Katie Holmes, Tom Cruise, and the Cult of Scientology

I've heard a dozen different versions of that urban legend about Hubbard and (insert your favorite sci-fi author here). I wouldn't put it past him to have made just such a crack at some point, but that doesn't mean it's true, or that none of the research Hubbard did ever amounted to anything.

I find all the stories on sites like this troubling, and some of the sales pressure as well. However-

Every condemnation that suggests that Scientology is a lie, that it doesn't accomplish anything, or do any good in the world is absolute crap. People really do go Clear, they really do exteriorize (out-of-body), they really do remember past lives. It doesn't even remotely involve hypnotism, brainwashing or coercion to do this. And people don't need to get onto the OT Levels before this happens. It's happened to some people after as little as a half-hour of auditing in some public Sunday service. I've experienced these things myself. I've also audited others and watched them recover from lifelong chronic pains and depressions. I've seen shy, withdrawn people turn everything around and become happy, energetic and outgoing. This is my firsthand experience, not something I was told "might happen on the OT Levels".

As I said a different way above, I judge things carefully on their merits, and don't take people at their word without checking things out for myself. That's how I found Scientology in the first place. I didn't take people's word that there is no such thing as the spirit, that we only live once, and that there's just nothing we can do about any of it. I kept looking.

It's really a shame if incidents like these and "tales of the bizarre OT Levels" and sales pressure prevents people from taking an actual look at the technology and philosophy of Scientology. It's a dilemma I've have to live with for a long time, because this stuff works. And it works wonders when correctly applied.

I'm just curious, how much have you been charged so far to achieve these things?

I've had the personality test done on me too. I grew up in Hollywood and was talked into trying it at their center on Hollywood Blvd. ( I don't think they have that one anymore ) I scored about as low as you can go.

I guess they could tell I was just a broke teenager though because not one person tried to keep me from leaving. They also didn't seem very friendly, more bored and annoyed. I've always wondered if the 'interview' or whatever it was called would have gone differently if I'd been dressed better.

actually Hubbard made that statement many times in his life ...most notably during a sci-fi convention before Scientology was created when he stated" Why write for a penny a word when you could start a religion and make millions" ...many friends of his also contribute this quote to him.

Hubbard never did research he invented ...much like his degree's from George Washington University ( he dropped out ) and Princeton University ( he never attended ) also his brilliant military career which never was.

I find all the stories on sites like this troubling, and some of the sales pressure as well. However-



Auditing lol....Scientifically the E meter does exactly nothing just as when it was invented by a chiroprator to relieve pain....hubbard borrowed it and improved on the design but it still does exactly the same thing....nada. How much do these shiny happy people shell out to Scientology to be shiny happy people....and why is it that everyone ...and I mean everyone does so poorly on the initial test that they give for free?

My personal belief is that stuff like this works for some because of the placebo effect. People have the innate ability to overcome their problems but have too little faith in their own abilities to accept that. Something like Scientology "tech" acts as an enabler to allow them to overcome that lack of self belief but in reality has really nothing to do with anything beyond acting as the magic sugar pill. Past lives, reincarnation, heaven, angels, spirits, and all the other various and sundry mythology surrounding religions are things people believe in because they want to, not because there's any quantitative reason to believe. These things make life seem more interesting and magical and make people feel that they're part of something bigger and more mysterious than their own mundane existence. At one level it's harmless and can be empowering, but at another, when money, power, and influence become involved, and when rationalism is abandoned in favor of myth, it can be incredibly harmful.

Ananda, your comments suggest that your mind is made up and you are no longer looking at these thing with a critical eye. I hope that's not the case. I also hope you can understand that when someone claims to have done the research and as a result are now convinced that their body is infested with disembodied alien spirits or that they can communicate with other planets, or any other outlandish claim, that it's hard for people to believe that your research was anything more than deciding to discard science and reason in favor of something more romantic. Of course I feel the same way about any religion, not just Scientology. People believe what they want to believe without any truly rational reasoning involved. If you stick with it, here's hoping you get "clear" before you're $100,000 poorer.

Again, I think Dianetics probably has alot of truths to it. Our minds are cluttered and clouded by past experiences, and the negative emotions from such are often strong, even if running in the background. Our thinking is distracted by such things. Very few of us ever live "in the moment" completely and "clearly".

I read the entire book, and can see the benefit in releasing past "roadblocks" to our thinking. I can see how becoming "clear" might make one think and react so much faster and logically. I know my mind is cluttered with hundreds of worries, distractions, regrets, etc. The attraction of releasing those (not forgetting but not letting them interfere with my thinking) is great indeed.

Of course I'm far too lazy to really give the whole thing a fair shot and see if it works, but the thought behind it, while nothing really new, is nonetheless intriguing, much as many eastern religions and philosphies are.

And I'm pretty convinced that L. Ron Hubbard is looking down and laughing his ass off at what his relatively simply ideas have spawned.

BTW-The Church of Scientology has sent me at least 2 flyers a week for the past 20 years!!!!! No matter where I move, they find me and continue to send me literature that i toss, unopened, into the nearest trashcan.

LOL, I claimed nothing of the sort. I think you pulled those ideas off of the critic sites. I only stated what I have actually experienced.

Just a note on the merit system--you have to balance demerits against accomplishments. Since the days when Israel was one of dozens of desert tribes, the revelation "I am the one true Gawd" has been followed up with "Death to the unbelievers!" and it's still the case with monotheism today. The Democracy, Liberalism and whatnot we see today arose largely as a reaction against the pressures of monolithic monotheism when the Renaissance rose out of the Dark Ages. The most common society/government resulting from monotheism, from OT Judaism up to present day, is Empire. As James Breasted put it, "monotheism is but imperialism in religion."

The only reason to suspect Scientology might ever do a fraction of this kind of damage is the money they're amassing. We can only hope it finds it's way into church-leaders' pockets rather than influencing the rest of the world.

You haven't, but these are the claims of Scientology.

I agree that in some cases religion becomes a Romantic fantasy for the believer, but most religions properly practiced offer a path out of fantasy, toward a deeper immersion in the human condition, life on earth, and the cosmos as a whole. You've cited Joseph Campbell in other threads; he repeated ad nauseum that human stories, particularly those with religious significance, are metaphor (or "medafer" in his Yankee drawl ). They are signposts indicating that which cannot be expressed more directly, the aspects of human life which must be observed and lived, rather than told.

"When rationalism is abandoned in favor of myth, it can be incredibly harmful," true, but abandoning myth in favor of rationalism can cause equal harm (see USSR & China under Mao). Try approaching religion as an engineering problem, with an eye toward how it works, rather than whether or not it's "true."

And in the interest of disclosure: go Dharma, rah rah rah

My favorite thing about Campbell was his theory that artists, writers, and other creative types tend to fill the need for a mythology through the act of creation... that it supplants the need to adopt a pre-existing mythos inherited from their community or peers. That resonates with me greatly.

For two years, in high school, I was a part-time salesman at Best Buy. I was very conscientious of my customers -- I never wanted to neglect people or leave them unsatisfied. I worked very hard to multitask their needs.

One day a very polite and pleasant woman came in and asked for some help with a karaoke machine. I took her to the appropriate aisle, assessed her needs, and showed her what she needed. The machine was a gift, for her daughter, who was homeschooled after the parents had some disagreement with the school the daughter was attending.

It was at this point that the mother began talking about "learning gradients," explaining with frustration how a sixth-grade level book was being handed to third graders.

And from there she began talking about the mind. And about Dianetics. At that point I had heard about Scientology and Dianetics on television, but I didn't have much concrete information.

I talked to her for 45 minutes -- a breach I never would have permitted under any circumstance. We were busy, customers were in need of help, but my curiosity did not permit me to end the conversation.

Make no mistake, those who participate in this religion are very, very convinced and often very, very convincing.

But I also think that the proof is in the pudding.

I read about a Tampa woman who was in an auto-accident and who emerged from her car looking for help. She was taken to a hospital, but Scientologists showed up and convinced her to go with them. They infused her body with all sorts of minerals and such that only worsened her condition. Finally, after two weeks, she died of dehydration after being comatose for an extended period. In their care, according to their methods of help. They refused to let her be with a doctor. I know this was in some major Tampa newspapers at the time.

This is not something that's for me.

That's very fascinating indeed -- and explains many personalities.

No, I believe these are the claims of critics of the Church, purported to have been taken out of stolen OT Levels materials. As I have not seen the actual materials, I can't state what they really contain. The Church makes no such claims itself in any published materials, nor does it expect followers to believe anything unexamined. As for the story of Xenu, it seems rather farfetched to me too. But having run across plenty of outlandish things and also horribly mundane and silly things in my mind and in those of people I've audited, I don't automatically discount it because it sounds so strange.

I'm afraid the rules of rational inquiry go both ways, Chip. If you observe some phenomena, you've observed it, and if your aim is to discover what is really going on, you can't just deny that you've observed it. I've directly seen that a great many people have benefited from what they have learned in Scientology. I've heard secondhand accounts of terrible times and hardship experienced by those who joined the Sea Org and upper management. I've heard secondhand accounts of people who described recieving "auditing" that was so grossly misapplied that I'm not surprised they were pissed.

I happen to lament the costs of training and auditing, but I also know the amount of effort that goes into delivering those services, and most local organizations are as busy as a swarming beehive getting them delivered and just barely getting enough funds to keep the doors open.

And to Talen: Anyone who'd studied auditing would know that OF COURSE an E-meter does nothing to the preclear. It is NOT a biofeedback device. Its whole purpose is to detect the current mental state of the preclear and the movement of thoughts as they change. Some auditing techniques make use of this device, others don't. It really is nothing more than a very sensitive meter for measuring electrical resistance.

And to Hiro: What got me into this thread was the perceived threat you were promoting hatred against Scientologists. In your latest reply you seem to be suggesting that people like me should be "de-brainwashed". Once again this is a threat that I take very seriously. When I first started taking a class in my local church years ago, I happened to mention that to a school counselor. She proceeded to get my parents in touch with the old Cult Awareness Network. CAN then filled my parents' heads with many of the same old stories these critic sites have posted today. As you might imagine, I had a rather big scene on my hands. But when CAN suggested referring my case to a "deprogrammer", that made it clear to both me and my parents where the biggest threat was coming from.

I'd laugh at the irony that the very same group that was telling tales about coercion and hardship would then turn around and suggest that I be kidnapped, imprisoned, drugged, subjected to physical and mental abuse, all to "deprogram" this idea I had that I'd found something I could do some good in the world with. I'd laugh if I hadn't been that close to having it happen to me.

So be careful what you wish on people.

Gee, isn't playing the victim fun? Anyone can do it.

Hey..I'm all for folks following whatever religion they wish. It's their lives. As long as they aren't breaking any laws it's all well and good.

I told of my little experience with them, and told it truthfully. Other people's experience may vary greatly from mine, but by definition it is very cultish, as is the Mormon Church, Jehovah Wintesses and many other religeous organizations.

Even though I'm Agnostic, I have no problems with people believing in their own religions as long as it makes them a better person and doesn't impede on other people. And thus, I didn't have any problems with Scientology until I read an interview between Tom Cruise and the German magazine, Spiegel. Here is the excerpt that kicked up my doubt flag:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

SPIEGEL: Do you see it as your job to recruit new followers for Scientology?

Cruise: I'm a helper. For instance, I myself have helped hundreds of people get off drugs. In Scientology, we have the only successful drug rehabilitation program in the world. It's called Narconon.

SPIEGEL: That's not correct. Yours is never mentioned among the recognized detox programs. Independent experts warn against it because it is rooted in pseudo science.

Cruise: You don't understand what I am saying. It's a statistically proven fact that there is only one successful drug rehabilitation program in the world. Period.

SPIEGEL: With all due respect, we doubt that.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

So I researched Scientology's Narconon, and pretty much it says drugs will stay in the body indefinately, and as a result, will cause the user to perpetually crave the drug. The patient has to quit the drug cold-turkey, take dangerous levels of vitamins which are supposed to release the impurities into your circulation, then excercise and sauna vigorously to sweat the drugs out, which is indicative by a colored ooze discharge.

It was little surprise to me that Narconon was developed by someone with no formal medical training, and of course Narconon counselors don't require any either. I don't have a problem with religion, but I do have a problem with religion indoctrinating unsound, unproven, dangerous medical claims. Scientologists have been encouraged to develop an unquestioning trust of Hubbard's theories, which are treated as infallible. Worse still, as those theories are officially part of the "sacred scriptures" of the Church of Scientology, they are not subject to the normal scientific process and, by Hubbard's express orders, they cannot be modified even if new medical evidence shows them to be untrue or unsafe.

Mormons are no more cultish than any other Christian denomination (except to other Christian denominations).

Mormon missionaries tend to be a little off-putting, at least in my mind, because they're so squeaky clean and earnest (on the job, at least) that they don't quite seem like real human beings. But they're unflappably nice about it, and there's nothing really in Mormon doctrine or practice to suggest that they're cultish in any dangerous sense.

Mostly harmless, I'd say.

Actually, I have used religioustolerance.org in many occasions and have found their information on all religions to be accurate (or as accurate as can be) and balanced. Granted it provides a synopsis of world religions and issues, and not an entire all-there-is-to-know-about-world-religion source.

Many Christian Churches tell you that you will go to hell if you don’t pay your Tithing. Do you have to pay No. They can’t MAKE you do any thing, you can always leave the church and join a different one. If you feel that there request is wrong then don’t pay it and don’t go to them any more. If I feel it is ok and I do pay it what business of yours is it?



First you should know that as a Pagan I have used that site more then once with Christian Right people and they come back and tell me it’s owned by Satanist, Atheist, Pagans, or what ever as proof it’s evil and wrong. It is a very well balanced site.

What makes the Jews so special? Really they are just people ok a FEW died from the Nazi camps (most that died were Gays and Slovaks not Jews). Hay how many Pagan Native Americans Died because they were not good Christian White people? Oh but they are treated as nothing in the US. People who are persecuted are people who are persecuted. Does not mater if you are Gassed, Burned at a Stake, or given small pox contaminated blankets. It even does not mater if you are just called names. They are all just a wrong way to treat ANY ONE! Be respectful. I would hope LL would remove you for your hateful remarks about a religion that maybe others here are members of.

*sigh*

Narconon.

Yes, it is based on Scientology principles. No, people don't get sick or die from it. Narconons have medically trained personnel on staff.

And it is statistically the most effective program in the world at getting and keeping people off of drugs.

If you care to research it, the Narconon Arrowhead center lists a variety of studies documenting the persistence of toxic chemicals in the body and the effectiveness of detoxification programs to remove them.

http://www.stopaddiction.com/

It does not surprise me terribly to find out that it is not on the list of officially recognized programs in Germany. After all, this is a country where simply being affiliated with Scientology or Scientologists is often enough to disqualify you from political party membership, government contracts, or even employment.

It's a similar case in San Francisco. Narconon was removed after someone complained that it was associated with a religion rather than with the latest research out of the university or something. The banning had to do with the principle of separation of church and state rather than any evidence of the program's effectiveness at drug prevention.

Ananda, Narconon first became an issue due to the information they were dispensing. Narconon was asked to correct some of the inaccurate and/or misleading information (i.e. drugs are stored in fat for years). A district health administrator asked them to revise and/or clarify parts of the cirriculum or they could face being banned from the district.

I read through some of the information, and ran into incorrect information:

=========================================
"Long-term brain injury from use of MDMA (Ecstasy)

MDMA (Ecstasy) causes long-lasting damage to brain areas that are critical for thought and memory, according to new research findings in The Journal of Neuroscience.

In an experiment with red squirrel monkeys, researchers at The Johns Hopkins University demonstrated that four days of exposure to the drug caused damage that persisted six to seven years later. These findings help to validate previous research by the Hopkins team in humans, showing that people who had taken MDMA scored lower on memory tests."
==========================================


This study was retracted by Johns Hopkins University. Seems as though all but one of the monkeys were accidentally injected with methamphetamine, not MDMA, but the methamphetamine was administered at MDMA-type dosages (much, much higher than doses for meth), causing the alarming results.



Retraction of Research Findings
Severe Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity in Primates After a Common Recreational Dose Regimen of MDMA (“Ecstasy”)
by Ricuarte G, Yuan J, Hatzidiitriou G, Cord BJ, McCann UD
September 5, 2003

We write to retract our report "Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)" (1) following our recent discovery that the drug used to treat all but one animal in that report came from a bottle that contained d-methamphetamine instead of the intended drug, racemic MDMA. Notably, d-methamphetamine would be expected to produce the same pattern of combined dopaminergic/serotonergic neurotoxicity (2) as that seen in the animals reported in our paper (1).

The originally published report (1) presented results from multiple studies performed in our laboratory over a span of approximately two years demonstrating that a novel systemic dose regimen of what we believed was MDMA produced severe dopamine neurotoxicity in two species of nonhuman primates, in addition to the previously reported serotonin neurotoxicity (3-6). Subsequent to the publication of those findings, we were unable to extend the dopamine neurotoxicity to orally administered doses. Multiple subsequent attempts to reproduce the original findings with systemically administered doses of MDMA identical to those used in the original study were also unsuccessful, under a variety of laboratory conditions.

We then noted that our studies aimed at extending and replicating the finding of MDMA-induced dopamine neurotoxicity were performed using a new batch of MDMA. This new batch of MDMA was determined to be authentic by several methods, including gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Upon investigation of our laboratory records, we determined that the studies detailed in our paper (1) utilized a batch of MDMA that had been requested on the same date as a batch of d-methamphetamine, and that both drug requests were for the same amount (10 g), and were processed by the supplier on the same day. Both drugs were delivered to our laboratory on the same day, in the same package. At delivery, the two bottles had different affixed labels, the same delivery reference number, but different batch numbers, as specified in their respective chemical data sheets. Following receipt, both drugs were stored in our laboratory in their original containers, in a locked safe.

When we began to suspect that the two bottles of drug might have borne incorrect labels (i.e., that the putative MDMA was actually d-methamphetamine, and vice versa), we requested that a sample of the drug in the bottle bearing the original and intact label of "d-methamphetamine" be analyzed by various analytical techniques, including GC/MS. Three independent laboratories found the sample to consist of MDMA, with no evidence of even trace amounts of methamphetamine.

Although the drug sample used in our original studies (1) was depleted and the empty bottle labeled MDMA had been discarded, we did have frozen brains from two animals that died shortly after drug treatment during the course ofthe original experiments (1). When these brains were analyzed by GC/MS by three independent laboratories, they were found to contain methamphetamine and its metabolite, amphetamine, neither of which is a metabolite of MDMA(7). Not even trace amounts of MDMA nor its metabolite, MDA, were found inthese brains. Detailed review of our laboratory records revealed that allbut one animal in our study (1) had been treated with the drug in the bottle labeled "±)methylenedioxymethamphetamine" (MDMA) processed at the same time as the bottle labeled "d-methamphetamine".

This labeling error does not call into question the results of multiple previous studies demonstrating the serotonin neurotoxic potential of MDMA invarious animal species, including several nonhuman primate species (3-6,. Regarding the dopamine neurotoxic potential of MDMA in nonhumanprimates, it remains possible that dose regimens in the range of those used by some humans, but different from those thus far tested, produce dopamine neurotoxicity in primates, as they do in rodents (9, 10). Moreover, lasting effects of MDMA on dopaminergic function in humans have recently been reported (11), and some humans with a history of MDMA abuse have developed Parkinsonism (12-14). However, until the dopamine neurotoxic potential ofMDMA in primates can be examined more fully, this possibility remains uncertain.

George A. Ricaurte1, Jie Yuan1, George Hatzidimitriou1, Branden J. Cord2, Una D. McCann3


Department of Neurology, 2 - Department of Neurosciences, 3 - Department of Psychiatry
Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center
Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.


References

1. G. Ricaurte, J. Yuan, G. Hatzidimitriou, B. Cord, U. McCann, Science 297, 2260 (2002).
   
2. V. Villemagne et al., J Neurosci 18, 419 (199.
   
3. G. A. Ricaurte, L. E. Delanney, I. Irwin, J. W. Langston, Brain Res. 446, 165 (198.
   
4. T. R. Insel, G. Battaglia, J. N. Johannessen, S. Marra, E. B. DeSouza, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 249, 713 (1989).
   
5. M. S. Kleven, W. L. Woolverton, L. S. Seiden, Brain Res. 488, 121 (1989).
   
6. D. L. Frederick et al., Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17, 531 (1995).
   
7. A. Cho, Y. Kumagai, in Amphetamine and its Analogs: Neuropsychopharmacology, Toxicology and Abuse, A. Cho, D. Segal, Eds. (Academic Press, New York, 1994), pp. 43-77.
   
8. W. Slikker Jr. et al., Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 94, 448 (198.
   
9. D.L. Commins et al., J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 241, 338(1987).
   
10. E. O'Shea, B. Esteban, J. Camarero, A. R. Green, M. I. Colado, Neuropharmacology. 40, 65 (2001).
    
11. G. Gerra et al. Behav. Brain Res. 134, 403 (2002).
    
12. S. Mintzer, S. Hickenbottom, S. Gilman, N. Engl. J. Med. 340, 1443 (1999).
    
13. S.M. Kuniyoshi and J. Jankovic N Engl J Med. 349, 96 (2003).
    
14. G. Ricaurte, unpublished data.
    
15. We gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Dr. Jonathan Katz of the NIDA Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, MD, Dr. W. Lee Hearn, Laboratory Director of the Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner Department, Miami, FL and Dr. Nancy Ator, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. We are also grateful for the expert chemical analytical assistance of Ms. Rebecca Fernandez, Toxicologist I, Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner Department, Miami, FL, Terry L. DalCason of the DEA North Central Laboratory, Chicago, IL., Dr. Max Courtney, Forensic Consultant Services, Fort Worth, TX., Dr. Michael Daggett, Quest Diagnostics-Nichols Institute, Chantilly, VA, Dr. Ivy Carroll and associates at RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, and Dr. Roger Foltz at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
    

Okay, first, I recind my comments about religioustolerance.org. I apologize; I was confusing it with another "religious tolerance" site that Scientology does in fact own - bigotwatch.net. Again, it was stupid of me to post that statement without doing my research.

Here's a site that has a list of Scientology front-groups:
http://www.lermanet.com/frontgroups.html

As for claims of hatred, I have simply stated that Scientology is a cult. Ananda begs the question by saying it is hatred. From a completely logical position, there are two possibilities:

- Scientology is not a cult that was invented by Hubbard.
- Scientology is a cult that was invented by Hubbard.

Now, if I say that Scientology is a cult, that means:
(a) I am wrong
(b) I am correct.

Simply saying that I am wrong and that I am breeding hatred is begging the question, Ananda.

For the record, I've not only read about Hubbard's bet with Poul Anderson, Poul Anderson confirmed it personally during a conversation with several people including myself some years ago. Keith Laumer, who was sitting on the other side of Hubbard at the bar, also remembered the conversation. Campbell's and Heinlein's involvement have been documented, and were confirmed in a subsequent conversation with Stan Schmidt, Campbell's successor as editor of Analog.

Apparently, however, Hubbard had been thinking about starting a cult for some time. He thought that infusing modern technology and psychology into the belief system would create enormous appeal among people who weren't interested in traditional religions - a sort of secular, pseudo-scientific approach to religion. He'd been discussing the idea with Campbell, Theodore Sturgeon, Sam Moskowitz, and Lloyd Eshbach at various times during the forties.

Hiro, you're the one making a circular argument. You're the one who came here to this forum which I frequent and posted a link to a site which is aimed at the destruction of my religion. Call it a cult if you want. From my perspective, what you have done is invite hatred of my religion.

Now, I probably should have been a good little girl and let this slide, but I get extremely frustrated every time someone has to drag out old fuck-ups from half a continent away and a decade ago and use it to suggest that everything we have done in the world is nothing but shit and that we should all be "de-brainwashed". Be happy for Tom and Katie, or mock them. I don't care. But respect the right of others to practice the cult of their choice.