Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008, Page 19
Narcissistic Fraud in the Ancient World: Lucian’s Account
of Alexander of Abonuteichos and the Cult of Glycon1
Stephen A. Kent, Ph.D.
University of Alberta
Abstract
Based upon Lucian of Samosata‘s account of Alexander of Abonuteichos, who
is the founder of the Glycon cult in second century Asia Minor, I argue that
Alexander likely is a malignant narcissist. I construct this argument by
summarizing Alexander‘s behaviors, and then showing how those behaviors
seemingly relate to modern psychiatric descriptions of narcissists. As such,
Alexander‘s behaviors have parallels with several modern cult leaders.
Moreover, Alexander‘s attempts to kill his critics suggests that he is a
particular type of narcissist—a malignant narcissist—making him a dangerous
and vengeful personality.
A single, but rather detailed, account of a newly formed cult and its leader survives from the
ancient world, written by a rhetorician named Lucian of Samosata (now Samsat, Turkey).
He is born around the year 120 A.D., lives for periods of time in Athens and Egypt, and dies
during or probably soon after 180 (see Costa 2005, vii Edwards 1949 Jones 1986, 8, 17).2
To a friend, he writes a scathing exposé of Alexander of Abonuteichos,3 and this account
surely ranks as among the earliest reports of sectarian malfeasance in Western civilization.
In and of itself, the account is of interest to persons who concern themselves with religious
wrongdoing in the contemporary world, since Alexander‘s deceits have broad parallels with
those of some more recent sectarian founders. Of some importance, however, is our ability
to apply contemporary psychiatric research to gain insight into the mind and motivations of
this manipulative, deceitful leader. In essence, I suggest that a mental disorder quite
recognizable among psychiatrists and clinicians likely is behind the actions of this cult figure
who lives some eighteen centuries ago. Since we have mounting evidence of the role that
mental disorders play in sectarian formation in modern times (Kent 2006 Lys 2005 Raine
2005), we can begin to explore the possibility that these disorders have played generative
roles in the creation of abusive religions for centuries if not millennia.
I contribute to this explorative possibility by first summarizing the account that Lucian
provides of Alexander, followed by an interpretation of Alexander‘s behaviors and attitudes
according to contemporary research on narcissistic personality disorder. More specifically, I
argue that Lucian‘s account strongly suggests that Alexander is a particularly dangerous
type of narcissist called a malignant narcissist, because of the way that he responds to
persons who appear to threaten either his public image or his fraudulent operation. By
making this argument, I place Alexander in the company of some modern sectarian leaders
who share similar traits.
Lucian’s Account
Calling Alexander a great ―villain‖ and a ―quack‖ (the latter because of his medical claims
[Alex., 1, see 5]),4 Lucian writes a multi-page account of both his ―daring schemes and his
chicaneries‖ (Alex.,, 1). Scholars generally agree that this account is based upon an actual
figure, ―and its factual basis [is] firmly established‖ by various archeological finds (Branham
1989, 182 see Anderson 1976, 72 Jones 1986, 133–148). Even with these finds as
Narcissistic Fraud in the Ancient World: Lucian’s Account
of Alexander of Abonuteichos and the Cult of Glycon1
Stephen A. Kent, Ph.D.
University of Alberta
Abstract
Based upon Lucian of Samosata‘s account of Alexander of Abonuteichos, who
is the founder of the Glycon cult in second century Asia Minor, I argue that
Alexander likely is a malignant narcissist. I construct this argument by
summarizing Alexander‘s behaviors, and then showing how those behaviors
seemingly relate to modern psychiatric descriptions of narcissists. As such,
Alexander‘s behaviors have parallels with several modern cult leaders.
Moreover, Alexander‘s attempts to kill his critics suggests that he is a
particular type of narcissist—a malignant narcissist—making him a dangerous
and vengeful personality.
A single, but rather detailed, account of a newly formed cult and its leader survives from the
ancient world, written by a rhetorician named Lucian of Samosata (now Samsat, Turkey).
He is born around the year 120 A.D., lives for periods of time in Athens and Egypt, and dies
during or probably soon after 180 (see Costa 2005, vii Edwards 1949 Jones 1986, 8, 17).2
To a friend, he writes a scathing exposé of Alexander of Abonuteichos,3 and this account
surely ranks as among the earliest reports of sectarian malfeasance in Western civilization.
In and of itself, the account is of interest to persons who concern themselves with religious
wrongdoing in the contemporary world, since Alexander‘s deceits have broad parallels with
those of some more recent sectarian founders. Of some importance, however, is our ability
to apply contemporary psychiatric research to gain insight into the mind and motivations of
this manipulative, deceitful leader. In essence, I suggest that a mental disorder quite
recognizable among psychiatrists and clinicians likely is behind the actions of this cult figure
who lives some eighteen centuries ago. Since we have mounting evidence of the role that
mental disorders play in sectarian formation in modern times (Kent 2006 Lys 2005 Raine
2005), we can begin to explore the possibility that these disorders have played generative
roles in the creation of abusive religions for centuries if not millennia.
I contribute to this explorative possibility by first summarizing the account that Lucian
provides of Alexander, followed by an interpretation of Alexander‘s behaviors and attitudes
according to contemporary research on narcissistic personality disorder. More specifically, I
argue that Lucian‘s account strongly suggests that Alexander is a particularly dangerous
type of narcissist called a malignant narcissist, because of the way that he responds to
persons who appear to threaten either his public image or his fraudulent operation. By
making this argument, I place Alexander in the company of some modern sectarian leaders
who share similar traits.
Lucian’s Account
Calling Alexander a great ―villain‖ and a ―quack‖ (the latter because of his medical claims
[Alex., 1, see 5]),4 Lucian writes a multi-page account of both his ―daring schemes and his
chicaneries‖ (Alex.,, 1). Scholars generally agree that this account is based upon an actual
figure, ―and its factual basis [is] firmly established‖ by various archeological finds (Branham
1989, 182 see Anderson 1976, 72 Jones 1986, 133–148). Even with these finds as
