The defining features of a cult are very much earthly—the nature of the interpersonal dynamics, the presence of hierarchy, and observable traits of totalism or authoritarianism, entitlement, and intrusions on the participant’s ability to interact with broader society. (e.g. isolation, elitism, etc.)
This list is based on various other checklists that already exist, but modified for the pagan context. You will not find, for example, “meditation and chanting” anywhere on this list even though it often appears on others, because those are literally just normal religious practices. Frustratingly, the judgement of whether a group is a cult cannot be called objectively except in really flagrant instances.
The presence of one or two traits listed here does not inherently mean a group is a cult, nor does the absence of listed traits absolve a group from that designation if others are present.
The group has a focus on gaining membership
What this can look like:
- The group may make a point to show up at every event they can get into
- The group may find ways to insert itself into the broader community to secure respectability or gain recruitment opportunities
- Leaders or members leverage social contexts in which they have influence and authority to promote their group
- The group’s obsession with growth may result in social pressure to have children to raise in the religion, despite the fact that pagan religions primarily grow through voluntary conversions by adolescents and adults
The group is weird about work and money.
What this can look like:
- The group has a focus on making money that is not justified by normal operating expenses
- There is no clarity about income or expenditures, OR,
- There are clear sources of income, but no transparency about how the money is spent
- The group claims to be a non-profit while failing to adhere to legal and tax requirements for this status
- Members of the group may be expected to work to generate income for the group, without compensation
- Members may be expected to volunteer excessively
Pagan groups, as a rule, tend to be small and under-resourced and therefore rely on volunteering and donations to function, so this one is harder to suss out. Volunteering responsibility may also be unevenly distributed, meaning the workload is not equally obvious between two different members.
The demands of the group are unreasonable and unsustainable, or becoming so.
What this can look like:
- The number of events or holidays increases, while demanding the same effort as established ones
- “New” gods show up, who suddenly require equivalent ceremony and worship as ones already established in the practice
- Leadership starts a huge amount of projects, and expects members to make them happen
- Leadership weaponizes their membership in personal conflicts and grievances
- Commitments to the group result in intrusions upon basic self care, like adequate food or sleep
- Members who have commitments that keep them from the group (e.g. childcare, health issues, work) are deprioritized or abandoned
- Rituals may take all day and even run late into the night, outside of a multi-day festival setting
- Events are scheduled so close together or require so much much prep work that there isn’t sufficient time to sleep
- Leadership may try to dictate what members wear to demonstrate group identity, in the absence of a legitimate cultural or historical basis for even suggesting a dress code
Even if there is no explicit or clearly intentional restriction on self care or bodily autonomy, a pattern of intrusion is a problem.
Authority is not based on actual relevant skills, experience, or qualifications.
What this can look like:
- Authority tends to be decided by who gets there first, instead of actual knowledge
- Authority seems to consistently emerge from the perception of authority
- If a leader does have other, worldly qualifications they may be weaponized, or misrepresented if they’re irrelevant; e.g. a title from a degree in an unrelated field, or an ordination from an undisclosed organization
- Authority figures become extremely defensive when their qualifications are questioned, responding with anger or punishment instead of providing proof
Remember, anyone can fill out a form with an organization like the ULC or Church of Gnome. I would know, I’m ordained by both. (Even my dead dog is posthumously ordained through Church of Gnome.)
Information provided for the practice of the religion is restricted, specious or false.
What this can look like:
- Sources of information are opaque and narrow
- Legitimacy of claims originates from the claimant, and not from the content of the claim
- Efforts to verify claims against the sources supposedly cited may lead to dead ends or contradictory information
- Real sources have been misinterpreted, misrepresented, or woozled to make them suitable for the group’s use
- Poor sources are excused or defended, while higher quality sources that undermine the group’s message and goals are dismissed
- There is more fakelore than folklore or mythology
- Questions about sources or citations are met with defensiveness, and justifications for the lack of transparency are dubious
- Novel interpretations may be ret-conned as always having been true, so that information seems internally consistent when it isn’t
- Leadership may often “discover” new information that cannot be checked against other sources, while denying it is UPG or simply a new idea
- Information is loaded with jargon to create the illusion of deeper knowledge, really serving to hide lack of actual knowledge; this also sorts members into in-group and out-group categories based on their ability to use it
Cutting off access to external information entirely is difficult in neopaganism, as many of us interact through pan-pagan events and groups, and through the internet. However, poisoning contradictory information is much more doable.
Nonbelievers, critics and former members are treated with hostility.
What this can look like:
- Members who leave voluntarily, without being ejected, are not considered to have valid, legitimate reasons for doing so
- Those who leave the group voluntarily may be described as “looking for problems,” “persecuting” the group, uncommitted, etc. or retroactively labeled as having been “removed.”
- Departures from the group tend to be abrupt or explosive, as a symptom of the impossibility of leaving on good terms. Members who want to leave but feel they cannot do so, due to a lack of a “legitimate” way out, may try to force themselves to stay until they hit a breaking point
- Oaths or pledges taken with the group, if they are a requirement for membership, are not voided when the member leaves, allowing for labeling them as oathbreakers
- Contact with defectors from the group may or may not be explicitly disallowed, but there is at least an observable, common attitude that they are not worth maintaining contact with. Remaining members may proactively avoid, shun or block those who leave
- Defectors and detractors may be subjected to surveillance, stalking, harassment, targeted reputational harm, brigading, etc. to ensure they do not speak about the group in unapproved ways, or to punish them for doing so
There is no functioning accountability structure.
What this can look like:
- Leadership is not accountable to membership
- When an accountability structure does exist, it is used frivolously or vexatiously as a way to control membership or detractors, rather than disciplining actual misbehavior
- External accountability structures such as the law or public opinion may also be weaponized, e.g. SLAPP suits, smear campaigns
- Members who are favored by leadership may be spared from any accountability structure that exists, at the expense of concerned but disfavored members
- Active members who still hold a favorable opinion of the group may also be expected to agree to some form of monitoring, or the group has a snitch culture
The group is elitist.
What this can look like:
- The group considers it normal and acceptable for someone to make claims on behalf of a deity, in a way that imposes on another person. E.g. “Loki wants you to do this.”
- Similarly, claims of deity or spirit communication lead to attribution of authority that do not consider the claimant’s human qualifications or skills
- The group considers it normal and acceptable for major prophetic claims to be made, which imply a greater need for reverence or obedience, or that the group is favored
- The group views itself as the primary, if not sole, legitimate representative of a deity or pantheon
- Practice of the tradition by former members or outsiders not currently being recruited, without the permission of the core group, is frowned upon or disallowed
- The group has an inner circle, official or unofficial, whose responsibilities do not reflect legitimate needs for running an organization
- The inner circle may be granted privileges and some degree of authority not available to general membership
- The inner circle may also be assigned the groups’s dirty work, e.g. monitoring those who have left, attacking perceived enemies of the group, etc.
What’s the difference between a shitty pagan group and a pagan cult?
In a shitty pagan group that is just a shitty pagan group, you will obviously have a ton of dysfunction to contend with, but:
- Shitty groups that are just shitty groups do not aggressively self-promote
- Bad information gets debunked, if rudely
- You still have some expectation of privacy
- Harassment, when it happens, is not perpetrated for the perceived benefit of the group
- If you’re suffering reputational harm because of the group, it’s from staying, not leaving
- If you’re losing sleep, it’s because of conflict stressing you out, not from people keeping sleep from you
- Anything resembling an “inner circle” is probably something like a useless moderation team or organizational board
- The shittiness primarily stays in the group
- It’s over when you leave
Falkabarn 