When most of us think of Scientology, we think of Tom Cruise and John Travolta. Not Janet Reitman, a Rolling Stone journalist who wrote a National Magazine Award-nominated investigation of the Church of Scientology in 2006.
She's spent the last six years digging into this unusual faith, and her new book, "Inside Scientology," reveals much about this unknown world. She interviewed more than 50 people involved with Scientology, almost all of them on the record, and everything triple fact-checked. I was curious how she won the trust of this famously secretive organization, and what she found on the inside.
Brook Wilensky-Lanford: How does the Church of Scientology typically respond to outsiders asking questions?
Janet Reitman: The approach of the church with reporters can be very very aggressive. With anyone they perceive as hostile, which includes reporters, they try to identify what "emotional tone" you're at, and then they go just above it, as a way to raise you up. It's a way of breaking you actually. In my case, they didn't try those tactics. But my general rule is, if you know that you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of.
Along with church officials, you also spoke with people who'd left the church. How did you approach them differently?
I spoke to a tremendous number of "quiet defectors" -- and within that group there were a few formerly very high-ranking church officials, who were able to present a church viewpoint without being members. I asked them questions about the philosophy of Scientology, its technology, what it was like when they entered the church in the 1970s and '80s. I got a real historical and spiritual sense from them, which was very unlike the traditional defector. They did defect, but they still considered themselves Scientologists.
One of the things that makes your account unique is that, along with investigating the inner workings of Church leadership, you also focus on individual ordinary Scientologists and their experience. Among these, Natalie Walet really stood out. Can you tell me more about her?
She's one of my favorites. When I met her she was 17 years old, just graduated from high school. Usually when you interview a Scientologist, they will bring along a church official, and then that's it, the interview's ruined. But when Natalie and I first talked, she had her parents' permission, and that was it. Her parents are both involved with Scientology, her father has an independent auditing practice, her grandmother is a Scientologist. Natalie was a true fan of L. Ron Hubbard. She'd been through a lot of personal ups and downs, and she was really feeling her way. We'd have lengthy debates in a way that was fantastic, and rare, and she talked very honestly and very bravely.
Scientology has many characteristics of a corporation as well as a religion. Did you have any trouble reconciling the two?
I talk about it as a religion in America, where they were founded. They're a religion. In terms of their tax status, and the way they're treated, there are privileges they receive that a non-religious group would not. For Natalie, she very much considers it her religion, and I wouldn't want to ever tell her different. I've met a lot of people who believe in it as a religion, so -- sorry critics -- for them, it's a religion.
But it's also a business. It is fundamentally corporate, its leadership is corporate, its interests are corporate. This is not exclusive to Scientology. What is exclusive to Scientology is that there is no other religion that charges you for every single thing you do. You can't do Scientology for free.
So it's both. Look at your history! The Catholic church had the reformation because many people thought it was corrupt and greedy, people were saying "this is about wealth." And there's now an independent movement of people who are starting to say the same thing about Scientology. I think there's already a reformation in process in Scientology.
You say that Scientology is at a major crisis point. What would you be watching to guage the future of the organization?
I'd look at how many church officials are leaving. Two of the defectors in the book, Rinder and Rathbun, were both major, high-level church officials. Rinder was on the ship with L. Ron Hubbard. Rathbun was a friend of [current leader] David Miscavige -- they would watch football together, hang out together. There is no way they would have left unless they felt driven to leave.
David Miscavige's style has been to purge people, to play them off each other, to isolate them, etc. But these are people who just walked the hell out. If even a half-dozen more of these very high level people leave and speak out, that would really spell the end.
David Miscavige is really the Brigham Young to L. Ron Hubbard the founder, and I don't see a new leader that's coming up from within the organization who could be the next leader, who could lead a reformation. It would have to come from outside.
What would Scientology have to do, in your opinion, in order to stand the test of time?
If you want your religion to last, you have to have an appeal. A lot of people show interest in Scientology because of the celebrities. But does that mean you will become a Scientologist because of the celebrities? Even if you think John Travolta's really great so you go and try out Scientology, are you going to stick with it? You're only going to do it if it helps you. But to even know that you have to get to the point of wanting to commit to it, and that was the Church's brilliance prior to this, they had figured out ways to make it appeal to people enough that they'd commit.
But they haven't now. If you're investing in celebrities, in real estate, it's all surface. Scientology has not yet nurtured a culture. Natalie wants that, then she has to create that. But in order to do that, the church has to be free. You have to make it free so you can raise a family in it. Everyone gives money to their religion. But they don't pay with a credit card every time they walk in.
Follow Brook Wilensky-Lanford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/modmyth
Inside Scientology | Rolling Stone Culture
Inside Scientology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'Inside Scientology' by Janet Reitman: book review - latimes.com
Official Church of Scientology: L. Ron Hubbard, What is ...
Well that's just silly. A lot of people do things that don't 'help' them. They may believe it helps, not care if it helps, be unable to detect a scam. Millions of people have purchased useless products, convinced that they 'help'.
The Ottoman Empire did things that way too. Eventually so much of their tax base found its way into untaxable "religious trusts" that the whole thing collapsed...
Fixing the Hubbard problems will help change Scientology from the fundamentalist type of church it is right now.
I think long term Scientology enlightenment consists of rather instead coming to the same conclusion that Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke had about Hubbard and Dianetics and Scientology, which is that Hubbard should have stuck with science fiction and adventure stories, and quit the Dianetics stuff!
Hubbard allows one and all the option to quit. In the most important policy Hubbard wrote, called "Keeping Scientology Working" he allows new people the option to "quit fast!"
But if Scientologists are really "aboard", then Janet giving the young Scientologists the final word, that is hopeful.
Chuck Beatty, ex Sea Org (1975-2003)
"..if they are going to quit, let them quit fast...." L. Ron Hubbard, “Keeping Scientology Working”
If you are not, you're not.
And if you are not, why concern yourself with those who are?
1. Bait and Switch: Freedom/Control, Wealth/Sacrifice, Clarity/Confusion, What is true for you/What is true for Hubbard.
2. Carrot on a Stick: Pay to play, improvement at NEXT level, end of bridge nirvana (control over Matter, Energy, Space & Time), super powerz. trillions of past & future lifetimes.
On the other side of "doubt" is trust. Scientology demands uncompromising trust in everything Hubbard wrote, and upholding it at all time. If "the tech" doesn't work, you pulled it in, or you are near an SP, or you applied "the tech" incorrectly.
This is where doubt as the biggest sin/crime/overt comes in, as in doubting Hubbard. As Ian wrote, Scientology is that way because the foundation is so absurd and shaky. Hubbard didn't have any super powers, lied constantly and his family life was a mess. The foundation of Scientology is quicksand.
Too much of it is money and PR-driven BS.
I have never, in the entire history of scientology, heard them advocate war
I've never heard them propose racial, ethnic, or sexual discrimination
And their story is much more plausible than the more mainstream religions.
Aliens make a lot more sense than this god character does
When did they advocate war?
When did they advocate discrimination?
I can point to plenty of times the religions you are defending did both of those things
Scientologists have advocated war against SPs and detractors. Not all wars involve guns. Some involve large teams of lawyers.
Scientology does not discriminate against anyone who has money. Once the money is gone, that person becomes an indentured servant, no matter what their race or sex. This much is true.
And if you think that story is plausible, you must think Avatar is the best documentary ever.
Unlike the religions that you support
"The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".
"His name was Xenu...
"When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development.
"One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined...
"In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years... One's body is a mass of thetans stuck to oneself."
I'm sure you would agree if the same scrutiny were held to other organizations. Of course, you've been well trained to point the finger outward and never inward.
So, yes, she did talk to active Scientologists.
Go ahead - scroll up and actually read the interview, and you might be able to speak from a position of knowledge.