103
Luigi Corvaglia |The Price of Belief
The Price of Belief:
Rational Choice, Libertarian Ideology, and Cult Advocacy
Luigi Corvaglia1
Abstract: This article examines the ideological convergence between Rational Choice Theory (RCT) and
“paleolibertarian” thinking in the prejudicial defense of high-demand religious groups. It argues that the Theory
of Religious Economy (TRE) incorporates “libertarian” assumptions that presuppose rational choice by adherents
and obscure the dynamics of manipulation and coercion in controversial religious settings. The critical analysis
presented here draws on contributions from cognitive psychology, political theory, and the sociology of religion to
show how RCT and TRE contribute to an ecosystem of “cult apologetics” that resists regulation under the banner
of religious freedom and leads to a genuine exercise of soft power. Particular attention is paid to the network
of transnational contacts and collaborations linking academic defenders of cults, libertarian think tanks, NGOs
committed to the defense of religious freedom, anarcho-capitalist foundations, and non-governmental platforms,
such as the International Religious Freedom Roundtable (IRF). They are thought to be working together to
delegitimize criticism of high-demand religious groups and somehow redefine the hierarchy of rights. The analysis
suggests that this alliance is not merely motivated by philosophical or ideological affinity but represents a deliberate
political strategy to shield authoritarian religious groups from scrutiny. It thus raises urgent questions about the
limits of religious freedom and the instrumentalization of human rights discourse for the purposes of deregulation.
Keywords: Rational Choice, Theory of Religious Economy, Cult Apologists, Libertarianism
1 Corresponding author: Luigi Corvaglia. Email: luigi_corvaglia@yahoo.it. Website: www.luigicorvaglia.com.
Introduction
The academic debate on New Religious Movements
(NRMs) has always been characterized by controversy
surrounding mind control. On one hand, some
scholars argue that coercive persuasion exists, or at
least emphasize the exploitative dynamics that can be
observed in some “high-demand” groups (Corvaglia,
2025 Kent, 2001 Lalich, 2004 Stein, 2017 Zablocki,
2001 Zimbardo, 2002). On the other hand, some reject
this concept and consider that the follower of a religious
group makes an autonomous and free decision, which is
likely to defuse any further evaluation of the leadership
of the movement to which one belongs and its ethical
behavior (Barker, 1984 Coleman, 1984 Ginsburg
&Richardson, 1988 Introvigne, 2002 Richardson,
1993). Critics of “brainwashing” theories are described
by “anti-cult” scholars and activists as maliciously
indifferent to the evidence for undue persuasion and
the scientific literature on influence. On the contrary,
their opponents—often critically referred to as “cult
apologists”—tend to downplay the scientific weight
of studies on manipulation and emphasize individual
autonomy in a way that could be described as highly
idealized. In this view, decisions to join or leave a high-
demand group are considered as rational actions carried
out by fully informed and independent individuals and
therefore based on the logic of Rational Choice Theory
(RCT). It does not matter whether explicit reference
is made to the theory or not, as the fundamental idea
is that individuals make their decisions based on a
rational assessment.
However, this notion raises considerable concern
as RCT, a model originally rooted in neoclassical
economics, has fallen out of favor in both economics
and psychology due to its limited ability to explain
real-world decision-making processes (Damasio, 1994
Kahneman &Tversky, 1979 Simon, 1955). Despite these
limitations, this concept continues to form the basis for
the Theory of Religious Economy (TRE) proposed by
Stark and Finke (2000). This theory imagines religion
as a market similar to the commodity market, with
believers as consumers who have purchased a belief
doi: 10.54208/1000/0009/008
Luigi Corvaglia |The Price of Belief
The Price of Belief:
Rational Choice, Libertarian Ideology, and Cult Advocacy
Luigi Corvaglia1
Abstract: This article examines the ideological convergence between Rational Choice Theory (RCT) and
“paleolibertarian” thinking in the prejudicial defense of high-demand religious groups. It argues that the Theory
of Religious Economy (TRE) incorporates “libertarian” assumptions that presuppose rational choice by adherents
and obscure the dynamics of manipulation and coercion in controversial religious settings. The critical analysis
presented here draws on contributions from cognitive psychology, political theory, and the sociology of religion to
show how RCT and TRE contribute to an ecosystem of “cult apologetics” that resists regulation under the banner
of religious freedom and leads to a genuine exercise of soft power. Particular attention is paid to the network
of transnational contacts and collaborations linking academic defenders of cults, libertarian think tanks, NGOs
committed to the defense of religious freedom, anarcho-capitalist foundations, and non-governmental platforms,
such as the International Religious Freedom Roundtable (IRF). They are thought to be working together to
delegitimize criticism of high-demand religious groups and somehow redefine the hierarchy of rights. The analysis
suggests that this alliance is not merely motivated by philosophical or ideological affinity but represents a deliberate
political strategy to shield authoritarian religious groups from scrutiny. It thus raises urgent questions about the
limits of religious freedom and the instrumentalization of human rights discourse for the purposes of deregulation.
Keywords: Rational Choice, Theory of Religious Economy, Cult Apologists, Libertarianism
1 Corresponding author: Luigi Corvaglia. Email: luigi_corvaglia@yahoo.it. Website: www.luigicorvaglia.com.
Introduction
The academic debate on New Religious Movements
(NRMs) has always been characterized by controversy
surrounding mind control. On one hand, some
scholars argue that coercive persuasion exists, or at
least emphasize the exploitative dynamics that can be
observed in some “high-demand” groups (Corvaglia,
2025 Kent, 2001 Lalich, 2004 Stein, 2017 Zablocki,
2001 Zimbardo, 2002). On the other hand, some reject
this concept and consider that the follower of a religious
group makes an autonomous and free decision, which is
likely to defuse any further evaluation of the leadership
of the movement to which one belongs and its ethical
behavior (Barker, 1984 Coleman, 1984 Ginsburg
&Richardson, 1988 Introvigne, 2002 Richardson,
1993). Critics of “brainwashing” theories are described
by “anti-cult” scholars and activists as maliciously
indifferent to the evidence for undue persuasion and
the scientific literature on influence. On the contrary,
their opponents—often critically referred to as “cult
apologists”—tend to downplay the scientific weight
of studies on manipulation and emphasize individual
autonomy in a way that could be described as highly
idealized. In this view, decisions to join or leave a high-
demand group are considered as rational actions carried
out by fully informed and independent individuals and
therefore based on the logic of Rational Choice Theory
(RCT). It does not matter whether explicit reference
is made to the theory or not, as the fundamental idea
is that individuals make their decisions based on a
rational assessment.
However, this notion raises considerable concern
as RCT, a model originally rooted in neoclassical
economics, has fallen out of favor in both economics
and psychology due to its limited ability to explain
real-world decision-making processes (Damasio, 1994
Kahneman &Tversky, 1979 Simon, 1955). Despite these
limitations, this concept continues to form the basis for
the Theory of Religious Economy (TRE) proposed by
Stark and Finke (2000). This theory imagines religion
as a market similar to the commodity market, with
believers as consumers who have purchased a belief
doi: 10.54208/1000/0009/008
