62 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 3, 2012
Indeed, “Muktananda’s big secret” had been
blown in 1981, when a devotee (Swami
Abhayananda/Stan Trout) wrote an open letter to
him in which he referred to an incident in which
the supposedly celibate master had taken a
“teenage girl ...into your apartments, had asked
her to disrobe, and had taken liberties with her
on the pretext of examining her virginity”
(Trout, 1981, p. 1). Perhaps referring to the
same incident, Michael Dinga and his wife,
Chandra, learned that the guru was molesting a
13-year-old girl, probably by “‘probing around
in her’” (C. Dinga, in Rodarmor, 1983, p. 107).
Apparently, however, there were other victims
who were about the same age (Trout, 1999, p.
4). In some instances, Muktananda used the
excuse to the women that he was performing
tantric sex with them, but other times he made
no pretence at all (see Rodarmor, 1983, p. 105).
In an arrangement reminiscent of the sleeping
quarters for the girls whom Benjamin Purnell
abused in the House of David facility,
Muktananda’s ashram “‘had a secret passageway
from his house to the young girl’s dormitory....
Whoever he was carrying on with, he had
switched to that dorm.’ The guru often visited
while they were undressing” (in Rodarmor,
1983, p. 106). Although Muktananda never
provided a public theology to rationalize the
secret passageway and his actions in the young
girls’ dorm, various assault victims and inner-
circle members developed justifications in their
own minds for what he did. When one woman
found herself alone one night in his bedroom
and he ordered her to disrobe, she complied,
since, “‘over the years, I learned [that] you never
say no to anything that he asked you to do ...’”
(in Rodarmor, 1983, p. 106). Others
rationalized, “he wasn’t really penetrating his
victims..., [o]r he wasn’t ejaculating—an
important distinction to some, since retaining the
semen is supposed to be a way of conserving the
kundalini energy” (Rodarmor, 1983, pp. 106–
107). But one former member identified the
antinomian justification that many of his
devotees used to explain away discrepancies
between the swami’s words and deeds:
“For years we thought that every
discrepancy was because he lived
outside the laws of morality. He could
do anything he wanted. That in itself is
the biggest danger of having a perfect
master lead any kind of group—there’s
no safeguard.” (Richard Grimes, in
Rodarmor, 1983, p. 107)
While Muktananda’s actions suggest that he
considered himself to have been “outside the
laws of morality,” they also suggest that, at least
for a while, many of his followers certainly
considered that he was (Trout, 1983).
Sex as the Means to Salvation: Sex
Magick and Erotic Rituals5
In the examples I have discussed thus far,
religion either facilitated or sanctified sexual
contact between adults and children or adults
and teens. Aspects of certain theologies, or
pivotal leaders within theological traditions,
seemed to allow (and at times require)
intergenerational sexual contact. Neither the
theologies nor the leaders, however, prescribed
the details about what that sexual contact was to
entail. Beyond granting permission for (usually
male) adults to become sexually involved with
children, these theologies or the religious leaders
who followed them did not indicate exactly the
kind(s) of sex that was(were) supposed to occur.
In instances, however, when sex becomes the
vehicle through which practitioners supposedly
gain spiritual insight, then the exact form of
adult/child sexual contact is spelled out.
One theological framework that occasionally has
been very precise about prescribing adult/child
sexual contact is sex magick—a general term to
mean “the use of (usually intense) sexuality to
burst through conventional morality in the quest
for spiritual insight.” Various tantra-related
Eastern traditions best exemplify this tradition
(Shaw, 1994), but forms of sex magick also have
appeared in the West, sometimes at the expense
of children’s welfare. The most extensively
documented instance of a religious leader using
5 I do not include a discussion of the crazy-wisdom tradition, only
because I do not have documentation of child sexual abuse in this
theological context. This method of supposedly religious
instruction revolves around the completely unpredictable and
disorienting directions and instruction of the religious leader.
Because crazy wisdom involves the complete disempowerment of
members at the mercy of the supposedly spiritual master, it would
not be surprising if violations of children occur in many instances.
Of the crazy-wisdom tradition, see Feuerstein, 1991.
Indeed, “Muktananda’s big secret” had been
blown in 1981, when a devotee (Swami
Abhayananda/Stan Trout) wrote an open letter to
him in which he referred to an incident in which
the supposedly celibate master had taken a
“teenage girl ...into your apartments, had asked
her to disrobe, and had taken liberties with her
on the pretext of examining her virginity”
(Trout, 1981, p. 1). Perhaps referring to the
same incident, Michael Dinga and his wife,
Chandra, learned that the guru was molesting a
13-year-old girl, probably by “‘probing around
in her’” (C. Dinga, in Rodarmor, 1983, p. 107).
Apparently, however, there were other victims
who were about the same age (Trout, 1999, p.
4). In some instances, Muktananda used the
excuse to the women that he was performing
tantric sex with them, but other times he made
no pretence at all (see Rodarmor, 1983, p. 105).
In an arrangement reminiscent of the sleeping
quarters for the girls whom Benjamin Purnell
abused in the House of David facility,
Muktananda’s ashram “‘had a secret passageway
from his house to the young girl’s dormitory....
Whoever he was carrying on with, he had
switched to that dorm.’ The guru often visited
while they were undressing” (in Rodarmor,
1983, p. 106). Although Muktananda never
provided a public theology to rationalize the
secret passageway and his actions in the young
girls’ dorm, various assault victims and inner-
circle members developed justifications in their
own minds for what he did. When one woman
found herself alone one night in his bedroom
and he ordered her to disrobe, she complied,
since, “‘over the years, I learned [that] you never
say no to anything that he asked you to do ...’”
(in Rodarmor, 1983, p. 106). Others
rationalized, “he wasn’t really penetrating his
victims..., [o]r he wasn’t ejaculating—an
important distinction to some, since retaining the
semen is supposed to be a way of conserving the
kundalini energy” (Rodarmor, 1983, pp. 106–
107). But one former member identified the
antinomian justification that many of his
devotees used to explain away discrepancies
between the swami’s words and deeds:
“For years we thought that every
discrepancy was because he lived
outside the laws of morality. He could
do anything he wanted. That in itself is
the biggest danger of having a perfect
master lead any kind of group—there’s
no safeguard.” (Richard Grimes, in
Rodarmor, 1983, p. 107)
While Muktananda’s actions suggest that he
considered himself to have been “outside the
laws of morality,” they also suggest that, at least
for a while, many of his followers certainly
considered that he was (Trout, 1983).
Sex as the Means to Salvation: Sex
Magick and Erotic Rituals5
In the examples I have discussed thus far,
religion either facilitated or sanctified sexual
contact between adults and children or adults
and teens. Aspects of certain theologies, or
pivotal leaders within theological traditions,
seemed to allow (and at times require)
intergenerational sexual contact. Neither the
theologies nor the leaders, however, prescribed
the details about what that sexual contact was to
entail. Beyond granting permission for (usually
male) adults to become sexually involved with
children, these theologies or the religious leaders
who followed them did not indicate exactly the
kind(s) of sex that was(were) supposed to occur.
In instances, however, when sex becomes the
vehicle through which practitioners supposedly
gain spiritual insight, then the exact form of
adult/child sexual contact is spelled out.
One theological framework that occasionally has
been very precise about prescribing adult/child
sexual contact is sex magick—a general term to
mean “the use of (usually intense) sexuality to
burst through conventional morality in the quest
for spiritual insight.” Various tantra-related
Eastern traditions best exemplify this tradition
(Shaw, 1994), but forms of sex magick also have
appeared in the West, sometimes at the expense
of children’s welfare. The most extensively
documented instance of a religious leader using
5 I do not include a discussion of the crazy-wisdom tradition, only
because I do not have documentation of child sexual abuse in this
theological context. This method of supposedly religious
instruction revolves around the completely unpredictable and
disorienting directions and instruction of the religious leader.
Because crazy wisdom involves the complete disempowerment of
members at the mercy of the supposedly spiritual master, it would
not be surprising if violations of children occur in many instances.
Of the crazy-wisdom tradition, see Feuerstein, 1991.
