Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 80
that ISKCON utilized an inverted moral system. Thus, Greg's statement served to make
internal information (previously stored and suppressed memories) more salient
The role of suggestion. I noticed a tendency to ask Ken to verify certain pieces of critical
information. In addition, it seemed important for the deprogrammers to present Ken with
information he already knew, but was suppressing. To me, this tactic seemed to add weight
to the validity of the deprogrammers' information and presented them as credible and
honest individuals. As the deprogramming progressed, the amount of new information being
presented to Ken seemed to increase. Like acceptability of this new information was
enhanced by its temporal association with past more painstakingly verified information.
Some of the statements made by the deprogrammers seemed especially powerful these
tended to convey subtle suggestions for change. For example, at one point Curt stated that
“I don't mean to be facetious, but I am being a little bit, because I think that it's like, you
wanna ...not you, but Krishnas ...I hear the same raps all the time ...” In stating “not you,
but…Krishnas” Curt seemed to be subtly suggesting to Ken that he was not a Krishna.
Subtle, embedded messages that distinguished between Ken and ISKCON devotees
(thereby implying that the two identities were separate: occurred fairly often throughout the
deprogramming.
Models of Change
Cognitively, the deprogrammers very closely followed the model mapped out by Sandy. The
deprogrammers began with a critical review of ISKCON's activities, comparing them to their
claims. Concurrently, they critiqued Prabhupada and the Governing Body Commission, the
council of gurus that formed the governing body of ISKCON after the swami‟s death. The
second day was devoted to a more thorough critique of ISKCON doctrine as it was
expressed and practiced by ISKCON leaders and devotees. Ken renounced ISKCON that
evening. The next day, the deprogrammers began the process: of educating Ken about
coercive persuasion.
Garvey's (1988) four-stage theory of deconversion also provides a basis for summarizing
Ken's cognitive change process. Initially, Ken demonstrated hostile denial, followed
relatively quickly by a prolonged period of questioning. As the deprogramming progressed,
Ken became more and more willing to provide information, about both ISKCON and himself.
A major turning point came when Ken admitted to participating in illegal fund raising,
something he initially denied. Finally, Ken became very excited about the connections he
was making it became difficult for him to take breaks or get to sleep. His mind was, as he
put it, “racing” with suppressed questions and new viewpoints. Ken began to analyze
information on his own.
Social-affiliative process. Like most individuals vulnerable to the social engineering that
typifies destructive cults, Ken was responsive to his interpersonal setting. From the
beginning, the deprogrammers treated him with honesty and acceptance, which was
contrary to his expectations. Ken found it difficult (as did I) not to like the deprogrammers.
They were informed, articulate, interesting, very witty, and highly charismatic. Yet he had
been told by ISKCON that deprogrammers were worthy only of hate. Liking both
deprogrammers and ISKCON leadership was inconsistent (Heider, 1958), generating an
urge to restore some kind of affiliative balance (by rejecting ISKCON). The deprogrammer
also immediately introduced the idea that they took issue with Ken's Krishna practices, but
not with Ken as a person. They insisted on a demarcation between Ken's pre-cult and cult
identities, accepting the former while challenging the latter. This seemed to throw Ken off-
he was expecting only to be attacked, and in fact had become accustomed to deeply
personal attacks at the hands of his guru and other ISKCON leaders. The fact that Ken was
already deeply involved with his own internal struggle between his pre-cult and cult
personalities was of considerable help to the deprogrammers. The deprogramming served to

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 81
provide a powerful and ultimately decisive “push” toward intensifying this ongoing conflict
and making the pre-cult self-system more salient. By raising his anxiety moderately and
facilitating self-examination, the deprogrammers enhanced Ken's need to affiliate
(Festinger, 1954 Gerard &Rabbie, 1961). As the deprogramming progressed, team
members continued to be generally accepting of Ken.
Violating Expectations and Counteracting Social Manipulation
As their behavior continued to violate Ken's preconceptions, the deprogrammers began to
chip away at the motives and intentions of the ISKCON devotees (e.g., his guru) with whom
Ken felt the most affiliation. A crucial phase in this process appeared to be when Curt and
Sandy utilized Ken's own letters to his guru, along with the latter's replies. They made it
clear that Ken's relationship with his guru was a perversion both of the father-son/teacher-
student intimacy Ken was clearly missing in his life, and of his own stated desire for an
egalitarian and spiritually-based love. Curt‟s quick introduction of Greg and later
introduction of Dara utilized an established affiliative pattern: we tend to affiliate fastest
with others most like ourselves (Schachter, 1959). I observed the fastest and earliest
bonding between Ken and Greg. They were from a similar social-cultural, religious, and
demographic background, were not too far apart in age, were both male (an important
consideration with Krishnas) and, of course, Greg had been an ISKCON devotee. My
analysis of individual programmers‟ conversational style tended to support Greg's central
role as a bridge between Ken and those deprogrammings to whom he was relatively
dissimilar.
The deprogrammers were in my opinion immensely charismatic and likeable people. They
seemed genuinely to believe in and enjoy their work. They did not present themselves
arrogantly or condescendingly, and they seemed skilled at making people feel comfortable
and at the center of attention. While this affiliative process lacks the deceptiveness inherent
in “love bombing,” the mere fact of the deprogramming (the expense and energy, the time
commitment and attention) seemed to enhance Ken's feelings of being important, which in
turn facilitated the bonding process. His mother's concern and the sacrifices she made for
the sake of his deprogramming had a major impact, once he was able to allow himself to be
aware of these feelings.
Curt and Sandy tended to balance each other out, as well. Curt was typically more serious,
while Sandy laughed and joked continuously, providing permission for Ken to use humor to
reduce anxiety. Physically, Curt and Sandy were dissimilar. Also, Sandy was a long-term
and established family man, while Curt at the time had a troubled marriage and no children.
Throughout the deprogramming, but especially during the final three days, Curt “trusted”
Ken's sincerity. For Curt, I suspect this testing was a necessary safeguard. On a social-
affiliative level, I think it also served to solidify the relationship by making it somewhat
difficult (and therefore, in accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, a more “valuable”
goal) to join the ranks of the successfully deprogrammed (Festinger, 1957).
Curt was able to negotiate expertly the thin line between being open and honest about his
own rejection of ISKCON, and being confrontational toward Ken. In the early phases of the
deprogramming, Curt rarely confronted Ken and almost never attacked Prabhupada. He
seemed to follow Ken's pacing with regard to how much and whom to attack. Those
relatively rare occasions when he became personally confrontative with Ken occurred only
after a bond between the two seemed fairly well established
In general, I was surprised at how rarely the deprogrammers engaged in personal
confrontations of Ken. Some of the anecdotal literature, including the more critical reviews
(e.g., Barker, 1984 Beckford, 1985 Bromley, 1979 Bromley &Richardson, 1983 Levine,
1994) as well as friendly reports (e.g., Patrick &Dulack, 1976), suggested that