How cult leaders misinterpret canon text/scriptures for personal gain.
The blueprint to look out for.
How exactly do high-control groups BECOME high-control? Surely it isn’t an overnight downhill descend from “a loving group where everyone is free” to “a controlling group where everyone has Stockholm syndrome”. As far as I’ve observed from personal accounts of cult survivors and also my own personal experience seeing seemingly innocent groups become cult-ish… This is always gradual. It always happens “before you know it”. Apparently, this transition from “okay group” to “cult-like group” is always sneaky, stealthy, just a little bit beyond everyone’s awareness, and it takes a lot of investigative work in order to even notice it coming.
So, what gives?
Can we make the “investigation” easier for everyone’s safety?
Can we see a general tendency in how cults start becoming dangerous, and extrapolate from it a “blueprint” of sorts, in order to talk about red flags of cult-like behaviour and WHEN to leave a group with basis on these red flags?
I’m of the opinion we can! Below is my attempt, with brief anonymised examples.
Important note: when I say “cult leader”, “leader with cult-like tendencies”, “controlling leader” and similar, I’m referring to EVERY kind of leader. It can be the person with the most power within a family system (family leader), it can be the head of a religious or spiritual group (religious leader), it can be a boss or CEO with zero ties to religious belief (corporate leader), it can be a celebrated coach or psychologist, a teacher, a politician. The list goes on. Don’t be mistaken: cults go beyond religion and spirituality. So, dear atheists, beware. You could fall victim to this problem too.
🔴 Disqualifying competitors.
Here’s the first red flag, and also the easiest to notice straight away (even if you’re new to the group). A leader with cult-like tendencies will disqualify other leaders who offer a similar kind of guidance, in order to discourage people from following anyone other than him/her/them.
This can take many shapes. I’ve seen it overtly, for example “I started developing my method of guidance/coaching/teaching/whatever when I saw that all the other people in this industry were doing it wrong, and here’s why they’re doing it wrong: [gives reason X, Y and Z]”. I’ve also seen it covertly, for example “my method of guidance/coaching/teaching/whatever is something I’ve never seen on the market before, so I thought I should make it available for you” (ie, not OUTWARDLY saying “everyone else is wrong”, but still implying “only I know how to offer this specific thing [because it’s a thing never seen before]”). The covert example is very manipulative, and I won’t blame people for falling for it. I fell for it myself many times! Here’s what I found out, and what currently works for me, in order to spot it: if someone “hands you” without you asking the information that they’re doing something unique, it’s because they’re manipulating (not to mention patronising) you. A GENUINE innovator would simply present to you their solution and let you judge whether or not you consider it unique.
If confronted about it, this kind of leader will usually defend themselves by leaning on religious text (if their guidance is based on spirituality) that talks about “being awake in a sea of asleep people”, or (in case they’re not religious or spiritual), they’ll cherrypick well-respected historical text, declarations, etc, for mentions of how we should all pursue excellence instead of the lazy/low-effort route (implying it’s excellence ABOVE others, DESPISING the mere peasants who are apparently dumber and therefore BELOW us in the group) which brings us to the next red flag:
🔴 Divisive language.
Us-vs-them, for shorts. This is like the previous red flag, but scapegoating groups instead of individuals. A spiritual high-control leader might say “group X” or “group Y” or “groups Y and Z”, or worse, “every group that isn’t us” does things the wrong way. This isn’t necessarily demonising or villifying, it can simply be “compassionately” (#sarcasm) stating that a large amount of people (whom CONVENIENTLY happen to be outside the group he/she/they is leading) are good deep down but simply haven’t found the way yet. (Once they join us, they will have found the way. Uh-huh. $ure).
There will also be a tendency to denial: today’s high-control leaders know that we see through divisive bullshit, so they try to downplay or straight-up deny it. The most glaring example I’ve recently seen is when a coach who had a spiritual background insisted in repeating ad nauseam that all religions have a good message if you interpret their teachings in good faith (implying that she’s not intolerant to any). That would be all good and well if she walked her talk. In reality, there’s no merit in her attempt to validate “all religions” if this stays in the religion sphere only — because on the other hand, when it came to behavioral and relational ways of being, she was always adamant that “most people” are unconscious of the harm they’re causing themselves and others; “most people” aren’t awake enough to see The One And Only Way to live life with loving kindness. So… only her definition of “love” counts? Only her definition of “kindness” counts? What about contexts where things get complex, and there are culture differences / personal baggage / high stakes / etc in the way of such unanimity, and we need to weigh the pros and cons of each gesture or concession? No, apparently, complexity doesn’t exist. It’s black-and-white to her. There’s only One Way to be loving and kind. And she happens to know and teach it. Hmmmmmmmmm. How interesting.
Or, in a family cult setting, how my mother always boasted that she was “not like other moms! She was a cool mom”, she let her kids pick their own career paths and wouldn’t interfere… Yes, mom, great. All good and well…IF IT WASN’T FOR THE FACT she was hyper-controlling in every other aspect of our lives. She had a my-way-or-the-highway approach to (well into adulthood) controlling our friendships, style, decor, political views, religion, opinions, likes and dislikes, life-altering decisions, small decisions, where we went or didn’t go, what we ate or didn’t eat, [insert endless list here]… But at least profession-wise, she was liberal. Okaaaaay. Surely the one exceptional instance where she let go of control (our career choices) makes up for all else? And because of that, we should let her suffocate us forever? Uh-huh. I see.
You might think, “oh, I agree, Lucy. I wouldn’t fall for this one, but well spotted”. Really? You wouldn’t fall for this one? Explain to me, then, why are so many people feeling butthurt at this article I recently wrote? Aren’t those commenters who got reactive accidentally defending divisive discourse? Are you sure about that? You see… Cult leaders are dangerous. Sure. But don’t WE have a parcel of responsibility for falling prey to them, too? Don’t WE make too much room for them to exist and thrive in the world, manipulating and taking advantage of groups? I mean… When an article like that one, pointing out exactly how divisiveness can sneak into love-and-light lingo, brings about so many people’s shadows… Don’t we have a bit of a problem with denial?
Opportunistic cult leaders wouldn’t exist by the dozens if there weren’t people who buy into their divisive discourse. Even if innocently, even if accidentally, a lot of people are still buying into it. I have proven it with interactions on a blog post, and I’m sure you can find more proof in other places, in and out of the Internet too. Cults only sell because there are buyers. There’s no need to shame buyers — I certainly wouldn’t, I include myself with them in the same mistake, so that would be shooting my own foot lol — but let’s GET OUT of denial.
Where there’s no demand, there’s no supply.
Remember that.
🔴 Covertly condemning a specific way of life / culture(s) / ideology by contrast, by elevating The One (The Only Way) they sell.
For example: “other people” are all ego and instinct; let’s not. Let’s be all soul and transcendence. “Other girls” are all looks and no brains, so let’s be intellectual and forget about our looks instead; “Other political parties” are corrupt, we’re the only honest guys. That kind of lingo — even if using different words.
This red flag inspired the whole article, by the way. I wasn’t going to comment on my latest attempt at finding a human master, I was about to simply follow her content from a distance knowing that it’s incomplete, and at times downright imperfect (but everybody is. Tell me the news!) and that’s okay. However… She posted something very recently which made me realise she might in fact have a bit of a cult leader tendency after all. It was a devastating realisation; I like imperfect, imperfection is fine… But controlling, attention-seeking, and self-centered? No. Just no. Ew. Get out of my life.
Anyway, I’ll use her post as an example here. Paraphrasing it* into English for you guys, it said, “desire is the source of all suffering. [a Buddhist quote, FYI]. But how can you wake up in the morning unless you desire what’s coming to you soon? Where to find strength to deal with challenges, if not by desiring an improvement? How to live life, unless there’s something within you that wishes and desires?”
(So far, all good)
“Simple. The desires that keep you healthy and moving are not YOURS (you, the ego). Instead, they’re a propulsive and very welcome force coming from your potential as a soul, and they’re far beyond what the human senses can comprehend”. She goes on to explain how taking inspired action, instead of instinctive action (unless it’s for sex only), is the best way to live… And of course, she linked to some of her services.
*PSA: even if you spoke this person’s language, I’d still paraphrase. I don’t want you to find or send hate anyone’s way. I’m not about petty drama.
Do you see the problem above, in this second part? I’ll give you a minute.
.
.
.
.
.
The problem can be tricky to spot. It took me a while, it just started as a vague sense of unease upon reading what she wrote. Eventually, re-reading a few times with more attention, I figured something: this person is trying to ever-so-subtly, ever-so-gradually, create a taboo around the idea of “not living virtuously”. It’s hard to see the manipulation in her words because she’s not using fallacies; she’s using truths! (Pay attention here! A lot of modern cult leaders are starting to adopt the same strategy). The thing is… they’re truths taken out of context.
For instance, when you say or imply that people live instinctively, and on the same body of text, you also say that instinct is good for sex or other “animalesque” pursuits that we all need, but it can hold you back from taking inspired action in other contexts of life… What ARE YOU saying ultimately? Huh? What is it? I’ll tell you my own reading of it: you’re saying the undisciplined are less-than-human; or behaving like less-than-human (let’s not be pedantic. It’s shame-inducing and fear-inspiring EITHER way). That’s what you’re saying.
This person posted a dehumanising piece of text about the non-members of the…cult wannabe? (It hasn’t become a cult yet, but who knows what the future holds! I’m not divining that one. Nope. I’m disgusted, I just want distance now) aimed at planting a seed of shame and guilt in her followers. And that’s when I decided I was done with her.
I gave you the example above because it’s (philosophically, anyway) pseudo-Buddhist. I’m sure you can come up with Christian examples much more easily, but I need to show you that no faith is immune to it. When Buddha said “desire is the cause of all suffering”, he DID NOT say “I condemn desire”. On the contrary: he was simply pointing out that all suffering can be traced back to desire, perhaps excessive, obsessive, compulsive, desire. But there are other kinds of desire, aren’t there? And also, even if we’re talking about the “base” one, the “animalesque” one, who is it to say it can’t ever lead to something good? Life is surprising. One day you’re totally mad desiring somebody else like a piece of meat; The other day, this same exact encounter can flourish into a mutually-respectful relationship full of maturity and real love because you went past the “animal thing”, instead of being weary of it altogether. I know it because I’m telling you my story. I got married at 23. We were both immature. We grew together.
One example I always give, and shall repeat (if anything, to show you “there’s more to instinct than sex”): a lot of self-proclaimed religious people look down on drug addicts who hang out in shady alleys. Those people aren’t virtuous. Surely, they “let themselves go” at some point in their lives. And surely, even if you don’t villify them, even if you see the human beyond the wounded carcass, there is a teeny tiny bit of you which stays judgemental and contemptuous towards them and their choices. You can deny it to hell and back, but it’s true whether you like it or not. The problem with not acknowledging — and by extension, not healing, not addressing — this tiny judgemental side of you… Is that you end up becoming dismissive of certain people just because they don’t meet your standards for what it means to “have a healthy mindset” (in YOUR, individual, EGO-driven, opinion). And then you’ll go on and disbelieve, scorn at, dismiss, countless stories of addicts and other outcasts who OUT OF NOWHERE found liberation and kick-started their recovery. Right there. In the “shady alley”. Without a guru. Without guidance. Without company, perhaps, because when someone isn’t living “by the book”, we cringe at them and forget about their potential to find a light at the end of the tunnel and thrive all by themselves. It’s a potential we all have. We can choose to seek guidance if we want, but we’re all equally human with the same exact potential, and no pretense of “force-feeding anyone help OR dismissing them with divisive discourse” can make it untrue.
You know who didn’t judge the outcasts? Jesus. He would hang out with them. Buddha, also. He would talk to them as he talked to anyone else, and it wasn’t just to guide like a patronising idiot. It was also to see the human and gently hold space for their development. Countless other real masters who left us timeless teachings didn’t divide society between “virtuous” and “non-virtuous” either. And yet… the people who claim to follow these masters, and claim to understand their timeless teachings, are instead distorting them for personal gain.
Yes, IT IS for personal gain. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t use divisiveness. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t pretend that there’s only one way to a destination, or even that all the ways that exist have been discovered and mapped out already — and can be capitalised upon.
I’m not on a high horse, in case you wonder. I use “loaded” labels all the time — “narcissist”, for example, as people love pointing out — and I’m not always devoid of anger or outrage. However, I must point out that even when I’m calling out psychopaths, narcissists, and whatnot, I’m still capable of holding space for their redemption. I don’t think they are people “without virtue” or “without light” (or insert here your favourite term). They’re currently (temporarily perhaps) very toxic, which warrants my boundaries and call-outs, but the future isn’t ever set in stone. And mind you, I’m an oracle.
In fact, let’s talk about boundaries.
You need them. I need them. When I praise Jesus and Buddha for hanging out with people who had serious problems, I’m by no means saying we should be “open for all” 24/7.
What I am saying, instead, is we should take a good look at how we’re using these boundaries, and what our vested intentions could be.
There’s a difference between hanging out with someone to keep them company VS hanging out with someone to try and convert them / try and force them to see things your way before they’re ready / try and heal them before they’re feeling up for it, etc.
There’s also a difference between holding a boundary because someone has specifically acted in a hurtful way towards you and you don’t want to endure that anymore VS holding a boundary against someone you don’t even know because “their people” aren’t virtuous in your opinion.
So, let’s keep that distinction crystal clear.
Concluding: here are the main takeaways.
Someone is likely to be a cult leader if:
- They use divisive discourse against competitors, against other groups, against other ways of life [which aren’t the one they sell].
- Their philosophy can always be distilled into all-or-nothing, black-and-white arguments. These don’t need to be generalisations, you can use black-and-white thinking even if you’re referring to situations case by case. All it takes is inflexibility, stubbornness, and excessive pride in “their superior” wisdom.
- They misinterpret, either naively or intentionally, well-known teachings and scriptures to force-fit this wisdom into a limited “box” that conveniently caters to their interests and only their interests — no room for complexity, paradoxes, disagreements, opposition in good faith, etc.
- Ultimately, they’re seeking control over a group. Regardless of why, that’s the end goal.
On the other hand, someone may look like a cult leader, but isn’t one, if:
- They have poor emotion regulation skills and occasionally use loaded terms or derogatory words against the people who frustrate them, but don’t go further towards creating division and group superiority. This could mean the person is immature; But they’re not necessarily a cult leader because they “forget” about their unkindness towards other people as soon as they emotionally regulate. They don’t try to turn this into an entire philosophy and teaching method.
- They use extreme examples for shock value, but you can tell they’re capable of nuanced thinking because the explanations include and/or hold space for nuance regardless of this “clickbaiting”.
- They preach, sometimes passionately, but they’re willing to reflect on many possible meanings for the sacred passages / quotes they’re preaching instead of just pushing ONE and using it to justify control.
- Ultimately, they’re just very “nerdy” about the subject matter. They’re not seeking to control people and simply enjoy teaching from a detached stance. As a result, if anyone challenges or questions them, whatever reaction they have (which will depend on personality) will probably not include manipulation or a smothering attitude.
That’s what I have for now. I go through frustration every now and then, but at least I can take away interesting reflections about how cults work. I hope today’s was useful for discerning the initial stages of group control (when we haven’t gotten to the more noticeable stage yet, but are going downhill towards cult-like dynamics nonetheless), just so you can spot the red flags and steer clear of any such groups.
Feel free to share your opinion.
