"Paralleling ‘self-help’ crap with actual medical interventions is cheap and dirty. It’s like there’s no real science behind medicine at all, and it’s all a crap-shoot. This is just ridiculously ignorant."
"It’s hard to argue against people claiming personal experience."
"Again, your comment “And, as a result, people are both helped and harmed by science. The same is true of religion and self-help movements” is so broad it implies some sort of equality to science and nonsense."
That we do not understand many things: that’s a given. That doesn’t mean that we don’t understand *anything*.
Thirty five comments followed the blog article, Bad Ads
Those Who Have Been Burned7. XOX | October 29, 2010 at 5:01 am | Reply
Thanks for the comment. One of my friends has been attending this bullshit seminars. I didn’t think twice about it until I see her putting it up in her faceook advertising the event for them.
It really sounds like a whole of bullshit. I have no idea why people don’t see the obvious. But anyway, it saved me a lot of time of explaining if I could just link this article as a response. Hope she gets it and put her money back safely into her purse
8. with held | March 19, 2011 at 11:07 am | Reply
my wife returns from these workshops and all hell breaks loose and my daughter and me have to accept it. I have found scripts that she has been writing about me for the last 8 years so I am the main subject matter. She convinced me once to see one of thes trainers for a one to one .
I went with an open mind. He sat there ,we talked like you would to a friend over a couple of cups of tea
.He seemed a bit distanced and vague a lot of the time but did say that my wife was right about most things we were having problems with and I should do as she wished ? She ‘s right you’re wrong kinda thing .
They are her “FRIENDS” not mine by the way. COST£75..rubbish …I have had counselling before and found it helpful ,these professional counsellers had accreditted qualifications {not accreditted by an individual}..You ‘d be hard pushed to find a fully qualified psychologist /psychotherapist in the extended P.O.V “FAMILY”
my wife.soon to be ex -wife {I don’t fit the design for life } chose P.O.V over me when I gave her an ultimatum .We have children , and I am really concerned about my youngest 13 yrs old as they will want to get involved to heal her bereivment and loss .Hook em while they’re young any advice on protecting her would be welcome ..She’s a happy little soul already
9. Greg Davis | July 10, 2011 at 1:54 am | Reply
I have a friend who has been conned into paying and attending these so-called “workshops” offered by POV. So far she’s payed over $1500.00 not including her travel costs.
I’ve asked her what she is getting out of it and she can’t give me a clear answer. I’ve read the “homework” she does with the seminars and it’s pure B.S.
This POV (LAW of PROCESS?) is SLICKLY PRESENTED, HIGH PRICED, NEW AGE “SNAKE OIL” garbage, nothing more.
$295.00/2 day LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP. You pay upfront or can’t attend.
My friend is wasting her money and time,what a shame.
10. moreinfo | January 11, 2012 at 4:14 am | Reply
why is it that all these people that have gone to pov call themselves the true healers in our village? they don’t help anyone that isn’t in their “workshops” turn their back on individuals that are having problems,telling them there is only one of us here you,re just telling a story.and the mean people seem to be getting meaner.no one can ask any questions about methods and techniques to these pov’ers as they take it as an attack on them.they separate themselves from the rest of the village because they’re the ones that have the answers and the rest of us don’t get it.
they do not practice healing behavior,the opposite of what is promised seems to be how EVERYONE that HAS to take these workshops ends up,mean,unhappy,having to always take more workshops.
type in psychology of vision trainers manual 2011,this will show you why the participants behave the way they do, they have to, they don,t have control of their lives anymore,when you get to this stage ,chuck and lency own you, they cannot think objectively anymore.
pov has all the warning signs and characteristics of pure cult,warning signs of destructive cults lists many problems that pov uses in their indoctrination and agenda, buyer beware, especially when you follow a leaders idea of enlightenment, bliss or whatever, there is one fact to know- there is no quick fix spezanno has been here for 23 years and no one is “healed” yet,and are still paying for their “healing” with a lot of the money meant for residential school survivors,these pov devotees spent all of their money on themselves
.this has nothing to do with healing ,more like power and dominance
11. Barry | February 23, 2012 at 1:30 am | Reply
I went to a Chuck Spezzano workshop years ago (1985). Total worthless crap. His phoney wife and his phoney methodology do nothing for anyone. It’s true that his Phd has no scientific method to it whatsoever, which is why what he is doing is “spiritual” (what ever that means) therefore virtually worthless because he talks in vague generalities, not random selection, control groups, etc. or something that can be proved to work. A large uninformed suggestible public just doesn’t know and he’s taking full advantage of it! Beware!
12. moreinfo | April 18, 2012 at 12:51 am | Reply
here is the trainers manual 2011 for chuck spezanno’s psychology of vision , if all one has to look forward to about being “healed” by this unacredited unrecognised by health canada, pay as you go, and sign a waiver that that states it is your own fault if anything happens to you from chuck and his group of “trainers” and “advanced trainers” after all of this is to become a “trainer” .then why do people believe in this guy?? his “healing program” is proving to be more suitablebly named -psychology of division,because his devoutees want to seperate from everyone not in his program, even their own families,when there is an”us and them” behaviour happening to his “healers”,how can they call themselves healers??
[www.psychologyofvision.com]
reading this manual helps one understand why the “trainers” behave the way they do,they have to put chuck spezanno before anything else in their lives . and they have to pay big money for this??!!
13. moreinfo | April 25, 2012 at 1:54 am | Reply
for anyone interested in the workings of a cult,this site describes similarities in methods and techniques used in all cults ,none of them are original ,just different leaders with a different cause to make the participants believe in to become indoctrinated . chuck spezanno’s psychology of vision follows this same formula.
[lessonsinawareness.com]
for those concerned about themselves or know of or have a loved one involved with a suspected high demand group, this link is helpful to start understanding what was done to you.
[www.enlightened-spirituality.org]
check out the link dedicated to the deeksha givers,if you want to advance your “training” with P.O.V. you have to take this “course
The Skeptics[
robteszka.wordpress.com]
Corboy decided to sort the comments into two groups:
Those from skeptics
Those from non-skeptics
The SkepticsQuote
1. Alexander | September 30, 2009 at 9:10 pm | Reply
‘Creates a new pattern to re-wire your central nervous system’… Although the poster claims to use some sort of magic and/or light bulb array to cause this, it really does sort of sound like they’re replacing who you are with a different, albeit more spiritual, person.
Has sort of a creepy brainwash-esque vibe to it. I think if I had any belief that it would work I’d be even more concerned about this than I already am.
On another note, it refers to ‘leadership’, a common advertising buzzword these days. It appeals to our pride, and our desire for power – you’ll be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t either think of themself as a leader, or else a leader waiting to blossom. I’m instantly skeptical of anything that uses that word, so maybe that’s just rubbing off a bit here.
2. Brian L (surname omitted by Corboy for privacy) | May 17, 2010 at 3:00 am | Reply
The comments to this post make me sad. It’s just a sequence of nonsense strung together.
A) The state of medicine in Ancient Greece was crap. Quoting Plato about medicine is complete nonsense, and is on par with quoting Aristotle to back up Quantum Mechanics: you would have to have a highly defective brain to do so.
And before anyone says anything stupid about ‘having to study Plato indepth before forming an opinion’: I have.
(Corboy: he is right. Earliest description of tetanus was by Hippocrates, describing a shipowner who crushed his finger with an anchor. The man died in agony. Nothing could be done for abscessed teeth or compound fractures, either.)
B) There is *nothing* that anyone can do in a workshop to ‘rewire your nervous system’ (short of whipping out a knife and going to work…). *Nothing*. To think otherwise is to be grotesquely ignorant of human biology. If you believe otherwise, then you are a danger to yourself and to anyone who relies upon you for medical advice.
C) True psychology is about *the brain*. The things that are about ‘the soul’ are called “fairy tales”, or pseudoscience crap designed to separate you from your money
.
D) Neither “new science” nor “New psychology” back up anything you’re saying, unless these are labels for ‘the stuff previously known as bullshit’.
E) There are no Christ teachings. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of the construction of the bible.
F) Paralleling ‘self-help’ crap with actual medical interventions is cheap and dirty. It’s like there’s no real science behind medicine at all, and it’s all a crap-shoot. This is just ridiculously ignorant.
G) Spezzano’s methods are bullshit, plain and simple. If you can’t see that, then there’s a proverb to the rescue: a fool and their money are soon parted.
Enjoy the delusion, hope it doesn’t cost you too much in the way of health, money and time. But it probably will.
o james m | November 20, 2011 at 7:15 pm | Reply
heres an interestin read ,type psychology of vision2011 trainers manual , some interestin stuff there
3. Lucas J.W. J | May 17, 2010 at 2:07 pm | Reply
Rob,
It’s hard to argue against people claiming personal experience. The worst thing you can do is pass it off as stupid responses or puppetry — I certainly don’t agree with them, but they do make a couple good points about issues you just pass off as wrong without giving the evidence.
I don’t recommend starting a huge argument, but maybe give them one response where you link to all the evidence you need. You have the benefit of science on your side, so use it, rather than resorting to the same unsubstantiated claims that they do.
Like commenter Brian, who specifically addresses some of the arguments. Find your evidence and use it, because that’s how science works — and science *works*. You won’t convince them by calling them puppets. But yours is an argument that needs making. :)
(Corboy, that means pausing to write the equivalent of a book, a large New Yorker feature article, or a master's thesis. During the lag time needed for
the in depth reply, myriads of ads can be placed by profiteers who care little for fact checking or for logical inconsistencies)
4. Brian L| May 17, 2010 at 3:27 pm | Reply
Lucas, I have the advantage of having specific arguments to respond to. Because Rob is dealing with the initial stuff, he doesn’t have arguments to respond to.
I’ve checked out the PoV website too, and it’s all just meaningless babble. There’s no specific claims, there’s nothing that can be compared to a modern psychological/neuroscientific understanding of the brain/mind on those sites.
That absence is what Rob is responding to.
The ‘sock puppets’ statement is a specific reference to an internet practice whereby one uses multiple accounts to present the same opinion but with the illusion of consensus. It’s not a reference to people being mindless zombies under the influence of the PoV people.
And I suspect, though I’m sure Rob will correct me, that Rob isn’t aiming to convince the morons that they’re wrong. If rational argument were a viable tool, then they wouldn’t be convinced of the many stupid things that I had to respond to.
o Brian May 21, 2010 at 9:38 pm | Reply
Again, your comment “And, as a result, people are both helped and harmed by science. The same is true of religion and self-help movements” is so broad it implies some sort of equality to science and nonsense.
Painting with such broad strokes is ludicrous. This is the Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy, a basic failure of reasoning.
Check the success of science and modern medicine: what is your life expectancy in modern society? What was the life expectancy of your great-great-grandparents?
What is the ‘harm’ that science has committed, in and of itself? What harms did science motivate (as opposed to being used as a tool by someone already motivated)?
Compare that to the success/failure of religion and self-help: zip.
Religion is nonsense and lies packaged in guilt and control. Self-help is the illegitimate step-child of psychology, a bunch of half-understood notions dumbed down and sold with no interest in actually *understanding* people.
Equating the former with the latter is either ignorance, or intentional obfuscation.
That we do not understand many things: that’s a given. That doesn’t mean that we don’t understand *anything*.
The final paragraph is particularly telling: “I don’t know if people are benefitting from what Spezzano is teaching”.
Do you know how many people are benefiting from sugar pills as medicine? Zip. Zero. Nada.
Yet some people who take sugar pills get better. The same principle is at play with Spezzano: just because people ‘get better’ at the same time as they did something else does *not* mean that the ‘something else’ caused them to get better.
$1000 (Canadian) on the table by me says that Spezzano has not done any clinical trials, that he has not kept accurate figures of people who have and have not gotten better, nor has he done *any* comparative studies of how many people get better using his method vs any other method.
Why?
Because he doesn’t care. He’s making money from people who don’t know any better. Scum like him should be doing time for fraud, not being enabled.
§ Brian L| May 21, 2010 at 9:39 pm |
And that ‘zip’ there was just on the ‘successes’ of religion and self-help. I fired that off a smidge too fast. :P
5. Brian L | May 22, 2010 at 1:48 pm | Reply
“who is a hopeful person – (one of the benefits of having faith in God)”
This is a common misconception of religious people: ‘faith in god’ has nothing to do with being hopeful. People who are religious often attribute their hopefulness to their belief in god, but it’s in error.
It’s entirely possible to be hopeful *and* rational, as evidenced by many athiests (including myself).
“He also pays attention to experiential knowledge.”
Here’s where the semantic nonsense starts. Here’s where you start the pattern of playing with words in some attempt to do [something]. I don’t know what exactly your goal is, but using pseudo-acadamic phrases to dress up the reality of the situation is disingenuous, at best.
“He also pays attention to the experience of other people” is what you’re saying, which equates to “he also pays attention to anecdotes”.
“And yes, it has been studied and found to be helpful, but because it’s not a patentable treatment, the pharmacuetical industry understandably has no incentive to spend the money to step it through the approval process for the purpose of marketing it as a treatment.”
Wow.
Just… Wow
…
There is so much nonsense in that one paragraph: cite your sources.
A) go to a healthfood store (or any pharmacy). Check out all the vitamin supplements on the shelves. They are not patentable, yet “the pharmacuetical industry” (DUN Dun dun…) are still selling them. Those evil bastards. This is known as “conspiracy crap” to those who aren’t conspiracy nuts.
B) “As a treatment” it’s less effective than the other things on the market. I’m going to make the assumption that you’re not *merely* listening to other folk blather on about their personal stories (which demonstrate neither the effectiveness of ‘alternative treatments’ nor the failure of ‘science’). Have you bothered to go to pubmed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/)? And do a search for all these things you claim aren’t being checked?
There are 219 hits for the search “atrial fibrillation magnesium” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=DetailsSearch&term=atrial+fibrillation+magnesium). A meta-analysis of the data shows that *intravenous* use of magnesium is “less significant than other calcium antagonists or amiodarone”
(http://heart.bmj.com/content/93/11/1433.long you’ll need some sort of university login to read anything more than the abstract).
Why does the ‘intravenous’ matter? Because taking it orally will have a *lesser* effect than taking it intravenously. And it’s *already* less effective than the stuff that’s already in use.
C) Any medical intervention can be patented. “The pharmacuetical industry” (DUN Dun dun…) would just throw something else into the mix with the magnesium and patent that particular combination, even if the addition was iron, or just sugar. Given that YOU WOULD BUY IT there’s clearly a market for uninformed people throwing away their money, thus it’s in their interest to ‘push it through the approval process’.
“And by the way, I’m not advocating here that anyone take magnesium to treat atrial fibrillation”
Oh.
So it doesn’t work?
Or it does, but you wouldn’t recommend this ‘working treatment’ to other people?
How does that work in your head? That’s a blatent contradiction.
“self-help”
You abuse this term a lot. This is known as the Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts. “Self-help” has a very specific meaning in the vernacular, reffering to a certain bookshelf in any particular bookstore. This is the nonsense that is complete bullshit, although it may inadvertently contain the occasional nugget of truth.
You have decided to redefine this term to mean “doing stuff myself”. I would agree that there is merit to ‘doing stuff yourself’, but not to ‘self-help’, because they don’t mean the same thing.
However, if you are serious about ‘doing stuff yourself’, that would require a medical degree. Or, at the least, listening to people with medical degrees.
Don’t get me wrong: I’ve dealt with incompetent medical staff too. I’ve gone for blood tests (a screening for STIs) and they sent me to a lab to test for anything but STIs, or I’ve asked for screening for a particular genetic marker (I’m Irish so I’m at greater risk, genetically, for haemochromotosis than others), and they sent me to check my Iron levels (which tests if I’m suffering from it).
Yes: some medical staff are crap. I’d never dispute that.
But my source for knowledge about medical stuff isn’t ‘people I know’ (aside from the MD that I know). It’s actual *medical* literature.
Did I mention pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) already?
“that told her what language to use to push through”
This is so vague as to be meaningless. What are you talking about?
“a psychiatrist in the Chicago area”
Whose name was…? How do I verify this without the name?
This whole story sounds incredibly far-fetched, given how unregulated the medical industry was at this time. This particular era that you’re referring to was a heyday of snake oil and other garbage. Hell, there were naturopathic hospitals all over the US at this time.
If you are referring to Abraham Low (and I think that you are), then you’re mistaken about the effectiveness of this particular treatment:
[en.wikipedia.org] (use the wiki to check the references, don’t try to claim that I’m merely relying on the wiki: it’s *sources* are what’s important)
If you are referring to Abraham Low, then you’re also mistaken about him stopping teaching under threat from “the medical establishment” (DUN Dun dun…), because he never stopped. Yet more conspiracy crap.
“his self-help methods are now endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association.”
Really? Who told you that? Have you *checked* that?
If I had a name to cross-reference, I could do a search on the APA’s website, and find out, but you haven’t provided me with those details. (Abraham Low doesn’t show up in a search on their page)
“Self-help has it’s problems too. I could give you examples of how self-help efforts have and can cause harm. But I’m willing to bet Brian that you also recognize that science has it’s problems and sometimes causes harm too.”
This would be where you, yet again, equate something that is predominately crap with something that is predominately useful and non-harmful.
Do you understand that they are not equivalent?
Do you understand that science is invested in *testing*?
Do you understand that “self-help” is not?
Do you understand that “asking your friends” doesn’t count as ‘testing’ or ‘investigating’?
Do you understand that there is a financial incentive for every new batch of science graduates (that’s *every* year) to test, attack and overturn the science of the past?
Do you understand that this means there is no monolithic “medical establishment” or “pharmaceutial industry” or “science”, and that to speak of them as such belies ignorance?
From your responses here, an honest answer from you would be “no” to all the above questions.
(Hint: wanting to change the wording here, given how basically simple I’ve made it, should be a big red-flag to you. Given that this *is* how things are, disagreeing with the phrasing means that your answer is ‘no’.
Now I get that that means you’re going to paint me as some idiot elitist, who has covered his ears and doesn’t want to hear anything to the contrary because I’m ‘part of the conspiracy’: that should also be a red flag to you.
To pretend for a moment that I am ‘part of the conspiracy’, here’s how you demonstrate that I’m wrong (see the word ‘demonstrate’? It’s an important word. It doesn’t mean “just say that I’m wrong”, it means ‘to show’):
Demonstrate that science *isn’t* interested in testing.
Demonstrate that ‘self-help’ (either or both definitions) *is* interested in testing.
Understand that ‘testing’ doesn’t mean that “I used it and I got better” or “I know 10 people who used it and they all got better”.
‘Testing’ means a standardised randomly controlled double-blind test, or something similar. I’m open to a variety of standardised tests, but “my friend says it works” isn’t a test.
Demonstrate that there *isn’t* a financial incentive for new graduates to overturn established science.
Demonstrate that new grads *don’t attempt* to overturn established science.
Demonstrate that any of those industries are, world-wide, monolithic.
Those would be acceptable counters to my claims, and would indicate that you understand what I’m talking about. “You’re just wrong” would indicate that you don’t understand what I’m talking about. Clear? )
“If it works, I use it, if it doesn’t, I don’t.”
Yuh huh.
And what do you mean by “it works”? Given that religion doesn’t ‘work’ for any meaningful definition of ‘works’, I don’t think that you know what you’re talking about.
“If science did not provide you all the answers you needed to maintain a good quality of life”
That is a vague and wooly sentence. Science doesn’t tell me who loves me, or who I love, nor does it help me find a partner. Science doesn’t tell me what TV shows I enjoy, nor what kind of foods I prefer. These all feed into ‘a good quality of life’.
Science has reduced my risk of polio and a large variety of diseases to zero. A question from my previous post which you deigned not to answer (of course) is that my life expectency is roughly triple that of my ancestors living in the early/mid 1800s.
People get sick. It happens. It sucks. Bitching about ‘science’ not being able to provide you a good quality of life while your body falls apart is just nonsense. It is simply not possible to maintain a good quality of life in all circumstances, and to demand otherwise is childish and unrealistic.
This is not to say that science should not keep looking into ways to improve things, but there will always be people who are beyond the help of current science. Because of the continuing evolution of illnesses, and the continued extension of our lives, there will always be new ways for us to die and fall apart. Science, having pushed us clear of the old ways, will always be behind the curve of the new.
To make your question more specific: if I find myself in the thrall of a new, otherwise undiscovered illness, that completely screws up my quality of life, will I wait for science to find the answer?
Yes. Because nothing else works, it’s the only option on the table.
o Joseph | June 29, 2014 at 4:51 am | Reply
I think wanting to be right is your ego getting in the way. Truth cannot be taught . It is known or unknown. I can understand that which I wish to understand by my own curiosity ,effort and research. You can talk till you turn blue and to who’s benefit?Ours or your ? Peace
6. J S| September 9, 2010 at 11:44 am | Reply
I have read these comments with great interest. It seems to me that this is a clash of ways of thinking about proof. There is an inner conviction someone can feel based on individual experience — a prayer that resulted in an answer, a healing — but these experiences are individual and subjective. On the other hand there is science — science is a language that people can communicate in no matter what their religion or culture is. That is so great about science. I am a scientist. Science provides us with methods that we can use to test assumptions.
If a new (age?) method of healing appears on the horizon, science provides us with the means to rise above our own individual subjective experiences. It allows us to test the assumptions, to compare effects of treatments (including placebo groups, of course), based on a scientific theory with other testable assumptions.
And no — ‘Go and see for yourself’ is not a scientific method.
So far, I have not found any link between this Psychology of Vision method(s) and the body of knowledge science accumulated. POV seems to be separate from scientific theory or method. ‘It works’ is by no means a viable proof, since individual experiences would have to be collected and evaluated to be considered evidence.
Scientists ask for proof of the kind that is not subjective – data that we can evaluate according to the standards that our colleagues all over the world agree on, without immersing ourselves in the thing that has to be looked at with detachment and a free mind.
o Brian L | October 18, 2012 at 1:06 am | Reply
“The PoVers sound like peaceful and harmonious human beings, whereas the critics sound aggressive and unhappy. I know which ones I’d rather hang out with….”
This is tone trolling.
I am unhappy that people are being scammed out of money, and that lives are being damaged by hucksters and people selling bullshit as therapy. I will aggressively push back against fraud and lies.
I am *such* an asshole. How dare I give a crap about the people who are being scammed. I should *really* just play nice with the scammers, and not raise my voice against my betters.
For fuck’s sake…
14. Rob Teszka | October 18, 2012 at 10:42 am | Reply
OP here
I should mention that I’ve posted two followups to this post: one where I talk to the Spezzano’s publisher [robteszka.wordpress.com] and one where I wrap up my thoughts on the matter [robteszka.wordpress.com] .
I’m glad that people are still finding this post three years on and find it a useful or interesting resource, but I’m less than enthused that these workshops still appear to be operating and charging $475 bucks for a 3-day conference.
15. moreinfo | October 16, 2013 at 12:41 am | Reply
other peoples comments on the group – Psychology Of Vision.
[groups.yahoo.com]
Sunday, October 13, 2013
This is about Behavior, not Belief
Ultimately, criticism of Psychology of Vision and related businesses is not about their beliefs.
They can believe what they want to, as long as their beliefs do not cause harm to themselves or others.
That said, along the way as we research and critique POV, their beliefs are also going to be held up to scrutiny. Because as POV followers become more and more indoctrinated, their lives suffer.
So what’s our issues with their behavior?
Chuck and Lency Spezzano, along with their trainers, claim they are practicing a form of psychology. Yet they are not licensed to practice. They have no supervisor or oversight. They conduct unethical, traumatizing seminars and sessions using hypnosis and other manipulation techniques.
Chuck and Lency Spezzano charge quite a bit of money for these seminars and sessions. Recruitment is heavy, the pressure is intense to take more seminars, ascend higher on their ladder, spend more money, devote more time.
The system Chuck and Lency Spezzano has created never ends. Followers are never “done”, never able to rest, never able to stop spending money.
Chuck and Lency are absolute authorities in their kingdom, there is no accountability. They are top dogs.
Questions are not answered, instead those that question are told that they just need to do more group practices.
Chuck and Lency’s business Spezzano and Associates Ltd. is a for profit business. There is no financial disclosure, there are no public annual reports. Quite a bit of money is taken in, including some supposedly earmarked for charities, the public is not told where it all goes.
Unreasonable fear and paranoia about the outside world is encouraged by the Spezzanos. Chuck gives daily messages to his followers, many of these include predictions of darkness and danger.
Former followers are shunned and harassed.
In 2001 a news article included POV in its criticism of oppressive New Age therapies that prey on First Nations peoples. Stories from survivors are available online, as is ongoing critical review of Spezzano activities, along with research and discussion.
Followers are never “good enough” according to this group. There are always more practices to do, more money to spend. There is a high level of negative judgement used by the hierarchy. Even when a follower thinks they might be doing something correctly, they will be told they are mistaken, and that they need to try harder.
Chuck and Lency Spezzano are always right. Reading through glowing testimony from their followers, it is clear that they worship Chuck and Lency. Chuck encourages this worship.
The Spezzanos, and their trainers, claim the “exclusive means of knowing ‘truth’ or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.”. Followers turn to them for all answers.
I used these warning signs of a potentially unsafe group as a framework for this post.
Lency could believe that she downloads healings from heaven through her actual brain to the brain of another person all she wants. As long as she doesn’t charge incredible sums of money in the process, hypnotise and mess people over emotionally, and behave like a con artist grifter pretending to be a god.
[dougbottorff.com]
[brilyn.net]
European research by Psiram”s view of chuck/lency spezzano” psychology of vision..
[www.psiram.com]
hopefully this will help people to make better choices whether they’re considering joining or they’re being in the recruitment process by a pov devotee
16. moreinfo | October 16, 2013 at 2:21 am | Reply
sites with researched archival postings from POV sites and comments about chuck/lency spezzano’s group the…
Psychology Of Vision..
[griftershotel.blogspot.ca]
[www.newagefraud.org]
and a facebook site..
[www.facebook.com]