10. Some of your books refer in a critical manner to the “new age,” and so does your CI website. Can you define this “new age” any further?
The so-called new age is a hybrid phenomenon that commenced during the late 1960s in the wake of the hippy boom in America. However, there were earlier references to a “new age” that were assimilated by this conglomerate trend, e.g., Alice Bailey’s Arcane School jargon. The younger generation at that time (late 1960s) became interested in occultism and Eastern religions, but much of this was a passing fad with convincing research being noticeably absent. Bits and pieces like Jung and ecology were added to the mix, which became increasingly commercial and promoted by various “alternative” bodies, notably the Esalen Institute of California.
Many entrepreneurs moved in for the pickings, including the notorious Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (1931-1990), whose ashram at Poona attracted many young Westerners. These people found varying degrees of euphoria and disillusionment in the “therapy” and “liberation” fare provided. Even permissive Esalen concluded (too late) that the Rajneesh scenario was out of control, a matter confirmed by subsequent events in Oregon where terrorist activities emerged within the Rajneesh sect during the 1980s (see article 24 on this site).
Rajneesh could never have gained support without the ballast afforded by uncritical beliefs of Western neo-hippies in alternative therapy, hedonism, and popularised Eastern religion. Rajneesh claimed to be an expert on various Eastern mystical traditions, interposed lewd jokes in his discourses, resorted to cued laughter for effect, and relied upon the sensual tendencies of his audience to keep them in thrall. The Indian intelligentsia were easily able to point out his deviations, but the Esalen bandwagon was so easily deceived. The aberration became known as Rajneesh NeoTantra, as distinct from traditional forms of Hinduism.
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Eileen Caddy
A major haven for Esalen style commercial “workshops,” Grof lore, Rajneesh NeoTantra, and dubious “neoshamanism” was the Findhorn Foundation, situated in Moray, Scotland. The figurehead of this organisation was Eileen Caddy (1917-2006), who gained the reputation of turning a blind eye to internal discrepancies. See the account at Myth and Reality and Letter to BBC Radio. The Findhorn Foundation bookshop and annual programme attested many doubtful trends which were sold to visitors in one form or another. The new age “anything goes” is far less sophisticated than converts are led to think. It is not a symptom of wisdom to promote serious commercial drawbacks along with a subject like ecology, which started life in the Findhorn Foundation as a basically speculative factor during the 1980s.
Ecology became a tool for expansion in the 1990s at the Findhorn Foundation, which gained NGO status even while covering up economic mismanagement. An erring management team was obliged to resign at this period. The Foundation management teams of the 1990s became increasingly commercial in operation, demonstrating capitalist principles that were no different to those existing in the old age. Economic consultants like Alex Walker favoured the privatisation of communal assets, and a massive debt was concealed for years until 2001. The interminable “workshops” continued as a basic source of revenue, charging exorbitant amounts for misleading activities. The absence of due critical acumen in the new age is lamentable.
At the Findhorn Foundation, there was much talk of sustainability. That appropriation from ecology was here used as a commercial “workshop” motto in the face of severe debt. The medium for UN approval is said to have been the Holistic University of Brazil (founded by Pierre Weil); the syllabus of this project was rather different to that of other Universities throughout the globe. In 2006, the UN branch known as UNITAR endorsed the Findhorn Foundation project in sustainability, which now became known as CIFAL Findhorn. That is only one facet of the Findhorn Foundation. Everything else continued just as before. Thus ecology existed alongside alternative therapy, neoshamanism, the Game of Transformation, or whatever else was being sold to consumers. There were critics of this phenomenon, but they were obscured by the myopia of a UN bureaucracy, who ignored relevant communications sent to them. See further CIFAL Findhorn: A Critical Statement.
The Findhorn Foundation were dubbed the “mafia cult” by a daring Scottish newspaper in 1995. Yet that organisation soon after became endorsed by the UN and was granted NGO status in 1997. In this disputed process, they concealed economic problems and eliminated any record of dissidents. The glorification of commercial mysticism, and evasionism on the part of United Nations bureaucracy, were ongoing features of a disturbing phenomenon. The deference to ecology on the part of the Findhorn Foundation is no excuse for the ethical shortfalls that are visible. UNESCO and UNITAR are centred on the Continent, in Paris and Geneva. Events in Scotland were not duly monitored by those organisations, whose office schedule is not beyond scope for improvements.
A very uncritical but influential patron of the Findhorn Foundation was Pierre Weil (1924-2008), an advocate of peace. He was also an enthusiast of “holistic” topics, and did not prove resistant to Grof lore (see article 12 on this site). Dr. Weil was sanctioned by UNESCO. Yet the curriculum of his International Holistic University in Brazil has been regarded as very inadequate by critics. Weil tended to a romantic view of human nature, and was content with surface assessments of the “new age” alternatives. He believed that, e.g., Eileen Caddy’s “divine voice” lore (God Spoke to me) and Grof commercial transpersonalism, were suitable partners for ecology.
Pierre Weil authored a book entitled The Art of Living in Peace (2002) that was published by UNESCO. He gave “workshops” on this theme at the Findhorn Foundation during the 1990s. Although not directly his fault, UNESCO-associated “peace talk” was one of the fronts used by this organisation in their suppression of dissident views. A graphic instance of “peace workshop” discrepancy and lip service is reported in Stephen Castro, Hypocrisy and Dissent within the Findhorn Foundation (1996), p. 110. See also Facade of Conflict Resolution and Peace.
l to r: Pierre Weil, Eileen Caddy, Kate Thomas
In the year 2000, Pierre Weil received an honourable mention from the UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura in relation to the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education. This information was relayed on a UNESCO Media Advisory. A discrepant fact in this peace talk scenario was the failure of the same Director General to reply to a relevant and rather pressing letter, from a British woman (Kate Thomas) who was continually suppressed and victimised by the Findhorn Foundation management. See the data at Letter of Kate Thomas to UNESCO. The influential UN bureaucracy proved unreliable for the art of living in peace.
The inability of UNESCO to answer relevant letters is significant. The shortcoming tends to highlight the ambiguity of such UNESCO Publishing/UNIPAIX promotional statements as that appearing for the peace book by Weil abovementioned:
“Providing the foundations for a peaceful society requires more than directives; it needs an in-depth understanding of values, respect for others, and a thorough awareness of the importance of sustainable development and protection of the environment.”
The talk about values has degenerated into cliché. Respect for others is not practised by some alternative organisations, and the sustainability theme is currently a facesaver for attendant abuses, a matter clearly in evidence at the Findhorn Foundation. It is not a peaceful society that has been demonstrated by this organisation, but a mode of commercial manipulation of an affluent clientele, an exercise afflicting dissidents with stigma. See further The Findhorn Foundation: Problems (2009) and Kate Thomas and the Findhorn Foundation (2009). See also my Letter to Robert Walter MP (2008); an update is Findhorn Foundation Discrepancies (2013).
The affluent clientele who fuel new age “workshops” have believed many of the clichés that deter onlookers. “Creating your own reality” is one of the rather subjective accents found in this sector. “Be here now” is another favourite, denoting present-centredness, though fitting discrepantly into the strongly premeditated time schedule of so many commercial programmes. The very saleable Now costs money, and results in prodigious confusion about what is being marketed. Richard Alpert started that particular gimmick, and he went to India with a supply of LSD to commence his disconcerting neo-hippy career under the name of Ram Dass. A hippy icon and yoga practitioner, he later declared himself to be a phoney holy.
On a more general level, many problems have arisen in relation to the activity of cults and suspect organisations existing from America to Japan (see articles 23 and 24 on this site). There is sufficient concrete data to justify pronounced fears about public wellbeing. Certain countries on the Continent have taken precautions in such respects, although Britain lags far behind.
Some new age trends were dignified by the phrase Human Potential Movement (HPM), an American innovation of the 1960s strongly associated with Esalen (Shepherd, Minds and Sociocultures Vol. One, 1995, pp. 61ff.). The HPM was strongly related to humanistic psychology, and thus evocative of Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) and the acutely generalised peak experiences. One danger was Aldous Huxley, who lectured at Esalen in the early 1960s, and who became a symbol of mescaline and LSD (see article 14 on this site). The HPM was criticised for indulging in “psychobabble” and narcissism. This conglomerate trend was sustained during the 1970s, and one component created a belief in “self-realisation,” a theme which again lacked some of the more demanding ingredients found in the fantasised Eastern religions. The tenure of Stanislav Grof at Esalen is often associated with the HPM conglomerate; enthusiasts tend to describe Grof as a unique transpersonal sequel to the HPM. The status of “transpersonal psychology” is in dispute (see article 12).
More recently, there emerged the trend to “self-help,” promising “empowerment” and happiness, but which has been strongly contradicted. Such trends or fashions so often originate in America, where dotty affluence so often seems quite incapable of any commonsense analysis. The “self-help and actualisation movement” was estimated to be worth some ten billion dollars in America alone. The exponents talked about “transformation” and “personal growth,” while charging thousands of dollars for their seminars and “workshops.”
Transformation is a very commercial word in the new age, now often called “new spirituality” by partisans. The entrepreneurs invariably react to the competition afforded by Christian tele-evangelists, though to critical spectators, both of these camps look like theatrical demonstrations of rhetoric.