I thought the purpose of this forum was for helping to target and disclose cult activity. This bit about Guru G and the dissatisfaction some have about her counseling activities seems far removed from the purpose of this forum and the 'cause' appears to have moved into an arena of something entirely different. Dissatisfaction about someone's practices is not a basis for cult activities, especially when it was never, as all have said here, a mandatory practice or required element of the group. There are an untold number of stories about people without licenses that operate all kinds of businesses in this country....does that make them all cult leaders?

Continuing with the video:

So far it's not very interesting. Just the guru's own "pity party" if you'll forgive appropriating the term, about how she's always the poor poor victim and these former clients who speak out here are just out to get her.

At 52:47, Guru G states "It reveals, you know, that if they can say these nasty things, then they were not sincere in being here. They had some other agenda. Who knows what the agenda is going on. You know. But I can tell you there were things my Guru has done that I did not always agree with. Have I ever bad-mouthed him once? Never. Never once. I have never badmouthed any of the teachers I have had in my past. And there were a lot of them that I didn't agree with a lot of things they did and the way they taught, or what they were doing in their personal lives, but I have never, ever ever, badmouthed any of them. And you don't. If you're genuinely in a spiritual path. And I have had some very difficult experiences in the past but all of them helped me to learn and to move forward. But if you get on this pity party and rant. And you want to drag people through he mud, and you want to lie and you want to do that to make yourselves right, then really, what kind of spiritual path are they ready for in any way shape or form?"

To me it appears as if Guru G is saying here that there is no legitimate criticism of her. Even when she does stuff that's wrong, to speak of it is a sin that throws one off a "spiritual path".

At 55:08, Guru G states "All I can is it's very painful. Because I love and cared about all of them that have been here. Even the ones who want to leave and try to drag me through the mud. I understand their pain. I understand the nonsense and the hell-realms that they're living in with their mind-spin, but it doesn't give them carte-blanche to do what they're doing"

Clearly she loves those who left so much she's willing to violate their confidence by posting their private correspondence on facebook and putting up YouTube videos about them. And there's more about the hell-realms. Can any former members define "mind-spin" for me. I've never heard that term before. It it unique to Guru G?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2013 09:13PM by psyborgue.

Great points, Corby and Psyborgue.

Corby is right that some of the services as described by both Swami G and her clients/followers, have a medical practice quality to them. For example, I was not aware that a religious leader could offer services in helping someone taper and wean off of psychotropic medication. That sounds more like a psychiatric function, and a very dangerous one at that.

And you are right, Psyborgue, that there is a major ministerial duties exception to the licensing statute, but as I read the wording of the statute, it only clarifies that the licensing requirements should not be "construed to limit the performance of activities of a rabbi, priest, minister, or member of the clergy of any religious denomination or sect, or use of the terms “Christian counselor” or “Christian clinical counselor” when the activities are within the scope of the performance of his or her regular or specialized ministerial duties" AND, as you emphasized, when they are UNCOMPENSATED. That does not strike me as exempting Swami G since I cannot imagine treating someone for psychiatric/psychological conditions, and even weaning patients off of their meds, is a "ministerial duty" associated with her blend of Hinduism/Buddhism, etc. If it were, then anyone in Florida could exempt themselves from the medical/mental health counseling licensing laws by calling themselves a guru.

Although she has not charged some followers, she DOES require payment now for counseling. $400 for 4 sessions, as noted in her materials. Along those lines, the latter part of the section you quoted -- allowing for compensated counseling -- does not apply to Swami G since she is not "accountable to the established authority" of any church, sect, etc. So, it seems to me that she is on the hook, but who knows. I am not an expert in these regulatory enforcement issues. This is for the Florida Department of Health to decide. I bet that the regulators would look skeptically at someone claiming to give "Diksha" (http://www.guruswamig.com/diksha/diksha) to followers who even set foot in the city where she's located, as she's mentioned in her videos. Then again, goodness knows that "Christian counselors" and ministers have claimed outrageous things themselves.

This all really boils down to the need for great caution on the part of current and prospective followers. I would think twice, long and hard, about sharing ANY personal information with ANYONE "on this path," least of all private medical, psychological and familial information. I would especially be wary of sharing it in writing, on a discussion board, or while being recorded in any form, especially given how she's used that material against departed followers (Holly, Rohan, Mike, etc.).

And Rohan, are you a THIRD recent departure that she's trashed publicly in the process of leaving? You were the "Rohan" that she refers to in a recent video, yes? She's on quite the roll.

Quote
XRohan
Shes not in the mental health field shes just doing it I ask for my money back and have not heard anything back contrary to the video where she said she would send back the money.......

I do recall hearing that in her "Rick Ross" YouTube video. Can't say i'm surprised she wasn't sincere as she was hardly sincere in her claims that she was above publishing information on past clients (when shortly thereafter, she did just that).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2013 10:20PM by psyborgue.

Happie:

The topic of this thread is "Guru Swami G."

The may include her so-called " counseling activities."

Do you have something to say that is on topic or are you just trolling?

yes im the Rohan in the video lol the Drunk and drug user

Happie:

I would not be surprised if you were a student of hers.
Either that or just a troll.
Have you taken the time to read what is being said?
Her so-called "counseling activities" are entirely relevant to this thread.
She has zero training and no license to offer these kinds of services for money.
She may or may not get around it because she formed a kind of church org,
and because she asks for "donations", but that doesn't make it ok.
And her insistence on recording and sharing is completely out of line.
In my case, I agreed to go to Florida and have her oversee my weaning off long-time
meds. She had no idea what she was doing, and was confident it was working like a
charm thanks to her gritty, no bs, practical, approach.
Well I managed to get down to zero, but when I get home, I hit a wall and suffered
heavily as a result.
It obviously didn't help that while I was there, my whole perspective shifted from under me
based on what I had seen.
All she did was hang out while I decreased.
I'm the one who had to pick up the pieces once I got back home and back to the real world.
But I'm not playing the victim by any means.
I agreed to it.
But I don't want others to suffer under the influence of this delusional woman.
My hope is most everyone leaves on their own steam, and she's pretty much left to stew in her own
nonsense.
But short of that, at least people will have this thread to judge for themselves.
And it will deter many from either continuing or ever joining.
Like I said, for some it appears they were made for eachother, and if that somehow works for them, then
have a ball.

I would like to clarify that while I am convinced Sharon and her group is a cult, I don't agree with many at this forum that
most all (or all) spiritual teachers and groups are cults.
I agree with the mystical traditions, that we are in essence, beyond the mind/ego/body level of functioning, One.
That we are in essence, Pure Awareness, Brahman, Buddha Nature, Pure Consciousness, True Nature, Presence, Spirit, Pure Witness (many names can be used that more or less point to the same truth)
And that all major (and minor) religions should indeed be included in any discussion about "Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements"
I hope the moderator allows this comment to stay here.
I won't harp on it any more than that.
But I feel like I needed to make my position clear.

Quote
Happie
I thought the purpose of this forum was for helping to target and disclose cult activity. This bit about Guru G and the dissatisfaction some have about her counseling activities seems far removed from the purpose of this forum and the 'cause' appears to have moved into an arena of something entirely different. Dissatisfaction about someone's practices is not a basis for cult activities, especially when it was never, as all have said here, a mandatory practice or required element of the group. There are an untold number of stories about people without licenses that operate all kinds of businesses in this country....does that make them all cult leaders?

Happie,

I'm glad you've brought up these questions. It's a common misconception that all cults have to be religiously oriented. Some are political cults (for example, the LaRouche movement) where the leader purports to have all the answers to the world's political problems. Some are therapy cults, such as the Center for Feeling Therapy. Some are UFO cults, like the Raelians or Heaven's gate. Some groups are religious in nature, but even they often use supposedly secular fronts as a means of recruitment.

Take Scientology for instance. Most people probably think it's a religion with religious origins. In fact, it started off as a self help group. It only became a religion once the tax benefits became evident. Even to this day, it's recruitment often originates from "personality tests" or front groups such as Narconon, a drug treatment program. Even their practices resemble quack-therapy far more than they resemble religion (for example, the e-meter).

Another example would be Synanon. Originally starting off as a drug treatment program, Synanon later became a "church" for much the same reasons as Scientology. I have to wonder whether Guru G's counseling services are merely a path she uses to guide members into her more spiritual beliefs. These recruitment paths are just one reason of many that Guru G's counseling services and practices are relevant.

You say that dissatisfaction by itself is no indication that a group is a cult or cult-like. I completely agree. What's important is not the dissatisfaction itself, but what caused the dissatisfaction. Here the causes of the dissatisfaction are very much indicative of cult-like behavior. Let's take Rick Ross's warning signs, for instance and apply those to what Guru G has said, and what her ex-followers have said.

Quote
Rick Ross Warning Signs
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always right.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

1. Who is Guru G accountable to? It seems to me she is only accountable to herself.
2. In my previous detailed posts about Guru G's video, it's clear that criticism is not tolerated. She in no uncertain terms claims that no criticism of her is valid. One does not criticize the Guru even if they are doing things that are wrong.
3. Guru G has not made any financial disclosures. I'm not saying that she should be found guilty by this point alone, or that absence of evidence is somehow evidence in itself, but when combined with these other points, it raises definite questions, especially when former members have related stories of significant financial contributions.
4. Guru G has made it clear that it is her belief that a majority of those who leave the group will fail and go back to her old ways. She has also implied that she has been persecuted. See my previous posts where she is quoted on this.
5. Guru G has made it clear that those who leave are sick, or have ulterior motives for doing so. She has gone so far as to publish private letters and reveal the confidential details of former member's lives to try and make her case. See my previous posts on her video for quotations of her on this, as well as Diddly's posts. I won't post or link to any of the information Guru G has released, but suffice to say it exists and if you look you can find it.
6. Former members are being consistent with what they are saying about Guru G.
7. No. Not on this, but then again, she's running a small group.

As far as 8, 9, and 10 go. I can't really speak to that. Perhaps some former members can elaborate as to whether this is the case. It certainly seems from her video that she believes that she is always right, and critics are always wrong. All this being said, by no means am I saying that Guru G is running a cult. I'm not saying she's not either. I don't think there is enough evidence one way or the other to make a distinction, however there are definite warning signs there, and I think it warrants further inquiry.

I also realize that many current members who might be browsing this forum might flinch at my quoting Rick Ross as evidence against their Guru. To these skeptics, I would recommend doing your own research on cults and cult-like groups. A good place to start might be with books by Margaret T. Singer, Janja Lalich, Robert J. Lifton, or Paul Morantz. After all, if there Guru G is not running a cult, or a cult-like group, a book will certainly not cause any harm.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2013 07:30PM by psyborgue.

Quote
mike77
I would like to clarify that while I am convinced Sharon and her group is a cult, I don't agree with many at this forum that most all (or all) spiritual teachers and groups are cults.

Perhaps some on this forum have claimed that, but although i'm new here, I hardly get the impression that is the majority view. I, personally, don't like religion, spirituality, or quackery in any shape or form, but I wouldn't say all the groups or practices I don't like are cults or even cult-like. From all the books I've read, the label "cult" has less to do with religion and more to do with the structure, practices, and origins of a group. As I said in my above post, a cult can be about almost anything.