Psychologist Margaret Singer, a discriminating observer of cult-intervention work since its inception, interviewed many former cultists. She later wrote, “Deprogramming is providing members with information about the cult and showing them how their own decision-making power had been taken away from them.”643 Singer’s succinct description continues to be an accurate understanding of what actually forms the foundation for cult-intervention work and is a precise explanation of the basic process.
Ted Patrick did some involuntary deprogrammings based on court action with the cooperation of authorities. During the 1970s in some situations through legal proceedings, parents were granted temporary conservatorship over a cult-involved adult child; that is, using the judicial system, families were able to retrieve and deprogram cult victims. Some called this process “kidnapping by court order.”644 However, eventually such conservatorships were ruled unconstitutional.645 The court noted that there might be “a compelling state interest in preventing fraud under the guise of religious belief” but ultimately cited constitutional protection concerning the freedom of religion, which effectively protected religious cults. Only when there were actions that posed “some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order” was there a legal basis for intervention. The court said, “We conclude that in the absence of such actions as render the adult believer himself gravely disabled as defined in the law of this state; the processes of this state cannot be used to deprive the believer of his freedom of action and to subject him to involuntary treatment.”646
Ted Patrick nevertheless continued to do both voluntary and involuntary interventions regardless of court rulings, and he paid a price for his anticult activism. He was repeatedly arrested, criminally prosecuted, and imprisoned on kidnapping charges stemming from his involuntary deprogramming efforts. Patrick was also sued in various cult-related cases two dozen times for claims totaling $100 million.647
Ted Patrick was accused of violence. He said, “The cults tell them [cult members] that I rape women and beat them.”648 However, researchers Conway and Siegelman said, “No parent, ex-cult member or other reliable witness we talked to ever substantiated any of those charges.”649 Former cult deprogrammer Steve Hassan, who participated in involuntary cult interventions during the late 1970s, points out, “Deprogrammers were falsely portrayed as beating and raping people to force them to recant their religious beliefs. For the record, I know of no instance of deprogramming (and I’ve met hundreds of deprogrammees) that involved any physical abuse such as beating or rape. No family I have ever met would go to the extreme of rescuing a loved one through deprogramming and allow anyone to harm their child in any way.”650
Legal Concerns
Concern developed among cult-intervention specialists and cult-watching organizations regarding the use of the word deprogrammer. Hassan notes, “By the late 1970s, the question of mind control had become intertwined in the public eye with the issue of forcible deprogramming. This occurrence was partly the result of public relations campaigns financed by certain major cults to discredit critics and divert the debate from the cults themselves.”651 Conway and Siegelman wrote that all the legal action taken against deprogrammers “brought a global chill” to the issue.”652 Hassan reflects, “The truth is that [involuntary] deprogramming is extremely risky in legal terms.”653 For some time, however, Hassan continued to recognize the need for such involuntary interventions. He writes, “Forcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail.”654 But Conway and Siegelman summarized the final situation: “In the new climate, judges were deaf to the pleas of the parents and families of cult members, and the precarious deprogramming profession was largely eclipsed by the efforts of the new generation of cult ‘exit counselors.’”655
A succession of new titles and corresponding terminology emerged and evolved as many cult-intervention professionals in the United States distanced themselves from the title “deprogrammer” and the term “deprogramming.” This aversion has included titles such as “exit counselor,” “exit counseling,” “strategic interaction approach,” “high demand group consultant,” “cult information specialist,” “thought-reform consultant,” “cult mediator” and my own professional preference, “cult-intervention specialist.”
Despite the proliferation of new labels used to describe cult-intervention work during the 1980s and 1990s, Margaret Singer remarked, “In fact, ‘deprogramming’ is in many ways a more accurate description of the process of getting the cult member to recognize what has happened to him or her, but since that word is now tinged with memories of the early snatchings and restraint, most people are reluctant to use it.”656
However, a small group of cult-intervention specialists noted, “Not all deprogrammings were ‘rescue and hold’ situations. There were some where the group member was free to leave at any time and there were some where ex-members sought voluntary deprogramming.”657 Despite this fact many professionals still felt it was necessary to respond to well-financed cult propaganda and litigation by altering titles and adapting new terminology.
One group led by exit counselor Carol Giambalvo nevertheless tacitly recognized the reasoning and practical considerations that had historically prompted involuntary deprogramming. Families often based their decision to take such extreme action on “the fact that in some groups, members were zealously protected from parents, often having their names changed and moved from locations to location.”658 Sadly, this fact remains true today in some situations. The same concerns about involvement in destructive cults persist and may include such issues as financial exploitation, family estrangement, medical neglect, and physical and/or sexual abuse.
Deprogramming Court Cases
Ted Patrick went through a series of legal battles regarding his involuntary deprogramming work. In 1974 he was charged with kidnapping Kathy Crampton but was acquitted. The judge stated, “The parents who would do less than what Mr. and Mrs. Crampton did for their daughter Kathy would be less than responsible, loving parents. Parents like the Cramptons here, have justifiable grounds, when they are of the reasonable belief that their child is in danger, under hypnosis or drugs, or both, and that their child is not able to make a free, voluntary, knowledgeable decision.”659
In 1980 Patrick was found guilty of conspiracy, kidnapping, and false imprisonment concerning an attempted involuntary deprogramming, which resulted in a one-year prison sentence.660
In 1990 Ted Patrick attempted to deprogram Elma Miller, an Amish woman who joined a splinter Amish group, which apparently drew the concern of her family. Criminal conspiracy charges were filed against Patrick, Miller’s husband, and Miller’s brother. Miller later requested that charges against her family be dropped, and the prosecutor subsequently decided to dismiss the criminal charges filed against Patrick.661
In 1992 New York cult deprogrammer Galen Kelly was arrested and prosecuted in a federal court in Virginia.662 It seems that he grabbed the wrong cult member, which Kelly and his attorney believed had been a “set up.”663 Kelly was found guilty and served one year in prison before an appeal overturned his conviction.664 The federal prosecutor in the Kelly case was later suspended amid allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.665
Cult deprogrammers Joseph Szimhart and Kenneth J. Paolini were acquitted of aiding and abetting a kidnapping in 1993. The kidnapping reportedly took place in early November 1991. The two men were hired to deprogram a member of the controversial Church Universal and Triumphant, founded by Elizabeth Clare Prophet. The deprogramming effort failed. Also charged was cult deprogrammer Mary Alice Chronalagar, who had once worked with Ted Patrick. The jury couldn’t agree on a verdict for Chronalagar.666
My cult-intervention work, which began in 1982, has included the involuntary deprogramming of adults. In 1991 I assisted a mother in an attempt to rescue her eighteen-year-old son, Jason Scott. He was involved in a controversial fringe Pentecostal group located in Bellevue, Washington. This intervention effort failed, and I
was charged and later prosecuted for unlawful imprisonment. My trial ended with a jury verdict of not guilty and acquittal.667 Subsequently, Kendrick Moxon, a lawyer closely associated with Scientology, reportedly recommended to Scott that he file a civil lawsuit.668 That lawsuit ended with a judgment against me for almost $3 million, which was subsequently settled largely for my consultation time and $5,000 in cash.669 The settlement was concluded after Scott left the group, which had caused his mother concern, and he fired Moxon. Jason Scott later concluded that he had been used through the litigation.”670 “I was naïve. I just kind of rode the waves of what they wanted me to do,” he said.671
Perhaps the most recently known example of an involuntary deprogramming took place in Canada during 2006. Parents in Burlington, Ontario, reportedly believed their twenty-two-year-old daughter was involved with a “cult” in Hamilton, Ontario. They abducted the young woman and held her for ten days before she escaped. The father, a family doctor, was later charged with kidnapping and forcible confinement. The mother, a secondary school teacher, was also charged.672 Two of the couple’s other children were also involved in the deprogramming attempt. US cult deprogrammer Mary Alice Chronalagar was involved but fled across the border and wasn’t charged. Chronalagar later told a reporter, “I didn’t come up there to take part in anything; I did come up there and talked to the family.” She then reportedly refused to answer any other questions.673 The charges against the parents and one sibling were eventually dropped at the daughter’s request. However, the young woman’s older brother, a twenty-nine-year-old law student, entered guilty pleas to kidnapping and forcible confinement. He was sentenced to a fifteen-month term of house arrest and community supervision.674
I no longer do involuntary cult-intervention work with adults, though such an involuntary intervention for minor children remains completely legal in the United States when it is under the direct supervision of their legal guardian or custodial parents. But despite my decision to abandon involuntary intervention work with adults, I deeply sympathize with families and others concerned who may find themselves facing an extreme situation, in which voluntary interventions seem to be improbable, if not impossible, due to a lack of meaningful access as a direct result of cultic influence and manipulation.
After his acquittal in 1993, deprogrammer Kenneth J. Paolini said, “What pulls on you is when a parent calls and says, ‘I’m desperate.’”675 But today, regardless of how desperate the situation may be, due to legal concerns, cult-intervention professionals in the United States have abandoned involuntary intervention, with the possible exception of minor children under the direct supervision of a custodial parent or legal guardian.
Evolution of Deprogramming
What was once called “deprogramming” remains largely the same process used today for cult-intervention work, but it is done only with adults on a voluntary basis. Conway and Siegelman succinctly described the deprogramming process in their book Snapping: America’s Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change. The authors wrote, “It appears to be a genuinely broadening, expanding personal change, it would seem to bear closer resemblance to a true moment of enlightenment, to the natural process of personal growth and newfound awareness and understanding, than to the narrowing changes brought about by cult rituals and artificially induced group ordeals.”676 Steve Hassan, himself a former member of the Reverend Moon‘s Unification Church, related about his own deprogramming, “I had the indescribable experience of my mind suddenly opening up, as if a light switch had been thrown.” He concluded that this was like “rediscovering myself.”677
In the second edition of Conway and Siegelman’s Snapping: America’s Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, they explain that the “methods of voluntary deprogramming and exit-counseling, while far less controversial and much safer from a legal standpoint, prompted fewer cult members to experience a sudden ‘snapping out’ of their controlled states of mind.”678 Instead, as I discussed with the authors, what now most often occurs is a slower, less pronounced moment of emergence or “gradual ‘unfolding’ from the cults’ ingrained altered states.”679
From the time of Ted Patrick to today, cult-intervention work has evolved and changed. But the essential elements for a successful intervention remain largely intact and based on an educational model and process. The essential building blocks are the following: learning about the inherent dynamics and authoritarian structure of destructive cults; reviewing the systematic persuasion, influence, and control techniques evident in such groups; sharing historical information about the particular group or leader; and understanding the family concerns that led to the intervention.
The goal of cult intervention remains intrinsically the same—that is, to stimulate critical thinking and promote independence and individual autonomy. Such an intervention is an information-driven process centered on an examination of relevant research material within the context of an ongoing discussion or dialogue; this often pointedly questions the basic assumptions held within the group. The result should provide a factual basis for a more informed decision-making process in respect to the individual’s further involvement with the group or leader.
This educational process requires the careful preparation of all concerned parties who will participate in the intervention. Much like an alcohol or drug intervention, a cult intervention typically occurs as a complete surprise to avoid outside interference and to ensure at least the initial participation of the person who is the focus of the intervention effort. Families and other concerned individuals go through a consultation or educational process, which may include relevant reading, preliminary discussion, and finally specially focused preparation immediately before the intervention begins. Today that preparation and intervention process is made much easier by accessing information through the Internet, educational DVDs, and e-mail. The advent of the Internet and expansion of the World Wide Web have greatly enhanced the deprogramming process, which has always heavily depended on information.
Steve Hassan
Steve Hassan, who became a professional counselor during his years as a cult deprogrammer, put together what many observers consider to be a viable approach to cult intervention. Hassan calls it the “strategic interaction approach” (SIA), which purportedly “emphasizes the value of meeting with trained consultants to be effectively guided and coached and also to plan and implement effective interventions.” Hassan’s approach incorporates aspects of family and individual counseling, personal coaching, and education. Hassan says, “In the SIA, each person has issues that should be addressed. One focus is on the growth and development of healthy relationships within the family. The safe and nurturing environment created by the SIA offers many opportunities to heal old wounds. As an integral part of the family system, the cult member is automatically included in the process.”680
Hassan’s hybrid approach to cult-intervention work has also drawn criticism. Other professionals working in the area of destructive cults have expressed ethical concerns about Hassan’s melded methodology, which he initially termed “strategic intervention therapy.”
Calling his approach “strategic intervention [sic] therapy,” Hassan (1988) stresses that, although he too tries to communicate a body of information to cultists and to help them think independently, he also does formal counseling. As with many humanistic counseling approaches, Hassan’s runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework’s foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client.681
Dr. Cathleen Mann, a PhD in psychology, has been a licensed counselor for over eighteen years and has been court qualified as an expert witness in cult-related cases across America. Mann also provides training and supervision for other counselors and is a licensed provider of counseling and assessment for children, families, and adults affected by cults. In some situations she has also participated in cult-intervention efforts.
Mann, like Michael Langone, draws distinctions between counseling and cult-intervention work. According t
o Mann, “The very nature of counseling is persuasive. This is why informed consent must occur first. A counselor cannot be objective and subjective at the same time.”682 This is in stark contrast to a cult intervention, which like most interventions begins as a surprise. Mann further explains the ethical requirements of professional counseling. “The counseling relationship should be entered into openly by virtue of the informed consent process. Informed consent means that a client knows the methods and duration of counseling, what theories or techniques will be used, and what types of effects can be expected from counseling.”
Hassan also engages in what he calls “covert interventions,” which involve deception. He explains that this as “an attempt to counsel the cult member without his knowing that the family is trying to help him reevaluate his involvement.” Hassan adds, “It is tricky to find a pretext to meet the individual and gain enough time to do much good.”683 However, Mann states, “The counseling relationship needs to be entered into voluntarily and not contain any coercion, deception, or manipulation. Counseling should always be a choice.”684
Mann defines the boundaries of what she considers an ethical cult intervention. “In an intervention, information about a cult’s deception and manipulation should be the sole focus.” She warns, “It is destructive to provide counseling on personal or family issues when the sole reason the intervention was created was to focus on education and information, rather than trying to counsel family with a legion of existing problems, some of which may not be related to the cult issue.” Dr. Mann, who has conducted many forensic evaluations for courts in child custody, fraud, and parental alienation cases, concludes, “It is a myth, and not supported by the research, that family pathology is the ‘root’ cause of cult involvement. People affiliate with cults because of deception, not because their families are dysfunctional.”685
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 18