Cults are popping up all over pop culture these days. Documentaries abound on streaming platforms. Cult-related podcasts are legion. Investigators and whistle-blowers bring real-life drama out of these groups and into the news.

​I suspect one of the questions that drives people to consume such content is the desire to understand why anyone would get involved in bizarre groups — and perhaps to feel assured that “it could never happen me.”

What most people don’t realize is that it could happen to anyone. Ordinary people join such groups every day. While the groups that get a lot of attention are the most extreme or strange examples of high control groups, others are more tempered in their tactics, maintaining respectable public images.

In my case, I’d been primed by a culty group I came in contact with while I was a college student. Those connections nurtured the curiosity I already had about meditation, and planted several assumptions that predisposed me to view meditation favorably — as something I could benefit from, not something I would need to scrutinize.

One of those assumptions was that meditation is healthy for mind and body. Another was that such practices could be nonsectarian or compatible with a person of any (or no) religious background; there was no proselytizing agenda behind meditation programs. I no longer believe either of those assumptions to be categorically true.

Following are two perhaps surprising assumptions I DO now hold about cults.
No One (Knowingly) Joins A Cult“No one joins a cult. People delay leaving orgs that misrepresented themselves.” I’m cribbing this quote from the very useful Cult 101 Cliff’s notes offered on the web site of the Conspirituality podcast. Cult expert Cathleen Mann made this quip to Conspirituality co-host (and repeat cult survivor) Matthew Remski.
​
When someone gets involved in a group that turns out to be deceptive, controlling… culty — they think they are saying yes to something good. It could be a job, a support group, or a spiritual practice… an entrepreneurial opportunity, a pathway to personal improvement, or a Bible study group… a humanitarian organization, a leadership program, or simply a caring new circle of friends.

​The person may not discover until much later — if they ever do — that the group or program falls somewhere on the continuum of culty-ness. Which brings me to assumption #2.

The Cultiverse Is A ContinuumA group can be anywhere from 100% healthy to “a little bit culty” to People’s Temple-level toxic. The latter group ended tragically via mass suicide / massacre at Jonestown, through poisoned Flavor Aid. This is the origin of the horrendous modern proverb, “don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” (Really, let’s stop saying that.)
​
Where a group might be placed on that culty continuum depends on the degree to which factors like authoritarianism, thought-constricting language, social proof and coercive persuasion are at play. A group can be authoritarian, by the way, without mean or Alpha leaders. As the saying goes, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Soaring ideals and (apparent) kindness can draw a person onward, with less likelihood of feeding doubts.

​Organizational questions are independent of the group’s purpose or teachings. Regardless of espoused ideas and goals, the thing to watch is how power is shared (or not) and whether there is transparency and consent — where people know up front where this program could eventually take them— vs. a process of gradual indoctrination or even manipulation. Are people being served, and/or used?

It can be a bit tricky to place a group on the continuum, because even two people involved in the same group may have different experiences. Leaders and groups tend to try different things and adjust their approach as they go, based on the results they get and on evolving conditions. The life cycle of the organization can also play into this; many cultish groups get more rigid, even paranoid, later on (per The Guru Papers by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad).

From how I now understand the history of my group, it was more cultish in its early counter-culture decades, when the focus was on building a community around the guru. (Ashramites were hardly allowed to visit their families, and meditated for zany hours upon hours, expecting enlightenment in seven years...)
The group’s more public-facing persona — including the press and the retreat center — toned it down, so as not to turn off potential recruits of all ages, stages, and lifestyles as the organization reached its peak of influence.

The nature of the community was not at all apparent to me when I got involved. Then, a few years after the founder’s death, an obsession with purity took hold. I gather that even the retreats have become increasingly worshipful of the teacher in recent years; if I got out a cult-o-meter now, the needle might be moving into higher-risk territory even for newer people.

Consider also that a sophisticated leader or group may approach people differently during the same time period, adapting to the needs and vulnerabilities of diverse individuals or demographics — and to the needs of the organization that they are trying to get those people to meet. For example, the potential major donor may get rather different treatment, one-on-one, than a young adult being wooed in for cheap labor and good optics.

Cult-ivation of Members

Speaking of donors… I envision high-control groups approaching the cult-ivation of participants much like development officers in non-profits are trained to guide donors down a pipeline. People are given opportunities and support to move from a modest initial gift or volunteer involvement, to increasingly larger investments of labor, meaning and funds over time. Many people are expected to “leak” out of the “pipeline,” so that the number of donors that will become major gift givers or estate donors will be modest compared to the total number of small annual or one-time givers.

​Similarly, the donor pyramid that fundraisers use would translate well to a high control group’s cult-ivation of members. Plenty of people will just read the books, take a seminar, join a study group (or whatever the entry point is for this group)… few will end up at the top of the pyramid, as core members, residents, staff of the organization. You will get more attention — and more concerted influence attempts — the further down the pipeline (or up the pyramid) you progress.

There are limits to this analogy, of course. For one thing, any ethical fundraiser will avoid deception and look for win-win relationships. From my fundraising days, I remember codes of conduct and systems of accountability for pros. Whereas a high control group often practices deception, at least sometimes — and has little, if any, accountability.

Risk Zones

Proximity to the group can also matter greatly. Someone who just watches videos, attends a webinar, or adds a few tools to their life may enjoy some of the genuine benefits of the program with modest exposure to the risks of deeper involvement.

An analogy I find useful comes from Matthew Remski of Conspirituality, who suggests looking at involvement and risk in a cult in a way similar to the hazard map of a wildfire. How dangerous a fire is — or how dangerous a cult is — depends on how close you get to it.
​
Take the San Francisco Bay Area, for example. This 2017 fire risk map from a public radio/tv station tells me I should be most concerned and proactive in a very high (red) or high (mustard) hazard zone, whereas folks in the light yellow (moderate) or unmarked areas can rest a bit easier. Much of Santa Rosa was in the clear. West of Petaluma, on the other hand, more caution was warranted at the time of this map.

​If only we had similar maps for the risks of manipulation, like we do for wildfire! (Oh California, you would still have lots of red.)

Remski uses a wildfire map to suggest similar gradations of risk exist for high control groups.

• At the greatest distance from the fire / cult — the color-free areas on the map — people have relationships of genuine mutuality and equality, information is shared transparently, and health and resilience levels are unaffected by the group.
• Yellow risk means some cautionary signs are beginning to appear. This might include the presence of some charismatic leadership, and shifting ways of thinking and being among participants. Of course, not all charismatic people misuse their influence, and personal transformation can be a positive. But some discernment is called for. (For many in my group, including me, doing the practices brought benefits that increased my health and resilience — at least initially.)
• Orange here could represent recruitment zones, where things are not as they seem (or are presented to be), social influence and emotional contagion are used systematically, the participant is beginning to feel special and use inside language, and commitment begins to escalate.
• Red zones are ripe for abuse: people this close may be fully indoctrinated, and grow dependent on the group in a variety of ways (making it difficult to leave); if they see things that don’t add up, they may be gaslit; and if the leader or group crosses the line into unethical or criminal behavior, obfuscation and coverups are likely.

Note that unlike wildfires, the hazard zones in a high control group may be influenced as much by psychological proximity as by geographic proximity to the group. One can be far from the headquarters, yet still have deeply internalized the group’s values and power structure.

I can look back at my timeline of involvement with my group, and see how I progressed into stages of increasing risk as I was culti-vated down the participant pipeline.

So Who Joins?

That depends on the group. Whatever your age, life stage, identity, hunger, frustration, hopes… there’s a group out there that might be very appealing to you, should you be approached at the right moment in your life.

That said, there are some factors more common among recruits, as summarized by Janja Lalich (Take Back Your Life). Some of them apply to most people, like a desire to belong, and lack of awareness about how groups can manipulate people. Idealism, dissatisfaction with the cultural status quo, and a desire for spiritual meaning may also make someone more likely to find a group’s appeals enticing. All of the above pertained to me — and, I believe, to most of the young adults my group was cultivating — in my period of peak involvement.

Not surprisingly, other qualities that can make one more susceptible to indoctrination and longer/deeper involvement include trustingness (less likely to scrutinize what one is told), lack of self-confidence, low tolerance for ambiguity (urgent need for clear answers), and lack of assertiveness (difficulty saying no or expressing doubt). People-pleasers, beware!
​
For groups that promote practices that induce trance-like states, susceptibility to such states could also increase responsiveness to the indoctrination program. Prior use of certain drugs, for example, could increase such susceptibility. I wonder if some people are just naturally wired to more easily enter — and find refuge in — such states.

​

Besides personal qualities, life moments can also influence how open and interested one would be in a group that offers belonging, meaning, stress relief, etc. A relationship break-up, job loss, devastating death, parental overwhelm, health diagnosis, the challenge to identity posed by retirement… the list is long of life transitions and difficulties that could make a person more vulnerable to the influence of a group that offers solutions or comfort.

I speculate that many people who haven’t (knowingly) been a part of a high control group might expect that the folks who would most flock to culty groups are those who are not-so-smart, emotionally unbalanced, doormats, or misfits. But the myth of the weak-minded joiner is just that — a myth.
​
“Most cult members are above-average intelligence, well-adjusted, adaptable, and more than likely idealistic,” Lalich reports. (That is, when they first get involved. A person might not be so well-adjusted — or mentally sharp — after their cult experience, if they get out. But that’s a different post.)

In a future post, I’ll share more of my own story of why I got increasingly involved in my old group. You can subscribe to get every new post sent directly to your inbox. Thanks for reading!

If you liked this post, here are some other articles you may enjoy 👇

A Spiral Season …… How I Was Primed …... The Roots of Control

Please read this disclaimer carefully before relying on any of the content in my articles online for your own life.

​How is a controlling group like a manipulative partner? Oh, let me count the ways…

In my first comparative post, I lifted up parallels related to the abuser’s or founder’s public image, the beautiful beginning of the relationship, how the partner/group mesmerizes and alters the person on the receiving end of their attention, ways conflict shows up and plays out, and what isolation may look like.

In a second set of comparisons, I explored four more ways to read between the power moves, including: who does (and who should) get the blame or credit, the red flag of conditional care, where the craziness in the relationship comes from, and why the victim may not notice they are losing their spark or being conned.

Here, I finish out the analogy between significant others and groups who are controlling, by taking a look at the roots of control in these relationships. Let’s zero in on a final four factors.

“I try to ‘do unto others,’ to have compassion for his challenges and model selflessness. But he doesn’t seem to respond in kind; he takes as much as I’ll give, and then some.”Establishing healthy boundaries is a growing edge for many people who are naturally empathetic or people pleasers. Further, regardless of temperament, females are often socialized to be mindful of others’ needs, and to put themselves last. Cultural factors can come into play too. (I’m looking at you, my Midwest Nice people.)

​When a person with any of these traits gets matched up with a partner who is preoccupied with his own desires, insecurities and problems, the relationship can become all give and no take.

Whether he’s a bona fide narcissist — or simply clueless about other people — she may have to fight both her conditioning and his predilections to set healthy boundaries in the relationship. A manipulator will be happy to take advantage of her deferential, forgiving nature.

A similar pattern can happen in groups. If you’ve ever been the person who kept saying yes to volunteer work until you burned out and blew up (or quietly dropped out), you know what I’m talking about.

A healthy group will not want you to give until it hurts. Leaders will honor No equally to Yes, looking for win-win ways to meet the needs of participants as well as the organization and its mission. You will be valued for yourself, not strictly for what you can do for the organization.
​
In contrast, highly programmed settings can blur boundaries, as expectations for schedule, activities, and ongoing participation press in. Consider situations like living with other group members, traveling to intensive retreats, or participating in a religious community with all-through-the-week expectations. Any of these can create a situation where a person has little space to discern their own needs or articulate their boundaries in ways that go against group culture. You are engulfed — physically, socially, and in your time and attention — by the group’s activities and worldview.

​Perhaps the most insidious type of boundary transgression by a group is the kind that can happen inside a person. If you internalize the group’s norms and values through repeat exposure (in sacred texts or written teachings, formal talks, informal conversation, spiritual practices, workshops, courses, etc.), no one has to ask you to prioritize the group’s values; you know what the ideals are. You can start to police yourself, regardless of where you are or who you are with.

The most existentially significant boundary may be your sense of self. A group I was involved with believed in deliberately going against the ego. They regarded dissolving the sense of self as the ultimate goal of the spiritual life.

I can see value in reducing superficial attachments, for someone who wants to become more free. But ego-reduction can be misapplied or taken too far.
​
It’s one thing for a mature, well-developed person to choose, in true freedom, a goal of nirvana or merging with the Godhead. It’s quite another to teach that enlightenment is the goal of life for every human being, and to inculcate self-dissolving practices in people who have yet to even establish a healthy sense of identity. The ego, after all, serves an important function.
​

The idea that killing one’s ego = spiritual growth is also ripe for abuse. If attachment to one’s own wants and needs is selfish and bad, if suffering is productive, if pain is a gateway to freedom or God, then a group can mistreat someone — or expect them to sacrifice themselves to their cause — and call it love.

Lesson #10: Know and value your own needs. Set and hold boundaries that are healthy for you. Give yourself adequate space to discern these, and be wary of any person or group who idealizes self-sacrifice. You matter and you deserve all good things — no more than anyone else, sure, but no less either.

“He criticizes me for ‘letting myself go’ but still expects sex, on his terms. I feel like I can’t say no.”

The power and control wheel describes some of the many ways that domestic abusers dominate victims: intimidation, threats, economic power moves, emotional abuse, isolation, blaming, claiming male privilege. These often build up over time, and eventually escalate to physical and/or sexual violence.

Laura E. Anderson (When Religion Hurts You) observes that the innate sexuality of a human being touches every aspect of a person. That makes sexuality a primary avenue of self-knowledge and self-expression, as well as a powerful means of connection with others. It follows, then, that “one way to control other people [is] to vilify sexuality and to script rules about how it’s expressed.”
​
A partner may do this as a way of exerting dominance. High-control groups do it too. As a survivor of a fundamentalist Christian group, Anderson comments on the purity culture that has been common in evangelical communities for decades. She writes that “purity culture teachings and lifestyles can result in trauma… people coming out of purity culture often have the same symptoms as victims of sexual assault.”

​Other controlling settings may also devalue the body, view sexual pleasure (and pleasure in general) as superficial or shameful, and establish strict norms around sexuality. Whether a group is religious or political, New Age or self-help in its orientation, it may couch these rules in its ideology.

In the high-control group I was involved in as a young adult, people were encouraged abstractly, through spiritual teachings, to dis-identify with the body. (“You are not the body. You are not the mind.”)
​
At the same time, various practices can contribute to dissociation — including spiritual practices like concentration forms of meditation, listening to the teacher’s hypnotic voice in talks, and using a mantram in daily moments of stress. Rather than attuning to the body and its knowing, such practices train one to turn attention away from one’s own body and the feelings the body conveys.

I don’t remember hearing messages specifically related to sex until I was fairly involved in my group. (That’s pacing for you.) As I recall, I had been meditating for several years, had gone to regional retreats, and finally signed up for a young adult retreat at the headquarters. A sort of kundalini 101 session taught that this life energy, often felt as sexual desire, can be transformed back into spiritual energy and used to power the journey to Self-realization.

At this point I got the message that the householder path — which typically includes marriage and family — is a recognized path; one need not be a monk to establish a spiritual life. Only several years later, after I had moved cross-country to work for the organization, did it become clear that the monastic path was regarded as superior by the inner circle of this community.

In a workshop about discerning one’s personal calling, we young adults were encouraged to be especially careful in determining whether or not parenting was part of our individual calling. No one explicitly said: don’t divert years of your life and untold energy to parenting. They just encouraged deliberation about this consuming part of life. At the time I thought, that’s right, having children should be an individual choice, not a general societal expectation.

My perspective on this has become more nuanced over time. I suspect that my cohort of young people was being subtly discouraged from having children. The first generation of the teacher’s students HAD coupled up and raised children at the communal site. Some of the long-timers seemed, in retrospect, to regard this as a detour from their highest calling or desire, to reach samadhi through focused spiritual disciplines.

Plus, by the time I came around — just after the founder died — the organization was at or past its peak phase of outreach and expansion. There was a growing sense of urgency about drawing a younger generation to the community to live and work, to sustain the organization as the teacher had established it — and to sustain the aging first generation. As a practical matter, children would divert precious young adult energy away from doing the work of what was now an organization with a ticking clock.

More recently, I have come to understand that raising children in that intentional community was problematic for the children who had grown up there (to put it mildly). Group leaders may have realized this too.

Whether or when to reproduce is only one part of the sex question for high-control groups. Most also have rules around if and with whom members have sex. In The Guru Papers, Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad observe that “the two prevalent ways [sexual] control is exerted [by gurus or similar leaders] are through promulgating either celibacy or promiscuity.” Both have the same result: making it less likely for deep bonds to form between individuals within the group (couples), so that the guru can keep members’ primary emotional bond focused on him.
​

With some people and at opportune moments, leaders in my group did privately promote celibacy as the best path, the one that will lead most swiftly to spiritual advancement — including to some young adults of my generation.

I didn’t hear that message directly myself. But I had already indicated my expectation NOT to live in the intentional community. So they likely had me pegged as one of the YAs who would sooner or later go the family route, as indeed I did.

A leader who espouses celibacy or marital fidelity normally models it himself — or pretends to. Alas, as Kramer and Alstad note, “sex scandals go with the occupation of guru because of its emotional isolation and eventual boredom.” Among the instances they were familiar with were “religious leaders using their exalted position to seduce, pressure, or coerce disciples sexually, some even at puberty.”

To add insult to injury, Kramer and Alstad continue, “the real motives behind [the guru’s] sexual excursions are often masked by such words as ‘teaching’ or ‘honoring’ their disciples.” He might say that the objects of his attention are special.

Such behavior is problematic on many levels. What is often most difficult for disciples to accept, according to Kramer and Alstad, is the deception and what it means: “The lie [about his celibacy or marital fidelity] indicates the guru’s entire persona is a lie, that his image as selfless and being beyond ego is a core deception… not only did he not achieve [the goal of selflessness or ego transcendence], he does not even know if it is achievable.”
​

​With the duplicity and betrayal of sexual scandal, the image of the teacher — and the trustworthiness of his teachings — all come tumbling down. The entire enterprise of the group is shown to be hollow. Hence, it should not be surprising if people deeply invested in the group’s worldview and continuity deny that such accusations could possibly be true.

Lesson #11: Sexuality is sacred, powerful — and yours. The only person who can discern what is best for your sexual life is you. No relationship that lacks mutuality and consent can be good for you — and a relationship between a leader and follower is inherently unequal. A middle path, centering genuine intimacy and honoring pleasure, is less fraught than one that seeks either purity / abstinence or detached hedonism.

“He’s always instructing me how to do things — even when I know better than he does! Sometimes I feel more like a child than a partner. What’s odd is, I actually have a harder time making my own decisions than I used to.”

An abuser’s behavior may go beyond mere mansplaining to treating his partner like a child, a less-capable person who needs to be shepherded, schooled, perhaps even disciplined by him.

The stress of living in an abusive relationship, and the whittling away of the victim’s self-esteem, may result in her finding it harder to think for herself and navigate life choices.
​
In my group, I didn’t think much initially of the teacher-learner dynamics at retreats and such. It was what we participants had signed up for. But the pattern did not lessen over the years. At all. They were clearly the role models; we were forever the students.

The young adults who moved out to work for the organization were each assigned a mentor to check in with them periodically. This sounds thoughtful on the surface, and may indeed have been well-intended. But many of us were accomplished professionals in our 30s. Ostensibly they had wanted us to come to share our skills and knowledge.

The mentor-mentee relationship subtly reinforced the spiritual hierarchy of the group. It also provided a private, one-to-one container for the airing of questions and concerns that might arise as we adjusted to our new place inside the organization. Indeed, I suspect pooling of questions, concerns, and observations was fairly limited among the newbies. It was perhaps most likely between roommates — because where else would you have the privacy to share doubts and discrepancies?

This paternalistic attitude did not come out of nowhere. It is the pattern of a high control group, starting with the founder(s)/leader(s).

In a comparative study of two rather different cultish groups, Janja Lalich found that the parental role of the leader(s), and the followers’ strong attachment to that figure, resulted in developmental regression for a significant portion of the followers. (Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults)
​
This was not particularly a reflection on those participants; it was “induced, at least in part, by the group processes and interactions,” Lalich notes. It seems to be baked into cult dynamics that as a person grows more embedded in the group’s rules and routines and guidance, they begin to lose a sense of self apart from the family-like group. They become dependent; in extreme groups like those in Lalich’s study, members might even become child-like.
​

This type of control can also show up in who is allowed to share the teachings. In my group, this was a privileged role. It was only long-time students — the most loyal, orthodox, and socially adept — who led retreats or workshops.

After the founder died, true believers had become determined to Maintain the Purity of the Teachings — something I heard about during the time I worked there. It was officially proclaimed that no one else would ever be considered a teacher on par with the founder.

Still, more facilitators would be needed, beyond the there-for-decades disciples, if the program schedule was to be sustained. I suspect that householders newly invited to train as facilitators were long-term meditators who had passed the group’s loyalty smell test.

I have the impression that they were given exacting guidance about how to deliver the content. Perhaps this zealous approach helps explain why several iterations of facilitator training did not produce a sustaining cadre of program leaders; people may have been put off by the increasing rigidity of the program.
The organization has since turned its focus to online retreats and programs. Such a format would allow true believers to vigilantly Maintain the Purity of the Teachings themselves, from headquarters, while reaching people anywhere.

Lesson #12: With any potential partner or group, look for signs that they can share authority and respect with you, and will not patronize you, however subtly. Does the association help you hone and trust your own judgment, or are you expected to turn to them in perpetuity? Is there any provision for new teachers, writers, editors? What qualifies someone to be in such a role? How tightly controlled is the process for sharing the wisdom of the group?

“He’s so jealous. I’ve come to realize that he is deeply insecure. He talks like he’s doing everything for me… but in reality, it’s always about him!”

She might find her partner’s possessiveness flattering at first. But when he doesn’t want her to have any male friends — and even seems to begrudge her ties with family members — that’s another story.

He also comes across as confident initially. In time, though, she realizes it’s a façade; underneath his bravado is a fragile ego. That’s why he needs constant affirmation from her, and bristles at even the gentlest feedback.
​
With a group, this trait is likely to show up as a demand for extreme loyalty. In a charismatic group, it will be the leader who particularly requires your allegiance. In other groups, it may be the group generally, with its program and belief system.

In my group, the expectation of loyalty did not appear initially. The founder was just a sage writer… gradually I got to know him as a kind-hearted fellow who gave interesting talks on spiritual topics, often with a touch of self-deprecating humor (I saw them via recordings)… and, as I knew from the beginning, the creator of a particular set of spiritual practices, the group’s program — from which I was experiencing benefit. Nothing suspicious here.

As I got more involved, I heard some use an honorific from the teacher’s culture, acknowledging him as a spiritual teacher. That seemed fine by me; if I was hearing about a professor, or a member of the clergy, or a physician, I would not object to people referring to them as Professor or Rev. or Dr. So-and-so. Others, even residents at the communal site, eschewed the title and simply called him by his first name, or his initials.

It was evident from the stories told by the teacher’s first generation students, and the way they talked about him, that they held him in particularly high regard. Would I have responded similarly, had I met a person as wise and giving as they described him to be? Perhaps, I thought.

Gradually the idea of regarding the founder not simply as “a writer” or “a meditation teacher” but “my teacher” was introduced to the circle of young adults. Still, it was presented as an option — with guidance as to how to grow closer to the teacher, for those who chose to do so.

Between this subtle message, the continuous imbibing of the teacher’s words in books and recorded talks, and the modeling by workshop leaders and other long-timers, in time I absorbed the idea that this was MY meditation teacher. I began to think of him that way. After all, I was practicing his method of meditation. If people can have piano teachers, why not meditation teachers?
​
It wasn’t until I participated in a special, high-commitment program with a group of other young adults that the emphasis on a relationship to the teacher escalated. I vaguely recall a ceremony in which we emerged from the meditation hall after evening meditation, candles in hand. As directed, we walked silently, flames flickering against the dark, out into the memorial garden.

The focal point of the garden was a rock monument from which water flowed at the top. Its face was inscribed with a devotional quote from scripture. In this context, the devotional sentiment clearly went beyond the divine persona from the scripture; it was aimed at the group’s teacher. This brief night journey was a pilgrimage laden with meaning.

I had actually forgotten about this episode until another alum of the program brought it up recently. This friend reminded me we were also invited to show our allegiance to the teacher during this program. I don’t remember that specifically at all.

But then, the socialization can be just as effective when done more subtly. Gurus and their acolytes can simply “reinforce devotion with attention and approval, and punish its lack by withdrawing them.” (Karmer & Alstad, The Guru Papers)

At any rate, the commitment of long-term students to the teacher was clear. My cohort was cultivated in the years following his death, a time of potential turmoil for the community. When I worked there, the way leadership coped reminded me of those WWJD bracelets that were popular among certain Christian evangelicals in the 90s — except this group ran everything through the filter of What Would Our-Teacher Do?

I could feel how a teacher-centered, devotional sort of approach was the norm among the inner circle. As I told a friend around the time of my departure, “if you’re not like that [as I wasn’t], people won’t trust you as much.”

Turns out, all of this is textbook high control group stuff. Here’s how sociologist Janja Lalich sums it up: “The ultimate aim is to get the devotee to identify with the ‘socializing agent’ — the cult leader, the patriarch or matriarch of the cult, or the controlling and abusive partner, as the case may be. The desired outcome is a new self … whose actions will be dictated by the ‘imagined will’ of the authoritative figure.” (from Take Back Your Life)
​
The socialization into group and teacher loyalty went very deep. Because even after I left, barely a year after I had moved out there — and with many negative feelings — it never occurred to me to speak ill of the group. Even to my fellow meditators back home, I was vague about what I had experienced. Partly that was because it took me time to find the words to describe what I had gone through. But partly, I was hesitant to burst their bubble. It’s not like any of them were going to move out there.

​I also knew that to the core group, anything but loyalty was a no-no. I was supposed to be grateful! And indeed, at that time, I was still grateful for the positive things I had gotten from my spiritual practice and my involvement with the group.

During my year there, I had learned that many people had come and gone from the group’s orbit over the decades. The long-timers didn’t talk about those other people. Someone more on the edges told me about serious students who had been there for a couple decades, and gave so much to the work — they were literally airbrushed out of pictures after they left.

So it looked like progress to me when, after giving notice, I and another departing member of my cohort were given a warm send-off luncheon. People offered good wishes for our continuing journeys.

What they actually said about us after we left is an open question. I recall judgmental things I heard insiders say about retreatants, or people who had backed away. Nonetheless, having been steeped in apparently caring relationships with these people, I remained in touch, sending family holiday newsletters along with periodic donations over the years.

I had been willing to look past the dysfunction I experienced when I worked there, and try to focus on the good aspects of my experience. Because I had chalked up the problems I observed there to the deep grief of the teacher’s long-time students after his death. Maybe there was something about the selection process of who came there and stayed, too.

I don’t see it that way anymore. Now, I view the true believers as the most deceived and betrayed of the founder’s followers. And I understand that they wouldn’t be how they are, if he wasn’t how he was.

As they say, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The teacher created the cult-ure of that community. He did it so well that his disciples are still dependent on him a quarter century after he departed this earth.
​
It turns out that, like an abusive partner, the leader of a high-control group is in the center because he put himself there. Whether or not the founder of my group believed he was serving others in some pure way, I will not speculate here; the guru-ashram model is a thing in his culture, so it is possible he meant well.
Either way, I believe with Kramer and Alstad (The Guru Papers) that the model is inherently authoritarian, and therefore ripe for corruption and abuse. The leader can easily shift, imperceptibly, from shepherd into wolf.

Lesson #13: A partner or group who wants you to forego other deep bonds, give up other avenues of growth — and abandon your own inner wisdom — does not deserve your fealty. Whether the pressure is urgent and apparent or subtle and sophisticated, do not surrender to another’s authority. It is the taproot of control.

If there is any solace for me in this situation, it is that the group may no longer be trying to draw new people out to live in the community.

But I mourn for all of those idealistic seekers who have quietly, unknowingly, by degrees, for some period of time — often years — lost some of their freedom through close involvement in this group.

For one involved with an abusive partner or a cultish group, the roots of control include blurred boundaries, hijacked sexuality, paternalistic attitudes, and the self-centering of the partner or group leader(s) as your ultimate master. Is this your situation? To assess, look past the ideology and zero in on the structure of the relationship.

(Missed the first two posts in this series? Here they are: Part 1 Part 2)

I learned the hard way these lessons about power and control in collectives. I hope my sharing here may help others avoid such experiences — or see them more clearly, and recover more fully, if you or your loved ones have been through something like this.

You can subscribe to get every new post sent directly to your inbox. Thanks for reading!

Please read this disclaimer carefully before relying on any of the content in my articles online for your own life.

“He was always right. Problems were always my fault.”

People who misuse power stay in the driver’s seat by taking credit for the good stuff in the relationship, while avoiding accountability for the bad stuff.

“Baby, you need me. You’d be nothing without all I’ve done for you.”

The bad boyfriend might send this message. But so might the controlling group.

If they are subtle about it, well-socialized group members will simply model the message: “Ordinary people like you and me would never get far by ourselves. I give gratitude daily to _ [founder(s) / teacher] _ for showing us the way.”

As for failures? That’s on you, not Mr. (or Ms.) Perfect.
​

An abuser might blame his partner for driving him to cruel behavior — “If you would’ve taken care of those things like I told you to, none of this would have happened. You can’t do anything right, can you?”

He might downplay his bad behavior, even deny he had any part in it. “It wasn’t that bad. You were due for dental work anyway.” “You fell down the stairs, don’t you remember? You’re such a klutz.”

An authoritarian leader or group may similarly deflect responsibility. “God is punishing you for your lack of faith.” “That was your own karma rebounding on you.”

In response to credible allegations of abuse from members of the community, true believers might respond with blind faith and improbable excuses: “We know Beloved Leader did not do those awful things; from our own direct experience we can tell you he’s not capable of such behavior. Whoever is spreading these lies must be jealous or seriously disturbed.”

Lesson #6: Be clear-eyed and honest about who is doing what.
​· Have you developed a new skill — practical, spiritual, or otherwise? Good for you! Whether or not anyone else contributed, you couldn’t have done it without… YOU.
· Has a person or group in your life treated you poorly? That’s on them. If they are mature — if they are worthy of being in your life — they will be able to own up to mistakes, and show concretely in their behavior that they can learn and grow. Don’t believe it unless you see it.

“He’s kind of controlling sometimes, but overall it’s a good relationship — not an abusive one. Not like ______ [some extreme example] ______.”

A relationship doesn’t have to involve physical violence or other undeniable red flags to be unhealthy.

Does he turn to you mostly when he needs something from you? Subtly signal that he may leave you if you don’t conform to his expectations? Belittle you, or dismiss your feelings? That is not a mutually supportive relationship. You deserve better.

If a group wants your unpaid (or underpaid) labor, your financial donations, and your endorsement of their program — but strictly on their terms — its relationship with you may be shallower and more transactional than you thought.

If they show you love only when you adhere to their formulation of Pure Teaching, and distance themselves from you when you think independently, consider that this group may in fact be using you.

Other group members may have genuine affection for you. But in a high-control group, the organization’s priorities — maintenance of the group’s status quo, the lionization of its leader(s)/teacher(s), keeping control of the public narrative — these are always going to trump your needs.

A group doesn’t have to be Heaven’s Gate or NXIVM-level extreme to be harmful. If ANY of the elements of power and control show up in the dynamics — loss of autonomy, isolation, minimizing-denying-blaming, emotional abuse, spiritual abuse, threats-accusations-intimidation, economic control, rigid rules about sexuality and gender — watch out.

Also realize that just because you haven’t experienced intense power dynamics, doesn’t mean others haven’t — or that you won’t eventually, if you stay.

Lesson #7: If the love is conditional, or there is any amount of coercion, the relationship is harmful — you’re being used. Don’t stay with a person or group who undermines your ability to trust yourself and think for yourself.

“I feel like I’m going crazy. Is this all my fault?”

​A person in an abusive relationship likely finds their world getting narrower and narrower, as the abuser comes to control more aspects of their life — where they live, who they associate with, what ideas they hear, how much freedom they have. In the process, she may go from feeling strong to feeling fragile.

​He is constantly defining the situation in ways that benefit him, often at her expense. He may deceive her, gaslight her — deliberately denying realities she observes, to make her question her grasp on reality — and chip away at her self-esteem with messages that she is not enough, she is flawed, she needs him.

He blames her for whatever ills befall her, even those he inflicts. Society often blames her too, asking accusingly: why didn’t she leave? To the extent that she has internalized all this, she may blame herself.

But as domestic violence advocates know, the craziness is not her fault. She did not start out crazy. She is in a crazy-making situation.

Controlling groups operate in much the same way. What starts out as a good thing begins to constrict the participant’s world — and worldview — more and more.

The leader points the way to Perfection; the participant who has not yet arrived at this impossible goal is continuously directed to look in the mirror and try harder.
​
(As for the man — or woman — behind the curtain? Pay no attention to what he’s doing back there. Focus on his carefully curated image, and idolize him for that.)

In such a scenario, it should be no surprise if members of the group become less and less psychologically well.

I recall one group I was involved in, who explained that the emotional volatility of some long-timers was a result of “speeded-up karma.” In other words, they had worked so hard on their stuff, and gone so deep through their spiritual practices, that now they were working with the most difficult strata of personality issues.

They might seem unstable, but this actually reflected great spiritual progress. Up is down! Night is day! Neurosis is a sign of spiritual achievement!

Lesson #8: If you feel like you’re losing touch with reality, take a hard look at the people and environment around you, and consider how they might be contributing. If you feel worse over time, after a particular association begins, it likely has more to do with that association than with you.

If you find out a former member of the group wound up in a mental institution — a tale I’ve heard — think twice about where the crazy came from. And if someone tells you “everyone at the ashram/church/commune is crazy!” take it to heart and GET OUT.

“I lost my spark. I’m not sure when it happened, but looking back, I see how much I’ve changed.”

Being in a crazy-making situation can lead anyone from having a bold personality to a bland one.

The change may be more obvious to friends and loved ones than to the person in the controlling relationship. But in time, she may look back and realize how different she is than she was at the beginning of the relationship.

Trouble is, he may wait until she is trapped to show his true colors. “He was a perfect gentlemen until we got married.” “Once I had the baby, leaving became much more complicated.” “Without a job or my own place to live, I’m stuck.”

What about groups? Social psychologist Robert Cialdini views cultic groups as a type of long-term influence situation. Especially when principles of social influence continue over time, as in a controlled setting or ongoing program, the resulting changes in a person can be dramatic— yet may not be recognized as such by the participant.
​

Janja Lalich observes, “In most cases, the desired behavioral change is accomplished in small incremental steps because conversion to the new worldview is a gradual process.” (Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships)
​
In my group, I felt like I was making choices to increase my spiritual practice and explore a variety of spiritual ideas. It was indeed a gradual process — stretching over years — which at the time I would not have named as coercive.

​But now I see myself in a telling scene from the film Romancing the Stone. Danny DeVito’s character has just snatched the precious gemstone from Kathleen Turner’s character, who went treasure hunting for it with Michael Douglas’ character.

DeVito: I’m stealin’ this stone. I’m not tryin’ to romance it out from under her.

Turner, indignant: Wait a minute. Going for the stone was my idea.

DeVito: That’s what all the good con artists want you to think. He made you think you needed it, you sap.

It’s true that ideas I did not hold when I first came in contact with the group became not only familiar, but almost… alluring. And did I need them — the teachings, the group, the teacher — to help me get where I (now, maybe) wanted to go?

Once someone has committed to a high-control group, L.J. West and M. Singer observe, the group’s “way of thinking, feeling, and acting becomes second nature, while important aspects of their pre-cult personalities are suppressed or, in a sense, decay through disuse.” (quoted in Lalich / Take Back Your Life)

As for a newfound blandness in one’s personality, this may be a reflection of the induced dependence of the victim on the abusive partner or group.
​
What’s more, the manipulated person may in time become dissociated — what psychiatrist Robert Lifton calls psychic numbing. Trauma and overwhelm can cause dissociation as a protective mechanism. Meditation, chanting, lectures, fatigue, or verbal abuse can likewise sever typical connections among feelings, thoughts, and memory.

​Lesson #9: Distinguish between genuine serenity vs. a personality blunted by a systematic program of reshaping. If you can’t be yourself in a relationship, pass on it. A healthy partner or community will not need to snuff out your spark; rather, they will cherish what is unique and bright in you. Only unsound settings will demand that you dim your light.

In my next post, I’ll finish sketching out ways that controlling groups can be like abusive partners — including re: boundaries, sex, and loyalty.

Don’t want to miss a post? You can subscribe to get every new post sent directly to your inbox. Thanks for reading!

Please read this disclaimer carefully before relying on any of the content in my articles online for your own life.

“Things started out so great. But I don’t feel safe with him anymore,” the caller told me. “I don’t know what to do.”

I took many calls like this — and some more frantic — while working at a domestic violence shelter and rape crisis line in the late 90s. Lessons from my training and time in that advocacy center have been coming back to me as I have learned about high control groups (sometimes called cults).

​Not only because the literature on such groups makes clear that abusive relationships can be, in essence, one-to-one cultic relationships, with all the same dynamics. But also because the more I reflect on my own experience in a group I now regard as a high control group, the more I notice ways that many of the same elements of control that are present in individual controlling relationships showed up — and continue to show up — in my old group.

Here are five of the lessons I learned as a volunteer and staffer in the women’s shelter, that translate to controlling group settings.

​Note: I typically refer to domestic abusers with male pronouns, and victims/survivors with female pronouns. This is the most common scenario. However, abusers can be any gender or sexual orientation, as can victims/survivors. The same holds true of the leaders and members of controlling groups. The important thing to pay attention to is the dynamic of power and control.

“He’s so well regarded, I just never guessed this could happen…”

The abusive partner may be a pillar of the community, just as the founder of a cultic group may have impressive credentials. Perhaps the abuser runs a business, practices law, or has buildings named for him due to his philanthropy. The group’s founder could be an accomplished scholar and gifted writer/translator who walked with a living saint.

Or they may have a more ordinary background; what the person lacks in accomplishments they may make up for in charm, the stories of their past experiences (real or fictitious), and their ability to read people and intuit how to connect and build trust with different people.

It’s likely that many people — particularly the ones they choose to be around, and who choose to be around them — find the person credible, likeable, even admirable. (Anyone who is put off by them, or sees through them, isn’t likely to stick around.) The abuser/leader/group may also deftly manage their public image, singly or with the help of skilled operatives.

So, it likely won’t be obvious from the outset that this person or group might be harmful. That’s no accident.

Lesson #1: Yes, even THAT person could be a controlling person — an abusive partner, or the founder/leader of an authoritarian group.

“Our relationship started out so great.”

In the early stages, a predatory person or group will often pour on the love. He may bring flowers and gifts and shower her with affection. He is considerate, caring, and complimentary. He pays attention to what she needs and responds accordingly.

Likewise, group members show interest in the prospective new member, offering things many people crave more of in their lives — attentive listening, warm connection, curiosity and interest about you, open-hearted sharing about me, especially where we have commonalities.

Early experiences with the group bring real value to participants. These may include social connections as they bond with other newcomers and develop a sense of belonging; introduction to tools and perspectives that participants can use to develop themselves or improve their life experience; perhaps delicious retreat food, needed rest, beautiful scenery, or simply a break from the pressures of ordinary life.

If the group’s founder(s) are still present in body in the group, becoming the focus of their attention and charismatic charge may make one feel particularly special and cared for. This attention may be brief, but as a rare commodity that only makes it more precious. Tender regard by their deputies or other leaders in the group may have a positive effect too.

Such experiences can foster a genuine sense of well-being and connection, encouraging prospects to continue and deepen their affiliation with the group.

Whether the relationship is with a romantic partner, charismatic leader or high-minded group, it’s only natural that such early experiences of meeting essential human needs set one up to expect more good things in the relationship.

Lesson #2: While not every beautiful beginning will lead to a controlling relationship, most controlling situations start out feeling very promising. There may be little warning of what will develop in time.

“This love was irresistible. It changed me.”

Romantic love has a powerful effect on the human person. Falling in love has been likened to an illness, with physiological effects that alter daily experience, and that must simply be allowed to run its course.

The reward centers of the brain go on overdrive, obsessive thoughts can take over, and the cycle of anticipation, connection, and separation enthralls the new lover. Suddenly this relationship and all the feelings it brings is the most vibrant thing in one’s life.

These dynamics pertain in a relationship with a (someday-discovered-to-be) abuser, just as they do with healthy people. The abuser may even add an extra dose of charisma and intensity into the mix, making the relationship more addictive than usual with new love.

Group experiences can affect and shape a person deeply, too, as one is buffeted by forces beyond their conscious awareness or control. Consider the following:
Individuals may have opportunities to feel especially valued by the group / leader(s) as they continue their association. For example, if I am invited to special celebrations that are not open to everyone, I feel honored. If I apply to a program which has prerequisites and a vetting process, I will feel special when I am accepted into the program. If I am welcomed to stay on the residential grounds of the group’s inner circle, or to make personal pilgrimages to the sacred place, I will feel closer to the inner circle myself. Such steps may increase identification with the group and generate positive feelings of being cherished and included.

Members of some kinds of groups — including therapy/encounter groups, religious or spiritual groups, and Large Group Awareness Trainings — may disclose deeply personal experiences to one another in the course of the group’s practices. Such emotional intimacy can form powerful bonds and encourage the person to remain open and vulnerable.
​
Certain group practices help to settle the nervous system and can even put you in sync with each other physiologically. This signals to your body that you are in a safe space, where you can relax and trust. As described in Resmaa Menakem’s book My Grandmother’s Hands, such practices include: singing or humming together; rhythmic activities done together, such as walking in sync, clapping in rhythm, or rocking or swaying to music; cooking and/or sharing meals together.

​Though Menakem distinguishes between settling the nervous system and soothing the body through activities like prayer or meditation, the latter kinds of practices can certainly bring welcome calm, too. Meditating regularly — and meditating with others — may lead to deeper, more powerful experiences.

Margaret Singer (Cults in Our Midst) relays that “Trancelike states can occur during hypnosis, during complete absorption in reading or hearing stories, and during marked concentration” as well as through “meditation, guided imagery, drug use, fatigue, or sensory deprivation.” (I suspect certain kinds of dance — like whirling dervishes — and speaking in tongues fall into this category too.) In such altered states, everyday awareness of our surroundings and our relationship to the environment dissolves.

Indeed, participants may consider that one of the aims of their practice of meditation or other above-mentioned activities. “For many persons,” Singer observes, “entering a trance state is pleasurable. It provides a respite from thought about the woes of everyday life.” Meditators may spend weeks, months, or years taming the monkey mind, to achieve such a state of repose.

​Yet such altered states of consciousness have other effects, too; one is heightened suggestibility. Combined with facilitators’ “pacing and leading, exploiting positive transference .., and making indirect suggestions,” group members who frequently enter into trance states become more malleable to the worldview and aims of the group.

​Many high control groups also incorporate sermons or wisdom talks into the group’s regular practices. Meditation may be “followed by the viewing of repetitive soporific [videos], usually of the guru or swami lecturing.” Singer believed that “a number of speeches given by certain cult leaders, and some group chants, fit the criteria for producing transient levels of trance.” One study found that “speeches by cult leaders and fundamentalist evangelists had more hypnotic qualities than those of … mainstream church leaders.”

I am intrigued by Singer’s further observation that group or solitary readings of certain kinds of poems — including Romantic poetry influenced by “mesmerism, the opium-induced hallucinations of British writer Thomas DeQuincy, and Germanic authors’ stress on imagination” — can similarly generate “what are best called trance-augmented aesthetic experiences.” (Hmm, would the likes of Rumi, Kabir, Ramakrishna or Thomas à Kempis qualify? I’m guessing so.) The same qualities identified in this type of poetry “can be identified in analyzing the speech of many cult leaders, particularly when they are addressing groups of members or sympathizers.”

My fellow meditators-of-a-certain-kind, let this sink in: teachers with slow, soothing speech — and texts that drip like poetry from the tongue, slowly uttered in any voice (even your own inner voice) — are likely to induce hypnotic states.
The mechanics and chemistry of influence may be more subtle and gradual in a cultish group than in a new romance. Yet the shaping of identity, physiological experiences, states of consciousness, and heightened susceptibility to ideas and beliefs that others introduce — these are arguably more profound in a high control group.

Lesson #3: This is a two-parter:
· Early in your relationship — or better yet, before you start seeking — clarify for yourself what your goals are. How would you know if you found what you were looking for? Then as you gain experience with a potential partner or group, revisit your list occasionally. If your ideas about what you want change, consider carefully how and why they changed.
· Hold on to your individuality and your agency. These practices may help: when it comes to increasing your commitment level, go slowly; take breaks from the relationship (individual or group) so you have space to think for yourself; journal or otherwise “listen” to yourself; share what you are experiencing with uninvolved friends or other trusted individuals, and listen to their observations about your trajectory.

​“There have been difficult periods, but the thing is, I really love him.”

Any relationship has ups and downs. If you are with someone long enough, you will start to see their shadow side. By this time you have already bonded with them chemically — with things like oxytocin and dopamine that make you feel good.

When couples have disagreements, they try to work through them. Conflict styles and skills vary widely. Any couple goes through a process of learning how to work through difficulties with each other.

Controlling actions often begin very subtly, making it harder to recognize and name them as a different class of conflict from the usual personality clashes. At the first unmistakable sign of abuse — such as physical violence — many a girlfriend or boyfriend may consider breaking up with their significant other.

This is often when the abuser turns up the charm and pulls out all the stops. He may beg you to take him back, convincingly promising it will never happen again. He may buy extravagant gifts, take drastic actions to prove he has turned over a new leaf, get down on his knees and profess his undying love.

And the thing is, the love between these two people may feel genuine, from one or both directions. If you love someone, if you believe they feel the same way toward you, and if they promise you they will change — well, many people will try to forgive and move forward.

The group parallel is a bit more complex here. A newer member may not agree with everything they hear from the group. In a democratic group that doesn’t matter; people don’t all have to think alike. But even in a group that turns out to be more doctrinaire, a participant may find enough of the teachings / practices beneficial and true in their own experience to want to continue with the group; so they brush aside any private disagreements or misgivings.
​
As relationships form with other people in the group, the relationships carry weight too. Individual relationships may be important to a participant — relationships which began in the group and make sense because of the group context. Whether you have connected with other newbies, long-time members, or the group’s charismatic leader(s), a similar cocktail of happiness chemicals can come into play as with a romantic partner.

​Plus, the collective relationship is its own thing. Belonging is a powerful force for humans; we are social creatures by nature. We all need community. We all need identity. To quote the theme song from the 80s sitcom Cheers, we all need places where “everybody knows your name.”

Yes, there are other fish in the sea, and other groups in the world. But when you are already emotionally attached to a particular partner or group, and have experienced how they can meet your needs for things like connection and meaning — those wonderful early experiences you had with them — it’s hard to walk away. Most people are going to keep trying, initially.

Lesson #4: Learn to distinguish who you care about — and even who may genuinely care about you — from who is actually good for you. One does not guarantee the other.

Love yourself enough to walk away if/when you realize a partner or group is controlling. (Controlling behavior rarely decreases over time.) Keep what you learned and get out while you can.

“He became the center of my world. Others fell away…”

Isolation is one of the classic signs that an intimate relationship is emotionally abusive, and at risk of becoming physically abusive, if it hasn’t already. I remember this wedge on the Power and Control Wheel graphic from training at Middle Way House.

Other people that the victim trusts could empower and support them to leave the relationship. But the abuser wants to stay in control. So he keeps her focus on him and their relationship. He might tell her that her friends don’t know what’s best for her, undermine her relationship with her mom or sister, arrange to move far away, even delete her social media accounts. Financial dependence may layer on top of emotional dependence in keeping her fixed in the relationship, serving his needs.

A couple months ago, as I was reading up on high control groups and noticing more and more of these parallels with abusive partnerships, I recalled the power and control wheel and wondered if there was an equivalent for groups. It’s much newer, but I did find one, in survivor-turned-trauma-informed-psychotherapist Laura E. Anderson’s 2023 book When Religion Hurts You: Healing from Religious Trauma and the Impact of High-Control Religion. Below is her Religious Power & Control Wheel.

When I moved cross-country to work for the meditation center I’d gotten involved with — something a whole cohort of us then-young adults were cultivated to do — I put thousands of miles between myself and my long-time friends, my parents, my healthy church community, my choir, and other social supports. All I had in the new place were the people I knew from retreats. Even without moving into the ashram I had become much more isolated.
​
I decided not to spend all my spare time with fellow meditators, going to group meditation, spiritual talks, volunteering in the garden or doing the other things that many others did do. I felt that spending my entire work week there was enough of a leap in time and energy devoted to that community and its mission.

Fortunately for me, another member of my choir moved from my city in Indiana to the same area of California the same month as me. We quickly joined a local choir together, and hung out weekly after rehearsal. I also checked out the nearest church in my (non-extreme) denomination and began to build relationships there. I have no doubt I fared better than I would have otherwise because I had a web of relationships beyond the meditation group. I went home to see my parents at Christmas, as well. That made me different from the people who lived on the group’s communal living site; they rarely seemed to have contact with their families of origin or other friends.​

There was a financial side to this too. I found I could barely make ends meet, even living in a small apartment with a roommate. My car was paid off, but in the future, when I had a car payment to add back to my budget, this scenario simply would not work. Not to mention, I wanted to be able to live generously — making donations to charitable causes (modest, but still, something) — to buy healthful food rather than the cheapest, less nutritious food, and to save responsibly for retirement.

I had done all those things before. But I could see none of that was going to work long term on the peanuts I was making at the meditation center. At the time, I saw this as a reflection of how out of touch the meditation community was with life for regular householders. Now, worse occurs to me: that the poverty pay was a kind of financial coercion to live at the ashram, where living expenses were considerably lower — and there was extensive “milieu control.”

In any case, I got a call from back east about a job opportunity, and began exploring that possibility. In the process, I realized that, for a variety of reasons, I needed to get myself out of this situation. All the official group email accounts of employees were monitored, I’d learned. So in job search communications, I was careful to only use my personal email address. It was only one of the forms of information control at work in the group — there were others I didn’t even recognize at the time — but it was unnerving.

Lesson #5: Stay connected with other positive people in your life. A social support network is important no matter what marvelous partner or group becomes part of your life. Anyone who wants to cut you off from that does not really want what is best for you. Be wary of financial dependence too.

I’ll share other lessons from the domestic violence field in the future. Next up: why, in a controlling relationship or group, it’s always your fault — never his or theirs.

Don’t want to miss a post? You can subscribe to get every new post sent directly to your inbox. Thanks for reading!

Please read this disclaimer carefully before relying on any of the content in my articles online for your own life.