Numen 62 (2015) 226242brill.com/nu koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 215|doi 1.1163/15685276-12341364Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?James R. LewisUniversity of TromsoThe Arctic University of Norway Department of History and Religious Studies 9037 Tromso, Norwayjames.lewis@uit.noAbstractThepresentpiecesurveysdifferentdiscussionsofreligionespeciallyinthelegal realm which have had a bearing on Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard adopted the religion labelforpracticalreasons;inhismind,Scientologywasascience,notareligion. However, it is clear that Scientology actually is a religion at least in the sense of func-tioningasareligioninthelivesofparticipantsparadingasscience;insteadof,as Hubbard thought, a science parading as religion. This becomes particularly clear upon examination of individuals participating in the so-called Free Zone (ex-CoS members whocontinuetoidentifyasScientologists),forwhomScientologyremainstheirpri-mary religious identity.KeywordsDianeticsScientologyL.RonHubbardFreeZonereligionNewReligious MovementIn fact, scientology is not a religion. Apart from an occasional reference to scientology as a religious brotherhood and a claim to have some affin-ity with Buddhism and other religions, no claim was made at the Inquiry, except forlornly in the final stages, that scientology as known, carried on, practised and applied in Victoria was a religion. When the Inquiry began, thestatedattitudeoftheHASI[HubbardAssociationofScientologists International]wasthatscientologywasascienceandnotareligion. However,towardstheendoftheInquiry,whenitbecameapparentto theHASIthatthepracticeofscientologyin Victoriahadbeenrevealed 227 Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?Numen 62 (2015) 226242inaveryunfavourablelight,andthatithadnoevidencewithwhichto controvert the impressive body of expert evidence to the effect that it was dangerous to the mental health of the community, an attempt was belat-edlymadetopresentitasareligion.Noevidencewastenderedtothat effect, but the complaint began to be made that scientologists were being persecuted because of their religious beliefs, and the suggestion was that bigotry was rampant....scientology has not been, and is not, a religion. (Anderson 1965:197198)John Sweeney: Is it a religion, or is it a racket?JasonBeghe:Youknow,theyrenotnecessarilymutuallyexclusive,are they?(The Secrets of Scientology, 2010)Thoughdramaticincidentsinvolvingothernon-traditionalreligionshave attracted more negative media coverage for short periods of time, the Church ofScientology(CoS)isarguablythemostpersistentlycontroversialnewreli-gious movement (NRM) of modern times. One of the chief criticisms leveled against CoS is that it is a money-making business or, more harshly, a money-making scam which has cynically donned the sheeps clothing of religion as a way of avoiding taxes and as a way of protecting its pseudoscientific therapy from being properly examined and regulated by the appropriate state agencies.Self-appointedcultwatchdoggroupshaveleveledtheaccusationofnot really being a religion against a wide variety of alternative religions. However, the question of whether or not Scientology is a bona fide religion became a pivotal issue in a series of lawsuits involving the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in the latter half of the twentieth century. The IRSs refusal to recognize the Church of Scientologys legal status as a religion provided a point of reference for the governments of a number of other countries from Germany to Australia thatsimilarlydeniedreligiousrecognitiontoCoSsbranchesintheirrespec-tive countries. The IRS, however, reversed itself in 1993. This reversal, in turn, helped solve many (but not all) of Scientologys problems in other nations.The present article examines the various discussions of religion especially legal conflicts that contested the religious status of CoS which have had a bearing on Scientology since the 1970s. The founder, L. Ron Hubbard, adopted the religion label for pragmatic reasons; he regarded Dianetics/Scientology as a science rather than as a religion. However, for a number of different reasons, it is clear that Scientology actually is a religion in the specific sense of func-tioning as a religion in the lives of participants parading as science, rather 228 LewisNumen 62 (2015) 226242than,asHubbardimagined,ascienceparadingasreligion.Thisisespecially clear in the case of participants in the so-called Free Zone (ex-CoS members who continue to identify as Scientologists, independently of the CoS organiza-tion) for whom Scientology remains their religious self-identity.Background I: The Church of ScientologyThe Church of Scientology, one of the genuinely new religions to originate in theUnitedStatesinthetwentiethcentury,wasfoundedbyL.RonHubbard (19111986). Hubbard grew up mostly in Montana, but as a teenager travelled throughoutAsiaandtheEast.In1929,heenrolledinGeorgeWashington University, studying mathematics, engineering, and nuclear physics. He subse-quently took up a literary career, publishing numerous stories and screenplays in various genres, including adventure, mystery, and science fiction. Hubbard served in the United States Navy during World War II.By 1950, Hubbard had completed enough of his research to write Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. This book described techniques designed toridthemindofirrationalfearsandpsychosomaticillnesses.Dianetics quickly became a bestseller, and groups were soon formed so that individuals could assist each other in the application of Hubbards auditing techniques. He lectured extensively, and wrote more books. In 1951, he announced that the applied religious philosophy of Scientology had been born. It was described as a subject separate from Dianetics, as it dealt not only with the mind of an individual, but with ones nature as a spiritual being.In1954,thefirstChurchofScientologywasestablishedinLosAngeles, California.In1959,HubbardmovedtoSaintHillManorinSussex,England, andtheworldwideheadquartersofScientologywasrelocatedthere.In1966, HubbardresignedhispositionasExecutiveDirectoroftheChurchand formedtheSeaOrganization,agroupofintensivelydedicatedmembersof the Church. In 1975, these activities outgrew the ships, and were moved onto land in Clearwater, Florida. From this time on until his death in 1986, Hubbard continuously wrote and published materials on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology, as well as a number of works of science fiction.TheChurchofScientologybelievesthat[m]anisbasicallygood,thathe is seeking to survive, [and] that his survival depends on himself and upon his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe (Hubbard 1954). This is achieved in Scientology via auditing and by other kinds of coursework and training. Auditing (the counseling of one individual by another) consists of an auditor guiding someone through various mental processes in order to 229 Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?Numen 62 (2015) 226242first free the individual of the effects of the reactive mind, and then to fully realizethespiritualnatureoftheperson.ElectricaldevicescalledE-Meters, whichrelyuponthesamebasictechnologyasliedetectors,areusedtohelp theauditordiscoveremotionallyloadedmemories.Whentheindividualis freed from the effects of the reactive mind, he or she is said to have achieved the state of Clear. An individual can then go on to higher levels of counsel-ingdealingwithhisorhernatureasanimmortalspiritualbeing,referredto inScientologyasaThetan,andeventuallyachievethestateofOperating Thetan (usually abbreviated OT). Scientologists believe in reincarnation specifically, that a Thetan has lived many lifetimes in a human body before this one and will live more lifetimes in the future.RatherlikeancientGnosticism,Scientologyviewshumanbeingsaspure spirits(Thetans)trappedinMEST(theworldofMatter,Energy,Space,and Time). Humanitys ultimate goal is to achieve a state of total freedom in which ratherthanbeingpushedaroundbyexternalcircumstancesandbyour own subconscious mind we are at cause over the physical universe. Unlike traditional Gnosticism, achieving this exalted state of total freedom does not require that we distance ourselves from everyday life. Instead, the greater our spiritual freedom, the more successful we will be at the game of life.Perhaps surprisingly for a movement claiming to be a religion, Scientology leaves open the question of Gods existence, and instead focuses on improving onesconditionsinthislife.Aspartofthisopennesstootherreligiousalter-natives,Scientologistsaresimultaneouslyallowedtobepracticingmembers ofotherreligions(forgeneraltreatmentsofScientology,referto Wallis1976; Whitehead 1987; Lewis 2009; Urban 2011).Background II: The Cult ControversyThecontroversyovernewreligionslikeScientologyisacomplexsocialissue thathasengenderedanemotionalandoftenacrimoniousdebate.Thefocus of this debate is a wide variety of diverse groups that often have little in com-mon. Some embrace belief systems at odds with mainstream religion; others arequiteorthodox.Thesinglecharacteristicthesegroupsshareisthatthey have been controversial. Years of social conflict have left their impression on the term cult, which, to the general public, indicates a religious group that is false, dangerous, or otherwise bad.Theprincipalarenasinwhichthecontroversiesovernewreligionshave beenfoughtarethemediaandthecourts.Perhapsparadoxically,criticsof suchreligions(oftencollectivelyreferredtoastheanti-cultmovement,or 230 LewisNumen 62 (2015) 226242ACM) have suffered defeat in the courts but been victorious in the media. The current state of affairs is comparable to the situation in which the Civil Rights Movement found itself during its heyday: while going from victory to victory in the courts, in popular opinion Blacks were still viewed as second-class citizens, particularly in the Deep South.One of the principal reasons why NRMs have tended to enjoy success in the legalarenaisthatthecourtshavebeencompelledtotreatsuchgroupsseri-ously as religions, entitled to all of the rights and privileges normally accorded mainstreamdenominations.ACMcriticsofnewreligionswouldliketodraw asharplinebetweenrealreligionsandcults,andtreatcultsaspseudo-religiousorganizations.Thecourts,however,areunabletoapproachsuch groupsdifferentlyaslongasgroupmembersmanifestsincerityintheirreli-gious beliefs. Cases involving contemporary minority religions have often been argued in terms of religious liberty issues. And while anti-cultists have accused new religions of hiding behind the First Amendment (in the U.S.), they have beenlargelyunsuccessfulatpersuadingthelegalsystemtosetasideFirst Amendment concerns when dealing with controversial NRMs (Lewis 2012a).ThissituationexplainswhyatleastintheUnitedStates,Scientologys countryofbirthnoneofthelegislativeeffortstoregulatenewreligious movementshavebeensuccessful.Inthe1970s,parentsconcernedaboutthe religious choices of their adult children lobbied various legislatures. A number of states established committees and hearings to investigate the cult menace. Someresolutionswerepassed,butlegislativebodieswereultimatelyunable to act against new religions because of the church/state separation issue. The strongest effort ever made by a U.S. legislature was New York State Assembly Bill AB 9566-A, which would have made Promoting a Pseudo-Religious Cult a felony. It was introduced by Robert C. Wertz on 5 October 1977:Apersonisguiltyofpromotingapseudo-religiouscultwhenheknow-inglyorganizesormaintainsanorganizationintowhichotherpersons areinducedtojoinorparticipateinthroughtheuseofmindcontrol methods,hypnosis,brainwashingtechniquesorothersystematicforms of indoctrination in which the members or participants of such organiza-tion engage in soliciting funds primarily for the benefit of such organiza-tion or its leaders and are not permitted to travel or communicate with anyone outside such organization unless another member or participant of such organization is present. (State of New York 1977)Anumberofdifferentgroups,includingtheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnion, lobbied heavily against the bill, and it was ultimately defeated. It failed to pass 231 Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?Numen 62 (2015) 226242because among other factors it lacked an objective criterion for distin-guishing false from true religions. Without a truly neutral standard, any such law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It is, in fact, the separationofchurchandstatemandatedbytheFirstAmendmentthathas discouraged legislation in this area. This has left the courts to bear the burden of adjudicating the controversy.Priortotheemergenceofthemoderncultcontroversy,therewasone importantSupremeCourtcaseinvolvingatwentieth-centurynewreligion. This1944case,UnitedStatesv.Ballard,focusedonthebeliefsystemofthe I Am Activity, a neo-Theosophical group from which a whole family of other groupstracesitsroots.Thecasewasbuiltaroundthechargeofmailfraud, based on the ridiculous nature of the groups beliefs. In the words of Justice Robert H. Jackson, who wrote the dissenting opinion in United States v. Ballard:Scores of sects flourish in this country by teaching what to me are queer notions. It is plain that there is wide variety in American religious taste. The Ballards are not alone in catering to it with a pretty dubious product. The chief wrong which false prophets do to their following is not finan-cial. The collections aggregate a tempting total, but individual payments arenotruinous.Idoubtifthevigilanceofthelawisequaltomaking money stick by over-credulous people. But the real harm is on the mental andspiritualplane. Therearethosewhohungerandthirstafterhigher values which they feel wanting in their humdrum lives. They live in men-tal confusion or moral anarchy and seek vaguely for truth and beauty and moral support. When they are deluded and then disillusioned, cynicism and confusion follow. The wrong of these things, as I see it, is not in the money the victims part with half so much as in the mental and spiritual poison they get. (United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 95 [1944])Thefounderofthemovement,GuyBallard,hadlongbeeninterestedin occultismandTheosophy.HemarriedEdnaWheelerin1916,andtogether they founded the I Am Activity in the 1930s. Ballards revelations from Saint Germain were spread during the lectures of the Ballards, who traveled in the 1930sasAccreditedMessengersoftheMasters.Furthermessagesfromthe Ascended Masters, especially from Saint Germain and the Master Jesus, were sometimes produced in public or private.Saint Germain and Jesus were considered the mediators between the I AM Presenceandhumans.TheAscendedMasterswereatonetimeallhuman beings who were able to transcend the physical world through the purification of their lives. The goal of human life is represented by ascension. In 1938, the 232 LewisNumen 62 (2015) 226242I Am Activity was said to have been given a dispensation according to which persons who had devoted themselves so much to the movement that they had not been able to give adequate time to personal purification, could upon nor-mal death ascend from the after-earth state without re-embodiment.The I AM Activity worked publicly from 19371940 to establish a group of devoted followers numbering over one million. With the death of Guy Ballard on December 29, 1939, the movement went into decline. Edna Ballard claimed that her husband had become an Ascended Master. However, the fact that Guy Ballard had experienced a physical death rather than bodily ascension threat-ened the movements credibility. The following year, a sensational trial of the leaders of the movement took place after some members of Ballards personal staff accused the Ballards of obtaining money under fraudulent pretenses.The indictment was voided in 1944 by the Supreme Court with a landmark decision on religious liberty. The case was finally dismissed. Justice William O. Douglas, in stating the prevailing opinion, wrote:Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannotprove.Theymaynotbeputtotheproofoftheirreligiousdoc-trinesorbeliefs.Religiousexperienceswhichareasrealaslifetosome may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law...If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environ-ment found ones teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom...Thereligiousviewsespousedbyrespondentsmightseem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subjecttotrialbeforeajurychargedwithfindingtheirtruthorfalsity, thenthesamecanbedonewiththereligiousbeliefsofanysect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain.Like the Jehovahs Witnesses before them, the Church of Scientology early on set up a strong legal wing that litigated for religious rights, as well as for human rights more generally. As one of the first new religions to be embroiled in con-troversy, Scientology would prevail in most of its legal suits and eventually play a major role in eviscerating the Cult Awareness Network, the most important anti-cult group in the United States.Troublebeganwhen,rathernaively,HubbardcontactedtheAmerican MedicalandPsychiatricAssociations,explainingthesignificanceofhisdis-coveriesformentalandphysicalhealth,andaskingthattheAMAandthe APA investigate his new technique. Instead of taking this offer seriously, these 233 Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?Numen 62 (2015) 226242associations responded by attacking him. The subsequent popular success of DianeticsdidnothingtoimprovetheimageofHubbardinthemindsofthe medical-psychiatric establishment, and was likely instrumental in prompting the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raid against the Church.OnJanuary4,1963,theFoundingChurchofScientologyinWashington, D.C., was raided by United States marshals and deputized longshoremen, act-ing on behalf of the FDA. Five thousand volumes of Church scriptures, twenty thousand booklets, and one hundred E-Meters were seized. It took eight years oflitigationtofinallyobtainthereturnofthematerials.Finally,in1971,the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the Founding Church of Scientology v. United States decision. The FDA was ordered to return the books and E-Meters that had been taken in the 1963 raid. In its decision, the court rec-ognized the Churchs constitutional right to protection from the governments excessive entanglement with religion.U.S. Tax CasesChurchesactasfiduciaries,enterintocontracts,purchaseproperty,andoth-erwiseconductbusinesswithinthecommunitieswheretheyarelocated. Churches expose themselves to tax liability when their conduct is not purely religious.Scrutinybecomesparticularlyfocusedonchurcheswhentheyare therecipientsofgifts,devices,orothertransfersofproperty,orareother-wise benefitted. There have been a number of Internal Revenue Service cases involvingminorityreligionsinwhichtheIRShasrevokedthetax-exempt status of controversial new religions, often at the prompting of enemies of the particular religion involved.In 1985, for example, the Way Internationals tax-exempt status was revoked followingallegationsofpartisanpoliticalinvolvementandcertainbusiness activities at its New Knoxville, Ohio, headquarters. The ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court in 1990. In 1993, the IRS ceased all litigation and recognized Scientology as a legitimate religious organization. This followed years of con-tentious litigation between the agency and the Church of Scientology. Though the Church has also been compelled to defend itself against civil suits (particu-larly by former members) and criminal charges, the issue of CoSs federal tax-exempt status has been regarded as especially important as a de facto criterion of whether or not Scientology is really a religion.In1957,CoShadactuallybeenabletoobtainIRStax-exemptrecogni-tion, but the IRS revoked this status in 1967, declaring that Scientology was a 234 LewisNumen 62 (2015) 226242commercialenterpriseoperatingforthepurposeofbenefittingHubbard. Inresponse,hundredsofaffiliatedentitiesfiledasteadystreamoflawsuits againsttheIRStohavetheirtax-exemptstatusapproved.Inaddition,mem-bers of the church began filing thousands of lawsuits against the IRS, claiming entitlement to tax deductions for auditing and training expenses (Davis 2004).Thoughcriticsallegedthatthedecisionwassuspiciousclaimingorat leastimplyingthattheagencyhadbeenpressuredtoreverseitsprevious policy the IRS asserted that CoS had convincingly demonstrated that it had purgedindividualsresponsibleforillegalactivitiesagainsttheagency,that subsequent to the death of Hubbard no one was obviously getting rich off of Scientologysactivities,andthattheChurchsincomewasbeingutilizedfor tax-exemptpurposes(Frantz1997).Asonemightanticipate,CoSwasquick to broadcast this ruling across the globe, and immediately brought the ruling to bear on its international litigation. It also became part of the basis for U.S. State Department criticisms of Germany in its reports on the state of religious freedom during the mid-1990s (Richardson 2009).International CasesAmongScientologysnumerousinternationalcases,the1983decisionbythe High Court of Australia is particularly significant for the way in which it set out todetermineappropriatecriteriafordeterminingwhetheranygivengroups claim to be a religion was legitimate. The case involved an effort to obtain tax-exemptstatusinVictoria(theChurchhadbeensuccessfulingainingsuch statusinotherAustralianstates)inresponsetothegovernmentof Victorias efforts to collect payroll taxes on salaries paid to Scientology workers.DismissedinboththetrialcourtandtheSupremeCourtofVictoria,the Church finally appealed to the High Court of Australia. The lengthy decision, citingavarietyoftheoristsfromCliffordGeertztoBryanWilson,setoutto definereligionandtoestablishcriteriafordeterminingwhetheranorgani-zationwasorwasnotareligion.TheCourtthendefinitivelyconcludedthat Scientology was a religion and that it should therefore be granted tax-exempt status. As part of its judgment,[t]heCourtwentontostatethatareligiondidnothavetobetheistic, and that a religion involved both belief and behavior, thus avoiding the crude dichotomy promulgated by the famous polygamy case in America in1897.ThiscaseisstilltheleadingcaseinAustraliadefiningreligion, and is cited in other courts and countries as well. (Richardson 2009:286) 235 Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?Numen 62 (2015) 226242TheChurchofScientologyhashadmixedsuccessinobtainingrecogni-tion as a religion in Europe. It has been successful in Austria, Sweden, Spain, Portugal,Slovenia,andCroatia.Incertainothercountries,ithastax-exempt status but is not recognized as a religion. In Germany, where the Church has been highly controversial, it has been recognized as a religion in a few German states (Lnder), but not others. It was initially quite controversial in the United Kingdom where it was headquartered for many years, but now seems to func-tionwellenoughinthatcountry,despitenotbeingrecognizedasareligion. Scientology has also been extremely controversial in France, where the govern-ment seems intent on destroying the organization (Palmer 2009, 2011).Themostsignificantcaseinvolvingregistrationasareligionhasbeenin Russia. In the early post-Soviet system, Scientology was able to register as a reli-giousbodyby2004.However,aligningthemselveswithconservativeRussian politicians,anewlyempoweredRussianOrthodoxChurchwasabletoover-turn the initially liberal registration law (Shterin and Richardson 1998, 2000). Eventuallyanewlawwaspassedin1997whichrequiredreligionstoreregis-ter, but only groups that could show they had been operating in Russia legally for fifteen years were allowed to do so a law clearly intended to deregister groups like the Church of Scientology. After many attempts to register failed, ScientologyfinallybroughtthecasetotheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights (ECHR). In 2007, the Court ruled in favor of the Church and required Moscow toregisterthegroup.DespitetheRussiangovernmentssubsequentappeal, the case was not overturned. The potential importance of this decision is sig-nificant as it provides a precedent for Scientologys status as a religion in other European countries as well.Science Posing as Religion or Religion Posing as Science?If, for the moment, we set aside questions about tax-exempt status and govern-ment registration, there are a number of different ways of asking the question ofwhetherornotScientologyshouldberegardedasareligion.Onewayin which this question has been approached is in terms of the intentions of the founder(Willms2009).AnyhonestassessmentoftheDianetics/Scientology movement on this basis has to conclude that Hubbard transformed his move-ment into a religion for purely pragmatic reasons:IntheearlyphaseofDianetics,Hubbardmadenoattempttodefine hisnewscienceofthemindasanythinghavingtodowithreligion. Yet throughout the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, in response to a variety of internal and 236 LewisNumen 62 (2015) 226242external pressures, Hubbard began to increasingly pursue what he called the religion angle. Foremost among these were Hubbards wars with the FDA, over his claims to heal physical illness, and his intense battles with the IRS, over his claims to tax-exempt status.1ThatHubbardneverseriouslyregardedhismovementasareligionexplains why,asmentionedearlier,Scientologistswerepermittedtobemembersof other religious organizations.Ratherthanareligion,Dianetics/Scientologywas,fromHubbardsper-spective, an empirical science. As he asserted in one of his earlier works, The Fundamentals of Thought, [t]here are no tenets in Scientology which cannot bedemonstratedwithentirelyscientificprocedures.2Whilecriticsmight regard Hubbards ascription of scientific status to Scientology as just another cynical ploy what one might perhaps call the science angle it is clear that Hubbard really did regard his creation as a science. Had he not regarded Dianetics/Scientology therapy as having legitimate scientific status, he would neverhaveinvitedtheAmericanPsychiatricAssociationandtheAmerican Medical Association to investigate his findings (Melton 2000:12).Inordertograsphisperspectiveonthispoint,onemustunderstandthat Hubbardsframeofreferencewasnotthemainstreamscienceofuniversi-ties and research institutes but, rather, the broader cultural understanding of sciencefoundinwhatColinCampbellinfluentiallyreferredtoasthecultic milieu (2002). It is within this alternative dimension of modern culture where one finds such fields of study as astrology, ufology, cryptozoology, pyramidol-ogy, etc., all regarded (within this milieu) as empirical sciences on par with academicbiology,chemistry,physicsandthelike(Hammer2004).Aspartof thismilieu,Hubbardhadinheritedamoregeneralculturalunderstanding whichregardedanyenterprisethatwasempiricalinthebroadestsense evenreligiousorquasi-religiousenterprisesasscientific(Hazen2000; Rapport 2011).Despite the Churchs later efforts to portray Scientology as being similar to Buddhism,inpointoffacttheearlyDianeticsmovementsclosestreligious family member is the New Thought movement. Certainly the power to change (tobeatcauseover)externalconditionsthatHubbardattributedtothe 1Urban 2011:19. Refer, in this regard, to the discussion in Chapter 15 of Atack 2013 (2nd ed.). The same basic discussion, with a few less details, can be found in Chapter 5 of Section III of the first edition from 1990.2Hubbard1956:79.Inlatereditionsofthisbookeditionsthatwereissuedonlyafter Hubbards death this statement was deleted. I briefly discuss this and similar edits below. 237 Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?Numen 62 (2015) 226242human mind goes well beyond the realm of anything resembling empirical (in the mainstream, scientific sense) psychology. Thus, while Hubbard thought he was doing science while pretending to be the leader of a religion, from the very beginninghewasactuallydoingreligionwhileimaginingthathewasdoing hard science.Additionally, after ceasing to seek recognition as a science and adopting the religion angle, the notion of reincarnation was fully and explicitly embraced bytheChurch.Thedoctrinewaseventoutedassolidevidencethat,infact, Scientologyreallywasareligionthoughreincarnationwasframedas one of Hubbards scientific discoveries made during the development of the Dianetics movement. Dianetics was, interestingly enough, the immediate pre-cursor to what later became known as past-life therapy (Lucas 1993:56).Hubbard also picked up on the notion of astral projection, the notion that one can project ones own consciousness out of the physical body at will, which was popular in occult circles in the mid-twentieth century. Astral projection was later referred to as out-of-body experiences (OBEs or OOBEs) in the wake ofapopularbookonthesubject,originallypublishedin1971(Monroe1977). Hubbard, who seemed compelled to invent new terms for everything, referred to astral projection/OOBE with the neologism exteriorization, defined as:The state of the thetan [Hubbards term for the soul], the individual him-self, being outside his body. When this is done, the person achieves a cer-tainty that he is himself and not his body. (1965:151)Like the doctrine of reincarnation, exteriorization is clearly a religious rather than a purely psychological notion.However,theScientologyorganizationseffortstoremakeitsimageintoa religion came at the cost of deemphasizing its status as a science, particularly afterHubbardhadpassedfromthescene.Thus,forexample,thestatement I cited earlier from Hubbards Fundamentals of Thought, namely that [t]here arenotenetsinScientologywhichcannotbedemonstratedwithentirely scientificprocedures,haddisappearedbythe2007edition.Inthisregard, compare page 76 of the 1956 edition (or even page 70 of the 1973 edition) with page 80 of the 2007 edition. Furthermore, as discussed in the Fundamentals of Thought Alterations entry in the online Scientolipedia,3 at least four other 3FundamentalsofThoughtAlterations.http://scientolipedia.org/info/Fundamentals_of_Thought_-_Alterations(accessed11August2014).Inthisandotherneweditionsof Hubbards works, CoSs claim that no alterations have been made to the founders writings is 238 LewisNumen 62 (2015) 226242occurrencesofthetermscienceweredeletedinlatereditions.Evenmore interesting, the term science was replaced by religion at least twice.Ifsincerelyheldbeliefsarethecorecriterioninthelegalarena,thenper-haps the strongest evidence for the religious status of Scientology comes from the Free Zone. The Free Zone refers to the large but loosely organized commu-nity of people who consider themselves Scientologists but who are not mem-bersoftheChurchofScientology.Acrossthecourseofthesixtyyearsofthe Churchs existence, tens of thousands of Scientologists have left the fold. Many oftheseformermembersleftforpersonalorfororganizationalreasons,and continue to believe in the efficacy of Scientology practices and in Scientology as a religious philosophy.Inarecentlypublishedstudy,ElisabethTuxenRubinadministereda standardizedquestionnairetoforty-threeformerCoSScientologistsinthe Copenhagenarea.Shethenconductedin-depthinterviewswithsixteenof these. The interviewees were participants in two different groups of Free Zone Scientologists one group had left CoS in 1982 and the other in 2004 that wereunawareofeachothersexistence.Rubinfoundthatnoneoftheinter-vieweeshadlostorrenouncedthebeliefsystemofScientology.Theirreli-gious attitudes and behaviour were remarkably consistent with those of core members of Scientology (2011:219). She also found that all forty-three ex-CoS membersaffirmedsuchcorereligiousbeliefsas[m]anisaspiritualbeing and the process of [r]eincarnation (i.e., that the soul/spirit gets a new life in another body) (2011:211). One of the more interesting findings was that these Free Zone Scientologists have a more profound belief in Scientology than the Church-Scientologists, or at least more profound than the CoS members stud-iedbyPeterB.AndersenandRieWellendorf(Rubin2011:211;Andersenand Wellendorf 2009).Whatthesefindingsmeanforthisdiscussionisthat,whileacriticofthe Churchmightplausiblyclaimthattheexplicitlyaffirmedbeliefsofcurrent CoS members might have been made insincerely, the same cannot be said of formermembers. Thisisespeciallythecasewithex-membersoftheChurch ofScientology,whoareruthlesslycutofffromfamilyandfriendsremaining intheChurchbecauseofCoSsill-conceiveddisconnectionpolicy(Lewis 2012b:140141). Thus,andnotalittleironically,itisthesincerely-heldbeliefs ofFreeZoneScientologistswhoofferthebestevidencethatScientologyisa religion in the legal sense of that contested term.problematic, to say the least. In this regard, refer to the discussion in Rothstein 2007. For a more popular treatment, refer to Kin 1991:64. 239 Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?Numen 62 (2015) 226242ConclusionWithin academic religious studies circles, far from the clash of opinions that constitute the bread and butter of mass media narratives, the question of what does and what does not constitute religion has been quietly debated since at least the nineteenth century. One of the currently popular positions within this rarified realm is that there is nothing essential to religion that sets it apart from other cultural phenomena. Furthermore, many scholars accept the notion that the category of religion is a peculiarly Western invention, without parallel in mosttraditionalsocieties. Whatevermeritthislineofthoughtmighthave,it seems to disqualify academia from making any kind of judgment call regard-ing the religious status of the Church of Scientology that would be acceptable totherestofsociety.Thereare,nevertheless,severalissueswiththeconno-tationsreligionhasacquiredthathavebeenusefullyanalyzedbyacademic researchers.In the first place, many people unreflectively assume that religion is always somethinggood(Grnschlo2009:227228).If,therefore,agivenreligious bodysuchasScientologydoessomethingbad,thenipsofactoitmustnotbe realreligion.Instead,itmustbeafalsereligion.Thisattitudeis,however, nave. The ancient Mayans (as well as many other aboriginal American groups) sacrificed human beings as an integral part of their religious rites. These prac-tices were, in fact, central to Mayan religion. However, no contemporary per-son would defend these rites as good.Another popular idea for people raised in one of the Abrahamic traditions is that religion is always about the worship of divinities. Against the background of this nave assumption, Scientology cannot, by definition, be a religion. Yet another association the term has come to have is that religion refers to tra-ditionaldogmaticchurchbodiesbodiesthatlongagolosttheiroriginally authentic spiritual impulses. We could examine yet other issues, but even this brief discussion should be enough to demonstrate that religion has become a contestedtermthatcanmeanavarietyofdifferentthingsdependingonthe context.In the legal realm that has been the focus of the present article, the question usually boils down to the sincerity of adherents. However, even this criterion is less than clear-cut in the specific case of the Church of Scientology. In terms ofthefounder,ataconsciouslevel,Hubbardwascompletelyinsincerein his transformation of Dianetics from a popular self-help movement into a reli-gion though one can argue, as I have argued above, that Hubbards move-mentwasneverapurelysecularenterprise.Inanycase,whenweshiftour attention away from the founder, it is evident that the great majority of ordinary 240 LewisNumen 62 (2015) 226242membersaresincerelycommittedtoScientologyasareligion.Furthermore, itistheex-CoSFreeZoneScientologistswhoprovidetheclearestevidence that Scientology is a genuine (in the specific sense of a sincerely appropriated) religion.IfIstudytobeadoctorandknowthetechniquesadoctoruses,then Iwouldbeadoctor.ButIhavestudiedScientology,whichIregardasa scienceandareligion.SoIconsidermyselfaScientologist.Butitisno longer an assumed identity. I am a Scientologist because it is a part of me. (Erik, ex-CoS member, cited in Rubin 2011:210)ReferencesAndersen, Peter B., and Rie Wellendorf. 2009. Community in Scientology and among Scientologists.InJamesR.Lewis(ed.),Scientology,NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press, 143163.Anderson, Kevin Victor. 1965. Report of the Board of Enquiry into Scientology. State of Victoria, Australia.Atack,Jon.2013.APieceofBlueSky:Hubbard,DianeticsandScientology.2nded.n.p.: Createspace..1990.APieceofBlueSky:Scientology,DianeticsandL.RonHubbardExposed. Fort Lee, New Jersey: Lyle Stuart.Campbell, Colin. 2002 [1972]. The Cult, the Cultic Milieu and Secularization. In Jeffrey KaplanandHelneLw(eds.),TheCulticMilieu:OppositionalSubculturesinan Age of Globalization, Walnut Creek, Calif.: Altamira, 1225.Davis,Derek.2004.TheChurchofScientology:InPursuitofLegalRecognition. Presentation at the Center for Studies on New Religions International Conference. BaylorUniversity:1720June.URL:http://www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_davis.htm (accessed 12 August 2012).Frantz,Douglas.1997.TheShadowyStoryBehindScientologysTax-ExemptStatus. New York Times, March 9.Fundamentalsof ThoughtAlterations.Scientolipedia.URL:http://scientolipedia .org/info/Fundamentals_of_Thought_-_Alterations (accessed 11 August 2014).Grnschlo,Andreas.2009.Scientology,aNewAgeReligion?InJamesR.Lewis (ed.), Scientology, New York: Oxford University Press, 225243.Hammer, Olav. 2004. Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age. Leiden: Brill.Hazen, Craig James. 2000. The Village Enlightenment in America: Popular Religion and Science in the Nineteenth Century. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press. 241 Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?Numen 62 (2015) 226242Hubbard,L.Ron.1950.Dianetics:TheModernScienceofMentalHealth.NewYork: Hermitage House..1954.TheCreedoftheChurchofScientology.Phoenix:FromtheOfficeof L. Ron Hubbard..1956.Scientology: TheFundamentalsof Thought.LosAngeles:TheAmerican St. Hill Organization..1975.DianeticsandScientologyTechnicalDictionary.LosAngeles:Churchof Scientology of California.Kin, L. 1991. Scientology: More than a Cult? Wiesbaden, Germany: Edition ScienTerra.Lewis, James R. (ed.). 2009. Scientology. New York: Oxford University Press.. 2010. The Science Canopy: Religion, Legitimacy, and the Charisma of Science. Temenos 46(1):729..2011.HowReligionsAppealtotheAuthorityofScience.InJamesR. Lewis and Olav Hammer (eds.), Religion and the Authority of Science, Leiden: Brill, 2340.. 2012a. Cults: A Reference and Guide. 3rd ed. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing..2012b.Scientology:UpStat,DownStat.InMikaelRothsteinandOlav Hammer (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to New Religious Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 133149.Lewis,JamesR.,andOlavHammer(eds.).2011.ReligionandtheAuthorityofScience. Leiden: Brill.Lucas, WinafredBlake.1993.Regression Therapy:AHandbookforProfessionals, Vol.I. Crest Park, Calif.: Deep Forest Press.Melton, Gordon. 2000. The Church of Scientology. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.Monroe, Robert A. 1977. Journeys Out of the Body. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.Palmer, Susan J. 2011. The New Heretics of France: Minority Religions, la Republique, and the Government-Sponsored War on Sects. New York: Oxford University Press.. 2009. The Church of Scientology in France: Legal and Activist Counterattacks intheWaronSectes.InJamesR.Lewis(ed.),Scientology,NewYork:Oxford University Press, 295322.Possamai,Adam,andAlphiaPossamai-Inesedy.2009.ScientologyDownUnder.In James R. Lewis (ed.), Scientology, New York: Oxford University Press, 345361.Rapport,Jeremy.2011.ChristianScience,New Thought,andScientificDiscourse.In JamesLewisandOlavHammer(eds.),HandbookofReligionandtheAuthorityof Science, Leiden: Brill, 549569.Reitman, Janet. 2011. Inside Scientology: The Story of Americas Most Secretive Religion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Richardson,James T.2009.ScientologyinCourt:ALookatSomeMajorCasesfrom Various Nations. In James R. Lewis (ed.), Scientology, New York: Oxford University Press, 283294.242 LewisNumen 62 (2015) 226242Rothstein, Mikael. 2007. Scientology, Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. In James Lewis and Olav Hammer (eds.), The Invention of Sacred Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1837.Rubin, Elisabeth Tuxen. 2011. Disaffiliation among Scientologists; A Sociological Study ofPostApostasyBehaviourandAttitudes.InternationalJournalfortheStudyof New Religions 2(2):201224.The Secrets of Scientology: A Panorama Special. 2010. BBC One, Tuesday, 28 September. (Television Program.)Shterin,Marat,andJ.T.Richardson.1998.LocalLawsRestrictingReligioninRussia: Precursors of Russias New National Law Journal of Church and State 40:319342..2000.EffectsoftheWesternAnti-CultMovementinDevelopmentofLaws ConcerningReligioninPost-CommunistRussia.JournalofChurchandState 42:247271.State of New York. 1977. Promoting a Pseudo-Religious Cult. Proposed Bill AB 9566-A, Section 240.46. Albany, N.Y.: New York State Assembly.Urban, Hugh B. 2011. The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.U.S. Supreme Court Reports. 1944. United States v. Ballard. 322 U.S. 78.Wallis, Roy. 1976. The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology. New York: Columbia University Press.Whitehead, Harriet. 1987. Renunciation and Reformulation: A Study of Conversion in an American Sect. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Willms,Gerald.2009.Scientology:ModernReligionorReligionofModernity?In James R. Lewis (ed.), Scientology, New York: Oxford University Press, 245265.