THE “A” LIST: A Catalog of Trauma and Abuse

The following is a list of categories of abuses committed over the years against students by Andrew Cohen and the EnlightenNext community, with selected representative examples. All of these acts have been reported, verified and corroborated by first-person witnesses. Most have been documented in three published books written by critical former students—Mother of God by Luna Tarlo (Andrew Cohen’s mother), American Guru by William Yenner and Enlightenment Bluesby Andre van der Braak—and on a blog by former students, What Enlightenment??!  This list is by no means exhaustive. Many other reprehensible acts, both subtle and gross, have been documented and, as former students are finding their power and their voices, more are emerging every day. This list is only a summary reference. It fairly represents the kind of abuses that frequently occurred in the EnlightenNext community, often justified under the rubric of acts of “crazy wisdom” designed to destroy “ego.” It is hoped that this list will aide former students in coming to terms with their history and trauma, and that it will serve as a warning and wake-up call to those who are currently engaged with Andrew Cohen, EnlightenNext, “Evolutionary Enlightenment” or its teachers, spin-offs and associates, and those who are considering engaging with them in the future. [We acknowledge and appreciate that some of the senior students of Cohen mentioned here may have played a role in recent events leading to Cohen stepping down from leadership of EnlightenNext, either temporarily or permanently. Yet, as of publication of this summary of abuses, none have publicly disassociated themselves from Cohen or disavowed the abuse of students documented here or their support of and participation in it in the past.] It is also hoped that this list may provide food for contemplation for Andrew Cohen himself and inspiration for his reform and remediation.

In the title of this list, “A” is for Andrew Cohen, for abuses committed by Cohen and his organization, and for long overdue meaningful apologies and reparations.

I.               Physical Abuse

1.    Hitting, slapping, punching of students by Andrew Cohen and other students at Cohen's command. At times a group of men were ordered by Andrew Cohen to corner and attack fellow students and at times men were ordered to restrain a man while Cohen hit him. 

2.     Having women repeatedly do full-immersion prostrations in a freezing cold lake in New England in the autumn (on EnlightenNext’s Foxhollow premises) as penance for perceived faults and “women’s conditioning,” some to the point of hypothermia, delirium and unconsciousness. Some women had to be rescued or helped from the lake, and some developed illnesses afterwards. Some women were berated and ordered to repeat their attempts to complete a required number of prostrations despite having become delirious or suffering hypothermia. No medical care was provided for women who passed out, suffered hypothermia or became ill, even though there was a doctor in the community and on the Foxhollow premises.

3.     Having students pour buckets of paint over the head of a former student who was helping to work on the Foxhollow EnlightenNext premises, as a form of punishment and humiliation.

II.    Financial Exploitation

4.    Using repeated group and individual pressure tactics on a student who Andrew Cohen knew to be psychologically vulnerable, in order to induce her to contribute approximately $2,000,000 for the purchase of the Foxhollow compound in Lenox, Massachusetts, the headquarters and residence of Cohen and the EnlightenNext community. Soon after meeting this student, Cohen had elicited from her that she had a trust fund and was in intensive psychotherapy four times per week, and persuaded her to cease her psychotherapeutic treatment.

5.    In preparation for the move to Foxhollow, Andrew Cohen required every Marin County, California student (where his major center of operations was at the time) to contribute $1,000 for every year they had been a student (up to $5,000), telling them that those who did not comply “would never set foot on the Foxhollow property.”

6.    In preparation for the move to the Foxhollow EnlightenNext Center, students were required to make a full disclosure of their finances to Cohen and the organization, and to undergo financial “counseling” as to how they would support themselves and the community after the move. In at least one reported case, a student was encouraged to lie to his parents in order to receive financial support so that he could pay rent to the organization after moving to Foxhollow.

7.    Frequently and repeatedly charging students "fines" of thousands of dollars for what Cohen considered to be various infractions, failures or slights. Ordering these students to pay these amounts or to leave their homes at his Foxhollow center or be banished from the spiritual community.

8.    Inducing a number of students to give Cohen or his organization their inheritances or obtain advances from their families of their expected inheritances in order to turn the funds over to Cohen or EnlightenNext.

9.    Using in excess of $500,000 in funds contributed to EnlightenNext to build and expand accommodations just for Cohen, including extra offices, a music studio and a yoga practice room.

10. Requiring students to provide Cohen with elaborate and expensive gifts, flowers and engage in various other forms of penance in order to apologize for perceived failures, wrongs or slights.

11. Imposing demands of long hours of work and labor for Cohen’s organization that made it impossible for students to earn a living and support themselves, often forcing students to incur thousands of dollars of debt.

12. Requiring a student to sign a confidentiality agreement prohibiting him from publicly criticizing Cohen or the community for a period of five years after leaving, as a condition of returning an inheritance contributed under Cohen’s pressure.

III.   Violation of Sexual and Reproductive Rights and Privacy, and Interference with Family and Personal Relationships

13. Requiring a student to visit prostitutes repeatedly over a several week period and to provide detailed faxed reports on these visits to Cohen, despite the student strongly expressing his strong disgust and emotional trauma over having to do this and daily begging Cohen to be allowed to stop. Witnesses saw Cohen reading and listening to the reports of the prostitute visits with great interest, enjoying and laughing at them.

14. Pressuring women to have tubal ligations (have their “tubes tied”) so that they could not conceive children. Encouraging men to have vasectomies. Actively discouraging the having of children by women and couples. Requiring some women to commit to having no children as a condition of being a student of Cohen. As a result of having made a commitment to having no children, as required by Cohen as a prerequisite for becoming a student, one woman had an abortion when she became pregnant. Many women refrained from having children, in some cases past the age to become pregnant, to their later regret.

15. Requiring some parents to live separately from their young children, sometimes in other countries and for long periods of time; actively discouraging parents from giving their children ordinary love, time, attention and priority in their lives or spending holidays and free time with them; sometimes advising parents to slap their young children.

16. Directly ordering the break up of numerous couples and families.

17. Exercising direct and complete control over students’ decisions regarding sexuality and relationships, including whether the student would be celibate or in a relationship, with whom the student could have a relationship, if and when students should end a relationship or marriage, and whether married couples or students currently in a relationship could have sex with their partner.

18. Ordering a student to tell his young daughter about her mother's (his wife's) long past infidelity, traumatizing the daughter and contributing to her alienation from her father and to alienation between her parents.

19. Directly giving harsh and critical messages to children in the community, including, in one instance, telling a thirteen year old daughter of students that she was “a little bitch now and soon you're going to be a big bitch.”

20. Telling a student she was a bad mother and threatening to have authorities take away her child.

21. Questioning students’ sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual. In one instance, forcing a heterosexual male student to spend an entire retreat questioning his sexual orientation because Cohen was mistakenly convinced he was really homosexual.

IV.  Emotional and Psychological Abuse and Ostracizing

22. Ordering a student who is a physician to simulate the amputation of the finger of another student who had sworn, under pressure, that he would cut off his finger if he failed to complete a writing project. This simulation included full preparation of the student for the amputation by the doctor and the doctor’s readying of surgical knives and only ceased just before actual amputation. As a result, the student was emotionally traumatized and soon thereafter fled Cohen's residential center, Foxhollow.

23. Yelling at a student whose husband had just committed suicide, calling the husband a “loser” and telling her that she should be happy to be rid of him.

24. Having a senior student telephone and loudly and harshly criticize at length an elderly and infirm former formal woman student (Caroline Franklyn) for a misperceived slight to Cohen, telling her that Cohen was furious at her for her failure to “admit her sin” and that she would “die a miserable old woman.”  Her health deteriorated alarmingly soon after this event, and within approximately a week she was dying in the hospital. Cohen failed to offer any communication to the woman of sympathy, support or forgiveness after her concerned family requested this until it was too late, as the woman had by then become unconscious. She died eleven days after her verbal scourging by the senior student. Cohen’s acts in this regard are considered by her family and others to be a direct cause of her decline and death.

25. On multiple occasions, criticizing, disparaging and finding fault in students who were suffering bereavement at the death of family and loved ones. For example, on one occasion, having the community harangue and yell at a student who was grieving the death of half of her family--the death of her sister, followed thirty days later by her father's death-- for “betraying Andrew” when she was grief-stricken and therefore unable to be as enthusiastic about Cohen's visit to Israel as was expected. When the student went abroad to look after her sister’s affairs, having students pile all of her belongings on the street, where most were stolen before the student could return to rescue them.

26. Ordering students to spend hours and days in a former sauna, and in a basement area of the EnlightenNext Center. These areas had been decorated with students’ letters splotched with red paint, representing "the guru's blood," and with cartoons of students who had left Cohen depicted as demons falling off cliffs and causing destruction. Students with whom Cohen was unhappy were characterized as having injured him and “spilled his blood.”

27. Frequently and repeatedly disparaging and criticizing women for their “conditioning” and resistance to him. Having female students repeatedly and at length contemplate disturbing cartoons depicting sexually predatory, violent and sado-masochistic acts, including one of a student eviscerating Cohen.  This was supposed to be either a punishment or cure for "female conditioning."

28. Requiring a student to move her office to a room in the Foxhollow basement that was painted red and decorated with a cartoon of her as a devil, and requiring her to spend many hours working there.

29. Isolating students for long periods of time in their apartments at Foxhollow, allowing them to leave only to work.

30. Ordering a student to have his newer luxury Saab crushed because he was too “attached” to it.

31. The frequent use of abusive, profane, shaming, jeering and insulting language by Cohen toward students, and the subjecting of students to public humiliation and shunning.

32. In small private groups of close students, Cohen frequently insulting attendees at public forums who he had behaved warmly toward in public, by calling them “fat,” “stupid,” “useless,” “disgusting” and other disparaging terms, and encouraging close students to do the same.

33. Giving students insulting, demeaning and humiliating names (e.g. “Dizzy,” “Mad Dog,” “Vacance,” “Raging Bull,” “Q the Clown,” “Mephisto,” etc.) and requiring the exclusive use of these names in the community.

34. Requiring students to shave their heads and take on celibacy vows as penance for perceived faults.

35. Threatening and enforcing excommunication and ejection of students from the EnlightenNext Center and from their homes, often without warning and, at times, late at night.

36. Revealing students’ confidences disclosed to Cohen to other students, including confidences of an intimate and sexual nature.

37. Depriving students of sleep to the point of exhaustion, often for years.

38. Depriving students of ordinary friendship and emotional support, frequently turning the entire community against individual students and prohibiting them from speaking, touching or having other contact with them.

39. Creating such psychological pressure on students that numerous students secretly fled the community, some at night, and many hiding and having little or no contact with other students or former students for years.

V.    Denying and Discouraging Students’ Freedom to Leave the Community

40. Holding and withholding students’ passports, credit cards and car keys so that they could not leave community premises.

41. Posting guards outside a students’ bedroom so that he could not leave, forcing him to secretly exit through a window at night and flee.

42. Having a student who was trained in the Dutch equivalent of the military special or commando forces threaten another student with serious physical injury should he ever leave Andrew Cohen, telling the student that if he ever left Cohen, “no matter where you are on the planet, I will find you and break every bone in your body.”

43. Subjecting students who expressed their wish to leave the community, or to lessen their involvement with the community, to lengthy interrogation, haranguing, meetings and coercive discouragement from leaving or lessening their involvement.

44. Having students track down other students who left the community, bringing or attempting to bring them back. 

45. Having students write disparaging and insulting letters to students who chose to leave the community.

46. Andrew Cohen repeatedly telling students that if they left the community it would be the equivalent of “literally committing spiritual suicide” and that they “can never escape me” as “I am their direct connection to the Absolute.”

47. Repeatedly telling students that there were no valid spiritual teachers other than Cohen or valid spiritual paths other than his, and that if they left him their lives would be meaningless and hellish.

48. Cohen, when among close students, ridiculing, laughing at, insulting and dismissing other teachers, public associates and peers, such as Deepak Chopra, the Dalai Lama (“an idiot”), Don Beck (“a disgusting old man”), Craig Hamilton (“a big baby”), Ken Wilber (“a huge narcissist”), Michael Beckwith and Barbara Marx Hubbard (“they just don’t get it”)  and various members of the Integral community, such as David Deida, Terry Patten and others, and encouraging close students to do the same.

49. Disparaging and expressing extreme anger and hatred by Cohen toward students who left him; labeling such students as devils, traitors and “losers” and often “disappearing” them, denying their contributions and the years of labor they had given him and his community.

50. Discouraging students who leave from having any contact with other students who had left, labeling those who left as “losers” and “the shadow sangha.”

As a result of abuse suffered in the community, many former students experienced trauma, depression, disorientation, loss of connection to spirituality in any form, and the need for psychotherapeutic treatment after leaving Cohen’s community. Numerous former students are still struggling to come to terms with their experience in Cohen’s community, sometimes a decade or more after leaving.

[version 2.1-6/11/14 (numbering; minor factual correction; student names removed from intro)
v. 2.2-1/10/15 (revised #14)

The Truth Will Set You Free

Introduction

In June of last year, the editors of this blog were contacted by Yonatan Levy, a contributor to the Israeli online journal NRG-Ma’ariv, for an article he intended to produce on Andrew Cohen and Cohen’s organization, EnlightenNext. Levy had sought an interview with Cohen himself, specifically in order to seek a balanced perspective on the allegations against Cohen previously published on this blog. While the interview he’d requested was never granted, Levy did receive from EnlightenNext’s “Communications Director,” Amy Edelstein, a series of official written responses to questions he had submitted in advance of the proposed interview. He also received an intimidating letter from Cohen’s lawyer, dated the same day, advising him of NRG-Ma’ariv’s potential legal liability in the event of the article’s publication. These documents are available here:

EnlightenNext's responses to Mr. Levy Letter from EN's attorney

Under the circumstances, NRG-Ma’ariv’s legal department encouraged Levy to seek firsthand confirmation of any allegations against Cohen or EnlightenNext that he intended to outline in his article. It was for this reason that Levy contacted us with the answers he’d received from Edelstein—in which she declared that most of the information published by former students of Cohen on this site is simply false.

Almost a year later, Levy’s article has still not seen the light of day, and it now appears that it may never be published. However, EnlightenNext’s responses to Levy’s questions represent an historic event of sorts, as they constitute its first official denial of the events described on this blog. Although previously Cohen and his defenders had publicly taken refuge in the notion that the incidents reported here have been taken “out of context” by “a few disgruntled former students,” they have never—until now—gone on the record with official declarations that the reported incidents never actually took place.

Although it seems clear from the correspondence reproduced above that EnlightenNext’s representatives believed coordinated legal intimidation would be sufficient to keep their denials below the public radar, What Enlightenment??! has decided—in the interests of a free, transparent and open exchange—to publish them here. Doing so will accomplish two objectives. First, it will give EnlightenNext a platform from which to “go public” with its reportedly common response to the queries it receives from current and potential students about the contents of this blog, i.e., that they are mere fabrications. Secondly, it will give former students who have direct experience of the reported incidents an opportunity to respond specifically to EnlightenNext’s denials.

It is worth reiterating that the publication of these documents represents an historic moment in the public dialog that this blog was created to facilitate but could never fully accomplish without the full participation of both sides. This is why we have decided, at least for a limited period, to re-open it. It is our sincere hope that potential responses, from current and former students alike, can now begin to focus specifically on the truth and accuracy of our recollections, as it is only by these means that we can arrive at any meaningful reconciliation—or, in Andrew Cohen’s well-chosen words, “come together in the truth.”

Searching for the truth about Andrew Cohen:

A journalist's odyssey

My name is Yonatan Levy. For the last few years I’ve been a writer and editor for the spirituality section of NRG-Ma’ariv, a major Israeli media site. Nine years ago I attended a weekend intensive led by Andrew Cohen in Israel. It was my first encounter with a living spiritual teacher and my impression was positive. I was impressed by Cohen’s simple and clear meditation instructions and by his powerful personality. Soon afterward, I attended a meeting of a group of his followers, but found the atmosphere awkward and unnatural. Yet I still found the rhetoric of Cohen’s writings moving and inspiring. I was thus surprised and bewildered to discover dozens of accounts in the What Enlightenment??! blog depicting Cohen as a capricious, dishonest tyrant—especially in light of his emphasis on ethics and integrity as a crucial aspect of true spiritual evolution.

Before Cohen’s next visit to Israel, I asked to interview him, with the intention of asking about the allegations. In response, I was told that the interview would be granted on the condition that I would not ask about anything in the WE??! blog, because Cohen had not yet responded publicly to the issue as a whole, and was planning to do so on his own blog; after this, I was assured, I could ask about anything I wanted to. I was willing to wait, but all of my interview requests following Cohen’s post (“A Declaration of Integrity”) were declined. Finally, I decided to write the article without an interview. Yet I did send Cohen a list of questions concerning the issues and accounts that had been presented by the What Enlightenment??! blog, adding that if the allegations proved untrue I would call the article off.

The answers to my questions, formulated by Amy Edelstein, perhaps with the aid of Attorney Barry Fischer, are the first detailed public response by Andrew Cohen’s organization, EnlightenNext, to the accounts of Cohen’s ex-followers. Some of the answers use juridical language, taking advantage of inaccuracies in the phrasing of the questions to evade the matter. Others seem to be blatantly counterfactual, or are so easily refuted that there is little doubt they were primarily given in order to convince me not to write the article—which ultimately did not appear on NRG-Ma’ariv for fear of a long and costly lawsuit.

As part of my research, I sought reactions and statements of verification from former contributors to the WE??! blog, whose accounts of abuse on Cohen’s part had raised the issue in the first place. Some of these appear below. In several cases, I was able to speak with individuals directly involved in incidents described on the blog, who also confirmed the accuracy of accounts that have been denied or disputed by EnlightenNext.

Here then (above), for the benefit and judgment of those who are interested in Andrew Cohen’s standards of integrity, openness, honesty and “soul strength,” are the questions I asked and the answers I received from his organization, EnlightenNext.

Yonatan Levy ~ Tel Aviv, Israel

*******************************************************************

Selected responses to EnlightenNext's statements

from former students of Andrew Cohen:

Student #1 Student #2 Student #3 Student #4

To view readers' comments or to post one, click on the "comments" link below:

A Farewell With Deep Gratitude

by Hal

More than two years ago I decided to write publicly about what I felt had gone seriously wrong with Andrew Z. Cohen's teaching methods and his community. I had received disturbing reports from other former students that eventually compelled me to speak out. I wrote then:

…A few years ago I began to learn of things that caused me great concern. An old friend who I worked with on What Is Enlightenment? magazine called and told me she had left the community. I told her a little about my thoughts about it—how I had come to see how oppressive life in the community was, how wrong it was that there was no personal freedom or autonomy permitted, how abusive the confrontational methods used to enforce conformity now seemed, how frequently we lived in fear, and how criticism was always forcibly squelched. She interrupted me and said, “Hal, things have gotten a whole lot weirder since you left.” I asked her what she meant, and she told me stories involving the use of physical force and abuse against students. She spoke of being ordered by Andrew to deliver “messages” to fellow students consisting of slapping the student in the face as hard as she could. She told me she had been ordered by Andrew to paint messages in blood-red paint on the walls of a student’s room at Foxhollow. She described to me the conversion of the spa at Foxhollow into a kind of psychological torture chamber.

As the years passed I spoke to many other former students who confirmed these stories, elaborated upon them, and told me many more. I learned of students having large “contributions” psychologically extorted from them. I heard how a student was required to sign a “gag order” agreement prohibiting him from publicly criticizing Andrew as a condition of having his “contribution” returned. I was told the story of community women prostrating in a freezing cold lake in the winter, some suffering dangerous exposure, as a symbol of their devotion and repentance for “women’s conditioning.” I learned of a student being forced—against his will and his moral compunction—to engage in daily visits to prostitutes in Amsterdam for weeks on end as a kind of penance for past sexual indiscretions. I was told by a student how he was ordered to reveal to his estranged teenage daughter her mother’s infidelity that occurred many years in the past, in order to teach the daughter not to hold her mother, now a critical former student, in such high esteem. I heard these stories and many, many more. As the weight of the awful truth about what Andrew and his community had become accumulated, I began to feel that something must finally be said. People must be warned. At the very least, any prospective student should know what they are signing themselves up for when they join Andrew Cohen’s community.

In the more than two years since I personally "broke the code of silence," all of these disturbing events, and many more, were documented and corroborated on this blog, over and over again. Three former editors of What Is Enlightenment? magazine, including myself, spoke out strongly here about the abuses in Andrew Cohen's community. Other close students have also put their names on the line to attest to what went wrong with the community's beautiful dream of creating heaven on earth. The woman who financed Cohen's Foxhollow EnlightenNext world center wrote about how he unfairly took advantage of her vulnerability and largesse. Numerous other students have also contributed here, both named and anonymous, shedding light on the authoritarian abuses around Cohen, their causes and their harmful effects. In contrast, not one specific or credible factual denial has emerged from Andrew or anyone associated with him about what has been reported here in great detail and depth. Instead, we have only heard the refrain that we have failed to include the "context," as if any overarching purpose could justify the abuses described here and the pain they caused. No cry of "context" could obscure the devastating truth that the participants in this blog have had the courage to reveal.

I hope it will not be regarded as overly dramatic if I say that I look back over what has occurred on this blog with awe, gratitude and humility. This blog's truly collaborative, interactive and collective nature makes it, perhaps, unique in the blogosphere, on the Internet, and, perhaps beyond. I haven't seen anything really parallel. I believe that, beyond the collaborative nature of the editorial work here, the collective intelligence, truthfulness and vulnerability of the contributions, responses, arguments and discussions have made this effort at healing and truth-telling unprecedented. I don't think that so many have spoken out before with such rawness and honesty in an attempt to warn the unwary, comfort the injured and understand humbly how something they believed in so totally could go so wrong. For this effort and honesty, on behalf of all of the editors of this blog, I bow to everyone who has participated here, whether anonymously or named, and whether former student, interested observer or friend.

While what has happened here will always remain, this seems like a good juncture at which to conclude this particular project of honesty and love. So, on behalf of the editors and administrators of this blog, I have been asked to write a kind of farewell. The discussion here could go on endlessly, or as long as authoritarianism hides behind masks of evolution, enlightenment or other ideals. This is not cynicism. I am not saying that evolution or enlightenment do not exist, or are unworthy of a life's dedication. But the capacity for deception is endless, and opportunists and the self-deluded who use and abuse high ideals, whether consciously or unconsciously, will probably always be with us. For this reason, I hope the discussion engaged in here will persist in one form or another.

But I think that this particular forum has run its natural course. The essence of what needed to be expressed has been said. Most of the former students I know have moved on, or are in the process of doing so—they have regrouped or are regrouping, they value what they learned, both good and bad, and they have ventured into productive new lives. Those lives now may be less filled with drama, buzz and high romanticism, perhaps, than their lives with Andrew Cohen. But they seem, to me, to be lives that are far more genuine, lives that are making, or have the potential to make, greater contributions to this world. The former students I know are, by and large wiser, softer, humbler and happier than they were when in the thrall of the community discussed here. They are professionals, artists, parents, workers in the non-profit sector, and many are actively engaged in working for their own and others' spiritual liberation. I think the healing that was, in part, the purpose of this blog has occurred to a great extent and will continue. And what has been written here will stand as a warning, a cautionary tale for the benefit of those who may consider taking a similar path to the one that went astray, as described here.

I feel confident that everyone whose life has been touched by this discussion has benefited in some fashion. Even those readers who chose to become involved with Cohen or to continue their involvement with him cannot help but be a bit smarter about it—or at least have an awareness of this resource for helping them pick up the pieces when reality shatters their dream. And we have heard that some of the more extreme abuses of community members have been stopped or moderated in the wake of their being revealed on this blog.

There is only one person for whom I still have great concern. I fear that he is perhaps the only one who has not been able to learn something of value here and who may be irretrievably committed to a painful and destructive path. That person is Andrew Cohen. I sincerely hope—and I think most ex-students will join me here—that some day our former teacher will find the humility to revise his own idea of himself; that he will demonstrate the vulnerability and lack of pride that he taught us but failed to live; and that he can find a way to recover his balance if and when his bubble implodes. We were mistaken in our assessment of him, but we did recognize his potential, and I think we all would like nothing more than to see that potential fulfilled in truth and humility. But that would require a difficult self-reckoning for him, one for which it is hard to find genuine reason for hope.

Still, against all reason perhaps, I believe in basic goodness. I have faith in the happy ending. No ending would make Andrew's former students happier than to see him change. And nothing is completely beyond possibility in a world where the courage and honesty demonstrated by all who participated here can manifest.

For now, WHAT Enlightenment??! is signing off. We may create a web site in the future, for the sake of posterity, with some of the articles on this blog. This blog will remain as a resource, but in a few days comment posting will be turned off.

On behalf of the blog editors, I want to express deep gratitude to everyone who has participated in and contributed to this journey of healing and truth. Best wishes to you all on your path.

May all beings be happy!

Andrew Cohen and Donations Under Duress

By Jane O’Neil

[Editors' Note: This is Jane O'Neil's second feature article on the What Enlightenment??! blog. Her first article was "Andrew Cohen and the Corruption of Power."]

The article, "A Revolution in Finance," is a brilliant and articulate analysis of Andrew Cohen's financial wrongdoing, and a call to action that I sincerely hope Andrew and his students will take to heart. In response, I feel compelled to reveal some more of the details surrounding my donations to Andrew and his organization.

But first, regarding "A Revolution in Finance", I was unaware and surprised to hear of the teacher training courses that Jeff Carreira is leading. I knew Jeff well while I lived at Foxhollow; he has a heart of gold and I know that left to his own devices he would have tremendous integrity. That said, and having myself been one of Andrew’s personal assistants for more than a year, I can testify that those close to Andrew employ tactics against fellow students in the name of evolution and ego-death that are potentially very damaging. Tough love? The techniques used under Andrew’s direction would not pass the smell test of your average intelligent person in the street, to whom they would appear as damaging as boot camp under the command of a pathological CO. In a similar way, I am sure that those responsible for the tactics used at Guantanamo Bay considered themselves comrades in a fight against evil, trained to use any and all means necessary to destroy it.

On the subject of Andrew returning donations solicited under duress, I obviously would be profoundly grateful if he would return the $2 million dollars that I gave him toward the purchase of Foxhollow. I have certainly asked, but so far have heard nothing.

Andrew always tried to maintain a cloak of secrecy around his securing of donations from students. Andrew’s desire for secrecy regarding his strategies to secure donations from students is related to the most critical issue surrounding them: whether the student, under immediate duress or otherwise, has the awareness and the objectivity to say no. In my case, there were tremendous secretive machinations behind Andrew’s solicitation of the largest of my donations (the $2 million for Foxhollow). The worst aspect of the situation was the fact that my communication about this decision was severely restricted in terms of the number of people I was in a position to discuss it with.

When I met Andrew in 1993, I had been seeing a psychotherapist four times a week for eight years. Andrew and many others in his community knew this. It’s clear to me in retrospect that in making my $2 Million and other donations to Andrew I was acting out some of the self-destructive issues that I had long been in therapy in to deal with. When I told my therapist about meeting Andrew, she warned me I that was vulnerable to potential brainwashing. In contrast, when I revealed to Andrew the insecurity and anxiety I felt about the prospect of joining his community, he told me how intelligent and bright I was, and how fully capable I was of making a mature decision on my own. Who was I going to listen to—someone who told me I was weak (my therapist), or someone who told me I was strong (Andrew)? At the time, the choice seemed clear, however misguided, and I left my therapist and fell deeply into the vortex of Andrew’s community—the amazing people, the happiness, the feeling of belonging.

Early on in my life as his student, Andrew benefited from my endless and ridiculous need to prove my love for him through gifts, both personal and to his Moksha Foundation. Before the end of my first four months as his student, I had ‘donated’ my house in Mill Valley, California, then worth over $300,000, to his community (after which I felt so sick that I promptly threw up at the Marin County Civic Center). I feared I would not be able to sustain the feelings of happiness I had discovered and remain in my ordinary life. I believed I had to give it all up for his world. During my first two years in his community I showered him with exquisite Tibetan rugs, furniture and clothes (Loro Piani, Armani, any beautiful and expensive Italian clothes that I thought would suit him), none of which he refused or seemed to regard as anything less than his due. I also bought a $4000 display system for trade exhibits of his books and a computer for his Marketing Department. Calculating the receipts over the years, these purchases amounted to well over $150,000 in gifts to Andrew and his Foundation.

While I cannot hold Andrew responsible for this behavior, I do believe it is reasonable to ask whether a truly enlightened person would have failed to question—rather than perpetuate—the illusion that being showered with extraordinarily expensive gifts was about love and devotion rather than (as would have been obvious to any normal, sensitive human being) a symptom of a personal problem that needed to be addressed. The sad truth is that Andrew didn’t care one iota for my wellbeing, my ambivalence, or the general state of my mental health at the time. He cared for one thing and one thing only: to take advantage of an obvious weakness of mine and a clearly twisted situation. Why address these issues if it might ultimately mean gaining less than every possible advantage from the loyalty of a wealthy and gullible student? Thus the stage was set for the reeling in of the big bucks.

After learning from his close student Michelle Hemingway, in whom I had confided, of the imminent potential of a large family trust being dissolved and distributed to me five years earlier than scheduled, Andrew quickly communicated through her that he wanted these assets. Michelle, who at that time I regarded as a trusted friend and colleague, knew me well—my doubts, my aspirations, my plentiful neuroses and weaknesses, including my profound fear of being valued, by friends who knew of my wealth, for my money alone. Michelle was well aware of my fear that Andrew, too, valued me more for my money than for anything else. Acting on his orders, she sat me down in an office at the community’s headquarters and, vacillating between a nervous giggle and a serious tone, told me that Andrew needed this money for the purchase of a property in Massachusetts to establish a worldwide center for his teachings. I remember feeling sick again. She told me that she knew this pricked my deepest fears about Andrew ‘wanting me’ only for my money, but that I must ‘trust his vision,’ because it was for ‘the greatest good.’

By this time I had been a student of Andrew’s for three years and was now a formal student, a status in the community characterized by unconditional commitment and devotion. My life was completely consumed by Andrew and his teaching. His community represented my work, my friendships, my living situation, my inner life and my sense of self-worth. Without the real freedom to deny his request, I was suddenly and profoundly at risk of losing everything that, at that point in my life, I really cared about. Even I knew that Andrew had now gone too far. It was perfectly clear that there was no chance I could stay with him if I were to refuse. I was tormented; I didn’t believe for a second that I could say no and remain his student.

As I wrestled with this dilemma, the only people authorized by Andrew to speak with me about it were Michelle and Mimi Katz, and I was instructed not to discuss it with anyone else. Mimi was a close friend of mine as well as a Moksha Foundation board member co-responsible for its accounting office. After learning from Andrew that he had had Michelle solicit the donation, Mimi had advised Andrew that he had to be willing to accept no for an answer. I talked through the predicament I was in with Mimi many times. This ultimately led to her receiving a severe dressing-down from Michelle, who believed (along with Andrew) that in these conversations Mimi had given me ‘too much rope’ to indulge my doubts about donating the money. They must have feared that I was close to saying no and, not wanting to risk this, now closely choreographed who got involved. I was coached daily by Michelle, a few others, and on a few occasions Andrew himself, about how to proceed with the manipulation of my uncle, via my sister, to convince them of my urgent need for this money. At that point, the trust had not yet been dissolved; I didn’t have the money, nor had I yet consented to donate it. But the pressure was on because a suitable property, Foxhollow, had been found.

I couldn’t sleep. I was a mess. The formal students went on a retreat for a weekend in Marin County and I sat in my bed in the middle of the day, crying hysterically. I ran from meetings, unable to complete a thought or find my way. I was desperate. I didn’t know what to do or how I would survive the loss of this life that I’d found, which had brought me my first experience of real happiness, but suddenly none of my community friends seemed even to care enough to ask me how I was doing or why I was so obviously upset. I felt abandoned by them. I learned only this week—ten years later—that everyone had been told to steer clear of me, to refrain from speaking with me about this mysterious ‘personal problem’ I was having. God forbid that someone might actually reinforce my doubts and insecurities, or strengthen my inclination to say no.

Obviously, I did, in the end, say yes. By the conclusion of the retreat, no longer able to bear the separation and isolation to which I’d been subjected, and feeling so alienated from everyone that I simply wanted to be welcomed back into the arms of the community, I finally consented to the ‘donation’ of my inheritance—which, in case I haven’t made it clear already, had never been my idea in the first place. The condition I made with Andrew, communicated through Michelle and Steve Brett was that it remained anonymous (Andrew, the board of directors and the few responsible for securing the property were the only ones to know). I did not want my peers treating me differently. Andrew personally apologized for having told two editors of his magazine by the time he learned this and promised no one else would know.

After I consented I was welcomed back with an overwhelming sense of acceptance. And now Andrew himself and a few others carefully coached me in my dealings with my uncle. As the Foxhollow purchase documents were to be signed within weeks, the daily pressure to get the funds released was immense. They were pushing so hard for the liquidation of the trust that my uncle and sister became suspicious and there appeared at one point to be a ‘risk’ that he might change his mind. Once the trust’s assets were released to me, under continuing pressure, I was subsequently forced to sell the underlying assets at a considerable loss, incurring a huge tax liability that fell on my shoulders. Once the Foxhollow purchase had been finalized, Andrew then decided that it would be best for me to move to the London community! Why? So as not to raise suspicion among my family members that the timing of the community’s relocation to a new $3 million property in Massachusetts was in any way connected with the release of my inheritance.

Despite an overwhelming sense of approval from Andrew and all the thrill that comes with proximity to him, I felt utterly traumatized. I left the community the day after the purchase was complete, until I was manipulated into returning for what turned out to be another two years of community life. A great deal more transpired subsequently in my life with Andrew, much of it no less outrageous, which I intend to document in some other forum. During this time, Andrew continued his careful orchestration of appearances, doing everything he could to prevent my family from discovering his despicable conduct and taking legal action. Details of these efforts will also be fully documented elsewhere. But more to the point of this discussion is the fact that during the remainder of my time in the community I was to witness countless additional demands for money, no longer from me personally (my well having pretty much dried up, providing only what I needed to pay my Foxhollow room and board, student dues and the like) but from groups of students collectively after each alleged ‘screw-up’ that Andrew accused them of.

Andrew’s words, ‘put your money where your mouth is,’ accurately characterize the venal pattern of manipulation that permeates the culture of his community. Whether to prove one’s love and devotion, or to make up for some individual or collective infraction of the code of guru worship, the injunction is always to ‘pay up’—pay whatever you can, as much and as often as you can—and it has taken me years to see through this. If you are currently in Andrew’s community, then I entreat you to watch out, because it really can take years for the fog to clear.

And in the meantime Andrew has his arsenal waiting. Whether it is a gag order or multiple copies of devotional letters stored in several places as ‘proof’ of consent, Andrew has covered his bases. Further, he will ensure that his legal counsel (one of whom advocated on behalf of Japanese cult criminal Aum Shinrikyo) also have such letters on file to ‘prove’ in the event of litigation that your donations were given rather than extorted. Because of the devotion expressed in my ambivalent parting letter, written before I fled Foxhollow for the last time, Andrew is known to have had it photocopied and secured at several secret locations as insurance against a lawsuit.

On the issue of Andrew's promise of confidentiality, as I and others on this blog have described, Andrew spoke publicly of my contribution two days after I left the community for the second and final time. This betrayal of confidentiality burned. But not nearly as painfully as learning from an ex-formal student who told me he had known about the donation within a year of the Foxhollow purchase when Andrew told a large group of men in the sauna at Foxhollow. It was his understanding that all the men had known. Andrew claims in his "Declaration of Integrity" that he has never lied to his students. Really? I consider this a lie; a violation of a clear, perhaps legal, agreement; and generally something a "mensch" would NEVER do. He lied to me and he had a dozen or more men lie to me for many many months.

When I consider how behavior of this sort appears to the average person, I now have surprisingly little trouble arriving at the conclusion that Andrew is simply clueless as to what this all looks like in the real world, and how staggering, according to any standard other than his own, his compromises of integrity actually are. And I am quite certain that sheer momentum will keep him successfully peddling his teaching to individuals who don’t bother to concern themselves with these issues. A lot of folks can ignore the blatant character flaws of a messenger and listen only to his message, but I for one can not do so.

A Revolution in Finance

By former student

[Editors' Introduction: The following piece is by a former Andrew Cohen student and editor of What Is Enlightenment? magazine. This is the former student's third contribution to the What Enlightenment??! blog. His previous articles are "A Response to Andrew Cohen's 'Declaration of Integrity'", part 1 and part 2.]

I was very moved by Jane O’Neil’s post, and would like to follow up with some additional remarks of my own.

The greatest mystery, for those of us who have embraced an ‘absolute view’ in the context of a relationship with a charismatic teacher, is confronted when we realize a) that its powerful appeal to our idealism is at least partly illusory, and b) that the teacher’s own adherence to such a view is a manifestation not of goodness but of pathology.

After an investment of years in a spiritual subculture based on an absolutized understanding of human motivation and behavior, these are shocking recognitions that require time to accept, absorb and appreciate. Only with time and distance does it eventually become clear to us what we have gained and lost through submission to a teacher who falsely professes perfect purity, and what the defining dynamics of our relationship with him actually were. But once these questions have been wrestled with, it becomes apparent that a human being who is less than perfect—who has faults and shortcomings—can still be a force for good in the world and make useful contributions to others. At first, it hardly seems possible to us that this could be the case—that the collective evolution of humanity does not depend on the attrition and eventual destruction of one’s ego—but it turns out that in fact it doesn’t, and that the acceptance of our complex wholeness doesn’t remotely resemble the ‘compromise with evil’ that Andrew’s ‘absolute view’ represents it to be.

Despite all this, the opportunity to strive in an environment that calls for ‘ego-death’ may still prove in retrospect to have been incredibly instructive and useful for our development—but only to the extent that it has not been irremediably damaging; and even so it may appear to have entailed an investment of time far greater than the benefits of such an experience will ever justify. This is the ‘burn’ of re-evaluation, and if in addition to our time and energy we have also been prevailed upon to ‘contribute’ large sums of money, the process is potentially even more infuriating.

The principal factor in my own decision to undertake a real reckoning with the facts and implications of my involvement with Andrew was the ever-expanding reservoir of evidence (in my own often repressed experience) that his conduct and underlying motivations are in reality far different from his own understanding of them, and that his capacity to comprehend their probable origins and tangible effects is, shall we say, less than adequate. To the extent that Andrew requires an illusory perfection of himself in order to deserve the adulation and respect he seems to crave, he most certainly has my sympathy, and I do mean that sincerely. But to the extent that he is driven to secure the collusion of others in the maintenance of this self-image through physical, emotional and financial abuses that overtly contradict it, I do not see him as entitled to my support or cooperation. Similarly, while Andrew’s deep-rooted discomfort with the status quo also elicits my genuine sympathy, I am viscerally disturbed by the spectacle of someone so busy ‘creating the future’ that he doesn’t care whose pockets he has to pick, in the present, to finance his bringing of ‘heaven to earth.’

This is not to say that I have no appreciation for the historical significance of figures like Andrew and the opportunity they represent for groups of people to gather together, perhaps at critical evolutionary junctures, for the completion of important individual and collective tasks. However (as Andrew himself points out in his ‘declaration’), the occurrence of this social phenomenon is by no means a guarantee of the ultimate integrity of the individuals involved, and with respect to corruption there have been as many permutations of the leader/follower equation as there have been leaders and followers. To go even a step further and acknowledge that Andrew and his teaching have attracted many good people, and that their engagement with his system—such as it is—has ‘produced’ many inspiring results, still leaves us with no ultimate certainty as to the wholesomeness and authenticity of his own personality and motivations. At the very least, we have to admit that there now exists a substantial body of evidence that calls these into question.

Like the initial emergence of such groups and leaders, their trajectory over time is also a social (and eventually a public) phenomenon, and to the participants who experience this trajectory in real time—inspired current students and disaffected ex-students alike—it’s something like watching a slow-motion ping-pong match. Even inwardly, emotions and reassessments volley pendulously back and forth, perhaps with somewhat greater intensity now that a public ‘dialogue,’ however dysfunctional, has begun to materialize.

In this public context, at the same time as there is ostensibly nothing to prevent individuals from drawing their own conclusions as they see fit, it would be foolish to suggest that the views of current students, prospective students and the interested public at large will escape the influence of the media through which this dialogue is taking place—principally this blog and Andrew’s blog, but also, and only somewhat less directly, andrewcohen.org, zaads.com, What Is Enlightenment? magazine, EnlightenNext’s new ‘Evolutionary Enlightenment’ courses, and Andrew’s retreats, interviews, public dialogues and speaking engagements. Andrew has never made a secret of his desire (or responsibility) to create a ‘revolution in culture,’ nor has he ever abjured an opportunity to promote himself (including sharing the stage with public figures that he freely disparages in private). Thus it is only natural that the resolution, or lack thereof, of issues publicly aired will also be publicly witnessed and processed. Undoubtedly, for example, expedient abuses of Spiral Dynamics for the purpose of relegating critics to First Tier and elevating navy seals to Second Tier will continue and perhaps even evolve—though for my part I would echo Jane’s hope that Bill O’Reilly will not be roused from his restless meme to jump on anyone’s bandwagon.

The vicissitudes of public opinion aside, an area that now cries out for genuinely responsible handling on the part of Andrew and his organization is that of questionably solicited donations. It is difficult to imagine that anyone making public ‘declarations of integrity’ would want to have these tainted funds in his organization’s bank account if he could possibly afford to return them. This is after all not only a practical but a moral issue whose relevance is enhanced by the imminent prospect of EnlightenNext offering ‘Evolutionary Enlightenment’ courses to the employees of major banking and financial firms. As if this were not incongruous enough, the creator of these new courses, who has publicly stressed the importance of manifesting a level of personal integrity far exceeding conventional standards—and who as Andrew’s longstanding personal assistant has presumably cultivated such himself—was on at least one occasion given the responsibility of ensuring that the details of student donations solicited under pressure remained a secret not only to the public at large but to the vast majority of Andrew’s international ‘student body.’

In a truly ethical organization, these financial issues could and would be addressed not through legal channels but directly with the parties concerned. As practical matters, they transcend differences of perspective or opinion, and protocol as well as basic gratitude and common sense suggest that donors should be taken at their word with respect to the circumstances surrounding their donations. If dealing forthrightly with such ‘disputes’ represents a threat to the solvency of EnlightenNext, there is nothing in these donors’ histories to suggest that they lack the patience and generosity necessary to negotiate a mature and mutually acceptable compromise. One would also hope that any forthcoming refunds, should they materialize, would not have legalistic, truth-defying ‘gag orders’ attached to them as they have previously.

It hardly seems necessary to point out that when such matters are left to fester, a reasonably perceptive Spiritual Teacher needn’t look very far for explanations of bitterness and ill will among his former devotees.

A final and extremely pertinent question, given the secretive and coordinated nature of the pressure exerted on Andrew’s highly vulnerable donors, is whether the ‘integrity’ of the vaunted navy seals who colluded with him in his dubious fundraising practices really does dwarf that of the miserable green losers who have left his orbit. Interestingly, everything we know—and we know a lot because we used to be them—suggests that the answer to this question is a resounding no. On the other hand, all of these students (momentarily misguided though they may have been) were simply doing their utmost to live up to a personal standard best served, in their humble estimation, by total submission to their guru.

Should this be regarded as an invitation to cynicism? Hardly, because what it actually indicates is that the line dividing ex-students from current students is an illusory one that serves no purpose other than to inhibit the very ‘coming together’ that Andrew professes to stand for. And the two-million-dollar question is: Why? Is Andrew so insecure with respect to the efficacy of his own teaching that he believes its effects evaporate into thin air the moment someone has the courage to leave his company? If so, this is a pity for him that may well speak to his own isolation and loneliness, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is an inspiring and indissoluble solidarity between ALL of us who have sought to nourish our idealism at his feet. And the fact that in the end we know our own and each other’s hearts far better than he seems to be capable of is truly a mysterious and fascinating thing to ponder.

I mean—isn’t it?

And wouldn’t it be great if somebody at Foxhollow did some meditating on this and then mustered the courage to tell Sri Andrew-ji to get with the program?

Andrew Cohen and the Corruption of Power

By Jane O'Neil

[Editor's Introduction: The author of this piece, Jane O'Neil, is a former close student of Andrew Cohen. It was her devotion to him and her contribution of $2 Million that made possible the purchase of Foxhollow, Cohen's residence and the headquarters of EnlightenNext in Lenox, Massachusetts. After she left the group, Andrew Cohen betrayed his promise to her to keep her contribution confidential by publicly discussing it while severely disparaging her for leaving him. This part of her story is briefly recounted in Dr. Andre van der Braak's book Enlightenment Blues (page 210-211):

"In December 1998, Andrew is in Amsterdam again for his semi-annual visit….During his talk Andrew gives an example of the viciousness of the ego by talking about another student of his that left him a few days before, a rich American woman. He calls her a narcissist and speaks about how she once gave him two million dollars for his Foxhollow center, but was unwilling to give up her ego. I am shocked and upset by his derisive and aggressive tone of voice. He's throwing a tantrum in public at a student who gave him two million dollars! I find the whole thing unbecoming, to say the least. As a matter of fact I know the woman in question, and a few days later I manage to speak with her on the phone. She is devastated and outraged by Andrew's public treatment of her, not only because of the humiliation, but in particular because she had believed and trusted that Andrew would keep the two million dollar donation confidential. Listening to her story, a chilling picture emerges. Andrew had actually solicited the two million dollars from her, which amounted to over 80% of her total assets. She had been deeply upset and confused about what to do because she felt she could no longer continue to be his student if she said no. She loved the community, Andrew, and the spiritual path. Two of Andrew's students had talked to her repeatedly over several weeks. Finally she had given in and promised to donate the money. She believed it would be serving the world, since the estate of Foxhollow would allow others to have access to Andrew's teachings. Complicating matters, the money was not immediately available from a family trust. Andrew exerted pressure on her to rush the donation as he had already proceeded with the purchase of the property. The rushed transaction resulted in a loss of a great deal of money and she seriously risked losing her family relationships. In retrospect she described his request as a corruption of power. It's a story that makes me nauseous."

This is Jane's first contribution to the What Enlightenment??! blog.]

A flood of responses to this blog, its articles and to its subject lie inside waiting to explode out of me.

It is important to have a venue for individuals like us to express our perspectives on Andrew. It seems this blog has provided a valuable forum for that. However, what has made me reluctant to jump in and join the dialog has been the various personal attacks on the people who chose a life with Andrew. We are all complex individuals with very mixed experiences. It is discouraging to read over-simplified gross generalizations and assumptions about both students of Andrew's and former students. It is also a bit unnerving to hear about the angle of “taking Andrew down” via Bill O’Reilly and Fox News. Why, because it is not a simple matter to understand and dissect the complexity of a situation like this. I think those looking at students or ex-students from the outside need to have a bit more openness and compassion for their experiences. And I am pretty sure the sensational media outlets are not the answer. Looking from the outside, in, the world will have a difficult time understanding or appreciating the context that we lived in.

I left Andrew's community over seven years ago. I was a student for only five years. Though I have been gone longer than I participated, I don't think I have really even begun to unravel the complex motivations that led me to him and kept me there for five years. Nor have I unraveled what the truth is about what I discovered and experienced there. I do know that my experience can shed further light on Andrew's corruption of power.

I am moved by the courage of those who have written of their experiences in his community. I think it is important for each individual to discover their own path to bear the light of truth on the situation.

Andrew is the most masterful individual I have ever known-a master of discerning the hidden and not so hidden weaknesses and character flaws of all those that come to him, and he exploits them, knowingly or not, always and ultimately to his own advantage--serving to feed his endless hunger to perceive himself as a great master.

Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

I look back on my 5 years in his community with mostly shame and regret. I recall the amazing people, some of the most talented and intelligent people I have ever known. Many of whom I miss deeply. It has become very hard for me to maintain any contact with those who are lucky enough to have left. I have wanted to move on with my life, put the past behind me. But the fact is, I really hope that there is some way I can have an impact. I would love to prevent someone from following the path I took. Though, at the time I joined Andrew's community, there was virtually nothing anyone could have said to me that could have moved me away from the momentum I was on. But perhaps as some of you have done, I may be able to reach someone who is not as easily blown away and sold a fantasy of Andrew’s enlightened teaching.

I remember when Andrew asked me to read Luna’s book [The Mother of God, by Luna Tarlo,] Andrew Cohen's mother, not long after she wrote it and tell him what I genuinely thought. At the time, I was so blinded by his perspective, I am sure I wasn’t particularly objective. But what stayed with me was a moment of clarity I had. He was wondering how she was able to get the media attention with her book at the time. The Boston Globe, LA Times and quite a few London tabloids were writing about him. I sat with him and remember telling him that even Jeffrey Dahmer’s mom stood by him, telling the world she supported him. It was newsworthy that a woman was calling her son a monster, and particularly newsworthy that he is theoretically a spiritual leader.

I used to feel ashamed that I fled before any really heavy pressure was put to bear on me. I fled in the darkness of night (a hard thing to do, given I was scheduled to begin my one-thousand daily prostrations to Andrew’s picture followed by 3 hours of meditation with a whole crew of others—mostly women). It was the departure of another Formal Student that influenced me to flee that way. I did not want to go through the humiliation, interrogation and virtual house arrest the other woman had experienced. Not two days after leaving, Andrew attacked me (my name/intentions and motivations) publicly in a 20 minute unleashing of accusations in an Amsterdam teaching calling me the essence of ego, the essence of evil.

What is evil is the misogyny and inhumanity that underlies Andrew’s world view.

Wendyl’s memory of that Rishikesh retreat is so much fuller than my own. But memories of the endless, obsessive, manic attempts by the group of women to reclaim some approval from Andrew came flooding back to me. And a memory of the special treatment I remember receiving despite the fact that I had committed the same “crime” of apologizing. You see, any woman that said “I’m sorry” to anyone for any reason was kicked out of the retreat to join the other women in the private hell Wendyl described. The women were desperate, doing anything that they could to get out from under the boulder of accusations of being subhuman, and “I’m sorry” is the refrain of individuals who either are wholeheartedly sorry for their behavior, trying to end a personal conflict or, as in our case at the time, in that context, and under those circumstances, profoundly sorry for our own existence.

But I was treated differently, I believe because I had given Andrew well over 2 million dollars by then-nearly all of my money.

I regret the time I spent with him, ashamed at some of the outrageous competitive behavior I engaged in, vying for proximity to Andrew. But what I regret more than anything is allowing Michelle Hemingway and Steve Brett, among others, to coerce me into giving Andrew my money. It is that act that helped give him a power base and some semblance of legitimacy. It was at the time about two-thirds of the purchase price of Foxhollow.

It is all about understanding the context as someone put it. In the context of the world outside Andrew's community or cult, what he did was illegal, something called "undue influence." It is akin to a therapist seeking sexual company from a client or a priest who manipulates a parishioner into donating to the church. I imagine if it wasn’t me, there would be others like me who would have and I am sure continue to give away their money and soul to him as I did. If someone still within the community reads this and considers giving away their wealth, please reconsider. It was the greatest mistake of my life. The genuine human tragedies that have happened in our world since then, 9/11, the human rights abuses throughout the middle east by us and others, the AIDS crisis in Africa and the world, the illiteracy in the world, the Tsunami, the flood in the South, the earthquakes…each would have been an opportunity to give my money to and actually served a greater good.

I have spent the last seven and a half years creating a life for myself. I have sought peace and truth in my life as a mom, wife, friend and ordinary person in the world. Since leaving, I considered legal action, I considered drawing the media's attention, and I considered simply writing my story. But what is the ultimate goal? Personally, I am interested primarily in gaining a full perspective on what my experience was, if possible. And I am interested in seeing if my experience could help prevent someone from walking down the same path I did, with the same consequences or perhaps destructive consequences. Even if it is simply helping a family member who has someone they love in Andrew's or any other guru's community to gain understanding and, most critically, compassion for the individuals who choose that spiritual path. But I believe it is deluded to think one can "take someone down." I also believe NO ONE could have stopped me from diving into Andrew's world at the time I did. I only wish I had had the maturity and insight to find a less destructive forum to nurture my spiritual aspirations.

I don’t know if I will write again, but thank you for the opportunity to vent.

Not as an afterthought, but I am not sure how to even begin to express my sadness at the news of the death of Caroline Franklyn. I feared there would be a tragic outcome from Andrew's behavior.

Jane

oneil.jane@gmail.com