As previously
published by Exmisa.
Abstract
The Misa/Atman yoga
cult provides a good case study to see where religious freedom should end and where
government regulation should start to protect people against indoctrination by
dangerous cults and sects.
The court case in Paris against Gregorian Bivolaru, Mihai and Adina Stoian and
other members of the Misa/Atman yoga cult, will make it painfully obvious that
regulation of cults is badly needed. Not to restrict religious and spiritual
freedom, but in order to shine light in the dark corners of society where the
free will of people has been compromised by those who are manipulating and
controlling them.
Cult of the cults' defenders
For some time now, Willy Fautré has
become MISA's favourite. While Introvigne publishes more to show off his
erudition in matters of sacred love or to wage war on the competition from
anti-cults (he being an unconditional defender of all cults), and S. Palmer
seems more interested in the status of women and positioning in relation to feminist
ideologies, Willy seems the only one interested in openly defending cults and
their leaders from a legal point of view, what is of greatest interest to those
at MISA, who have understood that they would not be successful in court with
philosophical-esoteric dissertations or feminist militancy, but with concrete
issues in the field of human rights, with lawyerly chicanery and with the manipulation
of articles and paragraphs of criminal laws, with which to try to combat
the prosecutors' evidence and make up for the lack of arguments of the defence.
Because the greatest concern at MISA
is not the image of the followers or the organization through the practices they
carry out (an image that can't be washed away with all the urine in the world
anyway) nor the fate of the women in the school (which has never interested
them anyway), but the fate of the leader Bivolaru, who was caught like a rooster
among the hens sitting on eggs, but swears that it was love with consecration
and not sexual abuse.
And Uncle Willy delivered the best and
most consistent: he frontally attacked (in 6-7 articles) the French police
raids and hurried to defend the two ATMAN leaders, Stoian and Bivolaru.
The problem is that, when they
defended the two Stoians, the NGO supporters distanced themselves from
Bivolaru's case, as if they already considered him guilty or a lost cause (they
had apparently found out that the police had filmed his
"performance").
Recently, Willy F. came out with a new
post about a conference he attended, regarding ”The role of the media in the
stigmatization of religious minorities” (link). Because, isn't it, the press
is guilty of the "wonders" that happen in cults, and the description
of their practices is labelled as "stigmatization", as if the press
had a duty to promote all the nonsense of cults. But the press shows what
happens inside these groups, and the truth hurts, as we know, and this is
called "stigmatization", that is, "applying the sign with a
red-hot iron". In reality, the defenders of cults secretly profit from
this stigmatization, because in this way they have a reason to exist and an
opportunity to be noticed.
⬧ I quote from Fautré's article:
On August 1-3, 2025, the
organisation convened its 3rd International Conference in New York on the theme
of “The Root Causes of Contemporary Threats to Freedom of Religion.” On that
occasion, was presented a paper titled “The role of the media in the
stigmatization of and hostility against some religious or belief minorities.”
Article 9 of the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the individual right to
freedom of religion or belief, to practice it either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest one’s religion or belief, in
worship, teaching, practice and observance. The wording is very similar to
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and so are other international
instruments protecting freedom of religion or belief.
comment:
It is wonderful that Article 9
protects the individual right to freedom of religion or belief, to practice and
manifest it, but I do not see in the concerns of these religious rights
luminaries the articles that protect the rights and freedoms of members of
these religious minorities in relation to the group to which they belong, as
would be correct for truth, fairness and balance. Because these groups are not
always paradisiacal oases, as they present themselves in their own statements
and in the multi-coloured flyers that they distribute, of course, for the sake
of respecting other religious beliefs...
⬧ quote:
The United Nations, the
European Court of Human Rights, the EU Court of Justice and other international
mechanisms use neutral terminologies to name any religious or belief community
in their declarations, reports or court decisions. The media, other information
and communication actors in Europe do not usually have that practice towards a
number of religious or belief movements that they identify as “cults”, with a
negative connotation. In the last decades, this negatively connotated category
of “cults” or “sects” has been artificially constructed to try to exclude some
religious or belief groups from the protection of Article 9 of the ECHR. The
main drivers behind this movement of hostility were and are former disgruntled
members, thirsty for revenge.
comments:
By the above statements, the author of
these statements implicitly claims either that cults do not exist, being an
artificially created concept, or that religious minorities are actually
something eminently positive, but the “negative connotation of the term cult”
hides this positive quality. It is as if you were saying that only good exists,
and evil does not exist, but is an invented concept. “Neutral terminologies”
are actually meant to hide reality, to dress it up, to be less disturbing. It
is as if you were naming excrement by the neutral term “product of
metabolism”, trying to hide its unpleasant appearance and smell in the
expression, while in concrete reality, these devastate the senses. The fact
that excrement hides under a neutral rug does not make its existence and smell
disappear.
Neutral terminologies can be
understood in the case of the State, which is a framework that must ensure the coexistence
of many different aspects of society. However, this neutral attitude is also
the result of the lack of a debate at the state level, while this debate exist
in the media. Just as the state has established criteria to distinguish
criminal or terrorist groups, it should have established criteria for defining
and classifying cults.
The establishment of cult criteria has
been inhibited by the prevalence of religious rights and freedoms, but this
cannot be absolute, as evidenced by the cases in which fundamental human rights
are violated within cults.
A person is and must be free to
believe what he wants for himself, but he does not have the right to impose this
on others! Here is the big problem with cults: it ignores the fact that, under
the cover of freedom of belief, others' freedoms are violated. For example,
Jehovah's Witnesses - those so defended by Fautré and his colleagues - reject
certain medical interventions (for example blood transfusions) on the pretext
that they would defile the blood and body, and this attitude often endangers
the health and even the lives of the children of the group's members. For if an
adult endowed with discernment has the capacity - and therefore the right - to
choose to accept or refuse - only for himself! - medical treatment, a child
does not have this capacity.
The hesitation to cut the Gordian knot
of this problem comes from the fear that the problem may turn on the one who
imposes it. A sectarian will ask: "What right do you have to baptize your
children in your religion and take them with you, forcibly, to church?"
And the question is disturbing, because any parent will want to baptize their
children in their own religion and take them to church, and then impositions
are avoided, but this leaves things in a gray, unclear area.
Thus, by generalizing, they have
reached a mixing of abstract issues with concrete ones. More precisely, they
are mixing INTERNAL freedom of belief with EXTERNAL freedom. Every person has
the right to believe what he wants for himself, but he does not have the right
to IMPOSE his faith by force on others!
That is the problem with neutrality:
it mixes things up! It mixes good with evil, reality with illusion, the
concrete with the abstract, the inside with the outside, trying to make room
for everyone, while some try to make room only for themselves! The problem is
not who owns the truth, but the fact that some want to forcefully impose "their
truth" on others!
Bivolaru is not on trial for declaring
himself spiritually accomplished or a god, but for what he did to others in the
name of this faith! He was not charged with kidnapping women in the sense that
he took them by force and locked them up, but for the fact that they were kept
in a building from which they could not leave without permission and their
phones and identity documents were withheld, given that even the authorities
have the right to withhold them only under certain specific conditions. Even if
the women had agreed to submit to the requests, these did not start with them.
It was not the women who said "hey, look, we thought it would be a good
idea to put our documents and phones in this safe, lock them up and give you
the key for safekeeping, so that we would not fall into the demonic temptation
to talk to our family or surf the Internet on our mobile phone and thus reveal
the location of our guru, causing him a lot of harm!" The request did
not come from within, but from someone outside, and this changes the facts of
the problem, because the question arises as to what those who made this request
were pursuing, given that no one would do such a thing on their own initiative.
French law seeks to cover this
situation, which does not exist in the legislation of other countries and thus leaves
room for abuse! The law is primarily preventive in its nature, and French law
warns: "you are not allowed to ask someone else to do what they would
not normally do, so if you do not take this into account, you will pay for
this!"
Bivolaru restricted the freedom of
those women under the pretext of his safety, as he declared to the investigators. So he pursued
his own interest, violating the freedom of others. The fact that he was being
pursued by the police is only his problem, which he should have solved alone,
without involving anyone else. But since he cannot abstain from sex, he has
transferred his problem to others. Selfish, perverse and criminal!
Fautré and his friends say that the
women of MISA have the right to believe and practice whatever they want. Their
lie is that ALL the women of MISA freely engage in the practices within the
group, which is false.
There are SOME women who believe that
they have been abused or manipulated and because of this MISA has come under
the spotlight of justice so many times. Many women of MISA declare themselves
delighted with the meetings with Bivolaru, but NOT ALL! And this is actually
the heart of the problem.
Fautré and colleagues claim that the
“false problem of cults” is due only to “disgruntled former members, eager for
revenge” and that if there were no “apostates”, the cults would have an
immaculate image and everyone would have rushed to join them!
By the way, if the NGO defenders are
so delighted with the practices of MISA and consider them normal or even
“sacred”, do they practice them themselves? Because it is illogical to defend “values”
without adopting those “values”!
And the NGO defenders also ignore the
reasons why the “apostates” left the group. They initially had a favourable
opinion of the group they joined, but this opinion changed over time. Why?
Maybe they had good reasons, maybe it was even a violation of the principles
promoted on the face of the group, to which they initially joined! Perhaps
cults say one thing on the outside and do another on the inside!
That is a lie, which is rejected by
all moral codes, including those preached by cults!
Fautré and colleagues have decreed
that there are no cults and that all religious beliefs are positive, ignoring that
these beliefs are often the screens behind which nefarious purposes are hidden.
They have also decreed that those who do not believe in the sincerity of these
beliefs are mistaken and malicious, and that the media should share the vision
of the protectors of religious minorities. This is by no means a neutral vision
and, moreover, it is even a sectarian vision in itself!
At the same time, they take full
advantage of the debate about cults. If society suddenly came to their
conclusion, that there are no cults, that all religious beliefs and communities
are absolutely free and there is no need for laws and organizations to watch
over them, the need for defenders of freedom of belief would automatically
disappear, and they, with their vanity, their academic titles and their useless
works, in which they mix values and cover up reality, making it neutral,
would disappear into anonymity and... unemployment! They exist only because the
cults exist! They pretend to defend cults, but they profit when cults have
problems, for them this debate is manna from heaven! If the debate would be
settled once and for all, in the sense that inner freedom of belief is one
thing and outer freedom is another, they would disappear like smoke. That is
why they do not even want the problem to be solved and continue to deliberately
mix and confuse the different aspects of the problem.
In fact, the defenders of cults
realize that the image of cults is not only due to vengeful
"apostates", because over time there have been journalists or
investigators who infiltrated these communities. But their hatred for
"apostates" is the result of a psychological mechanism: when they put
on their horse-like glasses as defenders of religious minorities, they
automatically found themselves enemies of anti-cult organizations.
But while anti-cult associations are
based on concrete aspects, which are quantifiable and can be
proven (violations of external freedoms), the defenders of cults are based
only on abstract, internal aspects, which cannot be quantified (and which, for
this reason, are not even combated by anti-cults). The defenders of cults pretend
not to see that the anti-cult organizations are not discussing doctrinal
aspects ("heresies"), but about concrete abuses!
⬧ quote:
The categorization of
some religious, spiritual or belief groups as “cults,” additionally qualifies
as dangerous, harmful or totalitarian is first of all the work of the
“anti-cultists” or “counter-cultists.” These are either individuals, apostates,
anti-cult associations, or even public authorities and state institutions. The
misuse of these derogatory labels, used without restraint by anti-cultists has
caused a lot of damage to these religious minorities and their members in their
personal and professional lives. However, media outlets also have their share
of responsibility in the stigmatization, hostility, intolerance and damage
caused to individuals when out of sensationalism they publish, without
investigating and checking, biased and false accusations of the anti-cultists,
spread their fake news and sometimes quite gross lies.
comments: "The
abusive use of these derogatory labels, without restrictions". What
restrictions? The only condition that is right to be imposed on the media is
that of the veracity of the statements. If the statements are correct, then
what is the problem? That the image of the cults and their leaders is affected?
That is their problem, not the press's! In the case of MISA, what are the
accusations made in the media that have not been proven true?
⬪ Multiple sexual relationships
(polyamory link) and group sex (confirmed by Bivolaru
link1 and link2) - checked!
⬪ Drinking urine (promoted by MISA site's link and confirmed in porn movies link) -
checked!
⬪ Video chat and porn movies made and
sold in-house (click on the "Kubera tantric shopping" banner at this link, then on "Tantra" and
finally on "Tantriske film" link) - checked!
⬪ Pole dancing in Japan and erotic
massage for a fee in the "tantric temples" of MISA (link) -
checked!
⬪ Transporting women with their eyes covered,
to sexual initiation with the guru (link) - checked!
Introvigne dismissed this last
accusation as sensationalistic ("cloak-and-dagger story" link), but it turned out to be true, as
even Bivolaru was forced to admit it, faced with the filmed evidence. (link)
⬪ "Tasty" games for
overcoming sexual limits (Stoian video) - checked! Etc.
Probably the only accusation that has
not been proven in the MISA case is drug trafficking. Drug use at MISA is only
in isolated individual cases, it is not something general (article, Romanian only). However, some female
students who went to Bivolaru for "sexual initiation" stated that
they were given a liquid to drink that made them dizzy (link).
In general, when it comes to media
revelations about cults, there is no smoke without fire, while defenders of
cults argue that since there are no cults, there is no smoke. Fautré gives the
example of a trial in which the anti-cult organization FECRIS was found guilty
of defaming “Jehovah’s Witnesses” on 18 counts, but ignores that it was right
on 14 other counts. FECRIS is obliged to pay financial compensation for the 18
proven defamatory accusations. But who takes action in the case of the other 14
charges that were proven?
Were “Jehovah’s Witnesses” sanctioned
for the 14 charges? Furthermore, in the case of many crimes that take place in
secret or in an intimate setting, it is very difficult to provide overwhelming
evidence, but that does not mean that the facts do not exist and that sin has
disappeared from the world!
In the case of MISA, where is it proven
that oaths of secrecy are taken regarding their activities, how many illegal
acts have been committed without being able to be proven, due to secrecy? Since
the practice of oaths of silence is proven at MISA (there are even Bivolaru's
conferences), why don't human rights defenders take a stand? Aren't human
rights affected by the imposition of these oaths? Why are secrets kept at
MISA?
Obviously also to hide bad and illegal
acts, because if they were only good and legal acts, there would be no point in
hiding them. And then what effects do these bad acts have? They violate legal
and moral laws, ultimately affecting other people and therefore their civil and
moral rights!
⬧ quote:
This climate of
hostility, intolerance and sometimes hate against marginal religious or belief
groups in many European countries, which usually enjoys total impunity, was
clearly denounced in the last report.
comments: Cults
will never acknowledge public statements that do not agree with them (even if
they are true), and will automatically consider them as part of a campaign of
hostility against them. They believe that they are not doing anything bad or
illegal, the evil is only with others, this being one of the characteristics of
cults.
And then why should others be forced
to believe all the nonsense of sectarians or to trust them? Think that the
Mormon doctrine was launched by an individual who, while in a coma following an
electric shock, had a vision of an entity with a lizard head that
"revealed the true teaching" to him. What do you say to some Mormons
(they always come two by two, like the apostles) who knock on your door:
"Hi guys, how beautifully the lizard head spoke!"?? You tell them:
"Go to your business, because I have my own business!"
Why be labeled intolerant for that? As
they consider automatically your faith as wrong (because that's why they come
to preach "the good one"), you have exactly the same right to
consider their faith as wrong!
We see here the "positive
discrimination" that is demanded to be applied to religious or sexual
minorities, towards which MISA has often expressed its rejection (see their
position towards LGBT) but, when it suits them, they suddenly embrace it and
demand that it be applied! You are not intolerant of believers, but of their
beliefs! In the subway or in public spaces, sit next to them (of course, as
long as they don't preach), but after that everyone goes their own way!
⬧ quote:
In the section devoted
to anti-cultism, it stressed that “several governments in the EU have supported
or facilitated the propagation of harmful information about certain religious
groups”. Several states created so-called cult observatories at the local
or national levels. Such state institutions increasingly appear to
be illegitimate in their modus operandi in the light of a number of
decisions of the European Court which, among other things, clearly warn against
the use of the term “cult” – or “sect” in other languages – because it fuels undue
suspicion, stereotyping, and hostility towards some peaceful and law-abiding
religious or belief groups.
comments: There
would be no need for anti-cults organizations or “observatories” and there
would not even be a need for the “term cult” if the legislation had separated
the waters and clearly established how far the freedom of one’s own belief goes
in relation to the freedom of others. Rejecting the use of the term cult does
not eliminate their existence, but rather imposes the idea that they do not
exist. We know very well what MISA and groups like it are after: “Let us do
what we want, don’t tell us what to do, but we have the right to tell you what
to do, because we are godly, and you are demonic. We promote the new unique
planetary faith, which will replace yours (link), because they are obsolete.”
So there are no cults, right?
Asking that the use of term cult
to be stopped is equivalent to imposing by force the idea that
there are no cults!
And while MISA promotes articles in
which it is practically claimed that there are no cults, Bivolaru himself produced
a book entitled "Is YOGA a cult or a spiritual path?", which
presents... the criteria by which cults can be recognized and which, with a
couple of exceptions (which are no longer certain, considering what happened in
Paris), MISA successfully ticks off! (link) The book claims that yoga (and
therefore MISA, which in Bivolaru's opinion identifies with yoga), is not a
cult. But other groups are of course cults, I quote:
In the case of many
cults, the work imposed is often excessive, it is brutalizing, mechanical, even
robotic. In very many cases, this work is found in the propaganda and
recruitment of new members, which the cults carry out without stopping, as we
can all see in the case of the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
(archive, chapter
18, Volunteer work, Romanian)
In an earlier analysis, posted in
English and which no longer appears in the book, an analysis that belongs entirely
to Bivolaru, other cults are also named which, surprisingly, are among the
groups supported by the NGO-ists who protect cults! I quote:
The approached
techniques are usually simple and confining. For instance: group songs
obsessively chanted; the reiteration of so-called long mantras (such as the
Hare Krishna sect, going for the stereotype. (archive) “Ananda
Marga” sect, based on some neo-nazist ideology, or the sect “Jehovah’s witnesses”
utterly displaying anarchical features. (archive)
As can be read in Bivolaru's analysis,
contrary to the theses of his NGO defenders published by MISA, cults are not
only very real, but they pose a social danger (which is true, as evidenced by
MISA itself), but he does not consider MISA to be a cult. Double standards are
the standard by which truth is weighed at MISA.
This double standard also existed
regarding the issue of "brainwashing" within cults. While MISA takes
up the theses of their friends, according to which this is a false theory
(Introvigne - link), also at
MISA, a recent article, titled ”In the laboratory of consciousness – the
mechanisms of brainwashing” (archive, Romanian only) treats this problem
as something real and very serious.
⬧ Fautré's article concludes:
To sum up the remarks:
- anti-cultists create
from scratch “cults” that they describe as “dangerous or harmful to society,”
- the media, which
thrive on sensationalism rather than facts, seize on the “cult” issue as a good
topic because that boosts the sales or the audience,
- the States,
misinformed by anti-cultists, feel obliged to protect their citizens from this
scourge, and create exceptional laws and specialized repressive bodies, such as
the “cult police” in France.
Anti-cult associations,
media outlets and anti-cult state institutions send a signal of distrust,
threat and danger, and create a climate of suspicion, intolerance, hostility,
and hatred in society.
comments: Yeah,
sure, and in this time, the cults and the associations that defend them under
the pretext of Human Rights (but not of the victims of the cults), send a
comforting signal of peace and trust...
Reading this kind of scholarly
productions like the present article, one can understand how important the Paris
trial is not only regarding the Bivolaru/MISA issue, but also that of cults and
the legislation regarding cults in general. If the accusations against the
Bivolaru's cults are proven in court, especially in light of some evidence
caught in the act, which will be presented at the trial and can be viewed
publicly, perhaps the current legislation, which is very poor, unclear and
permissive, will also change. It will also be interesting to follow the effect
on the associations that defend the cults although, from the perspective of
their attitude, they cannot be suspected of impartiality, objectivity and
conscience, assuming they have a conscience.
The complicity of
the "initiates"
So far, in the debates about the manipulation and sexual abuse committed
for decades at MISA, revealed by the victims and the French police
investigation, only the role of the guru and his acolyte was discussed, but
there was very little talk about the complicity of the students who
participated in the "sexual initiations" with the guru Bivolaru.
Several victims spoke in podcasts exposing MISA/ATMAN about the
collective pressure exerted on them, to accept sexual initiation with
Bivolaru despite their reservations and disgust, pressure coming from female
students who had already been sexually initiated by the guru in Paris or were
even waiting to enter the initiation.
Ashleigh Freckleton talked about this (podcast p1 and p2 ), even before the French investigation was
launched.
When a student received an invitation to the guru for the first time,
after she had taken the vow of keeping of the secret even before knowing what
was coming, she was "encouraged" by the community of
"initiates", who already knew how things were going and who could
discuss this topic with each other (instead they were not allowed to discuss
with the "uninitiated"). The same thing happened in the homes where
dozens of students waited for their turn to the guru (see Eva's story from the
German podcast Toxic Tantra, page 3 - link ).
But so far, the complicity (intentional or not) of those students who
were found in the locations has not been analysed. We are talking about those
students in the waiting room or even in the guru's apartment and who refused
(either out of fear of "falling into hell", or because they were
bound by oath or simply out of devotion to the guru) to give statements about
the reason about why they are there and how they got to that secret location.
Because if those students, even if they did not believe they had been abused,
they would have answered the police's questions honestly and stated how they
had ended up to be contacted and invited by an internationally wanted
individual hiding in secret locations and how they had reached this point, it would
have helped confirm the trafficking allegations and exposed the entire system.
- the whole branch or octopus - which includes the instructors and
devotees of the guru. The attitude of these students to refuse to report the
truth, proves both indoctrination and blind faith in the guru, as well as
stupidity because, since they were found in the monitored locations when the
raids took place, it is clear that they were filmed while they were being
brought in cars, being led by hand with their eyes covered, so that the fact
that these students continued to claim - as they had been previously instructed
by the forms - that they came alone, It is not only a brazen lie, but also an
absolutely unnecessary one.
I have taken note of the fact that if there are police checks when you
are in your car or at home, you should show your ID card or passport and make
sure you always have them with you (your ID card or passport). Only if you are
asked in more detail what you are doing here or if a more special situation arises
- a control when you are in the car etc - then you will say the
following:
- I came here by bus or plane (each according to its own case), I bought
my TICKET MYSELF
- I came here to attend a Shakti seminar that will be held in this city
on (date written on the flyer) and you will say the DATE ON WHICH THE SEMINAR
WILL BE and not the date that has already passed or the date you are on at that
time.
If by chance it is the same day that is written on the flyer, then you
can say that you don't know any more details about the seminar, but you will
attend.
- I arrived here 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and "I want to visit the
city too".
- I signed up for this seminar by phone or online on the yoga website in
France, the dates listed on the flyer
- I live with some friends, for free; there are instructors here - Sorin
Turc and Voichita Suciu - I talked to them before departure
and they agreed to help me by offering me shelter during my stay here.
- I PAY FOR MY FOOD MYSELF and we buy food together.
- all the CDs and DVDs you have are yours and you brought them with you
from home.
- don't give any other details, just the information you read above,
that's all you know
- if the police ask you to give a statement of any kind (written or
verbal) you will say that you know nothing and you will
give any statement only in the presence of a lawyer! ( document )
The fact that the police found their documents, as well as their cards
and phones, which had been seized and wrapped in metallic foil, proves that it
was a deliberate act of sequestration, even if they agreed to it.
Faced with the investigators' evidence, the guru was forced to admit, so
"devotion and sacrifice" it was useless for the students anyway:
According to the surveillance conducted, in the 13
months preceding the arrests, the agents estimated that no less than 5 to 10 women were "assigned" to him each week.
The victims often arrived in Paris by plane from the Danish branch of the sect, Natha, and by car
from Romania or other Eastern European countries.
The Romanian henchmen then confiscated their IDs
and phones, blindfolded them, before placing them in cars with tinted windows and forcibly drove them to
one of the sect's many lodgings.
"Why so many constraints on devoted
followers?", the investigators ask: "I was threatened with
death," Bivolaru claims. "They could give my
address to someone who wants to kill me," he tries to defend himself.
( source )
The fact that only women were brought to Bivolaru refutes the guru's
claim that they "came to speak" about yoga, and for some
the desire to make love arose and so we made love, obviously, when "the
love was mutual" ( source ) It is absurd to think that at MISA only women
(and only young ones) were interested in yoga!
The stupor of the French investigators is understandable, even though
they had witnessed how the students were brought in, they continued to hide the
facts or even lie for Bivolaru to cover him up, while he treated them as
potential traitors! Moreover, they began to pose as police victims, although
their attitude turns them into accomplices of the guru, which justifies the
treatment meted out to them. In fact, the most serious aspect of their behaviour
is not their aberrant devotion to the guru - after all, each has the right to
admire any one she wants - but the fact that, by covering up for the guru, they
make it possible for even more students to be manipulated and abused in the
future!
This is why the police treated them severely, because they are "sui
generis" accomplices of the guru
("Favouring the offender"), and also because of them, other
students may fall prey to the guru if he escapes and this time from the net of
justice. If they had put their minds to it, the investigators could have
charged them with complicity and concealment (because they made contact with an
internationally wanted person, hiding this fact from the authorities).
Not much came of it, they just shook them up a bit (fines, expulsion,
ban on returning to France), but seeing how indoctrinated they are, they left
them to the Lord's punishment. In fact, this very indoctrination, if it is
noticed and understood by the court, it is incriminating evidence
(manipulation, abuse of weakness) and could even to aggravate the situation of
the accused.
These devotees of the guru probably imagine that, through their
resistance and "sacrifice," they are burning away their bad karma or
that they accumulate “good karma.” In reality, they are burdened with part of
the guru’s bad karma, for they are accomplices - both morally and materially -
to his misdeeds and bears part of the responsibility for the past, present, or
perhaps future sufferings of the victims, in case the guru escapes again. Their
unconsciousness is astonishing. It is not excluded that some of these students,
having already suffered from the acts of the guru, to get even more involved,
bearing false witness in his favour. They have already done so in part, through
the statements they gave to "scientist" Susan Palmer ( link ) and MISA/ATMAN's NGO friends.
Once again it is proven that what happens at MISA cannot be exclusively
the work of the leader, who is of one alone, and moreover, he cannot act
directly, as he has been hiding from the authorities for a long time.
Unfortunately, a large part of the crimes at MISA are committed by followers or
with their connivance. As long as you do part of the hell team, you can't claim
to be an angel.
The Conclusion
Much more research and surveillance of cults and their ways of
operating is needed. Just like many countries have institutions in place that
are there to protect the health and safety of children, in the same way we need
similar institutions that keep checking the health and safety of grownups. Not
to limit the spiritual or religious freedoms, but to shine the light on the
dark corners of society. Only in openness and truthfulness can true
spirituality flourish. If cults need to hide things then you can be sure it is
not true spirituality but some sort of abuse and manipulation of people trapped
in this cult! And like shown times and times again, the Misa/Atman cult is a
master of hiding and avoiding truth.
Absolute truth has nothing to hide, only things to show in order to inspire
people. But the mission for integrating the self in the absolute (Misa) is
unfortunately not living up to its name.