I am researching for a book and am looking for a good history of this guru and his cult. Information on this site seem a little thin.

I am specifically tryng to discern the extent to which he was a maleficent cult leader versus a basically well-intended kook who became increasingly befuddled by age, poor health, and the machinations of his lieutenants, some of whom seemed to be frankly evil. I have to wonder if the inner circle just took advantage of the old fellow.

See [www.culteducation.com]

You might find this perspective useful

[www.granta.com]

Let me see, Bagwan himself was not prosecuted as I recall.


Didn't Sheela embezzle about 50 million dollars from the organzation?

Bhagwhan Shree Rajneesh was held in jail and then deported.

Sheela did prison time.

Is your book going to be fiction or non-fiction. John Updike wrote a novel called "S" that appears to be based on Rajneesh. It's a good read!

I am going for a non-fictional, informative scholarly work.

I am attempting to discuss a kind of natural history of cultism. One thesis is that cultism is a emergent phenomenon that can more or less spontaneously happen in any passionate, idealistic social group organized around a central motivating force, which often happens to be a charismatic leader or leaders.

Worried Dad:

The most frequently cited single feature of a destructive "cult" is that it is personality-driven.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Quote
Worried_Dad
One thesis is that cultism is a emergent phenomenon that can more or less spontaneously happen in any passionate, idealistic social group organized around a central motivating force, which often happens to be a charismatic leader or leaders.

Unless we have a different definition for "cults", the dynamics of the majority of cults seem to require, at least at some point in their early history, a charismatic, smooth-talking leader who is often an imaginative psychopath (frankly). This leader stirs the group members' loyalty into a near-frenzy and is able to break down their ability to think critically, and whammo, he or she has built the foundation for a cult. If the cult leader successfully propagates effective recruitment abilities to the most frenzied and loyal followers, whammo, you just might have an expanding cult that can get quite big and maybe even outlast its original leader.

Actual mileage may vary, because cult leaders are not all equally good at the various skills that support actually being a cult leader. In some cases, this is the reason certain cults get big and others stay small against their wishes. In addition to the obvious skill you would expect, simply being able to win someone over to your invented religion, the cult leader has to play his or her cards right to make it become successful and stay that way. Knowing which people are best to recruit; choosing the mechanisms to make recruits stay; building up enough frenzy and loyalty in order to both prevent disastrous schisms and keep the recruitment efforts high enough; transferring recruitment skills to the right people at the right time; plus doing it all effectively enough to make it all work and stick together. Some large, cult-like groups have organization-wide systems in place that make the key decisions for the sub-leaders who may not naturally be skilled in all of the needed areas. It is not always an easy job, being a cult leader!

Quote

The most frequently cited single feature of a destructive "cult" is that it is personality-driven

I have noticed that the Christian groups which seem more cult-like are always emphasizing the personal relationship with Jesus and the acceptance of certain key verses, which may vary from cult to cult but which are isolated from other parts of the bible and which are singular for each group. They don't like a more complex theology.

I have also noticed that within larger churches like the Catholic church, the cults that form and sometimes are thrown out usually choose a personality or specific saint as their focus.

This isn't just a phenomenon in churches. I have noticed similar in political parties. As soon as the focus is more heavily on specific candidates than on the party's proposed program, the politics turn ugly and sometimes the campaigns seem like wars between cults.

But is it really a cult when people ignore the larger picture to focus on the leader? I mean, can cult followers exist with an unwilling leader?

For example, if you ask some people what they believe about a theological or political idea that a group has proposed, and they keep changing the subject to the personality of a deity or a politician, then is it the fault of that church or political party that so many of their members do this?

Can a legitimate group be turned into a cult by the followers, and not just by a rogue leader?