Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 208
believed. Everything the group‘s critics say is accepted. Obviously, when this attitude
characterizes people in positions of power, unfair treatment of groups labeled ―cults‖ is to
be expected.
A Middle Road
It is easy to listen to what the Chinese government or Falun Gong has to say and dismiss it
all as lies unworthy of serious consideration. We can then experience the satisfaction of
thinking that we understand or that we are part of a noble cause, whether that cause is to
protect people from an evil cult or protect a persecuted cult from an evil government. So
long as we see events through the lens of our black-and-white prejudices, everything is
crystal clear and our vision seems to be exemplary. Such clarity is comforting.
If, however, we put aside our prejudices, our vision suddenly becomes blurry. The clarity
and confidence we once had is now seen to be an illusion. We realize that understanding
will take a lot of time and work. We have to question everything the Chinese government
or Falun Gong tells us. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss what they say out of hand.
Instead, we have to examine the evidence critically and laboriously.
Falun Gong and Harm
Since I am trying to put aside my prejudices, I trust that the reader will treat my words as
the observations of a man with blurry vision. I don‘t claim to have in-depth knowledge of
the subject. Our electronic files, for example, contain over 1000 articles (mostly newspaper)
on Falun Gong, only a small fraction of which I have read. And I am only superficially
familiar with the scholarly literature. Hence, I will examine the issue as one who questions
rather than one who answers.
Let me begin by giving Falun Gong the benefit of the doubt and presuming, at least for now,
that initially it was a more or less benign qigong movement, ―a general term designating a
system for improving and maintaining good health based on ideas found in traditional
Chinese medicine and culture‖ (Rahn, 2003, paragraph 1). Rahn says, ―The qigong boom in
China was massive. It began in the late 1970s and by 1986 there were over 2,000 qigong
organizations. To regulate these groups, the government established the Chinese Qigong
Scientific Research Organization‖ (Rahn, 2003, paragraph 25).
Falun Gong was certainly a major player in this qigong boom. Estimates of its popularity,
however, vary considerably. An enemy of the group estimated it had 20,000,000 followers,
while Li Hongzhi claimed 100,000,000 followers, including 70,000,000 in China (Ching,
2001). According to Ching (2001), even The People‘s Daily said the group had a following
of 2,100,000. Rahn (2003) cites sources claiming that 400,000 Communist Party members
in China are Falun Gong members.
These huge numbers suggest to me that even were Falun Gong a completely benign group,
we could expect many reports of harm, given that its basic practice consists of meditative
exercises and a core belief is that faith can heal the body. Consider as a comparison a U.S.
study that identified 172 children who died in faith-healing sects (with a combined
membership that is only a tiny fraction of Falun Gong‘s), 140 of whom died from ―from
conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%‖ (Asser &
Swan, 2000, p. 1).
Ching (2001) says, ―Qigong is practiced to cease human thinking‖ (paragraph 14). If that is
so and qigong does produce dissociative or altered states of mind, then one would expect a
small but noticeable percentage of adherents to have adverse psychiatric reactions. There
is some empirical evidence of harm associated with meditation (Otis, 1985 Perez-De-
Albeniz &Holmes, 2000). Even relaxation exercises practiced in a psychologist‘s office can
occasionally produce what has been called ―relaxation induced anxiety,‖ and very
believed. Everything the group‘s critics say is accepted. Obviously, when this attitude
characterizes people in positions of power, unfair treatment of groups labeled ―cults‖ is to
be expected.
A Middle Road
It is easy to listen to what the Chinese government or Falun Gong has to say and dismiss it
all as lies unworthy of serious consideration. We can then experience the satisfaction of
thinking that we understand or that we are part of a noble cause, whether that cause is to
protect people from an evil cult or protect a persecuted cult from an evil government. So
long as we see events through the lens of our black-and-white prejudices, everything is
crystal clear and our vision seems to be exemplary. Such clarity is comforting.
If, however, we put aside our prejudices, our vision suddenly becomes blurry. The clarity
and confidence we once had is now seen to be an illusion. We realize that understanding
will take a lot of time and work. We have to question everything the Chinese government
or Falun Gong tells us. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss what they say out of hand.
Instead, we have to examine the evidence critically and laboriously.
Falun Gong and Harm
Since I am trying to put aside my prejudices, I trust that the reader will treat my words as
the observations of a man with blurry vision. I don‘t claim to have in-depth knowledge of
the subject. Our electronic files, for example, contain over 1000 articles (mostly newspaper)
on Falun Gong, only a small fraction of which I have read. And I am only superficially
familiar with the scholarly literature. Hence, I will examine the issue as one who questions
rather than one who answers.
Let me begin by giving Falun Gong the benefit of the doubt and presuming, at least for now,
that initially it was a more or less benign qigong movement, ―a general term designating a
system for improving and maintaining good health based on ideas found in traditional
Chinese medicine and culture‖ (Rahn, 2003, paragraph 1). Rahn says, ―The qigong boom in
China was massive. It began in the late 1970s and by 1986 there were over 2,000 qigong
organizations. To regulate these groups, the government established the Chinese Qigong
Scientific Research Organization‖ (Rahn, 2003, paragraph 25).
Falun Gong was certainly a major player in this qigong boom. Estimates of its popularity,
however, vary considerably. An enemy of the group estimated it had 20,000,000 followers,
while Li Hongzhi claimed 100,000,000 followers, including 70,000,000 in China (Ching,
2001). According to Ching (2001), even The People‘s Daily said the group had a following
of 2,100,000. Rahn (2003) cites sources claiming that 400,000 Communist Party members
in China are Falun Gong members.
These huge numbers suggest to me that even were Falun Gong a completely benign group,
we could expect many reports of harm, given that its basic practice consists of meditative
exercises and a core belief is that faith can heal the body. Consider as a comparison a U.S.
study that identified 172 children who died in faith-healing sects (with a combined
membership that is only a tiny fraction of Falun Gong‘s), 140 of whom died from ―from
conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%‖ (Asser &
Swan, 2000, p. 1).
Ching (2001) says, ―Qigong is practiced to cease human thinking‖ (paragraph 14). If that is
so and qigong does produce dissociative or altered states of mind, then one would expect a
small but noticeable percentage of adherents to have adverse psychiatric reactions. There
is some empirical evidence of harm associated with meditation (Otis, 1985 Perez-De-
Albeniz &Holmes, 2000). Even relaxation exercises practiced in a psychologist‘s office can
occasionally produce what has been called ―relaxation induced anxiety,‖ and very
