Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 67
The public perception of intervention or ―deprogramming‖ has been molded by the tense
propaganda between cultic groups, their sympathizers, and critics, and by the images and
story lines in the media. Interventions that have received serious attention from the media
(newspapers and television news) are almost always the kidnap/deprogram variety,
especially when such incidents fail and result in litigation or prosecution. Kidnap style
deprogramming in the United States has declined radically since the early 1990s despite
evidence that hundreds of such potentially illegal interventions occurred during the 1970s
through 1980s. My contention is that coercive approaches to intervention have always been
only a small fraction of overall attempts at intervention, but the perception of
deprogramming, or cult intervention, with kidnapping as the primary intervention strategy
persists among the general public.4
This perception is fueled not so much from the critics of cultic groups, but remains within
the propaganda generated by embattled cults or new religious movements themselves.5 The
hated deprogrammer and his alleged brutality serve to distance group members from their
antagonistic or less than sympathetic families who might hire such a person.
Deprogrammers also fulfill the role of a Satan or dark force par excellence that would steal
one‘s soul or ―light.‖ These perceptions, often fueled by group propaganda,6 make it difficult
for families to openly introduce any critic or ex-member to a cult member in non-coercive
settings—especially since the late 1970s.7 From the controversial group member‘s viewpoint
all interventions are suspected as not only possible avenues for disturbing or ―evil‖
information, but also for what might degenerate into a brutal deprogramming once it
begins. This ―fear‖ can be a powerful prophylactic against participation in a family discussion
of even the most benign proportions with a counselor or consultant—a horrible
deprogrammer might appear by surprise in a family arranged setting.8
The public perception that the deprogrammer is a necessary mercenary on one hand, or a
hero willing to risk jail on the other, is a result of selective attention to kidnap/
deprogramming in newspaper, magazine and television reporting, especially in cases that
fail.9 Litigation and criminal charges are news that become public domain, whereas success
stories from interventions rarely make news as the families of ex-members and ex-
members prefer privacy.10 Successful intervention dramas, however, are presented to the
public in another format—the movie or television special. These productions, whether
journalistic, fictional, or dramatized ―true stories,‖ have focused on the kidnap/
deprogramming approach as the ―last resort‖ intervention strategy of a desperate family. All
of the significant productions that we review in this paper end with the group member
leaving the group after a dramatic intervention that involves some kind of coercion. Never is
the group member presented as returning to the ―cult‖ after intervention despite evidence
in my awareness that nearly half did.
Twice movie producers have approached me to advise them about deprogramming—one
film aired as an NBC TV special in 1994 and many times thereafter on cable TV. The story
was based on two 1988 cases about which I had intimate knowledge. O‘Hara-Horowitz
Productions purchased the rights to my story and hired me as a consultant. My experience
with that production company and their script writer led me to ponder why the producers
gravitated to this one approach to intervention—the physically coercive one—despite my
best efforts to offer them an interesting non-coercive intervention story. The answer was
ratings—producers are worried about who might watch their story. Stories that portray
crime, violence, sex, and suspense attract a wider audience.11 I knew that within this
specific theme of a deprogramming and a cult, most of these attractive, sensational
elements can and have occurred to some degree, and a kidnapping scene adds to the
suspense.12 The producers could, therefore, claim to represent ―reality.‖
Certainly, many former members of some of the more abusive or manipulative groups can
identify with the way that such films portray cults. And, certainly, some cultic group
The public perception of intervention or ―deprogramming‖ has been molded by the tense
propaganda between cultic groups, their sympathizers, and critics, and by the images and
story lines in the media. Interventions that have received serious attention from the media
(newspapers and television news) are almost always the kidnap/deprogram variety,
especially when such incidents fail and result in litigation or prosecution. Kidnap style
deprogramming in the United States has declined radically since the early 1990s despite
evidence that hundreds of such potentially illegal interventions occurred during the 1970s
through 1980s. My contention is that coercive approaches to intervention have always been
only a small fraction of overall attempts at intervention, but the perception of
deprogramming, or cult intervention, with kidnapping as the primary intervention strategy
persists among the general public.4
This perception is fueled not so much from the critics of cultic groups, but remains within
the propaganda generated by embattled cults or new religious movements themselves.5 The
hated deprogrammer and his alleged brutality serve to distance group members from their
antagonistic or less than sympathetic families who might hire such a person.
Deprogrammers also fulfill the role of a Satan or dark force par excellence that would steal
one‘s soul or ―light.‖ These perceptions, often fueled by group propaganda,6 make it difficult
for families to openly introduce any critic or ex-member to a cult member in non-coercive
settings—especially since the late 1970s.7 From the controversial group member‘s viewpoint
all interventions are suspected as not only possible avenues for disturbing or ―evil‖
information, but also for what might degenerate into a brutal deprogramming once it
begins. This ―fear‖ can be a powerful prophylactic against participation in a family discussion
of even the most benign proportions with a counselor or consultant—a horrible
deprogrammer might appear by surprise in a family arranged setting.8
The public perception that the deprogrammer is a necessary mercenary on one hand, or a
hero willing to risk jail on the other, is a result of selective attention to kidnap/
deprogramming in newspaper, magazine and television reporting, especially in cases that
fail.9 Litigation and criminal charges are news that become public domain, whereas success
stories from interventions rarely make news as the families of ex-members and ex-
members prefer privacy.10 Successful intervention dramas, however, are presented to the
public in another format—the movie or television special. These productions, whether
journalistic, fictional, or dramatized ―true stories,‖ have focused on the kidnap/
deprogramming approach as the ―last resort‖ intervention strategy of a desperate family. All
of the significant productions that we review in this paper end with the group member
leaving the group after a dramatic intervention that involves some kind of coercion. Never is
the group member presented as returning to the ―cult‖ after intervention despite evidence
in my awareness that nearly half did.
Twice movie producers have approached me to advise them about deprogramming—one
film aired as an NBC TV special in 1994 and many times thereafter on cable TV. The story
was based on two 1988 cases about which I had intimate knowledge. O‘Hara-Horowitz
Productions purchased the rights to my story and hired me as a consultant. My experience
with that production company and their script writer led me to ponder why the producers
gravitated to this one approach to intervention—the physically coercive one—despite my
best efforts to offer them an interesting non-coercive intervention story. The answer was
ratings—producers are worried about who might watch their story. Stories that portray
crime, violence, sex, and suspense attract a wider audience.11 I knew that within this
specific theme of a deprogramming and a cult, most of these attractive, sensational
elements can and have occurred to some degree, and a kidnapping scene adds to the
suspense.12 The producers could, therefore, claim to represent ―reality.‖
Certainly, many former members of some of the more abusive or manipulative groups can
identify with the way that such films portray cults. And, certainly, some cultic group
