It seems Ray was given to embellishing his biography. Moreover, ethical questions reportedly arose concerning his unauthorized use of training techniques borrowed from other sources and the inappropriate use of shamanic rituals and seemingly contrived claims concerning his association with mystical teachers.1031 “You are not, nor have you ever been, certified to conduct holotropic breathwork,” an attorney wrote Ray in 2011 on behalf of psychiatrist Stanislav Grof, the creator of that training.
Likewise, Lance Giroux, the managing director of yet another training and consulting firm, resented Ray’s unauthorized use of his trademarked Samurai Game. Dr. Matthew James, president of Kona University, warned Ray to stop using shamanic rituals associated with the Hawaiian Huna tradition.1032 Ray had attended some workshops regarding the rituals and then started holding his own Huna ceremonies. “I had someone from my office call [Ray] up and say ‘what you’re doing is improper, you weren’t given permission, you need to stop right away,’” James said. Ray also claimed that he had studied the Q’ero traditions for three years with a shaman in Peru named Don Jose Luis. However, Denise Kinch, the author of a book about Q’ero traditions, told the press that Jose Luis is not a Q’ero or medicine man but rather a guide who runs weekends in Peru about Q’ero rites.1033
James Ray seemingly shifted his emphasis from a spiritual quest to the material pursuit of money. “I happen to think money is pretty cool, and I can help you attract a lot of it,” Ray said. In 2007 he announced his intention to become the first “spiritual teaching billionaire.”1034 And it would be billionaire Oprah Winfrey who provided the platform for Ray to begin realizing those financial dreams. Ray was a speaker tapped to talk for The Secret a popular DVD, which Winfrey heavily promoted. Ray was a guest twice on Oprah Winfrey‘s daytime talk show during February 2007. The cache of Oprah greatly enhanced Ray’s career and substantially increased his income. In 2005 Ray’s revenue from his training seminars was $1.5 million, but in 2008 after appearing with Oprah Winfrey, his income reached $9.4 million.1035
Like Keith Raniere’s Executive Success Programs, Ray’s pricey retreats would supposedly somehow enlighten people. Participants paid between $9,000 and $10,000 to attend one of his programs. When he rented the Angel Valley Retreat Center for an event near Sedona, Arizona, quite a few people signed up. About fifty Ray enthusiasts were packed into the makeshift sweat lodge. Two hours after it began, the group ceremony abruptly ended with an emergency call. Two participants died that day, while another, Liz Neuman, passed away later in a medical center. Almost half (twenty-two) of the attendees were hospitalized.1036
Days of Ray’s retreats were consumed with lectures, and participants watched film clips from the movie The Last Samurai starring Tom Cruise. They were then taken to the desert to undergo what was called Vision Quest. This consisted of being individually isolated in a ten-foot circle with no food or drink for thirty-six hours. After that crucible came the final day and the so-called sweat lodge ceremony.1037
Explaining what the retreat was like, Beverley Bunn, the roommate of deceased Kirby Brown, testified in court, “You learn through the course of the week that you don’t question Mr. Ray on anything.” She added, “As you go through the week you learn that there’s consequences or reprimand for you to be called out…if you question Mr. Ray or don’t play full on.”1038 A recording of James Ray, played at his trial, detailed what “full on” meant. “You will have to get to a point where you surrender to death…When you are going into the lodge symbolically you are going back into the womb of Mother Earth…It is such a great metaphor…My body dies but I never die,”1039 Ray said. He further explained, “There’s no lodge like my lodge…By the second or third round, I’m thinking why the hell am I me? Why couldn’t I just do a weenie-ass lodge like everyone else? And the reason is, when you emerge you will be a different person. When you face your own death, life’s never the same. It’s just not.”1040
Wambli Sina Win, a former Oglala Sioux tribal judge and authority concerning authentic sweat-lodge practices, told the press, “Whatever he led was not a sweat-lodge ceremony as I understand it…He evidently learned bits and pieces and created a Frankenstein.” Linda Andresano, a nurse who had attended traditional sweat lodges but passed out and had to be carried out of Ray’s version, testified, “It was much hotter than any one I’d been in before.” She explained that in a traditional sweat lodge, leaders “would ask how everybody was doing, and pass water around.”1041
In one segment of his training, called the Samurai Game, Ray literally commanded participants to feign death. Connie Joy, a frequent participant of Ray retreats, said, “You have to picture him in the Samurai Game dressed in a white robe, pointing at people. When they say he said to die, I mean in a booming voice, pointing at you and saying, ‘Die!’ And if you didn’t drop instantly, he really started screaming at you to die.” Typically, the command to die followed an infraction of Ray’s rules or some form of noncompliance. Joy, who became disenchanted with Ray after problems at one of his retreats held in Peru, told the press, “He enjoyed playing God.”1042
“This could have happened to any of us. If you’re with a group of people for a week, and everyone walks into a situation, you’re going to go, too. And if your leader tells you it’s OK, you’re going to believe him. As you spend time together, a group mentality develops,” explained Christine B. Whelan, PhD, a visiting assistant professor of sociology at the University of Pittsburgh who has studied the self-help industry.1043 Sweat-lodge participant Dennis Mehraver described how reliant he had become on James Ray’s leadership. “With all my experiences before with Mr. Ray I believed he knew how far I could go better than myself,” Mehraver stated in court.1044 “He was strong with the people. They were too intimidated, they were too committed to him,” Jennifer Haley observed. Haley was a volunteer member of what Ray called his Dream Team.1045 Ray also used various techniques including Holotropic Breathing, an accelerated breathing technique to reach an “altered state of consciousness.”1046
James Ray reached a financial settlement with the families of those who had died in his sweat lodge. They were each paid $3 million. This money came from James Ray’s insurers.1047 After his criminal conviction and subsequent sentencing, Ray sold his home in the Beverly Hills area of California for $3.015 million.1048 In 2012 James Ray claimed he was broke and $11 million in debt. He requested that the court declare him “indigent” for the purpose of costs associated with his appeal.
Prosecutor Sheila Polk said shortly before sentencing that Ray “led the life of a pretender, and there are predictable consequences when one leads a life of pretense.”1049 Polk later received the 2012 Arizona State Bar Criminal Justice Award for her outstanding work as a prosecutor.1050 Beverly Bunn, an orthodontist from Texas who endured Ray’s sweat lodge, offered this impression of her former self-help guru. “James Ray preaches that thoughts, feelings and actions are all connected. That was true in his own life.”1051
LGATs suggest that their philosophy can potentially solve almost any life problem, from personal issues to professional performance. However, it is doubtful that this “one size fits all” prescription is in fact a meaningful solution. Instead of succumbing to the lure of LGATs, there are far safer and more focused ways to address professional and personal concerns. Professionals can seek career enhancement through continuing education at accredited institutions. Those struggling with personal problems can seek counseling from a licensed professional or advice from a trusted friend. There are also support groups that may specifically address a perceived problem recommended by local community services. This approach to self-improvement is more proved and pragmatic and largely avoids the accountability and safety issues that seem inherent in many LGATs.
Psychologist Margaret Singer summarized her impressions. “Having observed a number of LGATs and having interviewed many persons who attended variants of these programs as part of their work assignments, I am astonished at the gross childishness and unkindn
ess of humiliating anyone under the guise of education, experiential learning, or the claim that participation in such travesties enhances work performance.”1052 She labeled such LGATs as “high-confrontation, psychologically intense programs”1053 and said, “They are a modern-day, corporate version of social and psychological influence techniques that make people deployable without their knowledge or consent—precisely my objection to cults.”1054
CHAPTER 17
LGAT INTERVENTION
At the urging of his adult son, a medical doctor agreed to attend the Forum, which is large group awareness training (LGAT) run by Landmark Education, a privately owned for-profit company. The son persuaded his father to participate with him when he repeated the initial weekend of training called the Forum. The doctor thought the weekend offered an opportunity to spend quality time with his son. The son believed the training would improve their relationship and bring them closer together. The son also thought the LGAT had helped him with many personal problems.
The Forum weekend can be a deeply cathartic and stressful experience. This LGAT format serves as the vehicle through which participants are introduced to the world view and philosophy of the LGAT creator and its “Source,” Werner Erhard, formerly known as Jack Rosenberg.1055
Erhard reportedly created “a consciousness-raising cult,” which combined a mix of “Scientology, Zen and Gestalt.”1056 His idiosyncratic philosophy is funneled through an LGAT format to paying participants. Landmark staff members, with frequent assistance from volunteers, facilitate this process. The Forum can be confrontational and emotionally draining. Many Landmark graduates subjectively believe the training is a virtual panacea and means of addressing almost any problem or issue in life.
The father dutifully endured the rigors of the LGAT, but neither his wife nor some of his professional colleagues appreciated the changes the training had wrought. According to his spouse, he changed from a self-effacing humble man, who was more concerned about others than about himself, to an arrogant, often-condescending, and increasingly self-centered person.
The doctor also became involved in a kind of subculture composed of Landmark graduates. It seemed to his wife and some of his coworkers that almost every conversation with the doctor somehow now included Landmark jargon or allusions to its philosophy. This had become a source of friction since others didn’t appreciate Landmark’s philosophy and had no interest in participating in the training, which the doctor now promoted to anyone who would listen.
It’s important to note that some people emerge from LGATs and move on with little, if any, further connection to the training, the company that provides the training, or other graduates. But some graduates of such training appear to become something like “LGAT junkies,” enthusiastically enrolling in more training and at times even repeating the same courses. Such avid enthusiasts also often seem to be absorbed in a kind of subculture, which the LGAT has spawned and sustained. This may include ongoing volunteer work and an evolving and expanding group of friends who are also deeply devoted to the same LGAT and its philosophy.
The changes in personal behavior and lifestyle, which an LGAT can bring about, can be disturbing and at times alarming to family and friends. In some situations family and old friends may also become involved and support the LGAT. But when such support doesn’t develop, concern may increase regarding someone who has become deeply involved and enmeshed within such a group. In the doctor’s situation, his wife was decidedly unimpressed with Landmark and distressed about its growing influence over her husband. After wrestling with this perceived problem for some time, the wife decided an intervention was necessary.
The wife and I met for a preliminary preparation session the day before the intervention. According to our planning, the effort to disentangle the doctor from the LGAT would include only the three of us and no one else. The wife assured me that her husband, though a doctor, was a very humble and approachable person. We discussed the boundaries and our respective roles during the intervention. The wife repeatedly assured me that her husband would be reasonable and that she would be able to persuade him to stay and participate.
The following morning the wife ushered me into the kitchen of her home, where the doctor was quietly reading while sipping his morning coffee. I was introduced as a private consultant whom she had asked to sit in and assist in a discussion about her personal concerns about Landmark Education. The doctor seemed indifferent at first and said he couldn’t understand why there were any concerns. The wife explained that she was unhappy and very concerned about what she regarded as radical recent changes in his behavior since he became involved with Landmark.
The doctor immediately responded that the LGAT had been a very positive experience and that he failed to see why his wife saw his continuing involvement or enthusiasm about the training as a problem that required discussion with a consultant.
At this point the doctor’s wife explained that his behavior had substantially changed and that she saw those changes as negative, not positive. Specifically she cited that he was constantly talking about Landmark to their friends and his colleagues at work. She said people outside Landmark didn’t appreciate this, especially at the workplace, where it was most often not only unwanted but inappropriate. She concluded that, in her opinion, the LGAT and its philosophy engendered an intensely self-centered and frequently offensive demeanor and that her husband’s apparent obsessiveness with it had become increasingly difficult to deal with and endure.
Again the doctor reacted by stating there was nothing wrong with the LGAT and that it was instead an inspiration, it was enlightening, and it addressed many human problems.
At this juncture I asked the doctor if he had studied the history of Landmark Education. Based on his comments, it was evident that he hadn’t. I opened my bag and brought out a prepared file filled with research, including news reports and other relevant material regarding Landmark, formerly known as Erhard Seminar Training or EST. I explained that the privately owned company had a deeply troubled history of complaints, lawsuits, labor violations, and bad press. We looked over news articles from the United States and the United Kingdom. These reflected the continuing controversy that has historically surrounded the company and its founder, Werner Erhard, for decades.
Recounting Werner Erhard’s personal history, I asked the doctor how it could be that the originator of Landmark’s training hadn’t evidently benefited directly from the philosophy in his personal life. Erhard has been married and divorced twice, and he has reportedly had deeply troubled relationships with his children.1057 But this personal turmoil occurred largely after his supposed epiphany of self-realization. Why hadn’t his philosophy been more effective in helping him with his own personal relationships? And if the EST/Landmark philosophy had largely failed its founder, how could it be expected to help others in their marital and family situations?
The doctor disregarded Erhard’s personal history and simply said that the training had worked for him. Once again, however, his wife immediately disagreed and pointed out the strain she felt and said the LGAT seemed to be causing a rift in their relationship.
I pointed out similar complaints regarding the strain EST and Landmark training had caused in families and marriages, specifically the estrangement it might potentially create if a spouse or family member disagreed or objected to the LGAT or its philosophy. The husband responded with the apology that Landmark perhaps wasn’t right for everyone. He said any company or product had its detractors. My response was to point out that LGATs had a particularly bad track record of complaints linked to their training. I pointed out that LGATs appear to have inherent structural problems concerning their dynamics and corresponding behavior, which has hurt people.
We now focused on an article about “mass marathon training.”1058 Historically this is another label used to describe LGATs. Written by a mental health professional who attended an LGAT, the article cites certain aspects of such groups that parallel encounter groups resea
rchers have deemed “dangerous.”1059 The first characteristic cited is that the “leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group and when they should change.”1060 I asked the doctor whether this characteristic was evident during his experience in the Forum. We then discussed how rigid and intensely confrontational the process could be and that “getting it,” according to Landmark’s jargon, essentially means accepting Erhard‘s world view and philosophy, which is the expected net result of the training. The doctor didn’t disagree with this assessment.
I asked the doctor whether he felt the Forum leader had expressed any meaningful flexibility about Landmark’s beliefs or the basic assumptions of its philosophy. He couldn’t recall a specific example of significant flexibility expressed during the training. We then discussed that the purpose of the training appeared to be to change people through a carefully scripted and relatively rigid process. Such change was expected to occur by the conclusion of the training. The husband didn’t dispute this assessment.
We moved on to the second criteria in the article, that an LGAT leader has “no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills.”1061 The doctor acknowledged that the Forum leader was certainly not a mental health professional and was therefore not specifically trained or licensed concerning such skills. I asked the doctor whether during his Forum experience the leader seemed to value “cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience” or had “pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant.” Again, researchers cited these additional aspects as potentially dangerous.1062
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 37
