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

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, Page 27
of diet-related illnesses such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. My objective,
however, in this study is to critically engage certain group doctrines and practices involving
diet that might be harmful to members. The diets of some groups, in some instances,
contain potentially harmful dimensions that reflect the control issues of leaders as well as
the power structures embedded within the group organization and operation. Following
Michel Foucault, we see that the body is, ―…a target and vehicle of modern disciplinary
practices‖ (Sawicki, 1991: 95) but in this instance, the disciplinarians are ideological
leaders. Through severe food restrictions, these leaders enhance their influence over the
individual and in turn, the individual develops the illusion of gaining control over his or her
own body.
Traditional Notions of Food and Religion
In the traditional religious studies literature dealing with diet or food and religion, several
themes are prevalent. From a religious studies perspective, Paul Fieldhouse‘s study of the
role of diet in religion examines the use of food to communicate with God or with
otherworldly deities (Fieldhouse, 1995:120). Communication usually takes place with a
food sacrifice involving a ritualistic or symbolic act, such as taking the Eucharist in
Christianity. The Eucharist is a highly symbolic act in protestant Christianity, whereas in the
Catholic tradition, the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ through
the process of transubstantiation (Fieldhouse, 1995: 103 Oxtoby, 1996: 220).
Another traditional notion surrounding food and religion is that food practices demonstrate
one‘s faith (Ayoub,1996: 382 Fieldhouse, 1995: 120). For example, Jewish, Muslim, and
Hindu dietary laws express followers‘ acceptance of the reputed word of God. Furthermore,
religious followers deny food to reject worldliness (Amore and Ching, 1996: 219
Fieldhouse, 1995: 120). Fasting is the most common way that religious devotees reject the
world to practice asceticism6—a point to which I will return, as it is very important for my
theoretical discussion. Food practices also enhance group feelings of solidarity and identity
(Fieldhouse, 1995: 120). As Fieldhouse articulates, ―[I]individuals who observe codified
food rules make a public demonstration of belonging to a group, and every day provide
themselves with a private affirmation of identification with the group. In this way, a sense
of belonging is constantly reinforced‖ (Fieldhouse, 1995: 122).
Food practices relate to religion because they are an expression of separateness from other
religious or nonreligious groups (Fieldhouse, 1995: 120). This function of separation is clear
in Jewish and Muslim dietary laws, and Hindu caste rules are very specific about who can
and cannot eat certain foods (Fieldhouse, 1995: 122 Narayanan, 1996: 89 Segal, 1995:
108). Finally, religious followers use food practices in a spiritual context for ecological
reasons, such as vegetarianism or veganism in the New Age spirituality movement
(Fieldhouse, 1995: 120).
These traditional notions and themes surrounding the religious functions of food are valid
and useful perspectives, but are incomplete. Fieldhouse‘s discussion, for example, does not
identify that some ideological groups use food and diet restrictions to control followers in a
pervasive and comprehensive manner. In addressing this omission, I argue that some high
demand ideological leaders use dietary restrictions in attempts to govern followers‘ bodies
as if they were surrogates for their own bodies.
Anorexia Nervosa
Some high-commitment ideological groups that exact dietary restrictions are analogous to
anorexics7 who restrict their own diets in attempts to regulate their lives (Bruch, 1978
Bruch, 1997 Brumberg 1988 Lelwica, 1999 Miles, 1995). In this context, anorexia
nervosa is a disease that completely encompasses the sufferers‘ lives. They make basic,
everyday decisions based on their relation and desire for self-regimentation. The anorexic