Perhaps the briefest intervention of my career involved an American engineer who worked around the world. He retained me for an intervention effort focused on his former fiancée. The engineer had fallen in love while working in Europe. After becoming engaged, he brought his fiancée to the United States for an extended visit to meet his family. The engineer had previously met his fiancée’s parents, sister, and friends while working in Italy. The young woman and her sister belonged to what seemed to be a very tight-knit social group. When the couple was in the United States, however, it became apparent to the engineer that a single leader actually dominated and controlled this close-knit group of friends.
During the couple’s stay in the United States, the engineer began to question the constant phone calls between his fiancée and the group’s leader. It seemed to him that there were no boundaries in this relationship and that the leader’s advice was always adhered to without question; in fact, it governed every aspect of his fiancée’s life. The engineer began to openly question the propriety of such profound influence, and after a somewhat heated discussion about this with his fiancée, she abruptly left the United States and returned to Europe. The engineer was devastated. He repeatedly tried to communicate with his estranged girlfriend, but she didn’t respond.
The engineer then contacted me, hoping to arrange for an intervention. I explained that an intervention was impossible without meaningful communication and access. He said he would somehow devise a strategy to provide a point of access to his former girlfriend. The engineer insisted that he must at least try to approach her, and he came up with a precarious plan based on the return of his former fiancée’s abandoned belongings, which she had left behind in the United States.
The engineer’s plan revolved around shipping the baggage back to Italy and arranging for it to be returned to the young woman through an intermediary. He retained a private investigator in Italy. The private investigator called the young woman and advised her that he had received her luggage and boxed belongings sent from the United States, which she could pick up at his office at a scheduled time. The engineer said this would be the only opportunity for us to at least meet with her briefly. We would surprise her when she came to the office, and he hoped she would stay long enough for us to convince her to set aside more time for discussion in the following days.
I remained deeply skeptical that this approach had any hope of success, and I told the engineer his plan would most likely fail. He admitted that it was a desperate attempt but said this was the only way he could reliably contact her. The engineer believed, or wanted to believe, that somehow his plan would work, because his former fiancée still loved him.
I traveled to Italy, where I met the engineer and the private investigator. The private investigator provided us with additional detailed information. Though the group and its leader were relatively obscure, it had drawn some attention in this region of Italy, and people called it a “cult.” The leader often recruited people through personal and family relationships. It seems likely that the leader may have believed he could recruit the engineer through his love interest.
The investigator had also interviewed the parents of the engineer’s former fiancée. He told us that her older sister, an early devotee of the leader, had recruited her. We later met with her parents, who explained that both of their daughters had completely cut them off after they raised critical concerns about the group. It had been years since the mother or father communicated with either of their children. They were quite surprised but happy when their daughter briefly visited them accompanied by the engineer to announce her engagement. They didn’t fully understand the situation, but hoped the marriage might end the leader’s control over their daughter. Though sympathetic, the parents now felt that the situation was hopeless and wouldn’t assist in any intervention effort.
We waited at the private investigator’s office one morning to meet the young woman. As planned, she appeared promptly at the scheduled time to pick up her belongings. But when she saw us, she immediately became furious. The meeting ended quickly, in less than fifteen minutes, and was a complete failure. The only aspect of this effort that might be considered meaningful was that the engineer experienced a kind of closure. But he left Italy disappointed and heartbroken.
This failed intervention illustrates a very important point. Without ongoing communication and meaningful access, there is no basis for likely success through an intervention effort.
In my opinion, though a desperate approach like the one the engineer devised may at times be the only alternative, such an approach will most likely end in failure. If at all possible, waiting for a more viable alternative is almost always better. This may take considerable time and planning, and it may also involve some investigation to locate the cult-involved person and learn more about his or her daily life. For example, does he or she live independently or with members of a particular group? Is there any level of communication that currently exists and can be developed? Is there a possibility that the cult-involved person might visit family members or old friends outside the group? Does the cult-involved person communicate with anyone on a regular basis outside the group? Is he or she independently accessible in some other way through a workplace situation or somewhere else outside the group?
If the answers to such questions repeatedly lead to the conclusion that there is no way to communicate with, or have any meaningful access to, the cult-involved person, then there is no reason to retain a cult-intervention specialist or consultant. Before retaining a professional to further assess, prepare for, or plan for an intervention, there must be a basis for contact firmly established and created through improved communication and resulting in reliable and regular access. There’s no need to hire a professional before this goal has been effectively reached.
Time Doesn’t Always Equal Success
One failed intervention involved a married couple with children in the United States. The husband was the member of a secretive group for more than a decade. The group was so secretive that his wife didn’t fully understand its existence or appreciate her husband’s level of commitment. After some years of marriage, the husband finally introduced his wife to the group and its leader through private gatherings. After attending some of these meetings and a retreat, the wife determined that the group seemed to fit the definition of a destructive cult. That is, a living leader who was dictatorial and engaged in coercive persuasion for the explicit purpose of exploiting his or her followers dominated and defined the group.1172 The wife contacted me to begin planning and preparing for an intervention.
Eventually with the husband’s full knowledge and cooperation, the intervention took place. We agreed that we would spend five full days discussing destructive cults in general, the coercive persuasion techniques such groups use, the group the husband was involved in, and why his wife was concerned about it.
The husband was a very successful businessman and a generous supporter of the group and its leader. His financial support, along with the substantial contributions of other wealthy group members, afforded the leader a rather lavish lifestyle. Because of this and his many years of devotion, the husband held a position of special recognition and privilege in the group. Other group members treated him very respectfully, even deferentially, and the leader particularly honored him.
Each day during the intervention we spent about eight hours, going over detailed research regarding destructive cults, the dynamics of such groups, and how the husband’s group specifically fit in this context. He didn’t disagree that his group could be seen as a cult according to the cited common characteristics, but he repeatedly said he hadn’t been personally harmed and was comfortable within it.
Former members of the group attended some of our meetings to discuss their perceptions of the leader. They offered a distinctly different perspective than the husband. Former members reported abuses in the group, which included excessive demands for payments that strained their finances. They also c
omplained about the leader’s micromanagement of their personal lives, which had caused harm to relationships. The husband’s response was to simply say again and again that this hadn’t been his experience; therefore, though some former members may have experienced some problems, they didn’t concern him.
After days of discussion the intervention ended. The husband was unmoved and made it clear that he would continue as an active member of the group. Even when his wife threatened divorce, the husband remained adamant about his group commitment. The intervention was a failure. The couple soon separated and later divorced.
Looking back at this intervention effort, I see there was more than enough time to share the necessary information and discuss relevant concerns in considerable depth. But in my opinion this effort failed largely because the husband felt deeply invested in the group and enjoyed the personal attention he received. The leader made him feel very special. And his group involvement conferred on him a sense of esoteric status and empowerment. Through the group the husband felt that he had reached an elite level of awareness and was recognized as a philosopher. He seemed to think that without the group he would lose this special status.
After years of personal and financial investment, the husband also appeared to have a sense of equity in the group. In my opinion it was his perception of what has been called “exit costs”1173 that basically blocked any serious consideration of leaving the group. Sociologist Benjamin Zablocki sees such exit costs as an important facet in the calculations of cult members. That is, such exit costs, as cult member perceive them, are “disincentives for leaving.”1174
In most cases the more time during an intervention is allotted to discuss concerns, examine research, and compare the parallels between a particular group and other groups called “cults,” the more likely it is that the intervention will end in success. But there are situations, despite the time spent, that may still end in failure. Each individual involved in a cult or cultic situation must ultimately face his or her personal exit costs based on his or her emotional needs and history.
Runaway
Another intervention centered on a nineteen-year-old girl. Her parents had been long-time members of a well-known cult when they decided to leave it. But they had raised their children in the group for many years. The couple’s minor children willingly left the group with little problem, but their older sister refused to leave and was legally considered an adult.
The parents’ cult departure caused a rift. Their eldest child left their home and moved in with another member of the group. Communication became strained, but the daughter continued to regularly call and visit with her family.
The parents retained me to undertake an intervention. The intervention took place in the context of a family visit with relatives in a neighboring city. Participants included the mother, father, an aunt, and an uncle. We all met in a hotel room where the family was staying. The uncle and aunt lived in town and also attended the initial meeting.
The intervention was difficult, and bursts of anger largely consumed the first day. Frequently the daughter angrily walked out of the hotel room and came back only after her uncle pursued her and persuaded her to return. Such interruptions occurred several times throughout the day.
A former member of the group participated in the intervention. Sharing her personal story of group involvement at a relatively high level of responsibility seemed to impress the daughter and stimulate her critical thinking. During the first day we were also able to review a substantial amount of research material specifically gathered about this particular group and its leadership. This historical documentation was difficult for the daughter to dispute but took time to digest.
At the end of our first day, the parents expected their daughter to stay overnight with them at the hotel. But she refused, insisting instead on staying at her uncle’s nearby home. She agreed to return the following day to continue our discussion and promised not to communicate with the group or anyone associated with the group in any way, shape, or form until we had concluded our discussions.
Through the previous preparation process, the family knew the importance of closely monitoring the evenings between each intervention day. That is, every evening posed the potential for problems. We had discussed the need to closely watch their daughter throughout the intervention and pay particular attention to her communication. Everyone understood that this meant turning off cell phones and blocking Internet access through any device until the intervention effort was over. My concern, as always, was focused on contact with the group. If there was such contact, the group would certainly use it to obstruct or sabotage our effort. Cultic groups inherently know that the more time there is for discussion and sharing information about them through an intervention, the more likely it is that they will lose a follower.
Before the daughter left to stay with her uncle overnight, I briefed him again about the importance of blocking all contact and communication with the group and said he must watch over his niece until they returned the next day. The uncle assured me that he would closely monitor her and make sure there was no opportunity for her to make contact with members of the group. He would then bring her back to the hotel the following morning to resume the discussion.
But the nineteen-year-old never returned for a second day. The following morning her uncle left her alone in his house when he dropped his children off for school. When the uncle returned, his niece was gone. She had run away, and days passed before her parents knew where she had gone. The intervention had ended in failure.
The daughter probably intended to fulfill her commitments, but during an intervention cult members often feel conflicted between their loyalty to the group and whatever loyalty continues to remain intact regarding their families. An intervention can be stressful, and in that context a troubled cult member may reach out for guidance from the group, which has deliberately encouraged dependency on them for answers. For this reason I strongly suggest that families involved in an intervention closely monitor the situation and specifically any and all communication during the intervention process.
In my opinion this intervention might have been successful if the daughter hadn’t been left alone. This opportunity allowed her to contact the group during a critical period. After the failed intervention the cultic group carefully controlled the daughter’s communication with her family for many months, and she seemed to be somewhat scripted. There would be no opportunity for another intervention.
Internet Interference
Another of my failed interventions involved a husband who was concerned about his wife’s involvement with a local group. The group, which its charismatic leader dominated and defined, was a small faction that had broken away from a much larger organization, which was frequently called a “cult.”
The husband became concerned, because the group increasingly dominated his wife’s time and thinking. The couple had a small child, and the teachings of the group, which largely focused on the evils of the world and an imminent apocalyptic end of the world, seemed terrifying. The group leader told his followers that they must prepare for doomsday. The husband’s work required extensive travel. When he was away, his wife often took their child to group meetings.
Our intervention included the husband and his parents. He said his mother and stepfather were quite close to his wife and that she respected their judgment. We hoped their presence during the intervention would be helpful. I met with everyone the day before the intervention to explain the boundaries and components of our collective effort. I emphasized how important the role of the family would be in keeping the wife grounded, engaged, and interested.
We were in a somewhat isolated rural area, and neither the cultic group nor any of its members were nearby. The group building was located some distance from the house, so it would be rather difficult for the leader or group members to interfere. Nevertheless, I warned the family about phone and Internet access, and they agreed to have everything shut down.
&nbs
p; The first day of the intervention went fairly well, though I was deeply disappointed by the mother and stepfather’s level of participation. They didn’t seem to have anything to say despite earlier conversation about their concerns during our preparation process. The wife was cooperative and courteous, though she scrupulously avoided any direct indication of her true feelings. She instead tried to alleviate any concerns by minimizing her level of involvement with the group.
By the end of the first day, we had covered quite a bit of ground, including research about cults in general and particularly about the larger organization, to which her group was historically linked. We also discussed in some depth the doomsday teachings of the leader of her group and noted that they were similar to groups called “doomsday cults.” There were several contradictions in the group leader’s teachings that didn’t seem to make any sense. By the end of our day of discussion, the wife tacitly acknowledged that these contradictions existed and expressed some concern about them. We agreed to meet the following morning to begin our discussion again.
The second day, when the husband picked me up at my hotel, he said his parents would not be participating any further. He explained that they felt awkward and uncomfortable and had decided to leave. This was a disappointment that certainly compromised the effectiveness of the continuing intervention effort. And this is why it’s so important to make sure anyone agreeing to participate in an intervention is completely supportive and will see it through to the conclusion. Unfortunately the husband’s parents decided to do otherwise.
When we arrived at the house, his wife seemed greatly changed. She was curt and argumentative rather than the courteous, open person I had met the previous day. We picked up the discussion about the leader’s teachings and how at times they seemed confusing and contradictory. The wife’s response now appeared almost rehearsed. When I pressed the wife about what source of information she relied on to form her opinions, she admitted that she had studied the group’s website overnight. The husband had failed to disconnect the Internet access, as we had agreed.
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 43
