Accounts from people who left

Why these matter

Almost every account on this site of what a high-control group feels like from the inside came originally from someone who lived it. Analysis alone rarely reaches the person who most needs reaching, because the group has already supplied a reason to dismiss analysis. It has a much harder time explaining away a specific person describing a specific Tuesday.

Three things a first-person account does that nothing else does. It supplies recognition — the shock of reading your own experience in someone else’s words. It supplies vocabulary, because most people who leave have no language for what happened for a long time afterwards. And it supplies proof of survival: evidence that the door exists and that people walk through it and are eventually all right.

The testimonies

My experience of a cult pattern

This pattern seems to me close to inevitable — not the failure of a particular leader or a particular community, but something that forms wherever people gather around someone, unless it is understood and openly acknowledged.

Read the full accountClose

I have been in what could be described as a high-control group for many years. I do not want to simply criticise it. I trust and value the leader and what was taught, and almost everyone in the organisation I would consider good people with good intentions. I am writing this only to acknowledge openly that I noticed something I would call cult-like, and that I was subject to it for some years.

What I am addressing is a group identity, not a personal one. It is not to make anyone wrong, but to redress an imbalance of information between a group and an individual. Groups have great power, however good-hearted the people in them are, and it was the group itself that I feel became a negative entity — allowed to become one by the complicity of everyone involved.

What I noticed over time was the formation of an inner and an outer circle around the leader. The inner circle had more access and more authority, and it also became self-protective: no one outside it was “qualified” or “mature” enough to offer criticism of how it functioned. I was part of it myself for a time, and nothing I saw from inside contradicted what I had assumed from outside. When I very tentatively offered critical feedback, I was subtly shunned, and eventually removed. Criticism was forbidden from outside, and dissent suppressed within.

So I have to state it. This group was and remains a cult in all the classic definitions, and I call it out as such, regardless of how far my voice will be ignored or dismissed. I was relieved to be out from under its influence, which was suppressing something fundamental — free enquiry, and the need for truth.

But what I noticed goes further than one group. This pattern seems to me close to inevitable — not the failure of a particular leader or a particular community, but something that forms wherever people gather around someone, unless it is understood and openly acknowledged. That is why I think it has to be called out: not only in the group I belonged to, but in whatever group is formed, and especially a religious or spiritual one. Look for these tendencies. They are endemic, and they require a conscious approach. Do not be naive.

Saying it out loud, somewhere outside my own subjective head space, is worth something to me even if no one agrees.

That is what I saw, stated as harmlessly as I can.

Anonymous

The ego vs true-self trap

The measure of spiritual attainment has become indistinguishable from the measure of compliance.

Read the full accountClose

There is a practice found in some spiritual communities — not all, and I want to be clear about that — that is presented as a technique of growth, and that I think deserves far more scrutiny than it usually receives.

The practice is this. You are taught that two opposing tendencies operate in you. One is called the ego, or the small self, or the conditioned mind. The other is called the true self, or essence, or something similar. Your task is to observe your own thoughts and impulses and sort them: this one came from ego, that one from the true self. Follow the second. Doubt the first.

Stated that way it sounds harmless, even useful. Attention to one’s own motives is not a bad thing. But look at what the instruction actually does.

First, it splits you in half, and the halves are not equal. One is trusted and one is suspect, permanently. You are no longer a single person with mixed motives; you are a contested territory with a good side and a bad side.

Second — and this is the part I have never heard addressed — it requires a third position that the model does not admit. If the ego is not me, and the true self is me, then who is the one standing between them making the call? Something is doing the sorting, and it is neither of the two things being sorted. That third thing is presumably also me. The moment you notice it, the dichotomy stops being a description of how a person is built and becomes what it always was: a crude and convenient device. In my experience the observation is not answered. It is received as cleverness, or as ego. Which is telling, because the objection is fatal to the model, and the model cannot afford to take it seriously.

Third, and most seriously: the practice makes self-doubt into a skill and self-trust into a symptom.

Consider what happens to an objection. You feel that something in the community is wrong. Under the practice, before that feeling can mean anything, it must first be classified. Is this discernment, or is it the ego defending itself? And you cannot answer that from inside, because your own judgement is precisely what is on trial. So you ask someone. Someone senior, someone further along, someone qualified to tell you which part of you was speaking.

That is the entire architecture of a cult, arrived at without anyone having to seize anything. Authority is not taken; it is requested, by people sincerely trying to grow. Your discrimination is turned against yourself, your integrity as a single person is dissolved, and the question of who you essentially are — and what is good for you — is handed to an external arbitrator.

And notice what then counts as progress. Those who hand it over most completely, who trust most and resist least and set aside their own view most readily, are the ones described as open, free, advanced. Those who hold on to their own judgement are described as defended, stuck, in their heads. But the same behaviour, read without the vocabulary, looks like the opposite: the advanced ones are those who have surrendered the most of themselves, and the stuck ones are those still in possession of an intact will. The measure of spiritual attainment has become indistinguishable from the measure of compliance. And no one inside can tell the difference, because the instrument they would need in order to tell — their own judgement — is the very thing the practice trained them to distrust.

I am not saying that those who teach this intend any of it. I do not think they do. I am saying that the practice is structurally unsafe, that it assembles the mechanism of a cult out of ordinary sincerity, and that it is almost never examined critically by the people using it. It should be.

Anonymous

1. Contributing your account

There is no template and no required shape. Some accounts are three paragraphs about a single conversation; some are three thousand words spanning twenty years. Both work. If you would like a starting point, these questions have helped others:

• What was good about it, honestly, at the start? What did it give you?
• When did something first feel wrong — and what did you do with that?
• What happened when you raised a concern, or thought about raising one?
• What did leaving cost, and what actually made it possible?
• What do you wish someone had said to you a year before you left?
• What would you say now to the person you were then?

You are not obliged to be fair, balanced, or finished. You are also not obliged to have resolved anything. Accounts written in the middle of it are often the most useful to someone else in the middle of it.

2. Before you write — a few cautions

Telling your story can be genuinely helpful and it is not always safe. Please think about the following before you send anything.

Timing

There is no expiry date on this. If you are in the first weeks or months out, or in acute distress, it is usually better to talk to a person than to write for an audience. The invitation will still be here.

Identifiability

Small communities recognise their own. A detail that seems generic — a date, a role, an unusual illness, a country, the number of siblings — can identify you to a few dozen people even with no name attached. We will help you find and soften details like these, but you know your community and we do not.

Legal exposure

If you signed a non-disclosure agreement, or if legal proceedings are live or possible, please take independent advice before publishing anything. This applies to you, not to us: we cannot advise you and would not be the ones who bear the consequence.

Consequences you cannot take back

Publication can affect contact with family still inside, employment, and immigration or custody matters. Consider what you would want to be true in five years, not only in the week you are angry.

Other people in your story

Your account is yours to tell, including the parts other people appear in. Where a third party is identifiable and has not consented, we will usually ask you to generalise those details — not to protect the group, but because publishing someone else’s identifying information without their consent is the kind of thing this site exists to object to.

3. Why we do not name groups

This is the question we are asked most, and it deserves a straight answer, because the policy can feel like timidity when what you want is for someone to say the name out loud.

• It protects contributors. Naming invites legal response, and the response falls on the individual who spoke, not on the site.
• It protects the argument. The moment a specific organisation is named, everything becomes a dispute about that organisation: its defenders arrive, its critics arrive, and the mechanism being described disappears under the noise. It is a debate high-control groups are very well practised at, and it is the one they would prefer to have.
• It keeps the material usable. An unnamed account can be read by someone in a completely different group who would have stopped reading at the name — that is not us, we are nothing like that — and who now recognises their own life instead.
• It is not silence. Where there are allegations of criminal conduct, the right destinations are the police, statutory safeguarding bodies, regulators, and journalists who can properly verify and publish. We will point you toward those. This site is not an investigative outlet and would serve you badly as one.

4. What happens after you send it

1. You write to us at the address on the contact page, in whatever state the piece is in. A rough draft is fine.
2. We reply and ask what you want. Attribution, level of detail, whether you would like editing at all. There is no obligation to continue at this or any later point.
3. Light editing only, for clarity, length and identifying detail. Your voice is the thing that makes the piece work, and we will not smooth it out.
4. You approve the exact text. Nothing is published that you have not seen in its final form and explicitly agreed to.
5. You can withdraw it at any time, without giving a reason. Ask, and it comes down. Note that once something has been on the public web it may persist in caches and archives we do not control — that is a limit of the internet, not a condition we are attaching.

Attribution options: your name; a first name only; a chosen pseudonym; or fully anonymous with a short context line such as “nine years in a church-based community, left 2019.” Most contributors choose the last.

5. If you are reading rather than writing

A few things worth knowing before this section fills up.

Recognition can be destabilising. Reading an accurate description of your own life is sometimes a relief and sometimes a shock that arrives days later. Both are ordinary. Stopping halfway through is allowed.

Your experience does not have to match to count. Someone else’s account being more extreme than yours is not evidence that yours was fine. The scale of the harm is not a competition, and minimising by comparison is one of the most common obstacles to getting help.

These are accounts, not evidence. Each is one person’s recollection, published because it is useful, not because it has been independently verified. Read them as testimony — which is exactly how they are offered.