Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 7
(1984) article. In one, a psychotic individual attempted to join and participate. The other
members ignored him, literally turning their backs on him. They knew that he had little
ability to relate to them, that he would ―drain‖ their energies, and that he had nothing to
offer the cult. While psychotherapists may find certain patients more attractive than others
(Luborsky, 1984), an ethical psychotherapist would not reject or ignore a difficult patient.
Deviant Psychotherapy: Authoritarian “Cult-Like” Modes of Treatment
There are certainly some narcissistic psychotherapists who form therapy groups that take
on cult-like characteristics (Kohut, 1976 Kriegman and Solomon, 1985 Temerlin and
Temerlin, 1982). These grandiose therapists may exploit the ―idealizing transference‖ in
order to develop authoritarian control over their group membership (Temerlin and Temerlin,
1982). They ―treat‖ their lovers, friends, students, etc., forming them into cult-like groups
of which they are the leader.
These therapists did not consider their patient‘s idealization of them to be a
transference, to be understood as part of the treatment. Instead, they used it
to encourage submission, obedience, and adoration as in religious cults.
Patients became ―true believers‖ with totalistic patterns of thought, increased
dependence, and paranoia. (Temerlin &Temerlin, 1982, p. 131)
Differences with one‘s therapist/leader were akin to disloyalty steps toward individuation
were interpreted as rebellion.
Only after leaving the cult did many patients realize they unconsciously had
lived out a fantasy of having found a ―magical healer,‖ a Personal Savior, or
of pleasing an omnipotent parent ...Therapists perpetually acted out such
fantasies by accepting idealization as a deserved status gratifying infantile
needs of patients ...(and confiding that) they befriended only those patients
with the potential for greatness. (Temerlin &Temerlin, p. 135) (Note 3).
We note (Kriegman and Solomon, 1985) Kohut‘s caution against ―the active encouragement
of an idealization of the analyst‖ because it ―leads to the establishment of a tenacious
transference bondage‖ (1971, p. 164). Kohut also quoted Freud‘s warning (Freud, 1923, p.
50) about the existence of:
―a temptation for the analyst to play the part of prophet, savior, and
redeemer to the patient,‖...a procedure to which ―the rules of analysis are
diametrically opposed‖ (Kohut, 1971).
When these rules are ignored and the authoritarian therapist takes on the role of ―magical
savior‖ he creates a pathogenic relationship with the patient. The patient‘s experience is
then apt to be very similar to the cult member‘s experience with his leader. Kilbourne and
Richardson are in effect pointing out this potential similarity between the charismatic guru
of ―mainstream‖ cult groups and the grandiose leader of highly deviant and unethical,
unprofessional treatment groups.
For a patient with this type of grandiose therapist there is clearly a strong tendency to
dichotomize the world into the ―healed and unhealed‖. Kilbourne and Richardson suggest
that the dichotomizing sets up an ―elite‖ made up of those who are ―healed,‖ and that this is
so for both psychotherapy and the ―new religions‖. Again, they oversimplify.
Mainstream clinicians focus their work on their patients‘ experience and do not seek to
convert them or have them join their world view. Patients who seek psychotherapy
because of a chronic depression, a series of failures in relationships, debilitating anxiety
attacks, etc., are not primarily focused on dividing the world into the ―healed and
unhealed.‖ They are not asking to be included in an elite group. Many, if not most
psychotherapy patients simply want their suffering and their specific symptoms alleviated.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 8
They complete their course of psychotherapy without changing their world view, without
giving up their religious beliefs and replacing them with those of their therapist, without
feeling they have joined a special all-encompassing club. They are content simply to have
their suffering diminished.
Cult groups, on the other hand, actually strive to have their members replace their own
world views and independence of judgment with a totalistic ideology that demands complete
adherence and uniformity among the members. To suggest that mainstream
psychotherapies in general take this stance is inaccurate. The behavior of cult groups is not
oriented toward helping the individual, but rather toward maintaining the convictions and
glory of the ―guru‖. The central fact is that the behavior of leaders of cult groups serves to
glorify their own power and personal status. Their goal is not to help the member to become
independent or to gain control over or insight into distressing symptoms or feelings. The
greater glory of the leader is achieved through the maintenance of the member‘s
dependency on the guru or organization. A psychotherapist who has such objectives would
be viewed by his professional peers as unfit and potentially destructive to the patient.
Summary
Kilbourne and Richardson propose that psychotherapy and the ―new religions‖ (cults) are
―functionally equivalent‖ Psychotherapy and the ―new religions‖ offer to ameliorate
emotional suffering. But so do the purveyors of drugs astrology, exercise and diet
programs, and vacation get-aways. They may all be ―competitors for a limited market,‖ to
use Kilbourne and Richardson‘s expression, but the critical question is what differentiates
them and their followers. Psychotherapy has some special attributes clinicians in their
professional groups have developed a set of ethical principles and practices to be used by
the practitioner in order to safeguard the patient‘s interest 2) careful clinical descriptions,
observations, theorizing, and systematic research efforts are continually being used to
evaluate the relative effectiveness of specific psychotherapeutic approaches with different
patient groups, thereby providing both the clinician and the public with an evaluative
yardstick and, 3) safeguards are taken to ensure that psychotherapists, formally licensed
by society (e.g., through the state in the United States), have carefully studied and continue
to study the results of these investigations and clinical observations. Clinical theory and
practice are rooted in the scientific method, and are open to public and professional scrutiny
and debate (Luborsky, 1984). Such research seeks to document patient improvement as
well as treatment ―casualties.‖ Psychotherapists are required to demonstrate competence in
the understanding of the body of knowledge that we have developed about human
psychological functioning and to apply that knowledge while following ethical guidelines.
To the extent currently possible, there is an attempt to base mainstream psychotherapies
on the scientific principles of intersubjective verifiability and the development of theoretical
formulations capable of prediction and modification based upon their ―fit‖ with independent
observation. Thus, mainstream psychotherapy seeks to harness the essential technological
power of the scientific approach. Clinical theory and practice are rooted in the scientific
study of human development and functioning (Note 4). There are constant challenges and
modifications to existing theory and leadership in the field.
As psychotherapists we become deeply involved in the lives of our patients. That being the
case, we recognize the need for a set of guiding ethics. We have a strong belief in the power
and utility of the scientific method the application of empirical research to clinical practice.
These values are in sharp contrast to the religious cult group notion of an absolute authority
who has the undisputed truth. Most religious cult leaders are self-appointed, messianic
persons who claim a special mission in life. Cult leaders center the members‘ veneration
upon themselves and are authoritarian in their power structure. The leader is regarded as
the supreme and final authority. There is ideological totalism (Note 5). Hence, Kilbourne