A Collaborative Approach to Addressing a Loved One's Cult-related Involvement

Montreal, Canada.

July 2-5, 2025

Abstract:

This presentation reflects the growing awareness in the anti-cult community that it often “takes a village”to respond appropriately and effectively to cult involvement and that each discipline brings different andessential expertise to bear on the issue. This talk will explore the vital elements of our collaborativeapproach (mental health professionals, former members, and exit counselors) using examples to illustratethese elements.A case presentation with a round table discussion from various perspectives, including interventionists,mental health professionals, research, and sociology.

Bio:

Joseph F. Kelly, a graduate of Temple University (focus on religion), has been a cult intervention specialist(thought reform consultant/exit counselor, mediator) since 1989. He spent 14 years in two easternmeditation groups (TM, International Society of Divine Love). He is a co-author of “Ethical Standards forThought Reform Consultants,” published in ICSA’s Cultic Studies Journal, and contributed a chapter to Captive Hearts, Captive Minds. He was (2010-2014) the News Desk Editor of ICSA Today.Mr. Kelly has also facilitated ICSA workshops for ex-members and families (1996-2018) and has lecturedextensively on cult-related topics.

Patrick Ryan is a graduate of Maharishi International University (Interdisciplinary Studies with a focus onEastern religious systems) and has been a cult intervention specialist (thought reform consultant/exitcounselor, mediator) since 1984.He was the the founder and former head of TM-EX, the organization of ex-members of TranscendentalMeditation. He was the editor of AFF News, a news publication for former cult members (1995-1998), hascontributed to the Cult Observer, AFF’s book, Recovery From Cults, is co-author of "Ethical Standards forThought Reform Consultants," and has presented 50 programs about hypnosis, inner-experience, tranceinduction techniques, communicating with cult members, conversion, cult intervention, exit counseling,intervention assessment, mediation, religious conflict resolution, thought reform consultation, easterngroups, transcendental meditation and workshops for educators, families, former members and mentalhealth professionals at ICSA workshops/conferences. Mr. Ryan received the AFF Achievement Award(1997) from AFF, the Leo J. Ryan "Distinguished Service Award" (1999) from the Leo J. Ryan Foundation,1and a Lifetime Achievement Award (2011) from ICSA.

Rosanne Henry, MA, LPC, emeritus director of ICSA, is a psychotherapist practicing in Littleton, Colorado.For more than thirty years she has been active in the cult-education movement, working closely with theformer Cult Awareness Network and ICSA. She served on the Board of Directors of ICSA from 2004 to2018 and was Chair of ICSA’s Mental Health Committee. She cofacilitated ICSA’s recovery workshops for25 years. In her private practice, Rosanne specializes in the treatment of cult survivors and their families.She is a former member of Kashi Ranch. In 2010, Ms. Henry received ICSA’s Margaret T. Singer Award(shared with the other Colorado workshop facilitators). She is also coauthor (with Carol Giambalvo) of“The Colorado Model” (ICSA Today, 1[1], 2010); coauthor (with Leona Furnari) of “Lessons Learned FromSGAs About Recovery and Resiliency” (ICSA Today, 2[3], 2011); and coeditor (with Lorna Goldberg, WilliamGoldberg, and Michael Langone) of ICSA’s Cult Recovery: A Clinician's Guide to Working With FormerMembers and Their Families, published in 2017.

Doni Whitsett, PhD, LCSW, is a Clinical Professor at the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Workwhere she teaches various courses in practice, behavior, mental health, and human sexuality. She hasbeen working with cult-involved clients and their families for over 20 years and gives lectures to studentsand professionals on this topic. She has presented at national and international conferences in Madrid,Poland, Canada, and in Australia, where she helped organize two conferences in Brisbane. Her talks haveincluded The Psychobiology of Trauma and Child Maltreatment (2005, Madrid) and Why Cults Are Harmful:A Neurobiological View of Interpersonal Trauma (2012, Montreal). Her publications include ThePsychobiology of Trauma and Child Maltreatment (Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2006), A SelfPsychological Approach to the Cult Phenomenon (Journal of Social Work, 1992), Cults and Families(Families in Society, Vol. 84, No. 4, 2003), which she coauthored with Dr. Stephen Kent, and Why cults areharmful: Neurobiological speculations on inter-personal trauma. ICSA Today, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2014. Dr.Whitsett also has a specialty in Sexuality and was awarded a Fulbright Specialist Scholarship in 2016 tostudy, teach, and do research on this topic in China.

https://www.icsahome.com/events/conferenceannual

Advice for would-be interventionists - with Pat Ryan and Joe Kelly

jon atack, family & friends
February 5, 2021

A talk on the tricks and traps of helping people exit authoritarian groups, with noted interventionists Patrick Ryan and Joseph Kelly.

ICSA History Collection Interview of Clark, Kelly, Ryan

International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA)
May 5, 2020


Robert E. Schecter, PhD, interviewed three exit counselors on October 27, 2018 as part of a series of interviews designed to illuminate ICSA’s history. David Clark, Joseph Kelly, and Patrick Ryan discuss their personal cultic experiences, how they became involved in the field, the nature of their work, and their views on ICSA and its future.

Why Hard Facts Aren't Enough to Alter Our Beliefs

If we want to affect the behaviors and beliefs of the person in front of us, we need to understand what goes on inside their head.

Tali Sharot
NBC
June 25, 2017

People love propagating information and sharing opinions. You can see this online: every single day, four million new blogs are written, eighty million new Insta­gram photos are uploaded, and 616 million new tweets are released into cyberspace. It appears the opportunity to impart your knowledge to others is internally rewarding. A study conducted at Harvard University found that people were willing to forgo money so that their opinions would be broadcast to others. We are not talk­ing about well-crafted insights here. These were people’s opin­ions regarding mundane issues, like whether coffee is better than tea. A brain ­imaging scan showed that when people received the opportunity to communi­cate their opinions to others, their brain’s reward center was strongly activated. We experience a burst of pleasure when we share our thoughts, and this drives us to communicate. It is a useful feature of our brain, because it ensures that knowledge, experi­ence and ideas do not get buried with the person who first had them, and that as a society we benefit from the products of many minds.

Of course, in order for that to happen, merely sharing is not enough. We need to cause a reaction —what Steve Jobs aptly referred to as making a “dent in the universe.” Each time we share our opinions and knowledge, it is with the intention of impacting others. Here is the problem, though: we approach this task from inside our own heads. When attempting to create impact, we first and foremost consider ourselves. We reflect on what is persuasive to us, our state of mind, our desires and our goals. But if we want to affect the behaviors and beliefs of the person in front of us, we need to understand what goes on inside their head.

A study conducted at Harvard University found that people were willing to forgo money so that their opinions would be broadcast to others.

What determines whether you affect the way others think and behave or whether you are ignored? You may assume that numbers and statistics are what you need to change their point of view. As a scientist I certainly used to think so. Good data, coupled with logical thinking – that’s bound to change minds, right? So I set out to test whether information alters people’s beliefs. My colleagues and I conducted dozens of experiments to figure out what causes people to change their decisions, update their beliefs, and rewrite their memories. We peered into people’s brains, recorded bodily responses, and documented behavior.

Well, you can imagine my dismay when I discovered that all these experiments pointed to the fact that people are not driven by facts. While people do adore data, hard facts are not enough to alter beliefs, and they are practically useless for motivating action. Consider cli­mate change: there are mountains of data indicating that humans play a role in warming the globe, yet approximately 50 percent of the world’s population does not believe it.

The problem with an approach that prioritizes information is that it ignores the core of what makes us human; our motives, our fears, our hopes, our desires, our prior beliefs. In fact, the tsunami of information we are receiving today can make us even less sensitive to data because we’ve become accustomed to finding support for absolutely anything we want to believe with a simple click of the mouse. Instead, our desires are what shape our beliefs; our need for agency, our craving to be right, a longing to feel part of a group.

The problem with an approach that prioritizes information is that it ignores the core of what makes us human; our motives, our fears, our hopes, our desires, our prior beliefs.

So when it comes to getting your message across to others, consider if you can reframe the information you provide such that it taps into people’s basic motives. This does not mean altering the information itself, but rather presenting it in a different frame. For example, research suggests that framing advice to highlight how things can improve is more effective at changing behavior than warnings and threats, because it generates hope in people. Explaining how exercise improves health, for instance, is more likely to get people to the gym than warning them of obesity and related illnesses.

And when it comes to altering how you respond to information, being aware of our biases can help. When you find yourself dismissing information that does not quite fit your world view, take a pause and reevaluate. Could there be merit in this new information, and could you use it to expand your views? Science has shown that waiting just a couple of minutes before making judgments reduces the likelihood that they will be based solely on instinct.

Tali Sharot is an Associate Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, director of the Affective Brain Lab and the author most recently ofThe Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals About Our Power to Change Others(Henry Holt).

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/why-hard-facts-aren-t-enough-alter-our-beliefs-ncna803946

Why Hard Facts Aren't Enough to Alter Our Beliefs

If we want to affect the behaviors and beliefs of the person in front of us, we need to understand what goes on inside their head.

Tali Sharot
NBC
June 25, 2017

People love propagating information and sharing opinions. You can see this online: every single day, four million new blogs are written, eighty million new Insta­gram photos are uploaded, and 616 million new tweets are released into cyberspace. It appears the opportunity to impart your knowledge to others is internally rewarding. A study conducted at Harvard University found that people were willing to forgo money so that their opinions would be broadcast to others. We are not talk­ing about well-crafted insights here. These were people’s opin­ions regarding mundane issues, like whether coffee is better than tea. A brain ­imaging scan showed that when people received the opportunity to communi­cate their opinions to others, their brain’s reward center was strongly activated. We experience a burst of pleasure when we share our thoughts, and this drives us to communicate. It is a useful feature of our brain, because it ensures that knowledge, experi­ence and ideas do not get buried with the person who first had them, and that as a society we benefit from the products of many minds.

Of course, in order for that to happen, merely sharing is not enough. We need to cause a reaction —what Steve Jobs aptly referred to as making a “dent in the universe.” Each time we share our opinions and knowledge, it is with the intention of impacting others. Here is the problem, though: we approach this task from inside our own heads. When attempting to create impact, we first and foremost consider ourselves. We reflect on what is persuasive to us, our state of mind, our desires and our goals. But if we want to affect the behaviors and beliefs of the person in front of us, we need to understand what goes on inside their head.

A study conducted at Harvard University found that people were willing to forgo money so that their opinions would be broadcast to others.

A study conducted at Harvard University found that people were willing to forgo money so that their opinions would be broadcast to others.

What determines whether you affect the way others think and behave or whether you are ignored? You may assume that numbers and statistics are what you need to change their point of view. As a scientist I certainly used to think so. Good data, coupled with logical thinking – that’s bound to change minds, right? So I set out to test whether information alters people’s beliefs. My colleagues and I conducted dozens of experiments to figure out what causes people to change their decisions, update their beliefs, and rewrite their memories. We peered into people’s brains, recorded bodily responses, and documented behavior.

Well, you can imagine my dismay when I discovered that all these experiments pointed to the fact that people are not driven by facts. While people do adore data, hard facts are not enough to alter beliefs, and they are practically useless for motivating action. Consider cli­mate change: there are mountains of data indicating that humans play a role in warming the globe, yet approximately 50 percent of the world’s population does not believe it.

The problem with an approach that prioritizes information is that it ignores the core of what makes us human; our motives, our fears, our hopes, our desires, our prior beliefs. In fact, the tsunami of information we are receiving today can make us even less sensitive to data because we’ve become accustomed to finding support for absolutely anything we want to believe with a simple click of the mouse. Instead, our desires are what shape our beliefs; our need for agency, our craving to be right, a longing to feel part of a group.

The problem with an approach that prioritizes information is that it ignores the core of what makes us human; our motives, our fears, our hopes, our desires, our prior beliefs.

The problem with an approach that prioritizes information is that it ignores the core of what makes us human; our motives, our fears, our hopes, our desires, our prior beliefs.

So when it comes to getting your message across to others, consider if you can reframe the information you provide such that it taps into people’s basic motives. This does not mean altering the information itself, but rather presenting it in a different frame. For example, research suggests that framing advice to highlight how things can improve is more effective at changing behavior than warnings and threats, because it generates hope in people. Explaining how exercise improves health, for instance, is more likely to get people to the gym than warning them of obesity and related illnesses.

And when it comes to altering how you respond to information, being aware of our biases can help. When you find yourself dismissing information that does not quite fit your world view, take a pause and reevaluate. Could there be merit in this new information, and could you use it to expand your views? Science has shown that waiting just a couple of minutes before making judgments reduces the likelihood that they will be based solely on instinct.

Tali Sharot is an Associate Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, director of the Affective Brain Lab and the author most recently ofThe Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals About Our Power to Change Others(Henry Holt).

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/why-hard-facts-aren-t-enough-alter-our-beliefs-ncna803946

From Deprogramming to Thought Reform Consultation

Presentation by Carol Giambalvo; Discussants: Joseph Kelly, Patrick Ryan, Hana Whitfield

AFF Conference, Chicago, IL  November 1998

Deprogramming

Early on, according to what some "old-timers" have told us, groups such as the Children of God allowed parental access -- even visits to the group -- until a number of parents were successful at convincing their adult children to leave the group. Then the Groups began severely restricting parental access. 

In the mid-1970s parents began reporting their adult children's involvement in new religious (and some non-religious) groups that many call cults. They reported rapid personality changes and concerns that their loved ones were dropping out of school, shunning previous friends and family and devoting themselves full time to working for these strange new groups to which they pledged their total allegiance. Many parents concluded that their children had been brainwashed. 

Parents were doing what they could to rescue their children from what were perceived as dangerous situations. Through trial and error, the controversial process of deprogramming developed. In the 1970s it became the preferred means of rescuing a cult member, as to many it was perceived as the only way a cult member could leave a cult. As we witness today, this is a misperception as thousands of cult members walk away from cults annually. In fact, in very unofficial polls taken at conferences and AFF recovery workshops, the majority of people attending are walkaways. But at the time, families based their decisions on the prevailing information. And a good part of that decision was based on the fact that in some groups, members were zealously protected from parents, often having their names changed and moved from location to location. 

We must add here that not all deprogrammings were "rescue and hold" situations. There were some where the group member was free to leave at any time and there were some where ex-members sought voluntary deprogramming. 

But for our purpose today, and in our thinking, we will use the term deprogramming to mean an involuntary situation, exit counseling to mean a voluntary situation, and thought reform consultation to mean an entirely different approach and we will seek to explain the differences and the history. 

Media coverage -- even to some extent today -- hyped the drastic deprogramming approach and further spread the concept that it was parents' best, if not only, option. 

Deprogramming was controversial because it involved forcing a group member to listen to people relate information not available in the cults. Some state legislatures  passed conservatorship legislation to legalize the process, one of which was vetoed by the governor. Later the opposition to deprogramming and the recognition of the effectiveness of less restrictive alternatives grew. 

In deprogramming, group members were sometimes abducted from the street; although more commonly they were simply prevented from leaving their homes or a vacation cabin or motel. Deprogramming often succeeded in extricating the family member from the cult; nevertheless it failed more often than many realized and sometimes lawsuits were filed against parents and deprogrammers. In a few cases arrests and prosecution resulted. 

The actual process of a deprogramming, as we see it, differs a great deal from voluntary exit counseling. Some of the ideas about cults and brainwashing prevalent at the time contributed to that process. It was believed that the hold of the brainwashing over the cognitive processes of a cult member needed to be broken -- or "snapped" as some termed it -- by means that would shock or frighten the cultist into thinking again. For that reason in some cases cult leader's pictures were burned or there were highly confrontational interactions between deprogrammers and cultist. What was often sought was an emotional response to the information, the shock, the fear, and the confrontation. There are horror stories -- promoted most vehemently by the cults themselves -- about restraint, beatings, and even rape. And we have to admit that we have met former members who have related to us their deprogramming experience -- several of handcuffs, weapons wielded and sexual abuse. But thankfully, these are in the minority -- and in our minds, never justified. Nevertheless, deprogramming helped to free many individuals held captive to destructive cults at a time when other alternatives did not seem viable. 

Exit Counseling 

Gradually, not only did the understanding of the process of thought reform grow, but the voluntary approach of exit counseling proved to be effective -- and less risky psychologically as well as legally. A few individuals committed themselves to doing exit counseling and refused to do "involuntaries." 

Even within the exit counseling field, further branching off has occurred. Some tend to be technique-oriented and/or advance a particular religious perspective. Others are information oriented. They introduce themselves as individuals with important information. Although they may have a preference regarding how the group member chooses to respond to that information, they take pains to avoid manipulating the group member. 

One model for the process is described in the book Exit Counseling: A Family Intervention. The primary difference in exit counseling is its voluntary nature but there are other differences as well. Much more emphasis is placed on assessment, using a pre-intervention interview and information form that enables the exit counselor to determine the concerns specific to the family and the group member and to weed out interventions wanted by families for an agenda not appropriate to the undertaking of a serious intervention in an individual's life; for example, Johnny is about to marry someone in the group of a different race or culture or Johnny isn't attending xyz church any longer. These examples, by the way, are few and far between. For the majority of the time we see responsible families seeking help for legitimate concerns. We need, however, to be careful that we are not placing those concerns there or exaggerating them. There are some situations where an intervention is not possible under the present conditions, for example the family has no access to the group member. Some families are referred to knowledgeable mental health professionals for some work prior to planning an intervention. Emphasis is placed on family communications with the group member and education about the specific group, what it teaches, what thought reform is and how it works, and the recovery process. 

The process itself differs from deprogramming, in our opinion, because it is a much more respectful approach, it is non-confrontational, the exit counselors have to prove their credibility, there is much more interaction with the information and it seeks a primary cognitive rather than a primary emotional response. Very seldom is a visible "snapping" moment seen -- but a gradual increase in interest, interaction, and feedback with the information -- often accompanied with an increase of interest in and interaction with the family. 

Let me also say here that exit counselors realize that an intervention is only the first step. If the person decides to leave the group there is a long road to recovery, that can take leaps and bounds if the individual is afforded the opportunity to attend Wellspring, but they need much more emotional, psychological and cognitive support and if there is no system set up for that support, it may be unethical to do an intervention. 

Thought Reform Consultation 

In the 1980s many attempts were made by individuals doing interventions to get together to find ways to improve our profession and ourselves. But a difficulty arose in the definition of exit counseling and deprogramming. Some helping organizations at the time contributed to that confusion by maintaining a position that there were voluntary and involuntary exit counseling and voluntary and involuntary deprogramming. As a result, without the ability to establish a clear-cut definition, at those meetings people who called themselves exit counselors but were doing involuntary deprogramming could not be excluded and our work to establish ethical guidelines and a more professional approach spun its wheels, so to speak. A group of individuals who had committed themselves to voluntary interventions only began to meet regularly to share ideas and information and to develop Ethical Standards. We formed an organization of Thought Reform Consultants and eventually published our Ethical Standards. Those Ethical Standards were patterned after the Ethical Codes or Standards of the following organizations: 

• American Association for Marriage & Family Therapy
• National Association of Social Workers
• Standards for the Private Practice of Clinical Social Work
• American Psychiatric Association
• National Academy of Certified Clinical Mental Health Counselors

We worked diligently to combine those standards with some uniquely necessary to our profession. And we owe our gratitude to the following advisors for their professional support and encouragement: 

• Margaret Singer, Ph. D.
• Michael Langone, Ph. D.
• Herbert Rosedale, Esq.
• David Bardin, Esq. and Livia Bardin, M.S.W.
• Bill Goldberg, M.S.W. & Lorna Goldberg, M.S.W.
• Paul Martin, Ph. D.

Thought reform consultation involves much, much more family preparation. It is necessary for a 2-3 day, sometimes more, formal family preparation involving all members of the family team and all thought reform consultant team members. This formal preparation accomplishes the following: 

• The family team experiences how they work together under pressure and how the thought reform consultants work together
• Enables the thought reform consulting team to observe how the family works together under pressure and who may or may not be appropriate for major roles in the intervention
• Improves family communication with the group member
• Enables the family to understand the culture of the group, its teachings and how thought reform techniques impact the group member
• Prepares the family for how to communicate in the intervention and what practical arrangements should be made
• Emphasizes the recovery process and their responsibility in it
• Emphasizes the seriousness of an intervention and all its repercussions
• Facilitates the family in making a fully informed decision about doing an intervention

Thought reform consultation involves even more assessment, as you see -- and places much more responsibility on the family. They realize that a team is not just going to come in and perform some magical process and things will forever be okay. 

In both exit counseling and thought reform consulting, the purpose of the intervention is not to get someone out of a cult. While that may be a desired outcome, the purpose is to give the group member the information that enables them to make a fully informed choice.

Welcome to Intervention 101

Welcome!

Welcome to Intervention 101, and thank you for visiting us.

If you are reading this, chances are you or a loved one are in a "cult" crisis or may be in need of help.

Our approach is designed to help you effectively respond to the complexity of a loved one's cult involvement.

Free Initial Evaluation.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Joseph Kelly

Patrick Ryan

Philadelphia: Mental Health Issues in Cult-Related Interventions - A Report Mental-Health Issues in Cult-Related Interventions

Report by John Paul Lennon

Sunday, October 13, 2013, Sheraton Philadelphia University City Hotel, PA

In this special event, cult-intervention specialists and mental-health professionals discussed their roles in helping families and former members—in particular, how those roles work together and how they differ. The event was intended to be useful to former members of high-control groups or relationships, families concerned about an affected loved one, and helping professionals whose assistance families and former members sometimes seek.


Among the questions examined were the following:

• What assessment criteria should professionals consider to determine the appropriateness and feasibility of cult-related interventions?
• What criteria should professionals consider to determine the appropriateness of mental-health consultation and/or treatment?

Speakers included some of the leading exit counselors and mental-health professionals in this field:

• David Clark
• Steve K. D. Eichel, PhD, ABPP
• Lorna Goldberg, MSW, LCSW, PsyA
• William Goldberg, MSW, LCSW, PsyA
• Steven Hassan, MEd, LMHC, NCC
• Joseph Kelly
• Arnold Markowitz, LCSW
• Patrick Ryan
• Daniel Shaw, LCSW
• Joseph Szimhart

Information about these speakers is available on the ICSA website, www.icsahome.com


As ICSA President Steve Eichel noted in his closing remarks, this was a landmark occasion: the first time that exit counselors and mental-health professionals had sat down together and discussed their different approaches to helping cultic group members, former members, and families.

The meeting room was filled with about forty participants when the program opened just after 10:00 AM. A panel of intervention specialists—David Clark, Steven Hassan, Joseph Kelly, Patrick Ryan, and Joseph Szimhart—briefly presented its distinctive approaches. Several times panelists reiterated their shared belief that, rather than generalizing, it most important for professionals to be oriented to the particular individuals involved. There was agreement that the term "exit counseling" is hardly accurate because the field has moved away from intrusive actions—e.g., deprogramming, to what is now called thought-reform consultation. Some light bantering occurred as participants sought a more apt term, but without a consensus decision. What was agreed is that any intervention requires much background study by the professional, who also must prep the family in detail. To gather information on the cult-involved individual’s previous experiences and dynamics, most professionals have the family fill out detailed questionnaires.

The moderator, Lorna Goldberg, followed the interventionists’ presentations, gently and firmly leading them in dialog and later opening up the floor to the audience, whose members were eagerly waiting to contribute. The exchanges were lively and varied as participants sought answers to their pressing needs (they were loath to see lunchtime cut the discussion short).

After lunch, Steve Eichel, William Goldberg, Steven Hassan, Arnold Markowitz, and Daniel Shaw presented their mental-health perspectives. Of interest was the consensus among the various mental-health professionals regarding certain basic therapeutic goals: to open up and maintain communication between family members and the cult-involved person to strengthen those relationships; to be aware that cult involvement may exacerbate preexisting family tensions; that exited members should be assessed for personal safety and for postcult trauma, which requires specific therapeutic strategies.

The third part of the program was even more fascinating, as both sets of professionals formed a roundtable, and a general discussion ensued that revealed and fleshed out the complementarity between interventionists and therapists. The goal of professionals is no longer to get the member out of the cult, but rather to facilitate communication between the family and the cult-involved person. Interventionists agreed that exiting members generally need psychotherapy to help them process their leaving experience, continue healing, and consolidate their progress. Psychotherapists, for their part, acknowledged their limits regarding helping persons exit controversial groups. Moreover, they did not want to perform cult-exiting interventions of any kind, so as to protect their therapeutic relationship with the exiting or exited cult member.

The fourth stage of the program offered the audience an array of experts who were available to answer questions. Final remarks summarized the historic nature of this meeting and the satisfaction both sets of professionals felt with it. As the program drew to a close, members of the audience sought out experts for one-on-one help or more specific information. All seemed to benefit from the networking that such gatherings provide.

ICSA Today plans to publish presentations from this conference in a future issue.

John Paul Lennon, STL, MA, LPC, Board member, Regain Network (Religious Groups Awareness International Network). Mr. Lennon was a Legionary of Christ brother from 1961 to 1969 and an LC priest from 1969 to 1984. He served as a Diocesan priest from 1985 to 1989 and received an MA in Counseling from the Catholic University of America in 1989. For the past 10 years he has worked as a Child and Family Therapist in Arlington, Virginia. In 2008 he published a memoir, Our Father who art in bed, A Naive and Sentimental Dubliner in the Legion of Christ.

Patrick Ryan Profile from ICSA Today

Mary O’Connell
ICSA Today
Vol. 2, No. 3, 2011 (pg. 34)


Patrick Ryan has been a thought reform consultant since 1984. He is the founder and former head of TM-EX. He was the AFF News editor from 1995 until 1998. He has contributed to the Cult Observer and to the book Recovery from Cults. He co-authored Ethical Standards for Thought Reform Consultants. He has made many presentations at ICSA workshops and conferences. He designs and maintains the ICSA websites.

Patrick was awarded the ICSA Lifetime Achievement Award in Barcelona, 2011.

In his acceptance speech he said, “...as I learned more and became more active in this field, I realized that ICSA's emphasis on respect, dialogue, and exploration of diverse perspectives so as to HELP people was essential to the long-term survival of this broad and varied movement to counter the harm caused by cultic groups. That spirit of tolerance enables ICSA to bring into its broad tent people of very different religious, political, and philosophical perspectives.”

In conversation, he expands on this viewpoint when asked what advice he might give to people who are trying to help those involved in cults: “Groups are different from time to time and place to place. People are different from time to time and place to place. What matters most is how a person interacts with a group at a particular time, not merely being ‘anti-cult.’ We can become a source of information if we stay open.”

He encourages people who are considering exiting or in the process of exiting to “Find out why you want to leave. Why isn't the group working for you? What are your own particular reasons why you want to leave.”

Patrick was introduced and became a member of Transcendental Meditation when he was just 17. He had gone to write a story on TM and became
enthralled. Eventually, he attended and graduated from the Maharishi University with a degree in business. He remained fully involved for 10 years, not leaving until age 27.

Upon leaving he almost immediately began helping others exit. He became an exit counselor and has continued in that profession for more than 20 years.

In his work he emphasizes relationship building and conflict resolution. He finds it enjoyable to connect “with family – so much of what we do is to get families to understand the perspective their loved one has adopted, to fundamentally understand why the cult member loves what they love.”

In addition to his work as a counselor, Patrick has many other talents, as cited by Michael Langone at the Barcelona conference when he received his award. “He won a writing award for contributions to his high school newspaper. He ran a million dollar business. He has a passion for computers....He is a born entrepreneur....We salute him for the many years during which he has devoted his talents and time to ICSA and to helping others.”

The Fugitive Guru

Daily Beast
June 20, 2011
Ben Crair

Prakashanand Saraswati led one of the top Hindu temples in the United States until a jury convicted him of molesting children and he took off for Mexico.

Before the guru, Prakashanand Saraswati, vanished in March-before a jury convicted him of sexual abuse; before he slipped across the border into Mexico overnight-he led the premier Hindu temple in Texas and, perhaps, the whole United States. Barsana Dham sat like the Taj Mahal in the hillsides south of Austin, a familiar sight to customers of the famous Salt Lick Bar-B-Que down the road. The Hindus there kept strictly vegetarian, but there was never any tension with the carnivores next door. "They were very gentle and nice people," says Salt Lick employee Tana Kent.

Religious compounds in rural Texas had a bad name after the Waco siege in 1993, but Barsana Dham opened itself to the outside world. The ashram offered yoga classes, concerts, and public tours; participated in interfaith circles; sheltered refugees after Hurricane Katrina; and hosted the mayor of Austin on special occasions. When PBS made its 2004 Many Voices documentary project about American congregations, producers chose Barsana Dham as their exemplar of the Hindu faith.

Barsana Dham was "very much an ecumenical mainstream Hindu organization," says Robert King, a former professor of Asian studies and dean at the University of Texas. And yet there was Saraswati, ordered to trade in the saffron robes for an orange jumpsuit. The charges were serious-20 counts of indecency with a child-but "Swami Ji," as Saraswati was known to his followers, seemed untroubled in the courtroom. Large and elderly, he parked himself in a recliner and kicked off his shoes, as though watching the afternoon soaps. (The judge had permitted him the chair due to his bad back.) Occasionally, he took a nap or picked his nose.

"He didn't really seem to be that concerned about the trial," says Hays County prosecutor Cathy Compton. It may have been because Saraswati was not used to answering to a higher authority. At Barsana Dham, Saraswati was the highest authority, a "Divine personality" by his own description. "On your own, you are helpless," Saraswati told his followers. "You need a Divine help, and only a Divine personality can give you a Divine help." He certainly looked the part, his long gray hair and beard like clouds around a mountaintop. As one follower explained the relationship to PBS: "He takes care of you when you surrender to him."

It is not difficult to imagine how such reverence might invite abuse. Still, Saraswati had been preaching in the U.S. for nearly 30 years when, in 2008, three women accused him of molesting them as children. Each alleged that Saraswati had kissed, groped, and locked them in his room. The statute of limitations had expired for one of the women, Kate Tonnessen, but her younger sister, Vesla, and a third woman named Shyama Rose pushed ahead with the charges. (All three women came forward publicly with their identities after the trial.)

Saraswati's lawyers successfully delayed the trial for three years, arguing that he was infirm and unfit to show up in court. In the meantime, however, several adult female devotees reflected on their own experiences and arrived at the conclusion Barsana Dham had worked so hard to avoid. Says Karen Jonson, a former devotee of 17 years: "I came to the conclusion that I was in a cult."

Saraswati called his central teaching "divine love-consciousness," a constant awareness of God maintained through chanting and meditation. Born in 1929, he had learned it in India after meeting his own spiritual guru, Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj-a man whose own allegedly checkered past would set in motion a process that ended in Saraswati's conviction.

"This divine-love-consciousness grows in the heart of the disciple on the basis of his dedication and service to his Spiritual Master," Saraswati preached. There was nothing inherently suspect about the "dedication" Saraswati demanded. Hinduism directs its followers to spiritual teachers, who, according to traditional belief, are a necessary connection to God. "Guru are worshiped in a manner barely distinguishable from divine worship," Arthur Koestler observed in The Lotus and the Robot. "It is therefore unimaginable to question the [guru's] character or to disobey his whims. … He represents the will of God and God himself."

Hinduism is, however, an enormous religion without any central authority to say who or what exactly a guru is. Consequently, the saffron robes-meant to signify, among other things, the guru's chastity-have sometimes made a fine disguise for scoundrels. "By holding gurus as perfect and thus beyond ordinary explanations, their presumed specialness can be used to justify anything," Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad write in The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power.

After traveling the world to spread his message, Saraswati established the International Society of Divine Love in the U.S. in 1981. "We believed that he descended from the divine abodes onto this earth," explains Joe Kelly, a cult-exit counselor who was an ISDL devotee from 1983 until 1988. Saraswati found an audience, in particular, with disgruntled Western practitioners of Transcendental Meditation, the '60s movement of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Ethical Standards for Thought Reform Consultants

A group of thought reform consultants, popularly known as exit counselors, propose detailed ethical standards to guide this new profession. In addition to a preamble, these standards include sections on the responsibility of consultants toward professionalism, toward clients, and toward the public. The second section outlines standards pertaining to the consulting relationship, confidentiality and records, and financial matters. The third section is divided into subsections on educational programs and advertising and presentation to the public.

Editor's Preface (Michael D. Langone, Editor of the Cultic Studies Journal)
In the mid-1970s increasing numbers of parents began to consult mental health professionals and clergy about their adult children=s involvements in new religious groups that many called cults. Parents reported that formerly well-adjusted and engaged young adults (many were college students) changed radically, sometimes over a short period of time. These young adults typically dropped out of school, shunned their families and friends, and devoted themselves full time to working for these strange new groups to which they had pledged their total allegiance. Many parents concluded that their children had undergone a type of brainwashing.

Unfortunately for these parents, few helping professionals took their concerns seriously. Most assumed that these parents were overprotective or that their children were merely "going through a phase." But a handful of professionals, including Dr. John Clark on the East Coast and Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer on the West Coast, listened to the parents and began to speak out publicly. Soon, small and loosely organized groups of parents began to form in different parts of the country.

Several of these groups joined to form the Citizens Freedom Foundation (CFF), later renamed the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). CAN became the leading grassroots organization for this movement. One informal group in Massachusetts gave birth, so to speak, to the American Family Foundation (AFF), which has become the leading professional organization concerned with cults and psychological manipulation. Both AFF and CFF/CAN were chartered in 1979.

While these groups were developing, parents were doing what they could to rescue their children and sometimes other family members from what were perceived as dangerous situations. Through trial and error, the controversial process of deprogramming developed. In the 1970s, for many parents, deprogramming became the preferred means of rescuing a cult member. Although initially the term deprogramming encompassed interventions that were voluntary (the cult member was free to leave at any time) and involuntary (restraint was used for at least part of the time), in time the term came to refer primarily to involuntary interventions. Much confusion occurs today when people mistakenly use deprogramming in its original sense because they unintentionally give the impression that they are talking about involuntary interventions when in fact they may be referring to voluntary interventions.

Even though incorrect, the widespread belief among many parents that (involuntary) deprogramming was their best, if not their only option was not as unreasonable at that time as it seems today. This belief was so widely held and so supported by media accounts that several state legislatures considered conservatorship legislation, which would have enabled the parents of a cult member to legally extricate him or her for psychiatric evaluation. Such legislation was tantamount to a legalization of deprogramming. Though arousing passionate opposition, this legislation garnered significant support. In New York state, for example, the legislature twice passed the legislation, only to have it vetoed by the governor. Ultimately, however, the opposition to deprogramming and the growing recognition of the effectiveness of less restrictive alternatives ended all legislative efforts for conservatorship bills.


Deprogramming was controversial because it involved forcing a cult member to listen to people relate information not available in the cults.

Cult members were sometimes abducted from the street; although more commonly they were simply prevented from leaving their homes, a vacation cabin, a motel room, or whatever location was chosen for the deprogramming process. Deprogrammings often succeeded in extricating the family member from the cult; one study found a success rate of 63%. Nevertheless, deprogrammings failed more often than many persons realized; and sometimes lawsuits were filed against parents and deprogrammers.

Deprogrammings were arranged through informal, quasi-underground means. Much secrecy surrounded the process for many years. Mental health professionals were almost always "out of the loop" -- in part because most did not want to become involved for ethical and legal reasons and in part because their expertise was to a large extent irrelevant to the deprogramming itself. The main role of the mental health professional was to help families cope with their alarm about a family member in a cult and to help former cult members and their families cope with the many problems that accompanied reentry into mainstream society. However, sometimes mental health professionals, clergy persons, or former cult members were able to persuade those still in a cult to talk voluntarily about their cult involvements. Sometimes these conversations resulted in a decision to leave the cult.

Because of these successes, the legal risks entailed in deprogramming, and the ethical discomfort many parents and deprogrammers felt, non-coercive means of helping cult members reevaluate their cult affiliations began to get more attention. By the mid-1980s it had become clear to many persons that what had come to be called exit counseling was at least as effective as deprogramming and certainly was much less risky--psychologically as well as legally. A few individuals committed themselves to doing exit counseling and refused to do "involuntaries."

Even within the exit counseling field, further branching off has occurred. Some tend to be technique oriented and/or advance a particular religious perspective. Others are information oriented. They introduce themselves as individuals with important information. Although they may have a preference regarding how the cult member chooses to respond to that information, they take pains to avoid manipulating the cult member.

During the past few years, some exit counselors, who prefer to be known as thought reform consultants, have been trying to professionalize their field by establishing ethical and competency criteria. Although this process of professionalization continues, the following set of ethical standards developed by a group of exit counselors demonstrates how much this field has developed during the past 20 years.

RATIONALE
History of cult interventions,deprogramming, exit counseling

Thought reform includes the use of highly manipulative methods and processes such as undue social and psychological influence, behavioral modification techniques, disguised hypnosis and trance induction, and other physiological and psychological influence techniques. These techniques are used in a coordinated and systematic way without the informed consent of an individual. Thought reform is commonly associated with cults, but it can occur in other contexts. For our purposes here, cult refers to groups that tend to be deceptive, psychologically and/or physically abusive, and exploitatively manipulative.

Many different approaches have been applied to the problem of freeing people from the hold of thought reform programs. Early in the history of the problem, some concerned families resorted to methods which we in the 1990’s, consider unethical. Deprogramming was the process of countering the cults’ programming; the process often meant taking adult children off the street or detaining them until they listened to a detailed critique of the cultic group.

Later, as the techniques and process evolved, the term exit counseling was adopted, indicating a voluntary respectful approach. However, there was no universal consensus among those in the field about ethical criteria. This created some problems. First, anyone could declare him- or herself as an exit counselor. Second, the terms exit counseling and deprogramming were often confused and used interchangeably. The labels did not indicate what the individuals were doing or their competency, ethics, or approach. 

The ethical standards here have been developed and subscribed to by approximately twelve consultants. We prefer the term thought reform consultant to describe our profession.

PREAMBLE

Consultation refers to a voluntary relationship between a professional helper and help-needing individual, family, group, or social unit in which the consultant is providing information that enables client(s) to more clearly define and solve the problem(s) for which they sought consultation.

Thought reform consultation is the presentation of information concerning the principles and practical applications of thought reform. This presentation is done in a manner that is legal and conforms to the following ethical standards.

The consultation involves a respectful dialogue in an open environment, supplemented by educational materials, such as pertinent literature, generic source materials, informational multi-media presentations, and personal testimonies.

A Thought Reform Consultant is an individual who conducts these consultations and voluntarily agrees to abide by these ethical standards.
The existence of ethical standards also stimulates consultants to show greater concern for their own professional functioning and for the conduct of fellow professionals, such as educators, counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, clergy, and others in the helping professions.

As an ethical code, this document establishes principles that define the ethical behavior of those who have subscribed to it.

SECTION I.

RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSULTANTS TOWARD PROFESSIONALISM

Each individual subscribing consultant influences the development of the profession through continuous efforts to improve professional practices, teaching, services, and research. Professional growth continues throughout the consultant’s career and is exemplified by the development of a set of criteria that defines why and how a consultant functions in the helping relationship.

To ensure competent service, subscribing consultants recognize the need for continued sharing of information.

Subscribing consultants will obtain a minimum amount of continuing education credits agreed upon by the majority of consultants subscribing to these standards.

Each subscribing consultant has an obligation to continued professional growth, including active participation in the meetings of fellow consultants as well as participation in research and public education programs.

Subscribing consultants are encouraged to devote a portion of their time to related work for which there is little or no financial return.

SECTION II.

RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSULTANTS TOWARD CLIENTS

This section refers to practices and procedures of individual and/or group consulting relationships.

The term "client" herein is defined as: the person(s) coming to a consultant for guidance or information in order to help an individual involved in a cultic relationship. If the client decides to pursue an intervention aimed at helping the involved person reevaluate his or her commitment to the group practicing thought reform, the involved person becomes the primary "client" when the intervention begins.

A. General Standards for the Consulting Relationship

1. The subscribing consultant’s primary obligation is to respect the integrity and promote the welfare of the client(s), whether the client(s) is (are) assisted individually or in a group relationship.
2. When working with clients, a subscribing consultant avoids discrimination due to race, religion, sex, political affiliation, social or economic status, or choice of lifestyle.
3. When a subscribing consultant cannot offer service for any reason, he or she will make appropriate referrals, when possible.
4. A subscribing consultant will not use his or her consulting relationship for personal needs or to further religious, political, or business interests.
5. A subscribing consultant will not employ methods or techniques such as neuro-linguistics programming, hypnosis or Ericksonian hypnosis or other techniques similar to those employed by cult groups without fully informed consent of the client.
6. Subscribing consultants recognize their boundaries of competence and provide only those services for which they are qualified by training or experience. Consultants should only accept those cases for which they are qualified.
7. The consulting relationship must be one in which client self-direction is encouraged and cultivated. The subscribing consultant must maintain this role consistently and not become a decision-maker for the client or create within the client a future dependency on the consultant.
8. The Human Services field is becoming increasingly complex and specialized. Few thought reform consultants are able to deal with every cult problem, and many potential clients have difficulty determining the competence of thought reform consultants. Selecting one is difficult because of the lack of knowledge about pertinent qualifications. In some cases, stress itself may impair judgment. Subscribing consultants should help potential clients make informed evaluations of consultants they are considering.
9. The subscribing consultant must inform the client of the purposes, goals, rules of procedure, and limitations that may affect the relationship at or before the time the consulting relationship is begun.
10. Before an intervention can be initiated, subscribing consultants and client(s) must agree on the definition of the problem, the goals of the intervention, and the range of possible consequences.
11. A subscribing consultant must inform the concerned party(ies) that should a client be prevented from leaving the site of the consultation or physically restrained in any manner (unless legally sanctioned permission has been obtained); the consultant will terminate the consultation immediately.
12. After obtaining the client’s permission (if confidentiality is placed at risk), a subscribing consultant may choose to consult with any other professionally competent person about a client or aspects of the situation. If the client refuses to allow consultant to seek outside consultation when the consultant deems such consultation necessary, the consultant should consider terminating with that client.
13. When the subscribing consultant is engaged in individual or group consulting (e.g., group sessions with persons who have walked away from cultic relationships with individuals and/or groups), the consultant should be cognizant of mental health resources available.
14. Ethical behavior among professional associates, including consultants subscribing to these ethical standards and those not subscribing, must be expected at all times. When information is possessed that raises doubt as to the ethical behavior of professional colleagues, whether subscribing consultants or peer consultants, the member should take action to attempt to rectify such a condition. Such action shall use the procedures established by these ethical standards.
15. The subscribing consultant must have a high degree of self-awareness of his or her own values, knowledge, skills, limitations, and needs in entering a helping relationship that involves decision-making capacity and critical thinking skills, and that the focus of the relationship should be on the issues to be resolved and not on the person(s) presenting the problem.
16. Dual relationships with clients that might impair the consultant’s objectivity and professional judgment (e.g., with close friends or relatives) should be avoided and/or the consulting relationship terminated through referral to another competent professional.
17. Subscribing consultants do not condone or engage in sexual harassment, which is defined as deliberate or repeated comments, gestures, or physical contacts of a sexual nature.
18. The subscribing consultant will avoid any type of sexual contact with clients. Sexual relationships with clients are unethical and are forbidden.
19. When the subscribing consultant concludes that he or she cannot be of professional assistance to the client, the consultant must terminate the relationship.
20. A subscribing consultant has an obligation to withdraw from a consulting relationship if it is believed that employment will result in violation of the Ethical Standards.
21. If subscribing consultants encounter situations in which appropriate ethical behavior is not clear, they should seek the advice of the Ethics Committee. 

B.  Confidentiality and Record

1. Records of the consulting relationship, including interview notes, family intake information, correspondence, tape recordings, electronic data storage, and other documents are to be considered confidential information. Revelation to others of such material must occur only upon the expressed written consent of the client.
2. Use of data derived from a consulting relationship for purposes of consultant training or research shall be confined to content that can be disguised to protect the identity of the subject client unless written permission of the client is obtained.

C. Financial matters

1. A subscribing consultant recognizes the importance of clear understandings on financial matters with clients. Arrangements for payments are settled at the beginning of the consultation relationship. Each consultant will provide a written and dated schedule of fees to potential clients.
2. In establishing fees for professional services, subscribing consultants must consider the financial status of clients and family. In the event that the established fee structure is inappropriate for a client, consultants are encouraged to assist families in finding appropriate and available services at an acceptable cost.
3. A subscribing consultant will neither offer nor accept payment for referrals, and will actively seek all significant information from the source of referral (with the permission of the client).

SECTION III.

Responsibility Toward the Public

A. Educational Programs

1. Products or services provided by the subscribing consultant in interventions, public lectures, demonstrations, written articles, radio or television programs, or other types of media must meet the criteria cited in these standards.
2. When subscribing consultants provide information to the public or to subordinates, peers, or colleagues, they have a responsibility to ensure that case-related information is sufficiently disguised to protect confidentiality and that other information is as unbiased and factual as possible.

B. Advertising and Presentation to the Public

1. A subscribing consultant shall not, on his or her own behalf or on behalf of a partner or associate or any other thought reform consultant subscribing to these ethical standards, use or participate in the use of any form of paid public advertising of services which: a. Inappropriately uses statistical data or other information based on past performance or prediction of future success; b. Contains a testimonial about or endorsement of a thought reform consultant; c. Is intended or is likely to attract clients by use of self-praise.
2. The subscribing consultant neither claims nor implies professional qualifications exceeding those possessed and is responsible for correcting any misrepresentations of these qualifications by others.
3. Subscribing consultants may not compensate another person for recommending him or her, or to encourage future recommendations. Advertisements and public communications, whether in directories, announcement cards, newspapers or on radio to television, should be formulated to convey information that is necessary to make an appropriate selection. Self-praising should be avoided.
4. In advertising services as a private consultant, the subscribing consultant must advertise the services in a manner that accurately informs the public of professional services, expense, and available techniques of consulting.
5. The subscribing consultant may list the following: highest relevant degree, type and level of certification and/or license, address, telephone number, and type and/or description of services. Such information must not contain false, inaccurate, misleading, partial, out-of-context, or deceptive material or statements.
6. Subscribing consultants do not present their affiliation with any organization in such a way that would imply inaccurate sponsorship or certification by that organization.
7. A subscribing consultant shall not knowingly make a representation about his or her ability, background, or experience, or that of a partner or associate, or about the fee or any other aspect of a proposed professional engagement, that is false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive, and that might reasonably be expected to induce reliance by a member of the public.
8. Without limitation, a false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive statement or claim in this context includes a statement or claim which: 

a. Contains a material misrepresentation of fact;

b. Omits any material fact that is necessary to make the statement, in light of all circumstances, from being misleading;
c. Is intended or is likely to create an unqualified expectation;
d. Relates to professional fees other than:

1. a statement of the fee for an initial consultation; a statement of the fee charged for a specific service and any refund policy;
2. a statement of the range of fees for specifically described services, provided there is a reasonable disclosure of relevant variables and considerations so that the statement is not likely to be misunderstood;
3. a statement of specified hourly or daily rates provided the statement makes clear that the total charge will vary according to the number of hours or days devoted to the matter.

From "Ethical Standards for Thought Reform Consultants" by Carol Giambalvo, Joseph Kelly, Patrick Ryan, & Madeleine Landau Tobias, in Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 13, No.1, 1996.

Ethical Codes or Standards of the following organizations:

American Association for Marriage; Family Therapy, National Association of Social Workers, Standards for the Private Practice of Clinical Social Work,American Psychiatric Association, National Academy of Certified Clinical Mental Health Counselors.

Approved 11/94 Revised 11/95  ATRC All rights reserved.