Algimantas Kvecys on Reviving the Lithuanian Skeptics’ Association: Debunking Pseudoscience

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/10

Algimantas Kvecys, Chair of the 14-year-old Lithuanian Skeptics’ Association (LSD), has led its revitalized second phase since November 2022. Originally student-driven and focused on consumer rights and pseudoscience debunking, the LSD now leverages social media to engage broader audiences, supplementing occasional TV and print coverage. Kvecys highlights tensions with mainstream outlets that both spread and challenge misinformation. He notes Lithuania’s eclectic mix of imported fringe beliefs—from shamanism to “scientific” seawater therapies—rooted in Soviet-era broadcasts. The LSD collaborates with volunteer scientists to research and push for better critical thinking education, stronger consumer rights protection and stricter church-state separation.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your current position?

Algimantas Kvecys: Chairman of the Lithuanian Skeptics’ Association.

Jacobsen: How long has this organization been around? How long have you been Chair?

Kvecys: The Lithuanian Skeptics’ Association has existed for approximately fourteen years. It has gone through two distinct periods. The first period was active for some time, but eventually slowed down. For the past four to five years, we have entered a renewed, more active phase. I have been Chair since November 2022.

Jacobsen: How would you describe the character of the first phase? How does it differ from the second phase?

Kvecys: The first phase primarily involved young people,  students with diverse academic and professional backgrounds. It mainly focused on consumer rights, protection from pseudoscience, and defending rational thought.

In the current phase, we have expanded our range of activities. Times have changed — how we communicate, the channels we use, and the tools we have to reach a broader audience. In the earlier phase, it was more challenging to gain that kind of visibility. Now, we primarily use social media to engage with the public.

Jacobsen: Do you get any television coverage? In other words, do you have connections with Lithuanian journalists? Do they provide support, or was using alternative platforms like social media more of a necessity?

Kvecys: We do occasionally receive media coverage. Sometimes, we appear on local television and in mainstream media outlets, though social media remains our primary channel for outreach.

For sure, we have some connections, but a lot of the time it’s very complicated because many of those news outlets and mainstream media channels are the ones spreading misinformation, quackery, pseudoscience, and charlatan ideas — precisely the things we’re opposing.

So there’s a real tension when it comes to calling out journalists who are promoting those views. At the same time, some of their colleagues, sitting right next to them, are trying to debunk the very same ideas their peers are spreading. So that’s a funny side of things.

Jacobsen: Now, words like charlatan, quack, and so on — these are great terms. Woo-woo is another wonderful invention of the twentieth or twenty-first century. James Randi popularized it. Do these have approximately the same meaning when translated into Lithuanian?

Kvecys: Yes.

Jacobsen: Do they have the same punch?

Kvecys: Yes. They do. But I’d maybe like to add something — or I might forget to mention it later. So yes, we use those kinds of terms, and they carry a similar punch in Lithuanian. But I want to make a disclaimer about how I view those things.

I see them more as part of the human condition — things that people have always done and probably always will do unless we fundamentally change, maybe through AI or some other transformative process.

These behaviours are ongoing. We sometimes use terms like quack or charlatan to delegitimize specific actions or beliefs, to frame them in a negative light . Still, ultimately, they reflect enduring human tendencies.

Jacobsen: Yes, each culture has its landscape of nonsense — pseudoscience, magical thinking, and so on. In Canada, for example, it tends to fall into this vaguely spiritual domain: crystals, horoscopes, tarot, homeopathy, naturopathy. What is the character of it in Lithuania?

Kvecys: These are the kinds of things people continue to do, and we often attach those behaviours to terms we want to delegitimize — framing them negatively or critically. But really, they reflect ongoing human tendencies.

If we’re talking about the current situation, it is not that different or exotic compared to other countries. The influence of various practices, products, services, and belief systems arrives rapidly , mostly imported.

You will find everything from South American sorcery to Mongolian shamanism, to cosmic philosophical ideas, to Celtic or Norse mythology, like the Thunder God —. It all gets mashed into an eclectic mix.

And from what I have seen in the work of journalists and researchers worldwide, this is a global pattern. So we are currently in a phase of total diversity and complete eclecticism, mainly due to the influence of the internet.

But there are deeper historical roots, especially from the Soviet era. At that time, Eastern philosophies, folk traditions, and even pagan beliefs were interwoven into various forms of art and cultural expression.

There were even shows on national television — back then controlled by the Soviet regime — about parapsychology, mind control, hypnosis, and channelling. These were broadcast to everyday Lithuanians and throughout the Soviet Union.

So there is a strong legacy here, especially in fringe, proto-scientific ideas. One example is the so-called “scientific” seawater therapies that gained popularity. But the diversity is so vast now that it’s hard to trace any single influence.

It becomes difficult to unravel the threads and say definitively where a particular idea originated. Typically, when you come across some strange medical device in Lithuania, you can trace it back a few steps .

Often, it leads to someone in Saint Petersburg from 50 years ago, working on pseudoscientific ideas like resonances, auras, or crystals —. Then, we merge those with emerging technologies, such as lasers.

And forty years later, that legacy results in a multi-level marketing scheme selling food supplements —  All based on the claim that a crystal has detected liver damage caused by the microplastics or the   disbalanced aura of fallen Western ideas, or something equally abstract.

Jacobsen: And the problem is not necessarily the ideas themselves. Wrong, bad, and even racist ideas have always been around. The real issue is the institutional backing — when those ideas are given power and structure, that’s when they become dangerous and harmful to people.

People wasting their time on strange beliefs is one thing — that can be harmless, even if misguided. But when it starts causing real harm, that’s when we have a problem.

Of all the assorted beliefs and movements in Lithuania’s landscape, which ones do you think are the most dangerous to people’s lives and livelihoods , specifically because of institutional support? That support could come from the government, NGOs, the church, or international influence.

Historically, you mentioned the Soviet Union as one such example ,  profoundly influential. Which ideas today do you think deserve more scrutiny in Lithuania, based on their actual and potential harm?

Kvecys: Quackery — especially quackery that government institutions strongly support. If you take something like homeopathy, for example , it’s widely accepted, even though it’s entirely unscientific. In some contexts, yes, it seems relatively harmless.

Jacobsen: That’s the big one in Canada, too, mainly pushed by some alternative health circles.

Kvecys: But here, it is not seen as exotic or strange. It’s considered quite normal, even traditional in some ways. So it’s not even seen as worth questioning, which is part of the problem. That kind of normalization makes it more difficult to challenge.

Jacobsen: I mean, it does not necessarily have to be esoteric. It can be something familiar to many countries — something widespread, but still harmful.

Kvecys: No, I would go in a different direction, if I may. Let’s consider how certain scientific discoveries give rise to new popular ideas — things like quantum entanglement, quantum physics more generally, or the microbiome.

Jacobsen: The stuff that, by Feynman’s admission, no one understands.

Kvecys: Exactly. Take microbiome research, for example — studies about how gut microbes influence health. These kinds of discoveries quickly attract the attention of practitioners looking for ways to legitimize their products and services.

They either repackage what they already offer under the new terminology or create entirely new offerings based on these ideas, whether or not they’re supported by science. So, for instance, here in Lithuania, we’ve seen a surge of new businesses producing fermented drinks full of bacteria.

And some of these businesses reference microbiome research showing links to cancer development or prevention. But then they start advertising that their drinks cure cancer.

Jacobsen: Of course.

Kvecys: And often, they’re structured like pyramid schemes. We’ve found cases where 50-year-old women — usually from rural areas, often cancer survivors or with family members affected by cancer — become distributors.

They know other women in similar situations, and the network spreads. These women then host informal meetings where the drinks are promoted. And we are not talking about regulated, evidence-based presentations.

Suppose you listen to some of the recordings that occasionally surface online. In that case, you’d want to cover your ears — claims about revitalizing every cell in the body, total rejuvenation, curing cancer, and so on.

This is a particularly harmful form of quackery. It’s not just pseudoscience — it’s the exploitation of emerging scientific language for commercial gain, regardless of whether the science supports the claims being made.

Jacobsen: Deepak Chopra is probably the most prominent North American example of this. He’s an MD — he should know better — but like Dr. Oz, he’s either easily corrupted or delusional. I remember one debate he had with Sam Harris and someone else, I forget who, where he described sex as “the mechanics of creation.” It’s also the sloppiness of language around these ideas that enables the deception.

Kvecys: Perfect bullshitters.

Jacobsen: Perfect bullshitters. Because they’re intelligent. They’re qualified. So they either know better, or they’re genuinely delusional. But given their intelligence, it’s more likely that they do know better . And that they’re just selling nonsense.

Kvecys: What I forgot to mention earlier is a specific case that might be useful to highlight , because it’s genuinely harmful. We researched the practice of physiognomy here in Lithuania. Physiognomy is the idea that you can determine a person’s character or personality traits by analyzing their facial features , like the structure, proportions, and so on.

These ideas are ancient. Aristotle had similar theories, and traditional Chinese culture also embraced such concepts. Over time, these beliefs have reemerged in various forms around the world.

In Lithuania, one recent wave of interest in physiognomy was not just another esoteric contemplation— it became apparent in every news outlet. There are a few practitioners here promoting physiognomy as a legitimate method. The real red flag came when they started claiming they could diagnose psychopathology by examining ear shapes .  That you could detect liver cancer from the ear lobe. That kind of absurdity. But there was something even more troubling.

Jacobsen: I prefer reading poems.

Kvecys: [Laughing] Yes. In addition to publishing books, offering paid courses, and giving lectures, these practitioners were selling their services to companies. They were conducting HR seminars , training human resources personnel on how to use physiognomy in hiring decisions.

So, imagine: during a job interview, the HR person is scanning your face to determine if you’re better suited for manual labour or a management position — assessing your abilities, responsibilities, and potential based on your facial features.

That was a serious red flag. These companies were buying these lectures and attempting to incorporate this pseudoscientific method into their hiring processes. We launched a research initiative. We contacted numerous HR firms and media outlets.

One of the most significant breakthroughs was getting the government media outlet, LRT (Lithuanian National Radio and Television), to act. They had hosted around 20 different content pieces — radio shows, TV segments, interviews, and articles — about physiognomy. All of that content has since been taken down.

It was a sporadic case. You have to acknowledge that — it’s highly uncommon for 20 items from a single media source to be removed at once on a single topic. That rarely happens. Usually, editors will defend their outlet. They’ll defend the journalists and try to reach a compromise, arguing that the content does not violate ethical standards or laws, even under Lithuania’s journalistic ethics guidelines.

So, this was a unique moment. The physiognomy trend faced backlash from us, and in that case, it resulted in a pushback. The movement was stalled, at least to some degree.

Jacobsen: Fourteen years ago, when the group was founded, was there a specific catalyst? Was there a cultural event that triggered its creation?

Kvecys: I do not know. I don’t know what the exact catalyst was.

Jacobsen: In North America, you’ll find things like horoscopes in almost every newspaper . From small-town publications to major outlets. Is that also common here?

Kvecys: Yes. Even one of the most prominent media outlets in Lithuania, which had an astrology and horoscope section on its website, removed it a couple of years ago. They issued a statement saying, “We are being responsible; we’ve taken it down” — as if that were enough.

But now it is back. Ownership changed, policies shifted, and the section returned. That shows there’s public demand. There’s a practical need for it, at least from a consumer perspective. The horoscope section is one of the most visited parts of many websites here in Lithuania.

And walk into any shopping mall and check the magazine and newspaper stands. You’ll see publications on witchcraft, horoscopes, astrology, and alternative medicine. It’s everywhere. All the major media outlets carry this type of content . Except for the government-owned outlet. But all the others include horoscope sections, and they’re consistently among the most visited sections.

Jacobsen: What about academic fraud? In two forms:

First, people supporting pseudoscientific products or claims while presenting false credentials , like putting “Doctor,” “MD,” or “PhD” next to their name without having the proper accreditation. Or even worse — a more subtle case — they do have a credential, but it is entirely unrelated to the subject matter.

For example, someone with a doctorate in theology claiming to be “a doctor” in the context of medical or scientific expertise. It’s like the old joke: 

A person comes across a car crash. People are yelling, “Please help! I need a doctor!”

Someone runs over shouting, “I’m a doctor! I can help!”

And the person says, “Oh, thank goodness. What should we do first, doctor?”

And the man replies, “Oh — I’m a Doctor of Philosophy.”

“What?”

“Yes, in existentialist philosophy.”

“So… what does it all mean, then?”

[Laughing] So that’s the issue — people assuming that any “doctor” has relevant qualifications. That’s harder for the general public to parse, especially when they have not spent time critically examining pseudoscientific claims. People see the title “doctor” and assume it implies a higher level of analytical capacity or credibility.

Kvecys: People see base credentials — and for the average person, that’s enough.

Jacobsen: The first case is more obvious — straight-up fraud, lying about one’s qualifications. But the second case is more subtle. Yes, the person may have genuine credentials and analytical skills — they may read and write at a high level . But they’re applying those skills inappropriately, or dishonestly, outside their area of expertise.

That can be just as damaging, and much harder to detect. What do you find is more prominent here in Lithuania? Are there any notable cases you’d want to point to?

Kvecys: Actually, I have not heard of any prominent cases in Lithuania that would fit that pattern — where respected researchers or academics veer into quackery as a kind of side interest. Their colleagues ignore it or let it slide. I am not aware of examples like that happening here.

Mainly, there are more critiques of how research is conducted, but not cases of researchers ruthlessly implementing proto-scientific or pseudoscientific ideas into legitimate scientific processes. I have not come across that.

There have been cases involving well-known public figures — people with credentials, or scientists — who enter politics and attempt to influence how things should be done.

But their actions were not based on fraudulent research, as far as I know. There was another case we investigated — not quite the same issue, but still relevant.

It involved how a university failed to vet businesses using its resources properly. So, this happened at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas, at its business incubator. One business managed to infiltrate the incubator and benefited from lower rent and access to university-linked resources.

What they were doing was oxygenating tap water — regular cold water — and branding it as “tropospheric water.” They marketed it as if it came from the forest, calling it “tropo water.”

They claimed it was collected through special processes and infused with oxygen. The messaging was: “Drink one glass and it’s like spending three hours in the wilderness — fresh oxygen, full rejuvenation.”

Of course, this was complete charlatanism — a scam. We conducted an investigation, and the business was immediately kicked out of the incubator.

Jacobsen: A perfect case of pseudoscience trying to borrow legitimacy.

Kvecys: They were using the university’s name, facilities, and even scientific language in their marketing.

They said, “We are based at the university,” wore white lab coats, and invoked academic credibility to make it sound like a scientifically grounded product.

Jacobsen: Like those YouTube ads with a guy in a white coat saying, “I’m a doctor.”

Kvecys: Yes — same tactic. They used white coats and university affiliations to give their claims a veneer of legitimacy when, in reality, it was total quackery.

And, as usual, when I traced the founder’s sources, I quickly found that the core ideas were based on the work of a Japanese “scientist” who claimed you could talk to water, infuse it with emotions, and restructure it based on your intent — 

That emotionally charged water could influence your body depending on how it was “charged.” You can almost always trace these kinds of pseudoscientific products back to a similar origin. It’s typical.

Jacobsen: When you critique these practices publicly — so you build your case and then present it — how do the people you are criticizing typically react?

Kvecys: Every situation is different. We have not had a considerable number of those cases — it takes time and resources to investigate and build a solid case.

Sometimes we laugh at them and move on. But if we have concrete evidence — something that violates consumer rights, communication laws, or other regulations — then we can pursue it to achieve real change.

Some business owners will immediately message us on Facebook Messenger and say things like, “Stop it.” Or, “I will come after you.” Others, especially those running closed Facebook groups we have investigated, will start posting things like, “We’re being attacked,” or “Someone is chasing us — beware, community.”

They warn their followers but also spin it into a marketing tactic: “Buy more products because we might get shut down!” In some cases, we have received legal threats — letters drafted by lawyers intended to scare us. They say, “Drop the case or we’ll sue you, we’ll impose fines,” and so on.

Jacobsen: Do they ever follow through?

Kvecys: No. It has never gone that far. These are scare tactics. Most of these businesses are relatively small — they do not have much money or legal muscle. And they probably realize that if it went to court, they would lose.

They cannot win based on the facts. So, every case plays out differently. Some people stay silent and keep doing their thing. They do not care. For example, in the physiognomy case , they just continued operating.

They said, “We lost access to one Lithuanian media outlet, but there are twenty others.” And of course, there’s always social media. So they keep going there. But because we are not violating the law , we are pointing out that they are violating ethical standards — it becomes a bit tricky.

And those ethical standards are often higher for institutions like Lithuanian National Television.

Jacobsen: So this raises the question: Should we, in our respective countries, establish a legal context where the benchmark — especially around health claims — is higher than just ethics violations? Should some laws make it illegal to give people false hope, waste their time and money, and steer them away from real, evidence-based treatments? In other words, should this be something considered at the parliamentary level?

Kvecys: In Lithuania, we already have much stricter regulations of health claims compared to countries like the United States or Canada. Far more restrictive. But the issue is not with the policies — it is with enforcement. Very few cases are pursued.

There are not enough resources, either within civil society organizations like ours or within governmental bodies, to track and investigate all these cases. And there is another problem , especially with pseudoscientific services:

People are often ashamed or reluctant to admit they were scammed. Suppose someone tried an alternative treatment and it failed. In that case, they rarely report it — not to authorities, not even to their families. They stay silent.

So we have a lack of resources, no systematic enforcement, and victims who do not come forward. That is the typical situation. The laws are strict, the problem is with enforcement and tracking. There is no proper tracking system in place.

Jacobsen: So they are paperweight laws.

Kvecys: That is right. Most of these scams now live on platforms like Telegram, in closed Facebook groups, or on niche online forums. And they reach vast audiences , spread across Central and Eastern Europe and beyond. Or they’re doing in-person presentations.

However, the problem lies in the fact that government organizations lack a process for creating fake accounts or participating in online forums and closed groups. They do not have the legal right to do that. So they are not monitoring the places where most of this charlatanism is happening.

That is the real issue. Yes, once in a while, they do uncover something — maybe a business here or there — but it is just a fraction of what is going on. A tiny fraction. And I am not talking about borderline ethical issues. I am talking about actual violations of the law — false treatment and cure claims, for instance.

Jacobsen: Is your healthcare system nationalized?

Kvecys: Yes, it is a mixed system. Most of it is public. We have a national health insurance program — essentially a national healthcare system. But there is also a private sector, and the balance between the two is relatively stable.

Jacobsen: Do you coordinate with any scientific associations or societies?

Kvecys: We work with a network of researchers across various fields — philosophy, chemistry, biology, genetics, nutrition, and so on. These are individual scientists, primarily based in Lithuania, who support us when we need expert input to investigate a specific case of potential quackery.

Jacobsen: So not a formal network, but a collaborative one?

Kvecys: Not a formal organization, but individual researchers who are quite willing to help. And yes, we are very grateful for that.

Jacobsen: And they generally share your concerns?

Kvecys: I believe so. There are a few prominent researchers who casually debunk pseudoscientific claims. For example, there’s Gabrielius from Kaunas University — he focuses on exposing fake medical devices. the kind of devices where you touch it with your fingers and it supposedly scans your entire body for diseases.

Jacobsen: Like a Star Trek tricorder.

Kvecys: Or something like that, typical nonsense. So, he casually debunks those kinds of claims. Unfortunately, there are not too many researchers doing that.

Jacobsen: Would you say there’s any particular idea or practice in Lithuania that remains acutely harmful, even after being debunked? Something that continues to affect people despite having been thoroughly disproven?

Kvecys: All of these things have been debunked at some point, but that rarely makes a difference. The core motivations behind why people engage in these practices are not rooted in evidence.

From what I have seen, most of it is about finding a cure for uncertainty. When someone is in a situation where their health is at risk — and there is no straightforward remedy or established procedure — they face overwhelming uncertainty.

They need to resolve that uncertainty somehow. So, whatever reaches them at that moment — whether it is a practice, a device, a supplement, or a so-called medicine — they may embrace it.

Not necessarily because it works, but because it reduces anxiety. For example, consider someone who is unemployed and anxious about finding a job. If they believe that physiognomy lectures will help them “read” their interviewers and gain an edge, it may lower their stress.

It does not help them get hired. But in the short term, if it reduces their uncertainty, it becomes appealing. I am now paraphrasing Stuart Vyse a bit — it is his idea — but I agree with him. You see this dynamic everywhere.

People are simply trying to reduce their anxieties. That is the primary driver. And if something “works” for that — even without evidence — they will continue using it. Even though all of these pseudoscientific ideas have been debunked, people do not respond rationally when they are under stress. You cannot provide meaningful education about charlatanism when someone is in crisis.

Because when people are in real-life situations filled with uncertainty, their cognitive capacity drops. They do not have the time, energy, or resources to engage in critical thinking. They want immediate relief. That is why we focus our efforts on removing misleading information from public platforms — 

So that when people do go searching for answers, they are less likely to fall into the trap of quackery and pseudoscience. And hopefully, they find better, evidence-based ways to cope. So I think it is a better route to go , focusing on removing harmful content and redirecting people to better alternatives.

And yes, I did not directly answer your earlier question about one specific harmful idea, because honestly, there are so many. For example, there is an association of Catholic exorcists in Lithuania. That is highly damaging.

People involved in those practices often do not receive real psychological or medical help. They are left untreated or even harmed. Then there was a recent business I found on Facebook. They were selling epoxy pyramids with twisted copper wire inside. It’s essentially a coil, marketed as something that “collects the resonance of the universe.”

At first, the messaging was the usual — spirituality, personal enhancement, vague claims. But after a few rounds of updates, the messaging evolved into cancer treatment. They began claiming that these amulets or talismans could cure first, second, and even third-stage cancer.

That is incredibly dangerous. This points to the broader issue of diversification in pseudoscientific claims. Please make sure to mention this in the interview: 

We are living in a moment where multiple layers of uncertainty are converging — climate change, COVID-19, the war in Ukraine, and now the looming threat of a broader conflict in Eastern Europe, plus people’s challenges. That is the backdrop where these anxieties take root.

This is a very uncertain time for Eastern Europeans — and Europeans in general. I see a resurgence of superstitious thinking as people try to cope with that anxiety. So now all the old things are back on the table: red string bracelets, amulets, tarot readings, horoscopes. And they have multiplied  by a factor of five, at least. It is prevalent.

Jacobsen: What about collaboration with other skeptic groups? I interviewed Claire Klingenberg a while ago — she works with the European skeptic organizations’ network. Do you take part in that? Do you collaborate with national groups, share ideas, share resources , maybe even have a drink and laugh about the nonsense in your country versus theirs?

Kvecys: In Lithuania, we have two main physical formats for the skeptical community. There’s our annual conference, held on October 13. Then there’s a regular meet-up format — Skeptics’ Meet-Up — where members of our community and others gather to exchange ideas.

Most of the participants are scientists from the network I mentioned earlier. In terms of international cooperation, the biggest issue is that many of the organizations abroad are relatively weak. We are also not in a position to provide enough resources to help strengthen smaller groups.

Without that, there is little motivation for genuine cooperation. Sure, it is fun to go to Sweden, grab a drink, and laugh about the pseudoscience in our respective countries. But when you get down to the practical aspects — regulations, lobbying, policy proposals — each country is very different.

The cultural contexts are different. So I do not see much common ground when it comes to enacting real change on that level. Many of these organizations are too weak for serious, strategic collaboration. That is just the reality. It is different from the Center for Inquiry. That is a stronger organization.

Jacobsen: Very strong. Yes, to be fair, the United States is very focused on its internal issues right now. It has turned inward , not just politically, but also in terms of the skeptical movement. And from what you are saying, the same seems true for Eastern, Northern, and Central Europe.

With the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine, the rising anxiety, protests, and instability, skeptical organizations in those regions may be turning more toward local or national concerns , closer to home. It is challenging to get skeptic and humanist groups from different regions to collaborate in a significant way.

Even with funding and structure — like Humanists International — it has been a real challenge to ensure global representation on boards and to sustain international cooperation. It takes a lot of time and effort. And even when progress is made, it can easily stall or fall apart.

Kvecys: Yes, exactly — take the European Skeptics Association. I spoke with them and asked, “What kinds of actions and initiatives are you pursuing?” And their response was, “We host one annual conference — that’s it.” But they should be going after European Union subsidies and building larger-scale projects. Instead, all they do is run that one conference.

So I said, “Okay — if you’re experienced people with connections across Europe and you’re still not finding opportunities to secure proper funding from the European Union — which offers plenty of programs — then what are we supposed to do?”

To apply for these programs, you at least need the resources to participate. But if those organizations are not even attempting to access that support, then what can we do? Maybe we will. Maybe the Lithuanian Skeptics will take that initiative.

So I do not want these efforts to exist merely as a meeting point for exchanging ideas. It is a platform to create real, tangible change.

Jacobsen: That highlights two of the most significant issues in most secular or freethought organizations. The first is the challenge of regional and international cooperation. That isn’t easy. And the second is succession planning. When someone decides they are done — either because of term limits or burnout — or when there is a formal rotation every few years, there needs to be a proper transfer of leadership.

If a group is built around a personality — like the James Randi Foundation — it may thrive for a time. But when that person steps back, the organization’s influence can quickly fade, despite the legacy they leave behind.

Kvecys: I think all organizations have to build in both of those aspects. You need a charismatic or visionary leader of some sort — yes. But you also need a strong institutional foundation to support that person and survive beyond them.

If an organization lacks that deeper structure, it simply will not have a lasting impact. I am not thrilled about how involved Richard Dawkins is in the Center for Inquiry right now. It feels like too much is centred on one individual.

That level of personal branding can overshadow the broader purpose of the organization. Even for me, it is a bit much.

Jacobsen: I gather and tell the stories — I do not control them.

Kvecys: Right. It’s just… too much focus on him, I think.

Jacobsen: Final question — more about personality. Last night I was walking around, having something to eat, picking up some groceries, and I ended up hanging out at whatI would describe as a Lithuanian rock concert. What was with all the Dalai Lama posters everywhere? I think I saw a Buddhist monk. So, the background , I do not want to over-interpret that, but of the religious leaders, he is one of the least problematic.

Kvecys: It’s more about the context. The Dalai Lama is expected to announce a successor — someone who would be the next Dalai Lama after him. So, there is both a political and religious context behind it. We have a small Buddhist community here. There is a Tibetan Square in Užupis — just a couple of hundred meters from where you were.

Jacobsen: That’s probably why I saw that guy. He was in Buddhist robes, had a shaved head — very European-looking — and he was wearing sneakers. I loved that.

Kvecys: Yes, we have a few Buddhists here. Tibetan Square exists, and that explains the posters and the imagery you saw. That’s the context.

Jacobsen: What are your favourite skeptic quotes or literature you would recommend to others?

Kvecys: Let me say this — Yuval Noah Harari once wrote:

“You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.”

And for literature, I highly recommend a book by Kateryna Zorya. The title is The Government Used to Hide the Truth, But Now We Can Speak.

It is a fantastic book , insightful. Anyone who wants to understand how Soviet and post-Soviet esotericism, New Age thinking, and quackery have evolved in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states should read it.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kvecys.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.