Trooper says,
Quote
"Is Landmark a cult? I still don't know. It is a bit culty. I imagine it can become more so the more deeply one gets involved. But, ultimately though, aren't the two major religions of the world -- Roman Catholicism and Islam -- cultish as well?"
This analogy is quite revevealing when you think about it.
Landmark is a for-profit privately owned company, but its devotees regard it more like a religion.
In this sense Trooper's remark is telling, because what he means is that Landmark should or could be compared to an organized religion and/or religious experience, rather than some sort of "technology" with licensing and copyright.
That is, Landmark is actually a subjective "experience" that requires faith from its true believers. And they receive something like a "religious epiphany" when they "get it."
This is why there is no credible peer-reviewed published research or study to objectively quantify what Landmark supposedly does, because what it does is a matter of belief based upon a subjective "experience" and feelings, something like being "born again."
But whereas Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell would readily admit what they teach is a belief based upon faith, Landmark insists it has some sort of "technology."
However, what Landmark devotees really get, is the "gospel according to Werner."
IMO--the only element Landmark lacks that precludes it from being called a "cult," is an ever-present totalitarian and charismatic leader. The other two elements of "thought reform" and exploitation or harm done are readily visible.
See [
www.culteducation.com]
Werner Erhard once occupied that defining totalitarian position, but now seems content to operate behind-the-scenes and/or through his brother and sister.
IMO--if Erhard was fully visible and running the company in the same hi-profile way that he once ran est, the company could easily be seen as a classic "cult."
Only after the "sale" did this change.