Debunking the "scientists" who are supporting the MISA/ATMAN cult

 

There is a great write-up by Roxana-Malina Chirilă debunking the self-proclaimed new religions & cults experts Massimo Introvigne  and Gabriel Andreescu to be found here in Romanian: https://roxanamchirila.com/2024/09/22/misa-erotism-sacru-apologeti/

The English translation is here:  

MISA, "sacred eroticism" and apologists

There is a wave in sociology, anthropology and other similar fields where researchers try to understand the internal perspective of the groups they study. Books such as "Take Back What the Devil Stole: An African American Prophet's Encounters in the Spirit World" by Onaje X.O. Woodbine or "The Struggle to Stay: Why Single Evangelical Women Are Leaving the Church" by Katie Gaddini presents people with different beliefs, but they do it so that you can better understand who the people involved are and why they think. The book of Onaje Woodbine speaks of a “holy” woman from a community of poor black people in the United States who had a hard life and found God (who speaks to her) and is now recognized as a kind of community leader. Kate Gadini's book is about women from the evangelical Christian community in the US, who face the misogynistic problems within their Church.

Woodbine and Gadini are trying to strike a balance between the reflective incredulity of those who do not share the beliefs of those communities and total acceptance from members of communities. They don't want to let their own value judgments distort the image of those they describe, but they also don't shy away from saying when something could contradict the subjects. They want the reader to make an opinion as if they were there - they don't want to convince you that their subjects are right, they want you to see them and understand them, even if you don't agree.

You might think that Massimo Introvigne, an Italian sociologist, does the same kind of research when talking about new religions and discusses “sects” focused on the idea of sacred eroticism, which suffers from conflict with ordinary social norms. Gabriel Andreescu may also try to reach the same balanced position when he rests on Introvigne’s ideas to talk about the problems that MISA has with the law in the Journal of Human Rights. But no. Despite the specialized terms, their methodology leaves much to be desired. Where Woodbine and Gadini would explicitly say what MISA’s opinions are and would keep a distance from their subjects, Andreescu and Introvigne assume MISA’s opinions as if they were their own. Where Woodbine and Gadini would decisively go into details and ask questions about the difficult points of the beliefs of those involved, Andreescu and Introvigne accept the superficial level that is offered to them.

It is true that Introvigne wrote a whole book about the subject that I haven’t read to read in full yet. After the first 20 pages, I think to make a detailed analysis (may be more professional towards the end, although it does not seem to be), but in the most recent article in which he discusses some arrests related to MISA proves a gross lack of understanding of the subject he addresses.

Sacred eroticism

Massimo Introvigne has a theory that he also applies to MISA: many new religious groups are judged very strongly for attitudes related to sexuality, which are not in line with those of the majority. Specifically, Introvigne says that MISA is hunted by the authorities because she dared to talk about sacred eroticism.

I don't want to go into details now about the philosophy of sexuality at MISA. It's an interesting topic that would really deserve an academic description, but now I just want to have a starting point for the article. I will not summarize Introvigne's ideas, but I will speak from the information received directly from the yogic community, expressing the ideas I have heard from courses, conferences and direct discussions with the yogis.

In a short. The yogis at MISA believe that everything in the universe is energy - starting with matter and reaching subtle spiritual energies. The human being has a subtle body (yes, yogis, I know that there are actually more; I’m oversimplifying to finish the discussion today) in which there are seven centers of force, from the lowest that governs vitality, to the highest that connects with God. Those force centers can be activated weaker or more intensely and there are “blockages” of energy at various levels. Specifically, if you have activated the center of force of the will, you have an extraordinary will; if you have a blockage at the level of the center of love, you have problems with love. Is it clear up to here?

MISA yogis believe that people's biggest energy reservoir is that of sexual energy. But sexual energy is a “low” energy, and ordinary sexuality wastes that energy. It is important, then, that the yogi can conserve and transform his sexual energy into higher energies, such as that of will, of love, of intuition, of the supramental – and then to ascend into the center of force in which they have the connection with God.

The idea of MISA sex is not sex. It is spirituality. It is the transformation of sexual energy into spiritual energy, which turns sex into an instrument, not a purpose. If you hear them talking about “sexual continency,” that’s what sex is about— and the physical sign that sexual energy is transformed is that men don’t ejaculate anymore, and women don’t have a menstrual cycle, which yogis beat the water on every occasion.

Finally, yogis want to become one with God, which they follow both through meditations and asanas (those positions you know from movies) or through sexuality or other methods. Their hard work is not towards hedonism, but towards spirituality through multiple ways. And spirituality means getting over the “ego” and not hindering yourself in small obstacles, such as greed, jealousy and other flaws. The yogi must not be caught in the whirlwind of everyday problems, but be detached from them and only manifest qualities.

Noble, isn't it?

Sacred Erotism and the Accusations Against MISA: Two Distinct Things

But MISA had no legal problems because some people had opinions about the world and God when they had sex at their home, but because there were suspicions and accusations of abuse. The involvement in the sexual industry and the eternal queue of women at the bedroom of Gregorian Bivolaru had a say, and here things get complicated.

Andreescu says in the article “Repression of groups that promote “sacred eroticism” – the international pattern of an injustice (I)” (Human Rights Magazine, no. 2/2024, p. 41):

Personal or group attitude towards sexuality and eroticism is protected by privacy. It also covers what constitutes the social private life, in the sense of the right to step out of the personal universe “to go to other members of society.” The European Court of Human Rights has distinguished several situations in which the exposure of the nude is defended by the European Convention on Human Rights. The sexualization of pamphlet messages in the public debate also enjoys protection. At the same time, sexual assaults, from discrimination, abuse and harassment to rape and human trafficking, long too widespread, have coalesced against them, in recent decades, public opinion and institutions. Movements associated with sacred eroticism are not compatible even by their teaching with sexual assaults. Repressive actions against them were often based on such accusations, but they could not be legally supported.

Unfortunately, Andreescu does not express himself very clearly, but as far as I understand, what he means is that the existence of sexual assaults in general has led to the coalition of institutions against “movements associated with sacred eroticism”. I will be extremely generous in the interpretation and I will assume that his idea is that, because there are many negative deviations from the norm, many consider the deviation from the norm itself something negative. In other words, because some unusual things are bad, we consider that everything that is unusual is bad.

Obviously, if that's what he means, Andreescu is right to claim that logic is flawed. Just because most of the world doesn’t think of God when they have sex, it doesn’t automatically mean that thinking about God when you have sex is bad. And so on.

But let’s take a closer look at what Andreescu says at the end of the quote:

Repressive actions against them were often based on such accusations, but they could not be legally supported.

Hmmm. Here and in the rest of the article he speaks especially about the events of 2004, when there were raids in the ashrams of the yogis in Bucharest, many materials were confiscated, the media and other things that led to Bivolaru’s flight in the country were confiscated.

But what does it mean to "not be legally supported"? Especially in Romania?

First of all, in Romania we have a problem with the justice system. Too often there is a scandal like “judges have decided that a girl under 11 can consent to have sex with a 52-year-old man” (source) and I’m sure you know other mediated cases in which judges gave sentences that make up your mind. Would it surprise you to find out that the situation is different when abuse is more complicated?

Secondly, even with the situation of justice as it is, Gregorian Bivolaru was convicted of sexual acts with minors. Yogis say that Madalina Dumitru, the victim in this case, denied that she had been abused and denied that she was in a sexual relationship with Gregorian Bivolaru. I also say that she was abused by the police and put up to sign a false statement to convict Bivolaru.

Unfortunately, two ugly things can be true at the same time. Mădălina Dumitru really denies everything and withdrew her statement under stress in 2004; but Bivolaru was convicted on the basis of telephone interceptions that demonstrated that she had a relationship with her, not on the basis of her withdrawn statement. At the same time, Mădălina Dumitru was indeed abused in 2004 by the Romanian state. The mere fact that we know her name proves it - her identity and image should have been kept secret, not end up on all news channels. The fact that she was dragged to the police, assaulted and assaulted to make statements in the absence of her parents or a lawyer was miserable. In other words, Mădălina Dumitru was abused when she was a minor.

My personal opinion is that the authorities really cared more to find something against the yogis than to protect a victim who was 17 years old at the time (the relationship with Bivolaru was from 2002, according to the interceptions). I honestly believe that their attitude cut off many opportunities in her life and almost ensured that she would remain loyal to the Yogis, to be their service martyr.

In addition to Bivolaru’s sexual adventures in the world of minors, yogis have been accused in Romania of human trafficking and other rather serious things. It is true, many facts were prescribed, and some were acquitted of. However, although there were not too many convictions following the events of 2004, from there were public discussions on the internet in which many undersides of the Movement were revealed. Since 2005 yogis and ex-yogi have gathered in places such as the Softpedia forum, on the famous thread “Misa and Bivolaru – pros and cons”, then on the defunct forum, to discuss all sorts of underlines of the group, revealing things such as pornographic videos sold without the consent of the participants and more.

From Spirituality to Abuse

Andreescu’s article says so:

Movements associated with sacred eroticism are not compatible even by their teaching with sexual assaults.

Friends, tell me: are there people who say one and do another? Because I know yes, and the fact that the teaching of a group says one does not cause the impossibility of the members of the group to do the opposite.

But how can the idea of sacred eroticism be reconciled - and sexuality that must always be spiritual and uplifting - with sexual abuse at the level of Movement? Andreescu's suggestion is that it can't be. My suggestion is that it can be too easy.

We return to what I said above: at MISA, philosophy says that sexuality is not a goal, but a method. The final question is not whether you liked it or if you felt good, but whether you got closer to God, stepping on the spiritual path. And this closeness to God is difficult because the yogi is seen as a being who is still struggling with the ego and its own limitations. If he is unable to open up to divinity from issues such as the inability to love, embarrassment, pride, self-importance, then confronting one’s own limitations can lead to suffering. The yogi must learn the lesson, and then suffering is only a pain of growth.

Do you see where I'm going? Or not yet? Let's just insist.

In every man there is a spark of God, which is his true self. And in you there's one. You are a divine being, but God’s game is to pretend to be cut off from himself and the rest. We hide behind the ego, a mask that hides our own divine nature. What suffers is not part of you. You have to get over the suffering, to reconcile with everything around you. Sometimes it’s hard, sometimes you encounter obstacles that make you feel unpleasant or doubt, but you have to persevere, because in the end it’s God.

Is that clear? Or not yet? Let's be the concrete.

If you feel like something is wrong, the problem is with you. Your ego is to blame. The course wants to do you good. The other yogis want to do you good. The master not only wants to do you good, he also knows the best way to do it. If you have the opportunity to receive a special spiritual initiation and you refuse it, this is clearly proof that your ego is revolting at the idea of evolution. If it’s a sexual initiation, you should already know that sexual energy is the largest energy reservoir of the human being, and you should want to get it so much so that you can use that energy for spiritual purposes. What's stopping you? The modesty? Embarrassment?  The problem is with you. Do you want to throw up at the thought of doing certain things? It's because you have demonic influences, because you're hanging on to small things. Larvae. You are a larvae. It's not an insult. It's a finding. You're a caterpillar  that doesn't want to become a butterfly. You can't get past the bugs in your head to evolve.

Is that clear?

With this philosophical basis, almost everything can be seen as a spiritual test and an opportunity for growth. Reluctance becomes part of the story of the spiritual path and overcoming obstacles. Negative experiences are reinterpreted in a key where they become tests and trials on your way to a divine purpose. And then, tell me: is it possible for someone to take advantage of this point of view to convince you to do things you don’t want? Is it possible for someone to convince you that you need to overcome your reluctance and leave aside the doubts and objections so that you have a bad experience, but which one to insist that it was useful to you?

Because I say yes. And I say that the incompatibility between MISA teachings about sacred eroticism and sexual abuse does not mean that abuse cannot occur - but that the moment you suffer abuse, everyone around you will try to convince you that abuse did not exist.

(It also applies to other types of abuse or negative experiences. You can’t even be angry because someone has ruined an object that you’ve borrowed, because it’s actually a test that shows you from attaching yourself to objects.)

Sacred-spiritual abuse

In his article, although Andreescu argues (together with Introvigne) that sexual abuse should not be tolerated, and religious freedom is not a legitimate defence for rapists, the rest makes only MISA apology. I have already seen that he says that sexual abuse is incompatible with the teachings of the Movement. Who knows, maybe he only thinks of rape as such that it didn't happen - but then he's naive.

Sexual abuse is not only about aggressively violating someone, it can also mean persisting someone constantly until they submit. Even though Andreescu talks constantly about the descends in the Romanian state in 2004, he also refers to the French raids of 2023, which were made on the basis of complaints of people who were in the course. The names of the people were not made public; as far as I know, all the details of the investigations have not been disclosed. Andreescu argues against some things from the present on the basis of past abuses, made in another context, by other perpetrators.

In his rhetoric against the raids in France, he also wonders such a thing:

Is the suspicion of new religious movements by the state authorities legitimate?

Honestly? Yes. If I was in an organization tasked with national security, I would suspect anything that comes out of the ordinary, on the principle that it is my job. Then it must be taken into account that there are situations where the power discrepancy between individuals is suspicious. The spiritual teacher-disciple relationship includes a power imbalance that is exploitable, and it deserves to have ways to resolve potential exploits.

But suspicion is not the same as aggression. As I said, in 2004, the Romanian state gave the guard in the fence in the last step.

Then, Andreescu says, making a comparison between the attitude towards the BOR and the attitude towards MISA:

There were no raids in the monasteries where rumours come from, some checked over time, that young refugees there, completely vulnerable, are undergoing sexual abuse

The fact that the BOR enjoys a privileged status that makes the abuses blossoming in its bosom does not mean that at MISA it should be the same, so Andreescu chose an unfortunate comparison. Ideally, justice would treat any abuse equally, without letting compliance institutions out of the way as they abuse those who have the public's derision.

On the other hand, the comparison is interesting. Although he does not say it directly, when Andreescu accuses any raid against the yogis as abusive, the implication would be that he wants precisely this kind of privileged status for MISA. Let there be no raids, not even when there are rumours that things are not right.

It's at least strange to advocate someone's legal immunity for sexual abuse.

Introvigne and France

To return to the one who opened the subject of MISA and sacred eroticism: Massimo Introvigne. He wrote an article related to recent events in France.

Introvigne says that "brain washing" does not exist - which I agree with. Brainwashing is a theory that the human mind can be transformed without the person, diminishing his ability to think and inducing new ideas. Think of the films with agents who activate when they hear a song, or "1984" by George Orwell, where at the end, after being tortured in every way, the main character feels that he loves Big Brother. Real life isn't like that, okay?

What happens is more trivial: some people are open to an idea and receive a lot of information that confirms it. Among those information are new ideas, which are supported by other information. After all, people begin to accept them as part of their worldview. This is all. That's how you turn someone who's vaguely right-wing into anti-Semitic. This is how you turn someone who is interested in yoga into someone who constantly speaks of energies, sexuality, Masonic conspiracies, burns karma and the like. Maybe some yogis do not believe in Masonic conspiracy, maybe others do not believe in aliens, but adopt other elements from the common background. It's normal. This is how we function as people: we get information and form opinions about them, and then we change our behaviour.

(There are ways not to let yourself be robbed of the landscape and they are dealing with critical thinking.)

Introvigne then introduces the notion of “apostates,” a former member of a group who becomes a militant against the group she left from. He says explicitly that this is not a value judgment.

According to Introvigne:

• the actions in France are based on the testimonies of six ex-members;
• the six ex-members are "apostates";
• among the “apostates” are some whose experiences date back more than a decade;
• “apostates” have personal revenge as their motivation;
• “apostates” have opened rival yoga schools in some cases;
• “apostates” have already claimed damages through civil lawsuits;
• these experiences are based on the idea that they are not consensual because of ‘brain washing’;
• persons found in France at the raids were there in full knowledge of the cause and understanding that they would sleep with Bivolaru for the purpose of sexual initiation (if this was the purpose of their visit there);
• in all groups, “apostates” are far fewer than those who have simply gone;
• The discrepancy of the number between the “apostates” and the remaining ones demonstrates that the “apostates” are wrong.

Information about the persons who testified in France is not public, so Introvigne has no way of knowing the identity of those persons and even less their motivations. In addition, although he said that the label of “apostates” is not one of value, he just uses the word “apostates” by the presumption of personal revenge.

That's one of two:

• Introvigne invents self-power. He believes that anyone who has something bad to say about MISA is a militant activist who crosses his entire identity on destroying MISA from a spirit of revenge and to remove an opponent from the yoga school market.
• The Misans told Introvigne that they knew the people in question and portrayed them, and Introvigne believed them at their word.

In both situations, Introvigne is wrong.

If he's making it up, obviously, the main problem is that he's presenting his imagination as reality and misinforming based on things that only exist in his head. But besides, the logic that his thinking entails makes there no legitimate criticism of a new religious movement. Be careful: anyone who has complaints against a religious group is an “apostate”; the number of “apostates” is always very small compared to those of the members who insist that everything is okay; justice is democratically established, depending on the higher number of supporters; so those who complain are never right, being few.

If he has the information from the yogis, then he doesn't even invent - but he's unsuitable for a researcher. Yogis where do they have that information? Can I check? Is it perfectly certain that no yogi speaks on the basis of what he believes instead of speaking on the basis of what he knows? Because yogis also know that Cecilia Tiz would be a super agent of the secret service who takes 7000 euros a month from Adrian Nastase to activate anti-MISA. Or they carried through the courts a former yogi (M.C.), accusing him of owning the blog exmisa (note: the blog exmisa is not the same as the defunct forum exmisa, and M.C. does not own the blog).

Anyway. Let's not go long. (You don't know how much I've already cut.)

Conclusion

MISA practices are worth studying, at least to be discussed later in an informed manner. The belief system, the way sexuality is involved, the way yogis integrate the teachings of the movement into their lives, can all be interesting.

Despite the fact that the subject was discussed ad nauseam, it is also worth discussing the abuses against the yogis in 2004, with all their effects on the movement and their vision of the group under the siege of the evil forces.

But the way these topics are dealt with now by MISA apologists are treated is superficial and biased. We cannot discuss "sacred eroticism" without discussing at length the dark and potentially coercive side of that "sacredness." And the way they behave towards the “apostates” in France is in the classic style of blaming the victim, even before they know who the victim is.

When I started talking openly about MISA more than 10 years ago, there were very few people who spoke in the press about the subject with names and surnames - or even under the pseudonym. Meanwhile, former yogis have been talking, mainly women and many of them from abroad. One of my theories is that people from abroad know their rights better and have more confidence in the justice system than Romanians.

A second theory of mine is that Romanian society is much more prudish than the west. Jokes about sex and sexual suggestions abound, but we hardly discuss sexuality honestly, and anything that comes out of the patterns is suspicious and outrageous. Somewhere, the idea that “sacred eroticism” is seen with bad eyes and judged negatively is true; but the same can be said about BDSM or other less common things. If the deviation is seen as a bad thing in itself, then it is normal that if someone suffers in an atypical situation that she chose, it is her fault because she chose the atypical situation. In the west, however, acceptance and openness are greater, so one can discuss more nuanced. Yes, you chose something atypical, but the question is how others behaved. Was there a consent? Was there coercion?

MISA claims to want the whole world to have a more positive attitude towards sexuality, but I think it is precisely the Romanian prudishly and the treatment of sexual practices as a taboo that gives them power and they better hide their abuses. A greater openness to the subject means that it is easier to recognize when someone is pressuring you and that you know where to go and who to ask for help when you realize that someone is abusing you.