Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 8
opinion, due primarily to the breakdown in CARP‟s buddy system that allowed the
“renegades” to meet and engage in mutual debriefing. The debriefings allowed us to
provide each other with feedback and mutual validation of shared experiences, thereby
facilitating resistance to the U.C.‟s demands to conform (Asch, 1956). For all but one of us,
this was apparently enough to keep us out of the U.C. with our psychological functioning
relatively intact.
Barrytown postscript. To my knowledge, none of the five “renegades” joined the U.C. One
renegade, Charlie, whom I knew fairly well from small classes we both attended at
Columbia, experienced a psychotic episode during the evening of our sixth day at
Barrytown. I witnesses his psychotic break without comprehending what was transpiring. I
found out much later than a few hours after my departure from Barrytown, he was encircled
by approximately twelve Moonists who were able to persuade him to remain for the next
“workshop.” (which was to last 21 days). Charlie was eventually expelled, however, when
his psychosis worsened that same evening. He became so agitated that he ran through the
halls of Barrytown tearing down posters of Sun Myung Moon or writing “Moon is the
Antichrist” on them. Charlie left Barrytown to wander aimlessly in the Midwest for several
months. Breaking his leg in the Grand Canyon eventually led to hospitalization, and
consequent psychiatric treatment.
Of course, Charlie missed what remained of the spring semester of college, and he
remained in a psychiatric hospital for part of that summer. I learned of his post-Barrytown
experiences when he returned to college in the autumn of 1975.,
Subsequent research and professional experience as a re-entry therapist. When I
began graduate work at the University of Pennsylvania, I continued my research into the
psychology of destructive cults over the next two years (1976-1978). I interviewed
approximately two dozen former cultists – some of whom had been deprogrammed
(including Ted Patrick‟s second case) and some who had left their groups unaided. I
observed my first deprogramming (of a Scientologist) in 1979. In 1980, I began to be called
into a limited number of deprogrammings as a psychological consultant, and to assist
families who were struggling to understand what had happened to their adult children. At
times, I was assisted by my wife, Linda Dubrow-Eichel.
In august, 1982, I met Roberta and Steven Eisenberg as we prepared to be interviewed on
a local television talk show. At the time, Roberta was director of the Cult Clinic for
Philadelphia‟s Jewish Family Service Steven, a former Krishna devotee, was a part-time
student and deprogrammer. Soon thereafter, I also met a former member of the Divine
Light Mission (Guru Maharah Hi‟s group). Harry (not his real name) had been
deprogrammed by Ted Patrick and was also working as a part-time deprogrammer and a
master-level exit-counselor. We found our views and approaches to be very compatible, and
agreed to remain in touch with each other.
In December 1982, I received my Pennsylvania license for the independent practice of
psychology, and I immediately proposed to Roberta, Steven, Harry and my wife that we
cooperate, engage in peer supervision, and share cases as an independent counseling
“network.” In early 1983, RETIRN (the Re-Entry, Therapy, Information &Referral network)
was formed. Although Harry has since left to work on his own, RETIRN continues to provide
counseling, consulting, and educational services to individuals and families who have been
adversely affected by destructive groups, including cults.
Between the years 1980 through the end of 1988, I conservatively estimate that I have
directly counseled 100 cultists, former cultists and their families, and I have assisted or
consulted on approximately 100 other cases. I have observed, participating in, or been
called in to consult on approximately 20 deprogrammings and exit-counselings.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 9
My experiences in Barrytown, as an interviewer/researcher and as a therapist for former
cultists have contributed considerably to my formulations about the process of cult
conversion and deconversion (deprogramming). Clinical experience continues to produce
evidence that, for at least a great many individuals in a broad range of totalistic groups.
Conversion to the cult‟s beliefs and lifestyles involves varying degrees of deception and
coercive persuasion.
Chapter II
Review of the Literature
The cult conversion debate: Coercive persuasion or free choice?
The ongoing debate over the nature of cult conversion is central to understanding
deprogramming, for deprogrammers purport to undo the process of coerced conversion in
destructive cults.
There are three viewpoints regarding the nature of cult conversion. On one side of the
debate are social scientists and theologians who eschew the labels “cult” and “destructive
cult” in favor of the term “new religion” (cf., Bromley and Shupe, 1983 Kilbourne and
Richardson, 1984 Ungerleider &Wellisch, 1979a, 1979b). I term the proponents of this
viewpoint “new religionists.” The new religionists believe that cults are unconventional and
perhaps unrealistically utopian but nevertheless bona fide, and are at worst no more
harmful than traditional religions and institutions. At best, new religions provide alternative
socialization and meaning to young people who cannot find their niche in “traditional”
lifestyles and religions and are similar in social processes and results to psychotherapy
(Kilbourne and Richardson, 1984), or they improve psychological functioning (Ross, 1985
Wilson, 1985). This view holds that deprogramming is a misnomer at best (if cultists are not
“programmed” to begin with, they cannot be “deprogrammed”) ad a violation of civil liberty
at worst. The new religionists remind us that many “conventional” religions began as
controversial sects that were persecuted relentlessly attempts to control or curb the
activities of new religions are therefore seen as violations of constitutional guarantees of
religious freedom.
On the opposite side of this debate is what critics (cf., Barker, 1984 Bromley and
Richardson, 1983 Bromley and Shupe, 1983 Kilbourne, 1983 Kilbourne and Richardson,
1984) label the “anti-cult movement” or ACM view: Cultic conversion is induced without the
participant‟s informed consent. The ACM‟s major concerns about cults include objections to
the conversion process, and objections to cult activities (Dole &Dubrow-Eichel, 1985
Enroth, 1977 Rudin &Rudin, 1980 Zeitlin, 1985). In contrast to the new religionists, the
anti-cultists view deprogramming and exit counseling as viable and effective interventions
aimed at returning cultists to individual liberty.
There also appears to be a broad middle ground made up of some mental health
professionals (e.g., Galanter, 1983 Kriegman &Solomon, 1985 Levine, 1984) and social
scientists (e.g. Bakken, 1985 Galanti, 1984 Gordon, 1984) who find cults varying
abhorrent and deceptive, but tend to reject reductionist “brainwashing” models of
conversion. They may view participation in a cult as a sign of an underlying psychiatric
disorder (e.g., Kriegman &Solomon, 1985 Spero, 1984), family dysfunction (e.g.,
Schwartz, 1983 Stipes, 1985), or a paradoxical attempt to achieve maturity and
independence through ego surrender to an ultimate authority (e.g., Levine, 1984 Schwartz,
1983 Stipes, 1985). This group may acknowledge the deceptiveness and imperialistic
qualities of cultic groups, but they usually believe the “evils” of deprogramming and other
forms of social control that appear to diminish religious freedoms outweigh cultic
misbehavior. I would also include in this broad middle ground (albeit more closely
associated with the anti-cult view) those mental health professionals and social scientists