Don't Ask. Don't Tell.

Originally posted 6/14/09

Updated today.

Now that the First Amendment rights of every ex-member of the Spiritual Rights Foundation has been upheld, I went back to Steve Sanchez's book "Spiritual Perversion". Steve's book is an accurate account of what happened behind the scenes at the Spiritual Rights Foundation. It is so accurate, I felt like I was re-living all those insane years at the cult.

Of course a lot of what Steve wrote was inspirational for me. Without his groundbreaking book, I would not have mustered the courage to create this blog and begin the process of relating my side of the SRF story.

At the Spiritual Rights Foundation, as in many cults, the inner workings and daily interactions between leader and member and even between peers is considered sacred, inspired and holy. So much so, that we were told to not repeat anything that was said - especially to those outside the cult. We even had to sign a document to that effect.

This document (the "agreement statement") said, in effect, that no student or minister of the Academy for Psychic Studies may speak of any event involving any person or leader, the techniques presented, the color of the walls, the horrendous odor of the back rooms, or the appearance of the leaders (who splashed their repulsive countenances online and in the newspaper anyway) FOR ALL ETERNITY.

That someone could be held to non-disclosure is OK up to a certain point. I have signed dozens of non-disclosure statements for various reasons. None were like the kind we signed at the Spiritual Rights Foundation.

Normal non-disclosure statements are limited in scope by either the kind of information to be held secret, in time or both. But the SRF/Academy for Psychic Studies statement tried to cover any event, any leader for all time.

Steve Sanchez wrote in "Spiritual Perversion" a piece about his own hesitation about signing such an oppressive and unlawful agreement. One of the founders of the Academy for Psychic Studies even flatly refused to sign because of it's one-sided nature.

--------------------------------------------------------

Steve describes the following:

Rev. Bill wrote a long “agreement statement’ which that went on and on and on about the sanctity of SRF and the dire consequences for any individual who broke their vow of confidentiality to the Church. He said that as ministers we were sworn to never repeat what we hear inside the walls of SRF because it is the same as a priest receiving a confessional from a Church member. He made everyone sign it, but Rev. Harpreet wouldn’t sign it.

We were all profoundly in awe of this document and what it implied. If we didn’t sign it, we knew we would be shunned and probably kicked out of SRF. I didn’t want to sign it, but it seemed unthinkable not to.

I was in a horrendous dilemma about this signing the document, but I didn’t want to show this. Part of me just wanted to sign it to show my loyalty and be ‘in’. But I also felt a nagging, painful stress doubt and rage in my heart and head. I was haunted by the fear I was being screwed and making a horrible mistake. After delaying, I signed it.

----------------------------------------------------

I delayed signing it as well. Actually I went for several years without having signed any kind of non-disclosure. The reason I was uneasy about it was simple: the "agreement" was so oppressive in it's nature (an ETERNAL contract would not be enforceable), with consequences so dire it looked like I was about to sign away my testicles.

After some amount of time (years) they finally figured out I didn't put my mark on the dotted line and made me sign it anyway. By then, I realized the statement was worthless, in a legal sense and unenforceable. You can't have a private agreement to hold someone to confidentiality through eternity. It just does not make sense.

But what about it made sense? As explained to me, the document was intended to maintain the sanctity of the "psychic readings" by keeping them confidential and that state and federal law supported said confidentiality by defining the reading as a "religious confession".

OK. Confidentiality in a "religious confession" is reasonable - but that duty of confidentiality within a confession is between "priest and penitent". Let's say someone dropped into the SRF "healing clinic" for a brief reading. Let's also say you were assigned to read that person. Your duty of confidentiality was to the person you were reading and no one else.

In actuality, all the things said in the readings conducted at the Academy for Psychic Studies were freely discussed among the gathered faithful for ridicule, humiliation and disdain.

If you were a member of the public, whether getting your reading for the first time or even your 10th time, your "confidential" reading would be spread around the Academy for Psychic Studies as fast as a rumor spreads through a trailer park. Your "spiritual faults" will be laid bare for all to hear, your troubles spread around from person to person. And it's not so we can rally around you to help ease your pain.

Instead, we gathered to laugh like we are listening to a celebrity roast and ridicule you with any of a number of insults. If you returned, we would know how to pounce on you and we used the information disclosed from your "confidential" reading to love bomb and deceive you. Without exception, $150 dollar classes were recommended to those who received a reading. Of course, even more $60 readings were suggested.

Most of the public walked out - but not because of any disclosure of their "confidential" reading. It was more like the middle-aged ladies and hippie-chick wannabes of the cult followed them around so closely, the visitors wondered if they were being watched like thieves.  But whether you walked or stayed, you would be treated the same: like an ignorant, uneducated, unenlightened, easy mark.

Psychic Readings at the Academy for Psychic Studies are just like "Three Card Monty" where everyone who plays eventually loses it all right in front of people who are laughing behind your back.

But that was nothing compared to what the ministers and students went through.

Whenever a minister or student received a reading, the entire contents of that reading were promptly communicated to SRF leadership for appropriate response.

Usually that appropriate response was a demand for more time working for free at the Bethel Island farm, performing a "love project" (another way to work for free), or putting in endless hours of "volunteer" labor on other endeavors. "Reform through labor" was a suggested way to help one emerge from the doghouse. Just work your ass off at the leaders' farm for free, for the leaders business for free, for the "church" for free, hell, work for anything SRF for free and you may have a chance at redemption in ten years or so.

But the faithful few see this demand as a helpful thing, intended for their own spiritual growth and unfoldment. They faithfully discuss the personal, intimate details of every "psychic reading" with any member of the Spiritual Rights Foundation while laughing their ass off or while describing the shortcomings of the person they read with a healthy, healing dose of disdain.

Even though, in California, a minister of a church can indeed conduct "pastoral counseling" without having to obtain a license, that ability is somewhat limited and the minister's duty to follow the law, accepted therapeutic practice and above all: confidentiality remains.


Ministers at SRF are told they are healing and helping their flock process emotions, but only at a price: 60 or more dollars an hour and 120 bucks for each class.  Make 'em pay was the motto.  Put business first was the command.  Get them in for readings and more classes was the dictate.


It's all in the name of making a million dollars a year for the leaders.

I wonder: how can the Spiritual Rights Foundation expect to attract new members if they see their new prospects the way the leaders see the existing members - as piggy banks and disposable diapers.

But don't let me stop you from getting a psychic reading from the Spiritual Rights Foundation. Let them do their thing and see whatever it is they see.

When you get to the part where you can ask them to address your questions and give them feedback on the reading, think of this:

DON'T ASK. DON'T TELL.

Don't even bring home the little pamphlet they give you.