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

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 209
occasionally it can result in psychotic episodes (Heide, 1985 Heide &Borkevec, 1983
Heide &Borkevec, 1984). So far as I know, reliable statistics on the prevalence of such
adverse effects are not available. However, even if the incidence were only one in one
thousand, we could expect 2,000 to 100,000 such adverse reactions to meditation
associated with Falun Gong, depending upon whose membership estimates one accepts.
Even the low estimate would probably spark considerable public concern, since family
members of adversely affected practitioners would probably place the blame on Falun Gong,
even if the adverse reactions were nothing more than statistical aberrations reflecting the
great variety in human psychological makeup.
A number of sources cited by Luo (2003) clearly suggest that Li says that practitioners of
Falun Gong would not need medical care. Yet our informal conference discussion with Falun
Gong members, several of whom were medical research professionals, indicated that some
followers exercise common sense when applying the doctrines to their own lives. One
medical researcher, for example, said that he of course takes his children to a pediatrician
for immunizations and medical care when they are sick. Another said that he would of
course take insulin if he had diabetes.
I don‘t think these people were lying. If they applied common sense to Li‘s doctrines they
might reason as follows: ―A person who is fully developed spiritually would as a result have
a healthy body and not need medical care. I am not fully developed spiritually. Therefore,
I may sometimes need medical care.‖ Falun Gong would not be the first faith-healing group
to which such reasoning could be applied.
But some will not apply common sense to the doctrines. How many diabetics, for example,
delude themselves into thinking that they don‘t need insulin because they practice Falun
Gong? How many people, like Samuel Luo‘s step-father (Luo, 2003), have strokes and
don‘t seek medical care? Given Falun Gong‘s huge following, there are probably tens of
thousands of followers who reject needed medical care. Even though Falun Gong might
claim that responsibility for such medical harm may lie with the irrational practitioner rather
than the organization, family members will understandably blame Falun Gong. Moreover,
the government‘s public health authorities are sure to become alarmed, especially when an
epidemic such as SARS threatens public health.
Thus, given its system of beliefs and practices, one would expect even a completely benign
Falun Gong to be associated with harm among its members, even if it didn‘t cause the
harm. Hence, the government wouldn‘t have to lie in order to compile evidence of harm
associated with the organization, although the government could inflame the situation by
simplistically imputing evil motives to Falun Gong merely because some practitioners get
hurt.
If Falun Gong were not as benign as it claims to be, one could expect higher levels of harm
among its members, for group pressures aimed at enforcing conformity with group
doctrines would magnify whatever baseline level of irrationality might characterize the
population of practitioners. Certain quotes from Li, such as the following from the New York
Times, can lead one to suspect that there may be more causality in the associated harm
than the Falun Gong organization is willing to acknowledge: ―Other segments are said to
show him urging practitioners to forgo medical care with admonitions like this: `If you go to
the doctor it shows you don‘t trust me‘‖ (Rosenthal, E., 1999, 5 November, paragraph 9).
Li even seems to place the blame on practitioners if the practice doesn‘t cure them of
ailments, a reproach that can have a devastating effect on psychologically vulnerable
individuals:
…so many people who had severe health problems or incurable diseases
before they learned the Fa became well after learning Dafa, so why is it some
students are going the other direction and can‘t sustain themselves?...Yes,