Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, Page 28
feels that she can manipulate all aspects of her life if she can control her body and its
desires. Similarly, some ideological groups use dietary instructions and restrictions to
subjugate their ‗social body‘ of followers.
Several eating disorders exist, but I focus on anorexia nervosa, and particularly one social-
psychological explanation of it, because it allows for the clearest comparison to religious
starvation. Two other explanatory models for anorexia are the biomedical model and the
socio-cultural feminist model. The biomedical model assumes that anorexia is rooted in
physical and not mental problems. The biomedical model focuses on biochemical
imbalances in the brain as causation for anorexia (Brumberg, 1988: 24-25 Lelwica, 1999:
23). The biomedical model looks to the signs and symptoms of anorexia such as:
emaciation, amenorrhea, malnourishment, lanugo, depression, and hair loss, etc.
(Buckroyd, 1996: 5). In my view, however, these biomedical problems are effects of
anorexia not causes of it. The biomedical community still debates whether biochemical
imbalances cause or are components of anorexia (Lelwica 1999: 24).
The socio-cultural feminist model proposes that anorexia is a ‗culture-bound‘ syndrome
(Lelwica, 1999:25). Women become anorexic because they are overwhelmed with the
demands of womanhood (Buckroyd, 1996: 63). The expectation on women is to be selfless,
caring, and nurturing, while at the same time to be independent, self-reliant, and powerful
(Lelwica, 1999: 26). In this model, fear of the demands of womanhood and fear of their
own bodies causes anorexia, and anorexia is the result of women attempting to ‗keep‘ their
bodies childlike (Lelwica, 1999: 25). Often the proponents of the socio-cultural model look
to the fashion industry for causation of anorexia, as well as the over-representation of thin
women in the media. Throughout the past several decades, the ‗ideal‘ size of women has
shrunk (Buckroyd, 1996: 53). One can see the ‗shrinking‘ phenomena in the popular
media: ―[a] series of well-known studies point to the declining weight since the 1950s of
fashion models, Miss America contestants, and Playboy centerfolds‖ (Brumberg, 1988: 254).
The social-psychological explanation for anorexia is based on the assumption that its cause
is a desire to have complete control over one‘s body (Bruch, 1978 Brumberg, 1988
Lelwica, 1999 Miles, 1995 Orbach, 1986). As Joan Jacob Brumberg discusses, ―the
anorectic makes her body a stand-in for a life she cannot control‖ (Brumberg, 1988: 28).
Psychologist Hilde Bruch was one of the main pioneers of this theory, and she stresses that
the anorexic‘s desire for control is in opposition with her desire to be complacent and
obedient (Lelwica, 1999: 22).
The idea that regulation over food and diet creates a sense of total management over the
anorexic‘s life is well documented. Bruch discusses a seventeen-year-old anorexic who
talked about her own disease in the context of self-regimentation, stating, ―This was
something I could control. I still don‘t know what I look like or what size I am, but I know
my body can take anything‖ (Bruch, 1997: 218). Anorexics use their diet as the one part of
their lives over which they have complete and utter control, and then by extension are able
to feel a sense of power over other aspects of their lives. As one anorexic describes this
feeling of command, ―‗I felt powerful as an anorexic. Controlling my body yielded an illusion
of control over my life.… I had reduced my world to a plate of steamed carrots, and over
this tiny kingdom I proudly crowned myself queen‘‖ (quoted in Lelwica, 1999: 110).
The feelings of total self-rule that an anorexic feels while dieting are powerful and insidious.
The simple act of denying the body physical needs creates a feeling of domination over the
body and the self (Lelwica, 1999: 89). This domination and self-regulation that the anorexic
holds over herself is akin to the regulation that some ideological leaders impose upon their
members through diet and food restrictions.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, Page 29
Directly Imposed
A striking example of directly imposed anorexia appears in the dietary restrictions of Church
Universal and Triumphant. Its leader (until 1996), Elizabeth Clare Prophet, claimed to
channel messages from the great ascended masters (such as Jesus and the Buddha).
Through these messages, Prophet gave her followers direct orders about what they should
eat, how they should eat, and even where they should sit while eating. She stressed that
she knew what was best for them and that ―disobedience‖ (her word) would have been
detrimental to their health and well-being. While members‘ participation in dietary
restrictions might suggest that I should view the group as one that doctrinally accepted the
control of food, I include Prophet in the direct imposition category because of her face-to-
face contact with those of her followers who lived with her or who saw her at events or
retreats.
Prophet‘s dietary restrictions on her members have obvious analogies to the restraint that
the anorexic has over her own body. She wrote, for example, in an internal publication
entitled Pearls of Wisdom that when one eats:
…you must hold them [food] in your right hand, placing once again your left
hand to your heart and calling forth the infinite blessing of Almighty God and
the charging of that substance with a concentrated light that is specific for
your healing (Prophet and Prophet, 1978: 169-170).
Anorexics also often have elaborate ritualized behaviours that accompany eating, such as
breaking their food into little pieces or eating in a specified time (Johnston, 1993: 78).
These behaviours give anorexics a sense of familiarity and routine over their eating habits.
Likewise, Prophet was so intent upon her quest for dominance that she even prescribed
eating-related actions.
In addition to ritualizing the consumption of food, Prophet determined seating
arrangements. These instructions were a direct attempt to dictate the dietary environment
of her followers. For example, Prophet wrote: ―Father and mother should sit opposite one
another at the table anchoring the ray of Alpha and Omega, and the children on either side.
Perfect God-control should be held by father and mother in the wholeness‖ (Prophet and
Prophet, 1978: 71). In less controlled environments, the family meal serves to maintain and
develop familial bonds of solidarity, and family members interact with each one another in
an informal and relaxed atmosphere (Levenstein, 1988:162). Prophet‘s infiltration of the
family meal, therefore, had direct implications for the weakening of group member familial
social bonds. She, however, explained her dietary restraints as necessary so that one
neither strained nor stressed one‘s body temple (Prophet and Prophet 1978: 75). It
appears, however, that the excuse of strain was just a way to exact persistent obedience
from followers.
Prophet outlined what her followers took into their bodies, as well as when and how they
ate. Like the anorexic who uses diet to control herself, Prophet used diet and eating rituals
to repress her followers. In fact, she threatened her followers that if they did not follow her
‗suggestions‘ about what to eat, then they may have been contributing to their own demise:
Watch then, the substance that you take into your body for the appetites of the physical
body and the appetites of death, and when you take in impure substance you violate the
code of the Holy Spirit and you shorten the days of your service. And therefore, let food that
is alive and let the juices of food that is alive be a part of your daily ritual in the Holy Spirit
(Prophet, 1978: 245).
Elizabeth Clare Prophet‘s personal diet varied considerably from the low calorie, bland food
of the members of Church Universal and Triumphant. Prophet had her own walk-in
refrigerator stocked with expensive delicacies such as exotic fruit, ice cream, and seafood