Because of various problems with Blogger, I've copied everything as of November 26, 2012 over to WordPress. The new location is Ask the Scientologist. I am not deleting this blog and will still accept comments and answer questions here too, but any new articles will appear at the WordPress location. I apologize if this causes any problems.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Why Is It So Hard to Give Up Scientology?

One of the continuing mysteries about Scientology is the dogged persistence of some Scientologists, both inside and outside of the Church of Scientology, in their devotion to L. Ron Hubbard and to Scientology's technology despite its almost complete lack of success.

It is no secret that there are no Scientology OTs.  Even Scientologists are aware of this, though they prefer not to think of it at all.

It is no secret that today's "Clear" does not match Hubbard's definition of Clear from Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.  Unlike Hubbard's original definition, today's "Clear" doesn't have any more powers or abilities than non-Scientologists ("wogs").

And every Scientologist who has completed one of the Grades is very well aware that they do not have the promised Abilities Gained for their Grades as explicitly promised on Scientology's Grade Chart.

Yet, some Scientologists doggedly maintain that "Scientology works!" despite its consistent lack of results and failed promises.

Why is that?

There are, in my opinion, a number of reasons.  While individual reasons undoubtedly differ, I believe one or more of the following justifications is the primary reason they simply cannot let go.
  • Investment.  This can be a factor.  Scientologists may invest hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years of their lives to Scientology.  They may have sacrificed their family, their job, their property and their friends in support of Scientology.  For some, it is extremely difficult to admit that they wasted so much on a scam.  This leads us to:
  • Reputation.  A number of people have made a big deal about how wonderful Scientology was and how very, very superior they are because they are a Scientologist.  Think of Tom Cruise as a good example of this.  As a result, they cannot confront the massive embarrassment if they had to admit they were wrong.  (It does not appear that Cruise has woken up yet, but this factor might deter him from saying anything when he does.)
  • OT.  Yes, despite the fact that none of Scientology's OT Levels have ever produced a person with any "super powers", some Scientologists still believe that some day, somehow, some Scientology technique will produce a "true OT" and they want to be there when it happens.  Sixty years of failure hasn't convinced them that this isn't going to happen.
  • Having all the answers.  In my mind, this is one of the biggest reasons some Scientologists stick with Scientology despite everything.  Those inside of Scientology have all the answers.  In their minds, this statement isn't hyperbole, it is the bare truth.  According to Scientology they literally have the answers to everything: illness, insanity, war, crime, illiteracy, drug addiction, intelligence, failure, success, life, death, ... any situation, any condition and every problem has been "solved" by L. Ron Hubbard.  There are no more mysteries, there are no more problems that can't be fixed.  It is a feeling of tremendous power, certainty and superiority.  Naturally, Scientologists cannot and must not check these "solutions" to see if they really do what Hubbard claimed, for, of course, they don't.
To any Scientologist clinging to that failed technology because of one of these reasons:  You are not alone.  All of us ex-Scientologists have had to confront the fact that Scientology has not delivered on any of its promises.  All of us had to confront the scary fact that, no, we don't have all the answers.  Many of us believed in Scientology long past the point when it should have been obvious, even to us true believers, that it was a fraud.

It may be difficult to admit you were conned, but that embarrassment passes quickly and, after that, you can live in honesty and truth.  Trust me, the relief is incredible.


  1. conditioned to not see the scam

  2. If I didn't know any better, I would swear you were looking over my shoulder. I had many dreams and hopes. And in trying to break away (in 1982), I ran across all that you said. I kept holding on to one or two things. Holding on to a dream... a hope. But it just wasn't there. It was hard to take. Your writings were the first I saw that truly helped me see what was really going on. I have seen others and now I know that I am truly not along. Thanks.

  3. This is well written, but what I, as an outsider, am most interested in is how someone gets involved into something like Scientology in the first place? I get how cultish mind control tricks can prevent you from leaving once you are in.

    Because it is obvious to me that an organization that has real OTs would function much differently than Scientology does. There would be no need for stupid hard sell tactic, just walk into a hospital and heal everybody. Or if you can see future, why would you even need money from people, when you can predict lottery numbers.

    I can see from your writings that you are an intelligent man, but I have difficulties understanding what prevented you from seeing all this when you signed up?

  4. Python asks the question everyone wants to know the answer to, not to intrude on you, Bill, but for ourselves - if an intelligent, educated, mature sensible person (and yes I mean you, Bill) could be deceived for so long, what about the rest of us?

    It raises serious questions about free will and self-determination. Humans are far more easily manipulated than we want to believe; we want to know how to resist. You and others testify to the strength of the human spirit; I'd like to know how to have that strength myself.


    1. Start with Dianetics, then do the grades. It isn't about having super powers and shit like that; not for me anyway. I agree a lot of people got into a big fantasy along those lines but I really think they missed the boat. What Dianetics can do, is give you that strength you're looking for. Think of the most together person you've ever known, and compare that person to the worst off you've ever known. One gets rattled pretty easy, the other not at all. One can overcome almost any obstacle, the other can't succeed even with help. There's a reason why it's like that, and that's what it's all about. If you could move a person from one end of the spectrum to the other it would be a good thing; and that's the goal of scientology and dianetics. The rest of all that magical mystical bull crap doesn't have much use, in my opinion. I think people confuse what happens in a person's mind with the outside world. When a person completes grade 2 and can now confront problems, I don't think it means you can tell your auto mechanic to take a hike. I think it refers to the problems the person might have had with their own thoughts. You still have to live in the real world. Scientology is worth doing, if you don't try to use it as a means to escape reality (how would *that* raise aRc?). You don't have to 'join the cult'. Apply every lesson to the real world, accept every gain and keep it, and reject every ass who spews BS because they never really understood what it is and they want to make their fantasy real by forcing it on you. I've known several people who can recite LRH quotes all day and they will go to war with you about it. They "don't understand" what you say unless you speak in tech dictionary terms. They're nothing but bible thumpers. You've got your bible thumpers, space cadets, cleopatras (you know, they were someone very special in a prior life), and organizers who want to rule the church or build their own church and rule over it. Don't be any of those and you'll be just fine. I probably won't be back here; I was on a google tangent when I dropped in. Oh yeah: stay away from the church.

    2. Hello anonymous Indie Scientologist. Nice of you to drop on by. I've actually moved the primary Ask the Scientologist over to WordPress but I'll still respond over here.

      I see this kind of thinking all over the (shrinking) Indie blogs, "Scientology is great, just avoid the church and you'll do fine."

      That's a really nice idea, and I will admit that there is some good stuff in Scientology -- but it won't work. The reasons are simple:

      The lies are woven through all of Scientology "tech". If you actually study and train using Scientology's "tech", you will swallow many, many lies. From your comment, I see that you have.

      Second, the "tech" really doesn't work. Sure some people get the occasional "win", which keeps them going farther and farther, but Scientology doesn't and won't get anywhere. What people actually get from Scientology is what they've always gotten: The occasional "win". That's it. No big solutions, no major improvements, no lightening bolts, just an occasional "win".

      If Scientology actually caused any significant improvement in a person, that would be noticeable when looking over the broad history and population of Scientologists -- and the evidence isn't there. It just isn't.

      Scientologists are living lives exactly like non-Scientologists. Problems, troubles, struggles are all there. They aren't outstanding in their fields, they are just like everyone else. But they have occasional "wins". And they talk funny.

      Scientology, inside or outside the church is the exactly the same. If you enjoy your occasional "wins" and don't mind all the time spent not making any significant improvements in yourself, good luck.

      As for me, I recommend you keep looking. There are better ways to improve yourself.


  5. @python

    I can understand that and, in my mind, it's an important thing for people to know -- how do reasonably sane, intelligent people get suckered into something so controlling and cultish?

    The scene today is not the same scene it was not too many years ago. There was little true information available, very little exposure of Scientology's secrets and lies.

    Scientology doesn't tell you anything when you first visit their church. They tell you "Scientology can help you" and tell you just enough to keep you interested so you take that first step. Then just enough so that you take the one next step after that. Then the next. You are told nothing about the "upper levels" other than how wonderful it all is.

    Today, I wouldn't get suckered in. Today, I can't imagine who would get suckered in. There is too much information available about Scientology's secrets, failures and lies.

    You will notice that Scientology's big push today is in countries where the Internet is not so widely available -- and especially where the truth has not been translated into the local language. Scientology's recruitment tricks can only work where there is a lack of information about Scientology.

    Even today, I catch myself just before I order something or commit to something and think, "Uh oh! I'd better check on this!" -- and I find out it's a scam. Thank God for the Internet, I wish this information had been available years ago.

  6. @Sheepherder

    I agree. It's a very important question. How do people get conned and how to avoid it.

    Certainly, Scientology is an example, albeit a rather extreme example, of trapping people. They are so very, very careful to rope people in using the very least information necessary -- so as not to alarm them -- but to keep them hoping.

    And hope really is where they get their power. It is such a betrayal -- they prey on people who are willing to hope that there are solutions.

    People can be gullible, and often are, and I don't think there is any way to stop it. Some gullibility is harmless, such as loading up your toothbrush with too much toothpaste just because that's what the advertisements show. And some gullibility can do serious harm, such as with the Church of Scientology or Nigerian 419 scams.

    One of the abilities I really did gain from my Scientology experience was the power to say "No". One gets pressured to commit to something today. "Limited time offer!" "Don't wait!" "Special, today only!" "We're only in your neighborhood this week!" "Your entire future depends on what you do today!"

    The answer is always: more information. When I feel pressured and uncertain it's because I don't have enough information -- and now, for me, that raises a big alarm and engages the brakes. Anyone, any company, any group that insists on a commitment now-now-now is, in my experience, pulling some kind of con.

    Unfortunately, it took getting majorly conned before I learned this. I guess I'm just a slow learner.

  7. Thanks for replay, Bill.

    I agree that times have dramatically changed with the internet. However I still don't "get" it fully. They promised you guys perfect memory, didn't they? I think you said somewhere that Hubbards definition of Clear from Dianetics includes it, right? And you read Dianetics before taking any courses.

    That's pretty large promise that's easy to prove or disprove. All you have to do is pick a random book of poetry from library, and ask Clear to read it once and then recite pages from memory. Yet for some reason no one posed such challenge.

    I think that problem with mankind in general is that we put too much faith in authority figures and too little in data and experiment. That's why it took science so much time to develop; everyone just read Aristotle instead of testing stuff. It took 1500 years and Galileo to disprove Aristotle's assumptions.

    There is nothing wrong with making theories of how things work. There is no inherent reason why telepathy wouldn't work. However every rigorous test proved that it doesn't.

  8. @python

    You make a couple of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. I did not read Dianetics as the first thing. That's a large, turgid book. I would hazard a guess that, unless required for some course, most Scientologists have not read Dianetics.

    Second, one never challenges some Release, Clear or OT to prove they have any specific abilities or powers. It is an Ethics offence to "doubt" anyone in that way. No Clear would agree to such a test, and they would report you to Ethics. (Hubbard was quite clever in that way.)

    Hubbard also gave an entire lecture on the subject of how "aberrative" and "suppressive" it is to demand proof. "Good" Scientologists do not, and cannot, demand proof of anything.

    In addition, Hubbard warned Clears and OTs not to display their abilities and powers to anyone "not ready for it". Obviously, all those Clears and OTs are not demonstrating their powers and abilities because you're not ready for it -- but they could, you know, if they wanted to.

    You see how Hubbard covered all the bases, so there was always a good reason why no one was demonstrating any special abilities and powers and why no one was asking them to.

  9. thank you for replying. It wasn't my intention to insult you in any way, I was just trying to build a picture in my head of how it looked like. I see now that my picture was largely wrong, because it was built on wrong assumptions.

    Hey, maybe you should write another article about how one gets suckered into it? How much you knew at the beginning, how much they told you, how much they omitted, when and how questions stopped and mind control started?

    Because the whole subject is fascinating to me, and I believe to others.

  10. @python

    Trust me, I was not insulted at all. I enjoy trying to explain what happened and what is still happening, even if it doesn't paint a very commendable picture of my own discernment and intelligence.

    It's a good idea for another article.

    You might check out Counterfeit Dreams if you haven't already. The first part is a pretty good example of how someone got into Scientology back then.

  11. Another aspect to Scientology and recruitment is less about the technology and more about what Scientology stands for. When I was doing recuitment for the Sea Org we learned to find the "button" that would make someone join. We start with the Tech and promise of gained abilities, then when that failed we moved onto, a promise of a better world. Who wouldn't want to join an organization that wants to make the world a better place. After a while you learn to "read" the person and press the right button upfront. I got suckered in with the "better world" proposition, I was in the Sea Org for many years and it wasn't until I was moved into recuiting that opened my eyes and I went, wait a minute.... This was the beginning of the end of me and finally did get to the place that helped me walk away forever. It's really simply how people get trapped, look at them and figure out some info, are they impovished, then talk about wealth gained from the tech. If they are from a country that is in turmoil, talk about how Scientology wants to make the world better. If they are spiritual, talk about gained abilities. The point was that you already have a mind that is dedisposed to that idea and they are looking for validation. Makes sales, I mean recruitment, so much easier.

  12. Also it seems to me that Hubbard was very immature, childish person. That is the only way anyone could explain Sonya Bianca episode

    He was arrogant enough to believe that he can force his way thought reality.

  13. Many years ago, after listening to an OT extol the tremendous powers Scientology had to offer, I gestured toward a Styrofoam cup he'd been drinking from and asked him whether he could, using just his mind, move the cup. His reply: "No, but I can become that cup." Jeez, I thought to myself, what an accomplishment.

  14. I've been suggesting these points for awhile on here, as you know, Just Bill. I know you seemed to take a more moderate view in the past, but I'm glad you are getting more impatient with those who want to cling to Scio beliefs. I only go on ESMB now every blue moon to blast them (and support the opposite posters)for saying it's okay to be ex- but not anti-.

    To not be anti-child neglect,child endangerment, child abuse, fraud and criminal activity is to be PRO those things. If that is black and white thinking I am proud of it. If that makes people angry and upset, they need to look at why they can't accept responsibility for having been part of something very, very bad.

    Right now all I do is comment and post all over the net anti-Scio, but very soon I will do more. I have always been active politically, but now I see I need to step up and take similar actions against the cult that I personally know to be criminal and in favor of laws to curb such cults.

    It IS embarrassing to stand up and say publically I was a deluded fool, but it is better than cowardly silence and self-protection.

    I also want to scold those like the ex-Mrs. Heber Jentsh (sp?)and others who get out of Scientology and then NEVER apologize to the public and the children they defrauded and abused. Where, on ESMB or here or anywhere, is the remorse? I've apologized many times, including on Ex-Scio Kids, for having "enjoyed" my "wins" from CoS while others paid and paid and paid for my deluded experiences.

    I'd like to hear some genuine sorrow from people, not for what THEY suffered, but for what they perpetrated. I'd like a personal apology from the regs who defrauded me of my inheritance from my grandmother, although there's probably no chance in hell I'll get it.

    Sharon Stainforth, who was in no way responsible for her being raised in Scientology, has many times expressed her sorrow and guilt. How about it, out there, anyone sorry for what they did??

  15. AS for how do intelligent people get suckered in, well, there is no ONE answer.
    But for me, it was like this.
    When I went CLEAR, I was very happy about it. I felt different. I felt that something significant had happened. I felt more present, more me. It really did feel like a miracle.
    I also felt a little confused because I did not feel like the "Clear" as described in Dianetics. I did not feel like I had any special powers or abilities.
    I asked about this. I was shown one sentence from some reference (not from Dianetics). I described what had happened and was told that I was Clear.
    When I questioned this further, it was explained that Scienotology was a developing science and that now the description of Clear in Dianetics was really more like an OT 8.
    The thing is that I bought it. Why? I think because I didn't care. What I cared about was the fact that I felt better! Someone had run some processes on me and I felt better! It was great!
    I had learned in a college psychology class that by the time a person is 21 the personality is fixed, that a person can not change.
    And here was absolute subjective proof that that was false. I was a changed person. It had happen not by chance but via processes and it was a science and we could keep going and do more and more of this good stuff. I was now predisposed to accept just about anything they told me.
    Problem is that that fabulous feeling lasted only for a day or so and then I was tremendously invalidated in a reg cycle. Why didn't I see the light then? I don't know. I think by then I believed that it worked and if it didn't it was because of my own sins, misunderstood words, ignorance, etc.
    I wanted to believe that there was more good stuff to be had. Once I experienced a significant positive change, they owned me. Sad but true.
    At least, that was the process of me. And as long as I kept getting some of the good stuff, the dream lived.
    I hope that helps answer the question of how intelligent people get suckered in.

  16. @Squash Lady

    Thanks for the story. I love to hear people's different experiences and how Scientology did what it does.

    To me that is one of the cruellest tricks that Scientology pulls: Scientology never delivers any of the miraculous results promised because you're all evil! And we bought it.


  17. Dear Bill,
    This thread has gotten me to thinking about how it all began. How did the wool get pulled over my eyes.
    Here's the rub. When I went "clear", something changed and it seemed miraculous and I was shown this other definition of Clear and it was something like someone who no longer has their reactive mind. I questioned for days what that meant and got "the look". You know "the look". It is kind of a stare and it says, "Well it is perfectly clear to the rest of us, what's wrong with you?" and the ever present question: "Where is you misunderstood word?" After days of this I figured that if I attested, we could move on. So I attested.
    They had me at that point. Now I had to be right. I had just attested to Clear so I felt I had to live up to the description in the book. I think I was had from that point forward. I became a stranger to myself no longer willing to admit to thoughts and feelings that did not fit in with that description. I was lost but told myself I had been found.
    And to complicate things further, I read that LRH says it is cruel to make Clears without training them, without educating them about the reactive mind. Because without this training and understanding, the person will just make another reactive mind.
    Given that LRH says that. Given that everything LRH says is true. Given that the Church is charged with respecting and implimenting the Tech standardly, how come the push is to make Clears. The push is not to train people.
    So if it is cruel to make Clears without training the person first, the Church then is in the business of cruelty all the while saying it is in the business of setting people free.
    Here is another thread: Let's say that LRH indulged in some hyperbole in Dianetics. Let's say he was onto something and he was trying to make an impression and saw what he wanted to see, etc. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. I find that forgiveable.
    What I don't find forgiveable is the absense of an admission by LRH that as it turns out, "Clear" is just a person who no longer has his own reactive mind. And you are free to interpret what that means. So it means almost nothing or everything.
    LRH was alive when I was shown this "updated" definition of Clear. But I never saw an apology or explanation or correction by LRH.
    When I questioned this, the explanation I was given was that LRH was so busy moving forward with his new discoveries and research that it was not correct thinking to expect him to go back and correct earlier work. If you read everything, it all fits together. He did the ground breaking work, it was our job to read everything and put it all together.
    I bought it. I bought that explanation.
    In retrospect, it sounds like double speak. But I bought it.
    Here is another thread. LRH says, reality is defined by the majority. I was then in a world at that time that thought that made sense. So I bought it. Here is another irony. LRH says profound things like, "Reality is defined by the majority" and you think "Thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. Of course, I knew that but I had forgotten it. Thank you."
    And that very thing that you are thankful for is something that you somehow unknowingly become trapped by all the while thinking you are on the road to spiritual freedom and you aren't.
    I really just don't get it. It is still such a puzzle to me.

  18. @Squash Lady

    Thank you for your comments and thoughts about what happened to you. Much of my work on Ask the Scientologist was about that very subject. How did I get suckered in? How did they keep me under their control? Why didn't I see what was going on?

    So much of it was our own hope and wish for something better, for some miracles to be true. We fooled ourselves. We were the ones controlling ourselves.

    I think you do get it, but I understand it can be a long road to fully recover from it all -- and to feel fully recovered.

  19. Dear Bill,

    These stories are impressive, and enlightening - Anne/anon, Vera, Squash Lady - You rock, Sisters! And yes, it's a pretty good world out here; but it needs caring, honest people. Cult survivors have an edge there, for spotting lies and abuse and refusing to be silent. You're needed! Whatever drew you in, now you're free, and welcome, welcome!

    I've been wanting to write on my next theme but hesitated because of the person who was yelling that all Scios are evil (does he/she realize how much that sounds just like a scientologist?) so I'm putting it here on this article - for your amusement, Bill!

    I've thought many times how uncannily CoS resembles C.S. Lewis's fictional Hell in "The Screwtape Letters". I was surprised and delighted to read two Aussies over on ESMB saying exactly the same thing.

    Lewis wrote, " symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
    It even has an RPF, the 'House of Correction for Incompetent Tempters' ; ( Screwtape writes his nephew , "... I am enclosing a little booklet ... It is profusely illustrated, and you will not find a dull page in it." )

    Screwtape sums it all up by saying, "To take EVERYTHING and give NOTHING in return - that's what really gladdens Our Father's (Lucifer's) heart!" ".... the justice of Hell is purely realistic, and concerned only with results. Bring back food, or be food yourself."

    Sound familiar?

    This site is a breath of fresh air. I do enjoy it so much. Keep it up, Bill, and keep some cold beer on hand. Wish I could buy you one.

    Very best regards,


  20. Beautiful Bill! So right! To wake up and face that you were conned is so very difficult...and to face the fact that you spoke with such certainty about such falseness makes you sick...but one must leave once one sees this. I feel those still stuck. It's such a waste of living and life.

  21. The bulk of humanity prefers fairy tales to reality. By taking advantage of this fact some enterprising individuals have been able to attain great wealth and power. Our fascination with ghosts, magical incantations, miraculous elixirs, supernatural powers, talking with the dead, and Ascended Masters lives on today as intensely as ever.

    Give us The Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Medium, the Ghost Whisperer, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The X-Files, and The Twilight Saga. That’s where the box-office is. On the religious side there is Mormonism, Scientology, Heaven’s Gate, the Solar Temple, the Summit Lighthouse, and A Course in Miracles. That’s where the money is. Hubbard was right. Who cares about Paul Kurtz, James Randi, Derren Brown, Penn Jillette, Robert Sheaffer, or Michael Shermer?

    These days immortality has been repackaged in countless ways. The list of deluded or opportunistic salespersons is endless, but the basic principles remain the same. They are selling a fantasy as something real.

    -- Dave

  22. Your posts are great, and much appreciated. Please keep them coming, the more often the better!

  23. Thanks!

    I'd post more often if I had something significant to say more often. I hate it when I start to repeat myself.

  24. Scientology is a maze. LRH was a fascinating and strange man. The organization and the politics of LRH's life, biography, involvement with occultism, the group think sales tactics, and other questionable shady stuff all raise some red flags. Scientology is like a very powerful "secular" spiritual philosophy and discipline and LRH definately was into some strange occult stuff that fed down into Scientology. He was not the person that only the public saw, and to this day it is the same that the organization refelcts the personality and paranoia of whoever is in charge. Living inside the organization is indeed bizzare.

    LRH changed his ideas and theorys as time went on, and I believe much of his "theories" came out of his own experiences as well as field testing his psychological and then spiritual theories. Along the way we get some strange ideas about sex and sexual mores, political ideology and views on medicine and the "establishment".

    Beyond all of this craziness is something more crazy: Scientology processes work and produce results and present a unique concept of the spirit, the mind and how energy and consciousness interact with the physical world. A lot of what is produced in the "highs" that the above poster is talking about is true and is in fact one of the most happy feelings one can have. A skeptic may think of "isolation" "group think euphoria" etc, but that is not true at all, scientology and dianetics techniques of working with the consciousness and mind are predicated on that the spirits natural state is pure limitless power and that pain, suffering and bad luck, mental anguish etc have a real effect on energy in the body and mind.

    Removing conceptual blocks , the energy of painful emotion, and the belief in limitation of the abilities of spirit over matter unleash a tremendous amount of energy. That is the secret that keeps people coming back. It works. It doesn't mean all the beliefs layerd over the techniques are true, and who knows if the OT levels are "true" or not. I think if Scientology was open in its teachings and less expensive their may be more avid supporters and more members globally. Many people have studied LRH's teachings and blamed some of the more bizzare elements on him being a science fiction writer, but the truth is in Hubbard's day their was a large number of smaller occult groups that you can see bits and pieces of their ideas in his "secularized" version. Their is not really a dogma about "God' in this religion, but ideas about spirit and the world of matter and how to get "unstuck" from it's limitations. Other than that, yeah it's a scary cult in a lot of respects, but a lot of it's techniques can skyrocket your conciousness without elaborate ritual or forms of meditation but it is it's own unique system.

    In all the criticism out there and discussion, I have never seen Scientology analyzed as a serious spiritual system by its techniques or theories of spiritual consciousness and energy. Even if you think the OT material is crazy, some of what what is controversial is the idea that "karmic" memory can be and as been engineered long long ago and it surfaces in the phases of cycles of time and human behavior and civilization in a kind of "mob mentality" that organically surfaces or can surface within the individual. When compared to other religions that have ideas like "group souls" "group spirits" "group karma" its not such a wacky idea. Just sayin'............

    1. "Scientology processes work and produce results and present a unique concept of the spirit, the mind and how energy and consciousness interact with the physical world."

      Now just stop that. I don't allow people to spread lies on my blog.

      1) Scientology processes do NOT work if you define them, as LRH does, as producing the promised results. Scientology processes DO NOT produce the promised results. Ever. There are no "Clears", no "Releases" and no "OTs".

      2) It is true that some people temporarily feel "better" after some Scientology processing but their "gains" are on a par with many, many, many other technologies and therapies. The downside of Scientology's "therapy" is that it is extremely overpriced and comes with indoctrination into cult-think.

      3) The negatives of Scientology far outweigh any temporary and questionable "gains".

      4) The reason Hubbard's "tech" has never been analyzed is because Hubbard and Scientology work very, very, very hard to stop any attempts to do so. Confidentially, the church did some "independent" analysis of some of Hubbard's "tech" and found that all Hubbard's claims of "miraculous results" were bogus. That's why they actively suppress any attempts to test Scientology.

      Seriously, don't try to promote Scientology's "solutions" until you have done your own investigation. Scientology DOES NOT WORK in any positive way.

  25. I think your missing the point. I believe that people that criticize the politics of the IAS have some valid reasons to do so and I think it would be hard to find a Scientologist to have an honest discussion of Scientology as a spiritual system vs "being a Scientologist" unless they were a Freezoner . To say their is no "Clears" etc, well, I understand that the "official" definitions mean you have unlocked the powers of hindu yoga, buddhism, the spiritual level of attainment of Jesus etc and that is where you can get into arguing if people have acheived paranormal powers and so on. I do believe that "Gains" and "Releases" are very real and have experienced it myself. I'm not promoting anything but an honest answer

    Your overall tone seems to be one of throwing everything in the trash, and if anyone truly gets caught up in the IAS groupthink and tries to dissent or whatnot, yeah thats a tricky process for sure, so I can't blame you. I never said that Tech is the only way, but that the original question is why do people who have problems in the IAS structure get so disjointed when real problems arise, outsiders wonder, the truth is that the original tech is very unique and powerful system that does not rely on very many elaborate beliefs to produce results, and the results and benefits are real, but that is seen as all the more reason to plug into the group think.

    1. I understand that you are a Scientologist, even if you are out of the Church of Scientology, and so you believe what you have been taught. But it is not true that "the original tech" is a "powerful system" and it is definitely not true that the "results and benefits are real".

      I understand that you very, very much believe that, but your belief doesn't make it so. No. Here is the bottom line: If Scientology actually worked, there would be evidence. There is no evidence - except from believers who are inevitably very, very vague about what "gains" they can demonstrate, as you have been.

      You are correct that I advocate "throwing everything (Scientology) in the trash". That is the optimum solution. Here is why: Any actual benefit from Scientology's "tech" is available elsewhere without the cult-think, without the indoctrination, without the massive harm and without the paranoia that pervades Hubbard's work.

      Why accept all the horrible crap from Hubbard when you gain nothing unique. Any actual gains that Scientologists say they have gained are daily obtained from many other sources without the harm and damage that Scientology brings.

      You believe that Scientology is "powerful", it isn't and never was. You believe that Scientology is "unique". In this you are correct. But that doesn't mean it is good. The parts of Scientology that are unique don't work.

      If there were any benefits available only from Scientology, I would say so and I would promote the application of that specific "tech" for those specific gains. But there are no benefits from Scientology that are not available from much less harmful sources.

      So, yes, I do advocate throwing it all in the trash.

    2. Did I ever say I even had a religion? Did I say that's what it was? Scientology does have some valid methodologies, they are different than other systems, and people stay for that reason even if something else conflicts with their feelings and beliefs. The practices are interesting on their own merits. Thats what I'm saying, I find the forcefulness and the black and white thinking in your responses very curious and entertaining. The idea that "proof" is beyond subjective, you may as well indoctrinate all spiritual and mental systems of development. There's no proof in that way for any religion. I still say the system is powerful, in the way an engine is powerful. You are really weird

    3. Well, OK. You believe that Scientology is "powerful" and that the "results and benefits are real" but, no, you're "not a Scientologist". Sure.

      And further, "proof" of Hubbard's ridiculous claims is "beyond subjective". Yeah? No. I know your Hubbard said "proof" was a bad thing, but that's just because he had no proof of anything he claimed! Of course he'd try to denounce proof.

      But actually, proof would be dead simple to provide if Scientology actually produced any of the miraculous results promised. Yes, proof is easy if you tell the truth. But truth is a foreign country to Hubbard.

      My thinking isn't black-and-white. That's your mindset. Scientology=white. Criticism of Scientology=black.

      I see Scientology for what is is not, like you, for what I wish it were. Yes there are some minor good parts - but they just aren't worth the horrible harm that Scientology does. This is something you should open your eyes and see. But you probably won't.

      What you decide to believe is fine. All I want to do is ensure that your lies are exposed so that innocent people don't get trapped.

  26. What I'm witnessing is a lack of comprehension in what I am repeating over and over, and this is fascinating. If someone practices yoga but is not a Hindu, is that such a paradox? Or if someone does not practice yoga, but understands that it can produce specific phenomena, and still does not practice or even believe in Hinduism? What if someone understands that as mental and spiritual development yoga is a system. I hope this gets through to you. As for "Beyond Subjective Proof" , all religious disciplines promise superpowers that are esoteric or occult in any way. You can't prove any of them in a way that a scientist in a lab would say "ok, theres the proof". I don't understand what type of nerve I may have hit with you. I am simply saying that as far as a mental/spiritual system that Scientology has practices that as a system produce powerful results that are uplifting for the individual and that is why people keep going even if they later think the group/organization/belief system is bullshit. If you practiced yoga in an ashram for 25 years and then weren't able to levitate would you also say that yoga as system doesn't do anything? Your thinking is black and white and very reactive and quick to jump to conclusions. You think I'm some sort of shill or something that is your weird problem. As far as if I was an IAS member I'm sure I would be thrown out pretty quickly, I don't believe in most of Scientology as a world-view.and I don't think people that are gay are low on the tone scale, so is everything ok now? As a spiritual set of practices that can accelerate one's consciousness without over elaborate beliefs yes I think most of it is positive and that is the thing people never really talk about when criticizing or attacking it as pre packaged belief systems they think the practices are strange, when I don't think that they are that strange at all. The organizational culture is defiantly strange, and I would say very rigid. Just like you :) Good luck in your new life. I would say one thing is that, you certainly ARGUE like a Scientologist. Assumptive, circular logic, and diverting from what is actually said. Your still in crusader mode, now just waving another flag.I'm sorry for whatever happened to you , but man loosen up!

    1. LOL! Your analogy is highly flawed. If someone practices yoga "but is not a Hindu"??? WTF? Those are two completely separate things. You might as well pretend that "If someone practices Scientology but is not an Armenian" is a valid comparison. Seriously?

      You practice Scientology. That means you are a Scientologist. Don't be silly and deny that.

      What Hubbard claimed were the results from his "tech" are all factual, and very testable, claims. You only pretend otherwise because those (very testable) results have never appeared. So, it's "esoteric or occult".

      No, Hubbard's promised results were very testable. "Higher IQ", "resolution of mental and physical problems", very specific "gains" written on the Grade Chart - all testable. The one that was actually tested was his "engrams" in the early days of Dianetics. Hubbard's claims were very testable and were tested - with complete failure.

      You claim "Scientology has practices that, as a system, produce powerful results" and yet, after over 60 years, there is absolutely no evidence of that. None.

      Not one single Scientologist shows the promised manifestations of "Release" as promised specifically on the Grade Chart. Not one single Scientologist shows the promised manifestations of "Clear" - the promised "miraculous" results from "getting rid of their Reactive Mind".

      Oh, yes! All of us Scientologists felt we got "gains" - but never what was promised.

      You keep claiming that Scientology is "powerful" and the "results are real" but it isn't and they aren't and there is nothing you can do about it.

      But there is something I can do about all the harm, degradation, abuse and fraud that Scientology perpetrates. I can ensure that your bogus claims are debunked so that others don't get scammed and abused.

      You are a good example of how blind the cult mindset makes one. You know Scientology has failed to deliver all its promised gains but cannot connect the dots. You cannot see and so you retreat into "proof is subjective" and "gains are esoteric". So be it. That's your choice.

      However, your snake oil salesmanship is quite useful. It gives me a new chance to debunk Scientology's claims and expose yet another example of cult-think. For that, I thank you.

    2. Let me address one more point. You seem to think that there is something wrong with my speaking out against the lies, fraud, abuses and crimes of Scientology. You would rather I ignore what I see as very real and harmful actions of Scientology? Is this what you do when you see abuses? I and many, many thousands of people have been seriously harmed by Scientology yet you think we all should stand silent while Scientology continues its abuse and fraud?

      If that's what you do when you see actual harm, actual lies, actual fraud and even criminal activities then you are responsible for what happens.

      But what you do is even worse. You know that the promised results have not been delivered by Scientology and yet you twist it in your mind to excuse it and you continue to promote it to others so that they, too, can get duped into the cult-indoctrination and "excuse the no results" mindset. That's just plain evil.

  27. I can't make any clearer that what I think you are doing is just fine however and I think it takes guts to speak your mind publicly but your responses to what I contributed to the question is what I don't understand because you just don't get or understand : Is that I feel that in my personal opinion that Scientology processes produce tangible positive results for practitioners without elaborate ritual action or belief and that is why people find it compelling despite disagreements with Scientology beliefs or actions of Scientology as an organized religion.

    Yoga is a religious practice, and the physical postures are a tiny fraction of it. It is a mental/spiritual system that has a progressive steps to producing changes in consciousness, and as a set of practices, as a system many people incorporate it as a personal practice whether or not they embrace the tenets of Hinduism and have done so for centuries. It's not that hard of a concept. People have been exchanging and mixing approaches to spirituality since religion has been around, like the Nestorian Christians on the mystic Sufi's of Islam. There are many seekers today that have studied and incorporate from many spiritual systems to find what is right for them. You comments suggest you are not that type of person. Every religion has torture and war in its history way worse than anything you are complaining about, so again, if you hate all religion for a similar reason go right ahead, I was commenting on it as a system. I do not "practice" Scientology but I know enough about Tech as a system to divorce it from the controversies around it as an organization which is all I have been commenting on. It was influenced by, and an influence on , several system. If you disagree with me that any of the processes can produce any positive results than thats your opinion, but I think the tone of your responses and the fact that I have repeatedly gone over the meaning of one comment that is a personal opinion, is astounding and you do not seem to be able to have a rational discussion about it other than things you disagree with, I don't know why you are so hostile and you seem not to be able to handle that there are folks out there that study different systems. I could talk to you as much about things I believe the beliefs of the Druze or Sufis I agree with as a spiritual/psychological growth system, but I am not Muslim. You are extremely defensive and for someone who put in "20 years" I would really expect a more objective approach to dealing with people. And please read some books, the fact you don't know that yoga is a Hindu practice is a bit discouraging

    1. Would you please stop assuming things about me that you do not know and please stop attacking me? Really.

      You seem to have a lot of very fixed and very negative ideas about people who dare to criticize Scientology - and almost all of it is false.

      Why can't I express the opinion that Scientology is more negative than positive? Why do you object to that? You get all upset just because I have that opinion. That's just weird.

      You say one thing and I challenge it. So? You "can't understand" that? I'm "defensive", I'm "not objective", I "hate religion". That's really weird.

      You accuse me of "hating all religion"(!) Screw you. I don't even hate Scientology. Have all the fun you can possibly have with your Scientology. Go ahead. The fact that I know about Scientology's lies, fraud, abuse and crimes - and therefore feel obligated to warn people about it, isn't about "hate". It's about caring what happens to others.

      You have a very twisted idea of what "objective" means. I have over 30 years of experience in Scientology and many years working with Scientology's victims afterwards. I can see clearly the good and the bad. Being objective does not mean closing your eyes to all the lies, abuse, fraud and crimes. Being objective does not mean letting more people become victims.

      I certainly never have hated Scientologists. You guys are victims of some of the worst cult-indoctrination I've ever seen. It isn't Scientologists fault.

      I'm sorry I've upset you with my opinions about Scientology. I understand that Hubbard said that those who dare to criticize Scientology are very, very evil people. Guess what? It isn't true.

      But I don't expect you to believe that. It isn't said by Hubbard.

  28. I feel compelled to write some more just to show you how you are strange in your thinking. I understand that what is promised in the Tech is some pretty wild stuff and no one really made the grade as far as public tests. It's also true that LRH had some major beef with the psychiatric and medical boards. Some will say that it is because they thought he was practicing unlicensed medicine and making false claims, others thought the standard story is true is that the government knew it worked and wanted to smear it and that set the stage ever since. No matter which take you believe which is true their were several psychiatry/psychology books that were created by doctors to compete as a "do it yourself" at home self therapy, I know because I own original copies. Very similar. Some books like Psycho-Cybernetics are similar to some elements of Scientology, but I don't think it was a knock off like the other books put forward. Listen I'm just a person who is interested in these types of topics and I form my own opinions. If you don't like Scientology that is fine but you are making a ton of generalizations. I think you are not being objective and yet again the fact that you didn't know that Yoga is religious practice screams that you really should read more books on comparative religions and if you were in Scientology 20 years your supposed to do that. I met a Scientologist once who read and owned and could talk about all the orignal tenents of Hindu and Buddhist major scriptures and practiced zen meditation. Dude was smart. Other than that I didn't really like the guy but he knew his shit and he was sincere, brainwashed? I don't know but the thing is these questions that you are bringing up are really big, if you don't like IAS then fine but you are using bad blanket statements. You keep saying things like "no one" "never" " not anywhere". The publicly verifiable tests specific to Scientology and the controversy between that and the authorities, its funny I would like to hear what you think of the government recruiting OT's specifically for their psychic development experiments which is something anyone can research on their own and is in books by people that claim were part of remote viewing research. Complicated questions have complicated answers

    1. **sigh***
      Let's see how I can respond, yet again. "Yoga" is not a religious practice outside of the Hindu religion. It is "practiced" by millions of people who are not Hindus and who do not consider it at all religious. For you to claim that "yoga" is always a religious practice is just silly. It only is religious when practiced within Hindu. (I really shouldn't have to explain this, you do know this).

      Stop accusing me of not being "objective". You think the word means "never criticizing". It doesn't mean that.

      I say that no one has attained the promised results from "Release", "Clear" and "OT". Yes, that is a generality. However, I have always stated, clearly, time after time, all anyone has to do to challenge my statement is produce one person who has, verifiably, attained the promised results. I will immediately apologize and immediately admit I was wrong. I've been saying this for many, many years and I am completely honest in this.

      To prove me wrong would be absolutely simple. For sixty years Scientology has failed to produce anyone who has received the promised benefits from the Grade Chart, Dianetics, LRH's books and lectures. I'd be extremely happy to be proven wrong and to find out that there really is a "tech" that really would provide these results. But I'm not holding my breath.

      You want to prove me wrong, please do so! I would love it! Otherwise, stop complaining.

      You, yourself, admit that Scientology doesn't deliver on its "miraculous" promises. Why do you object when I say so? Seriously.

      Despite what Hubbard assured you, I, a critic of Scientology, am very much in favor of spiritual betterment and very much support people getting help and getting better. I very much support the search for spiritual betterment.

      What I am against is lies, fraud and abuse, especially under the cloak of a "betterment group". Hence, I am, or course, against Scientology. Sorry about that.

      (I really should correct you in your use of "IAS". The IAS does not deliver Scientology "tech". It is purely a fundraising arm of the church.)

    2. Well, let me clarify "objective". I have an opinion so I'm not, by definition, objective. After my experiences, of course I have an opinion. You are obviously not objective - perhaps less objective than I.

      I can see what Scientology is and what it does. I can see its massive failures, you cannot. You think Scientology is "powerful" because you cannot see its consistent failures.

      While I can see the good in Scientology, I can see the evil. You cannot see the evil and so you cannot properly evaluate the subject.

      Neither of us is, by definition, objective. The difference is that I am not blinded by cult-think so I see the whole picture.

  29. Note to Anonymous "I'm not a Scientologist"

    No, you can't post another comment on my blog making false accusations and vast, incorrect generalities about me. I seem to have hit a nerve with you. (I did say "sorry")

    I try not to censor anyone and I try to let everyone have their say. But there is a limit.

    The red line is when you resort to insults and lies. That doesn't forward the discussion and just makes you look very bad.

  30. Excellent and very exciting site. Love to watch. Keep Rocking.
    a course in miracles


Comments will be moderated. Have patience, I get around to it pretty quick. As a rule of thumb, I won't approve spam, off-topic, trolling or abusive stuff. The rest is usually OK. Yes, you can disagree with me.