I’ve also been interested in Scientology, not because I’ve ever wanted to join but because I think it’s fascinating how it began and Hubbard’s story, and the way people are still involved today and join up etc I just thought I would go and see what it was like to be honest! I knew I wasn’t going to leave with some any of desire to join but just wanted to see the place with my own eyes!

Richard, I am right there with you. While in, I privately considered that one day everyone on Planet Earth would become a Scientologist. Over time, I re-examined and, ultimately, saw through the veneer to conclude I must leave. Man, it is so tough because the truths that I did uncover, I absolutely find so lasting and useful. I enjoyed every service I ever did.

But the cost to attain these insights, including in the verbal beatings (even as a public, it’s remarkable how much bullying you endure), made me wonder if it was all worth it.

Besides the money, what is asked of a Scientologist is an astronomically high price to pay —obviously, especially if you are in the Sea Org. You are asked to give yourself so completely, it is impossible to achieve any true balance as a middle-class person who needs to cut their own grass and fulfill normal life obligations.

Waiting until September 27 is becoming unbearable.

I will wait though, no worries. (I bought all three, audible, kindle and hardback).

It took me 12-plus years to pay off all these loans and credit cards. While on the Objectives co-audit, I sat down at home and tallied all my payments. Astonishingly, twice as much was necessary in interest as the actual amount I donated. One might think, “How can that be?” Well, if you are paying $3000 per month in interest alone for a set of loans and credit cards, after one year, that is $36,000. For this to go on year after year, with that $36,000 amount moving down only incrementally as you progress, over 12-14 years, the interest is going to be a huge amount to support your $100,000 or $150,000 ideal org donation.

Later, I began to wonder: “Are Scientology orgs colluding with credit card companies?” In the instances where a Scientologist ‘drinks the Kool-Aid’ and takes on all this debt then pays it off, it sure seems a sweet deal for the credit card company.

I consider the IAS and ideal org fundraising practices are evidence that Scientology, in practice, does not care if you “make it” up “The Bridge.” With the amounts Scientologists are compelled to donate to IAS and ideal orgs, plus other (global Way to Happiness campaigns), they could pay for and do their OT levels 1, 2, or 3 times. While the words say, “We want you to rocket to OT,” the deeds demonstrate: “It does not factually matter. (Just give us lots of money.)”

“WHY?” I ask myself… did I get so fully absorbed? I came across an important “layer to the onion” recently reading a book about change: five simple and observable phases that lead a person to make a profound and lasting change, such as quitting smoking. This book is by a researcher-psychologist.

At some point, the author describes a key moment in his team’s intensive research with hundreds of “self-changers”—a breakthrough. I noticed, as a reader, I found the discovery described real (to me), and I mentally celebrated alongside the author and his team that their hard work paid off.

Ding-ding-ding: It occurred to me that, in the early-on essential “required reading” books in Dianetics and Scientology, Hubbard keeps telling you how well-researched his work is. Each of his discoveries involved more case studies and more time in research than any other science.

That is a key part of the cleverness at work in Scientology. As a newbie, if you “miss” how un-true this—how definitely NOT verified or validated by anyone else Hubbard’s work is (as is the work of other researchers and scientists) —then you are pretty much sunk. I can see how I believed, without any further questioning, that everything in Dianetics and Scientology is painfully well-researched and above question. That is a serious heavy-duty hook to place in a fish’s mouth. I have to own, looking back, that I was a willing fish.

When I see all these smart people, like Pat & Andrew Rinder, still in and personally publicizing the relevance and urgency of these remedies, I imagine the placement of the hook, “It is ALL well-researched and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt” is a part.

This seems critical “software” installed early on concerning one’s thinking on Scientology: you cannot (and do not) question (“thought-stopping”). When Hubbard pairs this with one of his other repeat statements, “Inspect for yourself; it is only true if it is true for you,” one erects a twisted pretzel in which to dwell. “Regraded Being” portrays this recently, how a Scientologist is “installed” with how to think but in a way that convinces: “These are my own thoughts.” That makes me shudder. That one is hard to shake.

Encountering the science and work of true researchers, I can now see where Hubbard’s claims of vigorous research fall down. If everything in Dianetics and Scientology is so well-researched, then it should be able to stand up to some questioning, exactly as Leah states in the “Aftermath” television series. If this truly was a science and a science to be so confident about (as Scientologists always are), then it should be no problem to share this work out broadly and give lots and lots of other mind and mental health scientists ample opportunity to validate (and apply) the findings.

As many have seen, sure, there are historically some quirky attempts with bits of “study technology”, or “admin technology” through the few secular “Hubbard Colleges of Administration.” Yet, still, in the end, Scientology as a group will not ever embrace you until or unless you sign on 100 percent to be a member of the cult and keep all the secrets and be a participant in the many confidential rituals. I would say attending an ideal org fundraiser where you are compelled to take on mountains of debt you cannot afford is one such ritual.

I keep Pat & Andrew and all the Still-In’s in my thoughts for a soon exit.

As other Former-Ins will see—or figured out long ago—in a truly strange way, Scientology installs a worst sort of “service facsimile” in you where you have to constantly defend and constantly “be right” about everything in Scientology; use it to “dominate” other schools of thought on the mind (or spirit); and then DESPITE ALL APPEARANCES TO THE CONTRARY, remain convinced that YOU ARE SURVIVING, and every non-Scientologist is NOT.

Just so super sad.

Out of curiosity what took you there ? And don’t say the Essendon tram lol. I didn’t have a choice, I did some work there but you willingly went there which is ok but I’m curious were you once thinking of joining/ looking for some spirituality? I’m curious because I wonder in this day and age of bad publicity what gets people through the doors.

I’ve often wondered if the lack of pushiness was cultural but I don’t think it’s that, we have plenty of pushy, persistent salespeople and telemarketers, they can be seen everywhere. Must say in true Scientological fashion it was faultless inside and was A+ in terms of presentation.

I visited the Melbourne org a few years ago (before the pandemic) and echo your comments. I spoke to a really friendly woman who gave me a tour and told me her story but at no point did she try to sign me up or invite me to do a personality test. She was very nice and I enjoyed speaking with her, even though it made me feel sad too, seeing how entrapped within the cos she was. I was surprised at how little she or anyone else tried to get me to sign up – nobody even asked for my name or address!!

When I was a scientologist in the 1970s I rarely promoted scn but in the back of my mind I believed everyone should eventually become a scientologist so I guess I can relate. I never realized I had that belief until I started reading the scn blogs in 2015 after watching the HBO Going Clear movie and re-examined my scn experience. It was just a normal part of my thinking. One time I even gave it a shot at trying to “talk some sense” into a Hare Krishna guy – different story.

My guess is that there are only about 10,000 people or less actively doing scn as defined by engaging in training or getting auditing with maybe that many more on the sidelines not doing anything but remaining true believers. That’s not a good retention rate for maybe hundreds of thousands of people who gave scn a try over the years.