# Cults: Practices, Influence Methods, and Key References

## 1) What “cult” means (and why the term is contested)

“Cult” is commonly used to describe groups—religious, spiritual, political, therapeutic, or commercial—that center on **extraordinary devotion** to a leader or ideology and use **high-control** or **coercive** tactics that restrict members’ autonomy. In academic work, the word can be imprecise and stigmatizing; researchers often prefer terms like **new religious movement (NRM)** or **high-demand / high-control group**.

A practical way to think about the topic is to focus less on the label and more on **observable behaviors**, especially patterns of **undue influence**, **coercive control**, and **exploitation**.

***

## 2) Common features of high-control groups

Not every intense community is harmful. Many groups are demanding but still respect consent, dissent, and individual rights. Risk increases when you see several of the following together:

* **Charismatic, unaccountable leadership** (leader above rules; special access to “truth”)
* **Totalizing ideology** (“we alone have the answer”; outsiders are dangerous/evil)
* **Control of information** (discouraging independent reading, news, or contact)
* **Behavior control** (sleep, diet, dress, relationships, finances, sexuality)
* **Emotional control** (fear, guilt, shame; threats of spiritual/social catastrophe)
* **Isolation** from family/friends and nonmembers
* **Us-vs-them dynamics** and hostility to criticism
* **Exploitation** (unpaid labor, coerced donations, sexual abuse, forced service)
* **Difficult or punished exit** (shunning, harassment, loss of children/community)

Frameworks that map these dynamics include the **BITE model** (Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotion) developed by [Dr. Steven Hassan](https://freedomofmind.com/cult-mind-control/bite-model-pdf-download/). This model identifies how authoritarian control is exerted through the systematic manipulation of four key components:

*   **Behavior Control:** Regulation of physical reality, association, and finances.
*   **Information Control:** Use of deception, propaganda, and limiting access to outside/critical sources.
*   **Thought Control:** Requirement to internalize doctrine as "truth" and use of conversation-stopping clichés.
*   **Emotional Control:** Manipulation via fear, guilt, shaming, and "love bombing."

***

## 2.1) The Digital & Open-Source Predatory Ecosystem

In the modern era, high-control dynamics have migrated from religious settings into "impact" communities, tech startups, and Open Source movements. Research identifies several specific patterns:

*   **[Open-Source Washing](https://medium.com/@ronaldssebalamu/open-washing-open-source-eb2bc489533d):** A deceptive marketing strategy where a project claims "openness" and "transparency" to gain community trust and labor, while maintaining tight, proprietary control over governance and assets.
*   **Digital Cult Dynamics:** Using algorithms, echo chambers, and platform-mediated surveillance (e.g., Discord/Bazaars) to isolate members from dissenting data.
*   **Coercive Management in Non-Profits:** Where mission-driven "passion" is weaponized to discourage critical reflection and justify labor extraction. Research by the [American Accounting Association](https://www.rug.nl/hrm-ob/bloggen/the-dark-side-of-passion-how-to-protect-workers-from-exploitation) distinguishes these "coercive controls" from enabling structures.

***

## 3) Recruitment and “hook” strategies (how people get drawn in)

Recruitment is often subtle and relational, not overtly coercive at first. Common patterns include:

### 3.1 Targeting vulnerability and transition

Groups may approach people during major life changes:

* Grief, breakup, relocation, job loss
* Identity exploration, loneliness, anxiety/depression
* College transitions or new social scenes

### 3.2 Love-bombing and rapid belonging

Early stages can involve:

* Intense attention, praise, and affirmation
* Frequent invitations and “instant family” experiences
* Fast escalation (more meetings, retreats, commitments)

### 3.3 Gradual commitment (the “foot-in-the-door” effect)

Commitments often build stepwise:

* Small request → larger request → major sacrifice
* “You’ve already invested; don’t waste it” (sunk-cost pressure)

### 3.4 Reframing doubts as personal failure

A common pivot is moving from *“We support you”* to:

* Doubt \= “negativity,” “lack of faith,” “ego,” “toxicity”
* Criticism \= proof you need more training/confession/obedience

***

## 4) Practices and rituals commonly used

These practices can exist in benign forms, but in high-control settings they may be used to intensify conformity and dependence.

### 4.1 Group rituals and identity reinforcement

* Repetitive chanting, singing, synchronized movement
* Uniform clothing, special names, exclusive symbols
* “Testimony” sessions where members publicly affirm doctrine

### 4.2 Confession and surveillance-like accountability

* Public or leader-mediated confession of thoughts/behavior
* “Accountability partners” reporting back to leadership
* Mandatory journaling or self-critique that can be weaponized

### 4.3 Exhaustion and schedule saturation

* Long meetings, late-night sessions, frequent retreats
* High workload + reduced sleep → reduced critical thinking and increased suggestibility

### 4.4 Controlled relationships

* Rules around dating/marriage/sex
* Pressure to cut ties with “unsupportive” family and friends
* Reassigning living arrangements to increase dependence on the group

### 4.5 Financial and labor demands

* Mandatory tithes/donations, paid courses, “levels,” or audits
* Unpaid labor presented as “service,” “mission,” or “proof of commitment”

***

## 5) Influence and control methods (undue influence)

Below are **descriptive** categories used in research and clinical discussions—shared to help readers recognize risk patterns, not to enable manipulation.

### 5.1 Information control

* Limiting access to outside sources
* “Approved” reading lists only
* Framing external media as hostile propaganda

### 5.2 Thought-stopping and loaded language

* Special jargon that compresses complex issues into slogans
* Labels to dismiss dissent (“apostate,” “suppressive,” “enemy,” “low vibration”)
* Short phrases used to shut down reflection (“just trust,” “submit,” “don’t overthink”)

### 5.3 Phobia indoctrination (fear conditioning)

* Leaving \= doom, spiritual destruction, mental collapse, or harm to loved ones
* Outsiders portrayed as contaminated or malicious
* Threats of shunning and total social loss

### 5.4 Intermittent reinforcement

* Alternating affection and punishment
* Unpredictable approval from leaders → members chase validation

### 5.5 Moral injury and shame cycles

* Setting impossible standards, then punishing failure
* Confession → temporary relief → new “sins” discovered → repeat

***

## 6) Impacts on members and families

Effects vary, but documented harms can include:

* **Anxiety, depression, PTSD-like symptoms**, panic, dissociation
* **Identity confusion** and loss of personal agency
* **Financial harm** (debt, lost employment opportunities)
* **Education/career disruption**
* **Family rupture**, custody conflicts, or multi-generational trauma
* **Social skill atrophy** outside the group
* In severe cases: **physical/sexual abuse**, forced labor, or deprivation

***

## 7) Warning signs (practical checklist)

Consider risk elevated if a group or leader:

* Demands **secrecy** about teachings or finances
* Claims **exclusive truth** and frames all critics as evil/ignorant
* Discourages **questions** or punishes dissent
* Requires **extreme time** commitment early on
* Controls **relationships** and promotes isolation
* Uses **fear, shame, or humiliation** as “growth tools”
* Pressures for **money**, unpaid labor, or “levels”
* Makes it hard to **leave safely** (shunning, threats, harassment)

***

## 8) If you suspect undue influence (safer responses)

### For individuals

* **Slow down decisions**: postpone major commitments, donations, relocation
* **Reconnect** with independent supports (friends/family outside the group)
* **Document** concerning incidents (dates, messages, financial records)
* Seek **professional help** from a licensed therapist familiar with coercive control

### For friends/family

* Keep communication open; avoid ridicule (it can deepen dependence on the group)
* Ask curious, non-confrontational questions (“How are decisions made?” “Can you leave without consequences?”)
* Offer practical support (a place to stay, help reviewing finances, legal referrals)

### Immediate danger

If there is abuse, confinement, threats, or violence, contact local emergency services or relevant protective agencies.

***

## 11) Reputational Extraction: The Monopoly on Innovation

In predatory community ecosystems, the "extraction logic" often extends beyond labor and money to include **reputational extraction**. This is common in projects led by **narcissistic leadership** who view the community primarily as a source of "narcissistic supply" and free intellectual property.

### 11.1 Key Tactic: Credit Hoarding
The systematic practice of minimizing or erasing the contributions of community members while centering the leader/organization as the sole source of "truth" or innovation.
*   **Re-branding:** Taking a volunteer’s design and re-releasing it as an "Official V.X" version with zero attribution.
*   **The "Prophet" Dynamic:** Maintaining a narrative where all technical breakthroughs originate from the founder, even when they are derived from years of community feedback and bug fixes.

### 11.2 Instrumental Collaboration
Treating contributors as **tools rather than peers**. In this model, the organization "baits" volunteers with the promise of collaboration, but uses them only to build the organization's SEO, grant eligibility, and brand equity.
*   **Low Attribution:** Ensuring that when a project succeeds, only the "Official" brand name (e.g., *Precious Plastic*) is visible to the public/media.
*   **Disposable Contributors:** Once a volunteer has provided their design or technical expertise, they are often phased out or marginalized to ensure they don't challenge the leader's monopoly on "innovation."

### 11.3 Reputational Fraud
Manipulating the public record to present a project as a solo visionary effort.
*   **Plagiarism as Policy:** If a community tool becomes popular, the organization may copy it, slightly tweak the aesthetics, and announce it as an "Internal Development" to recapture the narrative.
*   **Erasure of History:** Deleting or archives-silencing the names of early pioneers or technical critics to ensure the founder's legacy remains untarnished by "dissent."

***

## 12) Practical takeaways (how to evaluate any “movement + marketplace” ecosystem)

* **Undue influence**: manipulative persuasion that undermines free choice
* **Coercive control**: patterned domination via isolation, monitoring, intimidation, and regulation of daily life
* **Thought reform**: systematic methods that reshape beliefs/identity under constraint
* **High-demand group**: community requiring significant time/behavior conformity (not always abusive)
* **New Religious Movement (NRM)**: academic term for newer religious/spiritual groups without assuming harm

***

## 10) References (starting points)

### Foundational and widely cited works

* Lifton, R. J. (1961). *Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism*.
* Singer, M. T., & Lalich, J. (1995). *Cults in Our Midst*.
* Lalich, J. (2004). *Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults*.
* Hassan, S. (2015). *Combating Cult Mind Control* (revised/updated editions).
* Zimbardo, P. (2007). *The Lucifer Effect* (situational power and abuse dynamics).

### Sociological and historical perspectives

* Barker, E. (1984). *The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing?*
* Robbins, T. (various works). Scholarship on NRMs and controversies around “brainwashing” claims.
* Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1985). *The Future of Religion* (and related work on religious movements).

### Coercive control and trauma-related context

* Herman, J. L. (1992). *Trauma and Recovery*.
* Stark, E. (2007). *Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life*.

### Mission-driven, wellness, and modern cultic dynamics

* Montell, A. (2021). *Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism*. (Analysis of language used to coerce in modern settings, from wellness to MLMs).
* Remski, M. (2019). *Practice and All is Coming: Abuse, Cult Dynamics, and Healing in Yoga and Beyond*. (Examines high-demand dynamics in dedicated communities and wellness spaces).
* Stein, A. (2016). *Terror, Love and Brainwashing: Attachment in Cults and Totalitarian Systems*. (Applies attachment theory to understand how isolation and trauma bond members to extreme groups).
* Lalich, J., & Tobias, M. (2006). *Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships*. (Practical recovery framework for survivors).

### Practical resources (education and support)

* **[Freedom of Mind Resource Center (Dr. Steven Hassan)](https://freedomofmind.com):** The primary source for the BITE model, diagnostic tools, and insights into digital-age undue influence.
* **[The Influence Continuum Podcast](https://freedomofmind.com/podcasts/):** Discussions on authoritarian tactics in tech, politics, and digital spaces.
* **[Open Source Initiative (OSI)](https://opensource.org/definition):** The official standard for Open Source and advocacy against "open-washing" practices.
* **[American Accounting Association (AAA)](https://aaahq.org):** Empirical research on the impact and mechanisms of "coercive control" in organizations.
* **[International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA)](https://www.icsahome.com/)**

***

If you want, I can tailor this into a shorter explainer (1–2 pages), add a section comparing **healthy high-commitment communities vs. high-control groups**, or format it as an academic-style article with in-text citations and a bibliography style (APA/MLA).

---

## 8) Applying the framework to real-world “impact” communities: *Precious Plastic* (as covered in our review)

Mission-driven communities (environmental, humanitarian, open-source, self-help, etc.) can create **strong identity and commitment** without being cults. But the same social forces that make them effective—shared purpose, tight networks, “movement” language—can also enable **high-control dynamics** when governance is weak and critique is punished.

In our related reporting on the *Precious Plastic* ecosystem (see links below), community members and operators describe patterns that are useful to compare against the frameworks in this article—especially **information control**, **unaccountable leadership / governance concentration**, **reputational pressure**, and **exit costs**.

### 8.1 Why this is a relevant comparison

*Precious Plastic* is often framed as an open, decentralized, pro-social maker movement. That makes it a good “stress test” for the idea that **cults aren’t only religious**: high-demand dynamics can appear anywhere there is (1) a compelling moral mission, (2) status hierarchies, and (3) asymmetric control over platforms, money, or legitimacy.

### 8.2 Mapping reported issues to common high-control patterns

Below is a **pattern-level** mapping (not a diagnosis). The goal is to show how to translate a concrete controversy into **observable mechanisms**.

**a) Information control / reputation management**

In our *Precious Plastic* coverage, community reports include claims of:

* **Opaque moderation**, sudden delistings, and constrained technical critique.
* Pressure to transact and communicate inside controlled channels.

These map closely to:

* **5.1 Information control** (limiting access, “approved” channels)
* **5.2 Loaded language** (dismissal labels for critics) when present

**b) Totalizing ideology + moral licensing**

Cause-based communities can drift into “ends justify means” thinking:

* *“We’re saving the planet, so internal harms are secondary.”* - Dave Hakkens reiterated his position on losses, damages and violence serveral times in private chats, showing no interest in damage control or making amends - "This is a business"

That dynamic often amplifies:

* **Us-vs-them narratives** (critics framed as enemies of the "mission")
* **Shame cycles** (doubt framed as personal weakness rather than legitimate concern) as we've seen also repeatedly across different Discord servers. Bazar Sellers and so called 'Community Managers' acting as moderators threatening users to ban them if they don't stop asking questions or support the opposition, ending often with defamation, hit and ban.

**c) Exploitation and sunk-cost escalation (in a business/marketplace form)**

When a movement becomes an ecosystem with courses, “levels” marketplaces, or required vendors, the pressure can shift from inspiration to **lock-in** (rules change, sudden taxation, cutting off communication between users and customers )

* High up-front investment (time/money) → reluctance to exit (“I can’t waste the build/brand/years”).
* Dependency on a platform’s visibility (SEO, listings, “official” status) → higher exit costs: happend many times to long term sellers on the bazar.

This maps to:

* **3.3 Gradual commitment / sunk-cost pressure**
* **4.5 Financial and labor demands** when participation requires ongoing payments or uncompensated work

**d) Safety claims, compliance ambiguity, and authority without accountability**

Our advisory notes community concerns around **machine safety, standards compliance, and legal/insurance exposure**. In high-control settings, technical uncertainty can become a power lever:

* Leadership sets the narrative (“it’s safe / it’s fine / critics are overreacting”) without independent validation, or Dave Hakkens confirmed 'We are the single source of truth, we know whats best' ( without any actual experience or skills )

This maps to:

* **Charismatic or unaccountable authority** (leader/platform above scrutiny)
* **Information control** (lack of transparent third-party documentation)

### 8.3 Practical takeaways (how to evaluate any “movement + marketplace” ecosystem)

If you’re assessing a mission-driven community for cultish risk, ask:

1. **Can criticism exist publicly without punishment?** (Are technical critiques welcomed, archived, and answered?)
2. **Is there independent verification?** (Safety certifications, audited impact metrics, third-party reviews)
3. **Who controls the channels?** (Marketplace listings, moderation, “official” endorsements)
4. **How expensive is exit?** (Loss of identity/community, loss of income/visibility, threats of shunning)
5. **Are boundaries respected?** (Clear consent, reasonable workloads, no coercive fundraising)

### 8.4 Related reading (internal)

* [Precious Plastic — Community Follow-up and Risk Advisory](http://localhost:3333/user/3bb4cfbf-318b-44d3-a9d3-35680e738421/pages/precious-plastic-community-follow-up-and-risk-advisory)
* [Precious Plastic Review - 8 years later](http://localhost:3333/user/cgo/pages/precious-plastic-review-8-years-later)

> **Note:** Even when a case shows multiple risk markers, the most useful question remains *behavioral*: does the group/system support informed consent, dissent, transparency, and safe exit—*or* does it punish scrutiny and increase dependency?
