Evaluating the danger of cults

P.E.I. Bonewits

Past Institute publications have proposed ways of rating gurus out of 100 (see, for instance, page 296 of The Book of Visions, Institute for Social Inventions, 1992). Here is another way of considering how potentially destructive a cult group may prove to be, one created by author P. E. I. Bonewits in his book Real Magic (Samuel Weiser, Inc., 1989, York Beach, ME, pp. 215-216. Available from Samuel Weiser, Box 612, York Beach, ME 03910-0612, USA., tel 207 363-4393). This excerpt was printed in the American magazine Communities, the Winter '94 issue, monitored for the Institute by Roger Knights.

Isaac Bonewits suggests scoring each item in his 'Cult Danger Evaluation Frame' from low to high, on a scale from 1 to 10.

As a general rule, the higher the numerical total scored by a given group, the more dangerous it is likely to be. Though it is obvious that many of the scales in the frame are subjective, it is still possible to make practical judgements using it, provided that all numerical assignments are based on an accurate and unbiased observation of actual behaviour (as distinct from official pronouncements). Obviously, different observers will achieve differing degrees of precision, depending upon the sophistication of their numerical assignments on each scale. However, if the same observer used the same methods of scoring and weighting each scale, their comparison of relative danger or harmlessness between groups will be reasonably valid, at least for their own purposes. Those who believe that relativism and anarchy are as dangerous to mental health as absolutism and authoritarianism, should count groups with total scores nearing either extreme (high or low) as being equally hazardous.

(1) Internal control, amount of internal political power exercised by leader(s) over members.

(2) Wisdom claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared about decisions.

(3) Wisdom credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions made by leader(s).

(4) Dogma, rigidity of reality of concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility.

(5) Recruiting, emphasis put on attracting new members, amount of proselytising.

(6) Front groups, number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group.

(7) Wealth, amount of money and/or property desired or obtained; emphasis on members' donations.

(8) Political power, amount of external political influence desired or obtained.

(9) Sexual manipulation of members by leader(s); amount of control over sex lives of members.

(10) Censorship, amount of control over members' access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).

(11) Drop-out control, intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning drop-outs.

(12) Endorsement of violence, when used by or for the group or its leader(s).

(13) Paranoia, amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; perceived power of opponents.

(14) Grimness, amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

(15) Surrender of will, emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions.

Postcript

Adapted from a news item in The Times by Christopher Thomas.

India's swamis, unofficial spiritual advisers to the rich and famous, have had a bad year. Swami Premananda has been arrested for allegedly running an ashram of sex slaves, while Swami Keshavananda is being held on charges of raping 100 young girls.

Last year five students were shot dead in mysterious circumstances at the ashram of Sai Baba in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh. And Sada Chari, who was consulted by at least three prime ministers including Indira Gandhi, has been charged with running a brothel in Delhi.

Previous / Next / Table of Contents