Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 Page 82
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
The “Other Realities” Conference — Continued
The following letter is in response to a ―Note on Other Realities Conference, by James R. Lewis
(CSJ 3 (1)147-148), which was itself a response to the author‟s description (in CSJ 1 (2): 173) of
a paper Mr. Lewis presented at the “Other Realities” conference in March, 1985.
James Lewis‘s complaint that I misunderstood his comments on the Other Realities
conference, and that this led to a distorted account of his paper, is simply not true. As my
account clearly stated, it was a general statement of my observations. It did not claim to be a
precise recitation of everything said, or argued, by each participant. An attempt was made to
accurately relate the tone of the conference and the content of the most compelling
presentations.
These presentations themselves were not verbatim recitations of complete papers. Because
each reader was limited to twenty minutes, all one could do was quote sections of a paper and
describe the remainder. Mr. Lewis appears to have forgotten his extemporaneous contributions
to his own work.
My comments on his presented views were drawn from notes made during his formal
presentation as well as notes written immediately after a tart exchange we had during an open
floor discussion. My videotape of his formal presentation verifies their accuracy.
While paraphrasing a section of his paper, Lewis said of the phenomenon of uncontrollable
mental chanting: ―The inability to break mental rhythms of chanting I discuss as socialization
at the hands of the anti-cult movement.‖ Other difficulties encountered by counseled ex-members
of cults are seen by Lewis as, ―explained by the socializing influences of the anti-cult
movement.‖
He claimed that the data received from ―unsuccessfully deprogrammed individuals‖ clearly
shows a correlation between the length and heavy-handedness of the deprogramming and the
intensity of the deprogramming‘s stress.‖ This was defended by a lengthy and precise
account provided by a young woman in Hare Krishna. Ten years ago, according to Lewis‘s ad-
libbed recollection, Ted Patrick failed to deprogram her. Lewis says that ten years later she
still suffers from lurid dreams, general fears, and pervasive anxiety. He accepts this account
without question. He claimed that, ―This and other accounts are eloquent testimony to
deprogramming‘s capacity to induce marked symptoms of Traumatic Stress Syndrome in its
victims.‖ Lewis then added that, ―This undercuts deprogramming‘s claims to therapeutic benefits.‖
He disparaged his own research by saying, ―One of the difficulties with the sample was that a
large part of my sample was obtained through anti-cult contacts.‖ In his summary, Lewis built
upon this distrust of his sources by saying, ―We began by saying that the chief sources of
legitimation for the repression of contemporary alternative religious movements were anecdotal
atrocity tales.‖
Now, any student of Social Psychology 101 knows that ―anecdotal‖ means ―unscientific,‖
―unverified,‖ and ―not to be believed.‖ But Lewis‘s other remarks demonstrate that ―anecdotes‖
provided by those who return to their cults irrefutably prove his thesis!
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
The “Other Realities” Conference — Continued
The following letter is in response to a ―Note on Other Realities Conference, by James R. Lewis
(CSJ 3 (1)147-148), which was itself a response to the author‟s description (in CSJ 1 (2): 173) of
a paper Mr. Lewis presented at the “Other Realities” conference in March, 1985.
James Lewis‘s complaint that I misunderstood his comments on the Other Realities
conference, and that this led to a distorted account of his paper, is simply not true. As my
account clearly stated, it was a general statement of my observations. It did not claim to be a
precise recitation of everything said, or argued, by each participant. An attempt was made to
accurately relate the tone of the conference and the content of the most compelling
presentations.
These presentations themselves were not verbatim recitations of complete papers. Because
each reader was limited to twenty minutes, all one could do was quote sections of a paper and
describe the remainder. Mr. Lewis appears to have forgotten his extemporaneous contributions
to his own work.
My comments on his presented views were drawn from notes made during his formal
presentation as well as notes written immediately after a tart exchange we had during an open
floor discussion. My videotape of his formal presentation verifies their accuracy.
While paraphrasing a section of his paper, Lewis said of the phenomenon of uncontrollable
mental chanting: ―The inability to break mental rhythms of chanting I discuss as socialization
at the hands of the anti-cult movement.‖ Other difficulties encountered by counseled ex-members
of cults are seen by Lewis as, ―explained by the socializing influences of the anti-cult
movement.‖
He claimed that the data received from ―unsuccessfully deprogrammed individuals‖ clearly
shows a correlation between the length and heavy-handedness of the deprogramming and the
intensity of the deprogramming‘s stress.‖ This was defended by a lengthy and precise
account provided by a young woman in Hare Krishna. Ten years ago, according to Lewis‘s ad-
libbed recollection, Ted Patrick failed to deprogram her. Lewis says that ten years later she
still suffers from lurid dreams, general fears, and pervasive anxiety. He accepts this account
without question. He claimed that, ―This and other accounts are eloquent testimony to
deprogramming‘s capacity to induce marked symptoms of Traumatic Stress Syndrome in its
victims.‖ Lewis then added that, ―This undercuts deprogramming‘s claims to therapeutic benefits.‖
He disparaged his own research by saying, ―One of the difficulties with the sample was that a
large part of my sample was obtained through anti-cult contacts.‖ In his summary, Lewis built
upon this distrust of his sources by saying, ―We began by saying that the chief sources of
legitimation for the repression of contemporary alternative religious movements were anecdotal
atrocity tales.‖
Now, any student of Social Psychology 101 knows that ―anecdotal‖ means ―unscientific,‖
―unverified,‖ and ―not to be believed.‖ But Lewis‘s other remarks demonstrate that ―anecdotes‖
provided by those who return to their cults irrefutably prove his thesis!
