Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2003, Page 77
movements such as Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam but hybrid
versions with very little originality or authentic historical concepts. Greenaway comments
that the Findhorn Foundation was ―never any good at historical scholarship‖ (21) but
followed the dictum ―we create our own reality,‖ a ―megalomaniac doctrine‖ of ―New Age
psychospirituality, excited hyper-theosophy‖ and a ―wacky package‖ of ―California
occultism‖ (21-25).
Chapter 1 traces Findhorn‘s roots to Peter Caddy this is useful information, but six pages
are devoted to commenting on a 70-pound cabbage claimed to have grown ―by spirit force.‖
There are misleading examples or errors when the book wanders off its focus on New Age
movements. Empedocles is linked to acupuncture, more Chinese than Greek, and
Pythagoras to prana, shakti, and chi mixing Hindu and Chinese origins (13). Greek culture
is said to have centered in Alexandria, Egypt not Athens, Greece (12). Chapter 2 is a
historical overview of the New Age movement in four phases, from Blavatsky‘s theosophy to
humanistic psychology then to the human potential movement in the 1960s and prosperity
consciousness since the 1980s. Chapter 3 updates the Findhorn Foundation from the 3-year
visit by David Spangler of California after Peter Caddy dropped out in 1979. Spangler
introduced channeling and group consciousness. Greenaway feels Spangler‘s work resulted
in disenchantment for many members who left the program.
In Chapter 4 history is again reported but this time in waves. The first wave began 1914-
1919 with Aleister Crowley and peaked in the 1950s. The second wave was in the 1960s
energized by the ―third force‖ of humanistic psychology. The third wave began with
Esalen‘s Big Sur program and continued in the 1980s prosperity consciousness. This
material belongs in Chapter 2. There is more history in Chapter 5 but with some subjective
bias. Maslow and Rogers are referred to as ―the seminal influences‖ of the human potential
movement. Timothy Leary and others like him would have been better examples. He
credits Rogers with developing group therapy (68), but he was but one of many who used
group methods. He charges ―Rogerian attitudes hinder maturation and development
‗growth‘ workshops are supposed to be about‖ (68), but Rogers‘ major emphasis was on
self-awareness and personal growth. Rogers takes another hit for espousing empathy and
unconditional positive regard ―teetering on the edge of the manic‖ (72). Does this mean the
Good Samaritan was just manic? ―We create our own reality‖ is misattributed to Maslow. It
is a basic tenet of existentialism that preceded Maslow.
Humanistic psychology and the human potential movement are criticized for ―a curious lack
of foundation, a relative absence of historical sense and historically guided coordination
despite much pre-occupation with groundedness‖ (71). Not true. They were ―the third
force‖ against the first two, psychoanalysis and behaviorism, which denied or minimized
free will and the potential to overcome instinctive drives and conditioning. Modern historical
roots are Rousseau‘s ―noble savage‖ against Locke‘s mind as a blank slate and the
Darwinian idea that we are monkeys' uncles. Ancient roots can be seen in Socrates‘
admonition ―know thyself.‖ It is charged they are anti-intellectual but ―the anti-
intellectualism of these people, nearly always intellectual themselves though prone to deny
it, is by no means confined to the New Age, and paradoxically has intellectual roots‖ (72).
Translation, please?
Chapter 15 is 69 pages and the book‘s longest. Eight pages describe the relationship of
Freemasons to Findhorn Foundation and how its ―structure and modus operandi imitates
Masonry‖ (178). The author states that he is not a Mason and the only substantiating data
offered is that some of Findhorn leaders were or are Masons. The chapter wanders through
―mystery traditions‖ such as the ―aeons‖ of Osiris and Horus, Ordo Templi Orientis, star
Sirius, the Order of Melchizedek, and the Great White Lodge. Caddy, Crowley, Blavatsky,
and Bailey are revisited adding little substance, though Alice Bailey‘s husband (Ahah!) was
―a respected Freemason‖ (195). More than half the chapter details Blavatsky‘s theosophy,
movements such as Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam but hybrid
versions with very little originality or authentic historical concepts. Greenaway comments
that the Findhorn Foundation was ―never any good at historical scholarship‖ (21) but
followed the dictum ―we create our own reality,‖ a ―megalomaniac doctrine‖ of ―New Age
psychospirituality, excited hyper-theosophy‖ and a ―wacky package‖ of ―California
occultism‖ (21-25).
Chapter 1 traces Findhorn‘s roots to Peter Caddy this is useful information, but six pages
are devoted to commenting on a 70-pound cabbage claimed to have grown ―by spirit force.‖
There are misleading examples or errors when the book wanders off its focus on New Age
movements. Empedocles is linked to acupuncture, more Chinese than Greek, and
Pythagoras to prana, shakti, and chi mixing Hindu and Chinese origins (13). Greek culture
is said to have centered in Alexandria, Egypt not Athens, Greece (12). Chapter 2 is a
historical overview of the New Age movement in four phases, from Blavatsky‘s theosophy to
humanistic psychology then to the human potential movement in the 1960s and prosperity
consciousness since the 1980s. Chapter 3 updates the Findhorn Foundation from the 3-year
visit by David Spangler of California after Peter Caddy dropped out in 1979. Spangler
introduced channeling and group consciousness. Greenaway feels Spangler‘s work resulted
in disenchantment for many members who left the program.
In Chapter 4 history is again reported but this time in waves. The first wave began 1914-
1919 with Aleister Crowley and peaked in the 1950s. The second wave was in the 1960s
energized by the ―third force‖ of humanistic psychology. The third wave began with
Esalen‘s Big Sur program and continued in the 1980s prosperity consciousness. This
material belongs in Chapter 2. There is more history in Chapter 5 but with some subjective
bias. Maslow and Rogers are referred to as ―the seminal influences‖ of the human potential
movement. Timothy Leary and others like him would have been better examples. He
credits Rogers with developing group therapy (68), but he was but one of many who used
group methods. He charges ―Rogerian attitudes hinder maturation and development
‗growth‘ workshops are supposed to be about‖ (68), but Rogers‘ major emphasis was on
self-awareness and personal growth. Rogers takes another hit for espousing empathy and
unconditional positive regard ―teetering on the edge of the manic‖ (72). Does this mean the
Good Samaritan was just manic? ―We create our own reality‖ is misattributed to Maslow. It
is a basic tenet of existentialism that preceded Maslow.
Humanistic psychology and the human potential movement are criticized for ―a curious lack
of foundation, a relative absence of historical sense and historically guided coordination
despite much pre-occupation with groundedness‖ (71). Not true. They were ―the third
force‖ against the first two, psychoanalysis and behaviorism, which denied or minimized
free will and the potential to overcome instinctive drives and conditioning. Modern historical
roots are Rousseau‘s ―noble savage‖ against Locke‘s mind as a blank slate and the
Darwinian idea that we are monkeys' uncles. Ancient roots can be seen in Socrates‘
admonition ―know thyself.‖ It is charged they are anti-intellectual but ―the anti-
intellectualism of these people, nearly always intellectual themselves though prone to deny
it, is by no means confined to the New Age, and paradoxically has intellectual roots‖ (72).
Translation, please?
Chapter 15 is 69 pages and the book‘s longest. Eight pages describe the relationship of
Freemasons to Findhorn Foundation and how its ―structure and modus operandi imitates
Masonry‖ (178). The author states that he is not a Mason and the only substantiating data
offered is that some of Findhorn leaders were or are Masons. The chapter wanders through
―mystery traditions‖ such as the ―aeons‖ of Osiris and Horus, Ordo Templi Orientis, star
Sirius, the Order of Melchizedek, and the Great White Lodge. Caddy, Crowley, Blavatsky,
and Bailey are revisited adding little substance, though Alice Bailey‘s husband (Ahah!) was
―a respected Freemason‖ (195). More than half the chapter details Blavatsky‘s theosophy,
