ICSA TODAY 26
Has Our Son Come to Grips?
My 32-year-old son was involved with a cult for a year and left it
about four months ago, after my husband and I convinced him to
speak to someone who is knowledgeable about cults. He seems
to have moved on in some ways. For example, he has reconnected
with old friends, has a new job, and has a new, positive, romantic
relationship with someone. Our concern is that he will not discuss
the cult with us. We can speak about other topics, but when we
bring up the cult and his behavior when he was part of it, he
becomes defensive and angry. He is still friends with some people
who are members of the cult. He becomes particularly defensive
when we try to discuss the cult leader, and he sometimes defends
her. He refuses to join a support group and will not read articles
on cults. We’re fearful that he hasn’t come to grips with how
destructive the cult is and that he may rejoin the cult.
I understand your fear that your son may be sucked back into
the cult. However, you seem focused on one aspect of his
reaction and see this as a gauge of his recognition of the cult’s
harmfulness. It would be understandably reassuring for you
if he denounced the cult and joined your and your husband’s
censure of the cult leader. However, his aversion to doing so
may not indicate that he’s softening in his decision to leave the
cult.
There are several possible explanations for his behavior other
than that he is vulnerable to reconsidering his decision to
leave. While involved, he probably saw joining the cult as
the most correct decision he ever made. It’s embarrassing to
acknowledge that you (and almost everyone else in his pre-cult
life) were right about the cult. Your son had entered a stage of
life when he assumed that he would successfully manage on his
own, and if he hadn’t met the cult, he probably would have. The
fact that you convinced him to speak to another person and
leave may have awakened adolescent struggles from earlier
years about autonomy and mastery.
Parents are often the last to hear from their adult children that
they, the parents, were right. Remember that one of your most
triumphant moments, convincing your adult son that the cult
was harmful, was not seen as a triumph by him. It probably had
an element of embarrassment and humilitiation attached to
it. It may have been your finest hour, but it wasn’t his. Perhaps
that’s why he doesn’t want to discuss the negatives of the cult
so much with you.
It would probably be helpful to him if you emphasized the fact
that, since the cult was deceptive in its recruiting tactics, you
understand that anyone could be receptive to its message at a
vulnerable time of life. With time, he might come to appreciate
and even openly acknowledge that you helped him by
intervening in a harmful situation.
Other factors indicate that he has left the cult: You write that he
has reconnected with old friends, has a job, and has a romantic
relationship. All these factors indicate that he has moved on
from the cult. These factors are more significant than the fact
that he doesn’t want to articulate the reasons for his decision to
leave the cult with you now. n
About the Editor
William Goldberg, LCSW, PsyA, ICSA Today’s
Point of View Editor, is a clinical social worker
and psychoanalyst with more than forty
years’ experience working with former cult
members. He and his wife, Lorna, co-lead a
support group for former cult members. This
group has been meeting for more than forty
years and is the oldest group of its kind in the world. In 2007,
Bill retired from the Rockland County, New York Department of
Mental Health, where he directed several programs and clinics.
He is presently an adjunct professor in the social work and
social science departments of Dominican University, and he is
on the faculty of the Institute for Psychoanalytic Studies. Bill is
a frequent speaker at ICSA conferences, and he and Lorna have
been the recipients of the Authentic CAN Hall of Fame Award
and the Leo J. Ryan Award. In 2010, Bill was the recipient of
ICSA’s Lifetime Achievement Award. n
Point of View – Q&A By William Goldberg
We can speak about other
topics, but when we bring
up the cult and his behavior
when he was part of it, he
becomes defensive and angry.

VOLUME 13 |ISSUE 3 |2022 27
Book Review
Manhattan Cult Story: My
Unbelievable True Story of
Sex, Crimes, Chaos,
and Survival
By Spencer Schneider
Arcade, July 5, 2022. ISBN-10: 1950994554 ISBN-13:
978-1950994557. Hardcover, 264 pages, $15.95 (Kindle,
$17.99 also available as an Audiobook), Amazon.com
Reviewed by Donna Lamb
I was so gripped by this memoir I practically inhaled it in about
two days. One reason was personal: I spent thirty-two years
in a similar, though not secret, group—highly intellectual,
philosophical, and educational—headquartered in SoHo,
just one neighborhood to the east of Tribeca where Spencer
Schneider attended Sharon Gans’ “School.” I’m in the process
of writing my own memoir about my experience in the cult
of Aesthetic Realism, founded by Eli Siegel. Therefore, I know
just how difficult it is to do what Schneider has done: Explain
cogently for people who haven’t “been there, done that,” how
you get drawn into a cult (not realizing it is one, of course)
what keeps you there despite incredible mental, emotional,
and, in some cases, physical abuse (still thinking it’s all to make
you a better person or create a better world) and what finally
breaks the cult’s hold on you, brings you to your senses, and
gets you out. Truly, my hat is off to Schneider for having the
emotional courage, generosity of spirit, and skill to write such
a book, so that his twenty-three-year ordeal can benefit other
people’s lives.
Over the last few years, I’ve read many excellent exposés
by people who escaped cultic groups. The majority have
been about ultra-religious establishments, what could be
called hippie-type groups, or organizations that looked and
sounded peculiar in some obvious way—the stereotype of
what most people think of as a cult. One thing that makes
Schneider’s memoir useful is that it is about a cult that does
not outwardly fit the popular conception. That is partially due
to the fact that the Sharon Gans’ cult maintained the deepest
secrecy. There was no clearly identifiable personal or public
proselytizing that would tip someone off to what it was and
warn them away. Perhaps even more important, due to the
group’s terrifyingly well-honed recruitment methods, the
people in it were intelligent, well-educated, highly successful
individuals—doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, architects, and
multiple other well-respected professionals—all of whom
looked and behaved perfectly “normal,” according to our
society’s standards.
In Schneider’s telling, the Gans’ group “fished” (and is still
fishing under another name) for candidates who fit certain
criteria. His description of these criteria, based on notes he
took during his own training, is important because he not
only makes them explicit, but explains the reasoning behind
them. I paraphrase some of the points in what he calls “the
‘Recruitment Manual’” (pp. 91-92).1 Qualified candidates, he
says, should be:
• Between twenty-five and forty because “they are
already somewhat established in life but are not
crystalized or set in ways which are hard to change.”
*Gainfully employed, earning at least $100,000
annually. “No losers allowed.”
• White and straight, for, as Sharon Gans put it, “People
of color and gay people tend to have a ‘chip on their
shoulder’ and are skeptical and unwilling to be open
to the Work.” (In some cases, a gay person will be
considered if they are open to being converted to a
straight life and getting married to someone in the
group of the opposite sex.)
• Not already involved in any religious, spiritual, or
other groups because School should be “their prime
place for spirituality. The Work is a jealous mistress.
No dabblers.” Nor does the group want anyone who
is in therapy, uses drugs, or is disabled because
“these people are damaged goods. Sharon does
not have the energy to help them.” Also excluded is
anyone who is employed as a journalist, author, or in
any kind of law enforcement—or has a member of
their immediate family in one of these professions—
because they “tend to be curious or nosy by nature
and it could pose a risk to the invisibility of School. If
someone wrote about School, it would kill it.” And no
candidate can be living with a parent or sibling.
And Schneider articulates one of the most frequent
circumstances in which people are attracted to cultic groups:
Candidates must be “disappointed” in their life
or at a crossroads and looking for answers. This
…due to the group’s
terrifyingly well-honed
recruitment methods, the people in
it were intelligent, well-educated,
highly successful individuals…