Year XVI Issue 06 - 2000

Luisa Miccoli

1/2

To clear better the moral subjugation procedure an individual must undergo, we've interviewed a person - that due to privacy reason but also due to a fear of reprisals - whished to remain anonymous. This man has been for years a religious group adherent whose guru, even being Italian, makes everybody call him with a bombastic eastern name.

How is composed your family?

I'm married and I have a child, and I've been involved with all my family in this community life.

Which are the requirements to belong to these communities?

It must delegate the master any aspect of one's own life, from the simplest choice regarding food or dresses up to the most important choice regarding work and economic dependency, in order to search a way to mediation and initiation to the promised spiritual balance.

How did you detached form this group and which was your experience?

I think I've been lucky. Over time it sowed into my mind doubts about the master's benevolence and charity. I succeeded in observing, notwithstanding the little psychic autonomy I kept, that some action of the master were morally incorrect and did not have anything concerning the sacred.

May you give us an example?

I remember that I find myself to work to set out in a scenery way some non-existing houses, since a technician must come and carryout an inspection for amnesty for infringements of building regulations file.

This kind of actions must be completely out of reality and a place where it is searched the highest expression of spirituality.

And so, what did it happen?

I opened my eyes, a veil fell and I wondered: which is the difference if the same actions are done by the "sly persons" in the laic are proposed again behind the face of spirituality. What is there to learn from this people?

But which was the determining episode?

The one that contributed to "disconcert me ", and it was a very disquieting alarm bell since it regarded a dear person, my wife, even she involved inside the sect. She was heartily recommended to sell her apartment to convey naturally the receipts in the community, since, according to the community rules, the followers could not own anything.

I would like to understand better, for which reason a human being convinces himself to abandon his properties in favour of a community?

The explanation is simple: the individual has a relative role, what's important is the welfare of the community. Really the sole to benefit from privileged conditions is the master, that rounded himself with luxury and who did not lack anything.