68 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 5, 2014
Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief
By Lawrence Wright
Reviewed by Terra A. Manca
New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 2013. Going
Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison
of Belief. ISBN-10: 0307700666 ISBN-13: 978-
0307700667 (hardcover), $20.12 (Amazon.com).
Going Clear is author Lawrence Wright’s eighth
book (seventh nonfiction). Wright has been on
staff with The New Yorker since 1992 and has
written several plays and movies. He has
received numerous awards, including the
Pulitzer Prize for The Looming Tower (The New
Yorker, 2013). His work on Scientology began
with a 26-page article about director Paul
Haggis’s exit from Scientology (Wright, 2011).
With Haggis as a key informant for his book
Going Clear, he has covered various topics but
focuses on Scientology’s history, current Church
leader David Miscavige’s rise to power (and his
alleged abuse of Scientologists), and the
experiences of high-ranking Scientologists and
celebrities. The book has proved to be
controversial and consequently has not been
published in Canada or the United Kingdom
(Calderone, 2013 The Daily Beast, 2013).
Throughout the book, Wright switches topics
readily by following tangents (often for pages),
but he covers his intended main themes. Indeed,
Going Clear is informative, entertaining, and
has been well received by most reviewers. That
said, current Scientologists might find this book
offensive. The Church of Scientology created a
website with the intention of “correcting”
alleged errors in Wright’s book and contesting
his use of former members as informants
(Church of Scientology, 2013). Wright may
have included some very minor errors. For
instance, Wright states that in “November 2007,
actors Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes married,”
when in fact the couple wed in November 2006
(p. 303). Even so, such minor errors are less
extensive than the Church of Scientology (2013)
suggests (see The Daily Beast, 2013).
Furthermore, Wright was aware of many
competing narratives between his sources and
church documents or officials—which he
primarily shares in footnotes. When possible he
has provided detailed descriptions of current
members’ perspectives, such as those of Tommy
Davis, who was Scientology’s spokesperson
during Wright’s research.
Going Clear appears to be largely based on
former members’ accounts and bolstered with
both media and academic reports. Wright has
interviewed hundreds of individuals whose
stories supported one another’s and much of the
existing literature about Scientology (p. 370). It
seems problematic that Wright’s journalistic
citation style at times obscures which informants
he is citing, and at times what type of
information source he is citing. Nonetheless,
these narratives are integral to understanding an
organization such as Scientology. Moreover,
Wright’s lack of clarity about his informants
likely helps his efforts to preserve the anonymity
of interviewees who may fear that Scientology
or Scientologists may react to their participation
in his research (p. 370).
Wright alleges that Scientology is based on a lie,
but he asserts that Scientologists should be free
to practice their religious beliefs without abuse
or mistreatment from the Church of Scientology
or other Scientologists.1 Going Clear appeals
primarily to people who are interested in a
critical overview of Scientology, celebrities’
experiences with Scientology’s rise in
Hollywood, and some of the controversies
surrounding the organization. As a journalistic
narrative, Wright’s book provides an excellent
overview of Scientology’s public presentation in
relation to the control and repression that many
former members recount. Wright’s book is a
worthwhile read for entertainment and an
1 Wright claims that the charitable status of Scientology (based
partly on its religious claims) is relevant only to the IRS (Internal
Revenue Service of the United States). This claim may be
overlooking a more complicated relationship between religiously
claimed charitable status and the state’s hesitation to involve itself
in the organization’s practices, which is likely part of the reason
Hubbard sought religious status in the first place (see Kent, 1999
Manca, 2010).
Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief
By Lawrence Wright
Reviewed by Terra A. Manca
New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 2013. Going
Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison
of Belief. ISBN-10: 0307700666 ISBN-13: 978-
0307700667 (hardcover), $20.12 (Amazon.com).
Going Clear is author Lawrence Wright’s eighth
book (seventh nonfiction). Wright has been on
staff with The New Yorker since 1992 and has
written several plays and movies. He has
received numerous awards, including the
Pulitzer Prize for The Looming Tower (The New
Yorker, 2013). His work on Scientology began
with a 26-page article about director Paul
Haggis’s exit from Scientology (Wright, 2011).
With Haggis as a key informant for his book
Going Clear, he has covered various topics but
focuses on Scientology’s history, current Church
leader David Miscavige’s rise to power (and his
alleged abuse of Scientologists), and the
experiences of high-ranking Scientologists and
celebrities. The book has proved to be
controversial and consequently has not been
published in Canada or the United Kingdom
(Calderone, 2013 The Daily Beast, 2013).
Throughout the book, Wright switches topics
readily by following tangents (often for pages),
but he covers his intended main themes. Indeed,
Going Clear is informative, entertaining, and
has been well received by most reviewers. That
said, current Scientologists might find this book
offensive. The Church of Scientology created a
website with the intention of “correcting”
alleged errors in Wright’s book and contesting
his use of former members as informants
(Church of Scientology, 2013). Wright may
have included some very minor errors. For
instance, Wright states that in “November 2007,
actors Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes married,”
when in fact the couple wed in November 2006
(p. 303). Even so, such minor errors are less
extensive than the Church of Scientology (2013)
suggests (see The Daily Beast, 2013).
Furthermore, Wright was aware of many
competing narratives between his sources and
church documents or officials—which he
primarily shares in footnotes. When possible he
has provided detailed descriptions of current
members’ perspectives, such as those of Tommy
Davis, who was Scientology’s spokesperson
during Wright’s research.
Going Clear appears to be largely based on
former members’ accounts and bolstered with
both media and academic reports. Wright has
interviewed hundreds of individuals whose
stories supported one another’s and much of the
existing literature about Scientology (p. 370). It
seems problematic that Wright’s journalistic
citation style at times obscures which informants
he is citing, and at times what type of
information source he is citing. Nonetheless,
these narratives are integral to understanding an
organization such as Scientology. Moreover,
Wright’s lack of clarity about his informants
likely helps his efforts to preserve the anonymity
of interviewees who may fear that Scientology
or Scientologists may react to their participation
in his research (p. 370).
Wright alleges that Scientology is based on a lie,
but he asserts that Scientologists should be free
to practice their religious beliefs without abuse
or mistreatment from the Church of Scientology
or other Scientologists.1 Going Clear appeals
primarily to people who are interested in a
critical overview of Scientology, celebrities’
experiences with Scientology’s rise in
Hollywood, and some of the controversies
surrounding the organization. As a journalistic
narrative, Wright’s book provides an excellent
overview of Scientology’s public presentation in
relation to the control and repression that many
former members recount. Wright’s book is a
worthwhile read for entertainment and an
1 Wright claims that the charitable status of Scientology (based
partly on its religious claims) is relevant only to the IRS (Internal
Revenue Service of the United States). This claim may be
overlooking a more complicated relationship between religiously
claimed charitable status and the state’s hesitation to involve itself
in the organization’s practices, which is likely part of the reason
Hubbard sought religious status in the first place (see Kent, 1999
Manca, 2010).
