62 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 9, 2018
concepts, terms, and ideas. Because of the
position that science holds in modern Western
society, the inclusion of scientific terminology
and concepts are important signifiers for the
validity of the information presented. That is, “if
a claim ‘looks and smells’ scientific ...
communications may be made more convincing
without any alteration in content, simply by
virtue of being presented with elements
associated with science [emphasis added]” (Tal
&Wansink, 2014, p. 2). Scientific language
does not necessarily have to be used correctly,
nor does it necessarily have to add anything of
value to the argument, for some members of the
public to perceive a statement, or a product, as
more credible. For instance, Weisberg et al.’s
2008 study found nonexperts were more likely
to judge a statement about neuroscience more
positively if it included signifying terminology.
The inclusion of scientific information and
vocabulary made statements “look more
satisfying than they actually [were], or at least
more satisfying than they otherwise would be
judged” (Weisberg et al., 2008, p. 475).
The adaptation of scientific concepts and terms
to fit within, or alongside, spiritual and religious
aspects is neither contradictory nor novel.
Instead, the combination of secular and religious
is arguably a product of the culture in which
GWP formed. GWP’s teachings attacked the
scientific method as faulty since it “fail[ed] to
account for anything that [could not] be
established through ...the five senses”
(Carreiro, 1987, p. 67). GWP’s claims that
science should have accepted reincarnation,
astrology, and etheric fields (Carreiro, 1987, p.
68), was perhaps an attempt to recast the
religious elements of GWP as something
nonsacred. GWP turned to scientific language
not only to uphold itself but also to attack critics.
It accused critics in the anticult movement,
particularly those who supported
deprogramming, of being scientifically
unreliable. Material on GWP’s website claimed
that those who practiced deprogramming
conducted no “clinical trials, no tactical efficacy
studies, no evidence of success or failure, no
outside documented studies and NO [sic] client
fate studies” (GWP, 2004c, p. 1). The latter
comment, in particular, demonstrated a lack of
understanding of the role, purpose, and limits of
science, and the importance of empirical
evidence in many scientific inquires.
GWP leaders set their group apart from the
deprogrammers (and others in the anticult
movement) by asserting that only the group’s
teaching could provide the real help for
individuals and humanity. Ironically, GWP
information asserted that one could observe “the
clearest sign of real deception and ‘extortion
tactics’” (GWP, 2004c, p. 2), when “individuals
attempt[ed] to promote themselves by tearing
down legitimate people and organizations”
(GWP, 2004c, p. 2). In many cases, however,
GWP literature and websites employed the
tactics that GWP derided (e.g., attempting to
discredit its opponents, and boasting about its
own “better” agenda and products). Its leaders
asserted that, in contrast to its critics, it had a
plethora of “evidence and studies from
professionals and end users in a variety of
authentic clinical settings” (GWP, 2004c, p. 1)
to prove the effectiveness of its healing
technology. The evidence, however, of these
studies being conducted in a verifiable and
proper manner is questionable (as I am about to
show).
GWP publications used a variety of scientific
and technical language, including referring to
the healing instruments as technology that
members engineered through blueprints
provided by the Brotherhood. Although these
terms are not inherently scientific, they do imply
a level of competency and specialized
knowledge. More explicitly scientific, some
GWP publications used the terms blind and
double-blind studies to describe research
conducted with the healing instruments (Miller,
1999b p. 26 Hostetler 2001 p. 9 GWP, 2004b
p. 2).
447F
448 Although GWP never released reports
or evidence of such studies, members reiterated
that blind and double-blind studies had been
conducted on the instruments. The validity of
these studies was questionable, however, given
448 In her deposition, however, Miller asserted that GWP conducted
no blind studies on the healing instruments themselves rather,
third parties conduct these so-called studies (Mary Miller dep.,
2005, p. 104).
concepts, terms, and ideas. Because of the
position that science holds in modern Western
society, the inclusion of scientific terminology
and concepts are important signifiers for the
validity of the information presented. That is, “if
a claim ‘looks and smells’ scientific ...
communications may be made more convincing
without any alteration in content, simply by
virtue of being presented with elements
associated with science [emphasis added]” (Tal
&Wansink, 2014, p. 2). Scientific language
does not necessarily have to be used correctly,
nor does it necessarily have to add anything of
value to the argument, for some members of the
public to perceive a statement, or a product, as
more credible. For instance, Weisberg et al.’s
2008 study found nonexperts were more likely
to judge a statement about neuroscience more
positively if it included signifying terminology.
The inclusion of scientific information and
vocabulary made statements “look more
satisfying than they actually [were], or at least
more satisfying than they otherwise would be
judged” (Weisberg et al., 2008, p. 475).
The adaptation of scientific concepts and terms
to fit within, or alongside, spiritual and religious
aspects is neither contradictory nor novel.
Instead, the combination of secular and religious
is arguably a product of the culture in which
GWP formed. GWP’s teachings attacked the
scientific method as faulty since it “fail[ed] to
account for anything that [could not] be
established through ...the five senses”
(Carreiro, 1987, p. 67). GWP’s claims that
science should have accepted reincarnation,
astrology, and etheric fields (Carreiro, 1987, p.
68), was perhaps an attempt to recast the
religious elements of GWP as something
nonsacred. GWP turned to scientific language
not only to uphold itself but also to attack critics.
It accused critics in the anticult movement,
particularly those who supported
deprogramming, of being scientifically
unreliable. Material on GWP’s website claimed
that those who practiced deprogramming
conducted no “clinical trials, no tactical efficacy
studies, no evidence of success or failure, no
outside documented studies and NO [sic] client
fate studies” (GWP, 2004c, p. 1). The latter
comment, in particular, demonstrated a lack of
understanding of the role, purpose, and limits of
science, and the importance of empirical
evidence in many scientific inquires.
GWP leaders set their group apart from the
deprogrammers (and others in the anticult
movement) by asserting that only the group’s
teaching could provide the real help for
individuals and humanity. Ironically, GWP
information asserted that one could observe “the
clearest sign of real deception and ‘extortion
tactics’” (GWP, 2004c, p. 2), when “individuals
attempt[ed] to promote themselves by tearing
down legitimate people and organizations”
(GWP, 2004c, p. 2). In many cases, however,
GWP literature and websites employed the
tactics that GWP derided (e.g., attempting to
discredit its opponents, and boasting about its
own “better” agenda and products). Its leaders
asserted that, in contrast to its critics, it had a
plethora of “evidence and studies from
professionals and end users in a variety of
authentic clinical settings” (GWP, 2004c, p. 1)
to prove the effectiveness of its healing
technology. The evidence, however, of these
studies being conducted in a verifiable and
proper manner is questionable (as I am about to
show).
GWP publications used a variety of scientific
and technical language, including referring to
the healing instruments as technology that
members engineered through blueprints
provided by the Brotherhood. Although these
terms are not inherently scientific, they do imply
a level of competency and specialized
knowledge. More explicitly scientific, some
GWP publications used the terms blind and
double-blind studies to describe research
conducted with the healing instruments (Miller,
1999b p. 26 Hostetler 2001 p. 9 GWP, 2004b
p. 2).
447F
448 Although GWP never released reports
or evidence of such studies, members reiterated
that blind and double-blind studies had been
conducted on the instruments. The validity of
these studies was questionable, however, given
448 In her deposition, however, Miller asserted that GWP conducted
no blind studies on the healing instruments themselves rather,
third parties conduct these so-called studies (Mary Miller dep.,
2005, p. 104).
