Citizen Initiative

www.citizeninitiative.com

---

Foreword

SMN is the abbreviation for the Scientific and Medical Network, which is a British “alternative” organisation. This report by Kate Thomas reveals that the official title for activities is misleading, in that popular trends and concepts associated with the “new age” media are salient influences upon the SMN. The criteria employed in this organisation are not scientific or medical, but instead basically “nonjudgmental” according to the relativist attitude popular in alternative therapy. The SMN holds conferences associated with academic speakers, and publishes a journal exhibiting rather diverse contents which do not always appeal to scientists or medics. The membership substantially consists of alternative therapists and related categories, whose entries in the SMN members’ directory can raise the eyebrows of scientific analysts. Kate Thomas (b. 1928) was one of the non-academic members of the SMN, though unusually principled in her outlook, and being a critic of alternative therapy. Two of the entities she frequently mentions in her account are David Lorimer and Dr. Peter Fenwick. The former has been Programme Director of the SMN and Chair of the Wrekin Trust (a related alternative organisation likewise claiming an affinity with spirituality). Dr. Fenwick has been a President of the SMN, but has habitually deferred to Lorimer, whom Thomas found to be an uncontested primary influence.

In chapter 1, Thomas describes problematic attitudes which she encountered at the Findhorn Foundation, a situation which relates to subsequent developments within the SMN, who are closely associated with the former organisation. The problematic attitudes need to be underlined in red as an indication of the deficiencies in Findhorn Foundation administration. Chapter 2 describes typical new age concepts that were found in a regional branch of the SMN, concepts which admit of serious problems, especially when dubbed as scientific and medical. Chapter 3 has been included for the purpose of profiling anomalies in the SMN projection of kundalini, a deceptive subject associated with antique Indian religious texts which exhibit much symbolism. This subject has become a popular (and exploitive) new age doctrine in America and Europe, existing in variants which exhibit pronounced deficiencies and absurdities. Chapter 3 attests that the accredited SMN exponent of kundalini was at a disadvantage with regard to a critical version of this subject which had recently been published, and also with further critical views that were expressed in the correspondence reproduced. The confrontation extends into chapter 4, which describes events at the SMN Annual General Meeting in 2001. These events attest the “workshop” affinities of the SMN, which are not scientific or medical and which instead largely derive from the commercial programme of the Esalen Institute in California (the major “new age” inspiration). The issue of funding is also probed, one which arouses strong questions as to the validity of funding on the part of the John Templeton Foundation for a presumably “scientific and medical” project. Chapter 5 describes continuing drawbacks demonstrated by the Findhorn Foundation, drawbacks which were effectively sanctioned by the SMN in what amounts to a memorable neglect of ethical considerations. Chapter 6 narrates the author’s contact with SMN academics, amongst other matters detailing the lack of due attention given to such a controversial issue as the promotion of LSD therapy in the SMN journal Network. Thomas was the only member of the SMN to oppose this promotion in print (with the sole exception of a Jungian complaint lacking the same accents). This issue was one of the reasons for the author’s resignation in 2004, an event described in chapter 7. Aftermath occurrences are mentioned in chapter 8, including the very questionable haven given to Grof LSD therapy on the SMN website, a development occurring at the expense of the contributions by Thomas which had appeared in the SMN journal (see also Neglected Papers Against Grof Therapy, on this website). The account ends with an extension relating to the Wrekin Trust University for Spirit Forum (or Forum for Spiritual Education), a recent project strongly associated with David Lorimer. That project is here further contradicted by Kevin Shepherd in a letter (dated March 2007) addressing institutional errors and deficiencies. This epistle serves to underline certain emphases in Shepherd’s earlier Letter of Complaint to David Lorimer (reproduced on this website).

 

1. Introduction: Harsh Reality at the Findhorn Foundation

I became an associate member of the Scientific and Medical Network (SMN) in 1992, but did not directly participate in their activities until the year 2000, when I moved from Scotland to Dorset, and at which time I became a full member. A related organisation was the Wrekin Trust, associated with Sir George Trevelyan (d. 1996), with whom I had been in correspondence at the end of his life. I had met him briefly at an earlier date, and during the early 1980s had attended several of the “Mystics and Scientists” conferences that were Wrekin events, and where I had encountered the physicist David Bohm and others.

I was also in correspondence with Sir Alister Hardy (d. 1985), the scientist who founded the Alister Hardy Trust (or Society), which is an organisation noted for the study of religion and research into religious experiences. I was later a member of that organisation for a number of years. During the 1980s I was also affiliated to the Institute for Cultural Research, associated with Idries Shah (d. 1996). I subsequently joined the Findhorn Foundation in Scotland, but quickly found myself in conflict there with the Holotropic Breathwork of Dr. Stanislav Grof, which had been imported from Esalen and was sponsored by the Foundation director Craig Gibsone. That conflict of values, commencing in 1989, resulted in my expulsion from the Foundation without any due democratic hearing. I have included a critical report of the Foundation at the end of my autobiography (The Destiny Challenge, 1992), which the Foundation suppressed and vilified. I was informed by a solicitor that I had a case against the Foundation rather than the other way round. Yet I chose not to use the legal expedient, being instead prepared to conciliate if due consideration was shown. The continuing lack of that consideration was documented in two further books (S. Castro, Hypocrisy and Dissent within the Findhorn Foundation, Forres, 1996; K. R. D. Shepherd, Pointed Observations, Dorchester, 2005, part five).

I was greatly disappointed with Eileen Caddy (1917–2006), the co-founder and major figurehead of the Foundation. I met her many times, and found her to be very ineffective. She was not anything of a leader, and had in fact taken a background position that was merely used by the management as a convenient symbol of “spirituality.” She admitted to me that the management took no notice of her views, and that she had long ceased to complain. This compliance was appalling; she had turned her back upon ethical considerations. Visitors believed in her leadership, which did not in fact exist. She was simply a puppet figure for the whims of Craig Gibsone and other officials. Certain other defects in her attitude were visible. She was treacherous and sided with blatant injustices rather than risk confrontation with those in power. Some of her beliefs were extremely muddled, and these had been passed on to the membership with grievous consequences of confusion.

Amongst many other details, Stephen Castro’s book Hypocrisy and Dissent describes how Eileen Caddy told one of my friends that I did not deserve a hearing – and further, that events did not have to be democratic, as she knew that God watched over the Findhorn Foundation (Castro, p. 151). That conversation occurred in 1994. The same young man (Howard Whiteson) had also approached Lady Diana Whitmore, a Trustee of the Findhorn Foundation, whose reply by letter was similarly dismissive (Castro, pp. 151–2). Lady Whitmore was also contacted by my friend Jill Rathbone, and failed to reply. I had been told that she was a former staff member of the Esalen Institute, whose practices did not rise in my estimation as a consequence.

Early in 1994, I was expelled from Open Community membership of the Foundation without warning, and was consistently denied any hearing. This denial had already occurred at a former period when I was blocked from Associate membership. The political manipulation within this organisation was acute and oppressive. Yet it was key staff members, not the generality, who were to blame. The major obstructions were here Loren Stewart (an American) and Judy Buhler-McAllister (a Canadian). The mood of hostility was infectious. On my behalf, Stephen Castro sent a circular letter to the Findhorn Foundation Trustees, outlining what had happened and requesting that they should examine all the extensive correspondence relating to myself and Gemma Whibley, and accordingly pursue a democratic internal inquiry. The Trustees included Lady Diana Whitmore, Mary Inglis, Nick Rose, Francois Duquesne, Michael Shaw (a partisan of Holotropic Breathwork), and Sabrina Dearborn (the wife of the workshop entrepreneur William Bloom). Only Mary Inglis replied to that very relevant letter, and in a brief dismissive communication dated June 1994. She stated the unqualified support of the Trustees for the Foundation Director Judy Buhler-McAllister (Castro, pp. 230–2), whose extreme hostility towards me had received no due explanation. I telephoned Nick Rose, who was dismissive to the point of acute hostility. “He refused to let me tell him what had actually happened, asserting that the problem was my own subjectivity, and ignoring all the documentation and the rights and wrongs of the matter” (Castro, p. 231).

The Trustees had no conscience, and were the exact opposite of what they promoted themselves to be. They were similarly dismissive of Jill Rathbone’s petition to them, and each of them pointedly made no reply. This negative gesture was of grave significance in view of Jill’s court case in which the Moray Steiner School were strongly implied as collaborators with the Findhorn Foundation hostility. What happened here was that the Foundation influenced another organisation into rescinding an employment contract (of Jill Rathbone), and in so doing, got that organisation into legal and economic trouble (Castro, pp. 154ff.).

Buhler-McAllister effectively supported the defamation of myself created by Eric Franciscus, a domineering staff member who spoke against me without bothering to converse with me or check the facts. This man was in charge of “Education,” and was known to be a partisan of Sathya Sai Baba, whose ashram in India he had visited. The Findhorn Foundation was prone to strong influences from alternative therapy and various questionable cults and organisations. They were anything but a democratic community, as I found to my cost. They were capable of extreme evasion and duplicity in relation to myself and my friends.

In subsequent years, the only two people in the Findhorn Foundation who would respond to my case were Ken Hills and the late Jeremy Slocombe, the latter having the reputation of a homosexual. Jeremy was superficial in his sympathy, tending to regard his role as that of a political intermediary. Ken Hills was more ethical, though still inclined to be evasive of some details. Yet Ken did express concern at what the Foundation officials had been doing, and eventually agreed (in 1998) to pursue the matter of my application for Open Community membership.

However, this situation only came about because I was misled by another staff member about the situation then current. Judy Buhler-McAllister had lost her position as Director, and it was obvious that something had gone wrong. I was told that she now had no position except that of Game Focaliser, which did not rank high in the status stakes. Everyone now knew that mismanagement had occurred during her period of Directorship. The management team had been obliged to resign the year before in a mood of acute embarrassment, though frantic efforts were made to justify the train of events. UN patronage was a desired goal. Yet adverse publicity had arisen for the Findhorn Foundation because of the harsh manner in which Judy had dealt with myself and my supporters. The staff informant who spoke to me implied that Judy’s actions had rebounded upon her, and that she was now viewed as a problem because of her association with economic deficits.

I had tended to interpret the informant’s comments as being indicative of the new official angle on Judy, but this was deceptive because of the new management team who gained power. It was obvious that Judy had provoked adverse publicity, including the accusation of mafia tactics made in one newspaper (this in relation to the Jill Rathbone case, which was very serious). I was at first prepared to request a renewal of Open Community membership after speaking to the informant. Yet in October 1998, I learned that Judy had been elevated to the position of Special Advisor to the Trustees, who were still mainly the same people as in earlier years. I then knew that there would be no hope of reconciliation. Judy had consistently refused any contact with me or any attempt at reconciliation. Her sense of total and ruthless exclusionism converged with the earlier tactics of Eric Franciscus and Loren Stewart. I knew that I could get nowhere with her, and would instead reap ill-health owing to the stresses involved.

Accordingly I wrote to Ken Hills, in a letter dated October 14th 1998, telling him that I had been misinformed about events, and that in view of Judy’s continuing (and well known) hostility, I wished to withdraw my request for Open Community membership. In this letter I also mentioned the hostile attitude of Alex Walker, who had much influence within the Foundation, and who had effectively taken up the initial policy of Eric Franciscus and Loren Stewart. Significantly, Walker was a member of the new management team. He maintained his inflexible attitude in various ways, even writing to Jill Rathbone a very pointed letter (dated 27/12/98) which totally evaded any lifting of the official ban upon her attending Foundation programmes. That brief letter is reproduced here in full:

Dear Ms. Rathbone,

Thank you for your letter requesting that the Foundation lift the ban on your attending programmes. As, to my knowledge, we have never met, I thought it would be useful if I introduced myself in person. Imagine then my dismay to discover that a copy of Stephen Castro’s book was on sale in your shop window!

I can only assume that you have changed your mind and no longer wish to have an association with the Foundation.

Yours sincerely

Alex Walker

 

This is an example of the Findhorn Foundation hostility towards Stephen Castro’s well documented book. Walker was one of those who hated Stephen for telling the truth about many events which the Foundation consigned to oblivion. Jill Rathbone had opened a shop in Forres to earn her living after being denied her promised employment by the Moray Steiner School, who had been influenced adversely by Foundation officials like Walker and Buhler-McAllister. As her own case was documented in Stephen Castro’s book, Jill naturally stocked some copies of that work to inform the local townspeople in Forres as to what had really happened. This was a crime in the eyes of Foundation officials, who ignored all the details of the court case against the Moray Steiner School. They contrived a denial of the Castro book, or rather an evasion of the contents, which were taboo to mention. Another official, Roger Doudna, interrogated Jill on one occasion as though she was the guilty party in the “hot seat” of Foundation disapproval. The Foundation could never be guilty, according to his argument. At the time Jill was trying to conciliate, but concluded that the “mafia” tactics were beyond endurance. She later married a Scot who had no sympathy with Findhorn Foundation pseudomysticism and bullying tactics against females.

Eric Franciscus had been the person mostly responsible for the slander invented against me in the early 90s. Alex Walker had commenced his own personal campaign of vilification, apparently because he was mildly criticised in a fleeting reference made in my autobiography. Walker supported Holotropic Breathwork, and maintained that the Foundation was demonstrating the perennial philosophy. He was also one of those officials who favoured the glib theme of unconditional love, which is a total myth. He never bothered to ask me any questions, his judgment being final. He even denied in the local press that I had ever been a member of the Foundation, and I was obliged to contradict this in the correspondence column of the Forres Gazette, supplying the information that I had been an Associate Member for one full year in 1989–90, while visiting the Foundation almost daily from my home in Findhorn village. I also mentioned in that letter how Foundation staff had sent my unread book to a solicitor, some paragraphs in chapter 14 having been marked in red for his attention. This was the only chapter of my book The Destiny Challenge that they were concerned with, the reason being that it described my contact with their organisation. Their intention was to have my book suspended from circulation (Castro, pp. 15–16). Their solicitor was unable to comply with the extreme request, and a Guardian journalist came forward to investigate matters, passing a negative verdict on what he found at the Foundation. To prove the relevance of chapter 14, I was obliged to circulate this as an independent document to interested local persons, including medical doctors, who were very interested to find out the nature of events. Many locals were suspicious of the Foundation and their form of publicity.

Alex Walker had been one of those acting as a consultant to the Findhorn Foundation, advising on economic and related matters, and supporting the new commercial policy of Craig Gibsone, the practitioner of Holotropic Breathwork. Gibsone had been the Foundation Director until 1991, and wanted to establish improved salaries for the staff. The Breathwork of Stanislav Grof proved dangerous, as I and others were able to witness in the aftermath symptoms. Yet this matter was overlooked by celebrities like Franciscus and Walker, who abetted Gibsone’s promotion of the controversial Grof therapy. Grof was a welcome guest therapist at the Foundation in the early 90s, but was not interested in any complaints against his therapy (he did not reply to a letter I wrote to him on this point).

The improved salaries for staff occurred at the expense of the economic structure in this organisation. That structure started to collapse in 1995 and was in a chronic state by 1997. All criticisms were ruthlessly blocked by those in power, who feared any leak of information about drawbacks. There was no democracy. Craig Gibsone was by then a new age celebrity who divided his time between South America and Findhorn, where he continued to sponsor the underground cause of Holotropic Breathwork (officially suspended by the management because of the Scottish Charities Office recommendation in 1993). When the entire management team resigned in 1997, many things were covered up. Expensive new “eco-houses” were appearing, and these were much desired by the new executive staff gaining salaries that sapped the communal coffers. The desired objective of NGO status was achieved, despite the severe economic problem, which was concealed. Nothing was allowed to reflect adversely upon the favoured image of the perfect community with all the answers for the new age, including unconditional love and conflict resolution. People like myself and Jill Rathbone knew to what extent the desired image was false. The real code demonstrated was one of relentless evasion and unreasoning behaviour that did not stop at bullying. It is no wonder that the local Scottish population frequently resented the new age invasion which demonstrated a superiority complex and thrived upon misleading information.

When the management team resigned, during 1997–98 there was some confusion within the Foundation over what was happening. A few people in that organisation started to query the train of events. Yet this was quickly stopped by the assertiveness of the new management group (who included Alex Walker and Eric Franciscus). Both the old and new management groups continually ensured that I was not allowed any say, and my participation was limited to the role of a cleaner, notably in toilets.

Ken Hills was the only staff member who admitted faults in Foundation policy apart from the economic mismanagement. He was by far the most humane and reasonable of the Foundation personnel, though he failed abysmally when a crisis occurred in January 1999 in relation to Gemma Whibley, who had recently returned to the Foundation locale with a preparedness to conciliate despite the harsh treatment formerly administered to her. A so-called “complaints and reconciliation” meeting was probably the most abortive event I had ever witnessed at the Findhorn Foundation (see Shepherd, Pointed Observations, pp. 183ff.). To save his own internal profile, Ken Hills adopted a policy of submission to the dictates of Richard Mark-Coates, an aggressive official who effectively outlawed Gemma Whibley and who continued the slander of myself and my supporters. The Foundation version of “conflict resolution” has to be seen to be believed. Gemma now despised Ken Hills for his cowardly retreat from an ethical standpoint. Mark-Coates acted as though he hated her (for being in support of me, and for believing in the validity of the book by Stephen Castro). She left Scotland (her native country), more or less vowing never to get in close proximity again to the “mafia.” This was the second time she had suffered at the hands of overbearing new age officials, the first time having been due to the tyrannical attentions of Eric Franciscus, an episode reported in my autobiography (The Destiny Challenge, pp. 966ff.).

The duplicity which surrounded the “complaints and reconciliation” meeting was almost unbelievable. The Foundation officials afterwards insinuated that Gemma and myself had not been willing to reconciliate (which was an outright lie), and that the failure was therefore our fault. The bullying Mark-Coates was glorified as an agent of goodwill. Gemma was so afraid of intimidation that she would not attend this contrived meeting unless Stephen Castro was present as a buffer against hostility. His presence made little difference to Mark-Coates, who strongly affirmed that our “energies” were incompatible with his own and those of the Foundation. His irrational discourse, totally self-justifying and loaded with accusations, was clearly aimed at destroying any possible validity of Gemma’s request for reconciliation. The inverse nature of Findhorn Foundation public relations was stupefying. Their dishonesty in such matters was equalled by their attempt to cover up the huge debt incurred by the management. Not until 2001 was it openly divulged that they were in deficit by nearly a million pounds. Yet they were continually glorifying themselves as the model NGO in the process of creating planetary transformation. The distorting nature of their glib promotionalism has been observed by writers like John P. Greenaway, and from a different angle, by my son in Pointed Observations.

Many people in the Findhorn Foundation chose to conduct commercial “workshops,” gaining a niche where they were regarded as teachers or counsellors. This was a readily available means of income or pocket money, the charges often being noticeably high. What they taught was often misleading, but it was taboo to express objections. The pursuit of status and income was not conducive to any planetary transformation, which like conflict resolution, was mythical. During the period of her Directorship, Judy Buhler-McAllister was so unreasonable about both myself and Gemma Whibley that a local medical doctor requested to see her and went by car to her abode. Judy refused to see this senior medic, her sense of power and authority obliterating any ethical consideration. When she lost the position as Director, she afterwards became one of the Consultancy Service Core Team. This quartet were constantly advertised as working with a broad spectrum of clients, charging high prices for their services, especially to corporations. Many therapeutic clichés were in evidence here, including conflict resolution, which was monotonously overworked. One of the most hypocritical themes I found in their promotion was: “we need to create a culture in which feedback about how we are living and working can be freely, and skilfully, given and received.” (Foundation Courses and Workshops May–October 2004, p. 31.) Gemma, Jill, myself, and others were denied all feedback or resolution by the presumed elite of consultants, therapists, and directors of transformation.

In 1999 I left Forres to return to England after ten years, my son insisting that I should leave and escape the ill-health that was attributable to the Findhorn Foundation animosity. I had learnt that the new age was appallingly defective.

 

2. The SMN Dorset Group

Moving to Dorset, I busied myself with getting into print my book entitled The Kundalini Phenomenon (Forres 2000). That book soon gained the reputation of being unusually critical and forthright, and responses varied. I was in no mood to dilute basic issues after what I had witnessed at the Findhorn Foundation, where kundalini was one of the potted esoteric subjects so glibly referred to by diverse therapists and others. The term kundalini derives from Indian Yoga, but has become a “new age” convention, with serious consequences of misinterpretation. It is currently a commercial toy exploited by the “workshop” mentality.

In the year 2000, I became a full member of the Scientific and Medical Network (SMN) and decided to investigate the local Dorset branch, comprising small and irregular meetings. I was still under the impression that this organisation was scientific and medical in basic orientation. I found with a shock that this was not in fact the case. The confused viewpoints I encountered merely reflected new age beliefs in most cases, and some dangerous issues like Grof therapy had been glorified and regarded as legitimate. This was an alarming discovery. Even the official Directory of Members was disconcerting, listing the names of many alternative therapists. There were about 2,000 subscribing members of the SMN, and it was obvious that many of them were not scientists or medics. Workshops of new age association were a major preoccupation.

I attended the AGM, held in Dorset that year. I made some friends, but was wary of possible complications. One of these new contacts was Arthur Oram, who was at first very genial and welcoming. I could not immediately fathom some of his interests. He wanted to read my autobiography, which I gave to him accordingly. He complained that it was too long, indeed much too long for him to read. He afterwards told me that he had perused a few lines “every seventeen pages” in The Destiny Challenge. He had obviously not read this book, and could give no coherent account of the contents. Yet his reactions to The Kundalini Phenomenon were more pointed. He casually said that he had leafed through this and considered it “far too critical” of just about everything, and trance mediumship in particular. That remark gave away his spiritualist bias, which was far stronger than I had imagined. He had grasped that I was nothing of a spiritualist, and nor even a psychic, but something quite different.

In the same conversation, Arthur expressed a revealing question: were my books derived from “automatic” or “guided” writing? I then knew that his mind had been so flooded with spiritualist concepts (derived from his mediumistic friends) that he imposed those concepts upon other things he read. I duly told him that my books were straightforward accounts of personal experiences and encounters.

Arthur was a chartered accountant whose interests were listed in the SMN directory as including mediumship, possession, dowsing, UFOs, and extraterrestrials. He had asked me to go and live as his housekeeper in Surrey, but I had to disengage myself from any such prospect due to the difficulties in communication. I did not share his interests or his views. Perhaps the only interest I had in common was a belief in reincarnation, but I was increasingly finding this subject to be unhealthy in new age circles, as when identified with regression therapy, which amounts to a commercial fantasy.

There were worse things than Arthur’s spiritualism in the local Dorset group of the SMN. In the autumn of 2000, Stephen Castro accompanied me to some of the meetings (he had also moved from Scotland). He soon expressed his dissatisfaction, and eventually refused to attend. He thought that the participants were basically irrational, their beliefs representing the exact opposite of any scientific education. Sadly, I had to agree with him. That group was a reflection of the growing problem in alternative thought, a problem which the SMN was fanning by the curiously lax administrative approach that increasingly became evident to me.

I will attempt to describe some of the beliefs current in the SMN Dorset group. One person had mixed Neoplatonist philosophy with new age themes, and the result was very offputting. Another was in the habit of quoting with approval the views of suspect “crazy wisdom” exponents. Stan Grof was held in high regard by some of those involved, and the general impression given was that they had been brainwashed by the SMN to believe in the value of Grof therapy. They spoke in awe about “spiritual emergencies,” a Grof phrase which had achieved an undiscerning currency in the new age spreading from Esalen in California.

A favoured author was Caroline Myss, who was much in demand as a speaker at the Findhorn Foundation. She was an influential exponent of “energy medicine” and recommended chakra meditations to all readers of her books and all attendees at her popular workshops. This practice was supposed to create an ability to diagnose illness in the same manner as herself. Yet severe confusions about chakras and the diagnosis of illness were annually mounting, due to commercial influences like Caroline Myss. In my exasperation with the simplistic emphases encountered, I wrote a letter to the Dorset group dated 20th October 2000, extracts from which are reproduced here:

“Myss displays her ignorance, along with many other new age teachers, in describing the kundalini force as a sexual (or tantric) energy and reducing its cosmic attributes to a mere means of (commercial) therapy. In my view this is a dangerous error.… In a similar category is the wholly unsubstantiated statement made at our last meeting on the matter of spiritual enlightenment. I refer here specifically to the assertion made by one member, and strongly supported by others, that ‘enlightenment’ can exist alongside sexual immorality and other deviations and anomalies, and that this same state of enlightenment can be present whilst the human ego is still in the process of developing. This utter falsehood is taught by pseudo-teachers and so-called masters who misuse and abuse the trust placed in them by gullible devotees. This is not just a personal view. A large quantity of research material is available to validate these statements, some of which has been incorporated in my book The Kundalini Phenomenon. Members of the SMN Dorset group who proffer what is above-queried at meetings should, I feel, be required to substantiate their claims in the interests of science and the organisation we purportedly represent. That does not mean quoting the ‘crazy wisdom’ exponents of this world as unimpeachable sources, as there is abundant documented proof that they are not. Nor does it mean quoting from the works of experimenters like Stanislav Grof, who has created more ‘spiritual emergencies’ with his LSD therapy and Holotropic breathwork ‘research’ than his adherents would care (or dare) to admit, even to themselves. What is now necessary is to attempt to rectify, by legitimate (meaning non-harmful) research, the errors now flooding the West (as regards to chakra meditations and kundalini activation) before more seekers in their thousands, and on a scale previously known only in the East, are faced with psychosis, insanity, and subsequent disablement for life, by these misplaced and wholly false doctrines and their associated practises. The consequences, if not contained by reason and sane research, are likely to proliferate at an alarming rate in the coming decade.”

This letter was a response to the email of an assertive member of the malfunctioning SMN Dorset group, a man who had blithely expressed the assumption that psychosis and “spiritual madness” were part of spiritual growth. This advocate of “crazy wisdom” was not checked by Dr. Julian Candy, a retired psychiatrist who contributed a talk that was much too “new age” in complexion to my estimation. Dr. Candy was too deferential to the Grof factor, and seemed oblivious to any dangers.

Stephen Castro also wrote a letter to the Dorset group at this time, referring to the factor of psychosis that was glibly being mentioned. An extract is reproduced here, having my strong endorsement:

“Some, myself included, would say that many expressions of new age ‘spirituality’ are in fact psychotic, that is, contact with everyday reality for the individual (or group) becomes highly distorted. One could go further and state that many new age therapies and practises actually induce psychotic states and beliefs in people. Whilst living near the Findhorn Foundation, I was able to observe at first-hand people indiscriminately being allowed to undergo sessions of an extreme hyperventilation-based ‘therapy’ practice (Holotropic Breathwork), irrespective of any actual need for therapy. Afterwards, they wandered around in disorientated ‘high’ and distressed states of mind without any professional follow-up. Some of these people were actually thrown headlong into a state of ‘spiritual emergency’ (or a psychotic state) through participating in the dubious ‘therapy’ being sold.… Then, of course, there were those channelling messages from Sathya Sai Baba.”

The SMN Dorset group seemed immune to warnings. Dr. Candy and others lived in a nonjudgmental world of enthusiasm for the bizarre and retarded. Dr. Candy’s “new age psychiatry” approach was typically benevolent towards virtually any suspect manifestation. The “channellers” of Sathya Sai Baba at the Findhorn Foundation were an extremist factor starting to be contradicted by the new information about that guru appearing on the internet. Yet for many years such people got away with their deceptions and delusions, which were part and parcel of the Findhorn Foundation commerce in “spirituality.” I had hoped for a different approach in the SMN, but my experience of the Dorset group was a warning that wrong teachings were rife in the miseducated sector who were presuming to be the forerunners of a glorious new age.

The confrontation between different viewpoints produced effects. Certain persons reacted to any suggestion that their opinions and standards were deficient. Manifestations of pride appeared, together with attempted put-downs. This occurs almost everywhere in the new age, and certainly in the SMN and the Findhorn Foundation. The problems encountered were so offputting that I withdrew, and also decided to cancel my booking for the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the SMN that was scheduled for July 2001.

It was obvious that the SMN event of hosting Grof at Cambridge in 1995 had produced tragic consequences evident in the Dorset group. This event had made it much easier for Holotropic Breathwork practitioners at the Findhorn Foundation to gain a footing in Dorset at that earlier point in time, when they spread Holotropic Breathwork in England in defiance of the SCO caution. A major venue for the dangerous Grof enterprise was Monkton Wyld Court, owned by a new age community in Dorset who advertised holistic education. Another new age centre in that area was Gaunt’s Hall, owned by Sir Richard Glyn, and favoured by the SMN. I visited that centre on a number of occasions, and was perturbed at the many new age “workshops” that were patronised here. Sir Richard seemed oblivious of any discrepancy. The conceptual standards were appalling, and I was amazed to learn that Sir Richard had allowed a group of Rajneeshis to occupy a large house on his property. They had recently vacated after some years of residence, and I gained permission to inspect this property as my son was then looking for another home. However, Kevin did not wish to live on a new age estate, and Sir Richard was asking a very high rent. The property was actually separate from the main estate, and eventually Kevin agreed to see it with some reluctance. We found the condition of the house to be quite appalling. The exterior woodwork was rotting, and the toilets were in a shocking condition through lack of cleaning by the Rajneeshis. “The new age of dilapidated buildings and lazy inmates,” quipped my son, who refused to entertain any further ideas about this property. Moreover, I found that Sir Richard would not reduce the rent despite the flaws that were so visible.

My son had maintained a total aloofness and independence from the Findhorn Foundation during our years in Forres. He regarded the Foundation as something resembling a cross between a lunatic asylum and a syndicate of confidence tricksters. Unlike me, he never went to new age centres, and believed that they should be closed down by the government for spreading distorted teachings and dangerous practises. There was an amusing episode when Jeremy Slocombe made his unprecedented visit to our home in Forres, a gesture designed to show that he was “sincere and genuine” in parleying with me about my complaints. Jeremy came with two of his friends, and they spoke animatedly as they approached. Jeremy wore a very ostentatious hat of the wide-brimmed variety, and this looked rather theatrical. Kevin happened to see him from the downstairs window, and stared at the visitor for a few moments. Jeremy had no idea who he was. My son came out into the hall and told me that a strange man wearing a big hat had arrived with his noisy friends, and please not to let them in, as he liked peace and quiet. I talked amicably with the visitors on the doorstep for a few minutes, which was all Jeremy wanted. His rather superficial veneer of chattiness seemed to promise due attention, but his subsequent letters proved evasive, and he did not repeat his visit. Contrary to the story which had been contrived by other officials, Jeremy knew that I was not trying to “save” the Foundation, and was probably worried about the adverse publicity that their treatment of me had caused.

On another occasion, Kevin answered the front door and found a woman there who said she wanted to speak with me. He duly went to fetch me, and I recognised her with a sense of shock. She looked harassed and much older, and yet only a couple of years before she had been the vivacious partner of one of the Foundation staff. She had a tale of woe about how that official had selected another woman to replace her, and how she was now in difficult circumstances. She was very disillusioned with the Foundation. There were other cases of disillusionment known to me, but none of these were reported in the popular books by writers like Alex Walker and Carol Riddell. Those accounts of the Foundation were romantic and glorifying, reflecting the official view of the management rather than the reality, which was unconducive to the commercial image. Eileen Caddy’s guidance, the magic of Findhorn, and the new global village were all mythologies. Some small problems were admitted, such as Craig Gibsone’s recurring addictions (to alcohol and drugs), but the full scale of drawbacks was unknown to the admiring readers and visitors.

In April of 2001, I rashly decided to visit the Foundation after a telephone conversation with a staff member who was very welcoming. I hoped that what I had been told was true. My son warned me not to go, reminding that Foundation talk was unreliable. He said that I would need a police escort in the face of the hostility. Stephen Castro did not want to accompany me this time, being averse to the Foundation staff and himself warning me about the outcome. I carried through my decision, but found that the warnings had sound basis. Nothing went as it should have done. No provision had been made, and nobody cared where I lodged or why I had come. There was both a muted and an overt hostility. Yet I did confirm that changes had occurred for the worse due to the new commercial policies that had, for instance, caused communal assets to be privatised. It was also confirmed that the Foundation had incurred a heavy debt which was only just being acknowledged. I returned to Dorset feeling very unwell, and my son then vowed that nothing like this would be allowed to happen again. (See further Pointed Observations, pp. 180ff.)

 

3. The Kundalini Issue and Contrasting Studies

In my autobiography, I have recorded a protracted inner experience of mine (occurring in 1977) that has since gained comment. One aspect of this was the perception of future events and trends that were subsequently confirmed. These trends included a lethal sexual disease for which there was no cure. I was deeply harrowed by this, and only later heard about AIDS, which was then a very recent phenomenon scarcely understood by many people. I was also overwhelmed by an identification with the drugs culture, which I saw would get far bigger, strangling the potential of so many young people. I even experienced glue-sniffing, of which I had never heard at that time. Yet perhaps even more alarming was the registration of natural catastrophes and climate problems, which would become severe, affecting populations on a large scale. Such emphases merely sounded alarmist at that time, and certainly did not fit the rather complacent ideas about a “new age” that were in process during the 70s. The partisans talked about a virtual paradise of spiritual values and personal transformation in which present-centeredness and related themes would solve all problems. Self-realization, enlightenment intensives, and vegetarian food were some of the panaceas. The mood of Transcendental Meditation lingered, and alternative therapy became a craze that was strangely greedy for income.

Certain elements of my experience in 1977 are associated with the term kundalini, an evocative word which attracts some and repels others. The repellent factor is due to the associations in train. The exotic term is found in ancient Indian religious texts and is associated with Tantric yoga. I was not an adherent of any form of Yoga, and actually mistrusted it. The mistrust has deepened since my experience under discussion. That experience did not follow the mould of Tantric ideology or practice, with which I was relatively unfamiliar at that date. The only point of convergence is that I experienced the existence of the “inner organs” known as chakras, which conventionally relate to the kundalini force said to ignite them. However, the Tantric symbology was totally absent from my occurrence; there were no lotuses, goddesses, or cosmic serpent, for instance. Nor was there any prior intention on my part of opening chakras, as I had been strongly averse to such prospects for many years. I am even more averse to such fantasised prospects now. One disadvantage in using obsolete vocabulary is that the word chakra is now a debased popular term in the contemporary market-place. The Western phase of confusion about kundalini lore commenced with the Theosophical Society, who created many distortions about “esoteric” subjects. Yet the misunderstandings grew even worse in the “new age” commencing in the 60s, gaining a commercial appeal that has been much exploited by “workshop” attitudes. Such inane themes as “chakra balance” have been an underlying ingredient of pseudomystical commerce.

Contrary to the theosophical and new age trends, a basic aspect of my own experience emphasised the very extensive dangers of abuse involved in premature activation of the chakras or “subtle centres” associated with the spinal column and the brain. Amongst the problems included in this dire phenomenon are the use of psychoactive drugs, which overstimulate cerebral areas and also act to impair the correct functioning of chakras. Adversely mutated chakras can occur, and no amount of “chakra balance” will offset such obstructions in the heedless. Other major problems include various sexual practices (e.g., Tantric sex) and diverse magical practises. The spiritual experience which befell me was, and is, difficult to describe, and meets with resistance on the part of those committed to simplistic new age themes like “awakening” and “self-discovery” which have been embraced by a sector of the drugs lobby. Such themes encourage mistaken ideas about “transformation,” which is a glib transpersonal motto emanating from commercial zones like the Esalen Institute in California.

There are many misinformed Westerners who have practised kundalini meditation in the hope of some benefit. This is very unwise. Such an indulgence can create distinct problems, as some dabblers have found. Yet perhaps a more common diversion is that of extremist “therapies,” which cause much confusion amongst the affluent clientele. Even more temperate “therapies” are clearly an imposition upon public spending.

In a book entitled The Kundalini Phenomenon (2000), I offered a critical assessment of many trends which mislead about the subject (and other subjects also). The critical emphases in that book were repudiated by the nonjudgmentalist outlook which governs so much of the new age perspective, and which indulgently permits far too many distortions and exploitations. Some of the repudiations came from the SMN, where I encountered certain problems that I will mention in the attempt to convey relevant information.

In the spring of 2001, I decided to renew my booking for the AGM of the SMN. This was partly because Jean Galbraith was to give a talk on kundalini at this function. She was reputed, within the SMN, to be an authority on kundalini. A member of the SMN, she was described in their literature as a “retired General Practitioner” and also as a “healer and spiritual teacher.” I had misgivings about the role of healer. Hesitantly, I sent a brief email to Dr. Galbraith dated May 27th, 2001. This read as follows:

Dear Dr. Galbraith,

I noted with interest that you will be speaking on the subject of “Spiritual Emergence Up the Spine” (SEUS) at the forthcoming AGM of the SMN. Having been informed by New Media Books that some time ago you purchased a copy of my work The Kundalini Phenomenon, I would much appreciate your professional opinion about what I wrote in that book – and was it of any serious relevance to your research?

My very best wishes,

Kate Thomas

 

I received a speedy reply dated May 29th that was very disconcerting and upsetting, and indeed largely dismissive. I will reproduce much of that reply here:

Dear Kate,

Thank you for your email. Yes I have read all four of your books. They are interesting as background information regarding other’s spiritual pathways. Like Gopi Krishna, yours is a very introspective account; you both also come from the Vedic route of teaching. However, I disliked and indeed was very unhappy at your continuous denigration of other’s pathways. For this reason I am unable to recommend your books to others; nor shall I be mentioning your work when I talk at the AGM – unless I am specifically asked about it. Your attack on the SMN was unfortunate, if you are expecting its members to work with you. My only area of agreement with your views relate to the continued, and I agree potentially dangerous, teaching of meditation up the chakras and then down again. Fortunately some, including the NFSH [National Federation of Spiritual Healers], have changed their teaching so that meditation is taught only from above downwards.

I too have had spontaneous kundalini experiences, without prior work with spiritual teachers, and have required hospital admission for self-harming psychosis. I have as a result chosen to work in a different way to yourself, and have asked for the experiences of others, particularly SMN and NFSH healers.… Your books do not give me new information that I need for this research, in particular you have not experienced psychiatric hospital admission as a result of your SEUS (Spiritual Emergence Up the Spine).… I am sure that your book has had more positive response from others who have followed your pathway more nearly.

With best wishes,

Jean Galbraith

 

This response expressed a number of misconceptions, quite apart from the bias involved in the view (or doctrine) that psychosis is integral to kundalini experience. The fact is that I did not come from the Vedic route of teaching, and nor even the Yogic. I had not attacked the SMN, of which I was a long-standing member; I had instead criticised a recommendation for the books of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho) which had appeared in SMN literature, and had also warned against the infiltration of alternative therapy into SMN and Wrekin Trust events such as the recent latitude given to “workshop” exercises at a “Mystics and Scientists” conference in 1998. Some other SMN members were in agreement with me about these matters. I subsequently learned that Dr. Galbraith was associated with Sathya Sai Baba. Further, her doctrine stressing that there was no enlightenment is strongly implicated as being related to her disillusionment with that dubious guru. Instead of grappling with the details here and expressing a due conclusion, she maintained a “nonjudgmental” policy of the kind which hallmarked the new age approach to mysticism, and which has created such extensive confusion and blindness in many directions. Thus, she herself contributed to confusions about the guru who had misled her, and whose abuses are now so well known.

One of the matters I had criticised in my book was the widespread tendency of so-called “healers” to teach kundalini meditation. Such trends create many psychotic and confusing experiences which are nothing to do with constructive kundalini activation. Dr. Galbraith considered herself an expert on the subject of healing. She indicated in her letter that many other healers had negative experiences of kundalini which she was anxious to record and pass on to the medical profession. She was preoccupied with the meditation problems of healers. I had expressed a more wide-ranging complaint in The Kundalini Phenomenon, which warns against the dangers of premature kundalini activation, a subject which is very seldom understood in the contemporary climate of misinformation.

It was clear that because of the unfortunate experience of Dr. Galbraith, she had created the belief that enlightenment could not exist. Versions of that subject which contradicted hers could not be tolerated or even mentioned, unless specific questions were asked. SEUS meant psychosis, and one should not argue. To my astonishment and dismay, this contraction was viewed as authoritative research by the SMN. Dr. Galbraith was also regarded as a healer, and this role was evidently the cause of her being so anxious to mention and condone doctrines and experiences encountered in that sector, such as “from above downwards.”

I discovered that SMN literature advertised Jean Galbraith as having an honorary post with the NFSH (National Federation of Spiritual Healers). Of her four specified articles, three related to bereavement phenomena, spiritual healing, and stress management. Only one related to kundalini (Network no. 71). I felt obliged to send a duly defensive reply to Dr. Galbraith. Stephen Castro saw my draft of this reply, being my computer intermediary at that time. He commented that my words were too apologetic. He also said that Dr. Galbraith was suffering from a superiority complex, and was jealous of the fact that I had written a book about kundalini, whereas she had only written a short article on the subject. He emphasised that she had not produced any books, only short articles. He insisted upon rewriting my communication in stronger terms, I could see the point he was making, and so I allowed him to send the revised version, which read as follows:

Dear Jean,

Just a short note to thank you for your prompt reply. I am sorry that you found my cautionary and critical work on the subject of kundalini a “continuous denigration of other’s pathways” – I had hoped that my references to harmful syndromes and deviant gurus would make a small contribution towards preventing further cases of induced psychosis through the indiscriminate use of various techniques and practises. Some “pathways” and gurus can, and do, cause much harm to people, and will continue to do so irrespective of your personal, or even professional, dislike of my work. My own particular concern is with the prevention of such psychoses and for this reason I have incorporated authoritative statements by sociologists and other professionals into the text of The Kundalini Phenomenon that substantiate my own critical comments.

I do not mind if you do not publicly endorse my work. You make plain in your email that it does not meet with your approval, and that furthermore you do not grasp the necessity for caution in the areas of concern described by me. In my view it is essential to have a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter before attempting to instruct others, as you appear to be doing. Within the kundalini process there are many subtleties and complexities overlooked by most writers, who have no concept of the underlying causes of this phenomenon.…

It would seem by your comments that my lack of psychiatric treatment is a factor against me. In truth, I did not need any such treatment, nor did I have the least impulse to self-violence or any other psychiatric symptom. My son ensured that I ate, and this was the only assistance needed.

Yes, thankfully my book has had a “more positive response from others” even among SMN members who were prepared to overlook, and in some cases agree with, my critical observations of some members’ dubious practices (which you have deemed an “attack”).

With best wishes,

Kate

 

A brief reply to the above was received in early June. Dr. Galbraith said that my communication had removed itself from her computer before she could print it out. “I can only assume that Divinity has Its reasons,” she commented. This seemed very odd. Stephen was sceptical, believing that she did not wish to confront my email and was deceiving herself. I shared his view, but decided to phone her in order to smooth matters over, as it was now my intention to attend the imminent AGM. I mentioned that Stephen had reworded some of my phrases in the email. She knew that I was being conciliatory, and expressed her conclusion that I was a nice, sympathetic lady who was at the mercy of an interfering computer intermediary. It was obvious that she could not take any criticism.

She responded by sending me two of her articles. The material contained a photograph of herself in the role of healer. Stephen asked to see this material, and reacted strongly to the photo. He felt that Dr. Galbraith was acutely misleading people about her pet subject, and complained that her preferred role as healer did not mean that she was an expert on abstruse matters. I tended very much to agree with him. Of his own accord, he composed a letter to her in defence of my book The Kundalini Phenomenon. He chose a head-on tactic of confrontation, and I reproduce his email here (dated 16/06/01):

Dear Dr. Galbraith,

Please forgive me for imposing upon your time, but ever since a recent lunchtime conversation with Kate Thomas, I have felt obliged to write to you. Let me, then, firstly state that (a) I helped produce The Kundalini Phenomenon and am also the author of Hypocrisy and Dissent within the Findhorn Foundation, and (b) I am an associate member of the SMN.

During the conversation with Kate, she mentioned the contact with yourself and that you had put forward the opinion that her book was a “continuous denigration” of others “pathways” and therefore not suitable for recommendation. In the interests of clarity, I must ask: Is one to infer from this that as a medical doctor and member of the SMN you are prepared to endorse the following?

1) A revoking of the intervention by the Scottish Charities Office in the matter of the indiscriminate use of a hyperventilation-based breathwork practice on members of the general public within the Findhorn Foundation. A public that, in 99% of cases, needed neither therapeutic treatment or to undergo such an extreme therapy. A hyperventilation-based practice that even fellow breathworkers have described as a “rape of the soul,” and which is furthermore said to induce unwonted kundalini activation.

2) Discarding all attempts to ascertain what actually constitutes authentic spiritual experience as opposed to psychotic or psychopathological, and differentiating between a true “spiritual emergency” and a technique-induced psychosis.

3) The use of psychotropic drugs or breathwork practices to induce alleged “mystical” experiences for experimental, commercial, or recreational purposes.

4) The use of deviant and cultic Tantric sexual practises as described in chapter 2, pp. 129–139 of The Kundalini Phenomenon.

5) The indiscriminate and commercial use of sweatlodge ceremonies and drumming tapes to induce ASCs. Ignoring also the dangers of hyperventilation, heat exhaustion, or the side-effects of such ASCs.

6) The indiscriminate and commercial use of subliminal message cassette tapes and videos to condition the mind. Ignoring also the unbalancing effects these may have on the psyche.

7) The promotion of stage hypnosis, despite known dangers of certain suggestive commands.

8) The use of witchcraft and magical ritual practises in an attempt to acquire power and fulfil base desires.

9) The sale of DIY Kundalini-Raising books and tapes.

10) Discarding any sociological research that reveals the deviant and cultic behaviour of gurus such as Rajneesh and Muktananda.

11) The acceptance of all absurd and unsubstantiated claims regarding the subject of Kundalini, including those made by self-styled “experts” such as Gene Keiffer, Yogi Bhajan, and others mentioned in the book.

Now, the above represents but a fraction of the issues and concerns referred to in The Kundalini Phenomenon, concerns which should surely be of consequence to any conscientious member of the medical profession. But strangely, for you, a retired GP, the above is just a “continuous denigration” of others “pathways,” and to be completely dismissed as having no relevance! What if one were to transpose the situation and present it more obviously, thus:

1)     The medical profession should let anyone practise medicine irrespective of their degree of knowledge and competence. All quacks are welcome to offer their nostrums, even if such nostrums turn out to be poison.

2)     Drugs should be freely available to everyone. Prescription by an authorised medical practitioner is not necessary. People can pick n’ choose to take whatever drug they please, irrespective of the actual medical need or effect of the drug.

3)     In the interests of nonjudgmentalism and pietism it is forbidden to criticise any observed medical malpractice. Everyone has the right to follow their own path, irrespective of whatever harm is done.

Do you agree with the above, Dr. Galbraith?

In my (non-medical practitioner) opinion, The Kundalini Phenomenon contains a number of very graphic and educational first-hand descriptions and references not only to the partial awakening of the Kundalini force and the resulting physical and psychological problems this can cause (information much-needed for comprehensive research purposes), but also highlights the inauthenticity of a number of gurus, New Age entrepreneurs, and alleged “spiritual” and therapeutic practices. To totally dismiss Kate’s work in such a naïve and sanctimonious manner leaves you, Dr. Galbraith, in a position to be duly criticised and remarked upon. Furthermore, the author is not merely expressing an opinion based on scepticism or bias, but upon the insights derived from a personal experience of kundalini (that did not require either hospitalisation or psychiatric assistance) following on four decades of a wide range of extrasensory and transpersonal experience.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Castro

PS Having read your contribution to issue 71 of the SMN Network review (Is Spiritual Emergence Up the Spine always a Benign Process?) I applaud your attempt to bring this controversial subject to the attention of the medical profession; however, the dismissive and irrational manner in which you have treated Kate Thomas’s contribution makes me seriously question your objectivity in this field.

 

There was a lengthy delay in response. It was not Dr. Galbraith who replied, but her friend Katrina Brook, who noticeably used a letter instead of email. This reply was cautiously expressed, and it was clear that Stephen’s confrontation had caused an effect. The reply was dated 07/07/01, and was still evasive about basic issues, adhering to the nonjudgmental standard of assessment. Brook was replying on behalf of Galbraith, and stated of the latter that “her response was rather more brief and perhaps less considered than she now believes appropriate.” However, the reply via Brook clearly strained to justify basic aspects of the earlier response from Dr. Galbraith. Brook stated that about seventy people had reported “spontaneous SEUS” to Jean, who gave advice and offered support mechanisms to sufferers. The crux of the Brook mediation was expressed in terms of “Jean continues to be concerned at the negative focus in Kate’s book; Jean would agree that there are some outstanding examples of dishonourable and dangerous practice which she does not condone; it remains the case that thousands of people, including Jean herself, have received invaluable personal and professional help from many of the individuals and organisations mentioned in Kate’s book.”

I should here state that I had never formerly used the phrase “Spiritual Emergence Up the Spine,” and nor the abbreviation of SEUS. This phrase was the innovation of Dr. Galbraith, and I still feel that the “spiritual emergence” theme is contradicted by the overall emphases of Jean Galbraith. The realistic description here should surely be “Psychosis Up the Spine” (PUS) rather than the more embellished statement. I would also like to state here that I am thoroughly averse to all the current kundalini hype, and have concluded that it is not practical to address the subject of spirituality in such terms. The new age industry of “kundalini” is a commercial vampire, and I totally disown it. For this reason, I have abandoned any attempt to produce the book that was formerly mentioned under the prospective title of Kundalini and Conscious Evolution. There is no due audience for such a book as I had envisaged (cf. The Kundalini Phenomenon, p. viii).

The communication from Brook/Galbraith annoyed Stephen, who sent a forthright reply from his own angle. I actually asked him not to send this, as I felt that it was pointless to respond further, especially as I intended to talk with Jean at the imminent AGM. Stephen was concerned to emphasise the questionable nature of the Galbraith assertion that “thousands of people” had received invaluable “professional” help from many individuals and organisations mentioned in The Kundalini Phenomenon.

As I had anticipated, there was no reply to this forthright email. I felt that Dr. Galbraith would be incensed by the implied criticisms, and this transpired to be correct.

Meanwhile, having decided to attend the AGM, I consulted my son Kevin about the potential situation of conflict. He was a writer who lived nearby in the annexe of a mansion. To be more specific, he had temporarily given up writing, placing his manuscripts on hold for publication, and instead devoting himself to the renovation of antique furniture and clocks. His home was full of what he called the “old age.” He would have nothing to do with the new age, and had recently penned a brief but graphic document which declared his aversion to “seekers, groups, and retreats” of the kind which some people associated him with due to his appearance in my autobiography. His philosophy, complex in many details, is impossible to describe here. He had refused to join the Findhorn Foundation while he lived in Scotland, and when he returned south, he erected further ramparts against the “maniacs and exploiters” as he called them. He sometimes received quirky letters from people who tried to contact him in an inappropriate manner. An obsessive enquirer demanded to see one of his unpublished manuscripts, and Kevin simply sent this person a copy of his Statement Disavowing Mystical Role abovementioned. That document was quite pointed, and even Stephen Castro was taken aback by it.

Another very different person to Dr. Galbraith was Dr. Robert Thouless, a parapsychologist of Cambridge who was a senior Fellow of Corpus Christi College. I met him in 1980 when I lived in Cambridge. On a number of occasions I was invited to his home in one of the pleasant streets associated with academic inhabitants. Dr. Thouless became interested in my “kundalini” experience of 1977, and asked me many questions on the subject, concluding that unusual features were involved which were not readily classifiable. When he learned that my son had been present during part of the experience, he expressed a desire to meet the latter. Kevin evaded this attention, being averse to “metaphysical probes” as he called them. Yet he did eventually agree to pass over one of his manuscripts to Dr. Thouless for inspection, and this was well received. It was Dr. Thouless who provided Kevin with a letter of recommendation to the relevant admissions official of Cambridge University Library (CUL). Early in 1981 my son commenced an intensive phase of unfunded private research at CUL which involved the accumulation of many painstaking notebooks. This extensive library had unusual amenities. Kevin tackled anthropology and the history of religions, and also gained acquaintance with many scientific and medical journals. He complained at the numerous conflicting theories in evidence amongst the sciences, which were hindered by so many prevalent uncertainties.

At a subsequent period, when he temporarily relaxed the pace of his studies, Kevin consented to attend two retreats I conducted in 1986 as part of my project known as the Cambridge Research Centre for Metaphysical and Evolutionary Studies. Kevin specified that his own activity was the more intellectual IRCA (Intercultural Research Centre of Anthropography), which he had recently formulated as an extension of his study programme. The other retreat participants had difficulty in understanding his emphases, and he soon stopped mentioning IRCA, instead adopting a more instinctive response that was occasionally laconic. In my experience of 1977, I had seen him gaining a mystical role that would effectively comprise a “new line” departing from obstructive patterns. He would not acknowledge such a role, and was averse to some of the Sufi symbolism which I employed at the time (he would not identify himself with any one religious or mystical tradition). He insisted upon different terminology and said that IRCA represented to him a tangent from both academic and popular confusions about philosophy, science, and mysticism. Later he terminated the IRCA projection (which was never organisational), and emphasised his role as an independent researcher and philosopher working outside official or semi-official auspices. He disliked metaphysical discussions, which he regarded as an indulgence. “Talk is not metaphysical,” he would say pointedly. He would never refer to subjects like kundalini, and regarded new age “workshops” as a distraction to due education.

Kevin laughed when I suggested that he become a member of the SMN. He emphasised that the SMN membership had incorporated too many alternative therapists. He complained that he could not see the “scientific and medical” relevance of this organisation, save perhaps in matters like Dr. Peter Fenwick’s research into near-death experience (though he was sceptical of this also, saying that it tended to be simplistic and generalising and screened out complexities). My encounter with the SMN Dorset group had confirmed my son’s misgivings, and he expressed horror at Dr. Galbraith’s “kundalini healers” or “kleptomaniac society” as he called them, implying that they stole from Eastern teachings what they did not understand. He felt that Dr. Galbraith was avoiding a rational confrontation about her favoured subject. He did not believe that the SMN was a fertile field for discerning responses. I argued that there must be serious scientists within the SMN, and without actually denying that, Kevin asked why they would wish to be associated with the large numbers of alternative therapists and “nutcases” who had infiltrated this organisation. Just who had allowed in the lunatic fringe?

 

4. The SMN Annual General Meeting, 2001

Stephen refused to accompany me to the AGM, although I offered to pay his expenses. This was a solo venture. In mid-July 2001, I journeyed by rail from Dorset to King’s Cross en route to the AGM venue at St. Andrews. The SMN secretary had informed me that fifteen SMN members would be travelling on the same train, and I wondered if I would recognise any of them from the previous AGM. Though I had never met her, I did recognise Jean Galbraith immediately, from a photograph. She was seated in the same carriage where my own seat was booked. I knew that she recognised me also, from the photos in The Destiny Challenge. My seat was at the further end of the carriage, but I stopped to speak with her, as the adjoining seats were not yet occupied. I asked how she was. She was rather edgy and replied “Very upset.” She said that she had felt like this ever since reading Stephen’s first email (dated June 16th), which had offended her by the outspoken content. It was quite clear that she had reacted to criticisms very strongly. She was very severe in her attitude to Stephen, who was regarded as being terribly unjust. I deliberately spoke in a very conciliatory manner, and added that Stephen was well-meaning and had regarded her statements about my book as being unfounded. I said with honesty that I had asked him not to send his second email of recent date. She was unable to concede any validity to his viewpoint, but relaxed her attitude towards me and warned me against him. We agreed to talk together at some point when we had settled at St. Andrews. I had some misgivings.

I had a comfortable journey dozing and reading, and upon arrival at Leuchars I met up with the other SMN members on that train (none of whom I had met before). We availed ourselves of the taxis that were awaiting us. The AGM was being held at St. Salvator’s Hall, which was affiliated to the University of St. Andrews in Fife. We appeared to be the first arrivals. My large college bedroom was a single with washbasin. Jean Galbraith was on the other side of the building. The official date for the function was the weekend of July 14th–15th, though my batch arrived in advance. We soon found that the meals were excellent, self-served in a large annexe to the spacious dining-hall where we sat at trestle tables. There were three meals each day, breakfast, lunch, and dinner, plus the extra of afternoon tea (or coffee) served with assorted deluxe biscuits.

Shortly after we had settled in, at the first evening meal I seated myself next to Dr. Malcolm Hollick, whom I had met several times (though briefly) at the end of my residence in Forres. He was pleasant and polite, and we talked very amicably. Yet an element of discord arose, in the form of Jean Galbraith and Dr. Julian Candy who sat facing us. Dr. Candy had apparently read or perused my book on kundalini, though he knew very little about me. At the end of the meal, Julian referred aspersively to The Kundalini Phenomenon and commented to me, “Why don’t you ever say something positive?” Jean Galbraith then supported this angle very strongly, and they both proceeded to give me their views, which were not congratulatory. Dr. Candy was expressing the angle of new age nonjudgmentalism, while Dr. Galbraith was rather awkwardly emphasising psychosis while trying to defend new age heroes. Dr. Hollick looked on with puzzlement. I pointed out that my recent book was a cautionary critique, not being written from a mood of scepticism but from an angle of direct experience, and that this angle was deeply positive though difficult to describe in a contemporary context. I emphasised that my concern was for all the trusting seekers and aspirants who were damaged and impeded by the use of various techniques and too much meditation. This standpoint was evidently quite foreign to Dr. Candy.

Dr. Hollick also seemed oblivious of the implications, though in a different (non-hostile) manner. He was eager to change the subject and referred to the forthcoming Findhorn Foundation conference to be held in October. He seemed very enthusiastic about this, being a recent Foundation recruit. He was described in a Foundation brochure that year as having had a long academic career in Australia, his major interest apparently being in ecology. I already knew that the October conference was advertising Margot Anand, the disciple of Rajneesh, as a speaker on the subject of spirituality and sexuality. I asked Malcolm if he knew about this woman’s major interests, which were well known via her controversial books. She was an exponent of Tantric sex and magic, her notorious emphases including the ritualistic use of female orgasm to obtain worldly desires. Dr. Hollick (who was not a medic) evidently did not know about Margot Anand. Indeed, he was markedly vague and seemed to know nothing at all about the underlying realities of virtually everything in the Findhorn Foundation. I had met people like him before during my years in Scotland. He seemed to take everything on trust, as many others did. The critical faculty seemed to be missing, or in abeyance.

After the meal, we moved into a large reception room which contained a bar from which drinks could be purchased. There were perhaps forty or fifty people present, though I cannot be certain of the number. David Lorimer, the SMN supervisor, then talked to us about the forthcoming programme. One by one, we were asked to introduce ourselves and say something about our interests. Then everyone relaxed and seated themselves at the small tables available. Most of the others purchased drinks and engaged in conversation. For the most part, I listened and observed.

That night I had a vivid dream of Jean Galbraith, in which she telephoned me and was crying, saying she was sorry. The dream left a strong impression, so much so that I did not attend the optional daily meditation which commenced before breakfast (Friday). At breakfast I again sat next to Malcolm. Later I spoke to Jean, and then mentioned my dream. She said immediately that she knew what it meant. She had “seen” that in a past incarnation she had wielded occult power and had used this against me. She went on to say that she had “failed” in the past incarnation she referred to, and that she had to make some karmic recompense accordingly. She stressed that the problems in her life had been created by her own “bad karma.” I had not expected such an admission, which surprised me. Jean seemed to be quite genuine on these points, though in a subsequent conversation a note of flippancy occurred. This time she remarked that I also had power in a previous incarnation when I was a “trained seeress,” and that we had both “strutted about in our robes,” the implication being an abuse of authority. I made no attempt to counter these comments, feeling that she would be resistant if I did. I have known various people who talked about “past incarnations” in a rather glib manner. I was still very aware of the support which Jean had expressed for Dr. Candy’s negative reflections on my “over-critical” book. I subsequently learned that references to past incarnations were a habitual feature of Jean’s conversation.

The first AGM session was held in the University Lecture Hall. I remember very little of the Panel discussions, which were rather boring. However, I do remember closely the small group discussions that occurred afterwards, and which were conducted in a more comfortable (and much warmer) room. It was too wet outside to use the lawn. During the tea-break, Jean introduced me to her Swedish friend Anne, as all three of us had tragically lost our daughters and she felt that this created a common bond. Anne was still in a state of acute bereavement, though my own anguish had, in the main, greatly lessoned and could be concealed.

Before we commenced discussion in the small groups, we were separated into groups of six, though in a random manner. I found myself in David Lorimer’s group. Each group was given a subject for discussion that had been mentioned during the earlier Panel. The subject for my group was synchronicity. I was wary of this Jungian subject, as I had heard some rather extreme views about it expressed in the past. A young professional woman immediately held forth on the views of Jung, monopolising the conversation. I noticed that David made no attempt to intervene. Several of the others made interjections, but each of these was capped by the monopoliser with a Jungian theory. The listeners were not all in agreement. My own efforts to present another viewpoint were repeatedly deflected, and to such an extent that an older woman (Doreen) protested. This protest on my behalf made no difference, and I then ceased to respond and merely listened. This was evidently much more acceptable.

At the end of our allotted time, David Lorimer said that we should each express our views, and say whether these views had been assisted or altered by the discussion. He added that he would be our spokesman to sum up and present the result to everyone at the AGM (meaning all fifty or so of us). The plan was for each group to be thus vetted. The expectation appeared to be that some positive consequence was in the offing. Because I had experienced such a negative consequence, I declined to comment when my turn came to speak. I merely said that I had “switched off” earlier in the discussion because my views were so consistently negated by the Jungian advocate. I tried to make this brief explanation sound as inoffensive as possible.

The following day, the Jungian expositor apologised to me in private about her domineering form of expression. In the meantime, I had myself apologised to David for refusing to comment at any length. I pointed out that I had already been “chopped” by two persons since my arrival (by Jean and Dr. Candy), and added that I found it upsetting that my viewpoint was so frequently (and rudely) stamped upon by the Jungian. David expressed his awareness that this form of put-down had occurred. He did not seem to know what to do about it, and made no further comment in this regard.

At lunchtime I sat with David and a few others who were all interested in what was called the new Consciousness Manifesto. This was in fact the basic reason for my attendance at the AGM. I had understood that this subject would be widely discussed. I had actually suggested a small introductory meeting to this end. That suggestion was made to David by telephone, and he was in agreement. He had now decided that lunchtime would be a good idea for the meeting, and had referred to this schedule from his speaker’s platform earlier on.

The result was pathetic, and even alarming. There were only a few people who congregated for the special meeting, and David’s main concern was expressed in terms of fundraising. The theme of “Consciousness” was rather elusive. The Manifesto, whatever it was, needed funds. There was no element of spontaneity, nor indeed what I would have called commitment. I silently wondered to myself how on earth I had managed to organise (in 1984) a two-day seminar for thirty-four people, complete with buffet meals, new chairs, and participating speakers – in my own home, and without any funding at all. The supreme irony (to my way of thinking) was that the John Templeton Foundation had already contributed over £90,000 for the SMN project of a Consciousness Manifesto (or Science, Consciousness, and Ultimate Reality), and was even now considering a further donation of £75,000.

This episode served to bring home to me how David Lorimer was operating. He was clearly the economic mastermind of the SMN. It was stated that he had been Director of the SMN from 1986 until 2000, and was now a consultant who continued to edit the SMN magazine Network. Yet that was misleading coverage. In fact David continued to be the organisational control in the SMN. He had an M.A. degree, and was a former teacher of languages and philosophy at Winchester College. He still favoured Winchester as the setting for the “Mystics and Scientists” seminars, strongly associated with the Wrekin Trust, in which he was also a major figure of long-term stature.

David Lorimer’s most recent book was an edited work called Thinking Beyond the Brain, which appeared the same year I attended the St. Andrews AGM. That book included a contribution by the drug advocate Dr. Stanislav Grof, a factor which I found disconcerting. My son Kevin had been very alarmed when Dr. Grof had been booked by the SMN to appear in a conference at St. John’s College, Cambridge, in 1995. This event had caused confusion, and had been sponsored by David in collaboration with the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), which is based in America. David’s new book noticeably informed that the SMN had over 2,000 members, while IONS had nearly 50,000 subscribers. My son felt that David was trying to increase economic support for the SMN via the IONS membership, who were susceptible to alternative therapy and the Grof cosmology. Kevin surmised that Grof was bait for American subscribers in an undeclared strategy. David evidently had no scruple about what Grof was expounding, the latter’s books including a major incentive to the “transpersonal” use of two illegal drugs (LSD and MDMA).

After the disappointing meeting, at 2.30 pm I attended the “optional workshop” conducted by Dr. H. F. and entitled “The Use of the Third Eye to Discern Discrepancies between Inner Energy Patterns and Outer Action.” In my view, that workshop confused the “third eye” with psychic sensing, and had no intrinsic conception of the subject promoted, which had long been a fantasy theme for occultism, and which had more recently been appropriated by diverse therapists for commercial ends. I did not express any of my misgivings, as that would have been disruptive. Towards the end of her talk, Dr. H. F. asked for a volunteer to assist her in a series of “experiments” in the power of focussed thought. A woman was selected from the audience, but she was clearly disturbed by what followed, and appeared to resist the mental intrusion. I felt that this event should not have been allowed to occur. Others in the audience thought the same way. One man got up to leave in disgust, and so did I. Several others quickly followed, and all agreed that the “demonstration” should have been stopped.

I was by now feeling very wary of practically anything in occurrence under the “scientific and medical” aegis. At 4.30 pm I attended a talk by a therapist on the subject of integrity. This was much more prudent than the preceding workshop, but tended to rest upon the assumption that contact with an innate integrity and wisdom was quite easily achievable. In my experience, this is an area of potentially very strong delusions, and which carry dangers.

Afterwards, the entire assembly met in the comfortable tea room. I did not say anything, but merely observed and listened. That evening I decided against the slide-assisted talk given by Dr. Bart Van der Lugt, not because of the content, but because I had attended this last year at a Dorset venue of the SMN. The talk related to the home nursing of terminal illnesses, and was medically sane, unlike “third eye” misconceptions. Yet I was not in the mood for this again, feeling rather frustrated at the lack of something more inspiring to connect with. The Manifesto was a mirage, I had concluded.

I sat in the main reception room, and was joined at one of the small tables by Anne and Doreen. Anne soon left for other acquaintances, and Doreen commenced to talk about radionics. She was so insistent that I excused myself as adroitly as I could. When I returned, Doreen had engaged with other friends, and I sat in a spare chair beside Isabel Clarke (a psychologist at a hospital) and Jean Galbraith. There were complexities here. Both of these women were listening intently to Suzanne and her friend, whom I commenced to observe closely. Suzanne was doing most of the talking, and in an extravagant manner, which offput me. Suzanne and her friend both appeared to be mentally disturbed. Jean nevertheless believed that some element of kundalini phenomena was at work here, and was rather vocal on this point. Suzanne spoke about her experiences of beautiful scenery, happiness, ecstasy, and wise beings in direct inner contact with her. She expected us to believe all this without query. Yet there was something wrong, I felt. Suzanne was regarded by her friend as a virtual saint; the junior had commenced having similar experiences a few months earlier. I felt that the follower had contracted a syndrome from Suzanne, who was more than a little obsessive about the experiences mentioned.

I started to feel ill, and knew that I was absorbing something from Suzanne, psychically or no. I had experienced similar impingements many times before, and the causes vary greatly. I felt that I knew what was wrong with Suzanne, but I could not even begin to describe this, particularly in view of Jean’s adamance about kundalini. Eventually I left the room, wishing that I had not come to the AGM at all. Just how did such people become involved in “scientific and medical” activities?

The acute disturbance soon dispersed. My necessity had been to remove myself from the intimate range of problem emanations (which are not understood by many therapists). Not long after, I returned to the reception room, to find that Jean and the two disturbing women had left the scene. I felt rather relieved at this. So I shared a table with the more down to earth Isabel, who was disposed to be friendly, and we were soon joined by Elizabeth Fenwick. These two women were the wives of two prominent men in the SMN, namely Prof. Chris Clarke and Dr. Peter Fenwick.

Isabel had heard (from Jean) about my kundalini experience and asked about it. I was wary of saying much, as Isabel seemed to rely upon Jean for information concerning kundalini. Jean seemed to be regarded by so many SMN people as a knowledgeable researcher on that difficult subject. Isabel shared Jean’s belief that psychosis was part of spiritual experience. I briefly explained that my personal experience of the kundalini energy was entirely different to the cases investigated by Jean, and also to Jean’s own experience which she had described. I warned against the interpretation which emphasised psychosis, as delicately as I could. Both Isabel and Elizabeth responded positively, and each of them asked questions, though not of a complex nature. I remember that at one point, I referred to the overview of time that I have recorded in my autobiography and which was a basic facet of kundalini experience for me. I knew that Elizabeth had researched near-death experiences with her husband, whom I afterwards met. Yet there is a big difference between near-death and some other types of experience. I noted that neither of these women enquired about details of publication, and deduced that they would not actually follow up by reading the account I had referred to.

It was not appropriate to say anything further about Suzanne, as Isabel fully accepted Jean’s viewpoint. Elizabeth did not seem concerned about Suzanne, probably because Jean was considered to be expert in such matters. I could not get past this authority screen which Jean represented. Basically, the situation amounted to Suzanne being deemed acceptable because Jean had endorsed a kundalini complexion to the former’s experiences. It is relevant to inform readers that I did not discover the full details about Suzanne until the afternoon that we all departed from the AGM venue. I happened to pick up some free brochures from the reception hall, and found that Suzanne was being promoted as Madame X, a being from another planet who was helping to save mankind from folly. She was also described in that literature as being in regular contact with even greater beings with whom she communicated about the state of humanity. (Subsequently, I was dismayed to find that Suzanne was listed in the new SMN Directory of Members, which described her as the president of an alternative organisation, giving the impression of a valid authority.)

The next day was Saturday, and Dr. Malcolm Hollick was scheduled to give a talk at 9 am on “Findhorn College: A New Educational Initiative.” David Lorimer chaired and was clearly enthusiastic about the subject matter. I learned that David had recently met Dr. Hollick at some other event and invited him to the AGM. It was obvious that David regarded the new Findhorn Foundation College as a promising enterprise. Indeed, Malcolm even stayed overnight at David’s home in Fife throughout the AGM schedule.

I was far more sceptical about the new College, having been intimately familiar with earlier forms of education at the Findhorn Foundation since 1989, when I had moved from England to Findhorn village. I have described my disillusionment and other factors elsewhere. Dr. Hollick gave a glowing talk about his new project, and concluded with a request for assistance from those interested. At the end of the talk, the audience were (as always) invited to ask questions or proffer their own view. I felt exasperated by the fluency of Malcolm’s talk, which totally omitted any reference to negative events that were on published record. There were others who asked questions, and I had to put my hand up repeatedly before David indicated that it was my turn. I then spoke very firmly, expressing a form of address rather than a question. My basic theme was that before the Findhorn Foundation advertised their new College in such glowing terms, they ought surely to correct past wrongs and clear any outstanding problems.

Briefly, Malcolm was the principal of the new College and he was now asking for assistance on behalf of the Foundation. I allowed that he might not be aware of past wrongs committed by the Foundation (whose official “history” was abortive), but that this factor left him with the onus to revise his format. I mentioned the matter of my own expulsion without a hearing, a situation which had developed in the wake of my criticism of the Foundation assimilation of Grof’s Holotropic Breathwork, which had caused havoc amongst some of the subscribers. I also mentioned the fate of the five serious and intelligent people who had all moved from England to the Foundation vicinity, and who were stigmatised in various ways by staff for supporting my request for a fair hearing. I touched upon the case of Jill Rathbone, who had left her job as part-time tutor at St. John’s College Choir School, Cambridge, when promised a new post at the Moray Steiner School, and how Foundation staff had conspired to deny her the new job after she made the transit in location, and solely because she was my friend.

At this point, and before I had finished, David Lorimer stopped me rather abruptly. He looked worried, and evidently feared my report. Such disclosures were not part of his expansionist plan. I had made a point of saying that the details I gave could be checked in a published book written by Stephen Castro some years earlier. David had not taken sufficient heed of this book, and I doubted whether he had ever seen it. Malcolm seemed in complete ignorance of it, a factor reflecting the strategy of repression exercised by the Foundation staff. Malcolm was obviously shocked, and clearly did not know what to say. I stressed that he was not responsible in any way for the events which had occurred, being a recent recruit. Some of the audience were also shocked at my disclosures. Three people approached me afterwards, expressing their horror at what had been done by the Findhorn Foundation under the guise of spirituality. A little later, two more sympathetic people came over to me, both of whom were professionals.

David Lorimer’s subsequent attitude about these matters proved revealing. Although he was prepared to fleetingly acknowledge in private that Foundation policies had been amiss, it was also clear that he did not want to upset existing political arrangements. As the months progressed, I learned the extent of his regard for the Findhorn Foundation as a source of subscribers to the SMN and the Wrekin Trust. Ethical considerations were squashed.

Meanwhile, after the talk by Dr. Hollick, I attended the talk given by Prof. John Clarke, who was associated with Kingston University. He was clearly interested in Jung and Eastern thought, which was the title of one of his books. An upset occurred when he demonstrated a minor breathing exercise. He asked the audience to join in, a gesture made in the “workshop” vogue. That gesture rebounded upon him, as the exercise induced in Jean Galbraith various traumatic symptoms, including severe shaking. She associated these symptoms with her former experiences that she described as “kundalini awakenings,” and dramatically walked out of the room. The basic factor to note is that, insofar as I am aware, nobody at the AGM duly confronted these confusions that were in process, and which were passing for “scientific and medical” activity.

There followed a talk by Dr. Benvenuto Andrean, who taught biology in the Netherlands. I was told that his main inspirations were Teilhard De Chardin and Jung. The Jungian influence was apparent in his talk, which was entitled “The Shadow: A Constant Companion on the Path.” His address was quite interesting, being an autobiographical account of experiences including severe shock. Dr. Andrean was known as Ben to the others, and I found him to be one of the more likable persons at the AGM.

After these talks we moved to the comfortable room used for tea-breaks. We were then each asked to give our views on the talks given that morning, and for this purpose again sat in a big circle. Someone brought up the matter of my complaint to Malcolm Hollick. Dr. H. F. (the “third eye” expert) then expressed the view that I “needed to learn to do things differently.” Two other women (who were therapists) then stated something similar. They did not express any comprehension of the events I had mentioned. Their basic theme was in the idiom of nonjudgmentalism, which means that nothing is to be criticised, and therefore there is never anything wrong except on the part of the critic. The implication was that I had “created my own reality” and was therefore responsible for my expulsion from the Foundation. I did not feel obliged to accept this shallow version of events, and responded with a few further details. I noticed that David Lorimer and Max Payne (a prominent SMN council member) said nothing in my defence. The new age talk about “creating your own reality” seems to have a mesmeric effect in environments where the critical faculties are suspended. Yet ironically, Dr. H. F. afterwards came over to me and apologised for what she had said. She even embraced me, obviously feeling that the resistance had gone too far.

When the assembly returned to the lecture room, we now had a choice of three talks given in different parts of the building. The greater number chose to attend the talk by Dr. Galbraith, and I was amongst them. It was obvious that the subject of kundalini held a fascination for the audience, though I could lament at the misconceptions prevailing. Jean had written down her assessment of kundalini experiences, and we were each given a copy. At the end of her talk, which I found very confusing, a number of persons put their hands up to speak. I was actually the first to do this, my intention being to point out that there were other, and quite different, types of kundalini experience which did not involve hospitalisation and nor any impulse to self-harm. (The damage done in that one talk might take many years to rectify, given the non-critical complexion of new age assimilation.) Although I was quite literally the first person to hold up a hand, the chairman (Dr. Julian Candy) ignored me repeatedly, continually choosing one of the other persons to speak. He had no excuse for missing me, as I sat only two rows from the front and he stood close by. Yet he concluded the session while still ignoring me. I then duly protested. Dr. Candy replied that I had been too late in putting up my hand, and anyway, I could speak to Jean later. There was something very wrong with his attitude.

I started to leave the room. Anne had been sitting next to me, and I became aware that she had gone over to Dr. Candy and was remonstrating with him. She was very indignant, saying that my hand had each time been raised first and that she had been hoping to hear what I had to say. Dr. Candy did not like this counter, but Anne stood her ground. She was so emphatic that he finally gave in. He followed me and apologised rather abjectly, saying that he was truly sorry to have passed me over.

I knew that he had been influenced by Jean’s version of my inferior role, and also by his own nonjudgmentalist interpretation of my book. He had inherited various “new age” biases, though he had formerly been a consultant psychiatrist. He had not read my autobiography and nor the book by Stephen Castro, and was (like many others) ignorant about the Findhorn Foundation. I believe that he had interpreted my counter to Dr. Malcolm Hollick in terms of an unmerited interruption. He subsequently thawed out towards me, grasping that there were other aspects to the situation.

At lunchtime I sat next to Dr. Hollick, who had clearly decided to display sympathy. He even put his arm around my shoulders for a few minutes to emphasise this. I was nonetheless wary of certain other gestures, however well-intentioned. He told me that his wife Christine would give me healing if I felt in need of this. I replied very firmly that I did not need healing, and that my protest was not made from that level. He afterwards told me that Christine was “teaching” now, and that she too had undergone a kundalini experience when he was away for a few days. She had to be hospitalised, I learned. It was evident that Malcolm associated me with her because of “kundalini experience.” When he had returned home, he had removed Christine from hospital, after which several Foundation women who “knew about kundalini” looked after her until she recovered. There was no mention of insights or profundities. I do not believe that the Foundation women he referred to had any knowledge of kundalini. I was familiar with their dispositions, which were typical of “new age counselling” and the hazards denoted.

Dr. Hollick seemed flustered by my aversion to healing. He suggested that he would talk to Eileen Caddy and request her guidance on what to do next. I had to take a deep breath here, knowing a great deal about the responses and habits of Eileen Caddy, the nominal Foundation leader. She was so docile to the Foundation management that she had long ago ceased to complain at their policies, as she herself had admitted to me, her reason being that they took no notice. Although Dr. Hollick seemed quite sincere in his wish to rectify matters, I doubted that he possessed the temperament to push forward with such a cause. However, I left him with the option of following up his suggestion, which he said that he would carry out.

As we all left the dining-room, Jean Galbraith came up to me. I could see that she was trying to adopt a revised assessment of the situation. “It will all be alright,” she said. “Something better is in store for you.” She seemed in earnest. I asked what she meant, and she replied that she had received “guidance” that she was to assist in any proposed reconciliation between myself and the Foundation. I made no comment. I knew that she had registered Dr. Hollick’s attempt at sympathetic liaison, and also the attention given me by some others. Jean now wanted to be my patron. Yet she had not assimilated my disagreement with her more or less “official” version of kundalini experience. Dr. Candy had prevented my objections to her talk given earlier, and basically, I knew that these objections would not be acceptable to her. She did not comprehend my angle, though she was not the only one in this respect. One problem for me now was that if Jean were considered to be assisting me, then others would confuse her version of mystical experience with my own.

That afternoon I attended a workshop entitled “The Aura as a Guide to Inner Action and Outer Growth.” This was conducted by a woman who was advertised as a therapist and healer. She concluded long before the allotted time. In my estimation, the contents of her talk were puerile, and indeed nonsensical. An early tea-break followed. I happened to talk with another therapist, a male, and he expressed the same low opinion of the aura workshop. Nil out of ten was his verdict. He added that, if several of us wished it, he could fill up the gap in the time schedule that now loomed by demonstrating his own modus operandi. He was quite persuasive, and five of us agreed. We moved to a pleasant room that was unused. The therapist (whom I shall call Tom) had us sit in a loosely arranged circle. Two rather elegant female therapists were included, and also the speaker on the aura. I felt that Tom had a sense of mission. There followed an intense and unofficial episode.

Tom commenced with pleasant conversation and asked seemingly innocuous questions. He said that the replies would indicate the level of truth we spoke, i.e., whether we were spontaneously honest, evasive, or downright dishonest. After a few moments I grasped what he was doing, and the way he rather skilfully played one person against another. His ruthless methods were too much for the aura specialist, who speedily left the room in an aggressive mood. Tom was triumphant. One down, four to go. I knew that he was inclined to regard me as an accomplice, and he flattered me by saying that the person who spoke most openly was myself. He then engaged me in an interchange that evoked comments from the others. The dialogue was designed to show that the therapists were themselves in need of therapy. Doreen could see that Tom was pitching me (or himself) against the two female therapists, and that she was really superfluous. She departed at this point on some pretext.

Tom intensified his manipulations. He told me that I tended to put myself in a bad light at the beginning of a conversation by stating apologetically that I had no academic qualification. This was honest but unnecessary, he indicated. My opponents then accused me of being my own worst enemy by creating negative realities; that was how they interpreted my counter to Dr. Hollick. I rejoined that neither of them (the two female therapists) liked me, as my concepts differed from theirs. Tom sat smiling, clearly delighted at the situation he had created. My opponents were then galvanised into retaliation, saying how wrong I was, and that they were being quite objective. It was me who was programmed wrongly, not them; I could only see from a certain limited aspect, while they had the totality of a holistic healing vision. They had not read my books, and did not need to.

It was a deadlock, nothing being resolved by the therapy. I was still persuaded that what the new age needs is not therapy, but improved education. The meeting broke up, as the next talk was imminent. I opted for “The Magic of Conflict” from Peter Hopkins, who was a managing director and promoter of the controversial Neuro-Linguistic Programming. The talk actually transpired to be a series of role plays between the speaker and his wife, designed to show how one could behave in stressful situations either aggressively or non-confrontationally. I sat next to Ben (Dr. Andrean), who was very communicative. We had conversed formerly about his problems, and now he expressed much sympathy at the way the Findhorn Foundation had behaved towards me.

There was a short break before audience involvement, and Ben disappeared. Tom took Ben’s seat, at which the latter showed much indignation upon his return. Despite this, Tom did not get up. Tom advised me never to demote myself in any conversation again, saying that in his view I had something of consequence to say. Not long after, he departed, complaining that he could stand no more of the banal role plays that we were watching. Tom was younger than most of the others, and more impatient.

In the evening, a concert was held in the main reception room. A number of SMN members sang, recited poetry, or performed in various ways. Most of them were elderly and academic or professional in background. The level of talent and good humour was quite striking and a joy to watch. They made fun of themselves and their own pomposity, and some clearly relived earlier years when Britain was a place of patriotism and integrity.

The bar was open and the audience were seated at circular tables. Malcolm sat next to me in this relaxed atmosphere. I suggested that he should not worry about what had occurred earlier. I repeated that he was not to blame for Foundation errors, and that I was not persuading him to reopen my case. He could drop the matter if he wanted. He replied that he still wished to consult Eileen Caddy about the issue of myself and my friends. We had a very amenable conversation. I also had positive conversations with both Ben and Tom.

Dr. Peter Fenwick came over for a few minutes. He seemed a very reserved man, but expressed sympathy concerning the Foundation issue. However, he could not get my angle on events in perspective, and asked if I had felt an “emotional release” when I spoke out against Dr. Hollick. I could see that he had no comprehension of the events which had occurred during the 90s in the far north of Scotland. He had not read any of the literature I referred to, and I assumed that he would now do so. (In fact he did not, and I eventually sent him some material of my own accord; discrepantly, he did not reply for many months, and evaded basic issues when he did.)

At 10 pm, several of the gathering began to retire for the night, including Tom and Ben. Diana Clift (a Council member) then launched into the dance programme, playing some lively pop music on a cassette player. Several couples got up to dance. Diana remembered me dancing at the SMN function the previous year, and now teamed me up with Peter Hopkins, whose wife had gone to bed. Peter was quite lively, and somewhat younger than me. At first I got breathless and had to pause, but afterwards found that I could keep up with him quite well. Eventually I chose to sit down, and he then partnered someone else. I watched the dancers with great interest. A white-haired man named Tony Pritchett (involved in tv and broadcasting) was performing a vigorous solo as if his life depended on it. Another soloist was Dr. John Roberts (a computing consultant). Although in his sixties, John would occasionally do a somersault, landing clean on his feet each time. He had already told me of his interest in martial arts. John now came over and took my hand and we danced together in a way that was popular just after the war. As the music changed to a faster rhythm, I found myself moving with it. Soon I let go of John’s hand, and suddenly did not care who was watching or what they thought. I had been worried about losing energy, but this did not happen. Then I saw with surprise that John was still there and copying whatever movements I made. Later I had to slow down (being over seventy), and at ten minutes to one I retired to bed with no after-effects.

The next day, Sunday July 15th, was the last day of the AGM. At breakfast, I was dismayed when Jean discoursed on kundalini to Dr. Fenwick, who listened intently. She did not ask me for my view, but instead encouraged comment from another woman whose experience was similar to her own. I found that I could not get a word in, and not for the first time. Jean dwelt upon the need for hospitalisation due to attempted suicide and “insane” behaviour. What she said was so wide of the mark, in my view, that I felt nauseated. I had already found that a conversation with Jean meant listening to her, as she seemed intent upon minimising response, at least in my case.

Dr. Fenwick moved off elsewhere, and I did not get an opportunity to talk to him. On a later occasion that day, I disengaged from Jean and went to talk with Brian Snellgrove who was sitting alone. I had already conversed with him several times. I was amazed at what Jean said when I returned. She loudly thanked me for approaching Brian and considered that I had been spiritually delegated to do so. This was because she had been talking to someone else, though it had actually been her task to communicate with Brian. Her extraordinary disclosure left me speechless.

Official AGM activity was the main agenda that final day. The Members Forum transpired to be revealing. The members sat in a large circle, David Lorimer acting as chairman. We were all invited to ask questions or make comments. David at last raised the subject of the Consciousness Manifesto, though in a very economic context. He was concerned about what should be done with the £90,000 from the Templeton Foundation, and also the further large sum anticipated from the same source. The financial preoccupations were confirmed by our introduction to Jayne Warren, a lady who sounded like an American publicity agent. We were told that her task was to link the SMN and the new Manifesto proposals (mainly in the form of conferences) with tv, leading journalists, major newspapers, universities, and other channels. Jayne did not seem interested in consciousness, only in publicity media. Yet that was not her fault, as she had been delegated a role.

A printed handout composed by Jayne Warren was prepared for the AGM. This was entitled Public Outreach, Development & Speaker Service. An outline was here given for the SMN programme envisaged for the coming year, which included a conference on the theme of “Intuition in Business.” This handout described the SMN in terms of an “inclusive, nonjudgmental approach.” Reference was made to “the SMN’s ability to bridge often cutting-edge or complicated scientific views with an intuitive, spiritual or mystical perspective, thereby gaining a reputation for open-minded exploration and, above all, real INTEGRATION.” I was very sceptical of this promotionalism, which was glossing too much, including the Grof issue. I did not feel that the new age theme of nonjudgmentalism was the best solution for an organisation claiming scientific and medical expertise.

I decided to be bold when my turn came to speak. I said that there were dangers in the route being taken by the SMN, and that I had mentioned this last year, in private, to Elizabeth Fenwick. My contention was that too many dubious “new age” ideas and practises were being introduced into SMN procedures. I described how shocked I had felt when receiving the Directory of Members. The listed interests of some members were very disconcerting, and included a variety of alternative concepts and fads that would not be considered viable by many analysts. There was also the factor of activities not listed in the Directory, but which were being furthered by some members in widespread workshops and courses of a dubious nature, and so obviously commercially oriented. I mentioned also my feeling that if this diverse information was pooled by some disaffected member and released to the press, then the consequences might crash the entire organisation. This latter statement produced an effect, and several persons present quickly acknowledged that possibility, and with due concern. I seemed to touch an underlying nerve here. A number of those present knew well enough what I was talking about, but were not in the habit of discussing such things, perhaps because they were discouraged from doing so. One member of the SMN council even came over to me and said that I had raised a vitally important issue and one that was long overdue for expression.

David Lorimer looked shocked. He acted as though he did not know about what was being said. He commented that he would like to be informed of who these potentially controversial people were. I could sense his antagonism, and then knew that it was pointless to push this angle when he was in charge of proceedings. It was David who had allowed in so many alternative therapists and related entities to swell the membership and gain subscription fees. The original scientific core of the SMN had been submerged by the accretions, to the extent that banal and misleading “workshops” were now a feature of AGM events. Yet nobody dared to challenge David Lorimer, whose organisational talents had become the crux of operation. I was already unpopular with David for having confronted Dr. Hollick, who was connected to one alternative battery that had infiltrated the SMN in the form of such entrepreneurs as William Bloom, a workshop hero of the Findhorn Foundation.

My comments really did arouse some interest. At lunch soon afterwards, Ben sat next to me along with Stephan and Mats. These men were all doctors, and they expressed total support of my position. They asked me various questions for further elucidation.

At 2.15 pm we were back in the main meeting room for the last AGM event. David announced that four topics had been selected for group discussion. Those topics arose from the administrative concerns in process. We could each choose which topic we wished and then go to the area of the building allocated for that purpose. I selected “Future Policy” and followed several others to the room where Tom had held his unofficial therapy session the previous day. There were nine of us, myself being the only female. We were about to commence when others arrived at the last minute, including Doreen and several other women. The PR lady Jayne Warren was amongst them. David Lorimer and Professor Chris Clarke (an SMN official) were also in this final batch. It now seemed obvious that I had chosen the most important topic.

David asked who would like to begin the meeting. One of the men immediately responded, saying that he wished to conduct a guided meditation. To my surprise David agreed. The proposing meditator did not inspire my confidence. We were then launched into a lengthy visualisation which entirely altered the atmosphere. I joined in very half-heartedly. Just as I commenced, I saw (in my mind) each person present standing in full sunshine with a rainbow above them. It became evident that this scenario was the intended culmination of the visualisation, and I concluded that I had ingested the details telepathically. I believe that such visualisations are a distraction. The presiding meditator appeared to revel in this opportunity to “guide” and teach. I had witnessed this tendency in the past. At the end, the presider requested that we each relay what we had experienced. To my further surprise and dismay, David permitted this also. The PR lady became bored, or so it seemed, as she left the room; I noticed that she had rather casually sat on the floor at the outset, perhaps an indication that she did not regard the event as being of any great consequence. Was David merely passing the time? The decisions would never be made by the members, only by the organiser.

I was the last person to speak. I said with honesty that the “meditation” had radically altered the atmosphere and that the follow-up comments had merely served to strengthen the distraction. This meant that the necessary cerebral basis for a Policy discussion had not been achieved, but instead offset. I added my view that, unless this event was duly stabilised and a certain dynamic generated, the meeting would yield nothing, as most of those present were no longer in the right state to meet the objective. These comments caused some vexation and disbelief, especially from the women present. David did not seem pleased. He briefly said that there was only half an hour left, and we must get on with the schedule. Yet curiously, neither he nor Prof. Chris Clarke said anything at all during what followed. Several people began to put forward their viewpoints, none of which I felt had any sound basis. However, I did not express my own thoughts, instead remaining silent, convinced now that it was pointless to participate further in such a disjointed situation. I noticed that Tom also remained silent.

When this awkward meeting ended, some people hurried off to catch trains. Tom then came over to me and said “You were one hundred per cent correct!” I then knew that he similarly regarded the meditation as a distraction. Nobody else made any comment.

People were milling around in the main hall and reception room saying their goodbyes. Six of us were staying overnight, and so had to move out to another building owned by the university. A taxi was ordered for myself, Jean Galbraith, Ben, Tony Pritchett, Dr. John Roberts, and Prof. John Clarke. We were taken to Hamilton Hall, a former hotel now used for students and overlooking the famous St. Andrew’s golf course. My room was on the first floor, while Jean was on the fourth. Four of us arranged to have a meal that evening in a local restaurant. Prof. Clarke pleaded fatigue from too much unaccustomed dancing the previous night, but Ben told me that John had been affronted by the way Jean had walked out of his talk (in trauma), and that the Professor did not wish to engage with her further.

In due time we walked through the town, which Jean knew well as she had been a university student here. We found a small restaurant and sat at a central table for four. Jean talked throughout, virtually non-stop, on the subject of kundalini and related matters. Further, she spoke in a very loud voice which I felt certain was enough to impinge upon all other clientele. She ordered wine, which I declined for orange juice. Jean and Ton