Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out
Page 2
The Internet has revolutionized cult education. Access to information through the World Wide Web is ubiquitous, and virtually anyone anywhere at any time can access historical information about destructive cults. In an effort to use this resource, I launched what became known as the Ross Institute Internet Archives in 1996. Today that website is a database known as the Cult Education Institute (CEI), which is the largest and most comprehensive cult-related online library that is freely accessible to the general public. CEI features a database of information about controversial groups and movements, some of which have been called “cults.” The attached public message board at CEI contains more than one hundred thousand individual entries, including the comments of former cult members, current cult members, affected families, and others concerned about cultic groups and related issues. Thousands of individual and unique users visit CEI daily. I personally respond to hundreds of inquiries every month.
The scope of my work has increasingly included international concerns. Many groups called “cults” are global entities, such as Scientology, the Kabbalah Centre, Landmark Education, Falun Gong, and the Reverend Moon‘s Unification Church. Israel’s Ministry of Welfare and Social Services sought my input in 2011 for its report about cults. And I have attended international conferences about cults in China, Thailand, and Canada.
My first visit to China was at a conference in 2009. The paper I presented, which the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences published, was titled “Is Falun Gong a Cult?” In my opinion Falun Gong fits well within the core criteria forming the nucleus for the definition of a destructive cult. Some people seem to think that defining Falun Gong as a destructive cult is somehow politically motivated. But the real issue is, does the group hurt people? After receiving complaints from affected families in the United States and interviewing former members of Falun Gong as well as corresponding with current practitioners through e-mail, I have concluded that Falun Gong does hurt people through its practices. And in my opinion Falun Gong fits the profile of a personality-driven and defined group dominated by a charismatic leader—which is the most salient single feature of destructive cults. This book contains two chapters about Falun Gong, which has affected millions of lives in China and has reportedly contributed to the deaths of more than a thousand people.
The most poignant and heartbreaking meeting I have ever attended with any former cult member was my visit with self-immolation survivors and former Falun Gong practitioners Hao Huijun and her daughter, Chen Guo. The two women, once followers of Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, participated in a staged protest at Tiananmen Square on the Chinese New Year’s Eve on January 23, 2001. At that time a small group consisting of seven Falun Gong practitioners set themselves on fire. A twelve-year-old girl and her mother died. Hao Huijun and her then twenty-year-old daughter, Chen Guo, survived but paid a horrible price for their involvement with Falun Gong. Both women were hospitalized and endured multiple surgeries. Today they live together in welfare housing and are severely scarred and disabled. Hao Huijun told me she regrets encouraging her daughter to embrace the teachings of Li Hongzhi. She lamented, “You can see the disastrous effect this caused my daughter. I really regret that now.” This book is dedicated to Hao Huijun and Chen Guo.
My work spans three decades and has included consulting with thousands of families and cult victims. In the 1980s there were dozens of deprogrammers doing cult-intervention work across the United States. But today there are only a handful due to the rigors of the work and also largely as a result of cult harassment. Over the years I have received death threats, I’ve been stalked, and I’ve even been a target of cyber warfare. I can easily understand why some cult-intervention specialists have dropped out or burned out, and I can understand the reluctance of new people to pursue what is often an emotionally draining and ethically challenging career.
Considering the shrinking resources and limited alternatives available to families and others concerned about destructive cults, this book is necessary now. My intention is to provide a practical and accessible synthesis of both relevant research and working experience regarding destructive cults. Rather than try to “reinvent the wheel,” this book carefully connects and footnotes the most meaningful research and relevant information.
Here are also historical accounts of those affected by some of the most horrible cults in modern history. There are chapters about large, organized groups as well as about small but deadly cults. These historical chapters reflect the diversity and disturbing behavior of destructive cults. It is this history that demonstrates so vividly the cause for concern about cults—that is, because they hurt people. It is this history that forms the basis for why people remain concerned about groups called “cults.” It is the harm they have done, which is neither random nor accidental, that reflects their systemic and systematic practices.
Specifically defining a destructive cult has generated considerable debate over the years. Some scholars and academics say any attempt to put forth a definition is pejorative and based on bigotry without any objective basis. A chapter of this book is focused on explaining the nucleus for the definition of a destructive cult. This nucleus definition is based on a specific set of objective criteria, which encompass the most common features and core characteristics found within all groups that have been considered destructive cults. This nucleus definition is based on behavior, not on beliefs.
Also much debated is the subject of cult brainwashing. That is, how do groups called “cults” control people? A chapter in this book focuses on the existing body of research, which explains the process of cultic manipulation and control. The same process we can see in the context of large organizations called “cults” is also used by smaller groups. There is also evidence of similar manipulation in abusive, controlling relationships and in families that behave like cults. Some multilevel marketing companies and large-group-awareness training seminars have also employed a similar blend of coercive persuasion techniques to gain undue influence and control over people’s lives.
When I began my intervention work back in the early 1980s, I largely built upon the existing foundation constructed by the first cult deprogrammer Ted Patrick. It was Patrick who first formulated and tested the basic approach of cult intervention during the 1970s. Despite the controversy surrounding Patrick’s illegal “kidnap deprogrammings,” he was the first deprogrammer. It was Patrick who did the first cult interventions, which he devised as an educational process that included thought-provoking questions and dialogue. I have never met or spoken with Ted Patrick, but I read about his work in Snapping: America’s Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, a seminal book about cults first published in 1978.
Patrick sought to unravel the programming of cults; therefore, his process became known as “deprogramming.” Cult expert and psychologist Margaret Singer explained this succinctly. “Deprogramming… [is] providing members with the information about the cult and showing how their own decision-making power had been taken away from them.” Singer’s description continues to form the basis for cult-intervention work today, though information technology since the advent of the Internet has continuously refined and greatly enhanced the process.
In this book I have broken down the cult-intervention process into simple, easy-to-understand blocks that identify the categories of questions and corresponding dialogue that provides their substance. It is my hope that by explaining this process in detail, others can use and further refine its elements. Within this book is a detailed examination of each step of the process necessary to evaluate and respond to a cultic situation that has drawn concern. This includes the initial assessment, ongoing coping strategies, preparation for an intervention, and the intervention itself. Each chapter serves as a potential template and practical guide, taking the reader from the initial point of identifying a possibly harmful cultic situation to the use of relevant research information and practical tools that can effectively address such concerns. There is also a potentially helpful c
hapter about moving on after a cultic experience.
To provide a better understanding of the practical application of the intervention approach described in this book, there are also chapters that recount actual cult interventions. These case vignettes include an array of groups, which vividly illustrate the fact that groups called “cults” may appear in many forms. They often appear as a religious or spiritual group, but they may also appear in other guises, such as a commercial enterprise, diet or exercise program, therapy, or a political cause or movement. What all destructive cults share in common, regardless of the facade they present to the public, is essentially the same organizational structure, dynamics, and practices that exploit and hurt people.
I have also included a chapter specifically about failed interventions so others might avoid mistakes that may contribute to, or cause, failure. This chapter also very specifically defines my basis for determining success or failure in any of my professional consultations and interventions, which center on concerns about someone’s involvement in a cultlike situation of undue influence.
CHAPTER 1
GROWING CULT AWARENESS
There have probably been cult groups following charismatic leaders since the beginning of human history. But relatively few have been historically noted or have garnered the attention of the modern media. The cult phenomenon as a contemporary issue began creeping into the public consciousness during the 1960s and 1970s. For the most part destructive cults chiefly hurt people through some form of exploitation. This might be done by persuading members to relinquish assets or by profiteering through free labor. There is also the personal damage done to cult members both psychologically and emotionally; this damage remains a factor in their recovery from cult involvement in many situations for some time.
Many cult groups seem to gain influence and control over their members through a process of increasing isolation and estrangement from mainstream society. This process has often largely included cutting people off from family and old friends. In the most extreme groups, this may be accomplished by relocating members in so-called intentional communities, frequently called “cult compounds.”
Some destructive cults have physically hurt people. This harm has included both children and adults in sexual abuse, harsh corporal punishment, and/or mandated medical neglect. In the most severe situations, cult members have been mutilated, murdered, or asked to take their lives in orchestrated suicides.
No one has determined conclusively through research the number of destructive cults or an exact count of their total combined membership. Michael Langone, Executive Director of the International Cultic Studies Association reports that “during the last 30 years, we and other cult-awareness organizations, have received inquiries about more than 5,000 groups.”1 But whatever their number, destructive cults or extreme “cult-like” groups remain a continuing problem that has not abated, as news reports, criminal arrests, and subsequent prosecutions have demonstrated.
The problems posed by destructive cults have also proliferated around the world. Many of the larger cults have grown to become international concerns. There is no continent or seemingly few countries that could plausibly claim this phenomenon hasn’t affected them. And with the increasing portability and ubiquitous nature of Internet access, a cult group can potentially touch virtually anyone anywhere in the world, since many maintain a presence on the World Wide Web. The Internet can also provide relatively easy access to critical information about destructive cults.
Groups historically referred to as “cults,” such as Scientology and the Unification Church, may arguably be in decline, but others have risen to prominence. This has included the relatively recent appearances of such groups as Aum Shinrikyo in Japan and Falun Gong of China. Both of these organizations have historically succeeded in spreading far beyond Asia.
In the United States destructive cults are perhaps more plentiful relative to the population than in any other single country. This may be because many groups called “cults” are largely based on religious beliefs, which receive special protections and tax-exempt status in the United States. Some groups called “cults” may have conveniently defined themselves as “religions” to obtain such protections and tax-exempt status.
There is considerable legal protection for any religious group, as provided by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”2 But as some have noted, the First Amendment isn’t a “suicide pact.” That is, it doesn’t provide the basis to do anything in the name of religious freedom, thereby preventing authorities from enforcing the law equally regarding all religious groups.
Dr. John G. Clark, a Harvard psychiatrist known for his study of contemporary cults, observed some years ago, “The new youth cults, though usually self-styled as religious for purposes of First Amendment privileges, are increasingly dangerous to the health of their converts and menacing to their critics.”3 John Clark’s criticism of cults certainly made him a target. Scientology reportedly launched a “series of threats, harassment, and false and malicious accusations” against Clark.4 But in the United States, the First Amendment ideally protects the constitutional rights of groups called “cults” and their critics through its provisions for freedom of expression.
For us to better understand the issue of destructive cults, knowing their history is important. What follows is a historical examination of some of the largest and most destructive groups called “cults,” reported in chronological order.
1978—Jonestown Mass Murder/Suicide
During the 1970s Jim Jones, a charismatic preacher in San Francisco, gained popularity and power. In the end the cult Jones formed would come to represent the most terrible cult tragedy in American history. Now simply referred to as “Jonestown,” this horrific mass murder/ suicide claimed the lives of more than nine hundred people, including more than two hundred children.5 The murders at Jonestown took place on November 18, 1978. The public struggled to understand how so many lives were claimed so suddenly under the influence of a single charismatic leader.
How could a church and a pastor, both once greatly admired, end in such infamy?
In the beginning there seemed to be little to fear from Jim Jones. A well-established Protestant denomination called the Disciples of Christ ordained him in 1964. Jones set up two churches, the main one in San Francisco and another one in Los Angeles. The organization was called People’s Temple, and at its peak there were as many as eight thousand members.
Jim Jones, though now known as a notorious cult leader, was once a popular and trusted community celebrity. He could routinely turn out thousands of his people for an event. During the 1970s Jones appeared with many prominent politicians including the state assemblyman Willie Brown. In 1976 the mayor George Moscone gave Jim Jones a seat on the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission. Governor Jerry Brown was seen attending services at People’s Temple.6
Negative press reports began to surface about Jim Jones in the summer of 1977. In response to criticism, Jones ultimately decided to move a core group of his followers to British Guyana in South America, effectively isolating them from the outside world. The intentional community or cult compound he created was named “Jonestown.”7
Controversy concerning Jones’s behavior continued despite his departure from California. Complaints from former members and concerned families led to an official investigation. The US congressman Leo J. Ryan of California, with permission from Jim Jones, visited the isolated Guyana community compound on November 17, 1978. Ryan toured the settlement and met with Jim Jones. During the congressman’s visit, residents of Jonestown passed notes to the visitors, requesting to leave. Representative Ryan agreed to take some of them back with him.
It seems that Jim Jones was unwilling to let anyone leave, so he ordered an armed attack on Ryan and others at the airstrip. On November 18, as th
ey prepared to leave, the congressman and four others in his party were murdered.
According to an affidavit dated June 15, 1978, by one-time Temple member and Jonestown resident Deborah Layton, “Jones…claimed that he was the reincarnation of…Lenin [and] Jesus Christ [and]…had divine powers.” Layton further stated that Jones “appeared deluded by a paranoid vision of the world. He would not sleep for days at a time and talk[ed] compulsively about the conspiracies against him.” The compound “was swarming with armed guards…No one was permitted to leave unless on a special assignment.” Layton detailed Jones’s warning “that the time was not far off when it would become necessary for [his followers] to die by [their] own hands.” Layton described what was called the “White Night” or “state of emergency,” which was often declared at the compound. It was within this supposed context of crisis that the group had rehearsed mass suicide.8
On November 18, 1978, anticipating the end of his ministry and certain arrest, Jones ended the rehearsals. He ordered his final “state of emergency.” Cyanide was mixed with Flavor Aid punch, which was perhaps described erroneously in press reports as “Kool-Aid.”9 Everyone was commanded to drink the mixture. Most of the adults obediently complied and took the poison. Those who weren’t cooperative were shot or forced to drink the cyanide to fulfill what Jones labeled an act of “revolutionary suicide.”
Twenty years later, in 1998, the mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown explained, “Jonestown was a tragedy of the first order, and it remains a painful and sorrowful event in our history. Not a year has gone by that I have not stopped to remember San Francisco’s terrible loss.”10
In 2011 nearly two hundred people gathered at Oakland’s Evergreen Cemetery at a mass grave, the final resting place for more than four hundred victims of Jim Jones. They came to dedicate a memorial composed of granite slabs inscribed with the names of the 917 who died at Jonestown. The controversial memorial included the name of Jim Jones, though he wasn’t buried at the cemetery. A storm of both protests and litigation ensued, led by Rev. Jynona Norwood, a minister who lost twenty-seven relatives at Jonestown. She questioned the propriety of the inscription, “It is OK to honor a mass murderer?” Norwood pointed out that the inclusion of Jones’s name on the controversial memorial was the equivalent of including Osama bin Laden on a memorial honoring those lost on September 11, 2001.11