Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 8
toward these spiritual goals. Such religious ―surrender‖—to a sense of one‘s wholeness,
one‘s connectedness to life, to a loving and creative spirit both within and without—is not
necessarily the same experience as submission to the domination, control, and exploitation
of a particular group and/or leader. The urge to surrender, as understood by Ghent (1990),
a leading theorist of contemporary relational psychoanalysis, can be a move toward inner
freedom, and does not necessarily lead to submission, or enslavement.
Cult leaders, however, practice forms of control, such as intimidation and humiliation, which
demand submission. In Ghent‘s view, masochistic submission is a perversion of surrender.
Cult leaders often use the idea of surrender as bait, and then switch to a demand for
submission. Nevertheless, in so doing, they may not actually be practicing mind control in
any conscious way. They may simply be behaving in ways typical of pathological narcissists,
people whose personalities are characterized by paranoia and megalomania—characteristics,
by the way, that are readily attributable to one of the modern masters of thought reform
techniques, the totalitarian dictator known as Chairman Mao. Totalitarian dictators study
and invent thought reform techniques, but many cult leaders may simply be exhibiting
characteristic behaviors of the pathological narcissist, with the attendant paranoia and
mania typical of this personality disorder. Thought reform is the systematic application of
techniques of domination, enslavement, and control, which can be quite similar to the
naturally occurring behaviors of other abusers, like batterers, rapists, incest perpetrators, in
all of whom can be seen the behaviors of pathological narcissism.
I base my formulation of the psychology of the cult leader in part on the daily close contact
I had with Swami Chidvilasananda (Gurumayi) of Siddha Yoga between 1985 and 1992. I
also support my hypotheses with information gained from extensive work with
psychotherapy clients who have described their cult leaders‘ behavior in detail, as well as on
my extensive reading of biographical accounts of other leaders of cults.1 I propose,
following the profile of the pathological narcissist delineated by Rosenfeld (1971), a leading
figure of the contemporary Kleinian school in London, and similar formulations from the
American self psychological perspective of Kohut (1976), that the cult leader profoundly
depends on the fanatic devotion of the follower. This dependency is deeply shameful to the
cult leader, because, based on traumatic aspects of her own developmental history, any
dependency has come to mean despicable weakness and humiliation to her. Developmental
trauma in those who in later life can be termed pathological narcissists typically consists of
being raised, by parents or other caregivers, under extreme domination and control,
accompanied by repeated experiences of being shamed and humiliated. The pathological
narcissist identifies with this aggression and comes to despise his own normative
dependency, to be contemptuous of dependence, which is equated to weakness. Manically
defending against deprivation and humiliation, he comes to believe that he needs no one,
that he can trust only himself, that those who depend on others are weak and contemptible.
Thus the cult leader, largely unconsciously, compensates for his inability to trust and
depend on others, and defends against the intense shame he feels connected to need and
dependency, by attaining control over his followers, first through seductive promises of
unconditional love and acceptance, and then through intimidation, shaming, and belittling.
This serves to induce the loathsome dependency in the follower, and the cult leader thus
contrives to disavow his own dependency, felt as loathsome and shameful. By
psychologically seducing, and then battering the follower into being the shameful dependent
one, the cult leader maintains his superior position and can boast delusionally of being
totally liberated from all petty, mundane attachments. These processes of subjugating
others, and inducing in others what one loathes and seeks to deny in oneself are extreme
forms of manic defense against the shame of dependency.
In fact, the cult leader does not escape dependency. Instead, he (and also, in many cases,
she) comes to depend on his followers to worship and adore him, to reflect his narcissistic
toward these spiritual goals. Such religious ―surrender‖—to a sense of one‘s wholeness,
one‘s connectedness to life, to a loving and creative spirit both within and without—is not
necessarily the same experience as submission to the domination, control, and exploitation
of a particular group and/or leader. The urge to surrender, as understood by Ghent (1990),
a leading theorist of contemporary relational psychoanalysis, can be a move toward inner
freedom, and does not necessarily lead to submission, or enslavement.
Cult leaders, however, practice forms of control, such as intimidation and humiliation, which
demand submission. In Ghent‘s view, masochistic submission is a perversion of surrender.
Cult leaders often use the idea of surrender as bait, and then switch to a demand for
submission. Nevertheless, in so doing, they may not actually be practicing mind control in
any conscious way. They may simply be behaving in ways typical of pathological narcissists,
people whose personalities are characterized by paranoia and megalomania—characteristics,
by the way, that are readily attributable to one of the modern masters of thought reform
techniques, the totalitarian dictator known as Chairman Mao. Totalitarian dictators study
and invent thought reform techniques, but many cult leaders may simply be exhibiting
characteristic behaviors of the pathological narcissist, with the attendant paranoia and
mania typical of this personality disorder. Thought reform is the systematic application of
techniques of domination, enslavement, and control, which can be quite similar to the
naturally occurring behaviors of other abusers, like batterers, rapists, incest perpetrators, in
all of whom can be seen the behaviors of pathological narcissism.
I base my formulation of the psychology of the cult leader in part on the daily close contact
I had with Swami Chidvilasananda (Gurumayi) of Siddha Yoga between 1985 and 1992. I
also support my hypotheses with information gained from extensive work with
psychotherapy clients who have described their cult leaders‘ behavior in detail, as well as on
my extensive reading of biographical accounts of other leaders of cults.1 I propose,
following the profile of the pathological narcissist delineated by Rosenfeld (1971), a leading
figure of the contemporary Kleinian school in London, and similar formulations from the
American self psychological perspective of Kohut (1976), that the cult leader profoundly
depends on the fanatic devotion of the follower. This dependency is deeply shameful to the
cult leader, because, based on traumatic aspects of her own developmental history, any
dependency has come to mean despicable weakness and humiliation to her. Developmental
trauma in those who in later life can be termed pathological narcissists typically consists of
being raised, by parents or other caregivers, under extreme domination and control,
accompanied by repeated experiences of being shamed and humiliated. The pathological
narcissist identifies with this aggression and comes to despise his own normative
dependency, to be contemptuous of dependence, which is equated to weakness. Manically
defending against deprivation and humiliation, he comes to believe that he needs no one,
that he can trust only himself, that those who depend on others are weak and contemptible.
Thus the cult leader, largely unconsciously, compensates for his inability to trust and
depend on others, and defends against the intense shame he feels connected to need and
dependency, by attaining control over his followers, first through seductive promises of
unconditional love and acceptance, and then through intimidation, shaming, and belittling.
This serves to induce the loathsome dependency in the follower, and the cult leader thus
contrives to disavow his own dependency, felt as loathsome and shameful. By
psychologically seducing, and then battering the follower into being the shameful dependent
one, the cult leader maintains his superior position and can boast delusionally of being
totally liberated from all petty, mundane attachments. These processes of subjugating
others, and inducing in others what one loathes and seeks to deny in oneself are extreme
forms of manic defense against the shame of dependency.
In fact, the cult leader does not escape dependency. Instead, he (and also, in many cases,
she) comes to depend on his followers to worship and adore him, to reflect his narcissistic
