Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 3
Psychotherapy and the “New Religions”:
Are They the Same?
Daniel Kriegman, Ph.D.
Leonard Solomon, Ph.D.
Abstract
Kilbourne and Richardson (1984) propose that cult groups (which they refer
to as ―new religions‖) and psychotherapy are ―functionally equivalent‖ and
essentially the same. In this paper, we critically examine their logic and
conclusions. The cult group seeks to lock the member into a highly dependent
relationship to the leader, thereby foreclosing the member‘s further growth
and development. Psychotherapy seeks to utilize and resolve a patient‘s
natural yearning for a dependent nurturant relationship with the therapist in
order to lead to greater internal freedom and personal autonomy. By critically
examining the deeper level differences, this paper serves to illuminate the
importance of distinguishing between such phenomena. There are, for
example, profound differences between the manipulative techniques of social
influence and control exercised by cults and the societally sanctioned and
ethically applied techniques inherent in the curative process of
psychotherapy.
Recently there has been considerable polarization of opinion in regard to cult phenomena as
noted by several authors in this journal (Ash, 1984
Galanti, 1984 Langone, 1984). Anticult and pro-cult positions have developed, and it can
be shown how the terminology they use clearly demonstrates the biases present.
Ash attempts to show that the diversity of opinion even makes the word ―cult‖ hard to
define. Authors who are critical of cults emphasize the process of ―brainwashing,‖ and the
degree of authoritarian control over all aspects of life. Those authors who are ―laissez-faire‖
or pro-cult tend to emphasize the ―structural support‖ of cult groups and how they
function as a ―way-station‖ for emotionally troubled young adults (e.g., Levine, 1984). They
(pro-cultists) tend to blur the differences between ―cult groups‖ and other types of religious
groups.
Apparently taking a relatively pro-cult stance, Kilbourne and Richardson, in an article in the
American Psychologist (1984), propose that the ―new religions‖ (Note 1). are, in essence,
the same as psychotherapy. Following their logic, cults could be best understood as an
alternative form of psychotherapy, or psychotherapy could be understood to be one of the
―new religions‖. The purpose of this article is to critically evaluate Kilbourne and
Richardson‘s proposal, and to examine its oversimplified theoretical base in the light of our
own clinical research studies with the followers of Guru Maharaj ]i‘s Divine Light Mission
(Kriegman, 1980 Kriegrnan and Solomon, 1985) and our extensive clinical practice with
young adult patients.
Based upon six commonalities they describe between psychotherapy and the ―new
religions‖, Kilbourne and Richardson posit a ―functional equivalence of these two
approaches to reality, individual adjustment, and growth‖ (p. 237). They claim that: 1)
psychotherapy and the new religions arise in the same sociohistorical context and thus are
both a response to the same cultural pressures and needs 2) the new religions and
psychotherapy tend to appeal to the same people, and that ―members‖ and ―patients‖ refer

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 4
to individuals drawn from the same groups 3) the underlying ―deep structure‖ (supportive,
empathic, confiding relationship special setting with symbols of hope and healing special
rationale that explains health and illness and a special set of rituals and practices) is the
same 4) both serve the same common functions—improving the functioning and/or self-
esteem of the member or patient 5) they have similar cognitive and interactive styles, i.e.,
the way in which members/patients think about themselves or interact with others is
essentially the same and 6) both psychotherapy and the new religions tend to be referred
to by outsiders in a derogatory manner and are scapegoated.
Based on these presumed commonalities Kilbourne and Richardson reach the provocative
but oversimplified and fallacious conclusion that psychotherapy and the ―new religions‖ are
essentially the same. We believe there are profound differences in form, structure, process,
and outcome for psychotherapy as compared to the ―new religions‖.
Interestingly, we (Kriegman and Solomon, 1985 Kriegman, 1980) have also documented
some striking similarities between psychotherapy and religious cult groups, namely1, the
relationship of the patient/member to the therapist/leader/group and 2) the sense of relief
and positive change that accompanies the formation of the relationship with the
therapist/leader/group. However, we also clearly delineate major differences. We have
suggested that Kohut‘s ―self-psychology‖ and clinical perspectives (Kohut, 1971, 1977) can
serve to illuminate the ―psychosocial fit‖ between what cult groups promise and the
yearning for ―self-cohesion‖ on the part of the ―true believer‖ or potential recruit.
The parallels between the particular type of transference which develops during the clinical
treatment of narcissistic personality disorders and the idealization of the cult leader are so
striking that when one reads Kohut‘s descriptions of the ―idealizing transference‖ it seems
as though he might be describing the typical relationship between a cult member and his
leader (Kriegman and Solomon, 1985). The cult group‘s use of this type of transference or
bonding phenomenon, however, is markedly different from the manner in which the
therapist seeks to ―work through‖ and resolve this type of transference. In Kriegman &
Solomon (1985), we describe how a resolution leading to greater internal freedom and
personal autonomy is brought about in the therapeutic process. We believe that Kilbourne
and Richardson‘s conclusion that psychotherapy and religious cults are essentially the same
is unwarranted. Let us examine some of their arguments.
The Correlation In Time Fallacy
Kilbourne and Richardson (1984) state:
Both psychotherapy and new religions exist within the same sociohistorical
context, even though psychotherapeutic approaches gained impetus a few
decades earlier ...(p. 238)
They go on to list some of the characteristics of the current ―sociohistorical context,‖ with
the implication being that certain features of modern-day western society have led to the
appeal of both psychotherapy and the ―new religions,‖ which, it is concluded, serve similar
societal needs. While it may be true that certain features of modern society have led to
certain types of anxieties, to argue that these two ―solutions‖ are therefore functionally
equivalent is simply not logical. Raising a family and developing a productive fulfilling
career, on the one hand, and a life of crime and heroin addiction, on the other, are both, at
least in part, solutions to existential anxiety. Though they both may offer partial solutions to
the same problem, there is no reason to conclude that they are therefore essentially the
same. The correlation of two phenomena with a third cannot be used to argue that the
original two are related in any particular way. To do so would be a form of the
correlation/causation fallacy, for anything that comes into being within the same time period