Saturday, June 8, 2024

Scientology Reflections (12) 10 Years After Leaving-Hubbard and God, Hubbard's Mind

Scientology Reflections (12) 10 Years After Leaving-Hubbard and God, Hubbard's Mind


This is the twelfth post in a series that I am publishing in 2024. The series is on the journey I have been on AFTER leaving Scientology and Dianetics and what my experiences were, and mistakes I made, and things that I learned, some shortly after leaving Scientology and others further along the way, even up to the present day. Some of this involves Scientology and Dianetics. Some involves the process of leaving a cult. Some is just knowledge that I could have benefited from knowing sooner, that may even be unrelated to the cultic topic entirely. 

For anyone who is unaware, I was in Scientology for twenty five years, between 1989 and 2014. I left in 2014 and discovered that Scientology is a harmful fraud and jam packed with lies and further it is composed of techniques plagiarized from other practices and sources. Ronald Hubbard had the ability to take a practice, file off the serial numbers and repackage it as his own in first Dianetics and later Scientology. 


L. Ron Hubbard. “Ron looks to the future with the sea org, ”

 Ronald Hubbard. 

(Please note: this was originally a comment in response to a comment regarding the mind of Scientology founder Ronald Hubbard at Mike Rinder's blog on the post Why the Expensive Scientology Buildings?

June 7, 2024 By Mike Rinder)

Well, you certainly have covered a lot of bases here.


I know that you have been reading The Underground Bunker by Tony Ortega for many years, like myself.


One of the most helpful resources for me has been The Scientology Mythbusting Series by Jon Atack and his other articles online.


They helped me to realize that I had to study hypnosis and the techniques of contradiction (aka paradox or confusion), mimicry, vivid imagery, repetition, repetition-with-variation, attention fixation and so on.


Obviously the book, Let’s Sell These People A Piece of Blue Sky is the best available reference on Scientology in my opinion.


The point of why studying these is so important in my opinion is that one has to somehow accept that Scientology founder Ronald Hubbard both knew that he was using covert hypnosis to try to mentally enslave his followers AND he was to some degree apparently a believer in the usefulness of hypnosis as he used the affirmations as self hypnosis commands for years, probably decades.


It’s an odd combination to know you are hiding hypnotic techniques and lying constantly about using it on others BUT also to use them quite frequently on yourself and further to have others audit you with these techniques.


He may have actually been trying to “solve” his own mental conditions and problems with Scientology techniques while knowing that he lies and fools others and that his techniques are enslaving the minds of people.


Further, he in my opinion was conflicted about the occult and supernatural as he was concerned about God in his most private communications, such as the affirmations and his private letters, such as The Skipper Letter.


His persistent belief in Diana, aka Artemis, aka The Redhead was a significant factor in his life. He hid occultism as he understood it throughout Dianetics and Scientology. Occult words and numbers and symbols are present throughout Dianetics and Scientology.


Jon Atack has several excellent articles on Hubbard and the occult.


Regarding God, Hubbard denied God several times in Scientology but in his affirmations clearly tried to convince himself that he had a good relationship with and accepted God.


In The Skipper Letter he portrays God as uncaring and kind of cruel.


In an old tape I recall Hubbard saying that the closest he (Hubbard) came to quitting Scientology was admitting that God himself couldn’t do the job that Hubbard has done!

Quite humble!


My personal interpretation of this is that Hubbard believed in God and he felt mistreated and unappreciated by God.


I think that he wanted to be on the good side of God, if such a thing exists. He also wanted to have the fantasy that he was immune to God and free from any rules or punishment or judgement from God.


I think he wanted to possibly magically escape the wrath of God and he to some degree settled for hypnotizing himself into believing he was fine with God.


You have mentioned the excellent work of Robert Jay Lifton. I think it’s possible his eight criteria for thought reform is the tool that may have helped the most people to reframe and recover from cultic experiences via education.


It just has resonated with thousands of people, possibly millions, and made sense of the way that cults operate. I recommend several models of cults including The BITE MODEL, Margaret Singer’s model, the work of Daniel Shaw, Alexandra Stein, Janja Lalich as examples, but if you only look at one model I think the eight criteria for thought reform is the one to start with.


You may be familiar with this already.


I want to add that the model of a solipsistic reality that Lifton presents in his very short and easy to read book, Losing Reality adds context to the mind of Hubbard.


I think that we are fortunate in a way because the subject of cults and cult leaders is evolving during our lifetime. We get to take in information about the subject that is decades old and consider it and add new information as it comes out.


For ex members who were in Scientology or another cult this is an opportunity to take their experience and sort of take in the various models and ideas on cults and see what is most useful for their own recovery and education and also what they see as most consistent or accurate.


Perhaps the old “crazy or conman” question regarding the guru (cult leader) is the hardest to answer, because most people assume a cult leader is either a fraud OR a true believer in what they are preaching or selling.


With Hubbard and several other cult leaders there’s ample evidence that they both lie, know that they are lying, cover up their lies and crimes AND to some degree enjoy believing that their claims and desires are superior to or can control reality itself, but if they have to choose between protecting themselves and continuing to assert their beliefs, they will usually be practical and act as if their asserted beliefs are not really true.


As a case in point, Hubbard claimed that Scientology gave himself and others abilities such as telepathy, exteriorization, precognition, telekinesis and on and on routinely but in his own organization he used conventional espionage for Snow White and numerous other operations.


He hid the failures of Scientology and constantly blamed them on others and he lied about the results from Scientology. He reportedly turned down the efforts of outsiders to confirm his claims of improved reflexes and memory from Scientology. They were willing to do this work for free but Hubbard was unwilling to cooperate. Hubbard was also unwilling to demonstrate his own improvement in himself when asked.


Several articles at The Underground Bunker document this.


I hope these two points about the mind of Hubbard being two sided and his conflicts with God add something useful to the picture.


Here's a link to my blog archive by topic:



Here are several posts that are referred to in this post or that elaborate on the points raised here.





Scientology's Parallel In Nature - Malignant Narci...



















Scientology Reflections (12) 10 Years After Leaving-Hubbard and God, Hubbard's Mind

Wednesday, June 5, 2024

Scientology Reflections (11) 10 Years After Leaving-Schism of Scientology Critics

  Scientology Reflections (11) 10 Years After Leaving-Schism of Scientology Critics


This is the eleventh post in a series that I am publishing in 2024. The series is on the journey I have been on AFTER leaving Scientology and Dianetics and what my experiences were, and mistakes I made, and things that I learned, some shortly after leaving Scientology and others further along the way, even up to the present day. Some of this involves Scientology and Dianetics. Some involves the process of leaving a cult. Some is just knowledge that I could have benefited from knowing sooner, that may even be unrelated to the cultic topic entirely. 

For anyone who is unaware, I was in Scientology for twenty five years, between 1989 and 2014. I left in 2014 and discovered that Scientology is a harmful fraud and jam packed with lies and further it is composed of techniques plagiarized from other practices and sources. Ronald Hubbard had the ability to take a practice, file off the serial numbers and repackage it as his own in first Dianetics and later Scientology. 




Well, I might as well give a bit of my own take on the issue of the break in the Scientology critic community, seemingly everyone else under the sun has.


If you are unaware the people who create the most high profile and popular media regarding Scientology as critics have apparently divided into two main groups that are not getting along and one group has Aaron Smith-Levin and his supporters on one side and the other has a lot of people who have been lumped together, perhaps without their own consent regarding this and perhaps with their consent in some cases. You would really have to ask each individual person to know their own outlook.

Some of the people on the other side (allegedly) are Mike Rinder, Leah Remini, Jennifer Lopez (allegedly?), Jon Atack (note:  Jon Atack has released a video with Steve Hassan and commented that he is not taking sides), Chris Shelton, Marc and Claire Headley, the other remaining board members of The Aftermath Foundation, Tony Ortega, Karen De La Carriere, Jeffrey Augustine as examples.

I have not personally confirmed this with each person listed, so if I have mischaracterized you here, please accept my sincere apologies. 


Aaron Smith-Levin has his own supporters and they have a variety of platforms including several YouTube channels of their own. I am reluctant to list them. Several people have supported him but backed out over time, so I don't want to present a list that might be outdated before you see this. 

The fact that they have backed out is not meant to imply anything else in this context, it's just a fact. 

I really wish this hadn't happened, but such is life. 

Many years before I ended up in Scientology I had wished to have many great friends and that they all would get along naturally as good people and we would never have any falling out with each other or end to our friendship with each other.

It took me a very long time to accept that life just doesn't work that way very often, perhaps sometimes but not always.

I guess that is part of growing up.

I think that we all make less than perfect choices in our relationships and I certainly am no exception. Sometimes they result in losing friends and sometimes the choices by others result in friendships ending. Not all endings are amicable.


You can support or not support anyone you choose. I am not going to list the "crimes" of people on either side here. That's not the point of this post. I am not even saying that anyone has committed crimes in this post. 

I want to make two points. 

First, I want to point out the human tendency to put people into the categories of "in group" or "out group" and the very likely behavior of liking in group members and disliking out group members.

It's more than obvious, unfortunately, in politics quite often. 

We are somehow hard wired to see "us"es and "them"s in the people around us and to ONLY see good, when it suits our purposes, in "us"es and ONLY see bad in "them"s.


“Prejudices are what fools use for reason.”

― Voltaire

We all in my opinion are fools at times and none of us can fully escape our biases and prejudices.

So, as an example I try to discipline myself to see certain things. I have said before that a simple definition of evil is that if something is wrong if it's done to me, then it's wrong if it is done by me. 

To build on that I can say that if I would not want to be judged a certain way then it's wrong for me to judge others that way.

A simple example is the fact that you can read a rumor that a person is something or has done something. If you believe it, would you want to be treated that way?

I see people routinely believe statements about politicians or celebrities and they decide the truth or falsehood of the claim based on their political affiliation or the gender of the person. 

Well, that's a hasty generalization at best. People from every political party sometimes lie and sometimes tell the truth. They are sometimes guilty and sometimes innocent. The same is true regarding gender. 

If someone accuses, just as examples, Aaron Smith-Levin or Mike Rinder of doing something, good or bad, I don't want to automatically assume the claim is true or false, tempting as it might be. 

The fact is that I have never met or spoken to Mike Rinder or Aaron Smith-Levin and probably never will. 

Almost all claims that people present to me about both of them won't have enough evidence for me to confirm or deny them.

And the same is true for almost everyone else who can read this. I might accept claims that they were in The Sea Org for example because they admit it and a lot of other people support the claim with no one disagreeing that I am aware of.

But aside from broadly agreed on simple things like that, I simply don't know and I won't know.

I wouldn't want people to believe claims about me, especially negative ones, without strong evidence and a sincere effort to get the evidence for and against such claims. And even then the fact is that a claim can be false despite the evidence apparently supporting the claim. No one is omniscient and infallible. 

I think that as a practical matter we sometimes have to choose sides, but not always. And we can be agnostic when we are not compelled to pick. 

You are unlikely to be wrong if you say I don't know. 

Think of times when you knew it was right for people to doubt accusations against you, especially accusations against you that lacked real evidence. 

You are extremely likely to have experienced that in your past. It's quite frustrating at times. It has cost me friends and jobs in the past to have false accusations believed about me, accusations that lacked evidence. 

That's an obvious injustice.

It's recognizable as an injustice when it happens to you, I am sure.

You can show the same understanding you deserved to others and not make the same mistake that others have, you can do it to be considerate and a good person or you can do it to be right. I just encourage you to do it. 

I think the point is we shouldn't reject people because of accusations alone and we should not reject people who have been good in our estimation because they're not free from criticism. We all will face criticism and some is accurate and some is not. Now, I am not saying we should conveniently ignore evidence either. If a hundred people are saying they witnessed a person doing something wrong then it is extremely unlikely that they are all spontaneously lying. Most situations are not that clear cut.

It is a difficult and delicate thing to navigate. We have to use our own best judgement and we should not rush to condemn or exonerate people. 

Think of how you would want to be judged if a claim was made about you. Then think of how you would want to be listened to if a claim was made by you. 

I hope this is of some use. 

No one has been perfect. It's extremely unlikely that all of the criticism a person faces is fair or true. 

I hope that the split between the two sides doesn't discourage people from being active as Scientology critics, I hope it doesn't discourage people from finding out about Scientology, I hope it doesn't discourage people from speaking out about Scientology and I really hope it doesn't discourage people from leaving Scientology and recovering from Scientology. 



Here's a link to my blog archive by topic:




Scientology Reflections (11) 10 Years After Leaving-Schism of Scientology Critics

Saturday, June 1, 2024

What are the fundamental universal characteristics that define a cult??

 Scientology


Profile photo for Jeffrey Jay

To really dig into this we have to look at the work of several cult experts and researchers in my opinion.

I often refer to the work of a dozen or so individuals when asked about this.

I can start with one of the top experts ever on the subject Margaret Singer. Professor Singer interviewed over four thousand ex cult members over her career. I recall an interview in which she said a cult is a group that tries to control all or nearly all your decision making. That's a key point, a crucial difference between a cult and another group.

To give some degree of reference, some evidence for this in plain terms, I am going to quote another expert on cults, he is known as the top expert and historian on Scientology, and a bona fide expert on influence in his own right - Jon Atack.

I am going to quote a brief excerpt from his superb book Opening Minds:

“In 1985, the Boston Church of Christ asked Flavil Yeakley, a personality test expert, to make a study of its members. Critics insisted that the group caused unhealthy transformations of personality in its members. The Boston Church of Christ was accused of being a cult that was brainwashing its members.

Over 900 members filled in extensive questionnaires. Yeakley also administered the Meyers-Briggs’ Type Indicator to 30 members each of six groups generally regarded as ‘manipulative sects’ – Yeakley’s expression – including Scientology, The Way, the Unification Church (or Moonies), the Hare Krishna Society, Maranatha and the Children of God, and to 30 members each in five mainstream churches: Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian. The same personality test was filled out three times by most of the subjects – as if it were five years earlier; from their present perspective; and how they anticipated they would answer five years into the future.

In Yeakley’s words, ‘Changes in psychological type do not indicate normal healthy growth. Such changes indicate some pressure in the environment that causes people to deny their true type and try to become like someone else.’ There were no significant deviations in personality type over time among members of the five mainstream churches, but all of the ‘manipulative sects’ showed significant movement, including the Boston Church of Christ, in direct opposition to its leader’s conviction that his group was not a cult.

Yeakley found that there was a convergence towards a particular personality type within each manipulative sect, but that the type varied from group to group. In other words, the ‘manipulative sects’ were changing the personalities of their members each towards its own specific type. The effect has come to be known as ‘cloning’ and is a substantial proof that thought reform occurs in some groups.

This work is supported by a study made by Paul Martin and Rod Dubrow-Marshall, who sampled 567 former members and demonstrated significant effects relating to depression, dissociation and anxiety induced by cult membership.″ end quote Jon Atack, Opening Minds

Flavil Yeakley described his research in the book The Discipling Dilemma.

Numerous cult experts now use the term cloning to describe the personality changes that cult members undergo. It's a quite common concept among cult experts to regard a cult indoctrination as involving the process of having a pseudo personality or identity created in the mind of the cult member and this is a duplicate of the perceived personality of the cult founder or leader. The personality of the cult member is seen as buried, suppressed, or set aside and the cloned personality of the guru (cult leader) is seen as dominant in this hypothesis.

Professor Rod Dubrow-Marshall published his research in The Influence Continuum – the Good, the Dubious, and the Harmful – Evidence and Implications for Policy and Practice in the 21st Century, International Journal of Cultic Studies. vol.1, no.1, 2010

This is regarded as significant evidence of the changes that occur in a cult. To understand how they occur and the fine details of what happens, what the group does, what the cult leader does and what role each plays we have a wealth of resources to examine.

The most widely used and successful model to describe the methods and effects of influence in cultic relationships is almost certainly the eight criteria for thought reform, created by Robert Jay Lifton. Originally they were a chapter in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. Thousands of people found this simple and thorough description extremely useful in reframing their own experiences and defining the methods used against them. This has been uniquely effective for both education and recovery.

In response, Doctor Lifton made his eight criteria for thought reform available for free online, to be used to help others.

I think it's the best reference for a concise and helpful description of the techniques used to control people by cults.

First I will give you an abridged description.

Dr. Robert J. Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform

  1. Milieu ControlThis involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
  2. Mystical Manipulation. There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.
  3. Demand for PurityThe world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
  4. Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
  5. Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
  6. Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating cliches, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.
  7. Doctrine over person. Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
  8. Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also. (Lifton, 1989)
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's Criteria For Thought Reform
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's Criteria For Thought Reform Any ideology -- that is, any set of emotionally-charged convictions about man and his...

I absolutely recommend the entire chapter for anyone who wants to understand the techniques used in cults, as well as the lectures and articles by Robert Jay Lifton available online.

Several other people have been capable of describing the techniques used by cults as well. Cults do have some degree of variation, some for example do not have a living founder or leader. Some have a small council or no central leader. Some use the doctrine of the group to function as the leader and members are devoted to that. You can find for example, many white supremacists are in a cultic group but do not see any individual as a guru, not even Hitler. This is in part because Hitler failed terribly and gurus generally are seen as infallible. So they often have a doctrine that has a mish mash of various ideas they follow if no strong central leader.

I also recommend the BITE model developed by Steve Hassan. His model combines much of the work of earlier models and covers many aspects of cults and the fact that much of the cultic phenomena is expressed across a spectrum and best understood that way. He has this available free at Freedom of Mind, his website.

I wrote a very detailed evaluation of Scientology (which I was a member of for twenty five years) using the BITE model.

Scientology Viewed Through The BITE model by Steven Hassan
Taking A BITE Out Of Scientology Part 1 The BITE Model Blog Archive by Topic    “Mind control is the process by which individual or c...

I also recommend the work of two other individuals in addition to those above and I should mention that Margaret Singer has the superb book Cults In Our Midst and several excellent interviews on YouTube.

Cults In Our Midst Part 1
    Blog Archive by Topic   "The public takes care of their fear by thinking only crazies and stupid people wind up in cults. I've ...

The other two experts are Alexandra Stein and Daniel Shaw. Each has a book that has a great deal of unique information on the subject from their perspective.

Stein's book Terror, Love and Brainwashing includes research on attachment theory, neuroscience and the work of Hannah Arendt and describes the process of cult conversion and indoctrination quite well.

In Depth Analysis of Books and Videos

How Cults Work 1 - A New Look
I have written many posts online about cults and taken on many separate aspects of cults in the past few years. This post is going to be dif...
How Cults Work 2 - First Things First
This is the second post in a series dedicated to the book Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein. In her book she starts out by ...
How Cults Work 3 - Totalist Group Structure
This is the third post in a series dedicated to the book Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein. This post picks up at the topic...
How Cults Work 4 - The Brainwashing Process and Outcomes
This is the fourth post in a series dedicated to the book Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein. In this we now take on the bra...
How Cults Work 5 - Attachment Theory
This is the fifth post in a series dedicated to the book Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein. In this post we zero in on atta...
How Cults Work 6 - Forms Of Attachment
This is the sixth post in a series dedicated to the book Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein. In this post we can examine how...
How Cults Work 7 - Disorganized Attachment and Dissociation
This is the seventh post in a series dedicated to the book Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein. In this post we take on two c...
How Cults Work 8 - Recruitment
This is the eighth post in a series dedicated to the book Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein. In the third chapter of Terror...
How Cults Work 9 - Undue Influence In Recruitment
How Cults Work - Undue Influence In Recruitment This is the ninth post in a series dedicated to the book Terror, Love and Brainwashing by ...
How Cults Work 10 - Totalist Indoctrination
How Cults Work - Totalist Indoctrination This is the tenth post in a series dedicated to the book Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexand...
How Cults Work 11 - Fright Without Solution
This is the eleventh post in a series dedicated to the book Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein. Stein described the totalist...

Shaw's book Traumatic Narcissism offers his own insight into the mind of the guru, the mindset of the cult member and the dynamics of the abusive relationship between them.

Traumatic Narcissism: part 1 Scientology and Hubbard
I have seen the extraordinary cult expert Doctor Daniel Shaw in several YouTube videos and read several online articles by him including an ...
Traumatic Narcissism part 2: The Relationships in Scientology
This series references the book Traumatic Narcissism: Relational Systems of Subjugation by Doctor Daniel Shaw. All quotes referenced are fro...

One last book that I should mention is Cults Inside Out by Rick Alan Ross. He has compiled a great collection of descriptions of the references and researchers involved with the subject, in addition to a great introduction to the subject of his own. His book is so thorough and well written, it could be used as a guide to a comprehensive curriculum on the subject.




Scientology