A self-proclaimed “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” of anti-cultism made claims that would be absurd if they were not causing significant unnecessary suffering.
by Susan J. Palmer
Article 2 of 2. Read article 1.
Be Scofield, the author of the anti-AROPL article that started the whole campaign, says she has been called the “anti-cult hero of the digital age.” The title of her book, “Hunting Lucifer: One Reporter’s Search for Cults and Demons,” suggests she views all unconventional spiritual groups—to borrow George Bush’s catchy phrase—as the “axis of evil.” Scofield portrays herself as an intrepid cult-buster, a sort of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” who hunts down “cult leaders,” exposing their putative evil depredations to the public.
Scofield’s “research method” is to seek out angry ex-members and regurgitate any complaints that fit into her stereotypical pop-psychological portrait of the “cult leader.” She did not bother visiting AROPL’s headquarters in Crewe or interviewing current members. From the comfort of her desk, she scours the internet for sound bites and quotes to construct stories about crazy prophets who brainwash, sexual predators, and fraudsters who bilk followers of their savings. Scofield’s writings exemplify what James Beckford (op. cit., 115) describes as “the cozy symbiotic relationship between the media and the anticult movement.”
Meena Vishwanath, an Indian journalist who is Assistant Director at SMaRT media coalition, wrote an article, “The Distorted Narratives of The Guru Magazine: Exposing The Modus Operandi of Be Scofield’s Campaign Against Indian Spiritual Gurus” (“The Commune,” March 7, 2025). She states her mission as follows: “…in recent years, a series of articles published by ‘GuruMag,’ a website run by Be Scofield, have aggressively targeted prominent Indian spiritual leaders… Often relying on anonymous sources and unverified claims, [Scofield] presents a skewed, sensationalist narrative. A closer examination reveals a pattern of deceptive practices aimed at maligning the image of these leaders without credible evidence. This article seeks to expose the agenda behind these attacks and clarify the facts.”
Vishwanath points to deceptive tactics, such as using multiple names and email addresses, and publishing her articles across several self-owned websites. Writing about herself in the third person, Scofield creates the illusion that independent sources endorse her work. Vishwanath accuses her of violating copyright laws, intimidating critics, and spreading unverified rumors.
Scofield attacked Indian guru Aaravindha Himadra in her January 2019 article that explores the mysterious death of one of the guru’s students on Orcas Island. Vishwanath points out that ten years ago, Sirius Investigations found no link between Himadra and the student’s death, and that Scofield’s claims were baseless and defamatory, “a deliberate effort to manufacture a sensationalized narrative.” Himadra filed a $250,000 defamation lawsuit against Scofield.
Scofield attacked “Sadhguru” (Jagadish Vasudev) of the Isha Foundation in her March 2025 article, “Inside Sadhguru’s Cult Empire.” The article claims that “many mysterious deaths have occurred over the last several decades,” and insinuates there was foul play in the demise of Sadhguru’s fasting wife, Vijji, in 1997. Scofield chose to ignore the fact that the Indian judiciary’s investigation had found no evidence of wrongdoing and closed the case in 1999.
Vishwanath complains that Scofield even goes so far as to attack Amma, the beloved “hugging saint” in her November 18, 2024, “GuruMag” article (“Amma’s Empire: Sex, Lies and Hugs”). Vishwanath writes, “Be Scofield has gone so far as to twist Mata Amritanandamayi’s compassionate gestures—her famous hugs and blessings… portraying them as sexual.”
Scofield moves on from Indian gurus to Muslim Mahdis. She highlights the mysterious disappearance of an AROPL member, Lisa Weise, during a tourist visit to India in 2019. A hostile ex-member (alias “Mylan”) is quoted as suggesting that Lisa was bumped off by one of Hashem’s henchmen (no motive given). It should be noted that no charges have been laid to date.
In her “GuruMag” article, Scofield zeros in on a video clip of Abdullah Hashem quoting apocalyptic prophecies, trying to frame him as a potential terrorist inciting his flock. But any competent religious studies scholar would recognize in the clip the familiar “Bible prophecy” type of sermon often heard in Christian pulpits where priests and pastors connect current world events to the frightening metaphors found in the Book of Revelation. When I questioned Abdullah Hashem about this in our interview, he explained he was referring to the war in Gaza, the Ukraine situation, the attack on Iran; that he was using apocalyptic language to underline his message that humanity must learn to overcome religious intolerance and build a “divine just state.”
Scofield quotes as her source an unnamed hostile ex-member (alias “Yasir”) who accuses Hashem of sexually exploiting and humiliating his female followers. In anticult literature, one of the defining characteristics of a “cult leader” is “sexual predator.” Some of them are, of course, but scholars of new religious studies have found charismatic prophets are pretty diverse in their sexual arrangements and orientations. Swami Prabhupada of ISKCON and Father Divine were strict celibates. Mark Prophet of the Summit Lighthouse and Guy Ballard (of the Great I AM) were monogamists who each formed a charismatic duo with their wives. Marshall Herff Applewhite of Heaven’s Gate was a self-castrating homosexual. Noble Drew Ali of the Moorish Science Temple and Joseph Smith were polygamists. Abdullah Hashem is married to a beautiful wife and has four children, plus two adopted children. Perhaps he might be one of those “normal” devoted husbands and fathers who also happen to be prophet-founders of NRMs?
As for AROPL’s children being trapped with “God” in an “orphanage,” I have recently concluded a five-year research project, “Children in Sectarian Religions” (funded by the Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Council of Canada, administered by McGill University). I am interested in children in NRMs, and although I came to Crewe to interview adults, I would see AROPL’s children eating lunch with their parents in the back courtyard and playing ball on the front lawns of the estate, and they would smile and wave. AROPL parents don’t live separately from their children, they don’t believe in spanking, and they rely on modern medicine (I interviewed three AROPL doctors), so I don’t see any controversial aspects to AROPL childrearing.
Vishwanath sums up Scofield’s articles in “GuruMag” as, “a textbook example of smear campaigns—heavy on accusations but light on evidence. Without credible proof, these stories should be seen for what they are: an attempt to undermine the credibility of globally respected spiritual leaders based on innuendo and conjecture.”
I have just returned from Crewe, where I spent almost two weeks in June interviewing AROPL members for a project on religious conversion experiences with my colleague, Professor Holly Folk of Western Washington University (WWU). The project was monitored by the WWU Institutional Research Board.
Very little to date has been written about this NRM, so when I read “Meet the Doomsday Cult Taking Over the World” and the cloned versions of the same article in “The Guardian,” “The Daily Mail,” and “The Telegraph”—I was struck by the authors’ hostile, defamatory tone, their sloppy research methods, and strange lack of curiosity about this unique NRM. Journalists often miss out on the real story by focusing on slander and sound bites. Relying on the “seen one cult, seen ‘em all” approach, they stick to a basic format so that each news story fits neatly into the same predictable anti-cult mold.
But what I discovered during my two-week research trip to Crewe was a tale of high adventure, reminiscent of P.C. Wren’s “Beau Geste” novels set in the French Foreign Legion. As I interviewed thirty-three members and, lastly, their Mahdi, I watched a jigsaw puzzle fall into place, a puzzle about a new religion that emerged out of a YouTube series called “The Arrivals.” One might even categorize AROPL as one of Adam Possamai’s “hyper-real” religions (see his book “Religion and Popular Culture: A Hyper-Real Testament,” Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang, 2005).
Abdullah Hashem, a young Egyptian American documentary film student who graduated from Indiana University, then traveled in the Middle East, making videos in which he explored esoteric spirituality and harshly criticized the clerics and leaders of contemporary Sunni and Shia Islam. His series, “The Arrivals,” posted on YouTube, became very popular among rebellious, secularized Muslim youth. His videos also attracted a “cult following” among European students. In my view, much of the appeal of “The Arrivals” was in how it introduced young people into the discipline and joys of Comparative Religion. In his later “The Antichrist Dajjal Series” (TADS), the following documentary series, Hashem reveals himself as a spiritual seeker, not just a provocative entertainer, and focuses on the Shia belief in the Mahdi. Suddenly, in 2011, Abdullah Hashem announced on TADS that he had found the true awaited Mahdi in Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan, an Iraqi born in Basra.
Hashem then became the chief proponent of the White Banners, this new, controversial, and persecuted Mahdi movement—until 2015 when he announced that he had just come from a secret meeting with Hassan, who was in “occultation” [hiding]. He said there had been a coup, and Hassan regarded himself as betrayed by a schismatic faction in the White Banners. During this secret meeting, according to Hashem, Hassan revealed that he, Hashem, was the Second Mahdi, whose name, “Abdullah,” was written in the Will of the Prophet. Hashem and his followers joined the Black Banners, who oppose Hassan’s betrayers.
This complicated story has enigmatic aspects, but it is far more original and nuanced than Scofield’s crude anti-cult narrative.
Sociologists of religion James A. Beckford (op. cit.) and James T. Richardson and Barnes van Driel (“Journalists’ Attitudes Toward New Religious Movements,” “Review of Religious Research,” 39(2), 1997, 116–36) have made the important point that journalists consistently generate stories that trivialize and stigmatize alternative religious movements, and tend to craft thumbnail descriptions so as make the group conform to the standard stereotypical portrait of a “cult.” Media reports on “cults” frequently show bias and hasty, inadequate research methods, and are shaped by a militant secularism that showcases a group’s weirdest beliefs without context or any explanatory framework. Many journalists openly declare their mandate to “unmask” the cults and their proto-criminal leaders. They will seek out apostates and whistleblowers who are dedicated to broadcasting the “bad news” about their former religion.
Sociologists, in contrast, are (at least ideally) committed to value-free, objective reporting. As “worldview translators,” they may be concerned with justice and with educating the public. Researchers strive to keep the objects of their study at arm’s length and to filter personal values and emotive language while conducting research over a relatively long period of time.
It is not the role of a sociologist of religion to promote the agendas of NRMs. Nor is it appropriate (unless one is an expert witness in a legal case) to defend an NRM from its enemies and critics. However, as citizens of the world, familiar with human rights, democracy, and justice, surely researchers might dare to correct false or misleading depictions of the religions they study?
Eileen Barker in her iconic 1995 article, “The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!” (“Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,” 34, no. 3 [September 1995]: 287–310) encourages researchers to “step outside the ivory tower and compete in secondary reality constructions in the marketplace,” because “there is no reason why we should not use the findings of social science to fight bigotry and injustice.”
Perhaps it is about time we took up Eileen Barker’s challenge?
Susan J. Palmer is an Affiliate Professor in the Religions and Cultures Department at Concordia University in Montreal. She has directed the Children on Sectarian Religions and State Control project at McGill University, supported by the Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). She is the author of fourteen books, notably The New Heretics of France (Oxford University Press, 2012).
