Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008, Page 29
Only the captain‘s pleadings with the crew save his life. It is speculative, but certainly in
accordance with events, to say that Alexander would have seen Lucian‘s ―killing as a
righteous act of retaliation‖ (Ronningstam 2005, 107).
Conclusion: Narcissism and Sectarian Religious Formation
In records from the ancient world, Alexander is unique.
There is no known instance in the pagan world in which a single ―religious
genius‖ achieved success equal to that of Alexander. He appeared from
nowhere and convinced people throughout much of the Mediterranean basin
that he was, in some sense, intimate with the divine. (Branham 1989, 186)
And so we are left wondering if others in his era express narcissism through non-religious
channels, or if the condition was even rarer then than it is now [currently at less than one
percent of the population (American Psychiatric Association 2000)]. To these questions, we
will never have answers. Certainly the ancient world—Jewish, Christian, and pagan—
witnessed some remarkable sectarian expressions (see, for example, Horsley and Hanson
1985 Hultgren and Haggmark [eds.] 1996 Kraemer 2004 MacDermot 1971) but we
simply lack the biographical detail about their founders that exists about Alexander.
What we can answer, however, are questions about whether narcissism often plays a role in
the origins of religion or in the motivation for religious leaders within existing traditions. To
both of these questions, we can answer affirmatively. In the context of religious origins, we
have two well-documented faiths whose creators were narcissists—Joseph Smith of
Mormonism and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh of the Rajneeshees.19 As I pointed out, Smith
likely was a malignant narcissist himself, and it is also worth noting that his rage at an
institution that had criticized him ultimately led to his death. A mob dragged him out of a
jail and murdered him in 1844, ―after he destroyed a printing press that had published the
Nauvoo Expositor, which spoke negatively about him, polygamy, and a theocratic
monarchy‖ (Anderson 1999, 242). The religion that he founded, however, has flourished,
and it has ―become the only truly successful American religion, now international in scope
and capable of wielding social and political power‖ (Anderson 1999, 242). In its day, the
Glycon cult also was successful, reaching into the upper ranks of Roman society and
apparently surviving well into the century following the death of its founder (Jones 1986,
138).
Rajneesh‘s religion has not fared nearly as well as Mormonism, with its main community in
America dissolving after the guru‘s conviction (and resultant deportation in 1985) for
making false statements to a government official, followed by his deportation (Carter 1990,
236–237). When flourishing in 1983, the commune in Oregon attracted some 15,000 people
to a particular celebration (Carter 1990, 166, 183), and some 1,500 to 2,500 lived in the
facility in 1984 (Carter 1990, 207). Despite Rajneesh‘s death in 1990, however, hundreds of
centers still operate in countries around the world.
Although the religious and psychotherapeutic message of Rajneesh is very different from
the prophetic oracular directives and reputed healings that Alexander produces, the
personalities of the two men are very similar. Like Alexander, ―Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh‘s
sense of self-importance and uniqueness seem[ed] to possess no limits‖ (Clark 1988, 33).
He ―clearly consider[ed] himself to be a man of world-historical significance‖ (Clark 1988,
34), although he never developed the political contacts that Alexander does. Reminiscent of
Alexander‘s willingness to reinterpret failed prophecies, Rajneesh, too, had a ―narcissistic
penchant for transforming failures into successes‖ (Clark 1988, 35). Just as Alexander feeds
off the energy and support of crowds, ―Rajneesh thoroughly delight[ed] in being the sole
focus of attention of his thousands of adoring fans‖ (Clark 1988, 38). Moreover, both
religious figures were ―‗master[s]‘ at manipulating and exploiting other people‖ (Clark 1988,
Only the captain‘s pleadings with the crew save his life. It is speculative, but certainly in
accordance with events, to say that Alexander would have seen Lucian‘s ―killing as a
righteous act of retaliation‖ (Ronningstam 2005, 107).
Conclusion: Narcissism and Sectarian Religious Formation
In records from the ancient world, Alexander is unique.
There is no known instance in the pagan world in which a single ―religious
genius‖ achieved success equal to that of Alexander. He appeared from
nowhere and convinced people throughout much of the Mediterranean basin
that he was, in some sense, intimate with the divine. (Branham 1989, 186)
And so we are left wondering if others in his era express narcissism through non-religious
channels, or if the condition was even rarer then than it is now [currently at less than one
percent of the population (American Psychiatric Association 2000)]. To these questions, we
will never have answers. Certainly the ancient world—Jewish, Christian, and pagan—
witnessed some remarkable sectarian expressions (see, for example, Horsley and Hanson
1985 Hultgren and Haggmark [eds.] 1996 Kraemer 2004 MacDermot 1971) but we
simply lack the biographical detail about their founders that exists about Alexander.
What we can answer, however, are questions about whether narcissism often plays a role in
the origins of religion or in the motivation for religious leaders within existing traditions. To
both of these questions, we can answer affirmatively. In the context of religious origins, we
have two well-documented faiths whose creators were narcissists—Joseph Smith of
Mormonism and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh of the Rajneeshees.19 As I pointed out, Smith
likely was a malignant narcissist himself, and it is also worth noting that his rage at an
institution that had criticized him ultimately led to his death. A mob dragged him out of a
jail and murdered him in 1844, ―after he destroyed a printing press that had published the
Nauvoo Expositor, which spoke negatively about him, polygamy, and a theocratic
monarchy‖ (Anderson 1999, 242). The religion that he founded, however, has flourished,
and it has ―become the only truly successful American religion, now international in scope
and capable of wielding social and political power‖ (Anderson 1999, 242). In its day, the
Glycon cult also was successful, reaching into the upper ranks of Roman society and
apparently surviving well into the century following the death of its founder (Jones 1986,
138).
Rajneesh‘s religion has not fared nearly as well as Mormonism, with its main community in
America dissolving after the guru‘s conviction (and resultant deportation in 1985) for
making false statements to a government official, followed by his deportation (Carter 1990,
236–237). When flourishing in 1983, the commune in Oregon attracted some 15,000 people
to a particular celebration (Carter 1990, 166, 183), and some 1,500 to 2,500 lived in the
facility in 1984 (Carter 1990, 207). Despite Rajneesh‘s death in 1990, however, hundreds of
centers still operate in countries around the world.
Although the religious and psychotherapeutic message of Rajneesh is very different from
the prophetic oracular directives and reputed healings that Alexander produces, the
personalities of the two men are very similar. Like Alexander, ―Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh‘s
sense of self-importance and uniqueness seem[ed] to possess no limits‖ (Clark 1988, 33).
He ―clearly consider[ed] himself to be a man of world-historical significance‖ (Clark 1988,
34), although he never developed the political contacts that Alexander does. Reminiscent of
Alexander‘s willingness to reinterpret failed prophecies, Rajneesh, too, had a ―narcissistic
penchant for transforming failures into successes‖ (Clark 1988, 35). Just as Alexander feeds
off the energy and support of crowds, ―Rajneesh thoroughly delight[ed] in being the sole
focus of attention of his thousands of adoring fans‖ (Clark 1988, 38). Moreover, both
religious figures were ―‗master[s]‘ at manipulating and exploiting other people‖ (Clark 1988,
