Damanhur: Cool? Cult? I can't decide yet.

Anyone here heard of these people? Really fascinating story. A community of hundreds in the Valchiusella valley of North Italy, the 'Federation of Damanhur' has its own currency and culture... It was on the Around the World in 80 Faiths show on TV here in the UK a while back -- the very last 'faith' to be featured. It has only been in existence since 1975.

It started as a small group of occultists headed by a guy named Oberto Airaudi. One night he says, we're going to dig into the hillside. And they start digging. They cover their traces -- no-one knows it's going on. For months they dig, and they start building these incredibly ornate underground pagan/New Age temples.

Have a look for yourselves, they're a complete wow:

http://www.thetemples.org/

The community swelled, but one member left disgruntled and told the carabinieri about the temples (all built without government permission of course.) The place was set to be closed -- but when the authorities came to look, they were so impressed with the work that they decided it must be maintained as an Italian national treasure!

So now they're totally open, an eco-community of nearly a thousand people I believe, with their own art, business, environmental agenda, etc. etc., and have apparently regenerated the economy of the surrounding country by their presence. They claim to be a 21st century Assisi.


So that's the nice sunny side. Many people are certainly very taken with the place. But as we grognards of the spiritual all know, there has to be a dark side.

A website has sprung up, Damanhur Inside Out:

http://damanhurinsideout.wordpress.com/

... detailing the cultish aspects of the place. Some of the accusations: that if you join you gradually get financially and emotionally tied, as with any other cult. That Airaudi is now stinking rich with massive worldwide property holdings. That if you join you are expected to read only his books and no others. That it's awfully hard to leave, because people are told that their salvation depends upon being amongst the chosen. That every aspect of your life is inspected and reported to the boss by feared lieutenants.

There's a lot more on the tell-all site. But some of it is flailing with quite a heavy hammer and missing. Is it badmouthing by the bitter?

It made me think: what is the difference between dedicating oneself completely to this, and (say) becoming a monk or nun? You have to give up everything, you have to take on a certain belief system and consider certain works sacred. You have to tell all your sins to your superiors... and you are told you are being saved from hell. Am I oversimplifying? Do nuns and monks get to read what they like (some seem very erudite.)

The problem is partly the question of persuasion I think. If everything is done to hook people, it's a cult. In Zen monasteries they try to dissuade you from joining -- keep you waiting in the courtyard three days or whatever. Before you take your vows in Catholicism you will spend a long while thinking about it.

So what's the truth about Damanhur? Who'd visit? My wife, a dancer, might have the chance to perform there one day...

Oh and one more thing. Personally, when I look at this vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o69l8X-WWI

... I feel it's icky. They look like they think they've immanentized the eschaton and are offering heaven on earth. Very saccharine.

But I open the subject to the floor...

P_Synthesis wrote:It made me think: what is the difference between dedicating oneself completely to this, and (say) becoming a monk or nun?

Quite a notable difference, I'd say. For one thing, you can leave a monastery or order of nuns without repercussions if you wish. While it may take some time to be released from them if you've sworn vows, especially so-called perpetual ones, it will happen.

You have to give up everything, you have to take on a certain belief system and consider certain works sacred.

Also, unlike with cults, you don't give all your money to the order unless you choose to do so. Most have a certain amount that a person contributes when entering the order that is typically just symbolic of surrendering all one's worldly goods but does not actually require doing so. People are free to give other possessions or money to relatives or donate them to a charity.

Few Catholics aspiring to become a monk or nun don't already hold the requisite beliefs and consider the venerated works sacred long before deciding they "have a vocation," as the language goes.

I was somewhat surprised to learn that the guy who sat next to me in one of my undergrad classes was a monk in an order that takes a vow of poverty. He didn't wear to class the rough brown robe and sandals that were the customary garb of his order and typically dressed rather nicely in what were obviously not cheap clothes or shoes. He mentioned once that the monastery kept a couple of draught beers on tap in the dining hall, which I thought somewhat put the lie to vows of voluntary poverty.

You have to tell all your sins to your superiors... and you are told you are being saved from hell.

Neither is entirely true.

Any Catholic is obliged to behave responsibly in accord with the commandments. You may confess your shortcomings to God directly if you prefer rather than going to confession. As with most things, it's regarded as between you, your conscience and God in accord with the church's teachings.

Not even in the "gory old days" was I ever assured of being saved from hell. If I didn't do what I was obliged as a Catholic, going to hell was a possibility and would be the result of my own weakness and failure if not of my pride in refusing to admit my wrongdoing and to ask forgiveness.

Do nuns and monks get to read what they like (some seem very erudite.)

Actually, a Catholic education, particularly one conducted by Jesuit priests, permits examining quite a lot of works that a non-Catholic wouldn't think would be allowed. In fact, my relatives used to joke that Jesuits aren't real Catholics because they tend to be such freethinkers.

Ever read any of the numerous novels by the American priest Andrew Greeley? They're pretty forthright about sex, pre-marital and some other illicit varieties.

These days, however, what a monk or nun is able to read depends upon how strict an order the person belongs to. A cloistered nun's or monk's reading will obviously be somewhat more restricted than that of a professed person in one of the more open orders.

Perhaps Bonewit's Cult Test would be appropriate here:

http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html

Dot, nice stuff, you speak with some experience I gather?

I never read those novels, no, but some of my in-laws are shrinks for the catholic priesthood. They don't tell tales of course but when they let something slip occasionally it's pretty juicy.

gillyflower wrote:
Perhaps Bonewit's Cult Test would be appropriate here:

It's a great test, the problem lies in getting the info to use it. What's never been clear to me is the extent to which the 'inside out' site was simple backstabbing by the disgruntled. I don't know that the points made there have ever been put to Damanhurians. So it's very much a judgment call.

I'm thinking more and more that I will try and get a look in the place for myself at some point.

Did you check out the temples, I think they're rather stunning:

http://www.thetemples.org/

P_Synthesis wrote:Dot, nice stuff, you speak with some experience I gather?

Oh, yeah. My father was from a standard large Catholic family...fourteen kids. His oldest sister was a nun, which represented somewhat of a loss to American men as she was a beautiful woman.

I had a pretty typical 1950's Catholic upbringing, the influence of which remains with me in some occasionally disturbing ways. You never quite lose an early indoctrination that intense and all-encompassing.

I never read those novels, no, but some of my in-laws are shrinks for the catholic priesthood. They don't tell tales of course but when they let something slip occasionally it's pretty juicy.

Not surprising, actually, although the juicy bits were pretty much suppressed when I was growing up.

I do recall, however, shocking my mother when I told her that the priest who officiated at my first marriage was more than simply good friends with a man who hung out at the church frequently but wasn't Catholic. The two of them typically went on vacations and weekends away, which my mother thought was, "So nice that he has a traveling companion, isn't it?" Ummmm...yeah, Mom. They're a lot more than "friends," though. She was appalled when I told her my suspicions about the nature of the relationship and remarked, "But Father is supposed to be celibate." Ummmm...yeah, that's the general idea, but it ain't necessarily the reality.

I tend to be quite suspicious of a religious group where any of the people at the top are rolling in money while the underlings are expected to give all their worldly goods to the group.

In such cases, as soon as the leadership begins appearing in handmade shoes and Armani suits or Prada outfits, there's something rotten in Denmark...or underground Italy, in this instance.

I'm guessing that as usual the truth about Damanhur lies somewhere between the website of the possibly disgruntled and the lovely artwork.

I tend to be quite suspicious of a religious group where any of the people at the top are rolling in money while the underlings are expected to give all their worldly goods to the group.

If that were literally true it would be an absolute giveaway. But again one has to watch who is saying it.

On one of the cultwatch-type forums I found a thread about Damanhur. Some fairly wild accusations including

Falco has had sexual relations with over 40% of the female members of the community. He takes women away traveling at weekends in million Euro motor homes on ‘magic journeys’ and calls it ‘ritual alchemy’. Citizens are not allowed to reveal what happens on the journeys and the sexual abuse has been going on ever since the community was established in the 70’s.

... etc.

.... hmm... well some fairly unreconstructed droit de seigneur, but frankly, that has happened before in religious contexts and there is such a thing as sexual alchemy... it's tacky and it's Koresh-like...

One comment did interest me, as from someone quite neutral-sounding (most were not):

I'm glad someone is posting about Damanhur. Their facade and PR is very good I think. I have been there as a visitor and even with my knowledge about cults and mind control techniques I walked away thinking that it wasn't a destructive cult because of the way they elected representation and worked in and ran successful businesses. And the artwork they did in the caves is magnificent.

I have been on Damanhur's mailing list for a few years. I always wanted to visit; I thought the idea of such a new-age community, or nation, would be wonderful (and wished we had such a thing here in the US). However, the naturally suspicious person that I am I'm cautious about such communities. One of the things about New Age that bugs me personally is that it's a magnet for the gullible. That gets to me because I've found myself being gullible and hate that about myself.

I visited Damanhur's website again last year now that they've added more information about things like their classes, beliefs, etc. and found them a little too far-fetched for me, but it's still an interesting concept to be sure.

TED, did you check out http://damanhurinsideout.wordpress.com/

did you make anything of it?

I also was a fan of some of the ideas. But that site brought me up short -- hence this thread in part.

I'm into looking for ways forward in terms of spiritual paradigms... this is obviously the work of a charismatic but underneath is it actually an ego trip for him also?

Some of the things on that site are... interesting.

Been pouring over the Inside Out site all morning. Very good stuff. The folks here know I'm a cult buff... and therefore tend to believe an ex-member's testimony whenever available and sounding plausible. It takes a lot of gumption to leave a cult, and a real driving away force, so I find it hard for people to make the long journey out then lie about what happened there.

The place I wish I could have lived would be Findhorn in its heyday in the mid-60's.

Unfortunately, I didn't even hear of it until the late 70's when it was already somewhat past its prime.

I have no experience w/ cults at all. You make a very good point, TED, about the ex-member testimony.

Dot, I recently read a great book by David Spangler and William Irwin Thompson (I'm a big fan of the latter) that was written in the 80s as an acknowledgement of the change that had come over places like Findhorn, and a critique thereof. Very cool book and kind of unique:

http://www.amazon.com/Reimagination-World-Critique-Science-Popular/dp/0939680920/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264170127&sr=1-1

... Reimagination of the World: A Critique of the New Age, Science, and Popular Culture

I'll have to familiarize myself with Findhorn. One of my favorite cults was the Branch Dividians, and to my joy we got to learn a bit about it in a criminology class in 2003. And yeah, we got to watch the made for TV movie.

Oh Findhorn is different; I think Dot is right that they are perhaps past their best (although still doing some useful things) but they were never a roaring great cult to my mind, in the way the B.Davidians were. Spangler for example has moved past them and 'New Age' in general, but he's still very much associated and doesn't see them as problematic in that way.

One of my faves is the Oneida community, ever heard of them? Definitely a cult and not dissimilar to a Christian Damanhur in some ways... but all practitioners of western sacred sex owe them a debt because they pioneered it... on a major scale.

On Damanhur I am now coming definitely down on the side of cult... even if the graphics are cool. See:

http://damanhurinsideout.wordpress.com/testimonies/how-to-get-out/

... it's even harder to leave than a normal cult because you only hold cult currency, and all the time you are actually spending it to buy the spiritual training you are there for. In other words you are kept poor and frightened. In my neck of the woods we call that a scam.

Since at least some of the artwork has a sincere ring, it may well be that Airaudi is self-deluded as well as merely maniacal and manipulative. I'm guessing that would be par for the course though, right TED?

Pity!

The Family of God is better... when you have sex with your partner (or the head of the faith) you have to visualize it's Jesus you're having sex with (as his bride). Yum yum.

I would wager that Airaudi is self-deluded, though perhaps he wasn't always. I would think the energy work/magic done on site is probably real. As for his being Horus sent back from the future and an alien baby, I would think probably not; however, with enough repititions he's probably come to regard that as truth, and when you try to teach a falsity to others presented as the truth you end up convincing yourself before too long. Sort of a mass hypnosis.

To clarify, I wasn't implying that I think Findhorn could be considered a cult.

Some of Spangler's thinking has been a bit peculiar at times, IMO, but on the whole Findhorn itself was a very interesting experiment in New Age communal living. Best known for its extraordinary garden which used leylines to grow some remarkable plants for that latitude.

To clarify, I wasn't implying that I think Findhorn could be considered a cult.

Yeah I never saw them that way. But some do, eg:

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/

... great book that, mostly bursting the bubbles of licentious yogis. Has a whole chapter on Findhorn but doesn't even manage to land a glove IMO.

Did you ever give William Irwin Thompson a read? A very different kind of guy from Spangler, more the Bateson/Gebser cultural commentator and poet guy, but with a solid meditation practice too it appears. He's very very smart and funny. There's a great YouTube lecture of his here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdQwS2ZHkUA

P_Synthesis wrote:
Yeah I never saw them that way. But some do, eg:

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/

Just from the blurbs on the web site, I could see that some of the criticism offered would likely be off-base.

So I downloaded his criticism of Wilber, because I'm familiar with Wilber's work (have several of his books). The criticism is hit and miss. He also engages in some of the same things he castigates Wilber for doing (argument from ignorance, for example). He also engages in some forms of argument that Wilber rightly criticizes (trying to speak definitively about things science can't address). So, while Wilber can be said to have screwed some things up, the criticism offered (as far as I've read it) certainly isn't as devastating as the author would like us to believe.

I imagine he thinks that most any religious group is a cult. I came away from his writing with the strong impression that he's an evangelical atheist.

Yeah, guys like him miss a lot because their hammers are heavy. Anthony Storr wrote a similar book a while back, 'Feet of Clay'. You definitely have to fact-check him as you go; like I say the chapter on Findhorn is a complete bust. Still, if you go in knowing his attitude, it's a worthwhile read IMO. It's really the yogis he's after. I like it that there are such poison-pen deflationists around personally, even if they are a bit tabloid. People read him with salt.

The chapters on Adi Da and Andrew Cohen are definitely juicy -- mind you there's a great deal out there already on them, including a diatribe by Cohen's mother against him if I remember right. So perhaps they are easy targets. As for Wilber, he's always had criticism on all sides, and come out fighting... much of what Falk says is very petty, and I'd agree, certainly not as damning as he thinks. You'd expect much more meat in a book that size.

I imagine he thinks that most any religious group is a cult. I came away from his writing with the strong impression that he's an evangelical atheist.

Nah, I don't think so... judging by this blog in which he's publishing research on the fly:

http://spiritonthebrain.com/blog/

... he's more one of those people who searches for 'the origins of religion' in brain chemistry and fable. A strange combo of Graham Hancock with the kind of 19th c. 'origins of religion' author you now see reprinted by Kessinger, and definitely a guy with an axe to grind.

That sort of materialist approach to everything is one of the things Wilber rightly criticizes, and the materialists don't really seem to understand that criticism at all. Their lack of acknowledgment of psychological processes that their scientific processes can't (as yet) measure is a glaring weakness in their position.

And I think materialism is a form of fundamentalist atheism. That is, I've not encountered a strict materialist who wasn't also a fundie atheist. Though that doesn't automatically result in him thinking all religious groups are cults.

Well you'll have to take it up with Falk! My impression is that he certainly doesn't think spiritual experiences are impossible (in fact he seems to have had some), just that he likes to start with the material because, after a few bad guru experiences, that's where he feels safe. I'm not agreeing with his viewpoint, just trying to describe it.

As you can see from my little masthead there, I'm into transpersonal psychology and have had out-of-body experiences, so you may infer I'm unlikely to side with a materialist against Ken Wilber on most spiritual questions! But that doesn't mean Falk's work is useless... I certainly learned a thing or two.

P_Synthesis wrote:Well you'll have to take it up with Falk! My impression is that he certainly doesn't think spiritual experiences are impossible (in fact he seems to have had some)...

Hmmm...sounds rather like Sam Harris who otherwise is more militant than Dawkins, I'd say.

I've heard his name... he's had a spiritual experience you mean?

P_Synthesis wrote:I've heard his name... he's had a spiritual experience you mean?

So, he's said. Been a while since I read his book The End of Faith, but in that he says he got seriously into meditation because of some peculiar experiences which ran counter to his intellectual convictions. I gathered that he's working with meditation partially to determine if possible whether these are some as yet not understood manifestation of the mind or possibly something "other."

His conclusion to that book deals with what so-called consciousness may be and why he found himself unable to explain adequately the transcendent moments he experienced. Extremely interesting.

Harris is a marvelous writer with a philosophy background.

More approachable is his Letter To a Christian Nation, a slim little book intended to be a manual of sorts for those commonly encountering fundie Christians who insist that the U.S. was intended to be a Christian country by its founders.

That's really interesting because (without having read any of them, just from interaction with the Dawkings rottweilers) I knew only that he was a militant anti-religionist... how does he square all of the transcendance stuff with militant atheist stuff?