To: “A Statement by the Israeli Center for Cult Victims regarding ISTA (International School of Temple Arts)” (Link)

We are deeply saddened and disappointed to see the incorrect and misleading information shared in the Israeli Center for Cult Victims’s statement about ISTA.

First and foremost, ISTA is not a cult. ISTA does not have the constructs of a cult. Renowned cult expert, Steven Hassan, Ph.D., has written extensively on how real cults control people’s behavior, thoughts, emotions, and the information they have access to.

Specifically, related to Hassan’s criteria, ISTA:

does not ask anyone to follow any specific belief,
does not have a central leader,
encourages free thinking, personal empowerment, and self-respect, and
does not try to keep people in ISTA. Participants are free to come and go as they please.

Given all of that, the “ISTA is a cult” implication underlying this statement is completely misplaced.

Find out more about Dr. Hassan’s work here.

Secondly, ISTA feels it’s important to respond to each and every false and misleading point made by the Israeli Center for Cult Victims:

In a typical “Level 1” activity, participants gaze at the bare genitals of several female participants.

The Level 1 program, indeed, may include an activity where participants gaze at each other bodies, regardless of gender, without touch. The person being looked at is always at choice as to the level of nudity they want to be in. The purpose of this kind of practices is to re-establish a sacred, honoring way of looking at each other’s bodies beyond attraction, desire, and the objectification of human bodies that is prevalent in most modern cultures.

ISTA sees no harm nor shame in proposing such an activity to consenting adults. The Centre seems to imply that looking at each other’s potentially naked bodies is a dangerous and “cultish” activity. ISTA does not subscribe to this worldview.

In another typical “Level 1” activity, group masturbation takes place, including staff.

This is a distorted and sensationalist statement. The truth: Since Level 1 is a journey of reclaiming one’s own boundaries and sovereignty, including sexually, the Level 1 starts with the instruction for all participants to refrain from any sexual contact in the first few days of the workshop. This also applies to couples. At a certain point, and still, within the agreement of no mutual sexual interaction, the participants may be invited to explore their relationship with their own bodies in a sensual and erotic way. This is an area that contains an incredible amount of pain and shame, and expressions like “group masturbation” do nothing to help heal it.

In this practice, like in all others at ISTA, each participant is absolutely at choice as to the level of nudity they want to have. While there aren’t specific instructions to touch one’s own genitals, this is not forbidden or prohibited. While a space where consenting adults engage in giving loving touch to themselves may seem offensive to some, it is probably the least dangerous group context one can imagine.

Once again, the Center seems to willingly or unwillingly adopt a scandalistic and misinformed view of what sex-positive spaces among consenting adults may be or look like.

The instructions at the workshop are built in such a way that there is an increasing implied-to- explicit pressure for sexual openness that does not necessarily match participants’ abilities, under problematic conditions such as sleep deprivation.

This phrase contains no truth at all. Curricular activities in ISTA trainings generally finish around 10pm. Breakfast is served around 8am. While ISTA is an intensive program, there is no “sleep deprivation” involved—while of course the participants, being adults, are free to stay awake longer if they want.

As for the increasing “implied-to-explicit pressure for sexual openness”—this is an unfounded evaluation that the Center makes without any basis. On the contrary, the first days of an ISTA Level 1 contain the instruction to NOT engage sexually with others.

According to testimonials, the ideology revealed from the content of the workshops links spiritual and mental development to willingness to participate in different sexual activities, including activities in a social space and/or group sexual activities.

The undefined “according to testimonials” is used as a basis to make a completely inaccurate statement. ISTA does not connect spiritual and mental development to willingness to participate in sexual activities. On the contrary, graduation from Level 1 is based on the individual’s capacity to express and uphold boundaries, practice consent, and make sovereign decisions. Many successful graduates of ISTA Level 1 have completed the whole program without engaging in any sexual activity with anyone. It is disheartening that the Center is willing to make assumptions about the spiritual or educational values held at ISTA without any effort to conduct an objective inquiry.

At the peak of the “Level 1” workshop, there is a ceremony where male participants massage the female participants’ genitals. The ceremony takes part in pairs with a random selection, using a raffle.

This is a gross misrepresentation of a very intimate and consensual ceremony. Level 1 does include activities where participants are paired up, not by a “raffle”, but by a respectful, heartfelt guided randomized process. ISTA believes there is nothing wrong or “cultish” about that. What the Center does not know, or does not say, is that any such activity includes a guided conversation about intentions, concerns, and boundaries, where each of the participants can state their desires and make their boundaries clear.

The Center does not mention that those who come to ISTA as couples are offered the possibility to do these practices as a couple, rather than be paired in a “raffle.” Since ISTA is open to both couples and singles, this method, versus a system of attractions is utilized.

The suggestion that “male participants massage the female participants’ genitals” is meant to create fear. The truth is that many female and male participants are entering into the sacred sexuality scene also for the possibility of being shown how present, loving, non-sexual touch can be offered to one another outside of any seductive interaction. What the Center does not know, or does not say, is that in many ISTA containers paired exercises involving touch are “non-gendered,” meaning that two male or two female participants might also be invited to practice together.

What the Center fails to understand is that ceremonies with optional touch engaged in by consenting adults who are not entering into a sexual relationship are incredibly healing, powerful, peaceful, and rewarding. ISTA is not here to convince the Center of this truth, only to call out the fear-inducing, abuse-suggesting language that the Center uses.

Regarding the follow-up workshop, called “Level 2”, reports were obtained describing ritualistic animal slaughter ceremonies, ceremonies that involve sexuality and death, insertion of carrots into participants’ anuses, and more.

As for “ceremonies involving sexuality and death” — the only truth here is that Level 2 does explore the theme of death from a spiritual and shamanic perspective. And surely, Level 2 just like Level 1 is a sex-positive container, so participants are free to engage sexually in a container that explores the themes of death and rebirth, while at the same time being at the level of nudity that they prefer. If this is disturbing for the Center, this is understandable. Yet many intelligent and sovereign adults are longing for spaces where their spirituality and sexuality are not shamed, repressed, or belittled.

More on what actually happens in Level 2 containers can be found on ISTA’s website.

The activities are not examined by a qualified therapeutic body, yet the ISTA organization encourages the participation of young adults and other vulnerable groups, such as trauma victims, by providing dedicated scholarships for such groups.

It is difficult for ISTA to understand…and respond…to the circular logic behind the Center including the existence of such a scholarship as a point of criticism.

The organization denies having an administrative and hierarchical structure and refers to itself as an “organism”. It represents itself to the public as a “school” that has a lead “faculty” and multiple facilitation teams teaching, without any clarity regarding the criteria or qualifications of being accepted as “faculty.”

The only sensible point here seems to be the Center’s disappointment at ISTA not having published criteria or qualifications for admitting teachers into its faculty body. ISTA can understand this disappointment from the standpoint of a body that works within governmental guidelines, and where quality is assured through certifications and other similar procedures. ISTA is not against such a framework, yet it defends its right to operate under a different framework. ISTA faculty go through an extensive period of apprenticeship under the mentoring of three Lead Faculty members, who decide when they are ready to become Faculty. ISTA may change its process of admission into faculty and criteria for faculty selection in the future. ISTA is willing to engage in conversation on this point, however, it does not see how this bears any connection to an organization being defined a “cult.”

Moreover, complaints have been submitted to various bodies, including law enforcement agencies, against prominent figures associated with the organization or that have been associated with it in the past. The complaints raise suspicion of sexual exploitation, encouragement into (and glorification of) prostitution, animal abuse, abuse of power and hosting of group activities that may leave participants with long-term harm.

Without any objective proof, the Center speaks about complaints being submitted to authorities, violating the presumption of innocence, and listing a series of grave accusations that, to ISTA’s knowledge, have never been brought against ISTA.

ISTA is not sure how to address these “suspicions” because, in the “guilty-until-proven-innocent” stance that the Center is adopting, any resistance or defense is futile. There will never be enough proof of ISTA’s good intentions if “suspicions” and unclear “complaints” are taken as proof of ISTA’s wrongdoing. ISTA can only engage with such “complaints” when they are clearly brought either to our attention, or to the public eye. And so far, none have.

However, in this case it seems that there is an appearance of spiritual development and a promise for healing, when in fact manipulations and social pressure take place to allegedly coerce participants to partake in intimate sexual activities within the group, as well as sexual activities between students and teachers.

This is a blatantly false accusation. ISTA does not coerce participants to partake in intimate sexual activities. In most legislations, coercing someone to partake in sexual activity is a serious criminal offence and it should be brought to the attention of authorities. If the Center has any knowledge of any such coercion having taken place, it should immediately inform the ISTA leadership so it can take prompt action to investigate the incident. Otherwise, the Center should refrain from declaring that “it seems”, as doing this, unjustly harms the reputation of dozens of ISTA teachers, as well as belittling and questioning the experience of thousands of ISTA participants.

This kind of sexual workshop entails obvious concerns of harm, exploitation, re-traumatization, mental crisis that may result in psychotic episodes, and more. These concerns, according to our best knowledge and according to publications, were unfortunately confirmed.

Here the Center paints a scary picture not just about ISTA, but about all workshops that include conscious sexuality. Center members obviously have never attended such workshops, and in this way speak in a similar way to priests speaking about sexuality (something they are not supposed to engage in). The reality is that conscious sexuality workshops at ISTA and elsewhere, are conscious, drug-and-alcohol-free spaces full of gentleness, emotions, tears, laughter, revelations, friendship, growth, and transformation. The list of risks that the Center mentions is not impossible, yet they are much more likely to occur in any disco club in a major city, where people are intoxicated with alcohol and other drugs, and the blasting volume prevents any possibility of conversations around boundaries, desires, and feelings. Yet the Center has decided to paint not only ISTA, but the whole sacred sexuality community, as a dangerous place that consenting adults had better stay away from. ISTA believes there is no better space to offer to people who seek authentic connection, spiritual growth, erotic exploration, and emotional expression.

Workshops (such as ones discussed here) exemplify the following: a micro-cosmos existing for a certain amount of time, that exhibits cultic conduct as explained above: promise of healing, personal/spiritual advancement in exchange for cooperation; a leader (“lead facilitator”) gaining control of the group using different psychological means; attribution of superior qualities for the leader (for example: the leader’s penis can be referred to as a “wand of light”, a teacher claiming that penetration is done for healing or that the “hand of God” touches whoever the teacher has sexual intercourse with); creation of atmosphere and dynamic that discourages doubt and criticism; “punishment” and exclusion of participants (can be “indirectly” and “informally”) that act or speak in a way that can be seen as doubtful, critical, or lacking cooperation; using manipulations and inducing negative feelings to encourage participants to cooperate and perform actions that most likely would not have taken place outside the workshop (an example of inducing negative feelings: suggesting that lack of cooperation means choosing “death” / lack of right to exist / inability to heal / “to make progress”); creating a polarity of “us” versus “them” (those that do not take the workshop); lack of transparency and secrecy.

This paragraph may be coming from the Center’s experience with other organizations, yet it does not apply to ISTA. It is full of false information and innuendos. The fact that a workshop has a lead facilitator is a very common practice and it does not mean that the facilitator is trying to “gain control of the group using different psychological means”. The Center does not seem to be able or willing to make the distinction between a “leader” (which means a person who is in a stable, fixed role of leadership), and a “lead facilitator” (which is just a role and not an attribute of a person; in ISTA the same lead faculty could be a lead facilitator for one workshop, and a co-facilitator for another); based on this confusion, the Center unduly attributes to anyone who holds a role of “lead facilitator” in ISTA, the qualities of a “spiritual leader” or perhaps a “guru”—nothing could be farther from the truth.

The parts about the “hand of God” or suggesting that the leader’s penis can be referred to as a “wand of light” would be comical if the Center didn’t write them seriously. In the conscious sexuality scene, the penis (not just of the lead teacher, but of anyone) is sometimes referred to as “lingam” - a Sanskrit word that could be inaccurately translated as “wand of light”. In the same way, the vagina is sometimes referred to as “yoni” which roughly means “sacred space.” The choice of these words is motivated by the desire to call the genitals, both male and female, in a more respectful and honoring way. This choice is not part of the official ISTA curriculum, and it is shared by many sacred sexuality communities around the world.

The rest of the allegations are extremely vague and ISTA does not know where the Center is basing its information, or whether this is just a generic paragraph copy-pasted from other publications made by the Center.

ISTA would warmly invite any of the Center’s staff to take part in an ISTA event to see for themselves what actually takes place in an ISTA container. Short of doing that, ISTA finds itself asked to prove its innocence in the face of an assumed guilt which is neither justified, nor based on any objective reasoning.

In addition, participants are required to sign on confidentiality, which affects transparency for future potential participants.

This statement is simply false. The Center doesn’t seem concerned with making statements without verifying them in advance. No ISTA participant is asked to sign an agreement to not disclose their own experience. Participants are asked to agree to NOT disclose other participants' identities or experiences without consent, for obvious reasons of privacy. In some cases, participants may be asked to sign an agreement to NOT record the content of the workshop without authorization.

Following the aforementioned information, the Israeli Center for Cult Victims advises the public to search for information, to read and to educate itself in order to make an informed decision before attending workshops by ISTA and its teachers.

This is a wonderful suggestion and ISTA wholeheartedly agrees to it. Nevertheless, we do not understand why the Center has chosen to adopt a strategy of disinformation, distortion, illogicality, and circular reasoning contained in this statement if it simply wanted to encourage potential participants to search for information and educate themselves. We suspect that the Center, instead, would like to discourage people from attending ISTA events but it has no objective ground for doing so. The inconsistency between the premises and the conclusion of the Center’s argument is perplexing.

To conclude: ISTA’s position is that the majority of content of the Center’s statement is based on vague assumptions, not clearly identified “testimonials,” weak arguments, and a blatant lack of direct information, or even genuine interest, about ISTA’s activities, values, and operations. ISTA struggles to understand why the Center would have published such a statement without reaching out to ISTA for a comment or clarification. ISTA suspects that the Center must have received enormous pressure from individuals who have a personal interest in damaging ISTA and its reputation. We are disappointed and shocked to see the Center act in such a non-objective, partial, and unilateral way.

ISTA, therefore, sees the Center’s statement as an unjustified and damaging attack on ISTA, which it will not tolerate silently. The Center’s statement damages not only ISTA, but thousands of satisfied ISTA graduates, whose experience is now forcefully reframed in ways that are offensive and belittling.

Moreover, with its statement the Center may be unintentionally supporting an anonymous Israel-based campaign of intimidation and attempts of coercion towards some ISTA venues, who are being targeted by anonymous threatening e-mail asking them to cancel ISTA workshops.

As a minimum measure of objectivity, we request that the Center include this response in its own statement so that the general public is able to form an independent and informed opinion.

ISTA has never denied that, having served approximately 10 thousand people in more than 40 countries, there has never been incidents, missteps, and growing pains. ISTA has published a statement announcing its internal accountability process, as well as statement announcing the introduction of a free 3-party facilitated mediation process for any participant who feels they experienced harm in an ISTA container.

We remain open to communication with the Center in order to provide objective, reliable information about our activities, yet we will forcefully disagree with the misrepresentation the Center has offered of a school, and community, that is genuinely committed to doing its best to support the field of growth, transformation, and healing.

Patrik Olterman

Faculty

Patrik Olterman Events

Past Events