The Church of Fear: Inside The Weird World of Scientology (20 page)

Rick Ross is probably the leading expert on cults in the western world. His mentor was Margaret Singer, the gutsy psychologist who in her 80s once scared a cult member off her property with a shotgun and believed that cults were con tricks. Singer was on the board of the Rick A. Ross Institute. Rick’s website is one of the most extensive archives of cult activity on the planet. As Kentucky Fried Chicken is to Colonel Saunders, then counter-cults is to Rick Ross, if you get my breaded chicken leg.

Or, if you believe the Church, Rick is nothing more than a convicted felon with ‘an extensive history of mental instability and dangerous conduct dating back to childhood, which psychiatrists concluded stems from his anti-social, manipulative behaviour and his sexual problems.’ I found him to be a rock of common sense.

We’d first met Rick when we made the film about the Kabbalah Centre. His view on Madonna’s ‘religion’ was a world apart from that of Kirstie Alley: ‘The Kabbalah Centre caters to the narcissism of many celebrities. They want to have enlightenment, they want to be happy and they want people to cater it. Just like the catering trucks on location for their movies.’

Is Scientology a force for good as they say, I asked Rick.

‘I don’t see anything wrong with respecting Scientology’s right to practice their religion. The problem is the harm that they have done over the years to people. It is expensive, and it can be harmful to people and it can cause a great deal of distress.’

What harm?

‘First, Scientology is very expensive, so when people take courses or they go through auditing or through the purification run down or whatever they do, it costs money. I receive complaints from families that say, unlike some of the movie stars who can easily afford Scientology, they can’t. It has caused them financial distress. And I would say that the basis for Scientology, specifically some of the claims made by L Ron Hubbard, just don’t bear any close scrutiny. They are just not factually based.’

Ross gave the Narconon programme as an example: ‘Hubbard said that you needed to do the purification run down because toxins or poisons are stored indefinitely within the fatty tissues of the body. That’s just not true, according to medical science. That’s why the Narconon programme was asked here in California to leave the public school system because their programme was not scientifically or factually based.’

They told me that is not true, I said.

‘They don’t have the support of the school system as they once did. But for them it was a matter of faith. The faith that when L Ron Hubbard says something it is true, whether the science supports it or not. The problem is with many of the things that L Ron Hubbard taught that there is no scientific basis for it. He was a science fiction writer, not a scientist.’

They denied Xenu. Is that right?

‘Well, they are not really answering you. They may give you a kind of evasive answer, they may say it is ridiculous, they may say it is preposterous, “who told you that?” But the point is, if they have reached Operating Thetan Level III, OT3, they have been told about the incident, which includes a galactic overlord named Xenu, it includes space-ships coming to earth. It includes a residue of space aliens that remain, on you, on me, and we need Scientology to get rid of them. Now if you are in OT3 or higher in Scientology, you know that. But according to the church if you are not an OT3 you are not prepared to hear it. And so they may withhold that information because John, they think you are not ready yet.’

But that means that their theology requires them to lie to people?

‘Well they may parse their language and talk in circles. But if you ask them: “Is it true that if you have reached OT3, you were told about an incident? And that incident involved aliens from outer space coming to a planet called Teegeeack now known as Earth, and that that incident had a direct impact upon the world then and continues to have an impact upon humanity today?” they would have to either stonewall you or admit well yes, there are bits and pieces of that that are true. And in some interviews Scientologists have admitted bits and pieces.’

Is it a cult?

‘They seem to fit the criteria that most people that examine cults would attribute to a cult: that the group is personality driven, and that personality would be L Ron Hubbard. He is dead now, but he has been replaced by David Miscavige. So the group has an absolute totalitarian leader that has no meaningful accountability. Ask Tom Cruise when the last time was that David Miscavige ran for re-election. He won’t have an answer for you.’

Rick moved on to brainwashing: ‘Second, that the group uses a process that can be seen as thought reform or what is popularly called brainwashing. That is a control of information, of the environment and a manipulation of people in such a way as to gain undue influence over them psychologically and emotionally. Third, that the group does harm. That they take advantage of people in one way or another. Now Scientology appears to fit those three criteria in my opinion. And that is why many people have called the group a cult.’

Rick’s three definers of a cult mirror Lifton’s.

What about David Miscavige, I asked Rick? I put to him the allegations that he thumps people. I summarised what Bruce Hines had told me, that Miscavige had come into his office and said where is the mother-fucker? and then hit him. Did Rick find that story astonishing?

‘I don’t know if that story is true or untrue. But what I do know is that David Miscavige is an absolute authoritarian leader, that he has no meaningful accountability to the general membership through democratic, elected church government, and that he pretty much is in a position of leader for life, the same role, in many ways, that L Ron Hubbard once held. In that sense, he can pretty much do what he wants.’

I asked Rick why Miscavige last gave an interview to TV in 1992.

‘He appears at Scientology events. He does photo ops for Scientology publications. But he is not a person that is very friendly or forthcoming with the media.’

What about the money?

‘Scientology is a very rich church. When L Ron Hubbard died [in 1986] his fortune was estimated at about $600 million. So Hubbard amassed assets, cash and Scientology remains a very visibly wealthy organisation. Look at all their building projects just in the last two or three years in cities across the United States and around the world. They have been on a kind of building marathon. Spending millions and millions to refurbish buildings, to build new branches and so on. But I wonder how many members there really are to support all that structure. There is no doubt that it is a very rich organisation.’

A billion dollars?

‘I think conservatively they are certainly over a billion dollars in net assets.’

It is hard to work out a reliable number in the absence of any disclosed figures but if you tot up the real estate assets of the Church in Florida and California you could hit a billion dollars pretty quickly. Add the rest of its assets in the United States in cities such as New York, Washington DC, San Francisco and Europe – there are ten Scientology centres in Britain, including four in prime-sites in London, on the Tottenham Court Road, on Victoria Street near Blackfriars, on Fitzroy Street and New Cavendish Street and 50 acres in Sussex – and that number could easily be two or three billion dollars.

They say 10 million members?

‘I don’t think there is anywhere near the millions of members that Scientology has claimed. In fact some people estimate the membership may actually be below 100,000, based on their fund raising, and people that show up for events and mailings. When Scientology says they have millions of members, I think, what they mean is over the years, from the 1950s, millions of people have at one time or another been on a mailing list. Whether they are really true supporters, take courses, give money to the Church, that’s another question entirely.’

That would chime with my own observation. For example, someone who used to live at our house in London years ago is still sent mail shots and magazines from the Church. I wonder, then, if our house is listed as a Scientology one. For the avoidance of doubt, no Scientologists live in my house, at least, not yet.

What about the private eyes? I told him about the chase when we arrived in LA.

‘That is what Scientology would call a noisy investigation. They want you to know that they are following you. They want you to be afraid. To be very afraid of them, to be intimidated. And the idea of following you all around is to create that kind of fear that they are watching you and it will affect your reporting.’

That seemed to me a terrifyingly perceptive observation.

‘Many people that have been critical of Scientology have experienced a noisy investigation. The objective is intimidation. To get you to stop doing whatever it is that they want you to stop doing. They want control of the public perception of their organisation. And they want their image to be a certain way and if they feel a critical report is coming out they are concerned about that.’

Every critic we have spoken to, Scientology has got an instant label for them. What have they got on you?

‘A 19-page pdf document exists on me on the internet. They have traced back my childhood all the way to the age of eight. I got counselling, I got in trouble as a youth, all of it is in Scientology’s pdf file. I mean that is part of what it is all about. If you criticise them, expect them to literally go through your garbage.’

Have they gone through your garbage?

‘I have reason to think that they have gone through my garbage. And not only Scientology, a couple of other groups. There have been incidents where private investigators have gone door to door in a neighbourhood I used to live in, asking questions about me. This was just a couple of years ago. I think that was a private investigator hired and paid for by the church of Scientology. There were efforts to have my phone number forwarded to another number. And my fax number forwarded to another number some years ago. The phone company called to tell me, they didn’t have my passwords on my account, they failed. I believe that was someone working for Scientology. So I have been stalked, I have had private investigators harass me and my neighbours. And I have experienced quite a bit at the hands of Scientology. But that just comes with the territory. If you want to look at them and examine them critically, they will do that.’

The private eyes, the constant filming, people dressed in black. The intense aggression to any kind of open criticism. Is this an organisation steeped in mass paranoia?

‘Organisations like Scientology that have been called cults are mirrors of their founder or leader’s personality. L Ron Hubbard was often described by his critics as paranoid. Even delusional. Some people thought he was mad. Hubbard is the assumed prototype of the most perfected human being that Scientology can offer. He is their model. And they mimic him. You could even say that the whole auditing process of Scientology and its courses are a way to make you more Hubbardist or Hubbard-like. So in that sense what you perceive as paranoia may just be a kind of cloning of Hubbard’s personality.’

We wanted to interview Miscavige and Tom Cruise, the leader and the chief apostle of Scientology. Do you think we are going to succeed?

‘Doubtful. They probably have established that you are not going to do a puff piece, a friendly report that they approve of. And I don’t know that they will give you access to David Miscavige. And Tom Cruise is in a very vulnerable point in his career, and I would think that at this point he is not really happy to do an interview with someone like you that might be critical of his Church.’

His needle is floating?

‘Some people think his career is sinking because of his constant preaching and proselytising regarding Scientology. People here in the States see Tom Cruise increasingly as a weird and a bizarre character. And I think that is largely because of him going on and on about Scientology.’

What is in it for the celebrities?

‘Celebrities are very specially treated and catered to in Scientology. They have these Celebrity Centres where they go. They are waited on hand and foot. They are pampered, they are just treated in a way that some would argue that they feel entitled to, accustomed to, through their celebrity status. And this carries over even into their Church life. So being a celebrity in Scientology is a lot different than being a grunt, being a Sea Organisation member and waiting on celebrities in the Celebrity Centre. And that is why celebrities, they really don’t see the tough stuff compared to the regular rank and file. Certainly not treated like Sea Org members.’

But Cruise, Travolta, the others, because they live in the public world, because they are public figures, they must know that out there, there are people who are deeply critical of Scientology. They must know about these stories of people talking about mental torture. Why don’t they act on that?

‘Scientology celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and others, they don’t believe the stories that are critical about Scientology. They see it as somehow part of a larger conspiracy by drug companies, psychiatrists and media to lynch them. To persecute them. And they don’t believe those stories. They think that they are false, that they are propaganda and they dismiss them.’

I asked Rick about our two minders, Mike Rinder and Tommy Davis? He didn’t know much about Tommy but Mike had crossed his radar – and in Rick’s view held a higher position that his current lowly status suggested.

‘Mike Rinder is often talked about as number two in Scientology. If you will, Miscavige is leader for life and Mike Rinder is something of the enforcer. He deals with Scientology’s perceived enemies and he can be a pretty tough customer. He is associated with the Office of Special Affairs. That is the area of Scientology that is responsible for dealing with the outside world, threats to the church, perceived enemies and so on. So Rinder is the cutting edge of Scientology’s machine that it uses to deal with anyone and everyone outside.’

People have told me that he has a reputation for ripping people’s faces off. Well, what the hell does that mean?