned members exist on the fringes of the movement, attending only the necessary functions, and have jobs and lives outside the group. Eileen Barker, PhD calls this group “the marginals” who live as believers yet closer to the extended environment in a non-exclusive style.[11] Interventions with such marginals may be easier to arrange but sessions to exit them will prove to be exacting and tedious unless one is well-prepared and broadly educated. The exit counselor will have to be prepared for deep discussions about the “meaning of life” and how to assess “truth” in any religion or philosophy. Nevertheless, I have found that the same tools (videos describing cult behavior and influence techniques) still prove equally effective with marginals that may have never considered the information.

 

Reading list from references:

 

    Deikman, Arthur (2003) Them and Us: Cult Thinking and the Terrorist Threat (Berkeley, CA: Bay Tree)

    Giambalvo, Carol. Family Interventions for Cult-Affected Loved Ones (originally published as Exit Counseling: A Family Intervention) Available as PDF: http://store.icsahome.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ICIB&Product_Code=BAGL1&Category_Code=BK

    Hassan, Steven (1988) Combatting Cult Mind Control (Park Street Press)

    Johnson, David and Van Vonderen, Jeff (1991) The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House)

    Lalich, Janja  (2007) Bounded Choice: True Believers and  Charismatic Cults (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press)

    Langone, Michael, editor (1995) Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse (W.W. Norton & Company)

    Lifton, Robert (1989) Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China (University of North Carolina Press)

    Singer, Margaret with Lalich, Janja (2003) Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass)

    Taylor, Kathleen (2004) Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control (New York, NY: University of Oxford Press)

    Zablocki, Benjamin and Robbins, Thomas (2001) Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field (Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press

 

home