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

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 44
should not follow any instruction we did not understand or take on any idea we had not
personally verified to be true. Of course, professing lack of understanding or lack of
verification did not safeguard one from the consequences of violating exercises, or,
especially, tasks. And those who lagged in following the exercises were not given positions
of power and influence granted to those who did. Violating tasks deemed essential for the
well-being of the community was grounds for removal from the organization. Tasks revolved
around sex, money, drugs, and, of all things, gossip.
We have downplayed the sensational, and in the following have summarized those exercises
we can recall to give a flavor of how much it takes to finally remove the autonomy of
people. You can also see how far people will go when they trust a leader and believe his
directions will ultimately help them to gain psychological freedom, love, consciousness, or
contact with the divine. The limitations seem a small price to pay for the promised results.
Control of interactions with the leader. We want to point out again that destruction of
autonomy is not obvious. Verbal rather than physical abuse prevails, with passive rather
than active assaults. Your perception of reality is systematically questioned, your feelings
denied, your worth undermined. The invisible chains of psychological dominance are forged
slowly, gradually. The dominant person establishes the terms of the interaction and builds
dominance by many means. Some of those include the following: (1) he alternates kindness
and abuse --intermittent friendliness erases the memory of upsetting behavior (2) he
controls inter-personal communication and decides on acceptable subjects to discuss,
ignoring questions he does not care to address (3) he allows no validation of your
experience of doubt, fear, or anger with him (4) he manipulates feelings if confronted,
primarily by focusing on what‟s wrong with you (5) he displays indifference, disrespect, and
disregard toward you in the guise of being above such petty, mechanical concerns (6) he
disregards or discounts any hurt feelings you might have and (7) he maintains emotional
distance in the name of being a “higher” man.
After the first few years, the leader controlled virtually all interactions we had with him, and
he became more and more inaccessible. When he did invite you to be with him, he
determined when you would speak. You might ask him a question, such as “How do you
deal with anger?” or “Why don‟t you invite women to the symposiums?” And he would
answer with, “Look at the beautiful irises Joan has arranged for the table,” or “How is your
mother?” These diversions would be read as ways to bring you back to the present, away
from abstract intellectualizing. In fact, they effectively silenced doubts and concerns.
Control of speech. The first exercise anyone experienced was introduced at the
prospective student meetings and involved eliminating certain words from your vocabulary.
The words changed over time, but for many years included all contractions, and the word I.
The ability to speak while eliminating these words was supposedly a sign of consciousness,
or, at least, a kind of divided attention we attempted to cultivate. If, while speaking, you
uttered one of the words, another student would make a hand signal to alert you to your
“sleep.” This exercise threw prospective students off, minimized their ability to express
themselves, and at the same time showed them one method for awakening from the “sleep”
of ordinary awareness. Since “no gossip” was a task, the subjects of our conversations were
also limited. The formidable exercise of not expressing negative emotions was another
bulwark of the practices that curtailed our speech.
Control of dining. The leader selected the menus, often elaborate, for the group‟s dining
hall. He preferred fine dining with china, silver, flowers, and four-course meals. He gave
explicit instructions on how to eat, including the mechanics of holding the utensils, and he
put people on diets if he thought they needed to lose weight.
Control of clothing. Women were asked to stop wearing pants and wear only skirts or
dresses. He liked to purchase clothing for both men and women as part of the intermittent