The Pathwork
Posted by:
topaz
()
Date: August 25, 2004 12:32PM
I wanted to bring the members attention to a group called the "Pathwork."
I recently saw a film starring Joan Van Ark in which a woman becomes
victimized by a New Age group called the "Path." Viewing this movie triggered the memory of a friend of mine-Tom- who was involved in a group called the Pathwork in the late 80's and early 90's. This group practiced similar eerie shenanigans as the group in the Van Ark film. It took him several years to "catch on" and get out but not before he sustained a lot of damage. What I found so appalling about this group was that my friend was originally introduced to this group by his own psychotherapist (the "humanistic" variety). Doing some surfing, I came across a website called "Skepdic" whose webmaster reported receiving an E-mail from a man who claims to have "lost his wife" to the Pathwork. This startled me, since I assumed the Pathwork would have bit the dust long ago. Not so. Doing some more surfing, I found this group is bigger than ever. It has connections to a pantheistic group (originated in Scotland) called "Findhorn." Many of the Pathwork "helpers" have training in "Core Energetics" and "BRETH."
Pathwork members are encouraged-if not mandated- to read various "lectures" channeled by an Unidentified entity through a woman named Eva Pierrakos (now deceased). "Core Energetics," by the way, was developed by Pierrakos' shrink husband. This group has further connections to an alive-and kicking channeler named Pat Rodegast who channels an entity called "Emmanuel."
So, in a nutshell, and assuming my friend's situation was not an isolated incident, it appears humanistic therapists- with training in "altering consciouness" techniques-- involving bodywork, breathing, etc. are luring their own patients into this "Pathwork" with its blend of psychology (ranging from pop to Reichian and everything in between) bioenergetics, "spiritual healing" and at the root of it all- New Age occultism. I'm assuming the Pathwork therapists are billing their patients (and the insurance companies!) for "counselling" and are probably doing quite well financially, aside from the money they get for Pathwork "seminars" and "intensives," etc. I checked out their New York web-site and read their bylaws. Check it out. Collectively, they consider themselves "God."
Anyone else ever comes across this bunch? The webmaster at Skepdic
noted that this group has been very good at keeping itself under the radar i.e., hidden from scrutiny. I noticed one member mentioning another group called "Master" Path. Don't know if there is a connection. But I shudder to think...
I recently saw a film starring Joan Van Ark in which a woman becomes
victimized by a New Age group called the "Path." Viewing this movie triggered the memory of a friend of mine-Tom- who was involved in a group called the Pathwork in the late 80's and early 90's. This group practiced similar eerie shenanigans as the group in the Van Ark film. It took him several years to "catch on" and get out but not before he sustained a lot of damage. What I found so appalling about this group was that my friend was originally introduced to this group by his own psychotherapist (the "humanistic" variety). Doing some surfing, I came across a website called "Skepdic" whose webmaster reported receiving an E-mail from a man who claims to have "lost his wife" to the Pathwork. This startled me, since I assumed the Pathwork would have bit the dust long ago. Not so. Doing some more surfing, I found this group is bigger than ever. It has connections to a pantheistic group (originated in Scotland) called "Findhorn." Many of the Pathwork "helpers" have training in "Core Energetics" and "BRETH."
Pathwork members are encouraged-if not mandated- to read various "lectures" channeled by an Unidentified entity through a woman named Eva Pierrakos (now deceased). "Core Energetics," by the way, was developed by Pierrakos' shrink husband. This group has further connections to an alive-and kicking channeler named Pat Rodegast who channels an entity called "Emmanuel."
So, in a nutshell, and assuming my friend's situation was not an isolated incident, it appears humanistic therapists- with training in "altering consciouness" techniques-- involving bodywork, breathing, etc. are luring their own patients into this "Pathwork" with its blend of psychology (ranging from pop to Reichian and everything in between) bioenergetics, "spiritual healing" and at the root of it all- New Age occultism. I'm assuming the Pathwork therapists are billing their patients (and the insurance companies!) for "counselling" and are probably doing quite well financially, aside from the money they get for Pathwork "seminars" and "intensives," etc. I checked out their New York web-site and read their bylaws. Check it out. Collectively, they consider themselves "God."
Anyone else ever comes across this bunch? The webmaster at Skepdic
noted that this group has been very good at keeping itself under the radar i.e., hidden from scrutiny. I noticed one member mentioning another group called "Master" Path. Don't know if there is a connection. But I shudder to think...
The Pathwork
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: August 25, 2004 11:10PM
Groups of the kind you are describing can be quite durable. Some can go on for decades.
The key is for the leader to be prudent, avoid nasty publicity and do very selective recruitment among persons who are affluent and discreet--and who dont concern themselves with boundary ethics to the degree that they should. In such cases, a charismatic leader who often keeps a low profile, and is surrounded by a discreet coterie. If the leader has acquired an adoring retinue of mental health professionals, this is a nearly ideal situation, because the therapists keep quiet so as not to lose their licenses, they refer carefully selected clients to the cult for additional 'therapy' or 'spiritual counseling' and even if the patients begin to have misgivings, they feel afraid to challenge their therapists.
There are exceptions but IMO many New Age psychotherapists would fit this 'affluent, discreet' catagory. They are a very interesting constituency and a sociologist should take a look at this. Based on a lot of material Ive read and pondered, here are some hunches. See if these match your observations.
A number of New Age therapists went through a unique set of social experiences prior to and sometimes during their clinical training. Many were inspired to become therapists under the influence of charismatic guru-therapists during the heyday of the Human Potential movement--a time when boundary ethics were not fully understood, and risk taking was celebrated as a virtue. A small but important group of young persons who were influenced to become non-traditional or New Age therapists during those years may have had biases that left them unable to appy boundary ethics to their work as psychotherapists--and even led them to confuse the role of therapist and guru. Persons who were inspired to become therapists during those exciting years were encouraged to see therapy as magic, conversion, as a quest for ecstacy, vision quest. Some early works on neurolinguistic programming carry titles such as 'Frogs Into Princes' or 'The Structure of Magic'. Many student therapists were mightily inspired by the books of Carlos Castaneda--later revealed to be bogus, and based in inaccurate anthropological work. In those years psychotherapy was re-imaged as transformation, rather than rehabilitation.
Some charismatic, eccentric therapists became celebrities--eg Fritz Perls. His self indulgent memoir 'In and Out the Garbage Pail' was on the reading list for one of the psychology classes I took in the late 1970s--at a good university. One faculty member was notorious for propositioning women students--no body protested. We thought he was disgusting but dealt with it by never going alone to his office. The whole concept of sexual harrassment and boundary ethics didnt exist in those years--boudaries were not fashionable, but self indulgence in the form of 'if-it-feels-good-do-it' was.
Certain therapists who are veterans of those times may be passing their unexamined biases to their proteges, biases which could leave the new generation of apprentice therapists unable to apply critical thinking skills or boundary ethics in certain situations. And a lot of out dated encounter group methods are still floating around in varoius New Age disguises today.
*At the same time, we must remember that many excellent therapists started out as hippies, were inspired to become therapists, but responded to their clinical training by re-appraising their earlier Human Potential experiences from an adult perspective, and saw the value of learning research methodology and critical thinking skills. This therapists saw the limitations of the early, charisma-driven human potential techniques and emerged from clinical training able to understand and apply boundary ethics in all situations--even when it meant setting limits on their former mentors.
A psychotherapist is like a designated driver--he or she is supposed to stay alert and sober. If a therapist is adoringly regressed in relation to a New Age community, its belief system and its leaders, that person is doing the equivalent of being a designated driver who is drunk at the wheel.
[i:2e479856d6]The regrettable sitautions discussed here and elsewhere on RR.com relate to a small but important group of non traditional therapists who failed to examine their biases and early narcissistic traumas during their clinical training, or didnt identify and work this through during clinical supervision--the period when the student therapist is expected to take careful personal inventory. Persons who emerged from clinical training without having become adult and conscious in relation to their guru/mentors and who remained regressed in relation to such mentors are at risk of distorting the psychotherapeutic relationship,either by emulating their mentors, or by referring clients to their mentors--or both.[i[/i:2e479856d6]
But the key thing to remember is that a therapist must never use psychotherapy to get personal validation, or as a venue to prosyletize or recruit for a beloved mentor or group.
To remain a true professional a therapist must be able to say NO if his or her guru tries to get access to the therapist/disciple's patients--or demands confidential information about patients.
You have to be able to say NO to your beloved guru or therapist mentor in order to have an adult relationship with the person. And that means being able to imagine that this guru or mentor could harm someone. If you refuse to entertain such a possiblity, then you're still a child in relation to your guru or mentor.
There is nothing wrong with forming an idealizing transferance to one's therapist. (In which you project good feelings you had toward your parents onto your therapist) In fact, this is how deep unconscious emotions are made available in therapy. But along with being receptive to idealizing transferance, the competant therapist must be able to accept negative transferance from clients--the anger, terror and grief that the client originally experienced in relation to his or her parents if disruptions or betrayals occurred. This is the same way a good parent responds when a child says 'I love you' and then moments later, that same child says 'I hate you'. Therapy is remedial parenting.
A therapist risks distorting therapy and turning patients into groupies if he or she can only accept idealizing transferance (clients' adoration) and cannot accept negative transferance (clients seeking you warts and all, clients projecting anger onto you from their experiences with parents). A therapist who can only accept the 'fun parts' of transferance will keep his or her clients trapped, unable to work it all through and become autonomous.
(Temerlin and Temerlin, 'Psychotherapy Cults: An Iatrogenic Perversion from Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, Vol 19 #2, Summer 1982, pp 131-141 )
In certain parts of the country where there is a high degree of acceptance for New Age material, this equation of therapy with magic, gurudom or shamanism would even be considered 'normal' and not problematic.
But normal is NOT acceptable
Psychotherapists are NOT supposed to socialize with patients outside of office hours and are forbidden by their professional ethics to indoctrinate patients into their belief systems or encourage them to join their spiritual communities.
It is possible that some New Age therapists who emerged from the kind of social formation described above have (in my opinion) remained trapped in idealizing transferance to their own guru/therapy mentors. This means they appear adult, but have secretly remained adoring children in relation to their guru/mentors.
A therapist who is an 'adult child' and who is unconsciously regressed in relation to his or her guru cannot apply adult conscious awareness to boundary ethics and cannot imagine that their gurus or spiritual group could ever harm patients. Despite their loving feelings and good intentions toward clients, therapists who are secretively adult children in relation to a guru or cultic mentor are in a cognitive fog of regression in which they cannot remember or care about what they learned in ethics classes during their clinical training. The material learned in ethics class is learned while you're in adult cognitive state, but in regression to a guru or mentor, you're in a child's state of awareness and cannot apply what you've learned in clinical training. Therapists in this predicament may feel blissful, but are at a very high risk of involving their clients in boundary violations if their guru or mentor intrudes upon their therapeutic practices.
Another common problem in New Age therapy is to equate the process of psychotherapy with indoctrination into the therapist's belief system. Genuine psychotherapy has specific goals and modestly offers rehabilitation. By contrast, New Age therapies offer transformation--much more open-ended--and grandiose.
One very big problem is that persons interested in New Age issues (which include both mental health professionals and their clients) often lack interest in critical thinking, so they do not know how to protect themselves when predators show up. They will often insist that the ordinary guidelines for psychotherapy are stifling and repressive.
And all kinds of problems arise when people decide to put thier trust in 'channelling'. In his book [i:2e479856d6]'Hardcore Zen' [/i:2e479856d6]Brad Warner comments,
'Ive never exactly understood why, for example, people who hear disembodied voices seem to be inclined to do what those voices tell them. If some stranger sat down beside you on the bus and told you to break into the White House and fondle the President's dog, would you do it?Would you even consider it? Why are disembodied voices any more trustworthy?' (p 117)
These two articles are from a former New Age teacher who became troubled by the whole scene and eventually decided to change careers. She notes in the second article that many persons attracted to New Age meterial appear to have been traumatized as children and may seek to re-create nurturing experiences they did not receive as youngsters. Persons in this mindset are tragically vulnerable to exploitation--when in a yearning child's mindset, you cannot apply the adult skills of critical thinking in situations when this is most necessary--all too often, such a seeker will feel that such precautions 'spoil the mood.'
[board.culteducation.com]
It is tempting for a charismatic psychotherapist to slide gradually into a quasi-guru role. Its much more enjoyable to be surrounded by disciples who agree with you, then to cope with crusty colleagues, battle on the phone with insurance companies, read journals, and attend mandatory Continuing Education courses in which you're constantly reminded to put limits on narcissism by staying aware of boundaries and countertransferance issues.
By contrast, it is much, much pleasanter to drift into becoming a guru. As a guru, you get to do just the 'fun stuff' in therapy, hog all the positive transferance energy, and deflect all the negative transferance back onto the devotees/clients, and put the onus on them--or select a designated scapegoat to carry all the disowned negative transferance for the group.
There are noble exceptions, but many New Age psychotherapists do not have solid training in critical thinking or research methodology. (and as Karla McLaren notes, quite a few get their degrees at New Age oriented schools. )This is discussed in great detail in a book by Lilienfeld, Lynn and Lohr entitled [i:2e479856d6]Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology[/i:2e479856d6] The book has a superb chapter on New Age therapies and the problems that have come up.
A big tip-off is when a therapy is developed by someone who is charismatic, propagates that material in charisma-driven groups and workshops. A real therapist would offer such material for peer review and research by colleagues and publish results in peer-reviewed journals. A common characteristic of New Age therapies is evasion of the customary peer-review process. When New Age therapies are tested, all too often the 'research' is done by true believers who dont know how to conduct genuine, double blind research.
Their summary of Chapter One is available here
[board.culteducation.com]
As the authors put it, the merits of many of these 'therapies' are often eventually assessed in court.
What you are describing could fall under the catagory of 'psychotherapy cult'. Margaret Singer has discussed this in her book [i:2e479856d6]'Crazy Therapies'[/i:2e479856d6]
Problems that come up with psychotherapy cults are summarized in these two articles
[board.culteducation.com]
One such situation was described here
[board.culteducation.com]
Many New Age therapists drift in a cultic direction because they never recieved proper training on how to distinguish science from pseudoscience.
But a few professionals do get excellent training, know the rules they're supposed to play by, but decide or drift in a cultic direction later in life. This issue is discussed here
[www.quackwatch.org]
The key is for the leader to be prudent, avoid nasty publicity and do very selective recruitment among persons who are affluent and discreet--and who dont concern themselves with boundary ethics to the degree that they should. In such cases, a charismatic leader who often keeps a low profile, and is surrounded by a discreet coterie. If the leader has acquired an adoring retinue of mental health professionals, this is a nearly ideal situation, because the therapists keep quiet so as not to lose their licenses, they refer carefully selected clients to the cult for additional 'therapy' or 'spiritual counseling' and even if the patients begin to have misgivings, they feel afraid to challenge their therapists.
There are exceptions but IMO many New Age psychotherapists would fit this 'affluent, discreet' catagory. They are a very interesting constituency and a sociologist should take a look at this. Based on a lot of material Ive read and pondered, here are some hunches. See if these match your observations.
A number of New Age therapists went through a unique set of social experiences prior to and sometimes during their clinical training. Many were inspired to become therapists under the influence of charismatic guru-therapists during the heyday of the Human Potential movement--a time when boundary ethics were not fully understood, and risk taking was celebrated as a virtue. A small but important group of young persons who were influenced to become non-traditional or New Age therapists during those years may have had biases that left them unable to appy boundary ethics to their work as psychotherapists--and even led them to confuse the role of therapist and guru. Persons who were inspired to become therapists during those exciting years were encouraged to see therapy as magic, conversion, as a quest for ecstacy, vision quest. Some early works on neurolinguistic programming carry titles such as 'Frogs Into Princes' or 'The Structure of Magic'. Many student therapists were mightily inspired by the books of Carlos Castaneda--later revealed to be bogus, and based in inaccurate anthropological work. In those years psychotherapy was re-imaged as transformation, rather than rehabilitation.
Some charismatic, eccentric therapists became celebrities--eg Fritz Perls. His self indulgent memoir 'In and Out the Garbage Pail' was on the reading list for one of the psychology classes I took in the late 1970s--at a good university. One faculty member was notorious for propositioning women students--no body protested. We thought he was disgusting but dealt with it by never going alone to his office. The whole concept of sexual harrassment and boundary ethics didnt exist in those years--boudaries were not fashionable, but self indulgence in the form of 'if-it-feels-good-do-it' was.
Certain therapists who are veterans of those times may be passing their unexamined biases to their proteges, biases which could leave the new generation of apprentice therapists unable to apply critical thinking skills or boundary ethics in certain situations. And a lot of out dated encounter group methods are still floating around in varoius New Age disguises today.
*At the same time, we must remember that many excellent therapists started out as hippies, were inspired to become therapists, but responded to their clinical training by re-appraising their earlier Human Potential experiences from an adult perspective, and saw the value of learning research methodology and critical thinking skills. This therapists saw the limitations of the early, charisma-driven human potential techniques and emerged from clinical training able to understand and apply boundary ethics in all situations--even when it meant setting limits on their former mentors.
A psychotherapist is like a designated driver--he or she is supposed to stay alert and sober. If a therapist is adoringly regressed in relation to a New Age community, its belief system and its leaders, that person is doing the equivalent of being a designated driver who is drunk at the wheel.
[i:2e479856d6]The regrettable sitautions discussed here and elsewhere on RR.com relate to a small but important group of non traditional therapists who failed to examine their biases and early narcissistic traumas during their clinical training, or didnt identify and work this through during clinical supervision--the period when the student therapist is expected to take careful personal inventory. Persons who emerged from clinical training without having become adult and conscious in relation to their guru/mentors and who remained regressed in relation to such mentors are at risk of distorting the psychotherapeutic relationship,either by emulating their mentors, or by referring clients to their mentors--or both.[i[/i:2e479856d6]
But the key thing to remember is that a therapist must never use psychotherapy to get personal validation, or as a venue to prosyletize or recruit for a beloved mentor or group.
To remain a true professional a therapist must be able to say NO if his or her guru tries to get access to the therapist/disciple's patients--or demands confidential information about patients.
You have to be able to say NO to your beloved guru or therapist mentor in order to have an adult relationship with the person. And that means being able to imagine that this guru or mentor could harm someone. If you refuse to entertain such a possiblity, then you're still a child in relation to your guru or mentor.
There is nothing wrong with forming an idealizing transferance to one's therapist. (In which you project good feelings you had toward your parents onto your therapist) In fact, this is how deep unconscious emotions are made available in therapy. But along with being receptive to idealizing transferance, the competant therapist must be able to accept negative transferance from clients--the anger, terror and grief that the client originally experienced in relation to his or her parents if disruptions or betrayals occurred. This is the same way a good parent responds when a child says 'I love you' and then moments later, that same child says 'I hate you'. Therapy is remedial parenting.
A therapist risks distorting therapy and turning patients into groupies if he or she can only accept idealizing transferance (clients' adoration) and cannot accept negative transferance (clients seeking you warts and all, clients projecting anger onto you from their experiences with parents). A therapist who can only accept the 'fun parts' of transferance will keep his or her clients trapped, unable to work it all through and become autonomous.
(Temerlin and Temerlin, 'Psychotherapy Cults: An Iatrogenic Perversion from Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, Vol 19 #2, Summer 1982, pp 131-141 )
In certain parts of the country where there is a high degree of acceptance for New Age material, this equation of therapy with magic, gurudom or shamanism would even be considered 'normal' and not problematic.
But normal is NOT acceptable
Psychotherapists are NOT supposed to socialize with patients outside of office hours and are forbidden by their professional ethics to indoctrinate patients into their belief systems or encourage them to join their spiritual communities.
It is possible that some New Age therapists who emerged from the kind of social formation described above have (in my opinion) remained trapped in idealizing transferance to their own guru/therapy mentors. This means they appear adult, but have secretly remained adoring children in relation to their guru/mentors.
A therapist who is an 'adult child' and who is unconsciously regressed in relation to his or her guru cannot apply adult conscious awareness to boundary ethics and cannot imagine that their gurus or spiritual group could ever harm patients. Despite their loving feelings and good intentions toward clients, therapists who are secretively adult children in relation to a guru or cultic mentor are in a cognitive fog of regression in which they cannot remember or care about what they learned in ethics classes during their clinical training. The material learned in ethics class is learned while you're in adult cognitive state, but in regression to a guru or mentor, you're in a child's state of awareness and cannot apply what you've learned in clinical training. Therapists in this predicament may feel blissful, but are at a very high risk of involving their clients in boundary violations if their guru or mentor intrudes upon their therapeutic practices.
Another common problem in New Age therapy is to equate the process of psychotherapy with indoctrination into the therapist's belief system. Genuine psychotherapy has specific goals and modestly offers rehabilitation. By contrast, New Age therapies offer transformation--much more open-ended--and grandiose.
One very big problem is that persons interested in New Age issues (which include both mental health professionals and their clients) often lack interest in critical thinking, so they do not know how to protect themselves when predators show up. They will often insist that the ordinary guidelines for psychotherapy are stifling and repressive.
And all kinds of problems arise when people decide to put thier trust in 'channelling'. In his book [i:2e479856d6]'Hardcore Zen' [/i:2e479856d6]Brad Warner comments,
'Ive never exactly understood why, for example, people who hear disembodied voices seem to be inclined to do what those voices tell them. If some stranger sat down beside you on the bus and told you to break into the White House and fondle the President's dog, would you do it?Would you even consider it? Why are disembodied voices any more trustworthy?' (p 117)
These two articles are from a former New Age teacher who became troubled by the whole scene and eventually decided to change careers. She notes in the second article that many persons attracted to New Age meterial appear to have been traumatized as children and may seek to re-create nurturing experiences they did not receive as youngsters. Persons in this mindset are tragically vulnerable to exploitation--when in a yearning child's mindset, you cannot apply the adult skills of critical thinking in situations when this is most necessary--all too often, such a seeker will feel that such precautions 'spoil the mood.'
[board.culteducation.com]
It is tempting for a charismatic psychotherapist to slide gradually into a quasi-guru role. Its much more enjoyable to be surrounded by disciples who agree with you, then to cope with crusty colleagues, battle on the phone with insurance companies, read journals, and attend mandatory Continuing Education courses in which you're constantly reminded to put limits on narcissism by staying aware of boundaries and countertransferance issues.
By contrast, it is much, much pleasanter to drift into becoming a guru. As a guru, you get to do just the 'fun stuff' in therapy, hog all the positive transferance energy, and deflect all the negative transferance back onto the devotees/clients, and put the onus on them--or select a designated scapegoat to carry all the disowned negative transferance for the group.
There are noble exceptions, but many New Age psychotherapists do not have solid training in critical thinking or research methodology. (and as Karla McLaren notes, quite a few get their degrees at New Age oriented schools. )This is discussed in great detail in a book by Lilienfeld, Lynn and Lohr entitled [i:2e479856d6]Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology[/i:2e479856d6] The book has a superb chapter on New Age therapies and the problems that have come up.
A big tip-off is when a therapy is developed by someone who is charismatic, propagates that material in charisma-driven groups and workshops. A real therapist would offer such material for peer review and research by colleagues and publish results in peer-reviewed journals. A common characteristic of New Age therapies is evasion of the customary peer-review process. When New Age therapies are tested, all too often the 'research' is done by true believers who dont know how to conduct genuine, double blind research.
Their summary of Chapter One is available here
[board.culteducation.com]
As the authors put it, the merits of many of these 'therapies' are often eventually assessed in court.
What you are describing could fall under the catagory of 'psychotherapy cult'. Margaret Singer has discussed this in her book [i:2e479856d6]'Crazy Therapies'[/i:2e479856d6]
Problems that come up with psychotherapy cults are summarized in these two articles
[board.culteducation.com]
One such situation was described here
[board.culteducation.com]
Many New Age therapists drift in a cultic direction because they never recieved proper training on how to distinguish science from pseudoscience.
But a few professionals do get excellent training, know the rules they're supposed to play by, but decide or drift in a cultic direction later in life. This issue is discussed here
[www.quackwatch.org]
The Pathwork
Posted by:
topaz
()
Date: August 26, 2004 02:36AM
Thank you for detailed and perceptive response. You clarified for me a lot of the things I felt but couldn't quite put into words. Case in point- I attended two Pathwork seminars at my friend's invitation, and- as I advised Rick- I witnessed my friend's therapist "working on his own shit" as they called it- pounding on and rolling all over the floor, weeping and sobbing. I somehow felt this was very inappropriate to do in front of a patient and I assume some of this therapist's other patients were present, as well. The therapist would also have get-together brunches at his house with his patients/Pathwork devotees in attendance. And along with the other things I witnessed and was told- including this therapist citing Pathwork philosophy during therapy sessions-the primary thought that occured to me was "boundary violations" but as your response indicated, there's a lot more going on than that, what with the narcissism of/worship by the therapist vis a vis the "guru" syndrome and so on.
I mean, even I was confused after attending just two of these seminars. On the one hand, these Pathwork helpers really seemed to believe in "the product" (illusory and dangerous and occultic as that product is) but on the other hand there was such a push for money that I couldn't figure out their true priorities. Perhaps another related case in point- I noted one of the California Pathwork "helpers" has all the typical "Pathwork" background- Core Energetics, etc. but also has a MBA in Marketing and Finance which I'm sure has served him well but I wonder at what cost (literally, figuratively, financially, psychologically) to any of his patients?
My friend's involvement in the Pathwork struck me me as so incestuous and convuluted and without respect to even basic psychological/therapeutic principles, so your explanation re "psychotherapy cults" was very informative and helped me understand these dynamics more clearly. Although is it accurate to call them merely (underlined) "psychotherapy" cults when the new Pathwork attendees for example are exposed to so-called "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo ranging from pantheism to reincarnation? Not to mention channeling and the head honchos' assertion that they are collectively God? Admittedly, I can't come up with another description, other than psychotherapy/New Age cults which still doesn't hit the nail on the head. It's this very mix--humanistic (as opposed to traditional) psychology, consciousness-altering body work, occultism, therapist/patient "incest," financial exploitation-- that makes such groups so hard to accurately define.
I was wondering if insurance companies are even aware of what's going on when they get bills from Pathwork-worshipping therapists for "counselling." I would suspect if you dried up the money, you'd dry up groups such as these but as you pointed out, many therapists in these groups don't exactly advertise their involvement to insurance companies(which seems strange if they are so devoted to Pathwork principles).
I also came across an interesting interview with a "senior" Pathwork helper named Barbara Brennan (see occult website The Monthly Aspectarian) who is also the authoress of various "channeled" books.
Brennan stated that there is a lawyer in Minnesota (Pathwork member by any chance?) who has succeeded in passing legislation that "healers" cannot be sued for practicing without a license. Her comment was "I think that's a good piece of legislation." I'll bet she does! But I can't help but wonder what lawsuits if any triggered this legislation.
Well, thanks again for your in-depth comments re psychotherapy cults.
This is a much more widespread phenomenon than I ever realized.
I mean, even I was confused after attending just two of these seminars. On the one hand, these Pathwork helpers really seemed to believe in "the product" (illusory and dangerous and occultic as that product is) but on the other hand there was such a push for money that I couldn't figure out their true priorities. Perhaps another related case in point- I noted one of the California Pathwork "helpers" has all the typical "Pathwork" background- Core Energetics, etc. but also has a MBA in Marketing and Finance which I'm sure has served him well but I wonder at what cost (literally, figuratively, financially, psychologically) to any of his patients?
My friend's involvement in the Pathwork struck me me as so incestuous and convuluted and without respect to even basic psychological/therapeutic principles, so your explanation re "psychotherapy cults" was very informative and helped me understand these dynamics more clearly. Although is it accurate to call them merely (underlined) "psychotherapy" cults when the new Pathwork attendees for example are exposed to so-called "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo ranging from pantheism to reincarnation? Not to mention channeling and the head honchos' assertion that they are collectively God? Admittedly, I can't come up with another description, other than psychotherapy/New Age cults which still doesn't hit the nail on the head. It's this very mix--humanistic (as opposed to traditional) psychology, consciousness-altering body work, occultism, therapist/patient "incest," financial exploitation-- that makes such groups so hard to accurately define.
I was wondering if insurance companies are even aware of what's going on when they get bills from Pathwork-worshipping therapists for "counselling." I would suspect if you dried up the money, you'd dry up groups such as these but as you pointed out, many therapists in these groups don't exactly advertise their involvement to insurance companies(which seems strange if they are so devoted to Pathwork principles).
I also came across an interesting interview with a "senior" Pathwork helper named Barbara Brennan (see occult website The Monthly Aspectarian) who is also the authoress of various "channeled" books.
Brennan stated that there is a lawyer in Minnesota (Pathwork member by any chance?) who has succeeded in passing legislation that "healers" cannot be sued for practicing without a license. Her comment was "I think that's a good piece of legislation." I'll bet she does! But I can't help but wonder what lawsuits if any triggered this legislation.
Well, thanks again for your in-depth comments re psychotherapy cults.
This is a much more widespread phenomenon than I ever realized.
The Pathwork
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: August 26, 2004 04:19AM
A psychotherapist is NEVER supposed to work on his or her problems while with clients.
It is shocking how many lay people are unaware of the ethical standards that therapists are supposed to follow. A few weeks ago on Craigslist.org in the psychology forum, a person was in great distress. Her therapist had socialized with her, borrowed her car (!!), then suddenly terminated her from therapy--with no explanation--didnt even take care to refer her to another therapist. This client had a history of past trauma and suicidal ideation.
I was amazed that some of the correspondants on that forum accused the person of whining and said 'But the therapist went out of her way to help you.'
Fortunately other correspondants knew a thing or two about boundary ethics and spoke up. One of them had access to a textbook written by a psychiatrist and was able to provide some well chosen quotes about both the ethical and legal obligations that the person's therapist had violated.
But that bit of dialogue demonstrated how many people are not aware of the rules that therapists are supposed to abide by. By contrast, most of us understand the rules that govern football or baseball--and will raise hell if a game is being played dishonestly.
A big problem is that many of us are in crisis when we look for a therapist, so we will have trouble applying adult critical thinking--its the first thing to vaporize when someone is under stress.
Worst of all, a lot of New Age therapies devalue objective ethics and argue against the whole notion of boundaries. THey contend that therapists are supposed to consort with patients on an egalitarian basis,a and that it is stifling and oppressive to see the therapist as the powerholder in the situation. All too often this seemingly liberal argument is twisted around to justify a therapist who remains powerful while disowning responsibility for the proper use of his or her power.
New Age rejection of boundaries also makes therapy ineffective for many clients. Many of us grew up in chaotic families where boundaries were poorly maintained, and emotion remained choatic and undstructured because parents were unable to function for us as adult caregivers. If you come out of this kind of neglect, what you'll need for effective therapy is someone who stays adult and provides boundaries--not someone who argues against boundaries and leaves you to flounder in choas of emotion--that will just be a re-run of the neglect you endured when growing up.
(Topaz wrote)
'It's this very mix--humanistic (as opposed to traditional) psychology, consciousness-altering body work, occultism, therapist/patient "incest," financial exploitation-- that makes such groups so hard to accurately define.'
What you are describing is an atmosphere of emotional/intellectual promiscuity. Its also possible that despite your skepticism, you responded to the confusion and social pressure by temporarily experiencing some regression to a child's state of mind. You quickly emerged from that regression, which is why you escaped harm and didnt remain trapped as an inmate of that group and the social setting that supports all this.
**A term like 'psychotherapy/New Age cult' is generated from a calm, adult, state of mind, so it would not seem to match the emotional charge of what you directly experienced.
Its like describing the horrors of war while sitting in an armchair. There's a reason veterans will tell you, 'Words only go so far. They help, but there's no way to put in words what happens to you when you're in battle.'
But you can still accomplish a lot with words, even if in your heart you know that language will never 100% match what you're trying to describe.
TS Eliot said that to wrote poetry is to conduct raids on the inarticulate, with equipment that is constantly wearing out. He knew this, but kept trying and wrote great poetry.
You've just now helped to educate the general public.
There is probably no way you can 'get a fix' on what you witnessed-[i:2d2365fa6c]because that situation, with its messy stew of material, is designed to confuse and disorient particpants, not empower them.[/i:2d2365fa6c]
Thats how you keep people coming back for more. Promise to eventually fulfill them, but keep them confused--with just enough peak experiences here and there to keep their hopes up.
In real therapy, things gradually become clear--they dont stay confused.
If you go to a dictionary and look 'promiscuous', it is based on some Latin words which mean--'to mix up, to mix together and confuse.'
The essence of promiscuity is not sexual indulgence, it is confusion. First you get emotional confusion, then intellectual confusion because boundaries are blurred and devalued.
In social settings which foster emotional/intellectual promiscuity, you get a very high risk of boundary violation--emotional, physical, spiritual, financial.
And thats the problem with so much of the New Age--it is a social milieu that fosters promiscuity/confusion and makes people vulnerable to exploitation. Everything is kept nice and fuzzy. The very things that protect from exploitation--boundaries, respect for critical thinking, factual evidence--are jeered at and devalued.
My hunch is some people love this social setting and cling to it, because this confusion is a comfort zone--no need to face painful things about oneself.
The essence of professionalism is that the shrink's personal issues are never, ever supposed to become the client's problems.
So many of us are hurt because we grew up in confusing family environments where boundaries were unclear. Our trauma would only be compounded by a therapist or group that does not respect boundaries and operates in a state of constant confusion (often rationalized as being innovative or eclectic)
If a therapist has personal issues, he or she is supposed to get nurture from his or her peers--that is, his or her spouse/partner, clinical supervisor, consultancy group--NOT from patients.
One reason why we pay mental health professionals such good fees is because staying adult and maintaining boundaries to create a genuine therapeutic setting requires advanced training and skill. Its also stressful. So we pay therapists well enough to ensure that they have sufficient resources to take of their own issues on their own time, [i:2d2365fa6c]without involving clients![/i:2d2365fa6c]
Oh, yes. If a cult leader can get collusion and selectively recruit a coterie of psychotherapists and also include some good lawyers and accoutants, that person's group can last a good long time.
On [i:2d2365fa6c]Star Trek [/i:2d2365fa6c]such respectability is called a cloaking device.[i:2d2365fa6c][/i:2d2365fa6c]
It is shocking how many lay people are unaware of the ethical standards that therapists are supposed to follow. A few weeks ago on Craigslist.org in the psychology forum, a person was in great distress. Her therapist had socialized with her, borrowed her car (!!), then suddenly terminated her from therapy--with no explanation--didnt even take care to refer her to another therapist. This client had a history of past trauma and suicidal ideation.
I was amazed that some of the correspondants on that forum accused the person of whining and said 'But the therapist went out of her way to help you.'
Fortunately other correspondants knew a thing or two about boundary ethics and spoke up. One of them had access to a textbook written by a psychiatrist and was able to provide some well chosen quotes about both the ethical and legal obligations that the person's therapist had violated.
But that bit of dialogue demonstrated how many people are not aware of the rules that therapists are supposed to abide by. By contrast, most of us understand the rules that govern football or baseball--and will raise hell if a game is being played dishonestly.
A big problem is that many of us are in crisis when we look for a therapist, so we will have trouble applying adult critical thinking--its the first thing to vaporize when someone is under stress.
Worst of all, a lot of New Age therapies devalue objective ethics and argue against the whole notion of boundaries. THey contend that therapists are supposed to consort with patients on an egalitarian basis,a and that it is stifling and oppressive to see the therapist as the powerholder in the situation. All too often this seemingly liberal argument is twisted around to justify a therapist who remains powerful while disowning responsibility for the proper use of his or her power.
New Age rejection of boundaries also makes therapy ineffective for many clients. Many of us grew up in chaotic families where boundaries were poorly maintained, and emotion remained choatic and undstructured because parents were unable to function for us as adult caregivers. If you come out of this kind of neglect, what you'll need for effective therapy is someone who stays adult and provides boundaries--not someone who argues against boundaries and leaves you to flounder in choas of emotion--that will just be a re-run of the neglect you endured when growing up.
(Topaz wrote)
'It's this very mix--humanistic (as opposed to traditional) psychology, consciousness-altering body work, occultism, therapist/patient "incest," financial exploitation-- that makes such groups so hard to accurately define.'
What you are describing is an atmosphere of emotional/intellectual promiscuity. Its also possible that despite your skepticism, you responded to the confusion and social pressure by temporarily experiencing some regression to a child's state of mind. You quickly emerged from that regression, which is why you escaped harm and didnt remain trapped as an inmate of that group and the social setting that supports all this.
**A term like 'psychotherapy/New Age cult' is generated from a calm, adult, state of mind, so it would not seem to match the emotional charge of what you directly experienced.
Its like describing the horrors of war while sitting in an armchair. There's a reason veterans will tell you, 'Words only go so far. They help, but there's no way to put in words what happens to you when you're in battle.'
But you can still accomplish a lot with words, even if in your heart you know that language will never 100% match what you're trying to describe.
TS Eliot said that to wrote poetry is to conduct raids on the inarticulate, with equipment that is constantly wearing out. He knew this, but kept trying and wrote great poetry.
You've just now helped to educate the general public.
There is probably no way you can 'get a fix' on what you witnessed-[i:2d2365fa6c]because that situation, with its messy stew of material, is designed to confuse and disorient particpants, not empower them.[/i:2d2365fa6c]
Thats how you keep people coming back for more. Promise to eventually fulfill them, but keep them confused--with just enough peak experiences here and there to keep their hopes up.
In real therapy, things gradually become clear--they dont stay confused.
If you go to a dictionary and look 'promiscuous', it is based on some Latin words which mean--'to mix up, to mix together and confuse.'
The essence of promiscuity is not sexual indulgence, it is confusion. First you get emotional confusion, then intellectual confusion because boundaries are blurred and devalued.
In social settings which foster emotional/intellectual promiscuity, you get a very high risk of boundary violation--emotional, physical, spiritual, financial.
And thats the problem with so much of the New Age--it is a social milieu that fosters promiscuity/confusion and makes people vulnerable to exploitation. Everything is kept nice and fuzzy. The very things that protect from exploitation--boundaries, respect for critical thinking, factual evidence--are jeered at and devalued.
My hunch is some people love this social setting and cling to it, because this confusion is a comfort zone--no need to face painful things about oneself.
The essence of professionalism is that the shrink's personal issues are never, ever supposed to become the client's problems.
So many of us are hurt because we grew up in confusing family environments where boundaries were unclear. Our trauma would only be compounded by a therapist or group that does not respect boundaries and operates in a state of constant confusion (often rationalized as being innovative or eclectic)
If a therapist has personal issues, he or she is supposed to get nurture from his or her peers--that is, his or her spouse/partner, clinical supervisor, consultancy group--NOT from patients.
One reason why we pay mental health professionals such good fees is because staying adult and maintaining boundaries to create a genuine therapeutic setting requires advanced training and skill. Its also stressful. So we pay therapists well enough to ensure that they have sufficient resources to take of their own issues on their own time, [i:2d2365fa6c]without involving clients![/i:2d2365fa6c]
Oh, yes. If a cult leader can get collusion and selectively recruit a coterie of psychotherapists and also include some good lawyers and accoutants, that person's group can last a good long time.
On [i:2d2365fa6c]Star Trek [/i:2d2365fa6c]such respectability is called a cloaking device.[i:2d2365fa6c][/i:2d2365fa6c]
The Pathwork
Posted by:
doubtingthomas
()
Date: July 24, 2006 12:05PM
Quote
topaz
Doing some surfing, I came across a website called "Skepdic" whose webmaster reported receiving an E-mail from a man who claims to have "lost his wife" to the Pathwork. This startled me, since I assumed the Pathwork would have bit the dust long ago. Not so. .
Hi--
I'm the guy who wrote to Skepdic. He wasn't quite right to state that I "lost my wife" to Pathwork. I was asking him for info. about the group and was really surprised that he hadn't heard of it. Anyway--my wife entered Pathwork AFTER she filed for divorce, but what's intriguing to me now (after several years of thinking about everything) is how she got sucked into it. Some history might be instructive here, and hopefully will give some warning signs to those whose loved ones are dabbling in this stuff.
My ex-wife's family was deeply religious, involved in a spirit-filled (charismatic/pentecostal) Christian congregation when she was young. They also don't seem to have much ability in critical thinking--her parents were in Amway and various other pyramid/MLM schemes (and they still are). They try every new vitamin/diet therapy that comes down the pike. They go to chiropractors (okay, maybe chiropractors do SOMETHING, but there's certainly plenty of evidence that says they are at best glorified massage therapists). Her siblings have been involved in Landmark Forum, pyramid schemes, meditation/chanting, etc. It's sort of a family system of gullibility, and additionally the kids are searching for the religious ecstasy they felt as children, but they don't want the trappings or restrictions of Christianity.
Her personal entry into "alternative religion" (or whatever it is) started innocently enough--through a local massage center, looking for relief from chronic pain. I was okay with that. The massage therapist claims also to be an energy healer, and my wife believed she experienced unusual sensations and progress during the course of several massages. That seemed a bit odd to me, but I was willing to believe--she was definitely feeling better than she had in years.
The therapist recommended a specific chiropractor and he also seemed to help her. I thought, "Okay, since it's helping." He introduced her to qigong and breathing/energy exercises. She attributed the "energy" she felt during breathing to a mystical energy thing--more likely, she was just hyper-ventilating. That'll give you a good buzz, too. I was starting to be skeptical at this point. He also did something he called "pubic bone adjustment." Uh, having a "doctor" manipulate your private parts for several minutes (yes, minutes--it was not a quick procedure) would probably cause anybody to experience some level of adrenalin rush or sexual arousal (perhaps magnified because it was "forbidden contact"). Increased skepticism on my part at this point (but I didn't express it to her). She also started meditation sessions with somebody else at the massage center, but as she described them to me, it was more like self-hypnosis, or deep relaxation with suggested/guided visualization.
During this time there were a couple deaths in her extended family (they're very close, it was quite traumatic), a major job change for me (we both were in favor of it, but because of it we had to re-structure many of our household roles), and difficulties for our children in school. I admit I wasn't the greatest husband/dad during this time (the new job's learning curve was intense), but I also just wasn't interested in joining her on her spiritual journey. It had become too goofy for me.
Eventually she forced a separation on me ("if you don't move out, I'll divorce you"), and yet she filed for divorce the day I moved out (although she didn't tell me until several months later, when the papers were ready). At that point she said she'd be willing to talk about stuff later. I waited, and occasionally would ask about things, attempting to get some closure or understanding or an acknowledgment of mutual accountability. She always put me off--at first it was "I'm doing work on myself." Later it was "You need to do work on yourself. Then we'll talk." I had already gone through six months of therapy by this time (with a real therapist) and he assured me I was okay. So I waited.
The "work" she was doing was Pathwork; the chiropractor is a Pathwork-guy, and he had encouraged her to try it. In her vulnerable and fragile emotional state, pain-free for the first time in years, and under the power of a man who made her feel good through hyperventilation and pubic bone manipulation, I'm sure it was easy for her to agree. I should say here that I'm not totally opposed to alternative medicine (or complimentary medicine, or whatever you want to call it). It helped her; it has helped many people. Unfortunately, it is often mixed up with spiritual ideas that (in conjunction with remarkable physical improvement) can override a person's ability to think rationally.
I continue to wait. She has now completed her Pathwork program, so maybe she's ready to answer my questions and listen to my point of view--but I doubt it. From what I understand of Pathwork, it involves a lot of intensive self-focus. This in itself isn't necessarily bad; it becomes dangerous, however, when the internal focus is so complete that you become unable to look outside yourself and listen to another's point of view.
It is really tragic. We had an amazing partnership, our marriage was envied by peers in marriages bound by more "traditional" boundaries, it was seen as a model by single people considering marriage, we had a deep admiration for each other's gifts, and yet the confluence of events, history, vulnerability, etc. came together at a time when we were least capable of handling it.
Well, this has turned into a long post. Thanks for reading it; it was probably more therapeutic for me to just put it all out there rather than wait for any kind of honest conversation with my former wife. I sincerely hope that it's helpful to somebody--these groups have a way of preying on people at their most vulnerable, and what happened to my ex-wife and to our marriage is a perfect example.
Pathwork is alive and well. There is now a Wikipedia entry for it ( [en.wikipedia.org] ), but it seems to be very pro-Pathwork and in my opinion doesn't conform with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Perhaps someone more familiar with Wikipedia can edit the article to give it a more balanced presentation.
Best wishes to all of you.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.