22 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010
depression and asked her if she was all right the
woman confided some startling news.
[T]he depression was so bad and it was
evident so [my friend] asked me what
was wrong and I said, “I can’t tell you. I
don’t know … I don’t know what’s
wrong.” [My friend] said, “Does it have
anything to do with your friendship or
your association with Ivon Shearing?”
And at that point it was like hitting the
nail on the head and I burst into tears
and proceeded to explain that yes, it
was. (Witness #3, R. v. Shearing,
1997:251)
The woman who first admitted the abuse,
however, was filled with anxiety and fear after
her candid disclosure. The threats that Shearing
had made to her over the years flooded back to
her, and she became unsure of the consequences
of her confession. Interestingly, this is a point of
departure from Liebman Jacobs’ model, where
disillusionment is typically first focused on “the
middle-level leadership” (Liebman Jacobs,
1989:41), who are a “cadre of higher-status
devotees who are directly responsible to the
leader” (Liebman Jacobs, 1989:41). Instead of
focusing her disaffection on Shearing’s closest
devotees, the disaffected woman targeted
Shearing himself as the individual responsible
for her feelings of disillusionment and guilt.
Reportedly, as she was crying, she began
apologizing to her friend, saying that she was
“‘… so sorry. I’m not allowed to say anything to
you because [Shearing] told me if I did I would
destroy the person that I told and I would
destroy the Philosophy’” (Witness #4, R. v.
Shearing, 1997:383).
While the impact of Shearing’s threats haunted
the woman, a fellow group member and friend
began to feel that Shearing had been duplicitous
with the members of the group and that she now
wanted “[t]o find out the truth” (Witness #4, R.
v. Shearing, 1997:318) about Shearing’s claims
of fidelity and honesty. Believing that
if [Shearing] in fact had a relationship
with a woman such as [her friend], as he
did, that [it] ran contrary to the
teachings of the Philosophy and
therefore he couldn’t have been the
spiritual person that … [everyone] took
him for. (Witness #4, R. v. Shearing,
1997:338)
This is another difference between Liebman
Jacobs’ model and what transpired within the
Kabalarian Philosophy. Shearing tried to be
exceptionally careful about keeping his multiple
sexual relationships with members a secret,
whereas with the devotees and groups that
Liebman Jacobs studied, there seems to have
been open competition for sexual intimacy to get
closer to the divine leader (Liebman Jacobs,
1989:62-63).
Certain groups, particularly those
associated with Tantric Buddhism and
Hinduism, have sexual meditative
practices as part of their religious
philosophy and training and it is here
where women are most likely to
compete for the position of consort,
either on a temporary or more
permanent basis. The selection process
is often controlled by high-status
devotees, those men who are the
intermediaries between the followers
and the charismatic leader. (Liebman
Jacobs, 1989:62)
Once his multiple sexual relationships became
known to the other devotee, Shearing’s
hypocritical behavior caused the woman to
doubt his sincerity and the purpose of the
clearing rituals that were at the heart of the
sexual relationship her friend had with Shearing.
As Liebman Jacob notes,
unlike the separation from the social
group, the break with the charismatic
leader involves feelings of betrayal and
the violation of trust as the object of
love and devotion proves to be less than
the ideal upon which the charismatic
bond was established. (Liebman Jacobs,
1989:92).
Certainly, feelings of betrayal and anger festered
in the women’s realization of Shearing’s lie.
Once the woman made the confession, though, it
was only a matter of time before members
started to see the flaws in Shearing’s image. As
Janja Lalich points out, dissension within a
depression and asked her if she was all right the
woman confided some startling news.
[T]he depression was so bad and it was
evident so [my friend] asked me what
was wrong and I said, “I can’t tell you. I
don’t know … I don’t know what’s
wrong.” [My friend] said, “Does it have
anything to do with your friendship or
your association with Ivon Shearing?”
And at that point it was like hitting the
nail on the head and I burst into tears
and proceeded to explain that yes, it
was. (Witness #3, R. v. Shearing,
1997:251)
The woman who first admitted the abuse,
however, was filled with anxiety and fear after
her candid disclosure. The threats that Shearing
had made to her over the years flooded back to
her, and she became unsure of the consequences
of her confession. Interestingly, this is a point of
departure from Liebman Jacobs’ model, where
disillusionment is typically first focused on “the
middle-level leadership” (Liebman Jacobs,
1989:41), who are a “cadre of higher-status
devotees who are directly responsible to the
leader” (Liebman Jacobs, 1989:41). Instead of
focusing her disaffection on Shearing’s closest
devotees, the disaffected woman targeted
Shearing himself as the individual responsible
for her feelings of disillusionment and guilt.
Reportedly, as she was crying, she began
apologizing to her friend, saying that she was
“‘… so sorry. I’m not allowed to say anything to
you because [Shearing] told me if I did I would
destroy the person that I told and I would
destroy the Philosophy’” (Witness #4, R. v.
Shearing, 1997:383).
While the impact of Shearing’s threats haunted
the woman, a fellow group member and friend
began to feel that Shearing had been duplicitous
with the members of the group and that she now
wanted “[t]o find out the truth” (Witness #4, R.
v. Shearing, 1997:318) about Shearing’s claims
of fidelity and honesty. Believing that
if [Shearing] in fact had a relationship
with a woman such as [her friend], as he
did, that [it] ran contrary to the
teachings of the Philosophy and
therefore he couldn’t have been the
spiritual person that … [everyone] took
him for. (Witness #4, R. v. Shearing,
1997:338)
This is another difference between Liebman
Jacobs’ model and what transpired within the
Kabalarian Philosophy. Shearing tried to be
exceptionally careful about keeping his multiple
sexual relationships with members a secret,
whereas with the devotees and groups that
Liebman Jacobs studied, there seems to have
been open competition for sexual intimacy to get
closer to the divine leader (Liebman Jacobs,
1989:62-63).
Certain groups, particularly those
associated with Tantric Buddhism and
Hinduism, have sexual meditative
practices as part of their religious
philosophy and training and it is here
where women are most likely to
compete for the position of consort,
either on a temporary or more
permanent basis. The selection process
is often controlled by high-status
devotees, those men who are the
intermediaries between the followers
and the charismatic leader. (Liebman
Jacobs, 1989:62)
Once his multiple sexual relationships became
known to the other devotee, Shearing’s
hypocritical behavior caused the woman to
doubt his sincerity and the purpose of the
clearing rituals that were at the heart of the
sexual relationship her friend had with Shearing.
As Liebman Jacob notes,
unlike the separation from the social
group, the break with the charismatic
leader involves feelings of betrayal and
the violation of trust as the object of
love and devotion proves to be less than
the ideal upon which the charismatic
bond was established. (Liebman Jacobs,
1989:92).
Certainly, feelings of betrayal and anger festered
in the women’s realization of Shearing’s lie.
Once the woman made the confession, though, it
was only a matter of time before members
started to see the flaws in Shearing’s image. As
Janja Lalich points out, dissension within a
