International Journal of Cultic Studies Vol. 4, 2013 21
This approach may instill fear in the pupils and
reduce their ability to think critically. Moreover,
the teachings also exploit modern fears:
economic crisis, pollution, global warming, and
nuclear power. Students are repeatedly told that
the world is now making the same mistakes as
the people of Atlantis, who caused its
destruction with their arrogance, putting more
faith in their own technological prowess than in
God. But the human race can be saved from
extinction if students sacrifice their time, money,
and will to power, devoting their life to
transferring energy and spreading the message
of universal energy, love, compassion, and
peace doing so is in fact their God-given
mission (Luong, M. D., 1996, 2000, 2004b,
2007a, 2007b).
Fear and moral responsibility are powerful tools
that group leaders may use to manipulate others,
and even to get them to accept sophistic
arguments. One may see this at work in Mr.
Dang’s argument concerning the payment of
tuition fees, which runs as follows:
I designed the tuition fees for UE
Seminars because I want you to never
depend on me so you have total freedom
to continue to learn and develop
spiritually in UE or to deny it. This is a
hidden point the Deities created to help
bring you total freedom.... If you see the
benefits then you will learn, research
and continue to progress. But if you see
that UE Teaching is useless or
ineffective then you can freely or
automatically return back to the stage
before you had your chakras opened,
that’s all. It is very simple. You are
totally free to decide your own path.
(Luong, M. D., 2007b, p. 41)
While it is true that receiving a gift may create
dependency in reciprocal forms of exchange, it
is also true that in economic exchanges the
parties involved should know in advance what
they are receiving for what they are giving.
However, as we have seen, HUE students do not
know going in what they are paying to learn. It
seems that HUE takes advantage of this
imbalance to surreptitiously establish forms of
reciprocal exchange based on structures of
mutual dependence, which are riskier than
economic exchanges and make people more
vulnerable to each other’s actions (Molm,
Schaefer, &Collett, 2009). In so doing, HUE
retains control, while seeming to allow students
to leave the group at any time. But leaving the
group entails the aforementioned reclosing of
the chakras, which has serious consequences, as
Mr. Dang tells them elsewhere: “You know that
these teachings enable you to treat diseases. If
you run away, the Higher Beings will make your
family sick. Even if you do not want to treat,
you will be forced to do so” (Luong, M. D.,
1996, p. 15). In light of these implied threats, is
it really possible for the students to freely decide
their own path? Even if they decide not to go
on, Mr. Dang tells them they will have to die
and reincarnate immediately “to work again at
once” (Luong, M. D., 1996, p. 15). These
threats and the discourse of salvation and moral
responsibility toward humanity further bind
students to the group. The discourse also makes
them feel blessed and special, for they believe
they are God’s chosen ones. This belief may in
turn cause a division between them and
outsiders, who are seen as “greedy,” “low,” and
“evil”—as people they do not need to love in a
personal way, but to whom they should express
infinite love by transferring energy (Luong, M.
D., 2007b, pp. 1–2).
Another sophistic argument discourages students
from giving to charity: “I do not tell you to give
money to charity.... You should do charity work
by using Universal Energy, which is infinite.
But if you give money to charity how much is
enough?” (Luong, M. D., 2007b, p. 41). The
argument is not only deceiving but also
fallacious. It does not follow that people would
not know how much is enough when they are
donating to charity. Furthermore, the
compassion is invalid. Money is tangible and
real, while universal energy is not it is in fact
purely speculative. No verifiable scientific
evidence of its existence has been found, and
scientific support for the effectiveness of
energy-based healing is lacking (Edzard, 2003
Hall, 2008). In contrast, giving to charity is a
personal decision that everyone should make by
themselves rather than being told what to do,
which diminishes one’s personal autonomy.
This approach may instill fear in the pupils and
reduce their ability to think critically. Moreover,
the teachings also exploit modern fears:
economic crisis, pollution, global warming, and
nuclear power. Students are repeatedly told that
the world is now making the same mistakes as
the people of Atlantis, who caused its
destruction with their arrogance, putting more
faith in their own technological prowess than in
God. But the human race can be saved from
extinction if students sacrifice their time, money,
and will to power, devoting their life to
transferring energy and spreading the message
of universal energy, love, compassion, and
peace doing so is in fact their God-given
mission (Luong, M. D., 1996, 2000, 2004b,
2007a, 2007b).
Fear and moral responsibility are powerful tools
that group leaders may use to manipulate others,
and even to get them to accept sophistic
arguments. One may see this at work in Mr.
Dang’s argument concerning the payment of
tuition fees, which runs as follows:
I designed the tuition fees for UE
Seminars because I want you to never
depend on me so you have total freedom
to continue to learn and develop
spiritually in UE or to deny it. This is a
hidden point the Deities created to help
bring you total freedom.... If you see the
benefits then you will learn, research
and continue to progress. But if you see
that UE Teaching is useless or
ineffective then you can freely or
automatically return back to the stage
before you had your chakras opened,
that’s all. It is very simple. You are
totally free to decide your own path.
(Luong, M. D., 2007b, p. 41)
While it is true that receiving a gift may create
dependency in reciprocal forms of exchange, it
is also true that in economic exchanges the
parties involved should know in advance what
they are receiving for what they are giving.
However, as we have seen, HUE students do not
know going in what they are paying to learn. It
seems that HUE takes advantage of this
imbalance to surreptitiously establish forms of
reciprocal exchange based on structures of
mutual dependence, which are riskier than
economic exchanges and make people more
vulnerable to each other’s actions (Molm,
Schaefer, &Collett, 2009). In so doing, HUE
retains control, while seeming to allow students
to leave the group at any time. But leaving the
group entails the aforementioned reclosing of
the chakras, which has serious consequences, as
Mr. Dang tells them elsewhere: “You know that
these teachings enable you to treat diseases. If
you run away, the Higher Beings will make your
family sick. Even if you do not want to treat,
you will be forced to do so” (Luong, M. D.,
1996, p. 15). In light of these implied threats, is
it really possible for the students to freely decide
their own path? Even if they decide not to go
on, Mr. Dang tells them they will have to die
and reincarnate immediately “to work again at
once” (Luong, M. D., 1996, p. 15). These
threats and the discourse of salvation and moral
responsibility toward humanity further bind
students to the group. The discourse also makes
them feel blessed and special, for they believe
they are God’s chosen ones. This belief may in
turn cause a division between them and
outsiders, who are seen as “greedy,” “low,” and
“evil”—as people they do not need to love in a
personal way, but to whom they should express
infinite love by transferring energy (Luong, M.
D., 2007b, pp. 1–2).
Another sophistic argument discourages students
from giving to charity: “I do not tell you to give
money to charity.... You should do charity work
by using Universal Energy, which is infinite.
But if you give money to charity how much is
enough?” (Luong, M. D., 2007b, p. 41). The
argument is not only deceiving but also
fallacious. It does not follow that people would
not know how much is enough when they are
donating to charity. Furthermore, the
compassion is invalid. Money is tangible and
real, while universal energy is not it is in fact
purely speculative. No verifiable scientific
evidence of its existence has been found, and
scientific support for the effectiveness of
energy-based healing is lacking (Edzard, 2003
Hall, 2008). In contrast, giving to charity is a
personal decision that everyone should make by
themselves rather than being told what to do,
which diminishes one’s personal autonomy.
