I appeared on Dutch TV to talk about Sathya Sai Baba and I have to admit that the journalist requested me to talk about something that I did not know nothing about (disappearance of a Dutch woman in India purportedly related to SSB) which I refused. I took great care not to exaggerate matters, which was not difficult because the truth about SSB is really horrible. So I have to admit that the danger exists that some ex-cultists exaggerate their stories for the sake of publicity.

On the internet, such as this forum, there is no real social pressure, as can be inferred by the variety of viewpoints on this board. For example, one contributor (Pompel) even remarked here that anti-cult activists were part of a cult.

Besides I want to repeat the following remarks

1. Richard Singelenberg. a Dutch NRM/sect/cult scholar, who specializes in Jehovah witnesses, wrote me that the testimonies of apostates are as (un)reliable as current members

2. Ex-members often feel betrayed and once they are aware of that they can tell their stories in a balanced way. They can, like all other people, exercise restraint, which is of course easier after some time has passed.

3. Beckford, Bromley, Wilson, Bromley, and Shupe only assigned probabilities. Nothing more than saying that two dices are more likely to yield six than eight. Now the probability must be specified for the apostates of Scientology, Sai Babaism, Rawatism etc. The way of reasoning of these sociologists is similar when ex-premies say that Rawat is unreliable because there have been many gurus in the past that have been proven to be unreliable beyond reasonable doubt. Any responsible scholar tries to be as specific as possible about the authenticity of a guru and the reliability of his apostates.

4. Sociologists have found that the number of "vociferous critics" is often small. Sociologists, like Eileen Barker, have also found that the vast majority of the people involved in cults are only peripheral, short term or superficial members. The concern about possible harm does generally include them. Naturally these superficial or short term members do not care much about the matter and will not bother to criticize their former group but of course their testimonies can be included but should be weighed according to the depth and length of involvement.

5. In many cases apostates admit that they have been naive and stupid Of course people are angry when they feel cheated by the cult and in many cases they are genuinely interested in providing consumer protection for other spiritual seekers. Naturally, people join NRMs when they have unfulfilled psycholgogical needs, which could be classified as being vulnerable. I did not need to reintegrate into wider society: I did not live in a commune and had a job.

6. May be atrocity stories tend to generate others because there happened to be others who experienced the same. That explanation should be preferred following Ockham's razor. I admit that some newspapers like exaggerated, simplistic and dramatic stories about cults.

7. My opinion is that NRMs and cults are diverse and hence it is completely crazy and highly offensive to say that such a broad, diverse category of people is unreliable. A former member may have good reasons not to get involved in court, for example other former members may still be his friends. I do not have bias against my former associates. On the contrary, I still consider them my friends that I do not like to alienate by a painful court case.

8. The disaffected try to understand his past, not
necessarily re-construct. Most former followers also blame themselves for being naive and stupid and do not put all the blame on the cult. In many cases, an apostate is just somebody who was so deeply involved that he cannot simply forget and move on. (If I could, then I would.) Wilson forgets that in many cases ardent followers, like Mike Finch wrote, leave only when they feel that they have no choice because of reasons written down by David V. Barrett in his book the "New Believers", who writes that leaving can involved a psychological trauma for several reasons. Naturally most people try to avoid and postpone and unpleasant conclusion and decision as long as possible.

9. I think that I am a far more reliable witness now than I was when I was still a follower of SSB because I now realize much more than before the importance of intellectual accuracy, the influence of wishful thinking, and the realization that things are often more complicated than they seem and do not fit easily in a simple theoretical or metaphysical framework.

Andries