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

[Wilhelm44]

@zurew It's not my job to clearly summarize your position.

I'm not the one making cult accusations.

[Thought Art]

“If you think that its too retarded or that its too much to ask from Leo to stop making definitive comments about other people's awakenings and to stop completely undermining their ability to make that judgement themselves then go ahead my guy, you do you and you can  freely use whatever different definition you want to use“ 

This is true. I recall having a 5meodmt trip and was like… “It was something but was it God? Was it infinity?” And Leo replied like “It’s infinity!!!!”…

My response to that is still… yeah I’ve had profound experiences in it. But, I truly, totally, don’t understand it. And, I have more trips that would be required to do so. And, I can let Leo influence me, or Martin Ball or anyone else. 
 

I find when I’m not in that state that I’m distant from it, and it seems foreign and unrelated to my experience. I know the experience is profound, divine and I recall grasping that reality is infinite, that it’s mind, that qualia is God, and a realization of solipsism. But, it’s gonna take more trips for me, more contemplation, meditation, and true spiritual work to come to my own knowing. 
 

Leo’s proclaimations are interesting, other schools of spirituality and teachers provide useful concepts. But, I know ultimately I have to conclude what is true for me. I’m not gonna be pressured or brainwashed by Leo, or any other teacher. 
 

NN-DMT though, is u deniable in what it reveals about the nature of consciousness and reality. It’s literally an infinite mind. Infinite imagination is my conclusion from it. 
 

I have more work to do in my contemplative work, my spiritual maturity and developing my own epistemic foundation free from anyone else’s dogma, personality or bullshit. 
 

Everyone on this forum caught in their petty fucking bullshit too is beside the point of why I am here.
 

Leo is the only teacher I’ve come across who taught me powerful principles all distilled into a single catalog and I’m grateful for that. But, I have to question everything. I have to build my own model, have my own experiences and awakening and live my own life. 
 

A challenge is I’ve spent hundreds of hours listening to Leo.. but also others like Osho, Lee Holden, Lester Levonson, eckhart Tolle, Sadhguru, and many others. I’ve read deep and profound non-dual books and dialogues like that of Ramana Maharishi, and Abn Arabi. I deeply enjoy these non-dual works. I’ve read and will continue to read Peter Ralston, Buddhist texts and books and that of Taoism. I like Bryan Johnson, learning about it health, fitness, different cultures, philosophy, etc. All of human knowledge interests me. Consciousness interests me, awakening does too and I’ve read various teachers on this subject. 
 

You wanna accuse me of being a small brain cult follower? Go fuck yourself you complete moron. Fuck you. You can put me into a box in your own mind but I don’t frankly care. I’m gonna keep learning, studying, growing and maturing and I don’t give a fuck about morons who don’t get the fucking picture of what we are doing here. 

Leo tries but can do better at encouraging followers of his work on their own contemplations. 

I think as a teacher he could improve by encouraging my own conclusion instead of just blurting this view. Leo doesn’t have enough data about anyone here to truly guide them on the forum, generally, in a lot of circumstances. 
 

There are serious flaws and challenges in all teachers and systems for learning. Get used to it. We are all lost out in the same sea. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Thought Art

[Wilhelm44]

12 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

I’m not gonna be pressured or brainwashed by Leo, or any other teacher.

Spot on, it's that simple.

[Thought Art]

10 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Spot on, it's that simple.

And it’s hard not to, because we all know so little. But, I think human growth requires this dance between learning, testing, adopting, questioning, getting direct experience, changing views and opinions, deciding what to hold on to and what to let go, being confused, being lost, not knowing, being proven right or wrong, recontextualizing, realizing some issues have no easy truth, realizing how the ball is white on one side black on the other. Etc etc etc. Holding any figure up on a pedestal will ultimately collapse. Reality is Truth, and what is true will be true and it will be non negotiable to someone who found it. Not every part of reality exists on the level of relative truth, and some times a teacher won’t budge if they have conviction of something. To others observing that individual they can’t ever truly know what implicit understanding that person has or if it is true. Then there is the issue of other people’s level of education, their brain and cognitive capacity, their up bringing and culture, survival needs, assumptions, beliefs, maturity, mental health, open mindedness, discernment, etc…. What is really True? Is it Leo???? No, come the fuck on guys. Leo is a relative Truth. We are in a deep existential bind. 
 

You swim in an ocean of overwhelming complexity and confusion. Humans live in this epistemic mess and nightmare. Calling this a cult, missing the point of the work Leo has tried to do despite being a finite human is sad. I think it’s overall a healthy conversation and Leo can grow as a teacher in this field. But, calling anyone who is learning from this particular teacher “in a cult”, I don’t consider is accurate. 
 

There ultimately isn’t, and cannot be a safety net for people misusing, believing, following, idolizing, etc. No one out there is going to protect you but you. Truth seeking is uncharted waters. Your human mind and psychology will try to grasp on to so many things. But, at the end of the day so you really know?!

Edited 3 hours ago by Thought Art

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

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

Has he directly denied it? He has denied being "the most developed", but then in a following post, he distinguishes development from being awake (consciousness), conveniently leaving that possibility open.

The fact that it was in the past and he does not ever explicitly deny it, even when given the chance (and instead he cleverly refuses to address it explicitly), that sort of leaves you with an impression that nothing changed. 

Besides, the fact that he would even state such a thing at any point in time. "It was in the past, it's not a big deal, don't worry 🤗". Bro.

 

8 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

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.

To him it's the same thing.
 

On 3.3.2026 at 10:29 PM, Leo Gura said:

Epistemology is about truth. And Truth is God.

So the best measure of the quality of your epistemology is how well do you know God?

[...]

 

 

7 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Still, claiming to be the best in your field, doesn't mean it's a cult.

What is a cult?

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Wilhelm44]

Just now, Thought Art said:

And it’s hard not to, because we all know so little. But, I think human growth requires this dance between learning, testing, adopting, questioning, getting direct experience, changing views and opinions, deciding what to hold on to and what to let go, being confused, being lost, not knowing, being proven right or wrong, recontextualizing, realizing some issues have no easy truth, realizing how the ball is white on one side black on the other. Etc etc etc. 
 

You swim in an ocean of overwhelming complexity and confusion. Humans live in this epistemic mess and nightmare. Calling this a cult, missing the point of the work Leo has tried to do despite being a finite human is sad. I think it’s overall a healthy conversation and Leo can grow as a teacher in this field. But, calling anyone who is learning from this particular teacher “in a cult”, I don’t consider is accurate. 

Yeah, go ask people who have been in real cults, these acussations are silly.

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Spot on, it's that simple.

Cool, given that definition, there arent any cults as long as there is no member in the group who ever feels pressured by the leader regardless what statements the leader makes and what behavior the leader exhibits. Even if the leader explicitly and implicitly asserts to be the authority on literally everything and asserts that he wants to control your whole life, he wont be a cult leader.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

You making a lot of assumptions there.

And you still haven't answered my question which was following a very logical train of thought, based on your previous answers:

Right, lets see how you can possibly make yourself look good/reasonable there.

This is your opportunity to make yourself look reasonable and make me look silly for reacting the why I did by providing a plausible story to account for all the following facts.

After you provide us a plausible story that explains the following facts, after that I will answer your question - the fact that you had literally nothing to say about Leo making himself to be an exclusive authority on what definition of cult ought to be used by everyone on the forum and that everyone else is disqualified from thinking anything different from that  and why you only and explicitly had issue with me asserting my definition , even though I qualified it multiple times and implied multiple times that you are free to use a different definition and that you dont have to use mine and the other fact about why you taught that Leo not explicitly making any 2026 threads or comments about him being the most awake person on Earth ,only just that he is the standard of epistemology, that that distinction was somehow relevant to point out and was relevant to the allegedly good faith line of questioning that you were doing when you were making your own level headed assessment whether Leo's actions and statements were reasonable or not.

Also explain the fact  why you asserted and told me "ohh you are making up your definition now" rather then actually engaging with it and laying it down why you disagree with it, if you think you were being good faith there.

If you concede that your "ohh you are making up your defintiion now" comment wasnt in  good faith, then I dont know why you acted so surprised to how I reacted.

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

 

 

What is a cult?

Being manipulated for nefarious purposes.

Can you honestly say you have felt unsafe here, or manipulated for nefarious purposes, ie financial, sexual or otherwise literal exploitation ?

[zurew]

36 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

It's not my job to clearly summarize your position

its your job if you want to engage with me to do at least the bare fucking minimum to try to not misrepresent my positions and to actually engage with what I say.

[Wilhelm44]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Right, lets see how you can possibly make yourself look good there.

After you provide us a plausible story that explains the following facts, after that I will answer your question - the fact that you had literally nothing to say about Leo making himself to be an exclusive authority on what definition of cult ought to be used by everyone on the forum and that everyone else is disqualified from thinking anything different from that  and why you only and explicitly had issue with me asserting my definition , even though I qualified it multiple times and implied multiple times that you are free to use a different definition and that you dont have to use mine and the other fact about why you taught that Leo not explicitly making any 2026 threads or comments about him being the most awake person on Earth ,only just that he is the standard of epistemology, that that distinction was somehow relevant to point out and was relevant to the allegedly good faith line of questioning that you were doing when you were making your own level headed assessment whether Leo's actions and statements were reasonable or not.

Also explain the fact  why you asserted and told me "ohh you are making up your definition now" rather then actually engaging with it and laying it down why you disagree with it, if you think you were being good faith there.

If you concede that your "ohh you are making up your defintiion now" comment wasnt in  good faith, then I dont know why you acted so surprised to how I reacted.

I asked you that question long ago. You act like ur in some position of righteous power. Answer my question first, jesus I've asked it like 3 times now. 

[Wilhelm44]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

its your job if you want to engage with me to do at least the bare fucking minimum to try to not misrepresent my positions and to actually engage with what I say.

Bro, ur the one making cult accusations. Spell it out.

[zurew]

I definitely wont engage with you, because I dont think you are a good faith actor.

I told you what you need to do if you want me to answer, until then im good.

[Wilhelm44]

@zurew  I don't owe you shit.

Where did I misrepresent any of your positions. 

[Wilhelm44]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

I definitely wont engage with you, because I dont think you are a good faith actor.

I told you what you need to do if you want me to answer, until then im good.

Bro I don't need to interact with you.

Bro gets challenged and decides I'm not a good faith actor.

How do you know I'm not a good faith actor.

"You could be wrong"

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[zurew]

Its probably relevant and important to provide this for people who wants to make their assessment about actualized.org

Look through some of the ban list and the context there and how reasonable those responses and bans were by Leo.

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

And yes, you did miss the 2023 era, what you were subjected to was only the beginning. Those who did not leave (or were not banned, unlike e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), those who stayed, developed strong coping mechanisms for enduring and justifying such behavior, which continues to this day in a more integrated and socially normalized form which makes it more pernicious in its own way. My Leo thread was a way to demonstrate this and also to inquire whether this is something they think is ok.

Flyboy

Axiom , spiritual memes, vladorion

The Mystical Man

Arcangelo, Gesundheit2

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[UnbornTao]

49 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@UnbornTao What list?

The VIP members list.

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Being manipulated for nefarious purposes.

Can you honestly say you have felt unsafe here, or manipulated for nefarious purposes, ie financial, sexual or otherwise literal exploitation ?

I don't care about calling Actualized.org a cult, I don't care about Leo's histrionic obsession about not being called a cult. I care about finding a good definition of a cult. Your definition seems to not distinguish cults from e.g. criminal gangs, business scams, pyramid schemes (or even individuals manipulating you).

[Wilhelm44]

No one here can honestly say they have been manipulated for nefarious purposes, ie manipulated to be literally exploited in bad faith, ie financially, sexually or otherwise. Calling this place a cult is an insult to people who have been in real cults.

[Wilhelm44]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't care about calling Actualized.org a cult, I don't care about Leo's histrionic obsession about not being called a cult. I care about finding a good definition of a cult. Your definition seems to not distinguish cults from e.g. criminal gangs, business scams, pyramid schemes (or even individuals manipulating you).

Well some people here actually do care about calling this place a cult and I think it's a travesty.

I'm not an expert on cults.

You asked Leo for his definition of mind control.

This is what google says about mind control in cults :

Mind control in a cult is a systematic process of coercive persuasion designed to manipulate an individual's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. It replaces a person's authentic identity and critical thinking skills with an artificial, cult-dependent identity, enforcing unquestioning obedience to the group or leader. [1, 2, 3]

Mental manipulation within these groups is often comprehensively outlined by the BITE Model of Authoritarian Control, created by mental health professional Steve Hassan, which categorizes control into four pillars: [1, 2]

1. Behavior Control

Regulating daily life: Controlling what members eat, sleep, wear, and how they spend their time.

Financial and resource dominance: Demanding total financial commitment, major time investments, or even turning over assets.

Punishment and reward: Using public praise for compliance and shame, ostracism, or punishments for stepping out of line. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. Information Control

Isolation: Cutting members off from friends, family, and external support systems to limit alternative perspectives.

Deception: Withholding vital information, altering historical facts, or lying about the group's true intentions and leadership.

Information gating: Heavily censoring media, internet access, and forbidding interaction with critics or former members. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. Thought Control

Thought-stopping: Training members to instantly block critical or doubtful thoughts using repetitive meditation, chanting, or reciting mantras.

Black-and-white thinking: Forcing a strict "us vs. them" mentality where the group is inherently good and the outside world is evil.

Reframing reality: Indoctrinating members to interpret all failures as their own fault, ensuring the cult/leader remains infallible. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

4. Emotional Control

Love-bombing: Using excessive flattery, attention, and affection during recruitment to manufacture rapid, intense loyalty. [1, 2, 3]

Inducing phobias: Instilling deep, irrational fears of what will happen to them or their loved ones if they question, criticize, or attempt to leave the group. [1, 2]

Guilt and fear: Manipulating members through a constant cycle of unworthiness to ensure they constantly strive for the group's approval. [1]