Drama Alert! Another YTber is calling us a cult! 😈☦️

[Carl-Richard]

On 4.6.2026 at 5:54 AM, Carl-Richard said:

What do you mean by "quietly" dismissed? Secretly banned, kicked out?

Is a doomsday cult not a cult if you don't get kicked out for disagreeing on a selection of issues?

@Inliytened1 plz anser boss 👆👆👆 ty

[integral]

On 6/3/2026 at 9:20 PM, Yimpa said:

Aww, thank you. That means the world to me 

I thought about it more what you could do is ASMR to practice that voice, but also push it to social media and then you could start a business that way.

So you could turn practice into a business

Edited Monday at 11:04 PM by integral

[Yimpa]

23 minutes ago, integral said:

I thought about it more what you could do is ASMR to practice that voice, but also push it to social media and then you could start a business that way.

So you could turn practice into a business

i am studying and getting some inspiration right now 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYcEkk0CcQ6/?igsh=MXhnZ2VudnV4OHFiOA==

[Inliytened1]

On 6/7/2026 at 10:03 AM, Carl-Richard said:

@Inliytened1 plz anser boss 👆👆👆 ty

I was being funny about the quietly part.  You know how in those types of groups anyone who disagrees with the leader suddenly disappears.  But if one of us left because of a disagreement with Leo I'm sure he wouldn't try and hide it. He hasn't done so in the past.

And on the doomsday cult yes just being able to leave does not negate that there are other qualities that would still classify it as a cult. But that's apples to oranges with regards to the Actualized community.   I mean ultimately what you want to call a cult is subjective and relative.. we can just state our opinions and intuitions on the matter.  There are forms of mind control and manipulation in the corporate world too....so where are you going to draw the line on what is and isn't a cult.  How stringent should it be?  To Leo's point if you start watering it down you help the communities that are much more cultish.

It's like having the same sentence for a drunk driver that gets a DUI for being in a parking lot vs someone who goes the wrong way and kills a family. Both committed a crime by driving drunk but should both get the same consequences.  You would be diminishing the impact on the victims in the second case if there were no contrast between them.

 

Edited Tuesday at 02:17 PM by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

There are forms of mind control and manipulation in the corporate world too....so where are you going to draw the line on what is and isn't a cult.

Is it a social group with deviant beliefs compared to the surrounding society (often religious in nature).

 

10 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

How stringent should it be?  To Leo's point if you start watering it down you help the communities that are much more cultish.

And to have a stringent definition means that it creates a false sense of security about one's own community and one is less wary about the fact that the existing dynamics could in themselves be problematic and if were they to be cranked up a little, could develop into the full-blown cult you're so keen distancing yourself from.

 

10 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

It's like having the same sentence for a drunk driver that gets a DUI for being in a parking lot vs someone who goes the wrong way and kills a family. Both committed a crime by driving drunk but should both get the same consequences.  You would be diminishing the impact on the victims in the second case if there were no contrast between them.

The analogy is to have the same sentence from someone who is stopped with a barely illegal BAC vs someone with a definitely illegal BAC who crashes into a lightpole and kills someone. Maybe you shouldn't have the same sentence, but maybe you should call both DUI (and the difference is in the degree, not categorical).

Edited yesterday at 12:14 AM by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

Notice how Carl managed to predict perfectly how Leo will respond and notice how Leo's non-answer was a manipulative "you dont understand " tactic for the millionth time.

Like this is perfection, Leo doesnt have a single fucking spine in his body.

He cant fucking respond to anything with substance without implying that you are a retard or mentally or spiritually impaired.

There is no disagreement with him on any issue that he cares about where you must not be dumb or misunderstanding. You either agree or you are just simply wrong.

On 2026. 06. 09. at 4:34 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Without using mind control on me (i.e. answer plainly without redirecting, without accusing me of not understanding or being purportedly disrespectful for having a different opinion), what is mind control?

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Carl-Richard: Walks into a math classroom at Harvard. "Hey! Isn't this a cult?"

Professor: "Umm... No. This is a math class on Differential Calculus."

Carl-Richard: "Looks awfully similar to a cult in here. Look at this mind control you're doing here."

Professor: "We are learning advanced math."

Carl-Richard: "Isn't this homework you're giving your cult members mind control? Explain to me without using mind control how this is not mind control."

Professor: "Get the fuck out of my classroom!!!"

Carl-Richard: "AH! So you're a cult leader after all! I knew it!"

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not going to engage with people who call Actualized.org a cult. If you feel that way, leave. It's that simple. But I am not going to explain myself to you because you clearly have no understanding of what I am doing.

To call me a cult leader is the most disrespectful thing you can say to me! Get that through your head. When you say that to me, I will not even speak with you. You are dead to me when you say that.

To call me a cult leader is like walking into your local university classroom and calling the professor a pedophile. The only people who would do that are those who have no idea what they are doing.

Fucking perfection, and people here will continue to deepthroat this guy.

 

Also the allegedly non-authoritative guy btw, who wants to dictatate  how his community should use certain words, and also wants to be the exclusive judge of your level of spiritual knowledge  (since there is no one else who knows what they are talking about) and everyone else (inclduing you yourself) is unfit for that (btw you all have perfect sovereignty guys and you are perfectly legit to judge things for yourself as long as you agree with Leo, but if you dont, then we have a problem here, because  that shows that you have no understanding and you should rather ask Leo to be your exclusive judge) 

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No. I am speaking about a higher realization.

I am not going to negotiate on the word GOD.

I will know when you know GOD.

Contrast current Leo with this past Leo:

Quote

 

https://www.actualized.org/insights/things-ive-been-wrong-about

People tend to think of me as, “Leo has it all figured out.” But that’s actually an illusion. My knowledge is fallible as much as anyone’s. That’s the point of being conscious, openminded, and studying epistemology: so you are better equipped to recognize (and drop) mistakes in your web of beliefs. You cannot be perfect with your knowledge but you can be flexible enough to correct your errors (which most people never do).

The most important lesson to learn from this is: the goal is never perfect knowledge. That is impossible. There will always be some false beliefs and false facts in your web of belief. Even for an enlightened person. The goal is to maximize your awareness, maximize your openmindedness, and to minimize your ego, so that you can gradually purify your web of beliefs. You will have to stay epistemically vigilant for the rest of your life. As soon as you get cocky and think you’ve perfected your knowledge, that’s when you’ve truly failed.

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew

[zurew]

On 2026. 06. 10. at 1:36 AM, Carl-Richard said:

 

On 2026. 06. 09. at 8:04 PM, Consilience said:

As someone with direct experience, I would agree with Leo here. Actualized.org is not a cult. 

Here is a list of mind control techniques MAPLE would employ that are distinct and not present from Actualized.org, some obviously because structurally MAPLE is residential vs Actualized.org is online. But this should help you understand what Leo is referring to. 

This community scores on literally all the points that are not "in-person" (except the meditation/chanting one unless you want to stretch it into recommendations to take mind-altering substances to "know what I'm talking about").

 

On 2026. 06. 09. at 8:04 PM, Consilience said:

Relentless Us vs. Them framing - MAPLE creates division of itself with the rest of the world through teachings on how terrible and destructive the world is while offering a new kind of "us" identity as saviors, heros, a kind of "we're the chosen one's to save the world from itself" 

Virtually all of Leo's blog posts are about how destructive ("egoic, self-deceived, low-consciousness, stupid, unintelligent, corrupt") the world is and he routinely implies his teachings are an/the antidote (e.g. "Conscious Politics", "Pure Philosophy"). They use highly divisive and emotionally charged language and are highly judgemental, repetitive. I personally am repelled from reading them for exactly that reason.

 

On 2026. 06. 09. at 8:04 PM, Consilience said:

Emotional Abuse - Regularly the head teacher would use Renzai Zen style outburts of anger or disorienting language.

The reaction to this thread is a cult study on its own.

Also, in your thread, it was implied I was being disrespectful for having a different opinion and that I "don't deserve his teachings". Emotionally charged communication.

 

On 2026. 06. 09. at 8:04 PM, Consilience said:

 Gas Lighting - MAPLE's head teacher had an insanely proficient ability to gas light, divert and control narrative frames, he was an elite level salesman, wordsmith, with an incredibly sharp and fast mind that most people simply do not have the intellectual ability to keep up with

Instead of simply addressing my points and showing through argument, Leo will routinely say words like "you don't understand", "you don't know what you're talking about", like in this thread and the other cult thread I linked. It functions to remove my autonomy and belief in my own mental faculties. Statements like "I'm the only authority on epistemology" (see the other cult thread) reinforces that.

 

On 2026. 06. 09. at 8:04 PM, Consilience said:

One on one interviews with the head teacher - difficult to explain but the eye gazing, the candle, incense,  the overall ambience of these interviews were designed to facilitate deep intimacy between teacher and student and from that openness, one's nervous system is incredibly open to subtle forms of suggestion and manipulation. It's not that genuine teachings weren't offered during interviews, but there were also subtle distortions that would add up over time as continued exposure compounded

PMs when I'm acting out and being critical, like here, trying to "talk it out". Happened multiple of times. No incense or eye contact, but a different level of proximity.

 

On 2026. 06. 09. at 8:04 PM, Consilience said:

 Regular instances of public shaming - this very easily can hijack the very primal parts of the mind where survival is linked to group belonging and falling in line with the collective

The emotionally charged communication and autonomy-deriding language happens in a public forum inducing public shaming. Other members will routinely adopt the same style and gang up on you.

 

On 2026. 06. 09. at 8:04 PM, Consilience said:

Explicit and regular teachings explicitly around not trusting one's thoughts and feelings - this functionally serves to sever one's self off from inner knowing and inner authority

"You only care about survival, your mind runs on self-deception and self-bias, of course you will disagree with me, that's expected".

 

On 2026. 06. 09. at 8:04 PM, Consilience said:

The biggest reason I don't believe Actualized.org is a cult though is because of how explicitly Leo teaches to take responsibility for one's direct realization, and how much he teaches different frames, techniques, and strategies for cultivating individual personal autonomy and power. Cults are nearly always going to be the other way around; mechanisms will exist to syphon power away from the individual and to the top of the hierarchy. Conversely, it has been my experience Leo is sincerely trying to use his hierarchy as the YouTuber and website moderator to move power from the hierarchy into the individual. This distinct flow of power is why I don't presently consider Actualized.org a cult.

I would suggest this is a too dichotomous framing. Most sophisticated cults teach you such techniques, that's their appeal. And ironically they tend to use those techniques to protect and validate the ills of the cult. The virtues and the ills coincide, they are not mutually exclusive, and they often work in tandem to maintain the cult identity.

That's what make cults so tricky. It's a tug of war between seeing the benefits and the ills. I'm sure you can find autonomy-increasing teachings in MAPLE, as you can in Bentinho Massaro's community, or in the Discord I was a part of. "But it's more ills than benefits in those cases". Well, let's assume you can even make such a distinction, does that warrant a categorical distinction (cult vs not-cult)? If the difference is only in degree, then maybe that's all it is.

 

[Wilhelm44]

@zurew  Just to recap, when I asked what it is that you want from Leo, this was your response:

"if it is truly just about the work, then I would not expect him to judge and demonize other leaders and other traditions and to waste time on that and I wouldnt expect him to consistently and continously claim to be the most developed person (especially when literally no one asks for it) and I would expect him either again to provide an indepdent process from him by which you can judge whether you are wrong or not and an indepedent process by which you can judge your level of understanding or If he cant do that, then I would expect him to be actually open to the possibility that he is wrong (not just claiming that he can be wrong, but actually seeing that he qualifies his satements and that he leaves room for others to be right and him being wrong) and I would expect him to qualify his statements and I would expect him to treat spiritual disagreements as something that potentially in principle both party can learn from (and not automatically think from the get-go in literally every single exchange that the other person is necessarily wrong or self-deceived from the fact that they disagree with him)"

And when I asked on what specific spiritual truth/realization issues do you disagree with Leo the most on, your response started with:

"I don't have that kind of disagreement (with him) . . ."

Something don't add up: You say you don't like Leo's behavior in disagreements, but what exactly is the disagreement about in the first place then, if you don't have any disagreements with him on spiritual truth/realization ?

 

 

[zurew]

47 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Something don't add up: You say you don't like Leo's behavior in disagreements, but what exactly is the disagreement about in the first place then, if you don't have any disagreements with him on spiritual truth/realization ?

It perfectly adds up , you do understand that even if it were the case that I didnt have any single disagreement with him - that fact would compatible with me wanting him to handle disagreements in a different way with other people who has a different view on spirituality ,right?

But I do have some disagreements with him -  I told you explicitly there that I have issue with his epistemology and what his general approach is to any kind of disagreement where the topic is about something that he cares about.

The main criticism is a principled criticism about disagreements - namely that you cant disagree with him on anything that he cares about without him implying that you are dumb or impaired in some kind of way (for a specific example - take a look at his response for instance to the cult accusation, he used the exact same kind of boring dissing tactic that he uses in other instances as well - where you are necessarily treated as someone who is dumb or who lacks something)

There are dozens of examples where he will claim that the reason why people disagree with him on spirituality is because they are dumb or dont undersatnd something or lack something.

The other criticism of mine is related to him being the most conscious being - the criticism is not that I know definitively that he isn't the most conscious being in the Universe, the crticism again is credence and epistemology related - namely that he isn't justified in believing that to be the case (he admitted multiple times, that he inferred that to be the case) and hence I attack his credence in that belief that he uses as a main foundatioun from which he can handwave literally all criticism and undermine the validity of all differing opinions in literally all domains that he cares about.

And before you say "yeah but a bunch of other spiritual leaders behave that way " - I dont grant that to be the case, a bunch of them dont claim to be the most conscious being in the Universe and dont imply that they cant be wrong and that all differing opinions must come from misunderstanding or from people being dumb or unconscious - but the ones that do qualify for such a list of things thing - for those I would be happy and not reluctant to say that they are cult leaders and that their followers are in a cult.

 

But then again - read motherfucker, everything is literally layed out here in front of your face just on this very page.

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

It perfectly adds up , you do understand that even if it were the case that I didnt have any single disagreement with him - that fact would compatible with me wanting him to handle disagreements in a different way with other people who has a different view on spirituality ,right?

But I do have some disagreements with him -  I told you explicitly there that I have issue with his epistemology and what his general approach is to any kind of disagreement where the topic is about something that he cares about.

The main criticism is a principled criticism about disagreements - namely that you cant disagree with him on anything that he cares about without him implying that you are dumb or impaired in some kind of way (for a specific example - take a look at his response for instance to the cult accusation, he used the exact same kind of boring dissing tactic that he uses in other instances as well - where you are necessarily treated as someone who is dumb or who lacks something)

There are dozens of examples where he will claim that the reason why people disagree with him on spirituality is because they are dumb or dont undersatnd something or lack something.

The other criticism of mine is related to him being the most conscious being - the criticism is not that I know definitively that he isn't the most conscious being in the Universe, the crticism again is credence and epistemology related - namely that he isn't justified in believing that to be the case (he admitted multiple times, that he inferred that to be the case) and hence I attack his credence in that belief that he uses as a main foundatioun from which he can handwave literally all criticism and undermine the validity of all differing opinions in literally all domains that he cares about.

And before you say "yeah but a bunch of other spiritual leaders behave that way " - I dont grant that to be the case, a bunch of them dont claim to be the most conscious being in the Universe and dont imply that they cant be wrong and that all differing opinions must come from misunderstanding or from people being dumb or unconscious - but the ones that do qualify for such a list of things thing - for those I be happy and reluctant to say that they are cult leaders and that their followers are in a cult.

 

But then again - read motherfucker, everything is literally layed out here in front of your face just on this very page.

Kinda like when you told me to "turn on my brain for once." lol

Even in this very last paragraph you are putting out the same kind of energy that ur accusing Leo of.

If the teacher shoots down your realizations and it hurts your feelings, then maybe your realization was not that solid to begin with.

[zurew]

22 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Even in this very last paragraph you are putting out the same kind of energy that ur accusing Leo of.

Yeah because Leo surely takes his time to directly respond to questions and to directly lead you to the specific posts that gives you relevant context to get an underlying understanding about the things that we talk and debate about. (like we are talking about context thats literally just on this page, not about you needing to watch 10 thousand hours of videos)

I also never said that you cant disagree or that you are dumb for disagreeing, what I have and had issue with is you being non-responsive and not engaging with whats being said and with you shooting down charicatures and then pretending that thats substantive or responsive to what was said.

22 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

If the teacher shoots down your realizations and it hurts your feelings, then maybe your realization was not that solid to begin with.

If thats your takeaway after allegedly reading through all the material I linked you and all the things I directly responded  to you, then go ahead.

And if you think and can say with a straight face that what you said there is a good faith summary of what I said, then go ahead.

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

Yeah because Leo surely takes his time to directly respond to questions and to directly lead you to the specific posts that gives you relevant context to get an underlying understanding about the things that we talk and debate about. (like we are talking about context thats literally just on this page, not about you needing to watch 10 thousand hours of videos)

I also never said that you cant disagree or that you are dumb for disagreeing, what I have and had issue with is you being non-responsive and not engaging with whats being said and with you shooting down charicatures and then pretending that thats substantive or responsive to what was said.

If thats your takeaway after allegedly reading through all the material I linked you and all the things I directly responded  to you, then go ahead.

And if you think and can say with a straight face that what you said there is a good faith summary of what I said, then go ahead.

From what I read on carl richard's posts one of the issues is public shaming.

This doesn't seem to be an issue tho when someone posts low quality content and its immediately shut down with a low quality stamp for everyone to see. No one is holding their hand on that one, rightly so.

I think if people dont want to be publicly told their realizations are wrong, then rather do a private message. 

This is Leo's school, so he has every right to tell you in no uncertain terms if he feels you are wrong. What you do with that is your business.

If you guys had stuck to the actual complaints, without throwing in the cult accusations right away, Leo probably would have answered you by now.

Cult accusations are not a joke.

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

It's the argument tactics chosen, not the argument or criticism itself. Both obviously can have issue. But the way one argues belies their assumptions and whether it is, indeed, a good faith discussion.

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[zurew]

12 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

If you guys had stuck to the actual complaints, without throwing in the cult accusations right away, Leo probably would have answered you by now.

Doesnt seem to be the case based on his past behavior.

Usually when people asked him questions related to this without immediately throwing the cult leader accusation at him ( when he made his "Im the most conscious being in the universe and all of you are dumb" threads), then he usually wasnt very talkative or expressive other than dissing people  in his usual way for not understanding why he is the most conscious.

For instance given the "LEO"  thread, you can go through and reverse back and check each thread from which those quotes originate from and you can check whether my summary is accurate about Leo's behavior or not.

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Doesnt seem to be the case based on his past behavior.

Usually when people asked him questions related to this without immediately throwing the cult leader accusation at him ( when he made his "Im the most conscious being in the universe and all of you are dumb" threads), then he usually wasnt very talkative or expressive other than dissing people  in his usual way for not understanding why he is the most conscious.

For instance given the "LEO"  thread, you can go through and reverse back and check each thread from which those quotes originate from and you can check whether my summary is accurate about Leo's behavior or not.

Hasn't Leo eased off a bit lately on the im the most conscious being in the universe thing ?

[zurew]

40 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Hasn't Leo eased off a bit lately on the im the most conscious being in the universe thing ?

Nope

[Wilhelm44]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

Nope

Claiming to be the biggest expert on the topic of epistemology, is not exactly the same as saying you're the most conscious being on the planet. I haven't heard him use the latter phrase for quite a while.

Edited 22 minutes ago by Wilhelm44

[Thought Art]

@Wilhelm44 He did on his blog like a couple weeks back. Every once in a while he just blurts it out.