COMMENTARY
Scientology Is the Antithesis of Humanistic
Psychology: Comment on Wolfe’s (2017)
“Common Sense Scientology” and Friedman’s
(2017) Related Commentary
Elliot Benjamin
Capella University
This article is a comment on Wolfe’s XXXXXXXXXXTHP article “Common Sense Scientology” and
Friedman’s XXXXXXXXXXrelated commentary. I have utilized my background in Scientology in the
1970s, as well as my experience as a humanistic psychologist, to convey two main areas of
concern that I have about Wolfe’s article. These areas of concern encompass a need to know
the background of the author in relation to Scientology, and my problems with the author’s
comparison of Scientology with the tenets of Rogers’ nondirective counseling. However, I
am in agreement with Friedman’s statement that all areas related to psychology, even if they
are controversial, should be studied, and Scientology is no exception to this. But doing so in
a complete context of knowledge about Scientology is what I am focusing on in this
commentary.
Keywords: humanistic psychology, Scientology, Scientology auditing, nondirective counsel-
ing, Scientology training routines
I would first off like to convey my appreciation to John Wolfe XXXXXXXXXXfor his article
“Common Sense Scientology” that appeared in the March 2017 issue of The Humanistic
Psychologist, to Ha
is Friedman XXXXXXXXXXfor his related commentary in the June 2017 issue
of The Humanistic Psychologist, and to The Humanistic Psychologist Editor in Chief Scott
Churchill for his decision to publish this Scientology material in a humanistic psychology
publication. However, I have two significant concerns about Wolfe’s article, both from my
experiences in Scientology in the 1970s and from my cu
ent perspective as a humanistic
psychologist.
My first concern is that in Wolfe’s article there was absolutely no mention of his
ackground related to Scientology, and it was left to the reader to wonder if Wolfe had
personal experience with Scientology, or rather was approaching the subject in the role of
an analytical detached professional observer. Given that humanistic psychology com-
monly engages in qualitative research, this is no small matter, as one of the tenets of
This article was published Online First August 2, 2018.
Co
espondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elliot Benjamin, Department of
Psychology, Capella University, 135 Meadow Road, Winterport, ME XXXXXXXXXXE-mail: ben496@
prexar.com
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
i
gh
te
d
y
th
e
A
m
e
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
o
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
l
is
he
s
.
T
hi
s
a
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
th
e
pe
s
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
e
an
d
is
no
t
to
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
oa
dl
y.
The Humanistic Psychologist
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 46, No. 3, 281–286
XXXXXXXXXX/18/$12.00 http:
dx.doi.org/10.1037/hum0000095
281
qualitative research is that it is imperative that the related background and perspectives of
the researcher to the research be disclosed, as the person and the research are not separate
entities, but rather there may be subtle, or not so subtle, influences of the researcher on
what is being researched (Creswell, XXXXXXXXXXHowever, I was glad to see that this kind of
elated personal disclosure was given by Ha
is Friedman XXXXXXXXXXin his Commentary to
Wolfe’s article, as Friedman disclosed how Scientology founder L. Ron Hu
ard’s
foundational text Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (Hu
ard, 1950) was
influential in developing Friedman’s interest in psychology while he was still in high
school. I strongly encourage The Humanistic Psychologist to include this kind of related
author background in all their authors’ articles and in any future publications of articles
on Scientology, or any other topic for that matter.
Consequently I decided to attempt to find out for myself what Wolfe’s background in
Scientology was, as I was quite sure that he had a significant background in Scientology,
ased upon the detailed accounts he gave of various Scientology processes (Wolfe, 2017),
and I suspected that he was essentially well-disposed toward Scientology. To his credit,
Wolfe was very responsive to my inquiry, and disclosed to me an outline of his lifelong
involvement in Scientology, which included far more high-level Scientology immersion
than I had imagined. In respect to Wolfe not feeling comfortable with me circulating
widely a second-hand account of his experiences with Scientology, I will not say any more
in detail about his immersion in Scientology. However, I will say that it appears to me that
what I suspected about Wolfe essentially being well-disposed to Scientology is fairly
accurate, and I think this has significant bearing on my second concern about Wolfe’s
article.
My second concern about Wolfe’s article can be seen from how I have chosen to
title this Commentary: “Scientology is the Antithesis of Humanistic Psychology.”
When I say that Scientology is the antithesis of humanistic psychology, I am basing
this both on my experiences in Scientology in the 1970s (Benjamin, 2013) and from
my cu
ent perspective as a humanistic psychologist. It distu
ed me to no small
measure to read in Wolfe’s XXXXXXXXXXabstract that “Scientology shares many of the goals
and methods of humanistic psychology” (p. 84) and especially in the text of the article
that “In its general philosophy and approach, auditing [Scientology psychotherapy
personal growth processes] is closest to the nondirective therapy of Carl Rogers
(1961)” (p. 87). Wolfe continues on in both these excerpts to also say that Scientology
differs from humanistic psychology and Rogers’ approach in significant ways, but I
take issue with his preliminary affirmative statement of the similarity of Scientology
and auditing with humanistic psychology and Rogers’ nondirective therapy. I can
understand how there may be similarities between Scientology/auditing and human-
istic psychology/Rogers’ nondirective approach to psychotherapy in terms of seeking
personal awareness and an expansion of consciousness, which is the crux of what
Wolfe describes in his article. However, when it comes to the “methods” of Scien-
tology and auditing, this is where I contend that Scientology is the antithesis of
humanistic psychology.
What I believe is the most essential ingredient in Rogers’ XXXXXXXXXXnondirective
approach to psychotherapy, and from my perspective for much of humanistic psychology
as well, is the genuine and empathic relationship between the therapist and the client. In
humanistic psychology the therapist is a “real” person, engaging in a caring relationship
with the client, and most importantly, acting out of his or her genuine feelings, with
“freedom” an essential ingredient in this whole relationship context (Schneider, Pierson,
& Bugental, XXXXXXXXXXIn contrast, it has been widely publicized that Scientology goes to
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
i
gh
te
d
y
th
e
A
m
e
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
o
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
l
is
he
s
.
T
hi
s
a
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
th
e
pe
s
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
e
an
d
is
no
t
to
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
oa
dl
y.
282 BENJAMIN
incredible measures to control, manipulate, threaten, and intimidate people who progress
in their organization. This is not just rumor and hearsay, as it is well documented in some
of the Scientology references that Wolfe himself includes in his article, is readily available
in a number of articles and books about Scientology, and is consistent with my own
experiences in Scientology in the 1970s (Benjamin, XXXXXXXXXXThus, it is not the aspect of
studying and analyzing Scientology processes themselves that I take issue with in Wolfe’s
(2017) article or Friedman’s XXXXXXXXXXCommentary, but rather with Wolfe’s statements of
similarity between Scientology/auditing and humanistic psychology/Rogers’ nondirective
approach to psychotherapy.
To look at some of these ramifications in more detail, the essential context of personal
growth and freedom in Rogers’ XXXXXXXXXXnondirective approach to psychotherapy is for the
therapist to foster a comfortable therapeutic environment for the client to find what is true fo
him or her in the depths of his or her being. Now the crux of Wolfe’s XXXXXXXXXXarticle focuses
on the merits of the auditing communication cycle, in the context of a completed cycle of
action. I can agree with Wolfe, up to a point, that it may be helpful to encourage people to
complete their actions and stay with their inner processes on the same topic they began thei
inner therapeutic journey on, but the key word here is “may.” I can easily envision that in some
circumstances, which may not be at all uncommon, it may be most helpful for a client to start
with a particular topic that stimulates his or her insights about a different topic, and come to
a major beneficial realization about something very different from what he or she began his o
her inner therapeutic journey on. This is part and parcel of Rogers’ XXXXXXXXXXnondirective
approach to psychotherapy, as well as of what I believe commonly occurs in the therapeutic
processes in various forms of humanistic psychology (Schneider et al., 2015), but is com-
pletely against the doctrines of Scientology auditing, as Wolfe XXXXXXXXXXdescribes in his article.
As I have written about in regard to my experiences with the Misunderstood Word
technology (a technology that Wolfe, 2017, hints about in his article) in Scientology in the
1970s (Benjamin, 2013),
Like so many other parts of Scientology, L. Ron Hu
ard has taken a basically good idea, has
gone to extremes with it, has made it into a rigid authoritarian decree, and has built up a
formidable machine-like technology. If only we were intellectual robots, I would have no
qua
el with the misunderstood word technology or with anything else in Scientology. But Mr.
Hu
ard has put in 100% where 70% should be. This is his great flaw, and this is why I am
afraid I must write the way I am writing. (p. 234)
Similarly, Wolfe XXXXXXXXXXdescribes the benefits of the Scientology TR (Training
Routines) processes, and I can agree, up to a point, that these can be helpful. But once
again, there is a rigid authoritarian degree in regard to how they are instituted in
Scientology, which Wolfe does not discuss, that I think is very relevant here to distinguish
etween Scientology and the central aspects of humanistic psychology, inclusive of
Rogers’ nondirective approach to psychotherapy. To illustrate once again from my own
experiences with Scientology in the 1970s,
I believe, in my own developing theory of psychology, that I would use Hu
ard’s TR’s, but
in conjunction with perhaps some principles from Gestalt and Rogerian psychology. Of
course, this would be ultrataboo to Hu
ard and Scientology, and I would be
anded as a
“squi
el” (one who alters Scientology and does off-beat practices). (Benjamin, 2013, p.