The Big Con: My Experiences at the Centre of Creativity and Theatre, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 2003


I came across the Centre for Creativity and Theatre website, (Rentemestervej 80, DK- 2400 København NV, Tel:+45 70 23 23 30, barbara@siebenthal.dk) (www.siebenthal.dk) through an advert in the Mind Body Spirit Magazine.

The first thing that was striking was a photograph of the director of the centre, Barbara Siebenthal winking at you above a list of impressive credentials. It was a clever graphic with alluring and seductive overtures that draws in unwitting (male) buyers. (Go to the teachers section on the site).

The second thing is the superficial use of poetic language, along side ethereal pictures:

‘…Poetry in motion and motion in poetry, sounding singing chanting…’ and ‘Go beyond the multidimensionality of your personality and uncover your core-self as the source of your creativity…,’ to ‘Explore the stage as a beautiful playground for your inner nature to unfold to radiate to heal and be healed.’

And some nonsensical phrases: ‘Strengthening and broadening various aspects of creative manifestation in the scenic expression and the individual life-expression.’

At the time it did seem PROFOUND and alluring, promising what I was looking for: An ‘independent’ course that offered support for my film-work and writings in a creative environment that was more personal than the usual academic courses on offer.

Enthusiastically I signed up, sending off the forms with the deposit. I was to be interviewed before I could be accepted, which meant I had to go to Copenhagen for the weekend. The centre was convivial enough; an atmosphere of constructive quiet business, students going to and fro in exercise garb, some talking enthusiastically on the couch about how they had ‘discovered themselves in ways they couldn’t imagine.’ Some had given up their jobs to attend, for others it was the last place of hope - so one person told me.

The web site said there are 2 courses a year that last for 6 months each and attendance was 2 days per week 8.30 – 3.00pm and 7 weekends. Other training programmes are discouraged because this is ‘full time’ i.e. this is the time for home work.
I got to see the director, who was brewing herself some herbal tea. She seemed amiable enough, offering me some tea; we sat down in a casual office and began our ‘interview.’

She gave me a brief 5 minute rundown on the programme that added really nothing more to what was already said in the brochure. She didn’t seem to be too bothered about whether I had come or not (though this was one of the prerequisites) and evaded answering any detailed questions related to the programme. There were no other teachers, although there may have been one or two senior student teachers in the centre.

At the time this general vagueness didn’t strike me as odd – but in hindsight it was clear that she gave me absolutely no information. I was just as much in the dark as when I first came.

For example: ‘I really love the Enneagram, and have been involved with it for many years. In your brochure you said that you are going to use it in great depth…?’

Answer: ‘Yes, I do, but wait and see on the course, I use it when and where it is appropriate to use…or if it is useful and relevant…when the time is right’

‘Hmm…!’ When I asked her to tell me about the centre she said: ‘Well what do you want to know?!’

Not to be deterred, the next month, back in Copenhagen, still with problems of finding accommodation I found the new centre. The fees were for the programme only. The rest was up to you. The centre had moved to a converted film studio that had been freshly painted, with the help of students. A loan had been taken out to buy these premises

After the enthusiastic buzz that goes with the first pre-session, where we were welcomed, we were made to sign a contract that made sure we couldn’t ask for our money back because ‘No more students are taken for the 6 month course and because the director works so deeply and intensively with each of us she doesn’t take any more students during this period and so would be losing out financially.’

Indeed on the site it now says the remainder of the fee is to paid 2 weeks before and ‘The student may decide to discontinue the training at any time, however, the student is liable for full payment of the training.’

At the time it seemed reasonable – assuming you know what you are getting into; however in practice it is a one sided contract designed to suit the interests of the director. All the 20,000 Dkr or $3,200 (including the deposit of 6,000Dkr ($960) I sent a few months before) had to be paid before we started.

The Programme:

Day 1 began with a total of 64 ‘students’ seated on the floor in a circle around the director. No supervisors, no props, no boards. We are all asked to talk about ourselves one by one. This took the whole morning to complete.

Things started to happen: Crying from several members, diatribes from others, glowing praises for the director from old students (who hadn’t seem to have moved on), to expressions of universal love and affection (‘I want to say how much I love you all!).’ The director sat there taking all of this in, praising one, admonishing another, instructing us all.

The circle talk was long and time consuming but finally ended with her assigning us duties: We have to do everything ourselves! From cleaning the hall, the toilets, looking after the props, making sure there was milk, tea, coffee…Many of us (especially me) kept a low profile.

We were then shown around the ‘school’: A basic lounge for coffee; a hall of about 700 square metres; a few small rooms for ‘make-up’ and ‘costumes (a paltry rack of second hand costumes with basic materials – for it was up to us to make our own) and 4 toilets for the 64 of us.

There were still no books, course notes, audio visual equipment, or supervisor besides Barbara Siebenthal. They were to come later with certain inputs, according to the brochure. I was getting the impression that ‘theatre’ is what we will be ‘spontaneously’ doing ourselves under the ‘instruction’ of the director and ‘creativity’ is what the director will decide is creative for us. In other words we will be working for our money with no genuine support.

Before the afternoon session the men lined up and fight for the toilet, one accusing another of pushing in. It seemed that the love was getting a bit thin outside the circle!

We began ‘free dancing’ which is assuming ‘natural’ shapes creatively to loud music (there was a lot of praise about the new hi-fi system). The hall was very crowded, with people crawling, jumping, circling, whooshing and bumping into each other, as our eyes had to be closed. This went on for half an hour.

Day 2: We began the ‘circle talk’ again which took over an hour to complete. There was more crying, random talk, with the director again telling some what to do, challenging others and giving us ‘insights.’ It was very tedious, with the director in the lime-light and her audience attentive to her next move.

She seemed to have an uncanny knack of spotting peoples weaknesses and vulnerabilities, alternating between friendliness and harshness (belying a certain absence of any real feeling). She was charismatic and in complete control of her audience, assessing each person, how to manage them, knowing who was a threat, who was on her side and she had a confidence that was either remarkable or over sure.

I got the feeling that she chose certain types of individuals, or made sure that the pre-selection was based more on personality type than on the need or welfare of that person.

We began another serious ‘exercise’ to avant-garde music with the purpose of ‘shaking the muscles from the bones’ - i.e. shaking our whole bodies with our eyes closed, again for half an hour.

We then moved into ‘deep breathing’ between two people, where one person had to locate where that person was breathing from, by touching different parts of their abdomen.

After a massage, we then gathered around (again!) and repeated the same circle talk for over an hour, with challenges from the director. More tears, fights, one or two needing to take up a lot of attention. The day ends with each person having to say ‘something’ about a realisation.

When it came to my turn and wanted to keep silent she launched into an attack:

’I’m tired of you being on the outside as an observer - Are you going to get involved or not?!’ This is not a question. My inner resistance building up, I think for a while and say: ‘No!’

She publicly asked for me to say behind to have a talk - the talk about ‘why am I here’ and maybe I shouldn’t be.

Day 3: The ‘circle talk’ encounter group began again. The tension built up in the hall and the there wasn’t such a ‘loving atmosphere’ as in Day 1. Some are guarded; others are expressing misgivings that this is a cult.

The director, quick to pick up the mood (and opposition), pre-empts the general disaffection by wanting to ‘talk’ about it. It is more like a propaganda speech, superficially trying to show a ‘balanced’ argument. It doesn’t wash. There are more reservations, arguments, and tears; older students rally round to defend the work. Others don’t care. For the time being I kept a low profile.

In the meantime a man started crying because he was having trouble coping with the adjustment of his girlfriend who they have just found out is pregnant. He was overwhelmed and emotional. The director ‘guided’ him in a visualisation, about how his father loves him, is there to support him and will always be there for him. He ‘gets over it.’ And people are awed at her ‘insight.’

Utterly oblivious to this persons suffering, another younger man immediately interrupts his misery because he wants to resolve some ‘musical problem.’ The director got him into the circle and asked him to sing; she then started pressing different parts of his body to ‘produce’ different ‘voice sounds’ of different octaves. Again, everyone marvelled at her ‘ability.’

Containing myself no longer I said words to the effect that I fully sympathise with the guy who feels overwhelmed (actually I was annoyed with the way he has been cursorily treated by her) and took up the issue again that this was a cult.

The director took this as a personal challenge to her authority and told everyone so. I made criticisms, like where is your method, your structure, your materials? She quickly retaliated: ‘Don’t you realise everyone, this attack on me, not on you – he has no problems with you and this all about him and me!’

More counter attacks and aggro towards me; ‘you know you say things in such a soft way but actually you are angry…! Divisions are made, the ‘guru’ with a knack of eliciting support through silent persuasion says:

‘Don’t play his games, don’t you see how he is trying to manipulate you…!’ More conflict until an ultimatum is given by the larger faction: ‘You either cooperate or leave!’ I thought for a moment and said I would leave, so got up and did so. As I had no accommodation, I decided to get the next flight back to London that evening.

Epilogue: A few weeks later I wrote a registered letter for my money back. No reply. I have since not recovered my fees for being ejected (by other paying students) after 3 days. In retrospect I see how this was played out and have since read a lot on cults. For those who haven’t please go to: [www.culteducation.com].

I could say a lot here but let me just say a few things that I have come to realise from hard knocks with certain self-professed ‘gurus’ (Barbara Siebenthal also follows Guru Shanti-Mayi) who practice certain resistance diminishing techniques on encounter groups:

Besides the positive benefits on everyone across the board being highly questionable (through so called insight and catharsis), putting this above common values and principles and unquestioningly surrendering to someone without due evaluation is VERY DANGEROUS.

Thank God these groups operate within a wider context of human rights, where recourse to protection by the law is possible. I see this centre as another situation where the ‘dream of enlightenment’ is sold, with greed at its base and the stronger preying on the weaker.

It is my opinion, that in reality, Barbara Siebenthal makes $409,600 per year (64 people * $3,200 * 2); for a low grade course, by exploiting vulnerable and desperate people.

I recommend, as a word of advice for the future:

1. Find out in advance what you may be getting into. Be alert, know what this person is (or isn’t) offering, ask for the course outline etc. If they are cagey or act superior about this beware! Don’t sign contracts.

2. Get street wise and read up on cult practice and techniques. These techniques are not bad in themselves, but they do intend to achieve a certain purpose. In the wrong hands this technology is destructive. There are many good websites on this topic.

3. Listen to your instincts! My warning bells were: We all had to work for the teacher, unfair contracts had to be signed, the attitude and ethics of the teacher were nil; there was little equipment and practical assets; classic group manipulation and peer pressure tactics were operating. My impression was that there was very little care and compassion, people were getting more and more miserable, unstable and dependent on one person.

4. Values and Principles are paramount. Enlightenment IS basic respect for individuality, surrender to ethical principles and acceptance of the common good of a society. All gurus historically were accountable to their students and if they abused them were ejected by the wider community. No matter what is said, if basic common respect and societal ethics are thrown out of the window, you are in trouble. All abuse begins with this.

5. In actual conflict situations, when you want to leave and get your money back I recommend the following:

• Don’t engage in open conflict, or reveal your intentions, reservations etc in the social situation; there are many reasons why you may precipitate disaster in a group encounter. Wait until afterwards and talk with your ‘guru’ privately. Find others who will also most likely be feeling the same way; going together is even better. Make up your personal impression with someone outside the centre.

• And insist on your money back, regardless of what you have signed: Threaten to go to the police; better even is to go and make a statement, refusing to leave the centre (but not going to class) until all your money is returned. These people don’t wish to have bad publicity and you are protected for good reason. Don’t be intimidated, because the law is on your side, particularly if you are a visitor to that country.

• And keep talking, informing others, particularly on web-sites. Go back to the magazines that give them publicity, refer them to the Standards Board of the country. Bad publicity builds up fast. Don’t keep silent.