Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, Page 34
In a doctrinal publication Brooks and Foss state that, ―We must begin to stop eating poisons
in order to stop the ageing process and to begin to take control of our own bodies instead of
letting our bodies control us‖ (Brooks and Foss, 1982: 142, emphasis added). Furthermore,
Breatharianism stresses the need for domination of our bodies in order to free ourselves
from the restraints of humanity (Brooks and Foss, 1982: 18).
It is interesting to note that both Wiley Brooks and Ellen Graves (a.k.a. Jasmuheen) have
used the same excuse when they have been caught eating. When followers caught Wiley
Brooks eating in the 1970s he claimed that he was not able to properly gain nutrients from
the air due to air pollution (Lagasse, 2002: 72). Jasmuheen used an identical excuse when
she had to back out of a surveillance challenge issued by Australia‘s 60 Minutes TV show.
Jasmuheen claimed that pollution from a roadway nearby was polluting the air and therefore
she could not garner the nutrients she needed through her breath (Lagasse, 2002: 72).
Notions of food and eating guide and regiment the whole life of a Breatharian, which is
parallel to the anorexic‘s manipulation of her life in the same manner. Breatharianism
teaches that he or she should concentrate on not eating and not feeling hunger, just like the
anorexic that might think obsessively about not eating all day. This desire to fast and not
feel hunger invades all aspects of one‘s life it becomes all-encompassing. Breatharianism
is a comprehensive ideology that, like anorexia, controls its members.
Breatharianism is an audience cult whereby membership primarily involves consumer
activities (Stark and Bainbridge, 1985: 26). Members consume cult doctrine through mass
media, in particular via the Internet. Due to the non-communal nature of Breatharianism,
members most likely do not interact with Jasmuheen on an interpersonal level. Therefore,
followers learn to control themselves via the guise of group doctrine. By extension, the
leader (Jasmuheen in the case of Breatharianism) indirectly gains control over surrogate
bodies, those of her followers.
In her ―bounded choice‖ model of NRM involvement, Janja Lalich discusses internal
mechanisms of control (Lalich, 2004). She refers specifically to Heaven‘s Gate and the
Democratic Workers Party, which were both total institutions:
But the harshest sanction of all was internal— the devoted member‘s inner
capacity to control urges, desires, actions, thoughts, and beliefs that were
contrary to the group‘s teaching. Self-condemnation was everyday fare.
These internalized sanctions were among the most powerful mechanisms of
control. Ultimately, the individual cult member‘s ability to enact freedom of
action was not restricted by lurking external forces or even by the confines of
the system. Rather, at this point of the fusion of personal freedom and self-
renunciation, at this point of personal closure the individual may well become
his own source of constraint (Lalich, 2004: 254 emphasis added).
I extend Lalich‘s internal mechanism of control to apply to Breatharianism, even though
Breatharianism is an audience cult and not a total institution. Within Breatharianism, the
individual becomes his or her own harshest critic, despite the lack of ―. ..lurking external
forces‖ (Lalich, 2004: 254).
Conclusion
I adapt the social psychological control theory of anorexia to relate to what I call imposed
anorexia. Imposed anorexia is a form of dietary restriction that one does not originate with
oneself but with a high demand ideological leader. In some instances, that leader imposes
the heavily restricted diet directly (in the case of Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Rama Behera).
In other instances, mediators enforce the restriction on others (as in the case of Anne
Hamilton-Byrne). In still other instances (as with Breatharians), seekers follow doctrines
and essentially implement the restrictions on (or against) themselves. The evidence from

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, Page 35
these groups suggests that as researchers continue studying eating disorders we can apply
some of the theories coming out of anorexia research to the study of diet within high
commitment environments.
A frequent element among leaders who impose dietary restrictions is that they do not follow
their own dietary advice. Usually leaders set themselves above their members in terms of
nutrition requirements and the quality and quantity of the food. Anne Hamilton-Byrne ate
very well despite her insistence that her young ‗children‘ eat only the bare minimum.
Likewise, Elizabeth Clare Prophet had her own walk-in refrigerator full of delicacies and
delights while her followers were not getting enough food to maintain their weight (Paolini
and Paolini, 2000: 73). Wiley Brooks and Ellen Graves (a.k.a Jasmuheen) said that their
reasons for eating were due to pollution, not due to their status as leader or founder. As
well, Rama Behera reputedly ate whatever and whenever he wanted, while his followers
subsisted for long periods on grape juice and water, the occasional bread and chili sauce, or
feasts of rotten food.
Whether leaders enforced diets directly, had mediators do it, or saw their doctrines used as
models for self-restraint and reputed spiritual advancement, common tendencies remain
within and among all of their followers. In each group, many members appear to have been
undernourished, and their basic nutritional needs often were not met. Although leaders
may have some different reasons for their food-intake restrictions, I make the argument
that one of the underlying motives for their dietary restrictions is an attempt to govern
members‘ bodies as their own surrogate bodies. Leaders most likely have their own
reasons why they would subject followers to this level of control. Underlying psychological
motivations may be the cause for some ideological group leaders attempting to control
members, but in all cases the consequences for members‘ health can be dire if not deadly.
Future research will have to determine whether imposed anorexia increases leaders‘ control
over members, or merely reflects the near-total control that some of them already have
over their flock. The phenomenon of subservient members and high-demand leaders is well
known, but it will take careful mapping of leadership trajectories to learn precisely when and
why, as power and control dynamics, some people undertake to control severely the diets of
others. Moreover, we have yet to know what members themselves feel about the presumed
benefits, harms, and degrees of choice that they have around dietary restrictions. These
questions and others may find answers as research continues on the importance of food
within new religions, as we continue to explore why some groups provide feasts while
others require fasts for those who follow them.
Notes
1 For a discussion of Jewish dietary rules see Kemelman 1971. For Christian dietary practices see
Gremillion 1978 and Sack, 1999. For a discussion of Islamic dietary rules see Denny 1994: 283-285,
and 361-363. For a discussion of Jain diet and fasting behaviour see Dundas 1992 and Dundas 1985.
For Hindu dietary restrictions in relation to the caste system see Dumont 1970.
2 For a critical discussion of Melton and Lewis‘s study of Church Universal and Triumphant see Balch
and Langdon, 1998.
3 I use the term, anorexia, because of its association with psychological control dynamics (which I
discuss later), not its association with a thin or emaciated body.
4 I am aware that other ideological groups and NRMs also fit into this model and I hope to include
them in a larger study.
5 For a detailed discussion of the academic polarization in the study of new religious movements see
Langone, 2000 and Zablocki and Robbins, 2001.
6 See Griffith, 1999 for an interesting discussion of the union of fasting and dieting in Christianity.
7 Technically one who suffers from anorexia is a anorectic. The most commonly used term, however,
is anorexic. For the sake of clarity, therefore, I follow common convention and use ‗anorexic.‘