An interesting and very thought provoking discussion thread here.

[forum.culteducation.com]

Derek Gale is a psychotherapist cult leader operating out of Loughton, England. There are several posts on other threads concerning him. Apparently, according to UK press he is currently under investigation by the Health Professions Council in the UK. I will try to find out more. If I can obtain enough information I will start a seperate thread.

The Consolation of Theosophy 11 by Frederick Crews

Examines the occulist and theosophical roots of psychotherapy, most noteably Freud (includes discoveries about the suspect nature of the Anna O case) and Jungs hidden gnostic background. The article suggests ways the profession can be rescued and made to fit a responsible scientific-therapeutic model.

[www.alpheus.org]

I'd be wary of referring to this as 'psychotherapy' (particularly the Gale stuff).

Its certainly not the type of psychotherapy one would use within the NHS.

An Example of How Professionalism and Boundaries can Become Compromised

This was being discussed in comments sections from an anonymous source in another venue.

What is described below is a situation where there is a risk of a meditation group becoming socially and psychologically inbred.

1) One should not combine the role of meditation teacher and therapist

2) A person who is a therapist and also a meditation teacher should keep those functions separate and never use the therapist role to recruit for his or her religious community, nor should that person use the meditation teacher role to recruit for his or his wife's therapy practice.

3) It is hazardous to offer therapy sessions for free unless one does this as part of a clinic that offers free or sliding scale sessions and you are checking in regularly with colleagues.

In the context of a meditation group, getting free therapy sessions from a group teacher who is also a therapist can lead to a very dangerous degree of dependence.

By contrast, there is a Zen community whose ethics guidelines forbid any member of that community to use membership community as a recruitment pool for his or her private practice.

If a meditation teacher sees that someone is in distress, he or she could have a list of recommended therapists--but that persons spouse should not be on the list.

For...how can a person who feels attached to that meditation group feel free to refuse an offer of free therapy from the group leader?

And what if a member of the mediation group has therapy sessions with the leader, or with the leaders' wife and decides that the therapeutic alliance is not working, or something feels wrong or 'icky' about the therapist?

If that person finds he or she distrusts the therapist, he or she may fear speaking up because that would mean losing harmony within the meditation group, as well as having to risk unpleasantness or worse from the therapist.

Quote

Anonymous said...
Therapist/couselors/psychologists seem to be a category looking for any handle to stand out and be noted for being of quality

I surmise this

I sat with one guy who headed a (Buddhist) sitting group he put flyers on the butsudan of his and his wife's therapy groups (she belonged to the same zendo he did).

It felt like he was using the group to bolster his private practice.

Years later as metta (loving kindness practice) he offered free therapy sessions to folks sitting in his sangha.

At first glance these things appeared harmless, as gestures of helpfulness.

Maybe they were.

Mine was a different response I thought there was confusion with boundaries true all is one but therapists need a healthy sense of where they end.
There seemed to be a smooshing together of buddism and psychology
these are not the same
no matter what the practitioner's faith helping a person or a couple or a family means discovering what is theirs
helpful is helpful no matter what religious medal is around the practioner's neck

what has budhism got to do with it? got to do with it?

I'm just asking.

I might very well seek help from a Jewish or a Christian therapist--but I would not likely go to them if they advertised themselves as a Jewish Psychologist or Christian Psychologist

I'll go see the rebbe or the priest if I need a relgious take on a matter

November 2, 2009 4:39 PM

A final note: some who combine the function of Buddhist meditation teacher as well as that of licensed therapist, may become quite famous as meditation teachers and be in demand to lead retreats, sometimes all over the country.

If your therapist is constantly out of town leading long meditation retreats, it doesnt matter how brilliant he or she is..that person will not have the day to day stablity to
needed to do depth therapy.

If one needs psychotherapy plus meditation practice, find a therapist who has stable ties to the community and is not travelling all over the country as a dharma celebrity.

There are only 24 hours in a day and as a Yiddish proverb put it, you cannot dance at two weddings with one tochas (rear end).

[forum.culteducation.com]

Quote

Quote:
For all the attorneys, doctors and other professionals out there: the analogy between the NATLFED entities and Scientology does seem apt, as based on my own experience. I was one of the few attorneys they tried to recruit as a cadre member, probably because I was young and inexperienced at the time. However, all the other attorneys and doctors I met had no inkling what was going on or whether or not the people they spoke to actually got the help they needed. The NATLFED front groups, like CCLP, do the same sort of thing that Scientology does with celebrities:
(1) the professionals get special treatment (like the ubiquitous wine and cheese parties that, by the way, are never held in the offices of the NATLFED fronts but in a professional's home or office -- another screening mechanism);
(2) the professionals come in "through the back" door at the front offices. I don't mean this literally of course but, like Scientology, they prepare for a professional's visit by ensuring they will not see what actually goes on while they are visiting a front office.
(3) the professional volunteers are given honorary "board member" status.

However, try asking for a copy of the bylaws that govern the organization, or about its finances, like I did, and you are asking for trouble.

Comment by Anthony Palik from San Francisco on Dec 13th, 2009, 16:53 pm

This quote is from another article but describes how easily high value professionals can be enticed to provide
a respectable and reassuring front for an enterprising group or guru.

Ditto for academics who are in media sexy areas such as astrophysics, developmental psychology, neurology,
all the areas of science where folks are pushing for science/faith 'dialogue'--you may be a quiet, retiring
shy person, not think of yourself being at all valuable, but...watch out. You could well be a source of derivative
legitimacy for a very dodgy guru or group.

Due diligence folks. Ask for the bylaws by which the group is governed and also its tax status and paperwork relating to that. If you lose friends over this you dont need those sorts of friends.

Better that than ending up with egg on your face or (worse) a subpoena if the group gets into hot water and makes front page/screen news.

Power Games: Influence, Persuasion and Indoctrination in Psychotherapy Training

Edited by Richard Raubolt

New York, NY: Other Press, 2006. ISBN-10: 1-59051-173-5; ISBN-13: 978-1590511732 (paperback), $32.00. 320 pages
Reviewed by Steve K. D. Eichel, Ph.D., ABPP


[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

(excerpt)

Quote

Richard Raubolt’s chapter 9 on “coerced discipleship” is entirely unlike Lariviere’s contribution.

Raubolt’s chapter is concise and to the point. He builds on the classic article on iatrogenic psychotherapy cults by Temerlin and Temerlin (1982). He characterizes indoctrination as occurring by “seduction or force” and as possessing five essential components (p. 171): (1) charismatic, authoritarian, and dominating leadership; (2) dichotomous and stereotypical thinking; (3) affiliation with an institution or group that fosters conflicting relationships; (4) cycling of trauma and retraumatization; and (5) theft of language. He provides several clear examples of each component, and his discussion of the different kinds of coercive leadership styles is especially illuminating