Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 148
nonmembers) are the only parties guilty of one-way communication. In my experience,
among the primary complaints made by families of cultists are how difficult (if not
impossible) it is to contact a loved one, and that their loved one seems capable of only one-
way communication (e.g., proselytizing). Friends report to me that the member now seems
almost incapable of truly meaningful dialog and discussion. I know one parent with a
daughter on full-time staff with Scientology who for the past five years still averages a
dozen calls before she can reach her daughter, even when calling during agreed-upon
times. Years ago the father gave his daughter a cell phone in an attempt to rectify the
matter, but it soon ―disappeared‖ (they wonder if it was appropriated by other Scientology
staff) and their daughter declined a replacement.
The authors suggest that, if we have difficulty understanding a group member‘s actions, ―it
is highly likely that you are missing information [and] the way to get that information is
through communication‖ (p. 11). O‘Meara and Koehler correctly note that groups are not
static they change, and past information may no longer be valid. In addition to talking to
the new group member, they advise talking to group leaders and visiting the group. They
advocate getting more information before taking any actions, and I strongly agree with that
advice. However, according to TCATC the best source of valid information seems to be the
group itself or the group member (that is, until the member leaves the group). Lastly, they
note that ―getting information directly from the group does not preclude you from obtaining
information from other sources‖ (p. 23).
But what are these ―other sources?‖ Meeting group members socially, talking with a college
ombudsman, discussing your concerns with a clergyman, and visiting the group‘s Internet
website are among the ―other sources‖ listed. So are professors of religion, history, and
sociology (but not psychology!). The authors also recommend visiting ―independent‖
websites, generalizing that those sponsored by universities and interfaith organizations,
―and ones which clearly state the authors of the information‖ are good examples. By this
standard, the current CAN website does not seem to be a good example. As of July 22,
2004, it listed the authors of articles listed under ―Articles/Papers,‖ but not all the authors of
articles that appear under the category ―Into Infamy.‖
Prominent among ―other sources‖ not recommended by O‘Meara and Koehler are former
members. Apparently, only current members are valid information sources. Talking with
critical ex-members is denigrated, and we are warned against taking their stories seriously:
―The vocal critics of new religious groups are frequently sour former members...[who] have
had a bad experience with one organization and have turned it into a generalized hysteria‖
(p. 54).
I imagine there would be hundreds of former members who would be deeply offended by
these comments, and those found in the subchapter, ―What About Negative Books.‖ In this
section, O‘Meara and Koehler begin with the reasonable suggestion that we ―check out the
author‘s agenda. You may have to read between the lines.‖ (In my opinion, this advice
pertains to all books on the topic of cults, including this one.) Former members who are
critics of new religions are relegated to those ―kicked out 20 years ago after failing to live up
to the moral standards of the group,‖ duplicitous people who join undercover and were
―never honest with the group,‖ and are compared to a group leader‘s ex-daughter-in-
law...[who does not report] how much money she accepted [from the group] as a cash
settlement‖ (This latter seems to refer to Nansook Hong, former daughter-in-law of Sun
Myung Moon). It seems offensive, even hateful, to treat critical former members in such a
dismissive manner.
Section 2, ―What Not to Do,‖ begins with a rule ―... carved in stone: Don‘t ever pay
someone to talk anybody out of anything.‖ More specifically, O‘Meara and Koehler
admonish readers never to pay for a deprogramming, an exit-counseling, or an intervention.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 149
The ethics of hiring exit-counselors are always worthy of reasoned discussion. I have rarely
known a family to engage an exit-counselor except in near desperation and after
considerable moral struggle. O‘Meara and Koehler would have done better to stick with
their ethical concerns. Instead, however, they resort to ad hominem attacks and
undocumented claims. At various points, the authors suggest that opinions about groups
should not be based on second-hand experiences, or strictly on the research of ―arm-chair
critic[s]‖ whose findings are based on ―interviewing only people with negative opinions
[about a group]‖ (p. 35). This is good advice, and I wish the authors had taken it when
they wrote this section. They seem to base their findings only on people with negative
opinions about their experiences during exit-counseling. The opinions of scores of people
who describe their exit-counseling experiences in highly positive terms are not mentioned,
let alone thoughtfully considered. Instead, exit-counselors are universally described in
TCATC as ―browbeating,‖ as withholding the truth about their ―very low success rate,‖ and
as contributing to ―mak[ing] the [family] situation worse than ever‖ (p. 45). I don‘t know
how many exit-counselings the authors have witnessed first hand, but as a researcher with
some expertise in this area (Dubrow-Eichel, 1989, 1990), I do not believe ―browbeating‖ is
an accurate description of the process I experienced and wrote about. In fact, the exit-
counselors I know strongly advise against any kind of ―browbeating,‖ if only because it is
highly counterproductive. I will admit that I do not have objective data across a good
sample of exit-counselings to state categorically that they never involve ―browbeating.‖ But
neither do O‘Meara and Koehler. The same holds true with their claim of a ―very low
success rate.‖ The authors do not provide data backing this claim. The only
deprogramming/exit-counseling outcome data I‘m aware of (which is seriously outdated)
suggested a success rate of about 60-67%, which was comparable to the success rates
reported in hundreds of therapy outcome studies.
TCATC focuses a great deal on the need to respect unusual and unconventional beliefs.
Again, I am in full agreement. (As I wrote this, I was reminded of a time when I was
chastised by a Church of Scientology President for belonging to a profession that is
intolerant of unconventional or dissenting beliefs. I replied that anyone who believes
psychologists are coercive mind manipulators who are intolerant of unconventional beliefs
has clearly never been to a meeting of the American Psychological Association, where
practically any and all opinions about human behavior may be heard. If anything,
psychologists are typically accused of being too liberal and overly tolerant of lifestyles and
beliefs that most of society finds alien.) True, there are families and friends whose
objections to groups labeled ―cults‖ seem to be based primarily on the ―incorrectness‖ of
their beliefs. However, this is typically not what motivates families or friends to take action.
Parents come to see me because their sons or daughters who could always be trusted have
suddenly begun to lie a lot, or they have spent their college tuition on a group‘s ―courses‖
(without their parents‘ knowledge). Spouses come because a husband or wife has abruptly
left their marriage and their children, or has suddenly refused medical care. One person
contacted me because his wife began ―channeling‖ entities while driving. One of my most
recent cases involves a young woman who has just announced she will not see her family
again, ever, and that she will not visit her sister who is about to give birth. In another case,
a family contacted me because their daughter gave a group that advocates ―detachment
from materialism‖ her entire $350,000 inheritance. (The leader is presumably ―immune‖
from materialism.) Most concerned families and friends who have sought my help have
done so because of highly unusual behaviors, not controversial beliefs. O‘Meara and
Koehler do not address what to do when a loved one‘s behavior suddenly and drastically
becomes upsetting, hurtful, unscrupulous, or potentially harmful after becoming involved
with a group.
The third section closes with a strongly worded invective about the ―hoax of brainwashing
and mind control.‖ This review is not the place to address this complicated debate in detail.