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
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
