International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 67
the definition of religion for those groups
seeking privileges. Alternatively, if an ethically
neutral definition of religion is initially applied
in every context involving “religion” (along with
its ever expanding definitional dynamic), then
this ethically neutral definition might be
subjected to subsequent tests allowing benefits
or disqualifying groups from them.
Consumer Resistance to the Scientology
Brand
Finally, along with the baggage of alleged anti-
social and harmful behaviour, there might be
resistance to the supernatural product itself and
associated merchandise. There might be
reservations about the character of the founder
of the movement, and scepticism to claims made
for him by the organization. So for various
reasons associated with its beliefs, and practices
of worship97 associated with these beliefs,
Scientology might not be a particularly attractive
proposition for spiritual seekers in the religious
marketplace. This resistance might be
particularly pronounced in a socially secular
society such as Australia, which can be
distinguished in this respect from the birthplace
of Scientology, the United States.98 The pool of
genuine spiritual seekers may be comparatively
small, in real and percentage terms, in Australia.
Established traditions can rely on generational
habit and family expectations of participation in
rituals to de-emphasize the core supernatural
beliefs that define any religion, thereby retaining
tribal support from large numbers of disbelievers
or fellow-travellers. This broad, somewhat
secular support base is not so generally available
97 It is interesting that the Charity Commission for England and
Wales did not see auditing as worship—preferring instead to
equate it to counselling. As the then definition of religious charity
included belief in God and worship as the two pronged definition
of religion, Scientology failed by dint of definitional
disqualification to achieve entry to the privileges afforded by
religious charitable status. For a discussion of the various methods
employed to exclude groups from a class of privilege, see S.
Mutch, Cults and Religious Privileges, p. 135–151.
98 The “United States (formal separation, high religiosity)” is
compared with “Australia, where less than 10 per cent of the
population attends church weekly and less than a quarter monthly,
[and which] surely qualifies as a secular society in the sociological
sense” (M. Maddox, “Religion, State and Politics in Australia,” in
J. Jupp [ed.], op. cit., p. 608).
to emergent new religions. In addition,
Scientology faces the dilemma of the modern
age of globalization and instant access to
information. Although it has tried to screen the
core elements of its belief system from general
view, the intrusive nature of the Internet has
largely negated this strategy, exposing its
eclectic mix of supernatural beliefs to anyone
who persists with a detailed search (or views the
latest documentary).99 With more established
religious traditions, myths are able to be
generated about the founding prophet without
much fear of contradiction from reliable
evidence. In this respect, earlier prophets have
many advantages over L. Ron Hubbard who has
been subjected to some detailed, often scathing
contemporaneous critiques.100
It should also be noted that Scientology charges
significant fees for the various courses on offer
to advance the spiritual progress of its
members.101 It has been widely criticized for this
practice, with some questioning the religious
status of the organization on this basis alone,
particularly when monies received were said to
be siphoned off for the personal benefit of the
founder.102 But in the long run, particularly after
the death of the founder in 1986, its focus on
commercialism can hardly be used to
differentiate Scientology from other religious
99 The documentary Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of
Belief (US Channel HBO) based on the 2013 Going Clear:
Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief by L. Wright see
M. Idato, “HBO’s Scientology documentary Going Clear turns
into ratings magnet,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 April 2015,
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/hbos-
scientology-documentary-going-clear-turns-into-ratings-magnet-
20150331-1mcf2x.html
100 See e.g. R. Miller, Bare-Faced Mmessiah: The True Story of L.
Ron Hubbard, London, 1987.
101 The reported cost of Scientology courses is somewhat
prohibitive. Describing them as “predatorily costly,” M. Knox
claims that “today, although they start as low as $10, the most
often quoted figure for the cumulative cost of courses up to the
Tom Cruise level (OT VIII, one step from the top) is between
$300,000 and $500,000” (idem, op. cit., p. 34–43).
102 There are cases where a group is considered to be a sham or
parody, is contrary to nondiscriminatory law, or against public
policy (see G. Dal Pont, “Charity Law in Australia and New
Zealand,” Melbourne, 2000, p. 149, cited in I. F. Sheppard et al.,
op. cit., p. 177). But these disqualifications are rarely applied and
in the case of Scientology a decision along those terms would have
to overcome the existence of genuinely sincere adherents,
particularly long after the death of the founder, who might earlier
have been adjudged to have personally profited from the takings
and to have established the group substantially for that purpose.
the definition of religion for those groups
seeking privileges. Alternatively, if an ethically
neutral definition of religion is initially applied
in every context involving “religion” (along with
its ever expanding definitional dynamic), then
this ethically neutral definition might be
subjected to subsequent tests allowing benefits
or disqualifying groups from them.
Consumer Resistance to the Scientology
Brand
Finally, along with the baggage of alleged anti-
social and harmful behaviour, there might be
resistance to the supernatural product itself and
associated merchandise. There might be
reservations about the character of the founder
of the movement, and scepticism to claims made
for him by the organization. So for various
reasons associated with its beliefs, and practices
of worship97 associated with these beliefs,
Scientology might not be a particularly attractive
proposition for spiritual seekers in the religious
marketplace. This resistance might be
particularly pronounced in a socially secular
society such as Australia, which can be
distinguished in this respect from the birthplace
of Scientology, the United States.98 The pool of
genuine spiritual seekers may be comparatively
small, in real and percentage terms, in Australia.
Established traditions can rely on generational
habit and family expectations of participation in
rituals to de-emphasize the core supernatural
beliefs that define any religion, thereby retaining
tribal support from large numbers of disbelievers
or fellow-travellers. This broad, somewhat
secular support base is not so generally available
97 It is interesting that the Charity Commission for England and
Wales did not see auditing as worship—preferring instead to
equate it to counselling. As the then definition of religious charity
included belief in God and worship as the two pronged definition
of religion, Scientology failed by dint of definitional
disqualification to achieve entry to the privileges afforded by
religious charitable status. For a discussion of the various methods
employed to exclude groups from a class of privilege, see S.
Mutch, Cults and Religious Privileges, p. 135–151.
98 The “United States (formal separation, high religiosity)” is
compared with “Australia, where less than 10 per cent of the
population attends church weekly and less than a quarter monthly,
[and which] surely qualifies as a secular society in the sociological
sense” (M. Maddox, “Religion, State and Politics in Australia,” in
J. Jupp [ed.], op. cit., p. 608).
to emergent new religions. In addition,
Scientology faces the dilemma of the modern
age of globalization and instant access to
information. Although it has tried to screen the
core elements of its belief system from general
view, the intrusive nature of the Internet has
largely negated this strategy, exposing its
eclectic mix of supernatural beliefs to anyone
who persists with a detailed search (or views the
latest documentary).99 With more established
religious traditions, myths are able to be
generated about the founding prophet without
much fear of contradiction from reliable
evidence. In this respect, earlier prophets have
many advantages over L. Ron Hubbard who has
been subjected to some detailed, often scathing
contemporaneous critiques.100
It should also be noted that Scientology charges
significant fees for the various courses on offer
to advance the spiritual progress of its
members.101 It has been widely criticized for this
practice, with some questioning the religious
status of the organization on this basis alone,
particularly when monies received were said to
be siphoned off for the personal benefit of the
founder.102 But in the long run, particularly after
the death of the founder in 1986, its focus on
commercialism can hardly be used to
differentiate Scientology from other religious
99 The documentary Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of
Belief (US Channel HBO) based on the 2013 Going Clear:
Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief by L. Wright see
M. Idato, “HBO’s Scientology documentary Going Clear turns
into ratings magnet,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 April 2015,
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/hbos-
scientology-documentary-going-clear-turns-into-ratings-magnet-
20150331-1mcf2x.html
100 See e.g. R. Miller, Bare-Faced Mmessiah: The True Story of L.
Ron Hubbard, London, 1987.
101 The reported cost of Scientology courses is somewhat
prohibitive. Describing them as “predatorily costly,” M. Knox
claims that “today, although they start as low as $10, the most
often quoted figure for the cumulative cost of courses up to the
Tom Cruise level (OT VIII, one step from the top) is between
$300,000 and $500,000” (idem, op. cit., p. 34–43).
102 There are cases where a group is considered to be a sham or
parody, is contrary to nondiscriminatory law, or against public
policy (see G. Dal Pont, “Charity Law in Australia and New
Zealand,” Melbourne, 2000, p. 149, cited in I. F. Sheppard et al.,
op. cit., p. 177). But these disqualifications are rarely applied and
in the case of Scientology a decision along those terms would have
to overcome the existence of genuinely sincere adherents,
particularly long after the death of the founder, who might earlier
have been adjudged to have personally profited from the takings
and to have established the group substantially for that purpose.
