Sex, Power, and Control Inside Modern Cults

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/20

Lindsay Allan is a legal scholar studying the state’s duty to protect victims of sexual abuse in cults. Her work examines how governments gain knowledge of systematic harm yet fail to act, especially in patriarchal religious systems, focusing on grooming, coerced consent, and institutional responsibility in law, policy, and practice.

Dr. Amos N. Guiora is Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, and a former Israel Defence Forces JAG officer. He researches institutional complicity, bystanders, and enablers in sexual abuse and extremism, including FLDS, and advocates for criminal liability for enabling harms worldwide today.

Michelle Stewart is a cult survivor, activist, and author of Judas Girl, who grew up in multiple closed religious communities, including Hutterite and Bruderhof offshoots. She writes and speaks about quiet cults, psychological abuse, recovery, education as liberation, and the subtle ways patriarchal control and financial dependency entrench coercive systems.

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney, president of Scarab Rising, and analyst of authoritarian movements and ideological extremism. She examines how law balances religious freedom and association against fraud, confinement, exploitation, and abuse, highlighting consent under duress and difficulties prosecuting closed, cultic or cult-adjacent communities worldwide. 

In this roundtable, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Amos Guiora, Lindsay Allan, Michelle Stewart, and Irina Tsukerman about modern cults as systems of coercive control. They examine sexual abuse, financial dependency, and psychological grooming in groups like FLDS, NXIVM, and “quiet cults.” The conversation foregrounds women’s disproportionate victimization, the blurring of consent under fear and indoctrination, and the role of enablers and indifferent governments. The panel also explores who is vulnerable to recruitment and how early critical thinking education, public awareness, and survivor testimony can help people recognize red flags, leave abusive communities, and rebuild autonomy, dignity, and legal accountability.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s begin. Today we’re here with Amos Guiora, Lindsay Allen, Michelle Stewart, and Irina Tsukerman. We’re going to be talking about cults—some people who have been in them, some who are studying aspects of them, some who have spoken about the legal implications, prosecution, and how we define these things, and others who focus on foundational work on enablers and communities. These are coercive communal efforts to keep the cult together. There are many factors to consider here. My first question is: when you think of a cult and you think of a charismatic leader, what figures come to mind? What movements come to mind?

Irina Tsukerman: Charles Manson. And what do you call the Kool-Aid guy?

Lindsay Allan:  Jim Jones.

Michelle Stewart: I was going to say Heaven’s Gate. They went by Do and Ti—Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles—but where is my mind going? Blank. We can backfill that name; my mind is blank.

Lindsay Allan: Keith Raniere comes to mind from NXIVM.

Dr. Amos Guiora: For me, Manson was the first name that came to mind.

Jacobsen:  Aum Shinrikyo is another one. There were the Moonies. Stephen Hassan came out of the Moonies, and he’s now a significant figure in cult research, so I think that’s also a major one. This will be a good transition. Those figures who emerge from these groups tend to understand the dynamics from a subjective perspective. When they gain academic or other training, they can become powerful countervailing forces to these movements.

Tsukerman: David Koresh. 

Jacobsen: David Koresh, true. Now, Lindsay, in your current research on cults, what is the precise research question you’re looking to answer, and what is your current academic finding?

Allan: I’m looking into the government’s duty to victims of sexual abuse in cults and how the government has failed. A lot of it hinges on the government’s knowledge of what is happening and the failure to act or adequately investigate. I initially was looking into cults and crimes they have committed, but there were too many examples and too much information to work with. I had to narrow it down because, sadly, it was so prevalent. That is the short version.

Jacobsen: Michelle, could you share a little insight into your experience?

Stewart: I’ll try to narrow that down. I went through groups that I would label as cults or cult-like extreme religious groups, and recently published a book about those experiences. They were, and continue to be, what I would call quiet cults. We just talked about the names everyone knows—high-profile groups with charismatic leaders that make headlines. I’m trying to raise awareness about groups that may not make headlines, or not yet, and to focus on how cult dynamics develop around us in more subtle ways, in more socially acceptable religious formats. For example, the most significant part of my experience was with a group that broke off from the Amish and merged several extreme versions of Protestant strains, creating a very toxic cult dynamic that spread and grew rapidly. From there, I focused on my recovery and getting out. I was raised in it as a teen and young adult, and I have since left. I try to raise awareness by telling my own story, emphasizing education as a key to freedom, and sharing my healing process and how others can heal. My story took a whole book, and that book covers only about twenty percent, so I will not go into too much now, but I’m happy to elaborate as we go along.

Jacobsen: Amos, what is the community responsibility here regarding enablers and such?

Guiora: I begin with Lindsay’s outstanding question, which concerns the governmental duty to act when harm is known and the obligation to protect the vulnerable. Scott, as you know, my research focuses on enablers—those who know about the harm and consciously decide not to act on behalf of the vulnerable. In that sense, I build on Lindsay’s work, which examines the government’s knowing and, frankly, failing response. Regarding the community, I think it is more difficult. When I wrote my book Freedom from Religion, in which I examined the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and explicit government knowledge combined with looking the other way, there is obviously the perpetrator—Warren Jeffs or whoever is leading whichever group. But the more important question, which Lindsay is examining, is the conscious decision—by the government, in this case—not to protect the vulnerable. I do not know enough about cults; since the first time we spoke with Irina, you and I, I am not, like Michelle, a cult expert. I do not know enough to say whether communities themselves know. But the government’s failure to protect the vulnerable is, at least for me, and in Lindsay’s excellent work, a critical question that needs to be addressed.

Jacobsen: Irina, regarding the law and building on Amos’s point, how far can the law compel a federal agency to act in the well-being of a community in a harmful circumstance due to its structure, leadership, or practices?

Tsukerman: The law does not focus on protecting communities from cults. Instead, it focuses on balancing the rights of different people against one another. Several legal issues are taken into consideration when confronting something like this: freedom of speech and association, freedom of religion, and, on the other hand, whether there have been abuses such as fraud, abduction, unlawful confinement, or financial exploitation. Has there been physical abuse? To what extent does consent play a part? Are children being harmed? Are elderly individuals being harmed? Is the association—the cult—presenting a collective threat to outside communities?

These are the questions that get addressed. The considerations are narrow in scope and very fact-dependent. Generally, the law seeks to balance constitutional rights to gather, associate, and follow the creed or religion of one’s choice with the requirement that the methods and actions be lawful. You cannot stop people from being indoctrinated if they wish to be indoctrinated. But if fraud is being committed, if minors are being harmed, if someone is being enslaved or abused without consent, if there is physical harm, then the government begins to intervene and push for investigations. It is not always easy, which is why these groups are as widespread as they are and can continue for years before anyone takes notice.

Victims do not immediately see themselves as such and are often motivated to stay silent. Because these groups are closed environments and do not always affect outside areas—Manson being a notable exception—there is usually no clear incentive for federal agencies or the government to investigate unless someone escapes and reports illegal activity, such as drug use or other abuses. There is very little the government can do to begin an investigation without a clear legal breach. Sometimes intervention can start from the outside if there is a noise complaint, persistent nuisance from group activities, or clear indications that minors are disappearing, not attending school, or that women appear to be abused. These signs can trigger intervention. But generally, until a particular line of acceptability is crossed, it is tough to draw government attention in the early stages.

Jacobsen: What do you find—this is an open question for anyone—to be the most insidious harm for those who have been stuck in cults or cult-like circumstances?

Allan: I think there are obviously physical and sexual harms. NXIVM, for example—since I mentioned Keith Raniere earlier—involved him branding women he claimed were his slaves and forcing labour. Another major part is how victims can end up facilitating or perpetrating abuse themselves. Again, NXIVM is an example: the women who were enslaved recruited other women and carried out the branding. In the Rajneeshee movement, there were numerous abuses against children, and they had no recourse; they were prevented from escaping. It goes on, but I can elaborate more—I do not want to take up all the time.

Tsukerman: It is interesting because many people who are drawn into cults develop something akin to Stockholm syndrome, making it difficult to get them to admit they are victims or that anything is wrong. Getting people out of that mindset can be highly challenging. Once you do, people are much more likely to try to leave. But until you reach that point, individuals can participate in their own harm, and it can be tough to determine whether they are genuinely consenting or whether they are psychologically vulnerable. Their consent is under duress, making it invalid. Separating duress from voluntary consent in someone who is indoctrinated is both a legal and psychological challenge. That gray area is why so many people come to severe physical and substantial psychological harm.

Allan: What I was going to say is actually similar to Irina’s point, but grounded in experience. The most insidious damage is the mental and emotional harm. This includes, but is not limited to, psychological abuse and internalizing everything the group has told you about yourself. For children and young people who are pulled in, the entire mental programming—the way you were taught during your formative years to understand the world, how it functions, how to think about yourself, how to identify abuse—can be warped. It can take years, if not a lifetime, to fully deprogram or to work with therapists to relearn how to think in a normal society. While the physical and sexual abuse, as Lindsay said, are among the worst harms, they are often easier to identify. You can pinpoint an event of non-consent; you can pinpoint a physical injury. Even if you believed at the time that it was acceptable or deserved, you can still identify it and work through it. The mental deconstruction that cults take you through is different. You may not even know it exists in your mind. It is like a computer virus running in the background, and it can take a very long time—and affect every part of your life—to understand it and reroute your thinking.

Guiora: Scott, my only modest contribution to what the others have said is this: when I researched the FLDS, it became quickly apparent that the group was, in many ways, an insidious—polite word—mechanism to manipulate and sexually exploit. I am fortunate to be in a position to be influenced by Professor Lindsay as she writes this excellent paper, and I learn from her work. I do not know whether “sexual depravity” is the correct term or “sexual focus,” but that seems to be the recurring theme. And again, going to Lindsay’s point about government duty, branding is just one example. It is an outrageous attack on a woman’s body. There are no words. That is why, for me, the question of enablers, government duty, and sexual harm is the critical issue here.

Tsukerman: My question is: to what extent are women still far more likely to become involved in cults? So far, we have had in mind many groups where the primary dynamic is sexual exploitation, but what about religious cults where sexual activity is communal or where the sexual element is absent and the focus is entirely on power and spiritual authority?

Guiora: Even with FLDS, which is predicated on religion, at the end of the day, Warren Jeffs was marrying underage girls. We can have a long discussion about whether those marriages were consummated, but there is no doubt that sexual abuse was endemic to the culture. As Lindsay knows, when I wrote the book and interviewed the women—who were girls when they were married off—there is such a thing as statutory rape; there is an age of consent; and the leader controlled their bodies. That, to me, is the most insidious and nefarious aspect of this entire conversation.

Allan: To Irina’s question, I wonder whether an interesting way to think about this is the structure of so many of these groups as patriarchal societies. And in general, we are still living in a patriarchal society, which could help explain why we see more women becoming involved in cults. Even in everyday society, women are often shown as subordinate to men, leading figures. I have not researched this aspect deeply, but that was my initial thought on why patriarchal conditioning might play a part in women’s susceptibility.

Stewart: If I may add to what Lindsay said, that is precisely what I saw. Women who joined often showed reluctance, but they still complied because they believed in a patriarchal culture. They were usually coming from Christian environments where submission to one’s husband was taught as the highest virtue, and that framework played a tremendous role. To add to the question about cults where rampant sexual abuse is not the central feature: in the group where I lived, there were no orgies, but there was definitely sexual abuse that was covered up. Even though we did not have underage marriages like the FLDS, sexuality was very much used as a tool of control over women. We were taught that we were inherently impure seductresses, that we were leading men into sin, and we could be told that ministers or bishops were lusting after us because they could see our ankles. Telling a 13-year-old something like that is profoundly abusive and harmful, yet we internalized it as our sin and our shame. So sexuality can be used as a tool of control, even if overt sexual abuse is not the center of the culture. It can still be a potent psychological weapon.

Guiora:  If I may, to follow up on Michelle’s point: one of the women I spent significant time with was, I believe, wife number four or five in the polygamous relationship that is central to the FLDS. They all lived together in the same house, the same compound. If she denied her husband sexual access, his way of punishing her was, first, to remove her from the house, which is one thing, but the truly dangerous harm was that he would deny food to her children, who were also his children. By withholding food from them, he coerced her—exactly what Michelle is describing—into having sexual relations absolutely without consent. He starved the children because he viewed them as her children, not their children. The other wives, wives one through three, saw that her children were not being fed, and they did not secretly give them food. That is also part of the insidious coercive structure of the cult. Most of us, when we see a child without food, instinctively want to feed them. Here, in the house, they saw that a child was not eating and knew the reason—because the mother denied him sexual “services,” if that is the term—and they still did not provide food. There are no words for that. Michelle, you are the expert here, but perhaps this is an example of how coercion goes beyond the individual and incorporates the entire community within that environment.

Stewart: I do not know if I would say I am an expert, but I agree. In my experience, what I witnessed was the group—and, ironically, the women—being used to control other women. Whether through their own fear or their own indoctrination, women became some of the most powerful enforcers. They would ostracize us, which was very common if we did not fall in line with whatever behaviour was expected, or they would use their own internalized abuse to perpetuate more abuse against us as a method of control. In many cases, the coercion and control exercised by women against other women were even stronger than the control exercised by men, quite ironically.

Tsukerman: Are there any examples—sorry, go ahead—are there any examples of charismatic women leaders or women cult leaders who recruit other women, or men, or both?

Jacobsen: One example that comes to mind is NXIVM. Keith Raniere is not a woman, of course, but within DOS—short for Dominus Obsequious Sororium, meaning “Master over the Slave Women”—he appointed Allison Mack and other women to go out and recruit. Lindsay knows this well. DOS was presented as a women’s empowerment group. These women acted as sub-leaders—still leaders in their own right—and were charismatic figures, such as Allison Mack, the actress, who recruited women into the inner circle, where they were then branded and abused.

Allan: Nancy Salzman was another one. She and Allison Mack were essentially the number twos in NXIVM. Another example of a female charismatic leader is The Family in Australia, led by Anne Hamilton-Byrne. Much of what they did involved abducting children, arranging forced adoptions, and drugging the kids. She stood out to me because, as we typically see male leaders, it was surprising to find a woman at the center of such a group. They were fairly widespread in Australia.

Guiora: Lindsay, can I ask you a question? Were the women sexually abusing women?

Allan: In NXIVM? I cannot think of a clear example off the top of my head, and it also depends on how you define it. Part of DOS involved “collateral,” meaning women had to send other women explicit photographs or compromising materials. The main sexual component was the nude photographs. These were said to be held as collateral, but demanding sexually explicit pictures is itself a form of sexual abuse. The women were also the only ones doing the branding, and I would consider that a form of both sexual and physical abuse.

Tsukerman: Is there really a difference between a charismatic cult leader and a regular sexual predator like Jeffrey Epstein?

Allan: I believe so. There is much more involved in being a cult leader. Epstein is a complex example because I have heard arguments that he could be considered a kind of cult leader himself, depending on the definition. But typically, a charismatic cult leader demands loyalty, imposes rules, and often imposes rules on followers that he does not abide by himself. An example—there have been multiple leaders who instruct followers to abstain from sex, except sex with the leader, which is framed as cleansing or spiritually beneficial. That is where sexuality and coercion are used as tools, and the leader does not follow the doctrine he imposes. Cult leadership involves far more control, insulation, and structural manipulation than what you see in the pattern of someone like Epstein, who fits more squarely into the category of a conventional sexual predator in a criminal context.

Jacobsen:  What about the control of finances? Not just collateral that is embarrassing or shaming, as in the Raniere case, but the entire financial ecosystem—electricity, food, transport, savings—being coercively controlled or held under the authority of one leader. In other words, the relinquishment of financial autonomy.

Allan: I know Professor Guiora knows more about the FLDS, so that I will defer to him on some of this, but the FLDS community in Colorado City is a strong example. The United Effort Plan is what they officially call the organization, but essentially, the cult owns all the land. Even if someone builds a house, that house sits on cult-owned land and can be taken away. They control all the money and provide only stipends to their members. Professor Guiora knows more, but that was the first example that came to mind—total financial control.

Guiora: Lindsay is correct, and not only did they have financial control, but local law enforcement was essentially FLDS. It was total control. It was total control. There was nowhere to go. The only way people could leave the FLDS was to escape in the middle of the night. The people I interviewed had to make terrible decisions when planning to leave. The women would prepare to go, but not all their children agreed to leave. As a parent, you face a terrible dilemma: what do you do with a child who refuses, when you have only minutes to escape? One woman I worked with had two children who chose to stay. She assumed she would never see them again. The control was total. What is important to note is that none of this was secret. The state government knew and looked the other way. That is the essence of enabling.

Allan: The Kingston clan is also very interesting because they own so many companies and corporations within Salt Lake County. Members are forced to work at least 60 hours a week for one of the Kingston corporations and do not receive a paycheck. All the money goes back to the Kingston clan. Members receive scrip—essentially vouchers—that they can use to redeem goods at Kingston-owned businesses. It creates a closed loop where money is funnelled entirely back into the cult. Not to mention mandatory tithing.

Stewart: If I could speak from experience, one of the cults I was in, called the Bruderhof—or Society of Brothers—had a very similar model, possibly even more extreme. Every member worked for the community; there was no external employment. Leadership decided how you worked—whether in day-to-day tasks or in income-generating roles. No one had any money of their own. Housing was provided and assigned. They could move you overnight, and it happened frequently. Almost all meals were communal. For the handful that were not, you submitted a grocery list that had to be approved, and then you would receive your items—your can of peaches, your peanut butter—placed in your mail cubby once a week. Clothing came from a clothing library. 

If you outgrew clothes or they wore out, they decided what garments you received. The same was true for shoes. You had no personal belongings and no financial autonomy whatsoever. That made it nearly impossible to leave. If you went without consent, you would go with only the clothes on your back and no financial assets. It was a compelling way to control members and to accumulate money. Members who joined signed over all their assets. You were not allowed to retain any external items. Other groups I lived in had less extreme versions of financial control, but all had some version of it. 

The mildest I experienced was aggressive coercion around tithing, which funded leaders who lived far more luxurious lives than most members. And in many groups, property might be communal—members might have limited autonomy in daily life, but actual housing and assets were owned by the community, with significant financial decisions made by the group. From experience, that was one of the most potent tactics I lived under—and had to escape.

Tsukerman: I was going to say that many of these techniques are very similar to coercive domestic abuse, where partners create complete psychological and financial dependency and use it to coerce their partners into remaining at home.

Jacobsen: It was Mark Twain’s line about history: it does not repeat, but it does rhyme. That applies to cults, courts, and abusive systems. They do not repeat themselves structurally, but they certainly rhyme in their patterns. Amos, regarding the FLDS, they are primarily polygamous, and that is a primary distinguishing characteristic. The mainstream LDS Church—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is extraordinarily financially well-off. This is a question for your expertise: regarding the FLDS as a wealthy religious community, how does financial wealth allow them to deepen their control over members’ lives?

Guiora: All the FLDS boys work in construction, and they are widely regarded as excellent construction workers. All the money is channelled back to the central leadership structure, the mothership.

Jacobsen: Amos, when they send the money back to the “mothership,” what does that entirely mean in terms of their system?

Guiora: It means total dependence. And beyond dependence, the painful reality is that because of sexual competition—everything revolves around sex in the most distorted ways—mothers are forced to drive their sons to the highway, drop them off, and wish them the best of luck. These boys, called the “lost boys,” make their way primarily to Salt Lake City, where they end up, as you can imagine, in male prostitution. When I met them—details irrelevant—the most basic life skills, such as writing a check, were utterly foreign to them. They were engaged in survival sex work. A social worker I spoke with told me the most painful part: these boys had been abandoned by their mothers, yet at night, they cried for their moms. A child wants his mother.

The control was so absolute that when a son had to be expelled, it was the mother—not the father—who was ordered to drive him to the highway. There are no words for that. Everything returns to control. They were recognized as hardworking, skilled labourers, but the money went to the leadership—Warren Jeffs and others. I need to add one more point. Warren appointed either eleven or twelve men who were permitted to have sexual relations with women. Other men were not. These so-called “golden twelve,” or whatever adjective you choose, were the only ones allowed to engage in sexual relations. And in the FLDS culture—which differs from mainstream LDS teaching—sex is defined strictly for procreation, not pleasure. Yet these twelve men were granted exclusive sexual access. In the most perverse ways, and this is what Michelle and Lindsay are both addressing, everything revolves around sex—not normal sexual relations, but coercive, controlled, and systematized sexual power.

Tsukerman: What is it with cult leaders and their obsession with sex? Of course, some of it is about power, but why is it so important to them?

Guiora: Michelle, do you want to take the lead on that one and all of its ugliness?

Stewart: I can try. Control is the keyword. There are multiple types of cult leaders, and while they share common characteristics, one question we asked earlier was whether there is a difference between a standard sexual predator and a cult leader. I think we’ve reached the answer: yes. However, while “run-of-the-mill” sexual predators may differ, many cult leaders are sexual predators and exhibit those characteristics with an even stronger need for control. Some leaders may have sexually deviant desires and create a cult around fulfilling those needs. But others—this is more from experience than academic research—see sex as the ultimate tool of control. 

They may implement what is known as purity culture, placing heavy emphasis on sexual purity, yet create a hyper-sexualized environment. Sex is one of the most intimate human experiences and one of the most closely linked to shame. When you can control someone through shame, you can control them through almost anything. When sex, sexuality, and shame are fused, you can drive an extreme level of obedience—whether through requiring sex, as with FLDS women, or requiring abstinence. Using control and shame over the body is one of the most psychologically effective tactics one human can use over another.

Jacobsen: Have any of you come across indications of a cult, or a cult-like system, that had a unique coercive mechanism not seen in most others on record?

Guiora: It is not my expertise, but there is a Jewish cult that operated in South America. To the best of my knowledge—again, this is not my specialty—the leader, whose name I do not recall, cloaked everything in religious language, but it was all about sex and, I believe, the abuse of children. Listening to Michelle, who has far more experience than I do, one thing becomes clear. Excuse my English, especially with a student listening, but it is literally “same shit, different day”: control, power, sex, sexual abuse. What Lindsay said was very interesting—if the leader preaches purity, the purity does not apply to him. That is a crucial point. The difference between the rules imposed on followers and the leader’s exemption from them is fundamental.

Jacobsen: Yes, the Keith Raniere case shows this as well. He had an entire system built around sleep deprivation. He claimed he functioned on four hours of sleep and expected others to do the same, but in reality, he was sleeping plenty. He rested often. Meanwhile, his followers—exhausted and cognitively impaired—were trapped in the system with him. It was another form of control.

Allan: Yes, I was going to echo what you said about NXIVM and Keith Raniere. Sleep deprivation, and the fact that when people were awake, they were working constantly, created extreme physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion. That level of exhaustion leaves people vulnerable and susceptible to indoctrination and manipulation. And again, it goes back to the cult leader not following the rules he imposes on his followers.

Scientology has similar structures: extreme work hours, lack of sleep, and very tight control over every aspect of life. That, along with NXIVM, funnels into creating a community of isolation. In NXIVM, once you reached a certain rank, you started living communally. That meant even more control, more isolation from external support systems, outside news, and outside influence.

Jacobsen: It has been echoed throughout the conversation, and I think it’s important to underline for the call: there are highly gendered aspects to these systems. First, most cult leaders tend to be men, or there are high-ranking women like Nancy Salzman or Allison Mack—but the pattern remains overwhelmingly male. Claire and Sara Bronfman were also deeply involved, losing $150 million. Second, the obsession with sex, sexuality, control, and abuse disproportionately targets women’s bodies as the objects of that system. Are there any other ways we can analyze this through a gendered lens to make more precise distinctions in this terrible art form called cults?

Guiora: Before I jump off, one final point. Scott—I defer to Michelle for terminology—but this is not “sex” as we understand healthy sex. These are not normal sexual relations. That must be emphasized. From the man’s perspective, this is about domination, control, power, abuse, and subjugation. From her perspective, it is the absolute antithesis of consent. She is not consenting, in my opinion. There is a long discussion—again, Michelle can speak to this—about whether women initially appear to consent when they join. I do not know. But along the way, as Lindsay’s work shows, they have nowhere to go. They are there, and— I hate this phrasing—”available for his needs.” 

But his needs go far beyond physical demands. There is enormous mental cruelty involved. This is not normal sexual relations between two consenting adults. That applies especially when girls are married off at a young age. We must be cautious with our terminology. When we talk about sex in cults, it is not sex between consenting adults. That is not what this is. And Scott, it is essential to frame the broader issue with that clarity in mind. On that note, friends, it was an honour to be with you this Saturday morning. Lindsay, good luck with your paper. Michelle, I’m delighted we met. Scott and Irina, great to see you both again. To those I won’t see soon, have a pleasant Thanksgiving. Thank you so much for having me. Goodbye.

Jacobsen: Any points, Lindsay, Michelle, or Irina, that you’d like to add?

Allan: I think he captured the core of it. It is important to emphasize that we are not talking about consensual sexual relationships. I want to dig into what I think he was getting at: What is consent? Can you truly consent if you face negative consequences for refusing? I have heard countless times—from my own experience and from other survivors—that people say, “You didn’t fight back; you went along with it. How can you claim it wasn’t consensual if it was part of your daily life?” Much of this comes down to sexual grooming. Earlier, we discussed whether people are even aware that they are brainwashed. As Irina noted, most people inside a cult do not say, “Yes, I am in a cult and being sexually abused.” If they had that awareness, they would not be there. These victims believe they are consenting. But in the vast majority of cases, they are not in a position to consent. 

Not to diminish the agency of adult women, but it is comparable to asking whether a child “consents.” When your safety—physical, emotional, or spiritual—is dependent on complying with sexual demands, you cannot freely consent. In many groups, your spiritual safety, even the fate of your soul in the afterlife, is presented as dependent on compliance. That includes sexual acts demanded by a leader, or even acts within what is labelled a “marriage” but was not entered into consensually. These individuals do not know they are being sexually abused. That is a key part of the control. My mind is going blank—I had one more point to reevaluate. But yes, I want to reaffirm: Amos is absolutely correct. It is not sex. It is not consent in any way that healthy people understand those concepts.

Tsukerman: The question I’m struggling with is whether there is any way to inoculate prospective victims—to identify and protect people who are more likely to be targeted by cults. I’m sure there are profiles of young women, especially, who have ended up in these situations, though men join as well. I see two general patterns: some come from religiously cloistered communities; others are disaffected, dealing with family issues, or not from closed environments at all. Those groups would require different approaches. If someone is in a tight-knit community that outsiders cannot easily penetrate, prevention would have to come from inside that community. Is there any way to prepare people psychologically so they are less vulnerable to recruitment? Schools used to have “Just Say No to Drugs” programs—police officers walking around, educating kids about substances and addiction. Maybe something similar is needed to prevent cult recruitment.

Allan: I think it is tough. NXIVM and Keith Raniere illustrate why. In NXIVM, many participants were academics, scientists, and high-powered executives. The program was marketed as an executive success training system, not a religion. When cults are not presented in a religious format, it becomes even harder to identify them. I’m not sure that any standard education about charismatic leaders or religious cults would have protected those people. The stereotype of who “falls for a cult” is not accurate. People who joined NXIVM did not fit that stereotype at all, and typical prevention messaging might not have applied to them.

Stewart:  If I could add to that, it is a question I think about often. Can we inoculate people in some way? I think what we are doing here is part of that. The more we raise awareness about what cults look like, how subtle they can be, the tactics they use, and how those tactics may not appear insidious from the outside, the more we expose those dynamics, the more we help. However, as Lindsay said, it is a highly challenging uphill battle. The vast majority of people who join a cult do not believe they are joining a cult. They do not think they are being abused. In my experience, you have, as Irina noted, people who are born into cult-like environments and stay for generations—the FLDS is a good example. 

Some of the groups I was in had a large percentage of those cases. But interestingly, the people I saw joining from outside were not generally vulnerable young women, although there were a few. More often, they were college-educated, financially independent married couples seeking faith, community, or self-improvement, who were then pulled in and absorbed. These were people with families on the outside who saw immediately that the group resembled a cult—families would try to warn them and pull them out. Outsiders saw it clearly; the people joining did not. So I think what we are doing—publishing papers, raising awareness, discussing these systems—is one of the best things we can do. But I do not think an easy solution exists, nor do I think there will ever be a complete fix.

Tsukerman: So then, is there a commonality among people who tend to be recruited into cults, or who become radicalized by fundamentalist groups, extremist movements, or conspiracy networks? And if there is, does that mean profiling potential victims is invalid—that anyone, under certain conditions, can be pulled into a closed environment where they can be indoctrinated and weaponized?

Stewart: I cannot answer that from an academic standpoint. Some experts have conducted psychological evaluations of people who have been pulled into cults and have identified certain potential similarities. What I can say, heartbreakingly, from observation, is that the people drawn to cults were often people who wanted something more for themselves and for the world around them. They were often exceptionally sincere, very open-minded people.

They truly wanted better. These were not people typically deemed vulnerable, but people who genuinely sought the truth. In many cases, especially among intellectuals who questioned the norms around them and found spaces where they could disagree with mainstream society, that very openness made them more vulnerable to cult tactics than people who were content with the status quo. I do not know, Lindsay, if you have an academic angle on that.

Allan: Echoing Michelle, it is a strong point that people who are disenchanted and want more out of life—some deeper meaning—are often drawn in. We have seen this in groups like Heaven’s Gate or Rajneeshpuram, especially during counterculture or anti-war eras. More recently, the “Love Has Won” group, also known as the Mother God cult, attracted people disillusioned with capitalist society who sought deeper meaning. You see similar patterns in doomsday cults where members are told, “There is a better world out there. We are part of something bigger. We are the next generation for a new world.” Michelle captured that dynamic very well.

Jacobsen: We are coming to the last question. For people who may encounter this interview a year from now, ten years from now, or whenever—people who are already questioning the system they are in—what advice would you give them for beginning to ask, for getting out, for gaining independence?

Tsukerman: Teaching critical thinking skills early is the best way to equip people—whether complacent or not—to question what is being offered to them. It is similar to recognizing false advertising: Who is doing the marketing? What are they really offering? What is their agenda? What happens if I follow them? How could I get out? A skeptical attitude toward offers that sound too good to be true or vague and emotionally manipulative is essential. Raising children to be confident in their own skills rather than relying on external validation makes them more resilient. Those skills—skepticism, confidence, analytical thinking—are what allow people to recognize red flags later in life. Without those skills, people are less likely to notice patterns or take warnings seriously and may feel overconfident that they are immune to recruitment.

Stewart: I raised my kids primarily outside of the cult they were born into. We talk constantly about what cults look like and how these groups operate, and they can see it firsthand through family members who remain involved. That has left them, thankfully, deeply disillusioned with those systems. For people who are not in cults or who have no direct connections, critical thinking remains key. As Irina said, it matters before any brainwashing phase starts. Learning to identify the hallmarks of cults—exactly as we have discussed throughout this conversation—is essential. If someone stumbles across this discussion, I hope they will look closely at these patterns in any group they encounter.

Think about what the end goal is for the leaders. Is the good flowing to them, or to you? Pivoting to people who may already be in a cult and happen to read this—because Irina focused on critical thinking—if you are in a group that is starting to feel uncomfortable, I would encourage you to begin searching within yourself and asking basic questions. Are your thoughts and feelings valued as much as everyone else’s? Are your contributions to the community shared fairly, or is there a hierarchy in which you receive less? When you imagine leaving, are you staying because you are truly fulfilled, or because of fear and loss? Are you afraid of physical repercussions? Fearful of abandonment by family? Worried that you lack the skills to live independently? Those are strong signs that you may be in a cult-like environment. I could speak at length about this, but we are short on time so that I will leave those as key points for anyone reading.

Allan: All I will add is this: it is essential to hear that this is not your fault. Michelle touched on this earlier. When you are in this kind of group, you cannot consent. Shame and the internalization of those feelings often trap people or prevent them from recognizing abuse. Evaluating your feelings—Did you feel safe? Was this something you wanted or something you thought you had to do?—is essential. Recognizing that you are not to blame and that you could be safer outside the group is an important step. Do not blame yourself for being victimized by someone more powerful.

Tsukerman: I want to add one more thing. This idea of power differentials is essential because many charismatic leaders are influential not because they have money or legal authority, but because of psychological manipulation. They build a constructed world and use psychology to bring enforcers and enablers into it. Empowering potential victims means helping them realize these leaders are not inherently influential, and they themselves are not inherently powerless.

Jacobsen: Lindsay, Michelle, and Irina—and the ghost of Amos—thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.

Stewart: Thank you so much.

Tsukerman: Thank you.

Allan: Thank you for letting me be a fly on the wall. Thank you for involving me.

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.