Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, Page 25
18. Stephen J. Morgan.
19. Phillip G. Zimbardo, ―The Human Choice: Individuation, Reason, and Order Versus
Deindividuation, Impulse, and Chaos,‖ in W. T. Arnold and D. Levine (eds.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, vol. 17 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1969), pp. 237–307.
20. B. Mullen, ―Atrocity as a Function of Lynch Mob Composition: A Self-Attention Perspective,‖
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 12, pp. 187-197.
21. Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (Boston:
Little, Brown, 1995).
22. Henri Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1982).
23. James Waller, Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing (Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press, 2002).
24. Dave Grossman.
25. Richard Holmes, Acts of War: The Behavior of Men in Battle (New York: Free Press, 1986).
26. Stanley Milgram, ―Behavioral Study of Obedience,‖ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
vol. 67, 1963, pp. 371–378.
27. Thomas Robbins.
28. Donelson R. Forsyth.
29. Serge Moscovici, ―Social Influence and Conformity,‖ in G. Linzey and Elliot Aronson (eds.),
Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed. (New York: Random House, 1985) ,pp. 347–412.
30. Donelson R. Forsyth.
31. James Waller.
Acknowledgement
Reprinted with the author's permission from Journal of Homeland Security, March 2004.
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/stahelski.html
Anthony Stahelski received his Ph.D. in social and organizational psychology from the
University of California at Los Angeles in 1981. He is a professor at Central Washington
University and director of the Master‘s Program in Organization Development, which trains
leaders to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of groups and organizations. His
research interests focus on various dynamics of small group interaction, particularly as
manifested in cults and extremist groups. He has taught courses on the psychology of
terrorism and has presented seminars on the mindset of a terrorist to law enforcement
personnel in the state of Washington.
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Review, 2005, Volume 4,
Number 1, pages 30-40. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the
bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, Page 26
Imposed Anorexia: A Model of Dietary Restriction in Four
Ideological Groups
Jessie Meikle
Department of Sociology
University of Alberta
Abstract
This article develops a model of ‗imposed anorexia‘ within new religious
movements. In particular, I argue for a three-fold model of imposed
anorexia: directly imposed, mediated, and doctrinally accepted. I develop
this model of imposed anorexia by analyzing the dietary habits and
restrictions in four NRMs: Church Universal and Triumphant, The Disciples of
the Lord Jesus Christ, Breatharianism, and the Family of Anne Hamilton-
Byrne (The Great White Brotherhood). Specifically, I conceptualize imposed
anorexia as a form of control that ideological leaders hold over their
‗surrogate bodies,‘ which are those of their followers.
Few scholarly works exist that discuss dietary restrictions in a religious context, and most of
the work written on this subject concentrates on major world religions.1 Of particular
interest are studies of ‗holy anorexia‘ among medieval Catholic woman whose severe self-
deprivation sometimes gained them religious status (see Bell, 1985 Walker-Bynum, 1987).
Even fewer works on alternative religions discuss the relationship between diet and social
control. For example, Bradley Whitsel‘s recent study of Church Universal and Triumphant
overlooks the group‘s diet and eating habits, despite the importance that the group placed
on food. Likewise, an earlier controversial study (Lewis and Melton, 1993) also neglected to
discuss how group leadership used food to control members (perhaps because the editors
seemed to overlook aspects of the group that might cast it in a negative light).2
In this article, I argue that selected leaders of ideological groups and new religious
movements (NRMs) use dietary restrictions to regulate members‘ bodies and minds in much
the same manner as anorectics use dietary restrictions to govern their lives. I call this
regulation ‗imposed anorexia,‘3 and I present a three- fold model of it. First, directly
imposed anorexia occurs when the group leader gives orders or commands that restrict
members‘ diets. Second, doctrinally accepted anorexia occurs when a person adopts the
dietary rules and regulations of group leaders on their own, with few if any direct orders of
their inter-mediators. This kind of adoption takes place in what Stark and Bainbridge (1985)
call ‗audience cults,‘ which involve members receiving doctrine through mass media outlets
(Stark and Bainbridge, 1985: 26). Third, mediated anorexia occurs when the group leader
gives instructions or orders through another person or down a chain of command through
his or her followers. The three categories of imposed anorexia are not mutually exclusive,
but form an outline for a model of member control through the use of food restrictions. I
draw examples from four ideological groups: Church Universal and Triumphant,
Breatharianism, Rama Behera‘s Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, and The Family of Anne
Hamilton-Byrne from Australia (sometimes referred to as The Great White Brotherhood).4
By studying an aspect of new religions that focuses on potential harm, I nevertheless do not
wish to entangle myself in the academic polarization that Susan Palmer refers to as ―the cult
wars‖ (Palmer, 2001).5 Nor do I wish to pass judgment on ideological groups, especially
since the so-called mainstream American diet is also harmful, as evidenced by the plethora