Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 42
perpetuate an eccentric worldview acted as a blind spot does, evoking all sorts of defensive
maneuvers. The leader‟s actions were misted in illusion to cover the driving force of needing
to bend people to his view. In our case, the leader commonly took to pointing out
controlling or self-centered tendencies in anyone who questioned or resisted his instructions
or held on too tightly to independent thought. At the same time, he was careful never to
obviously force what he wanted. We were given “opportunities” to do the arbitrary exercises
he believed were channeled through him by higher forces. For women, in particular, who
feel a keen lack of affection and attention in their relationships with men, the leader‟s
intense (albeit intermittent) attentiveness became an immensely powerful means of
entrapment.
Those who successfully exercise this brand of influence --covert, coercive control --are
charismatic and unusually skilled at behavioral nuances. Their skills at manipulation may be
compared to a folk art learned gradually, exercised sparingly at first and perhaps even with
good intent. But over time, the need for control gains momentum becoming more prevalent
in their actions as their craft is honed to a fine art. They learn as they go how to manipulate
people (Singer with Lalich, 1995).
The Induction of Fear
Fear becomes the coercing element in this brand of control and, as such, supplies the
cornerstone of the leader‟s dominance. By definition, covert fear induction must go
unacknowledged, hidden, disguised as something else. It must be developed gradually to
take hold without the awareness of the one being influenced. Subtlety still reigns at this
phase. Let us remember, while the sensational grabs your attention and alerts you to
danger, subtle threats dressed as teachings grab your heart and mind. They ooze into your
cells without your knowledge. Meanwhile, the perpetrator vehemently denies that control
motivates him. He will deny his interest in control whether the behaviors that instill fear fall
at the passive end of the spectrum of control --for instance, neglect, trivialization, and
withdrawal--or at the active end of rages, belittling, criticism, or threats. This denial is
perhaps the most insidious element of hidden influence. For the more concealed the
perpetrator‟s agenda, the more crazy, confused, agitated, or ill the target of this
surreptitious fear induction becomes.
In our experience, the leader laced his conversation with references to the sad fate of those
who left the group. For he was certain they had suffered a fate worse than death. The fear-
inducing, threatening element of these communications was hidden by the gentle, sorry
tone he used. While professing his continuing love for those who left, he spoke of how
unfortunate they were to have lost “the way,” reiterating the incredible luck of those who
stayed. He taught that higher forces removed people from the group for failing at some
“task” he had assigned. If no obvious task was violated, his explanation would be that those
leaving were mired too deeply in their negativity. Unwittingly, irrationally, of course,
members began to fear losing contact with the group. (But this was a deep unconscious
dread that many of us realized we carried only after we had actually left the group.) He
taught that when someone was being released, the first sign was that their understanding
of the group‟s worldview would be “removed” by higher forces. This was a neat explanation
for and means of controlling any deviations from the group‟s shared outlook. With time,
these veiled threats regarding the tragic results of leaving him seemed to become the
leader‟s favorite subject, a preoccupation even.
To make the threatened soul loss more tangible, he enforced abandonment of anyone who
did leave, although this too was framed as an exercise in tough love. Remaining members
were given a strict task not to speak to those who had left, as a way of demonstrating how
valuable the community was, and, supposedly, to facilitate the return of the lost sheep. We
were told, “Just gently hang up the receiver if „Jane‟ [former member] calls you. This will

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 43
help her realize what she has lost, and she will have a better chance of coming back.”
Amazingly, this explanation seemed eminently reasonable at the time.
Now we see that, under the guise of work on spiritual development, we set aside friends of
decades if they left the group --our neighbor, doctor, midwife, lover, in some cases, even
spouses or children. And we are sorry today for that callousness and the pain it caused.
Now we also see that this task effectively prevented us from speaking to those we trusted
who had found the courage and help to leave. Somehow these people had broken through
the wall of fear. They were the very people who could tell us, without the mesmerizing
screen of the leader and the group dogmas, what involvement in the world on the outside
was really like, and what the group looked like from the outside. How critical was it that we
be isolated from our old friends? So critical that they had to be demonized as fallen souls,
supposedly with an agenda to drag us along with them on their way to damnation. The
leader was also careful to explain how former members never realized what they had lost as
they entered back into the trance of life. He was amazed that they were often oblivious to
the “tragedy” of their lives, the tragedy, that is, of losing all hope for developing their souls.
While the circularity of this thought process is now painfully evident, it successfully created
and sustained a view of reality that was virtually impossible to challenge.
From the beginning, behavior and thought were thus always checked by the implicit threat
of being asked to leave. With stunning frequency, the leader planted the seeds of fear of
abandonment, masked as caring concern for the spiritual well-being of his followers.2 Even
those of us who recognized that he was playing on our fears told ourselves he did so just as
a kind parent sets limits on a child around life-threatening situations, such as running into
the street. He was instilling this intimidation only to prevent us from the greater harm we
would suffer by leaving him. To him, staying in the group was a matter of life and death. He
needed to do whatever it took to help us stay with him so we could continue to make
progress toward enlightenment and not fall back into ordinary, mechanical “life.” The longer
you stayed, the more the prospect of being ejected from the community was feared. You
believed that you stood to lose not only your entire community, but also your immortal soul.
The Destruction of Autonomy
Once a foundation of fear is laid (although fear induction and destruction of autonomy are
not sequential activities, but overlapping ones), the dismantling of individual initiative can
take place. This loss of autonomy further ensures dependency on the leader. In our group,
autonomy was systematically destroyed through far-reaching control of the member‟s life
and isolation from outside support.
Control of all aspects of life. The “exercises” and “tasks” that were given, at first
minimally, and finally with no holds barred in controlling the smallest corner of life, were so
broad-based and numerous, it is difficult to recall them all. We have found that whenever a
writer who has been involved in a high-demand group begins to point out controlling
behaviors, the description leans toward the sensational, material for the tabloids or maybe a
Psychology Today article. One thinks, “How could you ever have let someone tell you what
to eat, what to wear, how long to sleep, whom to sleep with, where to live? I would never
allow someone to interfere with my life in that way.” It is crucial for an outsider looking in to
remember that in high-demand groups, submitting to controlling behaviors looks life-
enhancing. Often it is viewed as an opportunity to move forward in reverence,
understanding, self-mastery, or emotional refinement.
That coercive control might be being exercised was never a question within the group. We
all thought we were willingly surrendering, as one surrenders to God. We believed
submitting would help to minimize the worst and encourage the best parts of ourselves. In
our community, exercises were always optional (although anyone who was intent on really
working on themselves was admonished to follow them). The party line extolled that we